We all agree that your Z is quicker than stock if that was the point of the above post.

No, that was not the 'purpose', just a side benefit of my post. The 'purpose' was to show that there is a 'measly' ~1.5 car-lengths at 100kph between 2 cars that are 1sec appart in their 0-100kph times (when dragged from a rolling start).

However, by my calculations, some of your figures don't stack up. ... this is theoretial and acceleration is a constant rate ....

The reasons your numbers don't match up is because you're working it out with the assumption that the acceleration is constant (ie. linear). The acceleration of a car is not constant at all ie. it descreses over speed/time ... and not just a little bit, but drastacly. Good way to show that your approach does not add up is by working out the 'thearetical' distance for 0-160kph sprint. Correct result will be around 400m (which is roughly what distance the Zed coveres in the 0-160kph sprint).

What I used to work out the distance is 'approximation' matchematics, but I worked out the distance covered for each speed increment (ie. 0-10kph, 10-20kph, 20-30kph, etc) as trying do define at equation for the acceleration curve of the 350Z (or any car) would taker more time and space that we have here.

Here's the actuall table of numbers that I'm talking about for the 350Z:
- 0-10kph =0.52 (0.52) = 0.72m (0.72m)
- 0-20kph =1.01 (0.49) = 2.04m (2.76m)
- 0-30kph =1.38 (0.37) = 2.57m (5.33m)
- 0-40kph =1.87 (0.49) = 4.76m (10.09)
- 0-50kph =2.33 (0.46) = 5.75m (15.84)
- 0-60kph = 2.86 (0.53) = 8.10m (23.94m)
- 0-70kph = 3.57 (0.71) = 12.82m (36.76m)
- 0-80kph = 4.31 (0.74) = 15.41m (52.17m)
- 0-90kph = 5.29 (0.98) = 23.14m (75.31m)
- 0-100kph = 6.32 (1.03) = 27.18m (102.49m)
- 0-110kph = 7.17 (0.85) = 24.79m (127.28m)
- 0-120kph = 8.26 (1.09) = 34.82m (162.10m)
- 0-140kph = 10.90 (2.64) = 95.33m (257.43m)
- 0-160kph = 14.04 (3.14) = 130.83m (388.26m)

The acceleration numbers on the left are straight from the Motor mag, and the numbers in bracket next to them is the time differential between the increments. Now on the right side of the equal sign is the (calcuated) distanced that the car has traveled in that increment, while in the bracket is the 'total' distance covered.

To demonstrate that my numbers are correct, look at the 400m time that the same article managed for the 350Z - 14.37 @ 160.9kph. Compare the distance at this 14.37sec (ie. 400m) with my 'calculated' distance at the same time .... listed is 388.26m at 14.04sec. So I have another 0.33sec to run at 160kph before the clock stops at 14.37sec. 0.33sec at 160kph will cover 14.67m. 388.26m + 14.67m = 402.93m .... which verifyes that my calculations are only 2.93m off from what the real test/car measured ... and this is after 14.37sec of full throttle and 400m covered. That shows that my calculations have around ~0.7% error in my calcuations.

Just for insterest sake, here's the data (and the calculated distance) for the C32 AMG.
C32 AMG:
- 0-10kph =0.42 (0.42) = 0.58m (0.58m)
- 0-20kph =0.85 (0.43) = 1.79m (2.37m)
- 0-30kph =1.27 (0.42) = 2.92m (5.29m)
- 0-40kph =1.71 (0.44) = 4.28m (9.57m)
- 0-50kph =2.20 (0.49) = 6.12m (15.69m)
- 0-60kph = 2.68 (0.48) = 7.33m (23.02m)
- 0-70kph = 3.23 (0.55) = 9.93m (32.95m)
- 0-80kph = 3.91 (0.68) = 14.17m (47.12m)
- 0-90kph = 4.67 (0.76) = 17.94m (65.06m)
- 0-100kph = 5.21 (0.54) = 14.25m (79.31m)
- 0-110kph = 6.13 (0.92) = 26.83m (106.14m)
- 0-120kph = 7.14 (1.01) = 32.26m (138.40m)
- 0-130kph = 8.18 (1.14) = 39.58m (177.98m)
- 0-140kph = 9.31 (1.13) = 42.37m (220.35m)
- 0-150kph = 10.42 (1.11) = 44.71m (265.06m)
- 0-160kph = 11.51 (1.09) = 46.93m (311.99m)
- 0-170kph = 13.11 (1.60) = 73.33m (385.32m)
- 0-175kph = 13.94 (0.83) = 39.89m (425.21m)

