Braking Discussion
Braking Discussion
What happened to a discussion about braking?
I posted a lot of compiled facts from mags about 100-0, 80-0, 60-0 and such.
Then when my brain was charged up after eating, I thought about it; if 100-0 is ~ 550ft and 60-0 is 100ft, then 100-60 is about ~450ft and if going from 100-40 takes longer, then your going to cover over 450ft or 150 meters.
I posted a lot of compiled facts from mags about 100-0, 80-0, 60-0 and such.
Then when my brain was charged up after eating, I thought about it; if 100-0 is ~ 550ft and 60-0 is 100ft, then 100-60 is about ~450ft and if going from 100-40 takes longer, then your going to cover over 450ft or 150 meters.
I don't think you can ascertain those figures based on a range comparison like that. 100mph carries a LOT more inertia than 60mph, and pulling a car from 100 -> 60 is a lot easier for the brakes than 60-0. Hell 60-5mph is probably 20ft shorter than 60-0.
I thought about that too. Longer stopping sometimes creates enough heat to increase the stopping distance.
But it still hodls true since its a greater than distance I've determined.
130 - 0 = ~550ft
60 - 0 = ~100ft
130 - 60 = ~450ft
Though I have to look up the distances again, becuase I know the previosu discussion was 100 - 40. and all I can reliable recall are 130 and 60 to 0.
So 130 - 40 > 450ft
00 - 0 I think was ~295 ft (I don't recall this too clearly)
that would by 100 - 60 at about 195ft
so 100 - 40 would be > 195ft
But it still hodls true since its a greater than distance I've determined.
130 - 0 = ~550ft
60 - 0 = ~100ft
130 - 60 = ~450ft
Though I have to look up the distances again, becuase I know the previosu discussion was 100 - 40. and all I can reliable recall are 130 and 60 to 0.
So 130 - 40 > 450ft
00 - 0 I think was ~295 ft (I don't recall this too clearly)
that would by 100 - 60 at about 195ft
so 100 - 40 would be > 195ft
most racing telemetry data I have seen has shown braking force to be quite linear, it doesn't come on stronger initally or at the end, just a good solid constant decelleration. if braking as such these calculations hold up.
Originally posted by Mister2zx3
most racing telemetry data I have seen has shown braking force to be quite linear, it doesn't come on stronger initally or at the end, just a good solid constant decelleration. if braking as such these calculations hold up.
most racing telemetry data I have seen has shown braking force to be quite linear, it doesn't come on stronger initally or at the end, just a good solid constant decelleration. if braking as such these calculations hold up.
Then again the 100-60 = 450ft may hold true, since at 100mph you are covering appx. 147 ft/second. Figure what, 3 seconds minimum and you got yourself 441ft right there.
Actually in this situation it was a 100mph to 40 mph braking zone before a corner on a track, so I'd guess the brakes have a little heat in them, but hopefully not enough to be causing any increased stopping distance.
Does anyone have a 40 - 0 stopping distanc
IIRC -
An interesting thing to note is the 130 - 0 from the fourgasm was about ~550ft. THe 100 - 0 from the MT comparo of super cars with the Evo thrown in to make those high dollar rides feel not worthy, was about ~295 ft. in about ~4.25 seconds
So a 130 - 100 Drop is going to take you about 250ft, and you're still probably going to jail if clocked on public roads. Going from 130 mph to a probably ticket avoiding 70mph is going to take almost 450 ft.
Does anyone have a 40 - 0 stopping distanc
IIRC -
An interesting thing to note is the 130 - 0 from the fourgasm was about ~550ft. THe 100 - 0 from the MT comparo of super cars with the Evo thrown in to make those high dollar rides feel not worthy, was about ~295 ft. in about ~4.25 seconds
So a 130 - 100 Drop is going to take you about 250ft, and you're still probably going to jail if clocked on public roads. Going from 130 mph to a probably ticket avoiding 70mph is going to take almost 450 ft.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Blue Evo 8
Evo General
31
Jan 16, 2004 09:09 AM




