Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 Test 2006

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

I'm normally a bit more prompt at getting these posted up, here are the results of this years Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 tests.

The Veyron put in a quite stunning 9.9 seconds.

Regards

Scaff

Poverty · Nov 18, 2006

I think this is a repost, but im not sure. I know I have seen this before, infact it might have been me who posted it?

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

Poverty
I think this is a repost, but im not sure. I know I have seen this before, infact it might have been me who posted it?

You did indeed....

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=83419

....my apologies; but in that you posted the 2005 figures, which would make that a repost of my '05 thread.

Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 test 2005

LOL, and just in case you want them, the rest of the ones I put up going back to '02.

Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 test 2004

Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 test 2003

Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 test 2002

Regards

Scaff

G.T · Nov 18, 2006

Interesting stats. I remember reading the article on the test and it was very interesting.

The Veyron brakes seriously quickly - matching that AGP1 car! Never noticed that before...

Famine · Nov 18, 2006

And the A1GP car weighs only half a tonne...

Fun to note that the bike accelerates extremely quickly, but is outbraked by everything there. Yet another reinforcement to the donors that the laws of physics mean that no, they can't stop quicker from higher speeds than a car, despite whatever they claim.

kikie · Nov 18, 2006

I thought a Atom Ariel (300bhp version) was quicker??

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

Famine
And the A1GP car weighs only half a tonne...

Fun to note that the bike accelerates extremely quickly, but is outbraked by everything there. Yet another reinforcement to the donors that the laws of physics mean that no, they can't stop quicker from higher speeds than a car, despite whatever they claim.

Ah but what effect does weight have on stopping distances? Actually the weight itself doesn't play that significant a part, its far more about how that weight is distributed and how it transfers under braking. That said as long as the brakes themselves are up to the job and well balanced, then its the tyres playing the most significant role.

Which leads me to the bike, could not agree more with you Famine. A common bike myth, they are far slower at stopping than cars. Mainly due to the far smaller contact patches involved and the load transfer under hard braking that shifts the majority of the load over just the front tyre. In some hard braking situations on a bike you are mainly stopping on one tyre.

I think the myth comes from the way the average rider and the average driver stops a car or bike. An average rider is capable of stopping their bike far better and quicker than the average driver. Mainly because the rider is a lot more aware of everyone on the road being a big threat, while drivers feel much more 'cocooned' inside.

kikie
I thought a Atom Ariel (300bhp version) was quicker??

How much quicker did you want it to be, LOL.

I can also throw a spanner in the works here as well and present the Ultima GTR, which has set a time of 9.4 seconds.

http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/records/part6.html

So why did Autocar not include the GTR in this years test? Well a letter to teh magazine asked just that and apparently Ultima were approached and declined to take part.

Regards

Scaff

Famine · Nov 18, 2006

Scaff
Ah but what effect does weight have on stopping distances? Actually the weight itself doesn't play that significant a part, its far more about how that weight is distributed and how it transfers under braking.

True, but F=ma and ke=1/2mv^2.

The braking system of the Veyron, in order to decelerate it to rest in the same time, from the same speed (thus same rate of deceleration), as the A1GP car, must provide about 3.5 times as much decelerative effort (from F=ma) and dissipate about 3.5 times as much kinetic energy (from ke=1/2mv^2).

This actually makes the bike's effort all the more appalling, as the next worst decelerating vehicle - the Astra VXR - has about 7 times more mass, so 7 times as much kinetic energy to ditch through its discs and tyres.

The old Renaultsport Clio 172 has been clocked by AutoCar at 100-0mph at just 3.99 seconds, something only the Caterham CSR, Atom and Veyron can beat. The same braking system is fitted to the 1.6i Dynamique sitting on my driveway (though I'll assume there's some difference in tyres), which given the complete and total lack of pedal feel astonishes me yet more (and lends credence to my girlfriend's claims that her car stops quicker). Damn.

Scaff
Which leads me to the bike, could not agree more with you Famine. A common bike myth, they are far slower at stopping than cars. Mainly due to the far smaller contact patches involved and the load transfer under hard braking that shifts the majority of the load over just the front tyre. In some hard braking situations on a bike you are mainly stopping on one tyre.

