HP vs Torque Discussion (No Jokes, No bantering. Just facts and reality)
02-10-2009, 06:32 PM
#197
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Mark, you don't even get what you don't get! Let me help you out here, and try to take a deep breath and concentrate...I, and maybe some others, am not going to answer your simplistic "questions" simply because you demand that I do so. Nor do I feel a need to discuss my resume with you. Get it?
Maybe this old saying will help you grasp the concept..."Pardon me Sir, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think"!
Maybe this old saying will help you grasp the concept..."Pardon me Sir, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think"!
02-10-2009, 06:45 PM
#198
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
That was exactly the point of all that discussion. For some reason, and that could be another discussion on its own, VR had seen the CTSV outpeform the BMW. However, i doubt that the BMW and CTSV curves were the same as we saw here on this discussion. equal hp of 438rwhp and disparate torque values.
I would say the curves and the torque levels are a little unusual, but it makes the point of , "it depends".
mk
I would say the curves and the torque levels are a little unusual, but it makes the point of , "it depends".
mk
I look at the test between Heinreicy and Auberlin at Monticello and they were neck and neck (The V was .4 ahead) and I think the cars are just that, give and take but it's hard to limit the V's advantages to torque because it also has a substantial weight/power advantage, no lift shift, better observed braking distances in same day testing (much better actually), better road holding, more advanced suspension as well. While the BMW has the 7 speed tranny with no torque interuption, better aero and less weight, and a more efficient powerband (in utilizing optimal shifts with redline).
While I usually shun mag tests I refuse to believe that Auberlin wouldn't have taken the chance to beat the V if he could have. But I have to wonder how the M would fare if the power/weight ratio was the same.
The V is 7.55 lbs/hp
The M is 8.03 lbs/hp
02-10-2009, 07:12 PM
#199
That's why teams do the amount of testing that they do... because there's more to racing than a few high-school formulas.
There's also a reason why the big teams have racks upon racks of computers that do nothing but run simulations 24x7 to try and find the best overall design/setup. And the algorithms they're using aren't exactly the simplistic formula you're posting about.
A friend of mine just set up a new simulation cluster for Toyota's F1 team last year. NASA doesn't have that kind of power for the space program.
There's also a reason why the big teams have racks upon racks of computers that do nothing but run simulations 24x7 to try and find the best overall design/setup. And the algorithms they're using aren't exactly the simplistic formula you're posting about.
A friend of mine just set up a new simulation cluster for Toyota's F1 team last year. NASA doesn't have that kind of power for the space program.
Complete O.T question: Do you run your simulations on dedicated software or have you written your own? Shoot me a P.M about it if you want to keep it out of the thread.
02-10-2009, 07:17 PM
#200
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed and hence with no variables known and only two open parameters left with a max torque and a max HP, it really makes no point in trying to run even a single simulation on it if you have no formulas at all. It's utterly pointless, just as taking to different cars out on the track and solely point out one better than the other on a single variable.
By themselves, HP and TQ numbers are fairly meaningless. It's only when they are given context that we can start to answer some questions about "which is better" or "which would you have".
Until then, all you can say is that TQ value of X is > TQ value of Y.
"Better" or "more desirable" is subjective.
02-10-2009, 07:42 PM
#201
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Still trying to find one piece of substance in all of these posts. Maybe the other thread will reveal something.
Nope, same bunch of "username self described" rhetoric. But hey, at least there are pictures.
Nope, same bunch of "username self described" rhetoric. But hey, at least there are pictures.
Mark, you don't even get what you don't get! Let me help you out here, and try to take a deep breath and concentrate...I, and maybe some others, am not going to answer your simplistic "questions" simply because you demand that I do so. Nor do I feel a need to discuss my resume with you. Get it?
Maybe this old saying will help you grasp the concept..."Pardon me Sir, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think"!
Maybe this old saying will help you grasp the concept..."Pardon me Sir, but you must have mistaken me for someone who gives a **** what you think"!
BINGO!
BTW Mark, you seem to assume if no replies are forthcoming, then no others understand your game. If you take your ball and glove to a baseball field, and no others follow to play baseball, do you assume you are the only one who knows how to play the game? Or, could there be another reason you are standing there alone, pounding your ball into your glove, so to speak?
BTW Mark, you seem to assume if no replies are forthcoming, then no others understand your game. If you take your ball and glove to a baseball field, and no others follow to play baseball, do you assume you are the only one who knows how to play the game? Or, could there be another reason you are standing there alone, pounding your ball into your glove, so to speak?
Don't kid yourself Mark. You would be laughed out of the room for ruining a nice gathering of normal, beer drinking folks. I'm sure you have become very familiar with that experience!
Oh, and please don't waste our time with such ignorant posts as your last, where you tell all to stop with the "insults" then because you can't control your mouth yo hurl some yourself. See Mark, THAT is what makes you so laughable!
Oh, and please don't waste our time with such ignorant posts as your last, where you tell all to stop with the "insults" then because you can't control your mouth yo hurl some yourself. See Mark, THAT is what makes you so laughable!
Never even met this VR guy Mark, so you can try to find another avenue for your insults because that one makes no sense.
