HP vs Torque Discussion (No Jokes, No bantering. Just facts and reality)
02-09-2009, 11:21 PM
#151
Rennlist Member
BINGO: Des asked the time, and Mark has spent a week+ explaining how his watch was made.
02-09-2009, 11:37 PM
#152
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
There was this show on Discovery last night. Evidence suggests Veloce Raptors evolved into turkeys,really!
VR ,I am with you on this one but could never let that slide !
VR ,I am with you on this one but could never let that slide !
02-09-2009, 11:43 PM
#153
Rennlist Member
02-09-2009, 11:50 PM
#154
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: KY
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bruce, you are missing the point yet again. First of all, dont bet on your butt-o-meter to be accrate. You will fall into the Bruce Augustine article's hands. (slightly misleading).
Im not talking about using infinitely variable gear boxes, as that was used for making the concepts clear. Remember, close ratio gear boxes approximate this.
You must not have looked at the BMW M5 and Caddy CTSV HP curves. they were identical. they had the same "peakiness". they has the same HP after a shift and had the same HP after max HP, rising and falling at the same rate.
These powerplants would have the same acceleration rates at ANY vehicle speed, if the cars were at least the same weight and had the same , or close to the same gear spacing. (i.e shifts at 50, 80, 120, 150mph etc).
The POINT, AGAIN, of all this was to show that the torque level, (NOT TALKING ABOUT PEAKINESS OF TORQUE OR HP CURVES), could be much lower and still provide the SAME accelerative forces at the rear wheels at ANY vehicle speed. this is determined by HP not engine torque.
Since you are coming from a calm and conversational place, why dont you look at the BMW vs the Caddy HP torque curve and just give me ANY speed where you think one car would out perform the other. Ive asked VR for this simple explanation and all has contributed is nonsense, non-science and insults.
So, unless you, or anyone can look at that HP curve example and suggest why they would perform different at any vehicle speed. Heck, include a drag race I dont care, but come back with a reason, logical point, a question, so we can have a discussion. Its not a agree to disagree type of situation. We have made the points, back them up with theoretical and practical examples, along with specific values, and what has come back, is nonsense.
thoughts,
Mark
Im not talking about using infinitely variable gear boxes, as that was used for making the concepts clear. Remember, close ratio gear boxes approximate this.
You must not have looked at the BMW M5 and Caddy CTSV HP curves. they were identical. they had the same "peakiness". they has the same HP after a shift and had the same HP after max HP, rising and falling at the same rate.
These powerplants would have the same acceleration rates at ANY vehicle speed, if the cars were at least the same weight and had the same , or close to the same gear spacing. (i.e shifts at 50, 80, 120, 150mph etc).
The POINT, AGAIN, of all this was to show that the torque level, (NOT TALKING ABOUT PEAKINESS OF TORQUE OR HP CURVES), could be much lower and still provide the SAME accelerative forces at the rear wheels at ANY vehicle speed. this is determined by HP not engine torque.
Since you are coming from a calm and conversational place, why dont you look at the BMW vs the Caddy HP torque curve and just give me ANY speed where you think one car would out perform the other. Ive asked VR for this simple explanation and all has contributed is nonsense, non-science and insults.
So, unless you, or anyone can look at that HP curve example and suggest why they would perform different at any vehicle speed. Heck, include a drag race I dont care, but come back with a reason, logical point, a question, so we can have a discussion. Its not a agree to disagree type of situation. We have made the points, back them up with theoretical and practical examples, along with specific values, and what has come back, is nonsense.
thoughts,
Mark
That's why I made the angels on the head of a pin point - in a lot of cases, we're driving cars that aren't geared perfectly for a given track, hence the torquey beast is quicker off the corners than the peaky motor. Quite often we do this to ourselves by tweaking the motor (cam, chip, headers) without thinking through the changes to the shape of the power curve and we leave it hooked up to the same old tranny.
