Pennock's Fiero Forum
  General Fiero Chat
  0 to 60

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version


next newest topic | next oldest topic
0 to 60 by Csjag
Started on: 04-11-2015 02:18 PM
Replies: 32 (587 views)
Last post by: dobey on 04-15-2015 09:19 AM
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 02:18 PM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
What is the easiest way to get your cars 0 to 60 time by yourself?
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-11-2015 03:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Use a GoPro or something to film the speedo while you're driving, and then see how long it took in the video after? Or an app on your phone maybe?
IP: Logged
Riddick85
Member
Posts: 811
From: Detroit, Michigan, US
Registered: Oct 2005


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 03:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Riddick85Send a Private Message to Riddick85Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
There are some apps that can do it using the accelerometers in your phone. If you have a 3800 engine with obd2 you can use a Bluetooth engine adapter and the torque app
IP: Logged
seajai
Member
Posts: 1534
From: Circle Pines, Minnesota
Registered: Feb 2012


Feedback score:    (42)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 52
Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 04:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for seajaiSend a Private Message to seajaiEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I've got Speed View Pro on my Galaxy S5: https://play.google.com/sto....speedview.pro&hl=en There is also a free version. It has a heads up speedo mode too.

[This message has been edited by seajai (edited 04-11-2015).]

IP: Logged
tshark
Member
Posts: 4374
From:
Registered: Feb 2014


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 04:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for tsharkSend a Private Message to tsharkEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I'll claim I can do 0-60 in 6 minutes, give or take. I'm sure I could prove it.

Mark your starting point. Accelerate. When you reach 60, mark that point. Measure the distance. Convert the speed to meters per second. Convert the distance to meters. Divide the distance by the speed. The answer is your 0-60, in seconds.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

IP: Logged
JohnWPB
Member
Posts: 5154
From: West Palm Beach, Florida
Registered: May 2009


Feedback score:    (21)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 143
Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 04:49 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JohnWPBClick Here to visit JohnWPB's HomePageSend a Private Message to JohnWPBEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Seriously, it's not rocket science, it seems to be something pretty simple to figure out.....

Here are a few off the top of my head

- Try a stop watch, click when you start to accelerate, and click again when you reach 60 MPH
- Use a stop watch app (Included with the iPhone and Android)
- Look at your watch, when the second hand reaches the top or 00 on a digital, accelerate, and when you hit 60 MPH glance at your watch to see how long it took
- Count 1 Mississippi 2 Mississippi 3 Mississippi till you hit 60 MPH
- Install an app on your phone that will use the accelerometer & the GPS in the phone to measure it automatically
- When you do have someone with you sometime, put em in the passenger seat and have them use their watch, phone or app
- Record a video on your phone, doesnt matter what you are pointing the camera at. Say START when you begin, and when you get to 60 MPH say STOP. Playback the video and time how long from when you said START to when you say STOP.
- Do the same as the last one, but just use an audio recorder.
- Re-take Calculus 101, or at least rake a refresher course at your local community college, and then do as tshark says

[This message has been edited by JohnWPB (edited 04-11-2015).]

IP: Logged
tshark
Member
Posts: 4374
From:
Registered: Feb 2014


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 06:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for tsharkSend a Private Message to tsharkEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
It isn't Calculus. Probably 7th grade math. Basic algabraic formula: distance = rate * time. I'm sure unit conversions were covered in 4th grade, but google will do the conversions. On the other hand, if you go somewhere other than Rolla, Calculus may be different. Calc 1 was differential equations. Not for everyone.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

IP: Logged
lorennerol
Member
Posts: 519
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Registered: Apr 2010


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 07:55 PM Click Here to See the Profile for lorennerolSend a Private Message to lorennerolEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by tshark:

I'll claim I can do 0-60 in 6 minutes, give or take. I'm sure I could prove it.

Mark your starting point. Accelerate. When you reach 60, mark that point. Measure the distance. Convert the speed to meters per second. Convert the distance to meters. Divide the distance by the time. The answer is your 0-60, in seconds.


