60MPH vs 120MPH (or equivalent in KM/H) [SOLVED]

[Reddy]

I'm not really familiar with measuring speed in terms of MPH nor KM/H

I was wondering if 120MPH is double the actual relative speed of 60MPH?

Same question for KM/H really..is 120KM/H double the actual relative speed of 60KM/H



Meaning, would it take half the time to brake to a full stop when going 60MPH than it takes when going 120MPH?




EDIT: The reason I ask this, is because from the videos I've seen on YouTube, and from personal experience from being a passenger in a car (and driver)..it seems that 120MPH isn't really a 100% increase in relative speed from 60MPH. It seems more like 66% or 88%.

[Γαῖα]

Messaggio originale di Feyrom:

Messaggio originale di Γαῖα:

Dont be an idiot all your life as there most certainly not vague and are the fundamental principles governing the question you ask which is a scientific/math question. If you understoood the laws they would be enough but as you dont, you need to study what they apply to and how they all fit together.

As for knowing the difference, if you did, you wouldnt ask the questions in the first place and most certainly wouldnt say newtons laws of motion dont principally factor totally in this.

With people like you being rude to people who actually want to learn, it's no wonder people typically don't want to...out of fear of being judged or bullied, such as what you're doing to me right now.

Again, I didn't say newtons laws of motion don't factor into this. I said that it didn't seem as if they did.


Maybe instead of being rude and being heavily critical of me, you could provide some actual constructive criticism instead of deconstructive.

Did i not first post i quote "If you verse yourself in Newton's laws of motion your understand it better" ?

Did you not quote "I've looked them up, and none of the three laws seem to have anything to do with what I'm talking about" ?

Are you daring to say newtons laws of motion arent constructive advice ?

The only thing rude is your suggestion of me offering laws of motion as deconstructive. If you really wanted to learn, you would have listened instead of making excuses for being to lazy to go off by yourself and learn the laws. You came shopping for a one sentence answer which proves it.

"judged or bullied". Well why dont you tell daddy about me then or call the police as im sure there just laugh at your suggestions towards me when they say, "you know hes exactly right, all you need in contained in newtons laws of motion".

[Reddy]

Messaggio originale di Γαῖα:

Messaggio originale di Feyrom:

With people like you being rude to people who actually want to learn, it's no wonder people typically don't want to...out of fear of being judged or bullied, such as what you're doing to me right now.

Again, I didn't say newtons laws of motion don't factor into this. I said that it didn't seem as if they did.


Maybe instead of being rude and being heavily critical of me, you could provide some actual constructive criticism instead of deconstructive.

Did i not first post i quote "If you verse yourself in Newton's laws of motion your understand it better" ?

Did you not quote "I've looked them up, and none of the three laws seem to have anything to do with what I'm talking about" ?

Are you daring to say newtons laws of motion arent constructive advice ?

The only thing rude is your suggestion of me offering laws of motion as deconstructive. If you really wanted to learn, you would have listened instead of making excuses for being to lazy to go off by yourself and learn the laws. You came shopping for a one sentence answer which proves it.

"judged or bullied". Well why dont you tell daddy about me then or call the police as im sure there just laugh at your suggestions towards me when they say, "you know hes exactly right, all you need in contained in newtons laws of motion".

Wow...you have got to be one of the scummiest people alive. I'm done talking to you.

[EliteGamer]

Messaggio originale di Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands):

Messaggio originale di Feyrom:

Probably. For some reason I thought that 120MPH wasn't actually double the speed of 60MPH, but 100KM/H was double the speed of 50KM/h.


Does the accelleration of vehicles scale like that though? Does accelerating from 60MPH to 120MPH actually take half/double the time of 0MPH to 60MPH? They're both the same amount of MPH in difference.

0MPH and 60MPH have a difference of 60MPH. 60MPH and 120MPH have a difference of 60MPH.

A car that has a top speed of 120 will accelerate to 120 very slowly, but a car that has a top speed of 200 will accelerate to 120 much quicker.

Not true at all. The vehicles power to weight ratio determines how good the acceleration is. A 850kg 190bhp car that tops out at say 120mph would have much better acceleration up to 120mph than a car that weighs 1350kg with 250hp that tops out at 163mph.