For the specific question: Will two cars with the exact HP curve shapes accelerate at the same rate at any speed, any place on the track? (even though one has 50% more torque than the other at the engine?) the answer is unequivocally yes as long as I can keep the car in the power band, which we can with those two cars. Most Porsches, BMW's etc, have close enough ratio boxes to do this. My '63 Vette with a Muncie M-20 was OK with a stock 340 HP 327 in it, the gear spacing was wide but usable. I put in a peakier 327 to get more HP and had to install a 5-speed to be able to use it because the power didn't come on until about 1000 rpm later, with no serious increase in the redline. The wide ratio box killed me because I kept dropping out of the power band but couldn't practically select a lower gear. That's the only point I'm trying to make here - one size doesn't fit all.
02-09-2009, 11:52 PM
#155
Rennlist Member
Mark, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to the NASA Nationals this year, bring your car, please get new tires and bushings so you can truly beat us, I would hate to hear any excuses. Also please run in GTS3 so we can see apples to apples, oh, just bolt on as many of your electric superchargers inline as needed to get the HP level required to run in GTS3 with us. If you are already in GTS4 or GTS5 we might even be willing to make a few adjustments and run in 4 or 5 with you instead.
Thank you,
Thank you,
02-10-2009, 12:13 AM
#156
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Ive been eye balling it for a few years now! I would LOVE to go. Road Atlanta right? I would even bolt on some new tires , but the old bushings, i think its what gives me the edge. I think NASA, (The rocket company) would need to look at my bump stops to see their spring rate to design new springs and shocks to match what seems to be working now. 
So Ill stick with the old beat up stuff.
Tough to do GTS3 now with the engine upgrades, as I was solid in that class when i was helping out with initial rules. I couldnt go GTS3 now, unless I bolted on some significant weight in and thats not that far off possiblity. I dont want to weigh over 3100lbs , as the car is just not right at that weight. (done that before in POC races in 2001).
You never know. A major goal of mine is to visit that track!
mk
So Ill stick with the old beat up stuff.Tough to do GTS3 now with the engine upgrades, as I was solid in that class when i was helping out with initial rules. I couldnt go GTS3 now, unless I bolted on some significant weight in and thats not that far off possiblity. I dont want to weigh over 3100lbs , as the car is just not right at that weight. (done that before in POC races in 2001).
You never know. A major goal of mine is to visit that track!
mk
Mark, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE come to the NASA Nationals this year, bring your car, please get new tires and bushings so you can truly beat us, I would hate to hear any excuses. Also please run in GTS3 so we can see apples to apples, oh, just bolt on as many of your electric superchargers inline as needed to get the HP level required to run in GTS3 with us. If you are already in GTS4 or GTS5 we might even be willing to make a few adjustments and run in 4 or 5 with you instead.
Thank you,
Thank you,
Last edited by mark kibort; 02-10-2009 at 01:07 AM.
02-10-2009, 12:17 AM
#157
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
The insult was aimed at your constant following of senseless insults after VR does his chest bumping.
The things Im discussing here are basic, yes, however nothing more in the sport is more mis understoon. Just look at some of the posts here.
Anyway, just try to add some value here instead of feeding your ego by trying to put someone down. Just watching you posts just reminded me of that singer, i dont know why. All I hear when you post is, "Yeahhh".
mk
The things Im discussing here are basic, yes, however nothing more in the sport is more mis understoon. Just look at some of the posts here.
Anyway, just try to add some value here instead of feeding your ego by trying to put someone down. Just watching you posts just reminded me of that singer, i dont know why. All I hear when you post is, "Yeahhh".
mk
02-10-2009, 12:20 AM
#158
Rennlist Member
Ive been eye balling it for a few years now! I would LOVE to go. Road Atlanta right? I would even bolt on some new tires , but the old bushings, i think its what gives me the edge. I think NASA, (The rocket company) would to look at my bump stops to see their spring rate to design new springs and shocks to match what seems to be working now, so Ill stick with the old beat up stuff.
tough to do GTS3 now, as I was solid in that class when i was helping out with initia rules. I couldnt go GTS3 now, unless I bolted on some significant weight.
You never know. A major goal of mine is to visit that track!
mk
tough to do GTS3 now, as I was solid in that class when i was helping out with initia rules. I couldnt go GTS3 now, unless I bolted on some significant weight.
You never know. A major goal of mine is to visit that track!
mk
Not RA, NASA Nat's will be at Miller this year. Last few years were at Mid-Ohio.
