>torque literally doesn't matter at all you can theoretically just gear your way around ithow do you debunk this redditism?
>>28691666With physics, or what they exactly said?Without enough torque, you cannot spin a high gear reduction, or it'll put too much stress on the engine, cannot rev, not in ideal power band etc.Honestly, I don't know if redditors or you are the bigger retard for even bringing this up.
>>28691666Reliability. A smaller engine that you gear into moving a heavy object will work harder to do the work that a big diesel does at just above idle.
I love diesels so fucking much. Torquelets are retarded benchracers.
>>28691671OP is the bigger retard because he is probably a coal-tune exhaust huffer.
>>28691711Not with low gearing, that’s the whole point. The trade off is lower top speed.
>>28691749>The trade off is lower top speedThe trade off is that small engine revving more(more work, more wear) to exert the same amount of force the bigger engine would have
>>28691793With gearing it doesn't have to work hard are you stupid?
>>28691666Gearing is a source of inefficiency. Power is lost because of friction as gears are added.
It isn’t entirely false. There are a lot of things that are more important than torque and horsepower if you are towing or pulling something. The frame, brakes, transmission, ground clearance, axles, the weight of the pulling vehicle, the wheels and tyres (or tracks)
>>28691666A 2002 Ford F-250 with the 7.3L Diesel had a GVWR of 8,800 lbs. An F-750 with the exact same engine had a GVWR in excess of 30,000 lbs.What's the difference? Gearing. First gear ratios ranged from 7.5:1 up to 10:1 for the manuals, compared to the measly 3.3:1 for the F-250 (it did have a 5.71 granny, but that was rarely needed with the diesel). You could get an F-750 rear axle with 6.83:1 gearing, compared to the 4.10:1 in the 250.So yes, you can literally just gear your way around anything. It just means that you need more gears or a lower top speed.
>>28691666Uh, retard, how do you think heavy trucks did any work, decades ago? They had giant gears and doubler transmissions, multiple shifters and did 0-60 in January. They still got the job done.
>>28691666Torque is literally the only thing that matters.
>>28691666yeah but then how many gears do you wanna use? The WSBK used to have a rule that capped 2-cylinder bikes at 1000cc and 4 cylinder bikes at 750.The 2-cylinder bikes proved to be stronger even though they had the same or slightly less HP and generally weighed more (and had more rotating mass) which resulted in Honda creating the VTR and Aprilia building the RSV in hopes to compete with Ducati.The reason was obviously more torque and as a result a better usable powerband.
>>28691666You can't. Torque peak in this bad boy is 22,500 RPM, and it weighs three times what a buffalo does.
>>28691666A high revving engine has to start somewhere, and that somewhere is out of its power band. If you don’t want to slip the fuck out of the clutch to get going you need a terrible first gear to get you going from an idle that’s making no power.After first you can have hearing spaced to keep you in the power band, but then your problem is efficiency, since a smaller engine at higher revs has more friction and pumping losses which it only overcomes with burning more fuel. Then there’s longevity, since those rpm’s mean wear.So while you could run a semi with a Hayabusa engine screaming at 13,000 RPM, it’s going to be super hot, suck down fuel like mad, and only be good for maybe a thousand miles or so before it blows up.So good for around one and a half days.
>>28691666It’s about practicality. You can gear your way around it. But do you really want/need to when it’s easier to have a bigger motor that doesn’t need to be shifted every 2 seconds?
>>28691666>help me win this argument on redditLEAVE
