Close

Results 1 to 10 of 46

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    I would love to see your 0-60 time Pickles and compare it to your calculations. 4.81s is just insane!
    I will refer you to this statement in my previous post

    Quote Originally Posted by UselessPickles View Post
    NOTE: I'm not claiming that my simulation will perfectly simulate the real world and make perfect predictions. Real world results depend on so many variable factors, human imperfection, etc. The goal of the simulation is not to accurately predict real-world results, but to compare relative real-world *potential* between different vehicles/configurations, using computerized perfection to remove the uncontrollable variables of the real world. This allows us to objectively/relatively compare stuff without arguing about whether the results were simply due to difference in driver skill, a bad launch, a poorly timed shift, bad weather conditions for traction, etc.
    However, I do purposely use input (launch rpm, gear shift time) that seems reasonably attainable to get results that are reasonably close to what should be possibly in the real world. I definitely need to improve my launching skills before I can hope to approach the predicted results


    Quote Originally Posted by Timmy View Post
    Part of me is sitting here thinking, no way on earth are you going to see that, then the other part says, well... maybe so. I really would be shocked if you are below 5 seconds. An Audi S4 has a 0-60 of 5.2 seconds. That's a 6cyl with a supercharger on it producing 333hp that is geared for speed, weighs 3985 lbs (close to your weight) and has a drag coefficient of 0.30 compared to a Jeep somewhere north of 0.50 (stock.)
    A couple things...

    * Drag coefficient is not the full story of the vehicle's aerodynamic drag. A drag coefficient (Cd) only describes the shape, but not the size. The drag coefficient must be multiplied by the frontal area to get the drag-area coefficient (CdA), which is what is actually used in calculations to determine the force of aerodynamic drag. So the Wrangler has even a bigger disadvantage than you would expect from drag coefficients alone (compared to typical cars) due to its larger frontal area.

    * Aerodynamic drag doesn't have a very big impact on 0-60 mph times. To illustrate this, I simulated the turbo Wrangler's 0-60 run as if it had the same aerodynamic drag as a 2006 WRX STi. The STi's CdA value I have is 0.694. That's less than half of the Wrangler's CdA of 1.762. The end result for a turbo Wrangler that is more than twice as aerodynamic than reality is 0-60 mph in 4.78s. That's only 0.03s faster. Power:weight ratio has a much larger impact on 0-60 times than aerodynamics, just because so much of the 0-60 mph run is spent at low speeds where aerodynamic drag is minimal.

    * My Wrangler is almost exactly the same weight as the Audi S4 example, but with about 380 whp, compared to the S4's 333 whp. Given that power:weight ratio is the dominant factor in 0-60 mph times, the turbo Wrangler's simulated 4.81s vs the S4's 5.2s seems pretty reasonable.
    Last edited by UselessPickles; 11-23-2015 at 12:12 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •