0-60 with no gear change

[enigma]

Tonight, in the interest of furthering my knowledge I decided to do a 0-60mph sprint without changing gear. Obviously our car will not do 60 in 1st so I started out in 2nd :D

So I sit there foot on brake, 2nd gear engaged (we can do this in tip you know!), 2500rpm and...........................Launch

but how quick did I get to 60mph in 2nd gear alone?

Answers on a post (forget the card) :D

[Brind]

6 seconds...?

[enigma]

Forgot to mention.......street trim!

ie no Nitrous, Boost of 0.7Bar (ish)

Dont forget the standard time is 6.3 (ish) :rolleyes5

[Brind]

Ah, I was assuming you'd be using at least higher boost not nitrous.
7 seconds.....

[zedy1]

5 sec

[RED]

8.5 seconds :)

[enigma]

Well Mo is on planet Mo as usual and Red is just being damn cheeky! I aint that fat!!! :p

[Nick Mann]

6.25 secs.

[calum]

7.2 secs

[Roadrunner]

but how quick did I get to 60mph in 2nd gear alone?
7.7 secs

[nick-f1]

UM ER what will this prove Dave? Seems pointless to me, although mine is manual I'm sure you have a valid reason.

[Physician]

6.9 secs :sad3:

[enigma]

UM ER what will this prove Dave? Seems pointless to me, although mine is manual I'm sure you have a valid reason.

Well I was just suprised at the whole experience. It felt really sluggish off the line but then came alive in a blur and hit 60 in 6.40 seconds. The point is that with gobs more power available a start in 2nd gear at the Pod is a distinct possibility. Less chance of traction problems and huge acceleration. If there is no point in trying I shant bother in future! ;)

[calum]

The point to be answered is:

Is it faster to use second all the way from 0-60, thus saving gearchange time, or should you use first and second gears?

I can see the logic in trying...

Calum

[nick-f1]

Wasn't being rude Dave, that was why I was asking. Mines a manual as I said, so thought you were going to say it was as fast or faster than starting in first.
As I said you must have a valid reason for doing something which at first glance to me seems pointless, Didn't mean to offend,

[Brind]

There is quite loss of time changing gear in the auto, sure it's probably faster than a manual driven by a normal driver.
It was well worth knowing though, as I have use of a 3 litre Merc on occasion which is auto. You can select it for economy which then pulls in second or sport which pulls from first, it's quit surprising how much ooomph you need to get it rolling when it's in second.

[Brind]

Question is, what is best for 0-60 times.

1st gear and then leave in 2nd?
1st gear then into 3rd?
1st then 2nd then 3rd?

[Roadrunner]

There is quite loss of time changing gear in the auto
Not in mine, there isn't! I couldn't change gear in a manual as quickly as my auto changes from a standing start. Certainly, transmission losses further up the rev range will be greater than in a manual, but it would need some pretty brutal treatment of a manual to beat an auto (or my auto?) off the line. :)

Brian

[Brind]

The "quite" was meant to be "some".. I was thinking about something else. :$

There isn't anything major in mine, I was meaning there is at least some delay, which would make it interesting to know if it was faster to 60 without bothering with any 1st to 2nd gear change delay.

[Roadrunner]

Nah, I think Dave's proved it reasonably well - 6.4s to 60 starting in 2nd vs a probable sub-6.0s starting in 1st. Too much clutch slip taking off in 2nd.