Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Car Chat => Topic started by: Webby the Bear on 22 November 2014, 11:05:20
-
Help me out guys please :)
I thought i was 18 stone. I was wrong.
I was interested to find out if me being a fat nacker at 19.5 stone :-[ would have a huge affect on a 0-60 dash. Don't worry I know they're useless anyway cos of al the different variables but was interested to know what this extra weight would do to overall acceleration after reading some interesting physics theory. Especially as I know there are a few physics whizzes on 'ere :y
So.
Acceleration = Force / Mass (A = F/M)
If we say that acceleration is 100 the we ca get an idea of an exact reduction in acceleration in percentage form. And 19.5 stone is our mass. So our force just be 1950. So. . .
100 = 1950 / 19.5
If we reduce the mass to a more normal (and healthy ::)) 13 stone our formula becomes. . .
150 = 1950 / 13
Meaning acceleration has increased by 50%
Now I'm sure there's some flaws in my formulas so if anyone can correct my figures and work out with the formula what an extra 6 stone would do in real terms we can have an excellent physics discussion.
(Can you tell that swmbo is forcing me to take her out this morning and I can't get my paws on my welder yet ? >:( ::))
-
You have too much spare time mate ;D
Tell her to bog off and break out the welder!
-
You have too much spare time mate ;D
Tell her to bog off and break out the welder!
;D ;D ;D
Suppose that's why she's called 'she who just be obeyed' ::) ::) ::)
-
webbygive her keys and say your busy--- :y I do that all the time ;D
-
You would need to be able to quantify exactly what the force is and how mass affects that force - Which is what your original question alludes to.
Short of being able to eliminate the endless varying environmental factors associated with the force in question, and therefore acceleration, it would be nigh on impossible to calculate an accurate 0-60 time for such a small change in mass.
Lose weight if you feel it is detrimental to your health, not to shave a tenth of a thousand of a second off your acceleration! Although, if that is a inspiration for actually doing it, then go for it! :y
-
Back to your calculation
I think you have to add in your weight to the overall car weight. You will notice that an Omega five up with a ton of luggage in and a full tank doesn't accelerate as well as just one person. The excess weight also affects braking and cornering performance.
My solution is to save weight by stripping out a few carpets, spare wheels, hub caps, tools, empty wrappers, cans of oil and wear just your underpants. That way you can keep on eating burgers and still enjoy the performance. That is what I do. When I get to the shops I wear my high visibility jacket to avoid any unwarranted attention :y
-
Help me out guys please :)
I thought i was 18 stone. I was wrong.
I was interested to find out if me being a fat nacker at 19.5 stone :-[ would have a huge affect on a 0-60 dash. Don't worry I know they're useless anyway cos of al the different variables but was interested to know what this extra weight would do to overall acceleration after reading some interesting physics theory. Especially as I know there are a few physics whizzes on 'ere :y
So.
Acceleration = Force / Mass (A = F/M)
If we say that acceleration is 100 the we ca get an idea of an exact reduction in acceleration in percentage form. And 19.5 stone is our mass. So our force just be 1950. So. . .
100 = 1950 / 19.5
If we reduce the mass to a more normal (and healthy ::)) 13 stone our formula becomes. . .
150 = 1950 / 13
Meaning acceleration has increased by 50%
Now I'm sure there's some flaws in my formulas so if anyone can correct my figures and work out with the formula what an extra 6 stone would do in real terms we can have an excellent physics discussion.
(Can you tell that swmbo is forcing me to take her out this morning and I can't get my paws on my welder yet ? >:( ::))
'dangle berries' to all this ::)
Webby mate, its the weekend :y
Get yourself down the pub for a few beers then on the way home, stop off at the off licence for some tinnies and a large kebab for tea :D :D :D
-
Back to your calculation
I think you have to add in your weight to the overall car weight. You will notice that an Omega five up with a ton of luggage in and a full tank doesn't accelerate as well as just one person. The excess weight also affects braking and cornering performance.
My solution is to save weight by stripping out a few carpets, spare wheels, hub caps, tools, empty wrappers, cans of oil and wear just your underpants. That way you can keep on eating burgers and still enjoy the performance. That is what I do. When I get to the shops I wear my high visibility jacket to avoid any unwarranted attention :y
That's fine in the South of Spain, Varche..... bit chilly over here though. ;D
-
Or simply put 5 litres less fuel in to compensate when you fill up ;D
Oh, and stop fretting ::)
-
100 = 1950 / 19.5
100 beers x 1950 mac donalds = ::) But they are tasty though but prefer Kin tucky :P
-
webbygive her keys and say your busy--- :y I do that all the time ;D
Yeah, but that would mean she has to drive my car ;D
-
You would need to be able to quantify exactly what the force is and how mass affects that force - Which is what your original question alludes to.
Short of being able to eliminate the endless varying environmental factors associated with the force in question, and therefore acceleration, it would be nigh on impossible to calculate an accurate 0-60 time for such a small change in mass.
Lose weight if you feel it is detrimental to your health, not to shave a tenth of a thousand of a second off your acceleration! Although, if that is a inspiration for actually doing it, then go for it! :y
Yeah fair point BM. I'm honestly not bothered about my weight and/ or gaining a couple of tenths. I was just interested to know how a set weight, assuming all environmental variables remained the same (not real I know, but for hypothesis purposes), would affect acceleration. :y
-
Back to your calculation
I think you have to add in your weight to the overall car weight. You will notice that an Omega five up with a ton of luggage in and a full tank doesn't accelerate as well as just one person. The excess weight also affects braking and cornering performance.
