Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

lol it's not. You have it the other way around. Power is the descriptive measurement calculated from torque and speed, torque is the name given to the forces acting. Engine speed is relevant to how fast the wheels are turning at a given moment, not their tractive force. It will help you calculate how fast a vehicle is moving, not how fast it accelerates. This *might* help to demonstrate how it works:

2ngvi20.jpg

  • Replies 250
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No, I'm not wrong. We are talking about engine power and torque which is then factored by gearing. Not power or torque at the wheels (ie. not gearing effects, no spread between ratios)

Also the statements on that graph are almost all incorrect. Statements like "power continues to be made but not at the same rate" is incorrect. Power is made at a GREATER rate, just not increasing at the same rate. Shift points comment is incorrect. Changing at 8000rpm would be SLOWER than changing at 8300rpm as you are going into the next gear at a lower RPM. Whoever wrote that doesn't actually know what they are talking about. Sorry.

I will say the comment that the engine will accelerate quickest at peak torque is correct, but since we are talking about engines and not the wheels this is irrelevant for my previous point about CVT transmissions. These keep the engine at the same point and wheels accelerate, therefore changing the gearing ratio as they go.

anyway this guy has already debunked all the above myths on that graph - see here:

http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

Just as a note,

Peak is generally made at the engines best volumetric efficiency (or very near too) hence modern turbo cars having a dead flat torque line

Shift points comment is incorrect. Changing at 8000rpm would be SLOWER than changing at 8300rpm as you are going into the next gear at a lower RPM. Whoever wrote that doesn't actually know what they are talking about. Sorry.

Agreed.

Going by that graph lets say we want to be doing 60kph which has been magically worked out to be a wheel speed of 2000rpm, we want as much tractive torque at the wheels at this speed.

If we gear for peak torque at 7500rpm that requires a reduction of 3.75 so 3.75 * 210nm = 787nm of tractive torque at the wheels, if we gear for peak power which is at 8250rpm we require a reduction of 4.125 so 4.125* 200nm = 825nm of tractive torque at the wheels, hence the car accelerates faster if we gear for peak power, not peak torque.

However in both scenarios the car will still accelerate at its peak at 7500rpm (peak torque) but in the second example we wont be quite at the speed we want to be at, so we are trading off speed for extra tractive torque at the wheels.

Now if we have gear ratios of say 3.75:1 for first and 3.6:1 for second (same ratio gap) lets say we shift at peak torque of 7500rpm, we are making 3.75 * 210nm =787nm at the wheels, now when we shift into 2nd we drop to 7200rpm, now we are making 210nm * 3.6:1 = 756nm of tractive torque.

Now if we geared for maximum hp keeping the speeds the same we use 4.125:1 and 3.96:1 for second (very very close ratios)

Now if we shifted at peak hp after the torque has rolled off slightly at 8250rpm we have 4.125*200nm = 825nm and when we shift into second we have 3.96*200 = 792nm.

Now both cars are going the same speed as we have geared them to match speeds, one is just shifting at peak torque one is shifting at peak hp, the one geared to shift for peak hp goes faster, now you could go why dont we gear the other vehicle the same so it makes more torque, the problem here is it would be going at a slower speed as the trade off.

So by gearing for peak hp and shifting as late as possible we can maximise torque at the wheels, basically the longer you can stay in the lower gear the better, even if you shift well after peak power you are still making more tractive effort in first than second, hence why everyone shifts after peak power when racing and not before it.

edit: Good link.

Edited by Rolls
No, I'm not wrong. We are talking about engine power and torque which is then factored by gearing. Not power or torque at the wheels (ie. not gearing effects, no spread between ratios)

Also the statements on that graph are almost all incorrect. Statements like "power continues to be made but not at the same rate" is incorrect. Power is made at a GREATER rate, just not increasing at the same rate. Shift points comment is incorrect. Changing at 8000rpm would be SLOWER than changing at 8300rpm as you are going into the next gear at a lower RPM. Whoever wrote that doesn't actually know what they are talking about. Sorry.