Yep - physics sai: bike suck at stopping, as any fule kno.

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

Famine
True, but F=ma and ke=1/2mv^2.

The braking system of the Veyron, in order to decelerate it to rest in the same time, from the same speed (thus same rate of deceleration), as the A1GP car, must provide about 3.5 times as much decelerative effort (from F=ma) and dissipate about 3.5 times as much kinetic energy (from ke=1/2mv^2).

This actually makes the bike's effort all the more appalling, as the next worst decelerating vehicle - the Astra VXR - has about 7 times more mass, so 7 times as much kinetic energy to ditch through its discs and tyres.

The old Renaultsport Clio 172 has been clocked by AutoCar at 100-0mph at just 3.99 seconds, something only the Caterham CSR, Atom and Veyron can beat. The same braking system is fitted to the 1.6i Dynamique sitting on my driveway (though I'll assume there's some difference in tyres), which given the complete and total lack of pedal feel astonishes me yet more (and lends credence to my girlfriend's claims that her car stops quicker). Damn.

Yep - physics sai: bike suck at stopping, as any fule kno.

Quite true, but as you also say this is the force that the braking system must be capable of dealing with, and brakes don't stop a car. They slow the rotation of the wheel and tyre itself, and its the limit of slip that the tyre can manage (measured as a percentage of the speed differential) that limits stopping ability.

Now the maximum tyre slip is determined by a number of factors, the Cf of the tyre and road surfaces and the load placed on the tyre, but that again has more to do with the load transferred under braking (and also how the brake system is balance to deal with this) than the weight itself.

The following may interest you

Braking in Plain English

The Physics of Braking

In short yes, F=ma and ke=1/2mv^2, do give you the potential stopping distance of a car, but the tyres are a major limiting factor and have to be taken into account. The limits they impose will be one of the major factors is stopping a car (remember I didn't say weight was not important, just not the most significant for stopping, but its vital when it comes to specifying the brakes themselves).

Regards

Scaff

BTW - Sidenote - the 172 ran Continental ContiSport Contacts as OE tyres, which the rest of the Clio range did not, and they can and do make quite a difference.

daan · Nov 18, 2006

Hoi, this is the Auto News forum, not Physics GCSE forum.

Dave A · Nov 18, 2006

The Veyrons total time doesn't add up, it's total time is printed as 9.9 but it works out at only 8.9. Half a second slower than the A1GP car to 100mph and exactley the same time from 100-0, so the Veyron has done it in 8.9 seconds no 9.9.

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

live4speed
The Veyrons total time doesn't add up, it's total time is printed as 9.9 but it works out at only 8.9. Half a second slower than the A1GP car to 100mph and exactley the same time from 100-0, so the Veyron has done it in 8.9 seconds no 9.9.

Actually from the figures above its 9.1 (you missed out the reaction time), but that still does not add up.

Well spotted, need to have a look at that.

Ta

Scaff

daan · Nov 18, 2006

They don't add in the reaction time, as its different for every car, and completely dependent on the driver.

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

daan
They don't add in the reaction time, as its different for every car, and completely dependent on the driver.

They do add in the reaction time as its also an indicator of how easy it is to get on the brakes at that speed in the car.

As far as drivers go most of the Autocar runs are done by Steve Sutcliffe, this years test article has a 'box-out' piece discussing how much difference a driver can make (which is why they use a single driver).

If you take any of the other figures (from any of the years) and add the 0-100, reaction time and 100-0 times together you will see it is the final time. Its also a requirement to qualify as a world record, as it has to be the total time taken to get from 0 to 100mph and back to zero in a single run, so they can't remove reaction time from that.

Regards

Scaff

daan · Nov 18, 2006

Scaff
They do add in the reaction time as its also an indicator of how easy it is to get on the brakes at that speed in the car.

Well, unless I can't add up (which is highly possible), they haven't added in the reaction time with the A1GP or the Suzuki.

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

daan
Well, unless I can't add up (which is highly possible), they haven't added in the reaction time with the A1GP or the Suzuki.

HHmmm time to shot the man (at Autocar) with the calculator, apart from the top three the rest of the figures are all correct (they include the reaction time).