You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

I think
IP: Logged
tshark
Member
Posts: 4374
From:
Registered: Feb 2014


Feedback score:    (6)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 64
Rate this member

Report this Post04-11-2015 09:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for tsharkSend a Private Message to tsharkEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by lorennerol:
You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

I think


You are correct. I edited. There is a linearization. I usually cheat and use a weighted average. Or divide the speed by 2, but that would be way off here.

[This message has been edited by tshark (edited 04-11-2015).]

IP: Logged
jscott1
Member
Posts: 21671
From: Houston, TX , USA
Registered: Dec 2001


Feedback score:    (15)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 415
Rate this member

Report this Post04-12-2015 12:15 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jscott1Send a Private Message to jscott1Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by tshark:


You are correct. I edited. There is a linearization. I usually cheat and use a weighted average. Or divide the speed by 2, but that would be way off here.



You don't need equations to get 0 to 60 times... you need a stopwatch. You don't care about the distance, the rate, or the acceleration, just how long it took to get to 60 mph.
IP: Logged
lorennerol
Member
Posts: 519
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Registered: Apr 2010


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-12-2015 01:28 AM Click Here to See the Profile for lorennerolSend a Private Message to lorennerolEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by lorennerol:


You mean divide distance by speed, not time, right? But I'm not sure this equation is correct: In this case, rate/speed is not constant, nor is acceleration, so it's not, I don't think, possible to even substitute V=at*V0 for the final velocity.

I think


Whoops, made my own typo: Should be V=at+V0, but since a isn't constant (even though it's less variable...as an integral of V if I recall correctly, I don't think this is a valid way to make the calculation.

I've been wondering how accurate the smart phone apps are; all they really need is to start a timer at first motion and stop it at 60 MPH. Seems like they might be accurate within a few tenths, and I think that would be better than relying on the accuracy of the speedometer and hand-eye coordination to stop a stopwatch.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Patrick
Member
Posts: 30131
From: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Registered: Apr 99


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 442
Rate this member

Report this Post04-12-2015 03:59 AM Click Here to See the Profile for PatrickClick Here to Email PatrickSend a Private Message to PatrickEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

What is the easiest way to get your cars 0 to 60 time by yourself?


If you're driving a duke 3-spd automatic, use a calendar.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-12-2015).]

IP: Logged
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-12-2015 07:47 AM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-12-2015 07:54 AM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.


Yes, people do make those. They are called smartphone apps. Or the G-Force thing that does 0-60 times and such (but I don't know if they still make any that work without OBD-II).
IP: Logged
rednotdead
Member
Posts: 98
From: Orange County, CA
Registered: Mar 2014


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 01:16 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rednotdeadClick Here to Email rednotdeadSend a Private Message to rednotdeadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
In a 0-60 dash, is it proper to redline the engine in first gear? Especially on a 28 year old engine... Im always afraid to push my cars to their limits, Ive only entered the red once in second on my Formuka. Who knows about my Honda (no tach).
IP: Logged
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 02:03 PM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I think in a lot of cases you are better off not redlining because the highest horsepower is produced at a lower rpm than redline
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-13-2015 02:52 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

I think in a lot of cases you are better off not redlining because the highest horsepower is produced at a lower rpm than redline


It doesn't matter where the peak HP is made. What matters is what the torque curve is, and what the gearing is like. HP is a completely useless number. On a 2.8, hitting redline is entirely useless, no matter what you're doing. Your rate of acceleration drops way off after 4500 RPM. The only thing hitting redline in a Fiero will do, is get you a blown head gasket, or a rod through the block.
IP: Logged
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 04:39 PM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
What is the relationship between horsepower and torque?
IP: Logged
rednotdead
Member
Posts: 98
From: Orange County, CA
Registered: Mar 2014


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 04:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rednotdeadClick Here to Email rednotdeadSend a Private Message to rednotdeadEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

What is the relationship between horsepower and torque?


