Audi team ? I believe they picked torque over power.

 

You mean their choice of Diesel instead of Gasoline for marketing reason?

 

Either way, they could have done more torque over power with gas as well. Point was they built a motor with more torque than power, that was the original question.

Mark says "power wins", you say "Mark is correct call any race team", Audi obviously disagrees with both you and Mark since they have a motor that makes more torque than power.

My point is that this arguement is mute, too many variables.
Run what you brung, I say we all show up at a track and sort this out properly, atleast we will have more fun even if we still disagree !

 

WHAT?!!!
It's an endurance diesel engine!!!!
Rev it to high RPM's and you will ruin it.

 

Yes I do, Greg, and unlike you and Mark, I have not proffered any insults to you just because we disagree.

 

Hmmm. Mark is spot on with, what, exactly? that the car with the higher TQ (with the same HP) when I get on the gas won't get out of the corner faster? Mmm-kay.

 

Funny! they ended up with more torque and power! (or at least the same power and a lot of torque)

You are digging too deep into this. more torque vs power means nothing. However it is an indication of a flatter HP curve. (one that could yeild more average hp, area under the curve, HP-seconds , etc) BUT, in the end, it doesnt matter. What it did give was an engine that was near the same HP /weight as the other P1 cars, but what it gained in a flatter Hp curve, the Acura for example, made up for that by closer ratio gears. Remember how this all started, optimization of the system to take advantage of the engines HP curve? Porsche does this very well with the GT3. The audi has the 5 speed, wide spacing, less shifting, the Acura has the high reving etc. if you look at in car footage, the cars are near identical on most all aspects of their acceleration. ALMS has done a pretty decent job with the equalization ,but its not perfect. The absolute reason that the audi would have ANY advantage, wouldnt be for its massive torque values at 5000rpm, but its HP values.

In fact, if both the diesel and the gas engine with 550 peak HP had IVT (infinitely variable Transmissions) the race wouldnt be dependant on engine performance. the engine would run right at max HP all the time under acceleration and there would be NO differnce between 800ftlbs at 5000rpm or 400ftlbs at 10,000rpm. acceleration would be the same at any speed. And that my friends is the point of all of this.

Mk

 

Nevertheless, Viking's point is 100% valid, and obviates your claim.

 

Irony.

 

Yeah.... and the earth is flat... because it's flat on my GPS....

 

Yes! Lets work on just this sentence with none of your other variables.

400hp 200ftlbs peak torque 7500rpm (redlinie 10,000rpm) coming off a corner in gear in the meat of its 3rd gear. (call it 75% rpm drop per shift)
vs
400hp 400ftlbs peak torque 3750rpm redline 5000rpm coming off a corner in the meat of its 3rd gear.

both cars are the same
both cars have the same gear spacing
both cars are in the same gear and traveling at the same speed.

What is the torque at the rear wheels that DETERMINES acceleration?

Lets say the speed is 70mph for both cars.
If we use a gear ratio that is 5:1 for the high torque car low rpm car, the same speed will be found at 10:1 for the low torque high rpm car.

The net acceleration force for both cars coming off the turn at 70mph would be 2000ft-lbs vs 2000ft-lbs! same same same .

Let me show the math:

200ft-lbs x 10:1 = 2000ft-lbs
400ft-lbs x 5:1 = 2000ft-lbs

Get it now???

answer your question?

read your answer and think about a response.


Mk

 

You make a statement a post or two ago and you still dont get it, yet you think you do!

Dude!! this is real simple stuff . Trust me. You and me next to a white board and this would be over in seconds with you saying, "oh, i get it now!"

You havent grasped the concept that its HP at any speed that determines acceleration . Do you think Im making this up? dont shoot the messenger of Newton! Acceleration = power/mass x velocity

you are starting to bore me now. And still, you have yet to answer any of the questions directly. How about this. make a statement and back it up with fact!! wow, thats a concept isnt it.

As far as insults, you started that way back on page 2. you are no saint. I think we all can agree on this! IM trying to be patient, but you are like talking to a 4 year old. Really. If anyone but you would look at this discussion and your responses, it clear that you either:
1. Dont know much
2. Like to fight for the sake of fighting
or
3. just like to see your name and avitar as many times as possible on a thread.

How about this. Make a point and back it up with some thread of fact. let's start there!

mk

 

OMG ! Mark is that really you on the website with the electric supercharger ?
I am so sorry, I must be wrong in all I have said. Please forgive me and accept my humble apoligies.
Any chance I can get a deal on that sweet 1.7 psi Super e-Ram Electric supercharger ? I don't want the little version I want the big one ! Does it also offer a torque increase ? Not that it matters, the GUARANTEED 27 more hp I get should do the trick !

electricsupercharger.com/racing.html - thats great !

 

WOW......I'm gone for a few hours and miss 3 pages of war....damm

so I'll summarize everyones arguments into a brief statement:

"More power & more power under the curve is always better"

I think everyone will agree with this.................................

 

You just can't help yourself, can you?

Electric superchargers? LMAO...