02-10-2009, 12:20 AM
#159
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Ok Bob Bull,
If thats how you see it. (and by the way, ive been using the same instance to make a point that somehow not able to be absorbed by some). Go ahead, change it up.
How about we do the "choose the dyno you want on your car " game and see how everyone does?
Or better yet, lets go over a point that you might have.
Mk
If thats how you see it. (and by the way, ive been using the same instance to make a point that somehow not able to be absorbed by some). Go ahead, change it up.
How about we do the "choose the dyno you want on your car " game and see how everyone does?
Or better yet, lets go over a point that you might have.
Mk
See Mark, you can only answer one question...over, and over, and over, and over again! If a person's question doesn't fit your rote, pat answer, you must rephrase it to fit your simplistic, standard answer. I'm taking a further discount you you personally Mark, as you continue to show that unless you can use the terms "if" and "magically", you are lost!
02-10-2009, 12:34 AM
#160
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Huuh, I wasnt an english major. what the heck are you trying to say below?
let me refresh your memory here. The question was if you have two equal HP cars, which one will be faster on a road course, the one with more torque?
Here are two HP curves. one from a BMW e36 euro, and a V8 powered race car
which one would you want at the race track. Lets keep the gear spacing the same for both , but keep in mind here, one car is much lower in torque than the other yet both have near the same HP.
show your work
Lets just say that both cars have 27% rpm drop (73% of redline rpm) with each shift. Call it 7700 to 5600 for the BMW and 6300 to 4500 for the V8
Mk
let me refresh your memory here. The question was if you have two equal HP cars, which one will be faster on a road course, the one with more torque?
Here are two HP curves. one from a BMW e36 euro, and a V8 powered race car
which one would you want at the race track. Lets keep the gear spacing the same for both , but keep in mind here, one car is much lower in torque than the other yet both have near the same HP.
show your work
Lets just say that both cars have 27% rpm drop (73% of redline rpm) with each shift. Call it 7700 to 5600 for the BMW and 6300 to 4500 for the V8
Mk
See Mark, you can only answer one question...over, and over, and over, and over again! If a person's question doesn't fit your rote, pat answer, you must rephrase it to fit your simplistic, standard answer. I'm taking a further discount you you personally Mark, as you continue to show that unless you can use the terms "if" and "magically", you are lost!
Last edited by mark kibort; 02-10-2009 at 01:54 AM.
02-10-2009, 12:41 AM
#161
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Veloce Raptor,
Here above are two dyno runs, both of the same HP, one is also near and dear to you heart, an old e36 euro 3.2! (286rwhp) the other is a higher torque V8 at 289 rwhp. The BMW has near 75 ft-lbs of torque less. What would have an advantage on a road course. Why?
It specifically answers Des' queston because the answer is " It depends", even when all the variables besides the engine / and drive-train are the same.
mk
Here above are two dyno runs, both of the same HP, one is also near and dear to you heart, an old e36 euro 3.2! (286rwhp) the other is a higher torque V8 at 289 rwhp. The BMW has near 75 ft-lbs of torque less. What would have an advantage on a road course. Why?
It specifically answers Des' queston because the answer is " It depends", even when all the variables besides the engine / and drive-train are the same.
mk
As for your question, how is that in ANY way relevant to what started this mess: namely Des' query about which of two 400hp cars wuld be better on a road course? One with low TQ or one with high TQ?
Are you actually saying the low TQ one would be better on a road course? Because your 20,000,000 words posted so far on this topic--in two threads--seems to be arguing this.
I mean, SERIOUSLY, Mark: Des asked the time, and you have spent a week+ explaining how your watch was made.
Are you actually saying the low TQ one would be better on a road course? Because your 20,000,000 words posted so far on this topic--in two threads--seems to be arguing this.
I mean, SERIOUSLY, Mark: Des asked the time, and you have spent a week+ explaining how your watch was made.
02-10-2009, 01:04 AM
#162
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Great points Bruce.
