Wow... I guess if you're basing it on that magazine... but I'm still not believing that it takes as much as .4 seconds to get from 60 to 62 mph... especially if there's no shift involved. I know this is a kind of a nitpicking on my part, but it's got me all wrapped up right now.

So I ask, does the following logic make sense? If 0-60 is 7.1s, then that's an average of 8.45 mph/s. If 0-100 (0-62.137mph) is 7.5s, then that's an average of 8.28 mph/s. Given that an S2000 is well into its good powerband at around 60/62mph in 2nd gear, it doesn't make mathematical sense for the next 2 mph from 60mph to DRAG DOWN the average change in velocity per second!

Let's do the same for the Lambo example you mentioned: 0-60mph average mph/s = 15.79. 0-100kph average mph/s = 15.155. Again the extra 2mph pulled down the average by that much?

Am I missing something here? Is aerodynamic drag playing that much of a part at a lowly 60mph?

 

Wow... I guess if you're basing it on that magazine... but I'm still not believing that it takes as much as .4 seconds to get from 60 to 62 mph... especially if there's no shift involved. I know this is a kind of a nitpicking on my part, but it's got me all wrapped up right now.

Not 'just' that magazine ... that's the one I had handy and I could quote. 0-100kph as well as 0-60mph times get printed reasonably often in the same magazine and somewhere around 0.5sec seems to be the difference between the time (when looking at car like the S2000). As I mentioned, even the Murchiellago's 0-100kph times was 0.2secs secs off the 0-60mph.

Why? I'm not entirely sure, but you cannot work out just the 'average' and thing that the last 2.5kph will be done at the same 'interval' 'cos as the speed increases, the acceleration decreses. To be honest going back a couple of years I did not think that there was that much difference between the 0-60mph and 0-100kph times, but seeing the difference of around 0.5 sec come up in the magazines (ie. clocked) kindof reinforced it.

Also, I took a German magazine that I have lying here and figured I'll try and work out the same thing that you did ... though, I took the 'next' speed increment for the acceleration reference. So, 0-100kph = 5.8 and 0-120kph = 8.3 ... that is 2.5secs. So to find out how long a 3.5kph (ie. the difference between 0-60mph and 0-100kph) takes I just did 2.5 / 20 * 3.5 = 0.44. That seems to very much agree with the magazine findings.

Just for 'perspective value', here are some 0-100kph times (quickest I can find here) and you can compare then to the 0-60mph times that you can find ... you'll probably notice the 0.5sec difference.
- S2000 = 5.8
- WRX = 6.1
- Intergra Type-R = 7.0
- Aston Martin DB7 Vantage = 5.6
- Copper S = 7.7
- Callway C12 = 5.3
- BMW 330Ci = 6.64
- Ferrari F360 = 4.7
- Lotus Elise = 6.85
- M3 (e46) = 5.2
- M5 = 5.4
- Boxster S = 5.7
- Audi TT Roadster = 7.2
- 911 = 4.98
- 911 Turbo = 4.3
- 911 GT2 = 4.14
- MX5 (Miata) = 8.2
- MR2 Spyder (cluthless) = 8.5

As you can see, you need a pretty impressive machinery to do 0-100kph in 6secs, let alone bellow it.

 

Can someone tell us the gist of the Motorvision reviewer's comments? Looks like it did pretty poorly on the handling test. Time was behind that of the Civic Type R, Audi TT Q, Z3 3.0. Ughh. Sure loooked like he was driving the wheels off it, but had trouble keeping it under control.

While dl'ing the 'ring video...

I too have seen differential times on the order of 0.4 sec.

Ran some calcs, which include aero effects etc. They indicate a about 3.5 m/s2 for an S2000's acceleration at full power at 60mph in second gear near the hp peak (which it will be near). That's 7.9 mph/s accel. So, 60-62.1 mph should take about 0.27 sec.
This includes a lot of assumptions on aero, rolling friction, transmission eff. But I would be surprised if it was off by 50% or more.

BTW, aero is still very small (about road 12 hp @ 60mph). But drag or not, accel decreases with speed simply due to the V^2 nature of kinetic energy. That is, at constant power, the energy increase with time is constant, but V goes up only with the square root. Another way of saying it is accel is proportional to force which is proportional to power/velocity. As V increases, the force at the wheel decreases and so does the accel. Drag just makes it decrease at a faster rate.

Enough physics for today...

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by swiss2k
[B]now online...
one lap green hell (n

 

no, the driver was stooky from luxemburg... but he's in spain now for a week...

 

Road & Track timed the S2000 to 60mph in 4.9 seconds - on par with a U.S-spec NSX-T. Pretty fast.


And the Nurburgring is pretty much a "toll road" now. Built in the early '30s, it used to be an F1 circuit (as well as hosting other events) until it was outlawed for being too dangerous - one gets airborne several times, and the trees and/or guardrails are sometimes less than 10 feet from your side-view mirror; that's pretty close when you're taking a turn at 120+mph...

Anyway, anybody can race on the 'Ring, just pay the entrance fee. The track is popular with the car companies, as they can test their prototypes and/or pre-production models. Porsche, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, and Audi are common guests.

There aren't any safety regulations, no release waivers; just pay the fee and you're in. There's even a Ring-Taxi which you can hire to take you on a fast lap in an E39 M5.

 

When people try to put the S2K down, they don't shift at redline.

I remember one magazine or whatever, did a test by shifting the S2K @ 6K, and it took 10 seconds to get to 60mph.

My suggestion is : Don't SHIFT at all!!! Ok? Then it will take the S2K "forever" to get to 60mph...

 

@ dslts02 : I am not sure if it was an M3...all I know that it was completely stripped because I saw it later at the gas station.

It passed by so fast becasue I had to break because of the car in front of me and I didn't want to block him.

As you can see the S2000 kept up with the BMW for the rest of the lap

Best Greetings,

Yves

 

That was actually a mispring on R&T's behalf. They put the 0-60 time for the NSX in both the S2K and NSX boxes. A later issue of R&T corrected that error.

 

damn, why'd you have to go and burst my bubble like that? grrr...