Since we seem to have a constant influx of retards who don't understand how horsepower works, it's time to start a Daily Horsepower Awareness Thread. Horsepower is a theoretical calculation which takes the possibility of GEARING into account to determine the output capabilities of an engine, it can be used to calculate the WHEEL TORQUE of an engine at a given ROAD SPEED.No your 100hp smog era shitrod engine isn't putting down more WHEEL TORQUE than the 200hp miata engine just because it has a higher engine torque figure. Because the higher RPM Miata engine can be geared so much lower it will make a higher WHEEL TORQUE figure at the same ROAD SPEED on a dyno. >Engine A with 100 ft-lbs at 10,000 rpm>Engine B with 200 ft -lbs at 5,000 rpm= both the same wheel torque at a given road speed >Engine A with 200 ft-lbs at 10,000 rpm>Engine B with 200 ft-lbs at 5,0000 rpmEngine B will make twice as much wheel torque when geared to the same road speed as engine A.
Why the fuck are you looking at gearing and road speed when you're comparing the HP and TQ figures of two engines? When the fuck have you ever seen a crate engine that rates it's HP and Torque with a gear ratio or a road speed rating?
displacelet cope thread
>>28932808Bro you don't even understand horsepower, talking about all this bullshit. Maybe you should start with the formula and the 5252 constant
>>28932816The reason Horsepower is the multiplication of torque and RPM is because it is recognised that, through the magic of gearing, RPM can be utilised to multiply torque.
>>28932808>Be OP>Gets BTFO in another thread >Tries to make a new thread where he's right>Is blatantly wrong again>Doesn't understand how torque and gearing works>MFW
>>28932819Horsepowerlet cope reply
>>28932820Rebut a point
>>28932821I really hope you know the difference between HP and TQ made on an engine dyno and HP and TQ made on a wheel or hub dyno. You know the two aren't comparable right?
>>28932824I don't need to rebut a point when you've basically said nothing typing all that. Maybe you should start with explaining what an actual horsepower is. If you want to talk about gearing, make it a transmission thread, not horsepower you idiot
>>28932827There is a direct correlation between flywheel HP and wheel HP. Wheel torque is the rotational metric most relevant for automotive applications which is why it was quoted, we could just as easily go with "prop speed" if you feel that would suit you better.
>>28932830>>Engine A with 100 ft-lbs at 10,000 rpm>>Engine B with 200 ft -lbs at 5,000 rpm>= both the same wheel torque at a given road speed>>Engine A with 200 ft-lbs at 10,000 rpm>>Engine B with 200 ft-lbs at 5,0000 rpm>Engine B will make twice as much wheel torque when geared to the same road speed as engine A.Rebut it.
>>28932822>be retard-kun>too low IQ to form an argument>"You're wrong because...... WELL YOU JUST ARE OKAY?????"
>>28932832>There is a direct correlation between flywheel HP and wheel HP.How is that relevant when you're comparing the engine dyno results of two engines with no drivetrain attached?
Pop quiz>70cc 2 stroke minarelli, 13hp @12,000 rpmVs>125cc 4 stroke Grom, 10hp @ 7,000rpmWhich one if the faster engine
>>28932835Even if you attach your engine crankshaft directly to a wheel, the diameter of the wheel will still determine the gearing multiplication and an engine with higher RPM will be able to utilise a more beneficial ratio of engine rotation to road speed.
>>28932833>Rebut it.Fine. Your flaw in your argument is not accounting for power delivery, engine A in the first example does not produce the same amount of torque at 5k rpm. Sure you can gear it down but there's a limit to how low you can gear the output if you want a reasonable top speed. That means engine B will have better punch at speeds lower than engine A can. Peak power is not everything because there's a limit to how low and how high an engine can be geared, what's important is the area under the curve (power delivery)
>>28932836The Grom because it makes way more torque.>>28932844Sure but that's irrelevant in a engine vs engine discussion or comparison. Discussing gearing in a engine vs engine thread should get you a permanent ban. Go back to your video games, kid.
>>28932847>Sure you can gear it down but there's a limit to how low you can gear the output if you want a reasonable top speed.It revs twice as high when means it will have the same top speed with twice as much gear reduction you retard
>>28932836That's a bit of an unfair trick question. The king of internal combustion engine is displacement per minute. The 70cc 2smoke is equal to a 140cc 4joke, not taking into account volumetric efficiency and stuff
>>28932852And how do you think such a car would drive if you geared the two to match each other? They'll have the same top speed, theoretically, but everytime you'll shift the 10k rpm motor it'll drop to like 5k rpm or lower if you try to gear it as wide as engine B
>>28932848You cannot measure engine output without some form of gearing retard - even an engine dyno will have a diameter on the stator and a bunch of different parameters in the design which can be changed to utilise different RPM ranges or torque ranges. Once again - the reason RPM is calculated into Horsepower is because it is recognised rotational speed can be utilised to increase torque the same way torque can be utilised to increase rotational speed.
>>28932822Omegakek OP is fucking stupid and instead of being humble the dipshit doubled down in a delirious krugermaxxing session
>>28932822>>28932862this is amazing. i'm that guy talking to him in that other thread and it is making my night seeing that i buck broke him so hard.
>>28932867You reamed a pushrod sized hole thru his anus 1000 years of death style
>>28932857Nice that's right at the start of the powerband
>>28932862>>28932867>>28932871>maybe if we pretend we won the argument we won't actually have to form a rebuttalOf course the pushrod enthusiast's worldview is formed through the perception of his peers rather than objective reality.
