1/4 Mile Testing is Obsolete

MitchRoyce said:

At least that's something people can actually accomplish at random stop lights or when merging onto the highway. And with cars today going 25-30 mph faster than they did 30 years ago, it's time to adapt to the times. So, I'm with you on this, let's leave the 1/4 mile in the past and move on to something more realistic.

The faster cars of today make 1/8 mile times even less interesting, because it places even more emphasis on the traction available when launching from a dead stop.

AnthonyGS (Forum Supporter) said:

In reply to DrMikeCSI :

0-62 over there.

Really 0-100kph.

One of my favorite youtubes is This vs That from Hoonigan. First race is always 1000ft from a dig. Then it is negotiable. 1/4 mile is 1320ft for those that don't know.

Personally it is hard to beat a Wednesday or a Friday when a couple guys from work talk about going to Epping to NE Dragway. For $25 and a helmet I can talk E36 M3, completely tree a buddy, and go 100+ mph legally.

The 1/4 mile times are simply a way of letting people know what the car is capable of. 

The same goes for skid pad figures, mpg  and many other performance metrics

That doesn't mean a particular driver is going to achieve those numbers. That doesn't make the numbers any less valid.

Listen... you don't have to get rid of 1/4 miles times, just add the realistic 60ft and 1/8 mile times to the stats when they do testing. I could care less if a car can run 13s if it can't get any traction for the first two gears. I want to know if the soccer mom in the Honda Odyssey is going to beat my little Forte GT to the merge after the traffic light turns green.  

How about:  All and any of these specs are pointless in a transportation world where people  drive in day-to-day driving conditions and obey the legal rules of the road?

Above and beyond the above, all of these  proposed specs are just a pissing match and are of no relevance to the transportation function served by 99.9% of vehicles sold.

If you are of the .01% that actually cares, then you are free to adjust the machine to meet any specification you want.

NOHOME said:

How about:  All and any of these specs are pointless in a transportation world where people  drive in day-to-day driving conditions and obey the legal rules of the road?

Above and beyond the above, all of these  proposed specs are just a pissing match and are of no relevance to the transportation function served by 99.9% of vehicles sol

You (and several other people) are missing the point.  You don't read quarter mile numbers so that you know what it will do when you go drag racing, you do it so that you get a sense of how much grunt the car has when you need to pass someone on a 2-lane road.  It's a benchmark.  It's like the EPA fuel milage -- those are not real-world numbers becasue it simply varies too much from person to person depending on how you drive and where you drive it.  OTOH, you know that if you buy a car rated 25 mpg then it's going to be about 20% worse than a car rated 30 mpg.

I like the old Bentley Turbo R metric.  Put it on a track and see how much distance it can cover in 1 hour.  Their print add said they covered 145 miles.

In reply to A 401 CJ :

All while not spilling your glass of Sherry?

Quarter mile time and trap speed make about as much sense as peak horsepower and peak torque, when people will probably never use that full potential either.  But we love the hell out of those particular figures 

Manufacturers seem to be unwilling to provide specs like power required at 60mph, which was one of my favorite road-test specs.  That is a figure with real world implications, along with top-gear acceleration times and BSFC curves.

Aren't 0-60 times also gamed because of launch control? Car magazines have shown the 5-60 times paint a different picture.

Pete. (l33t FS) said:

Quarter mile time and trap speed make about as much sense as peak horsepower and peak torque, when people will probably never use that full potential either.  But we love the hell out of those particular figures 

Manufacturers seem to be unwilling to provide specs like power required at 60mph, which was one of my favorite road-test specs.  That is a figure with real world implications, along with top-gear acceleration times and BSFC curves.

Yes.  BSFC data is almost impossible to find it seems.

2023BD said:

I agree 1/4 is a measurable item but the speeds are too high now. That is why 1/8 is more relevant to the real world...

With the amount of traffic around here, a "0-100 foot" test would be most applicable, because that's about the maximum space I get before running into the next traffic blood clot.

Car and Driver provided a detailed explanation of how it conducts its tests and what each test should show.  Car and Driver

As an aside, in four years of driving a car with launch control, I've never used it.  I know the car has programming to protect the drivetrain, but it just doesn't interest me enough to use it.

