horsepower or torque

horsepower or torque


  • Total voters
    67

We may earn a small commission from affiliate links and paid advertisements. Terms

Status
Not open for further replies.
ok.

what handlebarsfsr said is sorta kinda right, and it’s a very creative way to think about it. torque vs. rpm is not the same as torque vs. time. because the car will be going faster at a high rpm, the engine will spend less time around 7k rpm than it did, say around 3k rpm.

but to get any truly useful info from all of this, you would need to look at the force at the contact patch i.e. a dyno graph. the area under the curve technique is good for general comparisons and is great when comparing mods to the same vehicle with the SAME tranny gearing. this way rpm vs. time becomes irrelevant. gearing to optimize power is a moot point every hp vs. torque situation. in this situation, the vehicle with the most area under the hp or torque curve is the one that will be faster.
 
both wrong damnit...

Torque is the application of a force (F) acting at a radial distance (d) that tends to cause rotation...

the actual definitions of torque:

T=®(F sin(theta)) (for something not perpindicular)

T=Force * Distance

notice there is no division there...

T= Force (lb) * distance (ft) = lb*ft
 
Originally posted by Smonkeyboy+Nov 21 2003, 02:29 AM-->
pissedoffsol
@Nov 21 2003, 01:09 AM
its really lb/feet.

thank you

i HATE when people say ft/lbs

As pills said, it's the same thing. We learned it when we were 9 years old. It's the Commutative Property of Multiplication (or is it the Associative?).

a*b = b*a

So, saying "pound feet" after torque is equally correct as saying "foot pounds".
 
Torque doesn't mean shit, unless it's backed up by a correctly geared tranny that can help harness it to the wheels. Fuckin' Mack trucks have gobs of torque, armored personnel carriers have even more (turbo driven and supercharged as a matter of fact), and guess what, they are both SLOW. This has been discussed a million times, and it always ends the same, oh wait, sorry, it never fucking ends.
 
HP is a fictitious scale. Hp as other have stated is determained by a mathmatical formula. There for there isn't any truth to HP on a scale because of this. you can't rate HP without already knowing the rate of TQ and RPM's. therefore TQ is all that matters. unless you took your HP rating and did the math backwards. But the only reason we know the formula is because it's based on TQ and not HP.
 
Originally posted by smooth_criminal@Nov 21 2003, 09:24 PM
HP is a fictitious scale. Hp as other have stated is determained by a mathmatical formula.

So how can something be ficticious, and have a mathematical formula at the same time? I think you need to go back to school, here, go have some fun and read up. Torque, like I said before, doesn't do anything unless it is harnessed till then it is just a measurement of the work being done, it doesn't indicate the possible speed of anything without the other variables.

horsepower
torque
 
Originally posted by dohcvtec_accord+Nov 21 2003, 11:08 AM-->
Originally posted by Smonkeyboy@Nov 21 2003, 02:29 AM
pissedoffsol
@Nov 21 2003, 01:09 AM
its really lb/feet.

thank you

i HATE when people say ft/lbs

As pills said, it's the same thing. We learned it when we were 9 years old. It's the Commutative Property of Multiplication (or is it the Associative?).

a*b = b*a

So, saying "pound feet" after torque is equally correct as saying "foot pounds".

:werd:
torque is t=fXd, where force and distance are vectors... this can be calculated easily when force applied is at a ninty degree angle with the direction it is to be used in.. in which case it is f(d)(sin(90))... which is equal to fd... since it is force TIMES distance, the commutative property of multiplication holds, and it's not really lb/feet, it's ft*lb... so it doesn't matter which way you say it...
 