>>28932860Where do you live?
>>28932879Good job finding a dyno that supports your retardation without trying to understand the significance of my message
>>28932884not an argument.
>>28932887not an argument
>>28932891Arguing with regards is a waste of time because they fail to learn, so I'm not even trying to argue anymore
>>28932860>You cannot measure engine output without some form of gearing retardYou can do anything with a little math to take the gearing out of the equation, though.
>>28932893I accept your concession retard-kun
>car with 100 ft lbs @ 20000 rpm engine>car with 1000 ft lbs @ 2000 rpm engine>tHeYrE tHe SaMe SpEeD
>>28932894The maths you are using was formulated precisely BECAUSE gearing is part of the equation - otherwise they wouldn't even bother to multiply by RPM, you'd just measure torque.
>>28932895How does your cherry picked dyno chart prove me wrong? You do know that most peaky 10k rpm motors make more than 200whp right? You deliberately choose the engine with the flattest torque delivery with the lowest peak. Try again retard
>>28932896literally yes
You also didn't find a matching 5k rpm motor to prove your point so as it stands your cherry picked data is just start retardation like the premise of this whole retarded thread
>>28932900lmfao
>>28932899That is an engine HIGHLY optimised for high RPM power, it is making 130hp/L and NO MODERN GEARBOX would actually have a 5k rpm spread between the gears - that's more like the difference between 1st or 2nd gear and 4th
>>28932833Nigger what the fuck.Work per X unit of time = power. Work in this case is torque generated by combustion inside the cylinder acting on the piston.So you can either get more work done per X unit of time (more RPMS), or you can get more work done in the same unit of time (more bang inside cylinder).You're giving engines A and B the same torque rating. They're doing the same amount of work.Gearing doesn't even factor into any of this in terms of power. Gearing is simply a means to best utilize said power.I could just as easily say that "muh engine da bes" because I can crawl up a mountain with a 24,000lb trailer at 800 RPM because "muh gearing" even though the vehicle would have a top speed of 38 whole-ass miles per hour.Are you brown, by chance?
>>28932901You're the one advocating for the 5k RPM engine lol - go find it
>>28932905Alright i can cherry pick too, this motor here makes twice as much power at a quarter the rpm
>>28932906>Gearing doesn't even factor into any of this in terms of power. Gearing is simply a means to best utilize said power.So how you gunna utilise power without utilising power retard?>it's not a factor it's just the way that the thing you're measuring is actually utilised in the real world and the reason why the calculation exists
>>28932808is this a continuation of the na vs boosted hp per liter pushrods vs dohc displacementlet seething that's been going on?big motor go brrr
>>28932912Yep, OP is retarded AF and it's doubling down on their retardation
>>28932910>engine which makes more power makes more powerWow!Great addition to the discussion retard-kun.
>>28932914But I did what just did and now I'm wrong? Good job retard, thanks for playing
>>28932912I personally prefer the engine configuration threads. At least then people are honest about the fact that it's just their preference and our friends Dunning and Kruger don't come to join.I think V8s sound da bes when NA and I6s sound da bes when turbo'd.Yes I'm a dieselfag.
>>28932915>But I did what you just did
>>28932916I get a kick out of making retards run in circles but I'm a psychopath
>>28932912>>28932913There's a retard who doesn't understand how horsepower works and thinks a 530 crank HP engine will somehow magically make more WHP on a roller dyno than a 670 crank HP engine because pushrods somehow magically increase torque....
>>28932915The discussion was about engines with the same power, but different torque and RPM.If you already forgot how this reply chain started you can just follow the post links up there, retard-kun.
>>28932916I should sit down and make an engine config tierlist thread, might be fun
>>28932911>How you gonna utilize power without utilizing power?Ignoring your spelling mistake (still guessing you're ESL here, mate), you're actually dumb.You don't magically get more power because you have a 30:1 gear reduction in your diff the size of the moon.The engine will still make however many pound-feet of torque. The engine will still make the same amount of power.
>>28932921Pushrod V8 in SS tier, everything else irrelevant
>>28932923>spelling mistake>in the ENGLISH languageLet me guess, you're one of those stereotypical fat retards who travels internationally and asks people:>EXCUSE ME, DO YOU SPEAK AMERICAN??
>>28932929>Will tell others to rebut their point instead of shittalking>Shittalking reply instead of rebuttalsMy almonds are activating so hard rn
OP engine dynos are a 1:1 direct drive hard coupling. It's good to have engine dynos because you can combine that data with a chassis (wheel horsepower) and find your drivetrain efficiency. Aside from thatTorque at the wheels cannot physically exceed what the gearing and wheel size effect provide when multiplying (slowing down the output - which is why the wheel spins the engine's torque.When you look at it this way gearing is irrelevant when simply talking about engines...some food for your autistic thought: a 225/50r18 tire requires 754rpm at 60mph
Rename it to daily kW thread
>>28932937>calls me ENGLISH as a second language>gets btfo by correct ENGLISH spelling >"ummm akshually that's off topic"So why did you bring it up?
>>28932926i think he's talking about the cylinder layout and count. l8s and v16s should be S tier, v8s and l6s are A
>>28932953Still waitin' on that there rebuttal, chap.