We were just talknig past each other then. I guess I should have been more clear about Identical hp curves and Identical gear ratios (ie same spacing). But, you are right, in our world, we dont have the luxury of selecting the right gear boxes to match all tracks, and to your point, in reality , the broader HP curves are charateristics of high torque engines. If so, and you have wider gears, then of course, the high torque engine is a requirment, provideing it doesnt fall into the bucket of a few dogs that have the HP fall off too fast. the example Ive put on the table is unique but drives the point that there is no one answer when someone asks, "same HP one with higher or lower torque, which is bettter for a road course". Its almost as loaded as a question as what rear end ratio to use? The answer the becomes, as some of the early posters validated, "it depends".
Mark
We were just talknig past each other then. I guess I should have been more clear about Identical hp curves and Identical gear ratios (ie same spacing). But, you are right, in our world, we dont have the luxury of selecting the right gear boxes to match all tracks, and to your point, in reality , the broader HP curves are charateristics of high torque engines. If so, and you have wider gears, then of course, the high torque engine is a requirment, provideing it doesnt fall into the bucket of a few dogs that have the HP fall off too fast. the example Ive put on the table is unique but drives the point that there is no one answer when someone asks, "same HP one with higher or lower torque, which is bettter for a road course". Its almost as loaded as a question as what rear end ratio to use? The answer the becomes, as some of the early posters validated, "it depends".
Mark
Hey Mark, on the Caddie vs. BMW issues, we're in violent agreement, apparently getting more violent as we go on. Those two curves, with the gearing in those cars, yep - very, very similar performance. I was referring to the concept you reinforced in a later post, about the flatter power curve (meaning more torque down low) which basically gives us a wider usable power band making the car easier for us to drive fast because it masks a)deficiencies in driving style or b) too wide a spacing between gears - both issues most of us face due to limited ability or budget.
My '63 Vette with a Muncie M-20 was OK with a stock 340 HP 327 in it, the gear spacing was wide but usable. I put in a peakier 327 to get more HP and had to install a 5-speed to be able to use it because the power didn't come on until about 1000 rpm later, with no serious increase in the redline. The wide ratio box killed me because I kept dropping out of the power band but couldn't practically select a lower gear. That's the only point I'm trying to make here - one size doesn't fit all.
My '63 Vette with a Muncie M-20 was OK with a stock 340 HP 327 in it, the gear spacing was wide but usable. I put in a peakier 327 to get more HP and had to install a 5-speed to be able to use it because the power didn't come on until about 1000 rpm later, with no serious increase in the redline. The wide ratio box killed me because I kept dropping out of the power band but couldn't practically select a lower gear. That's the only point I'm trying to make here - one size doesn't fit all.
02-10-2009, 01:21 AM
#163
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Here is another set of two dyno runs. Both having the same HP, and one having a lot more torque than the other. 911 vs older 928. the nice thing about these dyno runs is the curves are not skewed with RPM. So this one is a pure HP equal, torque is greater with one of the two engines.
If you are choosing one vs the other, which is going to perform better on the Road course?
When you look at these dyno runs, you have to look closely as to what is going on.
It also gets into the basic premise for the GTS class for which I fought so hard for a set of rule changes. In this case, is it really fair for the 928 to have its HP averged with its torque? We are all now understanding that the area under the HP curve is what you need to look at . This poor 928 has to average its HP down even further due to its higher torque value to HP ratio. (according to the GTS rules). This was a tough one for the GTS rule makers to deal with . However, I think this is mostly a rare situation , unless you have a old 928 or an old stroker e30 2.5 low rever! They dont average lower torque engines for the reasons we have discussed here. If they were to fine tune their rules, the could do some kind of HP averaging with ranges or limits. That would be the best way.
If you are choosing one vs the other, which is going to perform better on the Road course?
When you look at these dyno runs, you have to look closely as to what is going on.
It also gets into the basic premise for the GTS class for which I fought so hard for a set of rule changes. In this case, is it really fair for the 928 to have its HP averged with its torque? We are all now understanding that the area under the HP curve is what you need to look at . This poor 928 has to average its HP down even further due to its higher torque value to HP ratio. (according to the GTS rules). This was a tough one for the GTS rule makers to deal with . However, I think this is mostly a rare situation , unless you have a old 928 or an old stroker e30 2.5 low rever!