The previous years figures, which I have used for quite a bit of GT4 & Enthusia testing are the same, final time includes reaction time.

Regards

Scaff

Metar · Nov 18, 2006

I just looked at an old magazine I've got with the 2001 results... Poor year it was, I guess, seeing that 2002 already had so many quicker cars...

The best they had then was a twin-Kawasaki engined Tiger (7-close), which ran a 12-ish, and a Westfield Megabusa, which ran a high 13 time. A TVR Tuscan ran 14.014...

How the hell did Bugatti get to stop so quickly?

And why is the A1GP car in there? It's not road-legal...

ExigeEvan · Nov 18, 2006

Gingiba
And why is the A1GP car in there? It's not road-legal...

To be used as a comparison. They may have considered an F1 car, but they're probably harder to get hold of and the cars vary so much.

Scaff · Nov 18, 2006

ExigeExcel
To be used as a comparison. They may have considered an F1 car, but they're probably harder to get hold of and the cars vary so much.

Quiet right, if you want some silly times take a look at the Jag R3 and Gould hill climb cars they used in 2002.

Scaff

Famine · Nov 19, 2006

Scaff
Quite true, but as you also say this is the force that the braking system must be capable of dealing with, and brakes don't stop a car. They slow the rotation of the wheel and tyre itself, and its the limit of slip that the tyre can manage (measured as a percentage of the speed differential) that limits stopping ability.

Yep - the fact that you can lock up the wheels very easily in almost any car without ABS (or, if some silly bint pulls across 2 lanes at 40mph dead in front of you without warning, even with ABS) is a testament to the fact that the primary components of the braking system is almost always able to far exceed the capacity of the tyres to actually stop the damn thing.

daan
Hoi, this is the Auto News forum, not Physics GCSE forum.

But Physics is fun!

Metar · Nov 19, 2006

Famine
Yep - the fact that you can lock up the wheels very easily in almost any car without ABS (or, if some silly bint pulls across 2 lanes at 40mph dead in front of you without warning, even with ABS) is a testament to the fact that the primary components of the braking system is almost always able to far exceed the capacity of the tyres to actually stop the damn thing.

So (sorry if it's a rather silly question), why do people upgrade the brake-systems?

ExigeEvan · Nov 19, 2006

Gingiba
So (sorry if it's a rather silly question), why do people upgrade the brake-systems?

Usually it's due to fade. Most breaks are great when it comes to stopping half dozen times, but as you start doing more and more (Circuit driving for example) they tend to weaken.

This is why Ceramic breaks are so hyped about.

Scaff · Nov 19, 2006

Gingiba
So (sorry if it's a rather silly question), why do people upgrade the brake-systems?

ExigeExcel
Usually it's due to fade. Most breaks are great when it comes to stopping half dozen times, but as you start doing more and more (Circuit driving for example) they tend to weaken.

This is why Ceramic breaks are so hyped about.

EE is quite right, the following is taken from the end of the (first) link on braking I posted, the 'Braking In Plain English' one, and it addresses the question you asked perfectly.

Braking Systems&#8230
So Why Would Anyone Want to Modify Their Brakes?

So, if changing braking system components does not provide "increased stopping power" or "shorter stopping distances", why even consider changes in the first place? Why not just leave the brakes alone and buy new tires? Quite simply, making changes to your braking system can have a very real, very significant impact on four other areas of brake system performance other than stopping distance:

1.Driver tuning. Modifying your brake system component sizing (brake pedal ratio, master cylinder piston diameter, caliper piston diameter, rotor diameter) can be performed to adjust the feel of the car to suit the driver’s tastes. Some drivers prefer a high, hard pedal while others prefer a longer stroke. In this regard, tuning your brakes is a lot like tuning your shocks – every driver likes something different, and there is no right answer within certain functional limits. These components can be adjusted in small steps to achieve a feel that the driver prefers.

2.Thermal control. Modifying your brake system mass (rotor weight) can be utilized if there is a thermal concern in the braking system. If your brakes work consistently under your driving conditions, then adding ‘size’ to the braking system will accomplish nothing more than increasing the weight of your vehicle. But if high temperatures are having an adverse effect on braking system performance, or other components in general (wheel bearings for example), then you should consider "super-sizing". Of course, brake cooling ducts can really help out here as well!