I will say the comment that the engine will accelerate quickest at peak torque is correct, but since we are talking about engines and not the wheels this is irrelevant for my previous point about CVT transmissions. These keep the engine at the same point and wheels accelerate, therefore changing the gearing ratio as they go.

anyway this guy has already debunked all the above myths on that graph - see here:

http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

Yes, you are wrong. Here's an hypothetical for you...an engine makes 100kw at 3000rpm, 200kw at 5000rpm and peak power of 205kw at 7000rpm...do you really think between 5000 and 7000rpm it is going to be accelerating any faster than between 3000 and 5000? Between 3000 and 5000 is where the major torque band is, hence the major increase in power and the most acceleration. After 5000 it is dropping off = hit a massive brick wall in acceleration, and it will actually accelerate slower than when the engine was between 3000 and 5000. Motorbikes are very good at demonstrating this due to their high revving nature as both peak torque, peak power, and redline are well spaced apart. My kingdom for a physics professor to come in here and explain this!

And the statement in bold, is what I was saying in the graph...you just read it semantically different, I was afraid this would happen.

Yes, you are wrong. Here's an hypothetical for you...an engine makes 100kw at 3000rpm, 200kw at 5000rpm and peak power of 205kw at 7000rpm...do you really think between 5000 and 7000rpm it is going to be accelerating any faster than between 3000 and 5000? Between 3000 and 5000 is where the major torque band is, hence the major increase in power and the most acceleration

Yes you are right but you will be going SLOWER as in actual speed of the vehicle during this range, you are trading off speed for tractive effort at the wheels, if you geared the car to do the same speed but shifted at peak hp it would get there faster, but peak actual acceleration would be at peak torque still.

So yes your peak actual acceleration is at peak torque, but to get to a certain speed as fast as possible you will get there quickest by gearing to rev to peak power.

Edited by Rolls

Torque is a force. Power is how the force acts over time. Faster revs = less time for the force to act.

So you have 10000Nm, but it's acts over 20 minutes (ie. 0.05 rpm). Any good? No, it's not. It's slow, it's not powerful. How this acts OVER TIME is dependent upon gearing (amongst flywheel mass, etc). We all care about time, trust me, we care a lot. It's just that time marches on regardless some people do not care so much. After all it'll keep going on and on and on......well actually we could travel faster close to the speed of light and slow it down, or we could get deeply involved in complex thought experiments and time seems to speed up (dammit, always when we are having fun...sheeshh I'm such a geek). Anyway the point is that torque is simply a description that can be used to describe engine characteristics. As I said before people do understand it, but as an absolute number it means much less than power. Sure I disagreed a little before with Rolls about power vs torque understanding, but I was just playing Devil's advocate and the subject matter was a little subjective (people's apparent understanding of the implications of torque, etc etc). But now I disagree because that graph is flat out wrong (objectively).

Again, lets look at yet ANOTHER scenario. Not punching....I've too tired after my workout of talking about punching...phew. Let's talk about the KERS system used by Porsche in the GT3 R. It uses a mass that is spinning at a very high rpm with very little torque. But it has a lot of power (albeit delivered electrically). But it is stored mechanically in a mass spinning with low torque at high rpm. Do they know that torque is more important than power? No they bloody don't because torque doesn't matter. The electrical circuit has been designed (like the gearing of a car) to take advantage of the high speed, low torque arrangement. Would it store more energy with lower speed and higher torque.....again....no it won't. Does the higher speed mean a lower percentage of frictional loss.....yeah....probably. If it had the same torque but at higher speed would it make more power...yes, yes, yes that is exactly how the system works! Is this relevant to the point above.....well...barely.

Here you go boys, go do some reading on torque and power, seriously, it will help you understand what is at work and what is simply a measurement calculated from the other:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque

is the tendency of a force to rotate an object about an axis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acceleration

the acceleration of the body is proportional to the net force acting on it (Newton's second law)

It has NOTHING to do with power, power is a measurement derived from torque and engine speed. That's it.

That is just mechanical advantage, same with any electric motor.

Sure you could have a motor spining at 100000 rpm and making 2hp and have it geared to it does 80km/h in top gear at 100,000rpm.

It would go yes, most effective way of doing it no.

Oh and no-one uses KERS anymore because it was shit.

Good quote from that article

The vehicle will have greatest acceleration at a given wheel speed when the gear selected results in the greatest rear wheel torque. If a gear is selected that puts the engine speed somewhat higher than the engine speed at which the engine torque peak occurs, that numerically lower gear will result in greater torque multiplication and the rear wheel torque will be greater even though the engine torque will be somewhat less than its maximum value.
So yes your peak actual acceleration is at peak torque

That's all I'm saying man, that a car is going to accelerate it's fastest at around peak torque.