If HP is just a function of torque and RPM, why is peak HP and torque not achieved at the same RPM?
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-13-2015 04:47 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

What is the relationship between horsepower and torque?


HP = (RPM * TQ) / 5252

HP is directly related to RPM and TQ. If your engine continues making TQ at higher RPMs, even if not at peak, it will continue to climb, as long as it can keep breathing; otherwise the torque curve will fall off like a sheer cliff, and you won't be doing anything but risking pulling rods apart or blowing head gaskets.

HP and TQ will always be equal at 5252 RPM.
IP: Logged
IanT720
Member
Posts: 1696
From: Whitmore Lake, MI
Registered: Sep 2010


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 05:48 PM Click Here to See the Profile for IanT720Click Here to Email IanT720Send a Private Message to IanT720Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I was always told HP means nothing unless you know the Revs that it makes peak HP at. Engines make more HP the faster they spin since they are firing more times a second... Say average racecar makes 600hp 300lbs of torque. It makes 600hp because it's spinning at 12,000 rpm. Easiest way to understand is how Jeremy Clarkson explained it... "HP is how fast you hit the wall, Torque is how far you push it".

------------------
1987 Fiero GTX 3800 Turbo... My Build, ST3 Cam, Lowered, Wheels, and pics enjoy!http://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum1/HTML/089483.html

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 555
Rate this member

Report this Post04-13-2015 10:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

By choice I do not have a smartphone. I am very capable of doing a math equation and can actually make change at a cash register in my head without the aid of a computer with the picture of a cheeseburger. What I wondered was if someone made some kind of aftermarket gauge that would give performance info such as acceleration time and stopping distance.


They do, and it works on any car:

Push the big button when you floor it. Push the big button again when your speedometer reads 60. Read the number on the dial. That's your 0-60.

Stopping distance takes more leg work. Pick a point on the road and approach at whatever speed you want to test from. When you reach that point, stop. Get out and measure how far away you are from the point you hit the brakes.
IP: Logged
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 08:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I did find an electronic gauge that hooks up with one wire and measures 0 to 60, stopping distance, and even cornering g-force. The only problem was the price of $250. I am surprised that some of the high priced performance cars do not have a similar gauge incorporated in the dash.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-14-2015 09:33 AM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

I did find an electronic gauge that hooks up with one wire and measures 0 to 60, stopping distance, and even cornering g-force. The only problem was the price of $250. I am surprised that some of the high priced performance cars do not have a similar gauge incorporated in the dash.


They do. The new C7, Z/28, and new Viper all have performance stuff like that. Some also have cameras in the rearview mirror, to record video at a track, and will overlay performance info on top of the video.

But a 30 year old Fiero, and a C7 are very different things.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-14-2015 10:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by IanT720:

I was always told HP means nothing unless you know the Revs that it makes peak HP at. Engines make more HP the faster they spin since they are firing more times a second... Say average racecar makes 600hp 300lbs of torque. It makes 600hp because it's spinning at 12,000 rpm. Easiest way to understand is how Jeremy Clarkson explained it... "HP is how fast you hit the wall, Torque is how far you push it".



Even if you know the RPM that peak HP is made at, it's still pretty much useless. The new Challenger Hellcat has 200 HP more than a C6 Z06, but is still slower.

600 HP @ 12,000 RPM == 262.6 lbs-ft of torque. Not sure what average race car you're talking about, but race cars are a very broad field of possibilities.

HP has nothing to do with how fast you hit the wall, nor does torque have anything to do with how far you push it, when you do hit it. Basic Newtonian physics is all you need for that. Speed determines how fast you will hit it. Speed / distance will determine how quickly you will hit it. Speed, mass, and surface area of the vehicle where contact will be made, will determine how hard you will hit it. Structural integrity and material density of the wall, and the force applied to it, will determine how far it is pushed (or pieces of it are pushed).

