How much slower with a passenger?
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 4,061
Likes: 363
From: Redondo Beach
OK, here goes:
1) Yes in N. America the manual says 400 lbs max, but I believe in metric countries it's 200 kg (440 lbs). And I've never had any trouble with even more than that: Example 1: I once ran a (Gtech) 14.5 1/4 mi. with myself (220lb) and a 200+ passenger; example 2: one of my instructors at a track event was an easy 250, and the car was just fine - a little slow, but fine.
I think the 400 lb figure is bogus (i.e. strictly a liability number).
2) Here's some approximate formulas relating 1/4 mile time (seconds), trap speed (mph), wheel hp, and weight (lbs):
time = 5.825 * (wt/hp)^(1/3)
speed = 234 * (hp/wt)^(1/3)
Example: For a car weighing 2850 lbs (including driver) with 200 rwhp, the calculated ET is 14.12 sec @ 96.5 mph. Add a 150 lb passenger, and it goes to 14.37 @ 94.9. So I'd say the "0.1 sec per 100 lb" rule looks pretty good!
Cheers!
John
1) Yes in N. America the manual says 400 lbs max, but I believe in metric countries it's 200 kg (440 lbs). And I've never had any trouble with even more than that: Example 1: I once ran a (Gtech) 14.5 1/4 mi. with myself (220lb) and a 200+ passenger; example 2: one of my instructors at a track event was an easy 250, and the car was just fine - a little slow, but fine.
I think the 400 lb figure is bogus (i.e. strictly a liability number). 2) Here's some approximate formulas relating 1/4 mile time (seconds), trap speed (mph), wheel hp, and weight (lbs):
time = 5.825 * (wt/hp)^(1/3)
speed = 234 * (hp/wt)^(1/3)
Example: For a car weighing 2850 lbs (including driver) with 200 rwhp, the calculated ET is 14.12 sec @ 96.5 mph. Add a 150 lb passenger, and it goes to 14.37 @ 94.9. So I'd say the "0.1 sec per 100 lb" rule looks pretty good!
Cheers!
John
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,625
Likes: 1
From: Honolulu/Kona,HI
So weight will hurt the performance in a straight line, but with a person of somewhat equal weight in the passenger seat, will it benefit in handling aspect of the car due to equal weight distribution?
As for the 1/4 mile assumption of a stock s2000 running high-13's or low 14's, it was just a base for acceleration that I wanted to figure out. I don't believe the s2000 is a 1/4 mile drag racer, although it does pack quite a punch, but more of a well balanced sports car used to have fun through the twisties and the open stretches.
I should start another thread on my next question, but since I'm here:
For acceleration, has anyone ever timed their 0-100mph time? Should it be in the ballpark of the quater mile times since that's the speed that it would pass through the traps? And any figures on 0-120mph, 0-130, 0-140, 0-150 and do I dare ask- 0-160mph?
As for the 1/4 mile assumption of a stock s2000 running high-13's or low 14's, it was just a base for acceleration that I wanted to figure out. I don't believe the s2000 is a 1/4 mile drag racer, although it does pack quite a punch, but more of a well balanced sports car used to have fun through the twisties and the open stretches.
I should start another thread on my next question, but since I'm here:
For acceleration, has anyone ever timed their 0-100mph time? Should it be in the ballpark of the quater mile times since that's the speed that it would pass through the traps? And any figures on 0-120mph, 0-130, 0-140, 0-150 and do I dare ask- 0-160mph?
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 9,210
Likes: 7
From: WA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spanky
[B]So weight will hurt the performance in a straight line, but with a person of somewhat equal weight in the passenger seat, will it benefit in handling aspect of the car due to equal weight distribution?
[B]So weight will hurt the performance in a straight line, but with a person of somewhat equal weight in the passenger seat, will it benefit in handling aspect of the car due to equal weight distribution?
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 4,282
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne
----------------------------------
For acceleration, has anyone ever timed their 0-100mph time? Should it be in the ballpark of the quater mile times since that's the speed that it would pass through the traps? And any figures on 0-120mph, 0-130, 0-140, 0-150 and do I dare ask- 0-160mph?
----------------------------------
Here's something that could help you. It's various times that magazines have managed by clocking the car with 'official' timing gear. I listed the 'kph' times as most magazines that go that high with the speed are from Europe. Also, keep in mind that you see varation in times because they were done by different people, in different conditions on differetn days (and some with 2 people aboard and some with one):
0-160kph (100mph) = 13.8,14.2,14.4,14.9
0-180kph (113mph) = 19.2
0-200kph (125mph) = 24.4,24.5,25.6
0-220kph (138mph) = 36.4
0-240kph (250mph) = I can't find any times :-(
0-160mph (256kph) = S2000 does not reach this speed unlesss on a downhill slope ... in which case the times are irrelevant. At 160mph you'd have to be on the red-line in 6th gear.
For acceleration, has anyone ever timed their 0-100mph time? Should it be in the ballpark of the quater mile times since that's the speed that it would pass through the traps? And any figures on 0-120mph, 0-130, 0-140, 0-150 and do I dare ask- 0-160mph?
----------------------------------
Here's something that could help you. It's various times that magazines have managed by clocking the car with 'official' timing gear. I listed the 'kph' times as most magazines that go that high with the speed are from Europe. Also, keep in mind that you see varation in times because they were done by different people, in different conditions on differetn days (and some with 2 people aboard and some with one):
0-160kph (100mph) = 13.8,14.2,14.4,14.9
0-180kph (113mph) = 19.2
0-200kph (125mph) = 24.4,24.5,25.6
0-220kph (138mph) = 36.4
0-240kph (250mph) = I can't find any times :-(
0-160mph (256kph) = S2000 does not reach this speed unlesss on a downhill slope ... in which case the times are irrelevant. At 160mph you'd have to be on the red-line in 6th gear.