Here you go boys, go do some reading on torque and power, seriously, it will help you understand what is at work and what is simply a measurement calculated from the other:

Oh come on we have clearly done butt loads of reading like anyone else still in this discussion, no need to be patronising.

We agree with what you said that peak acceleration occurs at peak torque, but you still want to shift after peak power and gear to shift at peak power as it will be faster, see my examples why.

That's all I'm saying man, that a car is going to accelerate it's fastest at around peak torque.

yes but if you want to get to a certain speed as fast as possible (everyone does who is racing) you will get there faster by gearing to rev past peak power, not peak torque, this is where we are misunderstanding each other.

Edited by Rolls
Yes, you are wrong. Here's an hypothetical for you...an engine makes 100kw at 3000rpm, 200kw at 5000rpm and peak power of 205kw at 7000rpm...do you really think between 5000 and 7000rpm it is going to be accelerating any faster than between 3000 and 5000? Between 3000 and 5000 is where the major torque band is, hence the major increase in power and the most acceleration. After 5000 it is dropping off = hit a massive brick wall in acceleration, and it will actually accelerate slower than when the engine was between 3000 and 5000. Motorbikes are very good at demonstrating this due to their high revving nature as both peak torque, peak power, and redline are well spaced apart. My kingdom for a physics professor to come in here and explain this!

A true hypothetical and yes it will accelerate faster at this point. But why aren't you a gear lower?

Oh come on we have clearly done butt loads of reading like anyone else still in this discussion, no need to be patronising.

We agree with what you said that peak acceleration occurs at peak torque, but you still want to shift after peak power and gear to shift at peak power as it will be faster, see my examples why.

yes but if you want to get to a certain speed as fast as possible (everyone does who is racing) you will get there faster by gearing to rev past peak power, not peak torque, this is where we are misunderstanding each other.

I don't mean to be patronising but I don't think some people have read the concepts in depth enough to grasp them, it doesn't matter how much reading you've done if you're not understanding how it works.

Really, can we argue with the statements that I quoted...right there is the very definition of torque...and right there is the basis for Newton's second law regarding acceleration...please argue with them. The reason you lot are getting so confused is because torque is so closely related to power.

Really, can we argue with the statements that I quoted...right there is the very definition of torque...and right there is the basis for Newton's second law regarding acceleration...please argue with them.

Obviously no one disagrees with them? We gave different examples of how a car will accelerate fastest to a speed if geared for peak power and not peak torque due to being able to use a lower gear, hence more torque multiplication, peak acceleration will still be at the peak torque figure, but total time taken to get to the speed will be less due to being able to use a lower gear ratio as you are revving to peak power.

Do you get what we are describing and why?

Yes I am now aware of what you were trying to say, but I was talking about acceleration in a given gear, and the points throughout the rev range where it will accelerate fastest for that particular gear - it is around the area of peak torque, that's all I'm saying. Agreed? No need to bring the next gear into it, I only stated a gear shift on the graph as an example of why it is important to be in the peak torque band in the next gear...for if you end up above the peak torque band in the next gear then you technically aren't accelerating as fast as you could be, even though the differences aren't huge.

i think there probably is no correct answer for this one.. as elite said, its very dependent on the gearing, the peak torque will give you the maximum acceleration for that rpm for any gear ratio, the tricky thing with power is if you looked at the two cars acceleration over a range of speeds the car with the most power would have more acceleration at some speeds, theoretically the highest average power should give you the highest average acceleration even though it may have less peak torque.

If you were to compare the torque/power curves of two cars... the car with the most acceleration at a particular speed would constantly change over the course of a quarter mile. If you look at the excel pictures i drew up it shows that although the car with more power doesnt accelerate as hard in a particular gear.. it can use the lowered ratio gear more effectively for longer before it needs to change into the next gear, which is where the power vs speed part of considering a cars acceleration comes into play.

The torque curve is still an important aspect, and it would depend on your definition of a better/faster car on whether peak torque or peak/average power is faster, im sure we can all agree that early torque is more important for acceleration/response, whereas late torque is more important for top speed etc.. if you were after the fastest accelerating car say from 3500 to 7000 rpm, comparing to identical gearing setups, the car with the maximum average power through this rev range will have the fastest average accelerating car through this rev range regardless of peak torques, average torque curves or peak power, which is why i say as useful as torque is, average power is more useful..you dont need rpm references for average power quotes. Also any car with a descent peak power, aslong as its in a wide enough power range to keep a descent average power through the gears, it wouldnt matter where in the rpm range it lied the car would still be fast, whether it is 50, 1000, 7000, 200000 rpm. Can you say the same for torque? I would say that people that read torque curves interept them with respect to the rpm, they probably look for good midrange torque that hopefully stays nice and flat to the top end like PMR-33 was mentioning, that torque curve would sitll give you a very high average power. But the peak power figure would give you a better idea of the average power than the peak torque without a rpm reference.

At the end of the day you can argue all you want with facts and opinions, all you really need are the laws of physics to back up your claims. If anyone can find me two torque/power curves of skylines one with more average power from 4000-7000 and one with more peak torque down early, ill be happy to determine the acceleration versus time and speed, and distance versus time, i can even include the drag forces if you want with an appropriate drag force coefficient for a sports car

I'm not confused at all. Please fine a single thing I had said that is not true. Feel free to use at much maths as you wish.

I'm still waiting for an answer to an extension of your hypothetical..... "why aren't you in a gear lower?"

That questions is EXACTLY my point. You keep talking about absolute torque or power according to physics without ever looking at the real world, which includes MULTIPLE gears. If I wasn't at work literally trying to finished off selling scientific equipment to university professors I'd draw some graphs to prove you wrong mathematically with area throughout the gear range. You could even cut them out and weigh them...would that be proof enough?? Anyway.....back to teh question. Please be so polite as to answer it and give reason.

So...Here's an hypothetical for you...an engine makes 100kw at 3000rpm, 200kw at 5000rpm and peak power of 205kw at 7000rpm...do you really think between 5000 and 7000rpm it is going to be accelerating any faster than between 3000 and 5000? Between 3000 and 5000 is where the major torque band is, hence the major increase in power and the most acceleration. After 5000 it is dropping off = hit a massive brick wall in acceleration, and it will actually accelerate slower than when the engine was between 3000 and 5000. Motorbikes are very good at demonstrating this due to their high revving nature as both peak torque, peak power, and redline are well spaced apart.

Part A.

Now...remember we are on a motorbike. You have 6 gears to choose from.......you can rev to 7000rpm, but you are running between 3000rpm and 5000rpm due to maximum torque being here.............why aren't you in a lower gear?

Part B.

Assume you are in 1st gear (so you cannot change to another gear)......where should you change gear.....bearing in mind that by changing up a gear you both drop into a lower point of the rev rang and de-multiply your torque (at the wheels)

All this aside from the fact that this motorbike has some seriously unrealistic breathing issues up high.

Edited by simpletool

Every Drag racer I have spoken too, all say the same thing, that on the up-shift you want the revs to fall back to peak torque, which is why a lot of us are saying that knowing the torque curve of an engine is more important.

and we all know that drag racing is all about acceleration,

I know you guys are saying that the mechanical advantage increases torque at the wheels, but depending on how quick it drops off may mean that peak engine torque still gives peak tractive effort at the wheels.

I really wish i had more time to be able to get right in depth like a lot of you are.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Next on the to-do list was an oil and filter change. Nothing exciting to add here except the oil filter is in a really stupid place (facing the engine mount/subframe/steering rack). GReddy do a relocation kit which puts it towards the gearbox, I would have preferred towards the front but there's obviously a lot more stuff there. Something I'll have to look at for the next service perhaps. First time using Valvoline oil, although I can't see it being any different to most other brands Nice... The oil filter location... At least the subframe wont rust any time soon I picked up a genuine fuel filter, this is part of the fuel pump assembly inside the fuel tank. Access can be found underneath the rear seat, you'll see this triangular cover Remove the 3x plastic 10mm nuts and lift the cover up, pushing the rubber grommet through The yellow fuel line clips push out in opposite directions, remove these completely. The two moulded fuel lines can now pull upwards to disconnect, along with the wire electrical plug. There's 8x 8mm bolts that secure the black retaining ring. The fuel pump assembly is now ready to lift out. Be mindful of the fuel hose on the side, the hose clamp on mine was catching the hose preventing it from lifting up The fuel pump/filter has an upper and lower section held on by 4 pressure clips. These did take a little bit of force, it sounded like the plastic tabs were going to break but they didn't (don't worry!) The lower section helps mount the fuel pump, there's a circular rubber gasket/grommet/seal thing on the bottom where the sock is. Undo the hose clip on the short fuel hose on the side to disconnect it from the 3 way distribution pipe to be able to lift the upper half away. Don't forget to unplug the fuel pump too! There's a few rubber O rings that will need transferring to the new filter housing, I show these in the video at the bottom of this write up. Reassembly is the reverse Here's a photo of the new filter installed, you'll be able to see where the tabs are more clearing against the yellow OEM plastic Once the assembly is re-installed, I turned the engine over a few times to help build up fuel pressure. I did panic when the car stopped turning over but I could hear the fuel pump making a noise. It eventually started and has been fine since. Found my 'lucky' coin underneath the rear seat too The Youtube video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLJ65pmQt44&t=6s
    • It was picked up on the MOT/Inspection that the offside front wheel bearing had excessive play along with the ball joint. It made sense to do both sides so I sourced a pair of spare IS200 hubs to do the swap. Unfortunately I don't have any photos of the strip down but here's a quick run down. On the back of the hub is a large circular dust cover, using a flat head screw driver and a mallet I prised it off. Underneath will reveal a 32mm hub nut (impact gun recommended). With the hub nut removed the ABS ring can be removed (I ended up using a magnetic pick up tool to help). Next up is to remove the stub axle, this was a little trickier due to limited tools. I tried a 3 leg puller but the gap between the hub and stub axle wasn't enough for the legs to get in and under. Next option was a lump hammer and someone pulling the stub axle at the same time. After a few heavy hits it released. The lower bearing race had seized itself onto the stub axle, which was fine because I was replacing them anyway. With the upper bearing race removed and the grease cleaned off they looked like this The left one looked pristine inside but gave us the most trouble. The right one had some surface rust but came apart in a single hit, figure that out?! I got a local garage to press the new wheel bearings in, reassemble was the opposite and didn't take long at all. Removing the hub itself was simple. Starting with removing the brake caliper, 2x 14mm bolts for the caliper slider and 2x 19mm? for the carrier > hub bolts. I used a cable tie to secure the caliper to the upper arm so it was out of the way, there's a 10mm bolt securing the ABS sensor on. With the brake disc removed from the hub next are the three castle nuts for the upper and lower ball joints and track rod end. Two of these had their own R clip and one split pin. A few hits with the hammer and they're released (I left the castle nuts on by a couple of turns), the track rod ends gave me the most grief and I may have nipped the boots (oops). Fitting is the reversal and is very quick and easy to do. The lower ball joints are held onto the hub by 2x 17mm bolts. The castle nut did increase in socket size to 22mm from memory (this may vary from supplier) The two front tyres weren't in great condition, so I had those replaced with some budget tyres for the time being. I'll be replacing the wheels and tyres in the future, this was to get me on the road without the worry of the police hassling me.
    • Yep, the closest base tune available was for the GTT, I went with that and made all the logical changes I could find to convert it to Naturally Aspirated. It will rev fine in Neutral to redline but it will be cutting nearly 50% fuel the whole way.  If I let it tune the fuel map to start with that much less fuel it wont run right and has a hard time applying corrections.  These 50% cuts are with a fuel map already about half of what the GTT tune had.  I was having a whole lot of bogging when applying any throttle but seem to have fixed that for no load situations with very aggressive transient throttle settings. I made the corrections to my injectors with data I found for them online, FBCJC100 flowing 306cc.  I'll have to look to see if I can find the Cam section. I have the Bosch 4.9 from Haltech. My manifold pressure when watching it live is always in -5.9 psi/inHg
    • Hi My Tokico BM50 Brake master cylinder has a leak from the hole between the two outlets (M10x1) for brake pipes, I have attached a photo. Can anyone tell me what that hole is and what has failed to allow brake fluid to escape from it, I have looked on line and asked questions on UK forums but can not find the answer, if anyone can enlighten me I would be most grateful.
    • It will be a software setting. I don't believe many on here ever used AEM. And they're now a discontinued product,that's really hard to find any easy answers on. If it were Link or Haltech, someone would be able to just send you a ECU file though.
×
×
  • Create New...