Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Interesting, considering Newtons is a measure of force, while Newton metres is a measure of force & leverage.

'100N to a Nm'??

1 newton applied to a lever 1 metre from the fulcrum is 1 Nm.

Diameters of tyres, what gear you're in, diff ratio, etc all would be part of the equasion

*can of worms initialised*

*confusion pending*

A Newton is defined to be the force which will change the velocity of a one kilogram object by one meter per second over a period of one second.

Who uses newtons on a dyno? You should be given a torque reading in Netwon-metres. The only thing i think you could do is multiply the force in Newtons (6000) by the radius of ur wheels (about 0.30m?) to get a torque of 1800Nm, but that doesnt sound right.

Yeah it's a bit confusing, isn't it :D.

Basically, they're saying you can't directly convert them as they are measurements of different things.

The dyno is reading tractive effort/force from memory, so I don't think there'll be an easy way to do a conversion.

The way I work out torque from dyno graphs is to get the power and the rpm (you will have to convert this from the km/h reading - compensating for the diff ratio and gears), then use this formula:

Torque (Nm) = Power (kW) x 9543 / RPM

would like to know how to convert newtons to newton metres. just got my car back from CRD after a dyno tune and made just over 6000 newtons at the wheels, just like to know what that is in newton metres

To convert Newtons to Nm from a Dyno reading, you need to know the roller radius, which is 108.5mm on the dyno mentioned.

Just muliply 6000 times .1085, and this will give you your peak Nm reading.

Your car had a maximum Nm reading of 651Nm in this case.

Newtons, or Motive Force which is the correct name, is the force at the tyre diameter pushing the car forward.

651Nm is pretty high. Over double stock - and that's at the wheels. Are you sure that's right? He would have to be making his max of 258kW at 3800rpm to get that much torque, and I'm sure he would have reached peak power much higher up than that.

Maybe I've screwed up my calcs or something.

ok looked it up:

So if your car can force 6000 newtons, this would equal 6000 newton meters.

To further explain this your car can basicly push 6 tons of weight 1 meter at full power.

A newton is the amount of force nothing to do with torque, the weight of 1 newton is the same as 100 grams.

A Newton Meter is the amount of 1 Newton (100 grams) being moved 1 meter in any direction.

Another example would be picking up 100 gram weight, and pushing it 1 meter, you can then say your arm has 1 newtonmeter or 1nm.

Great isn't it???? :)

Did you say 'can of worms' funky....

As funky said a Newton is the force to change the velocity of a 1kg object by 1m/s/s. In other words its a accelerative force. Force = mass x acceleration

Gravity on Earth can accelerate objects at approx 9.8m/s/s. That means my 98kg arse puts a force of 960.4 Newtons on the ground (98kg x 9.8m/s/s).

If I was standing on a big breaker bar 50cm (0.5m) from the socket/wheelnut trying to undo a wheelnut, I'd be placing 480.2 Newton metres of torque on it (960.4N x 0.5m).

This is a very simple overview of Newtons (force) & Newtonmetres (torque).

.

If you want to start talking in terms of force applied moving an bjet a set distance then you are really opening a MASSIVE can of worms. For 1 it's incorrect and 2 you're forgetting about inertia, momentum, friction, acceleration and a few other concepts that i've forgotten abut in the last few years, not to mention the infinite variables that would render this method of measurement absolutely useless.

Cul202 has the right of it theory wise, that is Newtons is a measurement of force, ie Force =mass x acceleration, metres is a measurement so newton metres is force x distance, also known as bending moments or torque.

how to get a proper torque figure from a figure of 6000N is beyond me i'm afraid

A newton is the amount of force nothing to do with torque, the weight of 1 newton is the same as 100 grams.

1 Newton is the weight of the object on earth. Force of gravity on earth is 9.8m-1 and the physics formulae u guys are looking for is

W= mg. W= Wieght (in newtons)

m = Mass (in Kg)

g = gravitational force (9.8ms)

so... YOU CAN DO THE MATHS COZ IN TOO FREAKIN LAZY

how to get a proper torque figure from a figure of 6000N is beyond me i'm afraid

That's why I just use the torque curve given on the dyno purely for seeing how your torque curve looks - I ignore the values. If you want actual values (like I think the original poster wants), then you just use the formula I posted earlier.

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

    • There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
×
×
  • Create New...