Just to verify my numbers here, compare them to the 400m time of 13.49 @ 174.8kph from the same article.

 

DavidM - go put your fingers in iced water to reduce the swelling after all that typing!

Yes, as stated ealier, my calculations are theoretical and assume a constant rate of acceleration, which is not possible as the rate of acceleration decreases with each higher gear.

So I acknowledge that my numbers are not accurate. Appologies for previously poobaring your numbers.

I am however intruiged to find out how you calculated the distance traveled between each 10km/h increment.

 

Just re-read your post, specifically this:

...... as trying do define at equation for the acceleration curve of the 350Z (or any car) would taker more time and space that we have here.

No need for an explanation - we need your fingers in good health to respond to other threads.

 

DavidM - go put your fingers in iced water to reduce the swelling after all that typing!

lol, I had the tables 'typed' already ... as I had to do it all when I did the math in the 1st place ... this time I pasted most of it.

Yes, as stated ealier, my calculations are theoretical and assume a constant rate of acceleration, which is not possible as the rate of acceleration decreases with each higher gear.

It's not just with each gear, but with velocity increment ie. your acceleration at 40kph is a little bit lesser than at 30kph, which is less than at 20kph, etc. Then combine that with the non-liner power delivery of the engine (ie. more acceleraton with more power) and you've got yourself a pretty nasty formala/equation.

I am however intruiged to find out how you calculated the distance traveled between each 10km/h increment.

I did not use anything complex to work out the table above ... so not as difficult as you would think .... I bypassed the whole big/compex equation and approximated a bit. What enabled me to do this is the 'sample rate' of the acceleration figures provided by the magazines (ie. 10kph increaments). Because we have the 'speed vs time' figures in nice frequent increments, we can take a liberty to approximate each little increment and then justy add them up. Of course, the more frequent the sample-rate, the more accurate the numbers.

OK, now that we're approximating the increments provided by the mag (ie. Motor), it becomes a lot simpler. ie. Let's look at the 10 to 20kph increment fpr the 350Z ... these are the numbers provided by Motor:
- 0-10kph =0.42sec
- 0-20kph =0.85sec

From, that we know that the car spends 0.43sec in that increment(ie. 0.85 - 0.42 = 0.43). Also we know that the in that 0.43sec incrment the car covers all the speeds from 10kph to 20kph (ie. accelerates from 10 to 20kph). This is where the approximation comes into it. Therore the 'average' speed traveled in that 0.43sec is 15kph (ie. (10 + 20) / 2 = 15). Now it's real simple how much distance does a car traveling at 15kph cover in 0.43sec. Answer is 1.79m.

So what I've done it broken the acceleration curve into small 10kph 'linear' segments or diffrenr gradient. If you apply your math to the small segments like I did, you'll come up with the same numbers.

What allows me to get some accuracy out of it is the provided incremental data at a frequent sample rate (ie. the acceleration numbers). So, unlike you I have used calculated 10 'linear' segments for the 0-100kph instead of two. Then I just add them up.

 

Let's look at the 10 to 20kph increment for the 350Z ... these are the numbers provided by Motor: - 0-10kph =0.42sec - 0-20kph =0.85sec

Correction - the numbers I was using as anexample in the above thread are for the C32 AMG and not the Zed like it mentions .... sorry for the confusion.