They dont average lower torque engines for the reasons we have discussed here. If they were to fine tune their rules, the could do some kind of HP averaging with ranges or limits. That would be the best way.
Last edited by mark kibort; 02-10-2009 at 01:38 AM.
02-10-2009, 01:50 AM
#164
Hey Mark, on the Caddie vs. BMW issues, we're in violent agreement, apparently getting more violent as we go on. Those two curves, with the gearing in those cars, yep - very, very similar performance. I was referring to the concept you reinforced in a later post, about the flatter power curve (meaning more torque down low) which basically gives us a wider usable power band making the car easier for us to drive fast because it masks a)deficiencies in driving style or b) too wide a spacing between gears - both issues most of us face due to limited ability or budget.
That's why I made the angels on the head of a pin point - in a lot of cases, we're driving cars that aren't geared perfectly for a given track, hence the torquey beast is quicker off the corners than the peaky motor. Quite often we do this to ourselves by tweaking the motor (cam, chip, headers) without thinking through the changes to the shape of the power curve and we leave it hooked up to the same old tranny.
For the specific question: Will two cars with the exact HP curve shapes accelerate at the same rate at any speed, any place on the track? (even though one has 50% more torque than the other at the engine?) the answer is unequivocally yes as long as I can keep the car in the power band, which we can with those two cars. Most Porsches, BMW's etc, have close enough ratio boxes to do this. My '63 Vette with a Muncie M-20 was OK with a stock 340 HP 327 in it, the gear spacing was wide but usable. I put in a peakier 327 to get more HP and had to install a 5-speed to be able to use it because the power didn't come on until about 1000 rpm later, with no serious increase in the redline. The wide ratio box killed me because I kept dropping out of the power band but couldn't practically select a lower gear. That's the only point I'm trying to make here - one size doesn't fit all.
That's why I made the angels on the head of a pin point - in a lot of cases, we're driving cars that aren't geared perfectly for a given track, hence the torquey beast is quicker off the corners than the peaky motor. Quite often we do this to ourselves by tweaking the motor (cam, chip, headers) without thinking through the changes to the shape of the power curve and we leave it hooked up to the same old tranny.
For the specific question: Will two cars with the exact HP curve shapes accelerate at the same rate at any speed, any place on the track? (even though one has 50% more torque than the other at the engine?) the answer is unequivocally yes as long as I can keep the car in the power band, which we can with those two cars. Most Porsches, BMW's etc, have close enough ratio boxes to do this. My '63 Vette with a Muncie M-20 was OK with a stock 340 HP 327 in it, the gear spacing was wide but usable. I put in a peakier 327 to get more HP and had to install a 5-speed to be able to use it because the power didn't come on until about 1000 rpm later, with no serious increase in the redline. The wide ratio box killed me because I kept dropping out of the power band but couldn't practically select a lower gear. That's the only point I'm trying to make here - one size doesn't fit all.
When you setup Cup Cars for VLN @ Nürburgring, you can benefit from changing the gearing since the gearbox since Cup Cars are not delivered with a gearbox setup for that track. Ultimately, combined with a torque curve to widen the power to lower revs without sacrificing it on the top. Like the new 4.0 RSR vs the old 3.8.
02-10-2009, 01:57 AM
#165
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Bruce found a major error in my comparisons conditions. When I was talking common gear ratios I said, 73% RPM drop, what i ment to say was the shifts ended up at 73% of redline, and that really is a 27% rpm drop. I corrected it on the last post where it was mentioned. Thanks bruce.
So VR and anyone else that wants to play?
we have two comparisons where you have.
BMW vs V8 5 liter both 285rwhp but one has 75ft-lbs of torque
911 vs 928 4.5 liter. both have near 200rwhp, but one has 50ft-lbs of torque more than the other
How do these two stack up as road race cars?
The answer here is going to specifically answers Des' question.
mk
So VR and anyone else that wants to play?
we have two comparisons where you have.
BMW vs V8 5 liter both 285rwhp but one has 75ft-lbs of torque
911 vs 928 4.5 liter. both have near 200rwhp, but one has 50ft-lbs of torque more than the other
How do these two stack up as road race cars?
The answer here is going to specifically answers Des' question.
mk