My solution is to save weight by stripping out a few carpets, spare wheels, hub caps, tools, empty wrappers, cans of oil and wear just your underpants. That way you can keep on eating burgers and still enjoy the performance. That is what I do. When I get to the shops I wear my high visibility jacket to avoid any unwarranted attention :y
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Or simply put 5 litres less fuel in to compensate when you fill up ;D
Oh, and stop fretting ::)
Not frettin' Al. you know I like to put my crazy thoughts down on OOF so you can all mock me help me find the answers ::) ;D ;D ;D
-
Or simply put 5 litres less fuel in to compensate when you fill up ;D
Oh, and stop fretting ::)
Not frettin' Al. you know I like to put my crazy thoughts down on OOF so you can all mock me help me find the answers ::) ;D ;D ;D
I would never mock you, Steve....as you know. :-*
-
Or simply put 5 litres less fuel in to compensate when you fill up ;D
Oh, and stop fretting ::)
Not frettin' Al. you know I like to put my crazy thoughts down on OOF so you can all mock me help me find the answers ::) ;D ;D ;D
I would never mock you, Steve....as you know. :-*
;D ;D ;D
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class?:)
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
-
Spot on Cem. That's answered my question precisely! :y
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
You lost me after 'assume' .....
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
You lost me after 'assume' .....
STMO what that means mate is----for every 20 boxes boxes of Dunkin Donuts you eat-you need to fit a bigger engine---got it now mate
-
Got it :y
Or you could buy a Chevrolet Orlando, 0-60 in three minutes, no matter what you're carrying.
-
or an omega v6 with a shot coil pack--0-60 in your having a laugh ;D ;D
-
or an omega v6 with a shot coil pack--0-60 in your having a laugh ;D ;D
Getting to 60 is only a secondary concern...
The biggest worry is getting the engine to rev fast enough to be able to change in to second... ::)
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
Sorry Cem, but this is the biggest load of ball-sacks. ;D
We are not in a pristine physics lab, where everything is cleaner than the Pope's Penis. This is the real world. The mass of a vehicle doesn't change in a linear manner.
I have no doubt you have an excellent understanding of Physics, but you cannot apply simplistic equations to this type of scenario! There are just too many variables. :y
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
You lost me after 'assume' .....
;D ;D ;D
STMO , you know I'm an engineer.. actually for reservoir and drilling area.. in my graduation subject for a very precise calculation many parameters are necessary and most of the times obtaining those parameters cost multi million $$$.. so in our exams our teachers were giving us questions with missing parameters that we had to assume but by derivation from other parameters actually a logical range.. as nothing is fix (usually)..
and to solve those questions you need to use numerical analysis methods on a range which requires computer programming..
so we initiate the programs on some logical assumptions get the results then compare from other wells/reservoirs historical data.. and if somethings wrong we re-try.. actual measurements in those areas are done after we reach some depth or we complete multi drill areas which costs some dear money..
now you get the picture .. in this case of acceleration for a rough calculation actual force is not necessary.. but if you wanted a near exact calculation
you need to know temperature, engines wear, engines ideal force (or hp) , wind speed and direction, tyres friction coef.. etc etc etc ;D
of course simplest answer will be to accelerate the car with Webby and later with a person with 30 kgs less and measure the time ;D :y
-
of course time measurements can not be done by bare hand.. you need a device set up
-
Webby you can loose 30-35 kgs at most .. this may impact acceleration less than 0.1 secs on a 1700 kg car..
so not worth it.. but if you want loose weight for health reasons, do it very very slowly :y
ps: now calculated it actually effects 0.15 secs ;D
haha! thanks cem.
care to share the formula / calculation with the class? :)
easy.. no need to go in detailed calculations since f=m*a
assume your engine with X force accelerates a 1700 kg car in 9 secs from 0 to 100km/h ..
then 30/1700= 0.0176 then
9*0.0176=0.1584 secs
Sorry Cem, but this is the biggest load of ball-sacks. ;D
We are not in a pristine physics lab, where everything is cleaner than the Pope's Penis. This is the real world. The mass of a vehicle doesn't change in a linear manner.
I have no doubt you have an excellent understanding of Physics, but you cannot apply simplistic equations to this type of scenario! There are just too many variables. :y
physic equations are valid.. those extra pamaters will change some fractions.. but I doubt even you can measure 0.15 secs easily :y
-
physic equations are valid.. those extra pamaters will change some fractions.. but I doubt even you can measure 0.15 secs easily :y
The equations are valid. They have no validity in this scenario, though. :y
-
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/dynos/HIZ1_zps9f6d543c.jpg)
(http://i181.photobucket.com/albums/x80/mecdv6/dynos/HIZ2_zps7aca49a2.jpg)
9.92-9.79 = 0.13 secs
as you can see 0.15 with a rough calculation is very close :) :y
-
Holy shit, this thread just livened up :-X ;D
-
Holy shit, this thread just livened up :-X ;D
Webby did you measure your 0-100 ?
-
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, 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 :)
-
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. :y
-
Doesn't look like they've heard of Opel/Vauxhall... There's the Catera though. http://www.060calculator.com/cars/2000/cadillac/catera/8076
-
Holy shit, this thread just livened up :-X ;D
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!!!!
-
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 :)
-
Holy shit, this thread just livened up :-X ;D
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 :y
-
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 :)
;D ;D 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.
-
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 :)
;D ;D 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 :) :y
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-convert-linear-force-to-angular-torque.html (http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-convert-linear-force-to-angular-torque.html)
-
Really? ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Tyre thread anyone? :D
-
Tyre thread anyone? :D
lets start with friction ;D
-
Tyre thread anyone? :D
lets start with friction ;D
rather a martini and ice --cheers ;D