>>28932926>>28932954points are generally awarded for # of cylinders/combustion chambers per bank, # of banks, and a quirk chungus multiplier (e.g. rotaries, radial engines, etc)if we're ranking specific engines, then displacement becomes a factor
>>28932955First you must apologiSe for calling me ESL
>>28932963This makes me really want to see a WR8 sportsbike.
>>28932808>Engine A with 100 ft-lbs at 10,000 rpm>Engine B with 200 ft -lbs at 5,000 rpmNow lets try a real world comparison.>engine a195hp @ 8000rpm130tq @ 7300rpm>gearbox a1st: 3.2302nd: 2.1053rd: 1.4584th: 1.1075th: 0.848Final Drive: 4.40:1>engine b 260hp @ 5250rpm302tq @ 4000rpm>gearbox b1st: 3.342nd: 1.993rd: 1.334th: 1.005th: 0.68Final Drive: 3.27:1Notice how they both never make the same torque at any observable point on the graph? Also, even with the smaller engines considerable overall gearing advantage it's still slower. So gearing can only take you so far. You still need power to spin the gears
>>28933028>engine which has more power and torque makes more wheel torque than engine with less power and torque at a given road speedWow what a great insight anon! Now what if they had the same power, as per the example you greentext quoted?
>>28932808>just gear it down, bruh!There's a reason we don't use turbo hayabusa motors in semis despite them making more power.
>>28932998https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JaJW7cXVMj4W8s sound mad.
>>28932821>The reason Horsepower is the multiplication of torque and RPM is because it is recognised that,err no
Bike life sure is hard.
>>28933206>filtered by a comma
>>28933245Pretty sure torque is force and horsepower is work is the reason horsepower is horsepower.
>>28933254And what of RPM?
>>28933062>Now what if they had the same power, as per the example you greentext quoted?Did you miss>now let's try a real world exampleLarger engines that rev less make more torque at lower rpm. So if you take the same scaling from the retarded OP and adjust it from 10k vs 5k to a more realistic 8k vs 4krpm and use real engines as an example they never make the same torque at any rpm.
>>28933364but if they had the same power, they'd make the same wheel torque, regardless of engine torque.
>>28933311Horsepower is torque with rpm factored in, which makes it a measure of work. You get 500 lb-ft per power stroke at 3000 rpm, but there are twice as many power strokes in the same amount of time at 6000 rpm so even if it only makes 475 lb-ft at that rpm it will still accelerate more, which is why we use horsepower to demonstrate vehicle acceleration.Talking about gearing, while important, adds a another variable and diverts from the topic.
>>28933367>but there are twice as many power strokes in the same amount of time at 6000 rpm so even if it only makes 475 lb-ft at that rpm it will still accelerate moreNo, only through gearing will it "accelerate more" at 6000rpm.The felt torque for a given gear will be strongest where torque is strongest.The reason the engine makes more power at 6000rpm with 475 lb-ft is because you can use gearing to reduce that down 2:1 to match the road speed of 3000rpm, and thereby multiply your torque by 2. Inversely if you were to refrain from revving out to 6000rpm, and instead picked the next gear to keep it at 3000rpm, you would lose torque multiplication from gearing.
>>28933366>but ifAgain, we're not using some nonsensical hypothetical here. This is a real world comparison. Feel free to drum up your own to make your point. But lets leave fantasy land for awhile.
>>28933390>in the real world, an engine which has more power has more powerWow great insight, thankyou for your contribution to the thread.
>>28933392You're welcome. Hopefully you understand why your premise is retarded now and that a larger engine that revs less doesn't make the same torque at any point as a smaller higher revving engine like you postulated.
>>28933375I'm assuming magical 1:1 gearing for all cases just to demonstrate the raw differences hp vs torque.In such a case the hp curve demonstrates acceleration of the vehicle better for the reason I mentioned. Everyone knows torque curves flatline or drop off, everyone also knows from doing it that you accelerate more quickly at higher rpm. The power curve represents how a vehicle accelerates at WOT better because torque values don't take the rpm into account and work and acceleration factor time.
>>28933404>a larger engine that revs less doesn't make the same torque at any point as a smaller higher revving engine like you postulated.It does if the smaller engine makes the same power retard, instead of doing a real world comparison between a 250hp v8 and a 200hp Honda engine - why don't we do a comparison between a 250hp v8 and a 250hp Honda engine?Mustang:>260hp @ 5250rpm>302tq @ 4000rpmHonda S2000:>247 hp @ 8,300rpm>161 lbâ‹…ft @ 7,500 rpmNow lets compare the torque:>7500 down to 4000 = 1.875 gear reduction>161 lb.ft X 1.875 torque multiplication = 302 lb.ft Wow would you look at that - they have the exact same peak wheel torque at the same road speed.
>>28933415No, you don't "accelerate more quickly at a higher RPM" if the higher RPM is past peak torque.The engine accelerates quickest in any given gear at peak torque, but it might accelerate EVEN QUICKER if you use a lower gear at higher RPM.Spend some time looking at road speed dyno graphs to educate yourself, you can quite literally measure it working exactly as I've described.
>>28933415I point this out because if you drive hard you should have an idea of how much you can accelerate in a gear at what RPM.If you visualize a curve in your mind to determine how much accel you get at an rpm, look at the power curve. In that pic, the S2k makes more torque at 5k than at 8.5k, but it demonstrably accelerates more at 8.5k.
>>28933424>No, you don't "accelerate more quickly at a higher RPM" if the higher RPM is past peak torque.Yes, you do. There are more power strokes in a given amount of time at the top end so more work (acceleration) can be done with less torque.
>>28933425Better off looking at road speed graphs with all gears.
>>28933424>Torque and gearing curveIs this supposed to say something about the nature of horsepower vs torque? It doesn't. That's an entirely different conversation.
>>28933428No you don't retard, that's literally what a roller dyno measures - how quickly you accelerate the rollers.You can even make an inertia dyno which doesn't have a brake and just measures how quickly you accelerate the inertia. The highest torque is the fastest acceleration - THAT'S WHAT THE TORQUE FIGURE MEANS.~HOWEVER~ road speed is important, at a higher RPM you will be traveling at a higher road speed, if you wanted to make that same road speed at lower RPM you would need to sacrifice torque through a gearing increase - thus the engine makes more power at higher RPM.
>>28933430Yes, you accelerate more with a shorter gear because it multiplies torque. Wowzas.What does that say about the nature of torque vs. hp? Anything? You are trying to bring a 3rd variable in and say something else. In science, if you can, you deal with two variables only.
>>28933434It clearly shows, if you had the IQ to read it, that the engine accelerates slower past peak torque, but if you select the next gear to stay in peak torque you will accelerate even slower again because you'll have less gearing multiplication.
>>28933435>The highest torque is the fastest acceleration - THAT'S WHAT THE TORQUE FIGURE MEANS.No. It isn't what that means in terms of an internal combustion engine.Torque is instantaneous force to the crank. Power factors in time - the number of engine rotations in a given time. If there are twice as many 350 lb-ft power strokes in a given time (2x the rpm) you will still accelerate faster than when you have 500 lb-ft at half the rpm.Learn at least calc 1 and 2, kid.
>>28933436>What does that say about the nature of torque vs. hp?It shows the relation between road speed, wheel torque and crank torque buddy
>>28933438I get that, we're not talking about gearing vs torque here. I see no power curve there.
>>28933441No shit. I learned that in Gran turismo 3 when I was 11.
>>28933440YES THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS YOU FUCKING RETARDWHEN YOU SPIN UP THE DYNO, THE HIGHER THE TORQUE FIGURE THE MORE YOU ARE ACCELERATING THE ROLLERThis is why we have to have Daily Horsepower Awareness threads, there are way too many retards on this board.
>>28933446I'm actually correct.I'm actually a mechanical engineer.I've actually been a test engineer running dynos on an array of test stands.Look at >>28933415 . An S2k accelerates MUCH more after torque drops off. Why? More rotations of torque pulses in a given time.
>>28933442>I see no power curve there.Yes you lack the IQ to understand that when 1st gear makes 200nm more wheel torque, even past its peak torque, than 2nd gear makes AT peak torque - that's the HORSEPOWER curve.
>>28933449Yeah I just looked at >>28933415 and you're retarded.It's hilarious because I fully believe you are a mechanical engineer, that's how fucked up the modern world is.
>>28933451You haven't even learned calc 1. How could you possibly see rates of change relating to time on a graph?
>>28933453Okay, look at where you circled.Do you think an S2k accelerates the same at 4.5k as it does at 8.5k, where it has similar torque? Have you driven a manual car?
>>28933455The rate of change is measured in wheel torque buddy
>>28933457As we can tell from the dyno graph that literally measures how fast the rollers are being accelerated, the S2000 does indeed accelerate the same at 4.5k as it does at 8.5k.What you are too stupid to understand is how that acceleration is happening at a different road speed, and that if you used different gearing to equalize the road speed, you would sacrifice torque from that 4.5k, so then it would indeed accelerate faster at 8.5k.
>>28933458>>28933461I've already proven you wrong.A horsepower curve represents the acceleration of an ICE engine better than a torque curve.You have a fundamental misunderstanding. A twisting force at an instantaneous moment doesn't represent acceleration as well as something that factors in time (engine speed).Here, have a retarded AI answer. I've already told you why you're wrong with examples, I can't really say much more.
>>28933475>I've already told you why you're wrong with examples, I can't really say much more.You've given me examples that proved you wrong, but you were too stupid to realise it because you don't understand what the torque figure on a dyno chart means lmao.
>>28933419>Honda S2000:>247 hp @ 8,300rpm>161 lbâ‹…ft @ 7,500 rpmAre you quoting the AP2? Those only make 237hp @ 7800rpm and 162lb-ft @ 6800rpm. AP1s make 240hp but even less torque at 153lb-ft. >Now lets compare the torque:>7500 down to 4000 = 1.875 gear reduction>161 lb.ft X 1.875 torque multiplication = 302 lb.ft Are you just making shit up as you go? The AP1 uses a 1.16 secondary reduction gear and the AP2 uses a secondary reduction gear 1.2083333. If we're going off AP2 figures 162lb-ft x 1.2083333 x 4.10 x 3.133 = 2,514 lb ft at peak torque in 1st gear. VsMustang302lb-ft x 3.27 x 3.37 = 3,328lb-ft at peak torque in 1st gear.
>>28932808I want to think the people replying to you are engaged in some kind of elaborate troll. You're pointing out that 2x2=4, and people are arguing about it.
What was OP even trying to say?>Horsepower is a theoretical calculation which takes the possibility of GEARING into account to determine the output capabilities of an engine, it can be used to calculate the WHEEL TORQUE of an engine at a given ROAD SPEED.Sure. But lots of important things are "theoretical calculations" because they are real, reproduceable things that represent something people want to know. You can't directly measure many things, but you can calculate them with calculus or derived algebraic equations.You can have a Honda that beats a VR6 VW that has more power. You can blame it on gearing, you can also attribute it to a taller redline. Both.OP was talking about hp vs torque AND talking about torque vs gearing. Three variables. It doesn't work like that.
>>28932808Horsepower is a calculation created by James Watts to show how much work his steam machines could do compared to a Horse.It does not account for gearing at all anon.
>>28933574>You can have a Honda that beats a VR6 VW that has more power.Meant torque. Specifically torque.
>>28933604At higher rpm, there are more power strokes in a given time.more torque inputs in a time. Even if the power strokes are weaker at high rpm than at low RPM, the engine will accelerate more because there are more, weaker, torque strokes amounting to more rotational force being applied over a period of time.
>>28933618Fuck anon, who is feeding you that shit information.
>>28933632If you have twice the power strokes in a given time, they can be weaker but accelerate more because there are two times as many in the same time period.Calculus is all about time, learn it.
>>28933604If we used the phrase "constant force" or continuous people would be a lot less confused by what torque is.The amount of strength you need to use to turn a screw into a wall is your torque.How quickly you turn that screw is your power output.At least at it relates to machines, biological energy use isn't as simple but its a quick and easy example of the what the standard terms mean.
>>28933657We're talking about engines here, they can keep accelerating faster where your hand can only go like 120 degrees one time.
Horsepower is how fast you hit the wallTorque is how far you go through it.
>>28932808not shure if i follow you here?cranck hp is cranck tq x magic number x rpm. that just how it is. wheel numbers in a dream world of lossless drivetrains, hp will always remains the same but you can use gearing to multiply tq. you can gear down a chainsaw to produce enough tq to pull a truck from a ditch, that doesnt mean a chainsaw is a driveable powerplant. and you can have steam engines that produce 3000-4000nm not even rotating, same with them. or 200hp bikes that need 8000rpm just to get going.a debate i read recently was the 2stroke vs 4stroke on snowmobiles. 2t drivers said 4t had lag and then showed how they could blip their throttle and it revved to the moon and back while in gear not going anywhere in gear. they they blipped a 4t and it moved forward a feet.they proved themself wrong, the 2t had throttle lag it needed above 8000rpm to even get going the 4t was ready at 2000rpm.
as this thread drags on, op's prolapsed asshole just keeps getting strung out farther and farther. anons will be playing jump rope with it soon. he keeps coming back so he must be enjoying it.
>>28933548You are literally too retarded for this discussion.The power quoted is the JDM S2000, if you're going to try and dispute it you could've at least spent 2 minutes googling it first.The gear ratio quoted is whats required to drop the S2000 RPM down the same as the Mustang RPM, thus putting them at the same road speed you fucking retard.
>>28933662Got nothing to do with my point but thanks anyways.
>>28933575If it didn't account for gearing at all it wouldn't include RPM, it would just be torque.>look how much stronger the steam engine is than a horse!
>>28933618There are still the same amount of power strokes per tyre revolution retardOnly if you use gearing do you get to utilise the extra power strokes you get at higher rpm
>>28933703>they could blip their throttle and it revved to the moon and back while in gear not going anywhere in gear. they they blipped a 4t and it moved forward a feet.Thats a worthless comparison because they had different drivetrains.You might as well compare clutch travel of a Kenworth and a Mini Cooper.
>>28933731Next he'll be discussing the moons gravitational pull or the earth's rotation.Its like he just discovered the wikipedia page on torque and thinks hes an engineer because he can repeat the most elementary fundamental buzzwords.Im sure trying to explain conservation of energy to him would be an absolute waste of time so I wont even bother. It was entertaining for awhile but now its just sad
>reply #9001 of trying to pretend you won the argument without actually formulating a rebuttal
>>28933738>The power quoted is the JDM S2000, if you're going to try and dispute it you could've at least spent 2 minutes googling it first.Ah, so you're a full on retarded weeb and are overlooking the fact that I gave you best case scenario AP2 torque figures. >The gear ratio quoted is whats required to drop the S2000 RPM down the same as the Mustang RPMBut we're talking about the gearing the cars actually have Anon. Not some schizo scenario in your head.
>>28933783>Its like he just discovered the wikipedia page on torque and thinks hes an engineer because he can repeat the most elementary fundamental buzzwords.That's literally you. "Torque is rotational force" but you completely ignore the time factor when doing units. How could an instantaneous force describe acceleration, which is two integrals up from instantaneous position?You cannot comprehend that more torque strokes in a given time means more acceleration than having a little bit more torque. Assuming 1:1 gearing because introducing more variables is the same as moving goalposts.If you are visualizing a graph in your head to select which gear you want to be in while driving, you visualize power. Torque can go down and you can accelerate more.You also visualize, or more likely intuit, the gear ratios. But gear ratios are a different conversation.Picrel, even in the same gear, why would this accelerate more right before redline than at 4.5k if it were just torque? Torque peaks at 4.5k. Again, even in the same gear this is true.
>>28933800>picrelpicrel. A miata does not accelerate the most WOT at 4.5k.
>>28933801And just to be cheeky, here's "AI" agreeing with me.
