| Author | Topic |
|---|
Location:
sydney
Registered:
December 2002
|
|
Re: TORQUE
|
Tue, 24 June 2003 10:29
 
|
 |
dear oh dear, where to begin?
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 17:17 |
two cars with identical POWER at different rpm, at the same road speed, will accelerate at the same rate, since GEARING multiplies the torque of the motor with higher rpm at same power.
|
try reading this a few times and then try to realise the implications of it. it is, afterall, something you wrote yourself. allow me to highlight a particular relationship for you;
"identical power" ...
"accelerate at the same rate".
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
you obviously did not not read either of these paragraphs. i think you shoudl re-read them.
hell, i'll even spell it out for you.
F1 vs normal car engine as stated in previous message.
F1 has 3 times power because of higher rpm.
F1 car has 3:1 gearing to be at same road speed as normal motor.
F1 car has TORQUE multiplied by 3 because of gearing.
F1 car has 3 times the torque on rear axle.
f1 car has 3 times the force at tyre contact patch.
F1 car acclerates 3 times faster.
conclusion?
|
this is becoming quite amusing. another instance of the same thing. you went all the way through that, yet yourself still failed to recognise that youre taking about an f1 car making around 3 times the power of a 3 litre road car (yet similar torque, according to you). are you getting the point yet? or is it still slipping by? i suspect it may be, so let me again highlight the pertinent aspects of your own words for you;
"F1 has 3 times power because of higher rpm."
"F1 car acclerates 3 times faster."
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
tell ya what. lets get two cars, that have the same gearboxes and same final drive ratio. i'll take the car with 500hp at 5000rpm, and you can take the car with 500hp at 10000rpm, and i'll whup your sorry ass .
|
correct.
now allow me to pose an alternative question. one engine with 500lb/ft of torque and only 100hp, another engine with 500hp but only 100lb/ft of torque. both engines in two completely identical cars, with the only exception being gearing, any gearing being allowed. you tell me which car will be quicker. if you still think its car a, im afraid there is no hope for you.
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
engineers look at power vs weight because it is much more convenient than trying to calculate gear ratios and different redlines for motors and stuff like that...
|
ahh! those lazy engineers! shame on them. unfortunately, i dont think thats the case. engineers use numbers all the time  i dont think they would care for your reason above, just as they wouldnt care for your whole argument.
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
sure power is a convenient way to measure motors, but it really doesn't mean that much.
|
now thats really quite funny. i will have to keep that in mind. what an absolute gem.
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
WHAT IS IMPORTANT is the TORQUE an engine makes and the ENGINE SPEED (rpm) that it makes it at.
as i have said from the start, if you make the same torque at higher rpm, AND gear down to increase the torque multiplication, you will have more torque at the rear wheels, adn you will accelerate faster. these are the simple physical facts that govern our everyday life.
|
this is good. however the first part (and i quote again; "the TORQUE an engine makes and the ENGINE SPEED (rpm) that it makes it at") equals power. funny that.
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
LOL, you have nfi.
|
| oldcorollas wrote on Tue, 24 June 2003 19:32 |
i apologise to the people who did not turn off the 'email notification' of this thread, but i hate when ppl propogate half truths.
|
oh really?
youre a pretty funny guy. i just want you to know i dont take any offence to what youve written, though i would be quite justified in doing so. but its going to be even more funny when you realise, whether today, tomorrow or a year from now, how you have been wrong from the get-go. you do not yet understand the concept of power. fix that and this disagreement will cease to exist.
|
|
|
| | Subject | Poster | Date |
|---|
 |
TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Sat, 21 June 2003 04:43 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
oldcorollas | Sat, 21 June 2003 07:20 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
trent_kershaw | Sat, 21 June 2003 09:52 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
wilbo666 | Sat, 21 June 2003 12:29 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Sat, 21 June 2003 13:06 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
TA22-3SGTE | Sat, 21 June 2003 13:20 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
gianttomato | Sun, 22 June 2003 02:18 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
rusty | Mon, 23 June 2003 19:37 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Tue, 24 June 2003 01:57 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
oldcorollas | Tue, 24 June 2003 07:17 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
rusty | Tue, 24 June 2003 08:33 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
oldcorollas | Tue, 24 June 2003 09:32 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
gianttomato | Tue, 24 June 2003 09:42 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
Gremlin | Thu, 26 June 2003 02:16 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
rusty | Tue, 24 June 2003 10:29 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
oldcorollas | Tue, 24 June 2003 11:12 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
gianttomato | Tue, 24 June 2003 11:46 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
oldcorollas | Tue, 24 June 2003 12:01 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
trent_kershaw | Tue, 24 June 2003 14:03 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
NO-18r | Sat, 21 June 2003 08:48 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Sat, 21 June 2003 08:49 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
manipulate | Sat, 21 June 2003 08:51 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
manipulate | Sat, 21 June 2003 13:10 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Sat, 21 June 2003 13:12 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
cam_RA40 | Sat, 21 June 2003 23:17 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
JDM hachi | Sat, 21 June 2003 22:52 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
manipulate | Sun, 22 June 2003 01:55 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
charliechalk | Sun, 22 June 2003 11:26 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Sun, 22 June 2003 15:58 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
gianttomato | Mon, 23 June 2003 01:05 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
charliechalk | Mon, 23 June 2003 08:06 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
BAD22 | Mon, 23 June 2003 10:00 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
Super Jamie | Tue, 24 June 2003 11:04 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
kingmick | Tue, 24 June 2003 12:18 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
THE WITZL | Tue, 24 June 2003 12:27 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
trent_kershaw | Tue, 24 June 2003 12:44 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
THE WITZL | Tue, 24 June 2003 13:06 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
rusty | Tue, 24 June 2003 16:35 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
juzzo84 | Tue, 24 June 2003 21:08 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
boudan | Tue, 24 June 2003 22:49 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
Super Jamie | Wed, 25 June 2003 07:26 |
|
Re: TORQUE and shite stirring
|
oldcorollas | Wed, 25 June 2003 12:27 |
|
Re: TORQUE and shite stirring
|
oldcorollas | Wed, 25 June 2003 12:36 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
boudan | Thu, 26 June 2003 00:37 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
bayka | Wed, 25 June 2003 17:41 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
Norbie | Wed, 25 June 2003 22:37 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
dar_sbb | Thu, 26 June 2003 01:58 |
|
Re: TORQUE
|
bayka | Thu, 26 June 2003 05:49 |
|
Re: flat TORQUE curves
|
oldcorollas | Thu, 26 June 2003 06:23 |
|
Re: flat TORQUE curves
|
Nark | Thu, 26 June 2003 06:45 |
|
Re: flat TORQUE curves
|
oldcorollas | Thu, 26 June 2003 07:03 |
| Current Time:
Mon Jul 21 11:26:08 UTC 2025 |
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.0059518814086914 seconds |