3.Temperature sensitivity. Modifying your brakes to address the presence of high temperatures (brake pad material and brake fluid composition) should only be considered if your thermal concerns cannot be resolved by "super-sizing". This is really just a Band-Aid for undersized systems…like those found on Showroom Stock racecars that are not permitted by their rules to upsize or cool their brakes. One might argue that it is more cost-effective to install ‘better’ brake pads and brake fluid than it would be to upsize the rotors, but all that heat still needs to go somewhere – and more often than not it will find the next weak link in the system.

4. Compliance. Any changes that you can make to your braking system to reduce compliance will increase the overall efficiency of the system – improving pedal feel, wear, and stop-to-stop consistency. Think of it as ‘balancing and blueprinting’ your braking system.

In summary, brake system modifications have their place to help make your ride more consistent, predictable, and user-friendly; however, if your ultimate goal is to decrease your stopping distance, look no further than the four palm-sized patches of rubber connecting your ride to the ground.

Regards

Scaff

Metar · Nov 19, 2006

Thanks a lot. *Tick + One "Spread Needed"*

This also explains the comment I found (on those Autocar 2001 results) that the systems of both the M5 and the Holden GTS-R were weaker after two runs...

ExigeEvan · Nov 19, 2006

Scaff
EE is quite right, the following is taken from the end of the (first) link on braking I posted, the 'Braking In Plain English' one, and it addresses the question you asked perfectly.

Scaff
Quiet right, if you want some silly times take a look at the Jag R3 and Gould hill climb cars they used in 2002.

Scaff

I'm feeling all light headed.

Leonidae · Nov 19, 2006

muhahaha, big bad Buga shows how it's done. :mischievous:

Scaff · Nov 19, 2006

Gingiba
Thanks a lot. *Tick + One "Spread Needed"*

This also explains the comment I found (on those Autocar 2001 results) that the systems of both the M5 and the Holden GTS-R were weaker after two runs...

Hey any chance you could scan the 2001 results and post them up, it would be nice to add them to the collection of results we have here.

ExigeExcel
I'm feeling all light headed.

Must be the lucky Borat avatar. 👍

Scaff

Sharky. · Nov 19, 2006

Famine
But Physics is fun!

Indeed. Heck, I've even got my NCEA level 2 Physics exam in a few hours :|

I remember reading that Autocar issue, and was pretty astonished by how quick the Veyron braked. It weighs a decidedly fat 1800-odd kg, but it still matched the A1GP under deceleration. :scared:

(but I still don't like the Bug)

Famine · Nov 19, 2006

Gingiba
So (sorry if it's a rather silly question), why do people upgrade the brake-systems?

ExigeExcel
Usually it's due to fade. Most breaks are great when it comes to stopping half dozen times, but as you start doing more and more (Circuit driving for example) they tend to weaken.

This is why Ceramic breaks are so hyped about.

Scaff
EE is quite right, the following is taken from the end of the (first) link on braking I posted, the 'Braking In Plain English' one, and it addresses the question you asked perfectly.

Regards

Scaff

Yeppers - upgrading brake components (discs/pads) is all about reproducibility. Bigger/vented discs help with dissipating heat, allowing you to stop as hard again next time, uprated pads fade less, allowing you to stop as hard for longer, upgrading the lines and fluid help with pedal feel and responsiveness.

But the number one modification to braking systems is right at the sharp end - and it's the number one handling and performance modification too (after driver training, which shouldn't be underestimated). Tyres.

Metar · Nov 19, 2006

Scaff
Hey any chance you could scan the 2001 results and post them up, it would be nice to add them to the collection of results we have here.

Scaff

I'll get them up tomorrow... It's in hebrew though, so I'll translate it.

This is the 3rd time I tried replying, and I hope it won't redirect me again to the GTP main page.
EDIT: It worked. Still weird that it happened twice..

Autocar 0 - 100 - 0 Test 2006

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

I'm here

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Salut Gilles

TreVoR fan for life

Salut Gilles

Salut Gilles

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

MX-5 gang

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author

Similar threads