simple as
And yet neither have gotten you any bitches still
Ok, I have a gorillion torque. Why aren't I winning now?
A horsepower curve more-accurately represents acceleration.Torque is an instantaneous force from a power stroke, horsepower takes engine speed (and thus time) into account. If you want to look at rates of work and acceleration you need to factor time.There are more power strokes at higher RPM so you can have less torque at the top end but still accelerate more there - which is why horsepower is the better measurement for considering acceleration.>Picrel, a typical curve. Tq drops off but we all know from experience you accelerate more near redline.
You use horsepower to calculate torque and vice versa, retard.
>>28766648Horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how far you take the wall with yousimple as
>>28766665They still represent different things.You multiply instantaneous torque with the engine speed (over a constant) to get hp. If the engine is spinning faster there are more torque strokes in a given time so you get more force over a given time which equates to work done and acceleration.
One day I WILL replace my final drive to make up for my lack of hp
>>28766669>Regurgitates the most overused and inaccurate statement about torque/HP possibleRetard
>>28766648How come lower gears feel like youre accelerating faster? The wheel torque is higher but the wheel horsepower is the same.
>>28766748would a more accurate statement be>torque is how heavy a tree stump you can rip out of the ground, hp is how quickly you can pull it out
horsepower is all that matters. some vehicles just make their peak power at lower rpm
>>28767334>>28767332Hm so i think the quantity of torque may matter if you are discussing whether a car is able to even move or accelerate an object.Doesn't matter how much torque you can apply per second (power), if you don't have enough torque to get it moving in the right direction in the first place. Is this assessment true or false?
>>28766621It's the area under the curve, son. Peak don't mean shit.
>>28767401sorry gramps its the opposite. only power at peak and redline matter
>>28767334Fine point here - but "K" flywheel effect, rotating inertia oes indeed get into "the act". Yes I know they make CVTs I once made a snowmobile with a Hydromatic constant speed prop. But fun happens with a manual transmission car and heavily-throttled large displacement engine are run over curvy public back roads. Invariably Those cars are nose heavy and under steer so one slows down plenty-nuff before arriving at the turn and then the throttle brings the tail out, the steering wheel is ideally centered - and the slightly oversize rear rubber's forward thrust is then used to coerce a couple tons of automobile into following a curved path that matches the road - hopefully. They have made a pointless childish destructive exhibition of "drifting" for it's own sake now - but 1965 Ford 427 Cobra drivers at Le Mans pretty much showed the way to drive Big Iron On Curvy Roads and - like war - is incapable of refinement.
>simple as
>>28766633OP btfoed by dubs
>>28767402>only power at peak and redline matterThat's exactly what he said but worded differently. More power at peak and redline means more area under the curve.
>>28766621anchovies sell computers, origami wins rhythmic gymnastics.
>>28766621This is stupid. Sounds like a moron who's never heard of gearing.