>>28933795The JDM S2000 has more horsepower retard-kun, that's why it makes more wheel torque at a given road speed. You are once again trying to use a LOWER HP Honda engine to prove your point, because comparing apples to apples proves you wrong. You're welcome to figure out what gears each car would have to be in to both be in peak torque at the same road speed, it is FAR easier to just match their output RPM and imagine everything else is the same.
>>28933800>two integrals upTwo derivatives up, not integrals, assuming you visualize going from position to velocity as going "up."
>>28933800>You cannot comprehend that more torque strokes in a given time means more acceleration than having a little bit more torque.The torque strokes per revolution of the tyre remain the same.>>28933801>"A miata does not accelerate the most WOT at 4.5k">he says while posting the dyno graph which literally measures how fast the rollers are being accelerated and shows that it's accelerating hardest at 4.5k
>>28933803>Acceleration is determined by torque at the wheels, not just engine torque.Gee I think the AI is onto something there, we should look into that!If only there was some way to measure torque at the wheels....
>>28933809Acceleration factors time. Horsepower is torque with a time unit.
>>28933809>If only there was some way to measure torque at the wheels....Then explain why my car with this engine >>28933801 accelerates less at 4.5k compared to 7k?More torque in a given time = more power = more accel.
>>28933815Because in order to be at the same road speed at 4.5k you would have to be in a taller gear which would reduce your torque multiplication.See >>28933424 It's really simple stuff retard-kun.
>>28933819>Because in order to be at the same road speed at 4.5k you would have to be in a taller gear which would reduce your torque multiplication.That's ANOTHER variable. Both of these things are true. Just because gearing is used to an advantage doesn't mean engines don't accelerate more after torque drops off.
>>28933821Ok so take that variable out and run the engine up in ONE gear on a dyno - OH LOOK THE DYNO WHICH LITERALLY MEASURES HOW FAST YOU'RE ACCELERATING THE ROLLERS SHOWS THAT THE ROLLERS ARE ACCELERATING FASTEST AT PEAK TORQUE
>>28933823So why, if I give a 1000 rpm ramp up, do I accelerate more at 7k if I have less torque there?
>>28933800>more torque strokes in a given time means more acceleration than having a little bit more torqueSo (2) 50 torques in a minute is more than (1) 110 torque in a minute?
>>28933824You don't, that's what the little torque tracer means retard-kun - it's how much the dyno brake has to hold back the engine to adhere to your 1000 rpm ramp up.It has to hold it back more at peak torque because your engine is trying to accelerate the rollers the highest at peak torque.It's really straight forward entry level stuff retard-kun.
>>289338256 power strokes per rotation at 300 lb-ft at 3000 rpm6 power stokes per rotation at 250 lb-ft at 6000 rpm.6000 rpm is twice the strokes in a given amount of time, it does more work.You will accelerate more at 6k. How do you not see this? Do you only drive automatics?
>>28933830How many power strokes per revolution of the tyre?
>>28933830
>>28933831Do you accelerate more at 4k or 7k?Try it! Both with impulse and ramp-up.
>>28933835At what road speed?
>>28933838Doesn't matter if we're just comparing hp and torque. Whatever road speed that one gear gives you at those rpms. Remember, torque usually drops off, but what really happens? hmm? Go fuckin' do it.
>>28933841If the road speed is irrelevant then it will accelerate hardest at peak torque, which we can prove by looking at the acceleratio measuring device thingo which was designed to measure how fast the acceleratio thing happens
>>28933845>If the road speed is irrelevant then it will accelerate hardest at peak torque, which we can prove by looking at the acceleratio measuring device thingo which was designed to measure how fast the acceleratio thing happensYes, I agree. But you have to do them both impulese at that rpm or give them both the same ramp up time so the ECU is at WOT tune and in open loop. You can't compare one vs the other because normies don't see a difference.
>>28932860>You cannot measure engine output without some form of gearing retardFFS anon, read this and learn something.>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prony_brake
>>28933857>it has a wheel with an outer diameterCongratulations retard - that's gearing.
>>28933867If gearing mattered in discussing hp v tq, why is the difference so obvious in a 1:1 ratio?Also when manufacturers test they test for the numbers they give, it's at the closest ratio to 1:1 then adjust to 1:1 with SAE calcs.
>>28933873The reason HP exists is because gearing matters, otherwise you'd just measure torque.
>>28933875Doesn't matter why you think it exists. It represents the acceleration of a vehicle better than torque does.
>>28933889That is correct and the reason it is the better representation is because gearing exists and gearing can be used to multiply torque at the expense of RPM - so therefore RPM must also be factored into the equation.
>>28933893>adds a third variable.
>>28933895>the "third" variable which is added by reality and can only be avoided by theory
>>28933896Sure kid. >These units exist to sell cars, it's a conspiracy!!!!>How could these 96 Civics beat 5.0L Mustangs at the strip?It's both gearing and the power advantage, higher fuel cut allows you to rev higher and have more gearing options.
>>28933901>incoherent rambling The gearing allows you to utilise the power to generate more wheel torque.
>>28933903No shit. That has nothing to do in a discussion of hp vs tq. Get in a high revving japbox, in one gear, it will accelerate faster after 5k despite torque dropping off. Explain that.
>>28933910As you can see from the thing which measures how fast it's accelerating, no it doesn't accelerate faster after 5k, unless you drop down to a lower gear.
