Cycle World article

There's nothing constant in the acceleration of a vehicle. Here's a clip of a 8.8 vs 9.68 that's a .88 difference which by your calculations on the Rocket's time (I know different speed, but close enough for me) would be 9.71 inches. Looks a bit further to me.


Read again - "constant SPEED" was the quote, NOT acceleration. I used it only to illustrate that a .1 second cannot generate a general or typical distance because of all the unknown variables.
You are correct that vehicle acceleration is not constant. It varies with distance.
Average acceleration over shorter distances is what is generally used in these calcs.
 
Read again - "constant SPEED" was the quote, NOT acceleration. I used it only to illustrate that a .1 second cannot generate a general or typical distance because of all the unknown variables.
You are correct that vehicle acceleration is not constant. It varies with distance.
Average acceleration over shorter distances is what is generally used in these calcs.
But there's no way the .167 seconds is only 1.5 inches at the end of the track. You're doing some fancy math, but somewhere the formula is missing something.
 
There's nothing constant in the acceleration of a vehicle. Here's a clip of a 8.8 vs 9.68 that's a .88 difference which by your calculations on the Rocket's time (I know different speed, but close enough for me) would be 9.71 inches. Looks a bit further to me.


The speed was not close. There was over an 11 mile an hour difference between the two cars.
Were the cars even at the start? Were the driver reaction times equal?

Here is a trick question sometimes used on the witness stand.
The force of gravity is 32.2 fps squared. When dropped, how far will a solid 10 pound steel ball travel in 1 second?
 
But there's no way the .167 seconds is only 1.5 inches at the end of the track. You're doing some fancy math, but somewhere the formula is missing something.

No fancy math, Amigo! standard time - distance physics is all it is. Remember these calcs assume the rider reaction time and the MC acceleration were the same. Since it took 17 rips to achieve the best time, I seroously doubt it!
If you're interested, I have a little one page table of the formulas used in these types of calculations. I can easily send it to you.
 
No fancy math, Amigo! standard time - distance physics is all it is. Remember these calcs assume the rider reaction time and the MC acceleration were the same. Since it took 17 rips to achieve the best time, I seroously doubt it!
If you're interested, I have a little one page table of the formulas used in these types of calculations. I can easily send it to you.
You have my email brother. :thumbsup:
 
The speed was not close. There was over an 11 mile an hour difference between the two cars.
Were the cars even at the start? Were the driver reaction times equal?

Here is a trick question sometimes used on the witness stand.
The force of gravity is 32.2 fps squared. When dropped, how far will a solid 10 pound steel ball travel in 1 second?
First second or once it reaches terminal velocity?
 
Just throwing this up here, sample time slip off net. I'd be leary about using averaging and and assuming ANYTHING about a situation on a drag strip, traction (start, at each shift, as car get in power curve, track conditions, tire shakes), power delivery (power curve, is motor on limiter be it throttle-stop or nitrous timer etc) and the list goes on.

Lot of variables not available for "formulas". For example, I know when the wife was racing each 0.1 lb of air pressure in the front tire was worth about 0.010s reaction at the start lights. Valuable knowledge as RT usually quickens as the sun goes down (eye perceives light sooner)


Sample time slip to work your math.

3Xyk82bo-cSv0fpV-ZNQsDZOpjEDpqiQQ4GTSnjjIUuARThZKH9FYKqeoVn0r0ahngsDGN3H4zrr5GmeZ269TWe7iRKUHdDz5kn5QD6S8-4OQDcVqLAGd-b2OFPH-6xiTwshKA
 
I am not at work yet, let's stop with all the math stuff please. Speed is life, period. As any fighter jock in combat... ;-)
 
Back
Top