More RPM does not necessarily mean more HP. Or we'd all be driving Hondas or rotary Mazdas, instead of messing with Fieros and pushrod engines. You only get more HP, if your engine can still make reasonable amounts of torque at that RPM. HP doesn't determine 0-60. Gearing, torque, and weight/drag do.
IP: Logged
Csjag
Member
Posts: 3170
From: Ocklawaha,Fl, USA
Registered: Dec 2013


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 03:34 PM Click Here to See the Profile for CsjagClick Here to Email CsjagSend a Private Message to CsjagEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.
IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-14-2015 04:05 PM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.


Well, it's a head on collision, so both cars are likely to be totalled anyway. But otherwise, yes, it's possible. Cars are very complex shapes though, especially modern aero-efficient cars), so hitting in the exact right way to make that true can be difficult. Speeding up would also cause more damage to the other car. It's a fairly easy thing to demonstrate with some bricks or such. F = MA. More speed means more force. The heavier car moving faster will always win.

Although, with modern vehicle designs that have crunch zones and such, winning in a head-on collision is very subjective. Pretty much everyone will lose. If you're going to demo derby an old station wagon though, speed + mass == winning car (as long as you don't break it first).

[This message has been edited by dobey (edited 04-14-2015).]

IP: Logged
hyperv6
Member
Posts: 5440
From: Clinton, OH, USA
Registered: Mar 2003


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 90
Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 08:00 PM Click Here to See the Profile for hyperv6Send a Private Message to hyperv6Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
If it is stock....>Sun Dial for anything made in the 80's.
IP: Logged
batousai666
Member
Posts: 4191
From: MI usa
Registered: Jun 2009


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 09:01 PM Click Here to See the Profile for batousai666Send a Private Message to batousai666Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

https://mysp.ac/TVAG

[This message has been edited by batousai666 (edited 04-14-2015).]

IP: Logged
pontiackid86
Member
Posts: 19600
From: Kingwood Texas..... Yall
Registered: Sep 2008


Feedback score:    (12)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 10:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for pontiackid86Click Here to Email pontiackid86Send a Private Message to pontiackid86Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
right now? depends how steep the hill is

------------------

Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six.
(84 IMSA) garage queen
(12 mustang base) Honda tormenter
(86 basterdized mera) fake ferrari
(84 fastback IMSA) confused lil one
The forums Youngest CDL driver

IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 555
Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 10:54 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Csjag:

Way back when I was in high school in the 60's (I'm getting to be an old coot), I had a physics professor who stated that if you were about to have a head on collision if you sped up instead of slowing down your car would suffer less damage if you were colliding with a car the same size. I have always wondered if that is a true statement.


I would have liked to have seen your physics professor's math on that one. I guess he's saying you should be going faster than the other car, so when you collide you slow down but the other car will be pushed backwards.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
lorennerol
Member
Posts: 519
From: Seattle, WA, USA
Registered: Apr 2010


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback

Rate this member

Report this Post04-14-2015 11:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for lorennerolSend a Private Message to lorennerolEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:


I would have liked to have seen your physics professor's math on that one.


Agreed: I=mV^2, so the energy of an impact increases geometrically with speed. No way speeding up can reduce the energy of a collision. It might change the internal physicals of the system, but can't possibly reduce the energy that has to be dissipated to bring both cars to a halt. Except, perhaps, if you are about to be rear-ended by a car going faster than you.

[This message has been edited by lorennerol (edited 04-14-2015).]

IP: Logged
dobey
Member
Posts: 11572
From:
Registered: Sep 2001


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 371
User Banned

Report this Post04-15-2015 09:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for dobeySend a Private Message to dobeyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by lorennerol:


Agreed: I=mV^2, so the energy of an impact increases geometrically with speed. No way speeding up can reduce the energy of a collision. It might change the internal physicals of the system, but can't possibly reduce the energy that has to be dissipated to bring both cars to a halt. Except, perhaps, if you are about to be rear-ended by a car going faster than you.



Less damage != no damage. What was said was, the faster moving vehicle would sustain less damage, than if they were both moving at equal speed, which is a fairly sound statement. The math works.
IP: Logged

next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock