Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cem_devecioglu]

9.92-9.79 = 0.13 secs


as you can see 0.15 with a rough calculation is very close

[Webby the Bear]

Holy shit, this thread just livened up 

[cem_devecioglu]

Holy shit, this thread just livened up 

Webby did you measure your 0-100 ?

[Broomies Mate]

Cem, Cem, Cem, Cem.

That calculator is as much use as tits on a fish.

Get in a car, any car you like and boot it.  Then, load the car up with shopping, fuel and passengers.  Measure the difference.

If you honestly believe the difference will be close to what your calculation shows, you are very wrong.

These calculations are very simplified, and do not get anywhere close to real-world scenarios.

[cem_devecioglu]

Cem, Cem, Cem, Cem.

That calculator is as much use as tits on a fish.

Get in a car, any car you like and boot it.  Then, load the car up with shopping, fuel and passengers.  Measure the difference.

If you honestly believe the difference will be close to what your calculation shows, you are very wrong.

These calculations are very simplified, and do not get anywhere close to real-world scenarios.

you are wrong at that

[Broomies Mate]

Cem, Cem, Cem, Cem.

That calculator is as much use as tits on a fish.

Get in a car, any car you like and boot it.  Then, load the car up with shopping, fuel and passengers.  Measure the difference.

If you honestly believe the difference will be close to what your calculation shows, you are very wrong.

These calculations are very simplified, and do not get anywhere close to real-world scenarios.

you are wrong at that

I'll leave you in your Physics lab where everything is perfect, and equations work.  I'll carry on living on the outside, where variables come into account every day. 

[Mr.OmegaMan]

Doesn't look like they've heard of Opel/Vauxhall... There's the Catera though. http://www.060calculator.com/cars/2000/cadillac/catera/8076

[Webby the Bear]

Holy shit, this thread just livened up 

Webby did you measure your 0-100 ?

0-60 (or 0-100km)....

Car,according to parkers, should do 0-60 on 9.5 secs.

Did one the other day and got 10.7. BUT that was on a slight incline.

Did one the same daycoming down the other way on the same road so on a decline and got 8.8 secs.

So im presuming if it was flat that would be about right

however, finding a flat road where  you can get from 0-60 and not endanger yourself / anyone is bloody hard!!!!

[cem_devecioglu]

you know that modeling is an initial and basic approach in all science disciplines..


without this you cant solve any problem.. physics and physic eqautions are also dervied and obtained in the same way..


f=m*a equation is a universally  accepted equation ..  I just gave an example using that equation and assuming the car is accelerating at 9 secs..


you can broaden the example with different acceleration and mass values .. but the difference will never be 1 secs nor 0

[cem_devecioglu]

Holy shit, this thread just livened up 

Webby did you measure your 0-100 ?

0-60 (or 0-100km)....

Car,according to parkers, should do 0-60 on 9.5 secs.

Did one the other day and got 10.7. BUT that was on a slight incline.

Did one the same daycoming down the other way on the same road so on a decline and got 8.8 secs.

So im presuming if it was flat that would be about right

however, finding a flat road where  you can get from 0-60 and not endanger yourself / anyone is bloody hard!!!!

Webby 0-60 is not 0-100 km/h

[Broomies Mate]

you know that modeling is an initial and basic approach in all science disciplines..


without this you cant solve any problem.. physics and physic eqautions are also dervied and obtained in the same way..


f=m*a equation is a universally  accepted equation ..  I just gave an example using that equation and assuming the car is accelerating at 9 secs..


you can broaden the example with different acceleration and mass values .. but the difference will never be 1 secs nor 0

    For goodness sakes Cem.

I have accepted that the formula is creditable.  It works in a sterile environment.  It doesn't take into consideration tyre friction (increased as mass is added (and you know more than Mr Goodyear about tyres)), Drag Co efficient (the chassis moves out of 'perfect' when weight is added), Torque (your simple equation doesn't involve torque).

Your equation is useless in the real world.  I'll say that a million times, but you still won't accept the truth.

[cem_devecioglu]

you know that modeling is an initial and basic approach in all science disciplines..


without this you cant solve any problem.. physics and physic eqautions are also dervied and obtained in the same way..


f=m*a equation is a universally  accepted equation ..  I just gave an example using that equation and assuming the car is accelerating at 9 secs..


you can broaden the example with different acceleration and mass values .. but the difference will never be 1 secs nor 0

    For goodness sakes Cem.

I have accepted that the formula is creditable.  It works in a sterile environment.  It doesn't take into consideration tyre friction (increased as mass is added (and you know more than Mr Goodyear about tyres)), Drag Co efficient (the chassis moves out of 'perfect' when weight is added), Torque (your simple equation doesn't involve torque).

Your equation is useless in the real world.  I'll say that a million times, but you still won't accept the truth.

Torque is a liner function of force
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-convert-linear-force-to-angular-torque.html

[Broomies Mate]

Really? 

[05omegav6]

Tyre thread anyone?

[cem_devecioglu]

Tyre thread anyone?

lets start with friction