As for the magazines, they kind of lost me back when the EVO/STI cars first came to the USA and each review seemed to include a statement similar to "our best times were obtained by a 5,500rpm clutch dump..." and the wannabe WRC boyz started grenading their drivetrains and blamed the manufacturers. 

Wow, there are many new readers popping up in this thread.

I don't think the 1/4 mile time has to go away. It's a metric, and really only matters when compared with other metrics to give a big picture.

As yupididit said, I'd love to see 30-70-ish mph acceleration tests covered for every car. We don't have to get rid of metrics, we need to add more metrics with everyday practical use.

Tom1200 said:

The 1/4 mile times are simply a way of letting people know what the car is capable of. 

The same goes for skid pad figures, mpg  and many other performance metrics

That doesn't mean a particular driver is going to achieve those numbers. That doesn't make the numbers any less valid.

 

Car & Driver tested a 2007 Cayman S and their pro driver did the 1/4 in 13.1. When I went, knowing I have to pay for whatever breaks, my best time was 13.5. I thought that was pretty cool.

Aside from my love of drag racing, the 1/4 mile standard of measurement for acceleration is a good unit of measure, especially when you include some of the other stuff you get on the little slip you get at the timing booth. 60ft time can be useful in measuring how well a car can get going, and so can trap speed. Reaction time is subjective, but if you have the same pro drivers doing the test, that can be factored out. You can really get a sense of how a car accelerates in ideal conditions using those metrics. They are still valid. 

I also agree with consistency with adding other metrics, like 30-70mph sprints to simulate acceleration onto the highway. Some tests do this, and some don't. Everyone should be doing that with a new car test. I want ALL the data, and so should any educated consumer to understand what they are buying. 

alfadriver said:

NOHOME said:

As an engineer, I object to the term "horsepower" since "Watts" is a more meaningful concept. However, I have no mental feel for how much power is on tap if offered in kilowatts. So I stick with horsepower. Once again, I feel no moral obligation to use all of the power every time I use the car. 

??? Can you clarify that?  Horsepower and Watts are units of the same thing. Just totally different units. Watts is easier to use, for sure. But we are all ruined on hp. 

Maybe Nohome is still annoyed that when James Watt picked a standard horse for calculating horsepower, he used a Shetland pony. Therebye making horsepower rating shenanigans go back to the very start of horsepower ratings.

There really needs to be a fun factor in cars.  
      Sure, acceleration, but also Corning, and braking.   
  But those are just numbers. About as exciting as a spread sheet analysis.  
   Too bad so few of you will ever enjoy a MGTC.      Cut away doors,  folding windshield.  Really quick steering with enough looseness to cause a Darty  feeling.  
     A Bug Eyed Sprite gives a somewhat similar feeling. But with a massively tighter sensation.  
     Next in Fun would be a Lotus Elan. Which was followed by the Mazda Miata. 
     

I'll agree with the OP....but for a different reason: Because straight-line performance is dumb. Yep, I said it. I can get all the straight line performance I need every time I board an airliner and it takes off. I get the feeling of going really really fast in a straight line well above the legal speed limit on the road. At this point I could care less about how fast it is in a straight line, its much more important to me how the car corners and feels in general. Aside from the track I am simply never going to be driving more than 80MPH anyway.

It's not obsolete as long as customers care about it.

camopaint0707 said:

It's not obsolete as long as customers care about it.

Obviously, the 4x8 sheet of plywood spec is now irrelevant, since all trucks are now much much larger than when that was a selling point.  And they mostly have little dog-crate sized beds.

ProDarwin said:

Nobody lives their life 1/8 mile at a time though.

Sometimes you see a post and know it's gonna make GRM mag.

ProDarwin said:

Nobody lives their life 1/8 mile at a time though.

LMAO


We are starting to see Kilowatt ratings for electric cars, I definitely find that interesting.

All magazines should include full tank wet weight as tested, and a dyno test at the wheels.

In semi-interesting 1/4 mile news: Stock drivetrain C8 Z06 just ran a 9.98. Only mod was drag radials and skinny fronts

calteg said:

In semi-interesting 1/4 mile news: Stock drivetrain C8 Z06 just ran a 9.98. Only mod was drag radials and skinny fronts

Damn! I guess I shouldn't be surprised, modern cars are just stupid fast. But still, damn!!