>>28933915>As you can see from the thing which measures how fast it's accelerating,It measures how much rotational force is given at that particular RPM. We use hp because it factors how often the engine rotates at a given RPM. Sorry. You can measure something, but it doesn't mean that something you can only calculate doesn't mean something. :P
>>28933920Literally what do you think the torque figure means if it doesn't mean how fast the rollers are being accelerated?
>>28933867That is NOT GEARING, you incredibly obtuse fuckmuppet.The brake is clamping on the wheel, and measuring the output, there is no multiplication via gearing.FFS, you are irredeemably stupid.
>>28933929What happens if you change the diameter of the wheel retard-kun?
>>28933921An instantaneous force. Learn how time factors into things. Power is force / time. The engine literally rotates 2x faster at 6k than 3k.>A horsepower curve demonstrates how a car accelerates better than a torque curve
>>28933932Nothing. The critical component is the length of the arm, you chucklefuck.
>>28933933An instantaneous force of what?How fast the roller is being accelerated perhaps?
>>28933940>Torque is measured at the drum (such as in a dynamometer) by calculating the force exerted on the drum surface multiplied by its radiusForce, not acceleration. Force has no unit of time.
>>28933938Lmao you don't even know what leverage is, picture the wheel as a big breaker bar retard kun - the larger the wheel, the longer the breaker bar, the easier it is to slow engine with your hand/friction band
>>28933943If I apply more instantaneous force to something, will that accelerate it faster?
>>28933948Let's say you have 500hp at 3,500 rpm and it drops off. You will accelerate more toward a 7k redline because there are more torque impulses per a given time.How do you not see this?
>>28933945You just admitted you have no idea how a prony brake works.You can have a wheel of any diameter, the critical length is the arm, because you are simply loading that wheel via a brake, and measuring the output. It does not matter the diameter of the wheel, the force generated upon the scale will be the same. 1 HP output from a 12" wheel will be the same as 1 HP from a 12' wheel, no matter how much you mewl about "muh geering!"You think all prony brakes use the same size wheel or some bullshit?FFS.
>>28933951Give me the torque figures for both RPMs and we can see that the horsepower figure directly correlate with torque impulses per ROAD SPEED and not time.
>>28933954Horsepower correlates to tq * engine speed.Think about it.
>>28933953Yeah so it's an inefficient torque converter which can be tuned to optimise for torque or RPM by changing the diameter of the wheel and tension of the band.The same way the stator of a dyno can be tuned for diameter and load.The same way a water brake can be tuned for impeller pitch and diameter.These are all forms of gearing which cannot be escaped.
>>28933956Engine speed is directly linked to road speed, so you are saying the same thing.
>>28933963Okay, even so. Most engines drop off or flatline after 4.5-5k. Yet you demonstrably accelerate more after that in the same gear. Explain that.
>>28933965We can see from the measurement taken from the thing that measures how fast your engine is accelerating, that what you've just said is simply not true.
>>28933804>The JDM S2000 has more horsepowerI've been talking about torque since my first post ITT and the AP2 makes more. >You're welcome to figure out what gears each car would have to be in to both be in peak torque at the same road speedOr you can since you're so worried about it. https://youtu.be/y9Mg5DTD2Gg?t=101Skip to 1:40 if you're too lazy to open it in the link. Here you'll see an S2K at peak torque in a lower gear get out accelerated by a Mustang that's not at peak torque in a higher gear. Because like I was saying; in the real world your BS 100@10000 vs 200@5000 shit you made up in your head doesn't matter.
>>28933969It measures rotational force, not acceleration. F=ma doesn't work here because the engine spins faster and can accelerate more with the same or less measured torque. Also, you should've paid attention in school.Mech engineers>>> mechanics>>>> scrubs.
>>28933986>Here you'll see an S2K at peak torque in a lower gear get out accelerated by a Mustang that's not at peak torque in a higher gear.Do tell me more anon!What RPM is each engine at and what are their ratios?
>>28933991Does rotational force have any correlation to acceleration?
>>28933994Suppose, in 1 second, there are two 600 lb-ft rotational impulses on a shaft. Suppose there are four 500 lb-ft impulses on the same shaft. Which would accelerate faster?
>>28934004Relative to the speed they are already travelling?
Why do people still contribute to this meme?
>>28933440>If there are twice as many 350 lb-ft power strokes in a given time (2x the rpm) you will still accelerate faster than when you have 500 lb-ft at half the rpm.This Anon is correct.A car accelerates most rapidly at its Horsepower Peak, not its Torque Peak.Wheel Torque=Engine Torque×Gear Ratio×Final Drive Ratio
>>28934035>A car accelerates most rapidly at its Horsepower Peak, not its Torque Peak.Only if it's geared so that it's producing the same road speed at peak HP, than it otherwise was at peak torque.Within a single gear the car accelerates most rapidly at peak torque, but that acceleration takes place at a lower road speed.
>>28932808Horsepower is a derived measurement, not theoretical.
>>28932967S T I L LN OR E B U T T A LI had to work an eleven-hour shift. Coming home to check for replies was making me giddy.NOTHING. ESL CONFIRMED. BROWN CONFIRMED.
>>28934085ApologiSe
>>28934067>Horsepower is a derived measurement, not theoretical.Horsepower is not measured directly; it is calculated. A dynamometer measures the twisting force (Torque) and the rotational speed (RPM). ***Since power is simply the rate at which work is performed****, we use those two variables to find the Horsepower.