What it all comes down to is power/weight ratio. Like just about about everyone else with a brain said on this thread, torque and horse power don't really matter, its all about the work produced. Whether you have a torqueless b16a or a 454 detroit monster isn't really the issue, because both motors are capable of doing the exact same thing, it just depends on how fast the motor is spinning. This is the dilemma for ls/vtecs. LS/vtecs are the result of japanese and "american" motor building concepts combined. You can get a little extra torque from the extra length on the moment arm (i.e. the length from the center of the crankshaft to the center of the connecting rod) for the same reason the 454 makes lots of torque, but it isn't gonna rev as well SAFELY as a b16 or a motor with a shorter stroke. It is all relative to what you want to do with the motor. Most people don't want to rev the hell out of a motor just to pass a mack truck on the freeway, so what kind of motor are they gonna build? One that has a buttload of midrange torque. Now, if you like revving a motor to 8k cause you enjoy hearing the sound of it or whatever, by all means get a torqueless b16 powered civic or something, you're just gonna have to rev the hell out it Where was I going? Oh yeah, whats better? It just depends on what you like, you're driving preferences. It's like riding a harley or a sportbike, a matter of personal preference. If you want both more torque and horsepower, get FI and dump gobs of gas and air into the cylinders. Oh yeah, power to weight ratio. The only reason japanese cars aren't torquey beasts is beacause most racing seeks to lighten the load of the car, and the bigger the motor the heavier it's gonna be. Not too good for road racing, which japanese cars excel in. So what do they do? They built lightweight engines with short strokes, dumped lots of gas into them compressed insane amounts of air into them, and revved them to 15k+ (just listen to the honda F1 cars). Insane. Excuse my rambling, i talk alot.
 
Originally posted by SixtySecondAssassin@Nov 21 2003, 03:13 AM
but to get any truly useful info from all of this, you would need to look at the force at the contact patch i.e. a dyno graph. the area under the curve technique is good for general comparisons and is great when comparing mods to the same vehicle with the SAME tranny gearing. this way rpm vs. time becomes irrelevant. gearing to optimize power is a moot point every hp vs. torque situation. in this situation, the vehicle with the most area under the hp or torque curve is the one that will be faster.

Someone in Traver J right now? :lmao:
 
i really dont care if its lbs/feet or footpounds, i grew up listening to my dad and his garage workers saying foot pounds, ft/lbs, or whatever, i use the slash instead of a space, doesnt mean its a divide symbol. as long as you know what i meant, it works. if i say "i lkie pooding" you know that "i like pudding"

all i car about is my side is winning ^^ torque > hp
 
Originally posted by cointelpro@Nov 21 2003, 06:39 PM
i really dont care if its lbs/feet or footpounds, i grew up listening to my dad and his garage workers saying foot pounds, ft/lbs, or whatever, i use the slash instead of a space, doesnt mean its a divide symbol.

all i car about is my side is winning ^^ torque > hp

Foot pounds is related to torquing something like a bolt or whatever, Pounds/Feet is related to torque of a car.
 
Originally posted by MXDesa+Nov 21 2003, 06:40 PM-->
cointelpro
@Nov 21 2003, 06:39 PM
i really dont care if its lbs/feet or footpounds, i grew up listening to my dad and his garage workers saying foot pounds, ft/lbs, or whatever, i use the slash instead of a space, doesnt mean its a divide symbol.

all i car about is my side is winning ^^ torque > hp

Foot pounds is related to torquing something like a bolt or whatever, Pounds/Feet is related to torque of a car.

WTF??? no...

pounds/feet is some fucked up unit of pressure, not torque...

now that i think about it pounds/foot would be an effective way to tell how heavy something is by looking at how long it is...
 
Originally posted by Calesta+Nov 21 2003, 06:34 PM-->
SixtySecondAssassin
@Nov 21 2003, 03:13 AM
but to get any truly useful info from all of this, you would need to look at the force at the contact patch i.e. a dyno graph. the area under the curve technique is good for general comparisons and is great when comparing mods to the same vehicle with the SAME tranny gearing. this way rpm vs. time becomes irrelevant. gearing to optimize power is a moot point every hp vs. torque situation. in this situation, the vehicle with the most area under the hp or torque curve is the one that will be faster.

Someone in Traver J right now? :lmao:

nope. taking wood next semester. :D
 
Ah, ok. Hopefully you're not sitting in the lab right now. :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top