Now, if you are done insulting me, can we move on to why you are SO impressed with the fact that you have conversations with "PHD'ed engineers"? Do you have any idea what my credentials are Mark? No, I didn't think so....all you want to do is hear yourself talk over, and over, and over, and over again!
You seem to have a need to find a way to demean me Mark. Are you feeling inferior and needing to find a way to bring me down to your simplistic level?
Now, if you are done insulting me, can we move on to why you are SO impressed with the fact that you have conversations with "PHD'ed engineers"? Do you have any idea what my credentials are Mark? No, I didn't think so....all you want to do is hear yourself talk over, and over, and over, and over again!
You seem to have a need to find a way to demean me Mark. Are you feeling inferior and needing to find a way to bring me down to your simplistic level?
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!
Unbelievable! People who drone on in order to hear themselves preach on a subject are usually rather insecure in their beliefs, can't tolerate anyone who disagrees with them or says anything that isn't a "question" designed to send them further down the preaching path, and will NEVER STFU!
But they sure are funny to watch!
But they sure are funny to watch!
See Bruce? You tried, and did very well at that.
But the man who is so overwhelmed by his own grasp of basic Physics is looking for one statement, and only that one statement...."YES MASTER"! Saying anything else seems to be seen by him to be the OK to continue with his condescending tone, continuous accusations of other's inability to grasp the simple concepts that he is so enthralled with, and repetitious droning on and on with same basic information. "Maniacal" is the word that comes to my mind.
The PMs that are flying around with the jokes about this Preacher must be setting a new volume level!
But the man who is so overwhelmed by his own grasp of basic Physics is looking for one statement, and only that one statement...."YES MASTER"! Saying anything else seems to be seen by him to be the OK to continue with his condescending tone, continuous accusations of other's inability to grasp the simple concepts that he is so enthralled with, and repetitious droning on and on with same basic information. "Maniacal" is the word that comes to my mind.
The PMs that are flying around with the jokes about this Preacher must be setting a new volume level!
Mark, please stop preaching to me. You are coming across as a simple minded, crazed little man who has suffered long from people not listening to him. I'm sorry for your situation. I never said your VERY BASIC science was wrong. I simply said that you are very humorous and I am trying to keep the humor going!
Sorry Mark, but you don't get to decide who gets to post what, where and when! You can twist the questions and answers all you want, and even discuss my "911" (always the envy of 928 owners, right?), but you are sounding more shrill by the minute.
I have no questions about the "junk science" that you are posting, as pointed out above. It is easily understood...for what it is. If you read my post again, you will see that it is called a "statement". Just because you are sounding like Professor Erwin Corey, I am not one of your "students"!
You can twist the questions and answers all you want, and even discuss my "911" (always the envy of 928 owners, right?), but you are sounding more shrill by the minute.I have no questions about the "junk science" that you are posting, as pointed out above. It is easily understood...for what it is. If you read my post again, you will see that it is called a "statement". Just because you are sounding like Professor Erwin Corey, I am not one of your "students"!
02-10-2009, 07:46 PM
#202
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Ok, off the bottle. Crazy me, but usually folks follow discussions when they are interested. Since your only interest is to follow VR's childish insults with some of your own rude commets, I would suggest you "Step away from the Keyboard and put the whiskey bottle down". Let me ask you a question. Why dont you just not read this thread and find something else to do?
Anyway, if you subtract all of your senseless comments and all of my replies to you (Not VR, as he did make a point and he also has cute Avitars
) , the thread actaullly has some good discussion. your 20 posts (that Dez caught) amount to about 5% of the total discussion, yet nothing was contribued to the discussion baseed on the TITLE of the discussion. Do you know where you are??
so, call it overly simplistic. (that's almost funny, as most pro teams have complecated programs to review the vary things we are estimating here. Magnus put it perfect, in that since we dont have the values to plug in to the varaibles, we removed them and just were discussing HP and torque on the SAME car.
Now, go about your anger rant.
mk
Anyway, if you subtract all of your senseless comments and all of my replies to you (Not VR, as he did make a point and he also has cute Avitars
) , the thread actaullly has some good discussion. your 20 posts (that Dez caught) amount to about 5% of the total discussion, yet nothing was contribued to the discussion baseed on the TITLE of the discussion. Do you know where you are??so, call it overly simplistic. (that's almost funny, as most pro teams have complecated programs to review the vary things we are estimating here. Magnus put it perfect, in that since we dont have the values to plug in to the varaibles, we removed them and just were discussing HP and torque on the SAME car.
Now, go about your anger rant.
mk
02-10-2009, 08:00 PM
#204
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
02-10-2009, 08:03 PM
#205
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
02-10-2009, 08:14 PM
#207
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Wow, then do you even have a white Porsche?
Assumptions? you had a self proclamation of liking,
"younger women, older whiskey, and......" Last I heard whiskey has alcohol.
Sorry, my mistake.
I guess that was more show than go.
Never mind then.
Mk
Assumptions? you had a self proclamation of liking,
"younger women, older whiskey, and......" Last I heard whiskey has alcohol.
Sorry, my mistake.
I guess that was more show than go.
Never mind then.
Mk