That's also why motorbikes are so much faster in accleration than cars. Power to weight.

Alot of cars have higher top speeds than bikes, but in a straight line the car with higher top speed would still lose badly against a bike that say tops out at 145mph. The difference in acceleration is miles apart. It wouldn't matter if you raced from a stop or a 60 mph roll, within 6 - 7 seconds, it would no longer be competitive..... It ends up being a fly by lol. That bike will be hitting 100 mph in 7 seconds, where that car will take 15 seconds, so it's more than double the time. At 15 seconds, the bike will be near its top speed. Bikes are just awesome. Here's a video of similar outcomes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlDFUcQWHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-7_m5RxQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmHhswbk_g

This one one of my favourites. In this one, the cars with the (higher top speeds) are given a head start and still get owned bad by a bike, even at high speeds and those cars are not weak ass entry level models...... LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89PQkA0Q8LU

[Γαῖα]

Messaggio originale di Feyrom:

Messaggio originale di Γαῖα:

Did i not first post i quote "If you verse yourself in Newton's laws of motion your understand it better" ?

Did you not quote "I've looked them up, and none of the three laws seem to have anything to do with what I'm talking about" ?

Are you daring to say newtons laws of motion arent constructive advice ?

The only thing rude is your suggestion of me offering laws of motion as deconstructive. If you really wanted to learn, you would have listened instead of making excuses for being to lazy to go off by yourself and learn the laws. You came shopping for a one sentence answer which proves it.

"judged or bullied". Well why dont you tell daddy about me then or call the police as im sure there just laugh at your suggestions towards me when they say, "you know hes exactly right, all you need in contained in newtons laws of motion".

Wow...you have got to be one of the scummiest people alive. I'm done talking to you.

Im not surprized your running off as you cant deny what i and you said as the proof is in the posts plain and simple. So stop making up crap because your in the wrong, grow up and accept it like a man.

[Reddy]

Messaggio originale di EliteGamer:

Messaggio originale di Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands):

A car that has a top speed of 120 will accelerate to 120 very slowly, but a car that has a top speed of 200 will accelerate to 120 much quicker.

Not true at all. The vehicles power to weight ratio determines how good the acceleration is. A 850kg 190bhp car that tops out at say 120mph would have much better acceleration up to 120mph than a car that weighs 1350kg with 250hp that tops out at 163mph.

That's also why motorbikes are so much faster in accleration than cars. Power to weight.

Alot of cars have higher top speeds than bikes, but in a straight line the car with higher top speed would still lose badly against a bike that say tops out at 145mph. The difference in acceleration is miles apart. It wouldn't matter if you raced from a stop or a 60 mph roll, within 6 - 7 seconds, it would no longer be competitive..... It ends up being a fly by lol. That bike will be hitting 100 mph in 7 seconds, where that car will take 15 seconds, so it's more than double the time. At 15 seconds, the bike will be near its top speed. Bikes are just awesome. Here's a video of a similar outcomes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlDFUcQWHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-7_m5RxQA

This one one of my favourites. In this one, the cars with the (higher top speeds) are given a head start and still get owned bad by a bike, even at high speeds and those care are weak ass entry level models...... LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89PQkA0Q8LU

You have to remember that motorbikes typically only have 2 wheels, where as cars typically have 4 wheels. Meaning that cars have more traction (to turn their fat bodies easier) and thus meaning they have more resistance. More traction = more friction and more friction = more resistance.

[Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands)]

Messaggio originale di EliteGamer:

Messaggio originale di Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands):

A car that has a top speed of 120 will accelerate to 120 very slowly, but a car that has a top speed of 200 will accelerate to 120 much quicker.

Not true at all. The vehicles power to weight ratio determines how good the acceleration is. A 850kg 190bhp car that tops out at say 120mph would have much better acceleration up to 120mph than a car that weighs 1350kg with 250hp that tops out at 163mph.

That's also why motorbikes are so much faster in accleration than cars. Power to weight.

