Are the accleration times from launching or from a rolling start?

I have noticed that my acceleration numbers seem a little bit slower than I would expect. For example, my 1465kg family sedan with a 225hp I6 Turbo takes 8 seconds to go 0-62mph/0-100kph, but a 1480kg Honda Accord with a 184hp I4 is usually claimed at 7.6 seconds. My quarter mile time is slightly faster than the Accord but not as much as you’d expect considering the 40hp difference.

I’m guessing that this is because in Automation the times are measured essentially from a rolling start, with the engine required to rev through its rev range, while manufacturer and independent testing is usually done with a launch, dropping the clutch at max HP RPM. Is this correct? I do like the rolling start method as it’s more realistic in terms of day-to-day driving, but if this is true then 0-60 times in Automation are not directly comparable with real-world times. Perhaps we could show 0-60 times with both methods, so it’s easier to compare?

It’s not just the hp and weight that matter for that number, so it’s hard to accurately gauge it all. Tire compund and width, drivetrain layout (FF, FR, AWD, etc) and the weight distribution, aerodynamics of the car, etc, all of those matter for the acceleration. It’s also more the torque numbers than horsepower that matter in terms of acceleration. I really don’t know about the rolling start thing, but just that there are many variables for 0-62 and ¼ mile times.


Transmission gearing and final drive ratio also come into play. Since Automation doesn’t offer exact numbers when adjusting, you’re mainly playing it by ear.

1 Like

AFAIK, all track times in Automation are from an idle launch. User created tracks can simulate “flying laps”, by measuring the second lap from speed, but no vanilla tracks do this. Quarter mile and 0-100 (0-62) times both operate from a launch at idle. Unless something has changed in the most recent version, of which I am unaware, this should still be true. Time differences between similar cars, or proportionally comparable dissimilar cars are sketchy at best, as in the real world, due to differences in gearing, torque curves, weight distribution, and a host of other variables which are generally not considered when making comparisons.

1 Like

There’s two (or three) things that will answer your question:

  1. AFAIK launching in Automation is very rudimentary, when it comes to picking the RPM. I don’t know if it has ever been optimised since the beginning.

  2. Longitudinal grip is a little too low, currently. Next release it’ll be improved with rebalancing. You can expect better replicability.

  3. weight distribution is still not fully adjustable as engine block position is still set. I do think this may be a game engine specific issue but I don’t know whether this is something that will be addressed.

Thanks for the responses everyone. I understand that 0-60 times are complicated, but I’ve made the comparison as close as possible. Both of them are FF family sedans with similar aerodynamics and weight distribution. As far as I know they have similar tire dimensions and compounds. I don’t think that these differences are enough to make a lighter and more powerful car slower to 60.

And yeah, what I was trying to get at was idle launch vs. max HP launch. On the test track they always launch from idle, so I figured that the 0-60 calculation is also based on an idle launch. This would largely explain the slower times. Unfortunately there is no common recording of real life idle launch 0-60 times, which is a shame. Perhaps I should compare 50-70 times instead, which are measured by Car and Driver. 50-70 times also represent a more realistic acceleration scenario, as highway passing is much more common than launching from a standstill.

Side note: I’ve also noticed that launch control has no effect on 0-60 time.

Cars in Automation launch with often non-optimal clutch slip at half-max-RPM, never from idle. That is very rudimentary indeed as you point out, but nothing that is high up on the list of things to change as we get near perfect reproducible results with this method when grip is properly balanced - which it is not in the current public version, as pointed out by some of the testers. Cheers!

Calculations have been modified in the closed beta (as has been mentioned) and should make acceleration times more realistic. There will be a 12% increase in longitudinal grip and modified transmission losses.

That sounds great! Thanks everyone for your hard work and dedication :slight_smile: