How many inch pounds equals a foot pound ??
02-14-2002, 10:28 PM
#16
Let's see what standard a few automotive publications use:
Car and Driver lb-ft
Road & Track lb-ft
European Car lb-ft
Automobile lb-ft
Autoweek lb-ft
Motor Trend lb-ft
Panorama lb-ft
Excellence ft-lb
You decide if you want to be a "foot pounder" or a "pound footer" but most publications I reviewed used lb-ft as their standard.
Jim Nowak
Car and Driver lb-ft
Road & Track lb-ft
European Car lb-ft
Automobile lb-ft
Autoweek lb-ft
Motor Trend lb-ft
Panorama lb-ft
Excellence ft-lb
You decide if you want to be a "foot pounder" or a "pound footer" but most publications I reviewed used lb-ft as their standard.
Jim Nowak
02-15-2002, 01:17 AM
#17
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, from one pud pounding pea-picker to et al:
"Porsche Technical Specifications, 928 S4, 928 GT Models 90, 91..." says (drum roll) "ftlb" AND "lbft" survey says in that order (non-binding random sample). Update- Hmm, now I only see "ftlb" leaping off the page into my eyes, cannot find a lone "lbft", and why am I spending any time on this? "Owner's Manual" says, SAE net-torque..."317 ft.lb." Anyway, appears Porsche is giving this a solid twist to "ftlb" side.
I bow to both historical accuracy and common usage, and will switch to Newton-meters
Cheers,
Donald
"Porsche Technical Specifications, 928 S4, 928 GT Models 90, 91..." says (drum roll) "ftlb" AND "lbft" survey says in that order (non-binding random sample). Update- Hmm, now I only see "ftlb" leaping off the page into my eyes, cannot find a lone "lbft", and why am I spending any time on this? "Owner's Manual" says, SAE net-torque..."317 ft.lb." Anyway, appears Porsche is giving this a solid twist to "ftlb" side.
I bow to both historical accuracy and common usage, and will switch to Newton-meters
Cheers,
Donald
02-16-2002, 03:45 AM
#18
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to take one more good hard kick at this dead horse...
I too was mystified (and thoroughly disgusted) by the appearance and subsequent adoption of "lbs-feet" as opposed to the "foot-lbs" all of us over the age of 30 grew up with.
If you really put the logic test to it, how does "lbs-feet" make sense?
"Foot-pounds" is self-explanatory. The number of pounds of force applied to a one foot lever generates that particular amount of torque.
"Pounds-feet" - HUH? Since only one number is given, is said number "pounds" or "feet"? Since both words are plural, logic dictates that the number applies to both. Which would make "100 lbs-feet" 100 pounds of force on a 100 foot long lever. (or 10,000 foot-lbs)
I'd love to find the editor that let the typo "lbs-ft" slip through and somehow fall into the common lexicon. Ugh.
What's next? "Meters-Newtons?"
Greg
I too was mystified (and thoroughly disgusted) by the appearance and subsequent adoption of "lbs-feet" as opposed to the "foot-lbs" all of us over the age of 30 grew up with.
If you really put the logic test to it, how does "lbs-feet" make sense?
"Foot-pounds" is self-explanatory. The number of pounds of force applied to a one foot lever generates that particular amount of torque.
"Pounds-feet" - HUH? Since only one number is given, is said number "pounds" or "feet"? Since both words are plural, logic dictates that the number applies to both. Which would make "100 lbs-feet" 100 pounds of force on a 100 foot long lever. (or 10,000 foot-lbs)
I'd love to find the editor that let the typo "lbs-ft" slip through and somehow fall into the common lexicon. Ugh.
What's next? "Meters-Newtons?"
Greg