Alot of cars have higher top speeds than bikes, but in a straight line the car with higher top speed would still lose badly against a bike that say tops out at 145mph. The difference in acceleration is miles apart. It wouldn't matter if you raced from a stop or a 60 mph roll, within 6 - 7 seconds, it would no longer be competitive..... It ends up being a fly by lol. That bike will be hitting 100 mph in 7 seconds, where that car will take 15 seconds, so it's more than double the time. At 15 seconds, the bike will be near its top speed. Bikes are just awesome. Here's a video of similar outcomes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlDFUcQWHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-7_m5RxQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmHhswbk_g

This one one of my favourites. In this one, the cars with the (higher top speeds) are given a head start and still get owned bad by a bike, even at high speeds and those cars are not weak ass entry level models...... LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89PQkA0Q8LU

Right...I forgot about all those different factors

[Γαῖα]

Messaggio originale di Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands):

Messaggio originale di EliteGamer:

Not true at all. The vehicles power to weight ratio determines how good the acceleration is. A 850kg 190bhp car that tops out at say 120mph would have much better acceleration up to 120mph than a car that weighs 1350kg with 250hp that tops out at 163mph.

That's also why motorbikes are so much faster in accleration than cars. Power to weight.

Alot of cars have higher top speeds than bikes, but in a straight line the car with higher top speed would still lose badly against a bike that say tops out at 145mph. The difference in acceleration is miles apart. It wouldn't matter if you raced from a stop or a 60 mph roll, within 6 - 7 seconds, it would no longer be competitive..... It ends up being a fly by lol. That bike will be hitting 100 mph in 7 seconds, where that car will take 15 seconds, so it's more than double the time. At 15 seconds, the bike will be near its top speed. Bikes are just awesome. Here's a video of similar outcomes...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BlDFUcQWHU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7-7_m5RxQA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPmHhswbk_g

This one one of my favourites. In this one, the cars with the (higher top speeds) are given a head start and still get owned bad by a bike, even at high speeds and those cars are not weak ass entry level models...... LOL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89PQkA0Q8LU

Right...I forgot about all those different factors

Your forgeting torque/gear ratios, traction, downforce/aerodynamics, multiple types of slippage and a whole other raft of major factors are involved here (far to many to name).

[Gus Tarball]

0-100 MPH in 0.8 seconds in less than 100 feet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNZSX34NW_4

How it's done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VF0JwxQqcA

[EliteGamer]

Messaggio originale di Γαῖα:

Messaggio originale di Hamzer the Conqueror (of lands):

Right...I forgot about all those different factors

Your forgeting torque/gear ratios, traction, downforce/aerodynamics, multiple types of slippage and a whole other raft of major factors are involved here (far to many to name).

All those factors are down to the bikes low weight and power.

A 200bhp S1000RR has a gear ratio of like 100mph in 1st and 130mph in 2nd and so on because it has the power to accelerate that quick and will have no problem reaching redline in 6th gear on a public road. Basically, a S100RR will destroy any road legal car out there, up to the bikes top speed.

Now take a 200bhp car like a Honda Civic and give it the same gear ratio of the bike, it would be slow as hell because 200bhp in a heavy shell is not fast and the Civic wouldn't get out of 1st gear on public roads, so a 6 speed gear box would ne pointless. That's why a 200bhp Civic mostly do about 35mph in 1st and about 60 in second. It doesn't have the low weight or power to have the insane acceleration of bikes.

Also it takes more skills and more bottle to launch a bike fast than launching a car.

[EliteGamer]

Messaggio originale di Gus Tarball:

0-100 MPH in 0.8 seconds in less than 100 feet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNZSX34NW_4

How it's done
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VF0JwxQqcA

Who cares? They're not road legal.

[First&Only]

are you talking about relativity then?
objects in motion and the observer's perception of motion of an object as it accelerates away from it?
a static observer of 60mph would 'see' 60 mph
whereas a person moving at 60mph viewing something moving at 120mph (twice speed) you need to factor in that the observer is also moving so while he is being passed at twice the speed his is chasing at half that objects speed so perhaps it 'appears' that he is only doing 60mph whilt moving away
I actually dont know - ive drunk a considerable amount of Gin and i wanted to type