>>28934004Now tell us what was measured on the output shaft of the transmission on both of those setups.
OP on suicide watch.
>>28933830This ia fucking hilarious.OP is an actual moron.>where is "strokes" located in the formula to calculate horsepower?
>>28934257So, an engine makes torque with air and gasoline. The same engine makes horsepower with a human and a calculator?
>>28934663Torque performs the Work"Horsepower" is the MEASUREMENT of said Work, over Time.
>>28934656>>where is "strokes" located in the formula to calculate horsepower?TIME is a variable within said calculationidiot
>>28934591THRUST (in pounds)andShaft Horsepowerare different thingsretard
>>28934674Work is work, you silly shit.
>>28934674An abtams tank uses a turbine engine.It doesnt utilize "thrust".It runs off the shaft.Now tell the class how its power is calculated.
>>28934670Engines don't make horsepower, calculators do.
>>28934678Airplanes don't run on thrust either.
>>28934683Sparrows on wires, offscreen.
>>28934678>Now tell the class how its power is calculated.A Dyno.>>>28934257>>28934681>Engines don't make horsepowerHorsepower is not measured directly; it is calculated. >>28934683>Airplanes don't run on thrust either.Newton knew more about Principle of Flight than your dumb assdumbfucks
>>28934689>Newton knew more about Principle of Flight than your dumb ass>dumbfucksWhich of Newton's law is making planes fly?
>>28934678Im still waiting to hear how the "strokes" are factored into a turbine.Because apparently they alter the HP rating according to OP.
>>28934810>Because apparently they alter the HP rating according to OP.Where does it say that in the OP?
All that matters is horsepower.>muh low end torqueis and will always be fucking cope.
>>28934810https://youtu.be/X5Jrk6TXNWs?si=Tgg-vnFXk1Jd2QO3
>>28934863Nobody is clicking your faggot links, faggot.
>>28934893
>>28934817"OP" can refer to "Original Post" and also "Original Poster".How fucking new are you?
>>28934919Yeah so where does OP say what you're claiming, retard?
>>28934838>Pushes ur stalled manifest up a hill from a dead stopNuthin personell.
>>28934928See:>>28933830
a formula 1 engine could never power a train but a corvette engine probably could
>>28935002What makes you think that retard is OP?
>>28935001>from a stallLiterally the only time there's a gap between torque biased engines and RPM biased engines which can't be bridged by gearing, and even then it can be mitigated by an appropriate slipping mechanism, or a flywheel, or both.
>>28935011Even if you used the train's preferred electric coupling drivetrain?Are F1 engines incapable of powering a generator or something?
>>28935011You could power a train with a bicycle if you gear it low enough. The problem would be the 0.0000001mph top speed. >>28935027Have you seen the size of the generator/alternator in a locomotive? The F1 engine would have nowhere near enough torque to even spin the rotor.
>>28935059then neither would the corvette engine lmao
>>28935062I would stand a fuck of a lot better chance considering it makes 5x as much torque as a F1 engine.
>>28935068I don't know if you know this or not but man has invented gears
>>28935089Yep and 250+ replies later people still obviously don't know how they work and think they're some magical device that grows HP and TQ from nothing.
>>28935089gearing in its totality cannot compensate for time.
>>28935092The F1 engine has more HP and therefore, through the magic of gearing, it would be able to impart more torque onto your train rotor.
>>28935098Okay and how much energy is it going to generate spinning at 1 rpm?
>>28935098corvette engines produce more hp than f1 engines, so no.
>>28932808This is such a retarded discussion.The relevant measure is always power, as it is the product of torque and rpm.This is just like fawning over current without mentioning voltage - which interestingly enough also make power when multiplied.BUT: the power an engine is rated with is peak power. And it is relevant, whether this peak power is only produced somewhere near the max rpm of the engine or already shortly after idling especially when you have a limited number of discrete gear ratios - e g. a normal gear box.
>>28935104The F1 engine has more HP and therefore, through the magic of gearing, it would be able to spin the train rotor at a greater RPM with the same or greater torque than the corvette engine.
>>28935108Go ride a bicycle you fat piece of fucking shit. All that fat in your arteries is clearly affecting the blood flow to your very smooth brain.
>>28935108uh that would only be true is the f1 engine operated in a universe where clocks ran slower, for reasons you're too stupid to understand.
>>28935106I thought the whole point of this stupid hypothetical is that the Corvette engine is supposed to be shitrod engine which makes less power but more tronksYes, whichever engine makes more power would be able to generate more power through a power generating device and transmit more of that power into the train's electric motors. That's how power works.
>>28935111It would be true in the universe where we can we can hook engines up to power generating devices and measure how much power they generate.
>>28935104That's why ICE locomotives are diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic and don't use a giant gear box and clutch.You need high wheel torque at zero RPM to pull a train, which ICEs cannot provide.Steam can, electric can, and a hydraulic torque converter can.
>>28935127>That's why ICE locomotives are diesel-electric or diesel-hydraulic and don't use a giant gear box and clutch.That's why they use a 170 liter engine that makes 20,000 ft.lbs of torque to drive the generator. The generator and the motors ARE the torque converter on a locomotive. That's why they give it throttle then lay on the electric motors when they start. That's the same as stalling out a torque converter. Holy fuck the state of modern education...
