100 km is MORE than 60 miles, not less.
Hence the weirdness in saying that the time to reach 100 km/h was quoted
as less than the speed to reach 96.6 km/h, even though it should be more
in theory.
Makes me think that any figures for times to reach 60 mph are rounded,
whereas the time to reach 100 km/h is actually the one the car
manufacturers measure. Another example of dumbing things down for poor
old American and British people who supposedly are too thick to
understand metric.
David K
Bill Hooper wrote:
... one thing ... that was odd is the acceleration from 1-100 km/h
was a tenth of a second faster than acceleration from 0-60 mph. Any
particular reason why?
Yes! The reason is that 100 km is shorter than 60 miles. Specifically,
60 miles is only 96.6 km. That's about 3 % percent less so one would
expect the time to be about 3% percent less (faster). The surprise is
not that it is different, the surprise is that it is given as halof a
percent when it should be more like 3%.
(By the way, did you really mean "1 to 100"? Isn't the more usual to
judge acceleration by time it takes to go from ZERO up up some higher
value, rather than from ONE up to some higher value?")
Bill Hooper
73 kg body mass
Fernandina Beach, Florida, USA
