HP vs Torque Discussion (No Jokes, No bantering. Just facts and reality)
02-06-2009, 08:33 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I absolutely agree, and spend most of my racing time figuring out ways to make, me and my car run faster than the next guy that is doing the same thing.
The point of the discussion was that if the two cars that we saw the dynos from, went at it on the track, they would be extremely close. The only reason VR saw differences was because he wasnt driving the BMW where it was modified to make the same HP as the Caddy. As you know, working with grand AM teams, the subtle differences will show up in big differences during a race. How the car acts off line, through traffic, hot, loose, pushy, through out a race, and how the driver handles it with his or her's own strategy , track decisions, pit work, usually determines how he or she does in the end.
lots of factors, we were debating only one of them. I thought that would be easy.
The point of the discussion was that if the two cars that we saw the dynos from, went at it on the track, they would be extremely close. The only reason VR saw differences was because he wasnt driving the BMW where it was modified to make the same HP as the Caddy. As you know, working with grand AM teams, the subtle differences will show up in big differences during a race. How the car acts off line, through traffic, hot, loose, pushy, through out a race, and how the driver handles it with his or her's own strategy , track decisions, pit work, usually determines how he or she does in the end.
lots of factors, we were debating only one of them. I thought that would be easy.
Drivers have their own driving styles, and some cars/platforms suit those styles better than others.
The fun thing about engineering, mathematics, and physics, is that it sometimes goes out the window when you throw a driver behind the wheel, on a track, with a bunch of variable conditions (weather, track conditions, etc), and mix in a healthy dose of racing.
Never mind comparing two different drivers on two different tracks in two different situations.
As a computer engineer, I appreciate the math. As the manager of a grand-am racing team, I can also appreciate the artistry and intangibles that add up to the final result.
The fun thing about engineering, mathematics, and physics, is that it sometimes goes out the window when you throw a driver behind the wheel, on a track, with a bunch of variable conditions (weather, track conditions, etc), and mix in a healthy dose of racing.
Never mind comparing two different drivers on two different tracks in two different situations.
As a computer engineer, I appreciate the math. As the manager of a grand-am racing team, I can also appreciate the artistry and intangibles that add up to the final result.
02-06-2009, 08:35 PM
#33
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds.
Your comment really does make you sound like a sanctimonious asshat, by the way. And I'm Canadian... do you have ANY idea how hard it is for me to say that!?
02-06-2009, 08:41 PM
#34
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I didnt catch it at first either. Stock BMW M3 is 414hp and caddy 550hp.. With me so far?
Dyno runs that we found the BMW M3 that had 500+hp (ie 430rwhp).
We compared the two by bench racing and showing there is NO advantage for either one off any turn, down any straight, etc. the both would put the same torque to the wheels, even though one had 120ft-lbs more torque than the other.
VR, stated he went faster in a caddy by 10mph down a straight than the BMW. Hmmmm, do you think he was talking about the two cars we had dynos for, or the two he drove, one of which, (the BMW M3) was probably stock.
Thats why he got 10mph faster down the straight than the Caddy. Caddy had 550hp BMW had only 414. pretty simple!
I guess if that was VR's experience, stock to stock, its plausible. But, based on the dyno'ed cars, not much of a chance of that happening!
MK
Dyno runs that we found the BMW M3 that had 500+hp (ie 430rwhp).
We compared the two by bench racing and showing there is NO advantage for either one off any turn, down any straight, etc. the both would put the same torque to the wheels, even though one had 120ft-lbs more torque than the other.
VR, stated he went faster in a caddy by 10mph down a straight than the BMW. Hmmmm, do you think he was talking about the two cars we had dynos for, or the two he drove, one of which, (the BMW M3) was probably stock.
Thats why he got 10mph faster down the straight than the Caddy. Caddy had 550hp BMW had only 414. pretty simple!
I guess if that was VR's experience, stock to stock, its plausible. But, based on the dyno'ed cars, not much of a chance of that happening!
MK
Oh ok he was talking about an M3 vs CTS-V. I thought he was talking about an M5. Either way 10 mph is a lot though the M3 brakes are suspect.
02-06-2009, 08:43 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Look I wasnt even going to respond to it. You know what happend to the last thread. It got personal. We are discussing the topic and just tossing out jabs for no reason (that I can see) other than to take a shot from behind your computer screen is a little rude. I think most here would want some type of contribution than someone posting an off topic statement or a picture of an alternative lifestyle person, running in circles.
Post if you want. Its a "relatively" free country here. Just like Canada!!
By the way , you did make a contributing comment. (thank you for that).
Bob. (who that post was directed to ) did not.
mk
Post if you want. Its a "relatively" free country here. Just like Canada!!
By the way , you did make a contributing comment. (thank you for that).
Bob. (who that post was directed to ) did not.
mk
I'm sorry... I didn't ask a question either, as I assumed a discussion wasn't strictly relegated to someone asking questions, but was also open to someone contributing their opinions, thoughts, or insights.
Please forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds.
Your comment really does make you sound like a sanctimonious asshat, by the way. And I'm Canadian... do you have ANY idea how hard it is for me to say that!?
Please forgive me if I've overstepped my bounds.
Your comment really does make you sound like a sanctimonious asshat, by the way. And I'm Canadian... do you have ANY idea how hard it is for me to say that!?
02-06-2009, 08:53 PM
#36
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
You know, I dont know. Thats a good point. If the M5 is 550hp, and he drove both, and the CTSV was 10mph faster, something else is up. It doesnt really matter, because of all the variables of any two cars. The point of all this is, with the two dyno runs, both cars should have the exact same acceleration at any speed around the track. (all things being equal) Finding the things that are not equal and making them equal is the challenge. but from a power plant discussion, the extra torque means nothing if it isnt found at the rear tires. based on those dyno runs, they should be dead nuts equal.
I think it then goes back to the post on this thread about the top pro's driving both and not seeing much of a difference. For some reason, VR saw some. Whatever it was, it was not due to a numeric differnce in engine torque values.
Edit: Sorry, it was an M5. (just re-read that older post)
anyway, like i said, he could have seen a difference, but it wasnt the two cars taht were looked at on the dynos.
mk
I think it then goes back to the post on this thread about the top pro's driving both and not seeing much of a difference. For some reason, VR saw some. Whatever it was, it was not due to a numeric differnce in engine torque values.
Edit: Sorry, it was an M5. (just re-read that older post)
anyway, like i said, he could have seen a difference, but it wasnt the two cars taht were looked at on the dynos.
mk
02-06-2009, 08:59 PM
#37
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
GT3RS has 415hp 300ft/lb, TT has 480 hp 460ft/lb. GT3RS is roughly 7.4 lbs/hp and TT is roughly 7.3 lbs/hp. The TT out accelerates the GT3RS at any given interval and gear. Can you now stop with the ridiculous junk science lecture Mark? Some of us are actually educated.
02-06-2009, 09:12 PM
#38
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
You must not have been paying attention. The average HP for the turbo, as expected , FAR exceeds the GT3RS. It does this with more torque in the earlier stages of the HP curve. This has never been in question or disputed.
I dont know where you got your HP to weights, but the turbo has near 480hp and the GT3 has 415hp. who knows what the test weights were, but it doesnt matter. HP-seconds my friend. the turbo has more of them and thats the reason for its greater acceleration in all areas. Its greater torque indicates more average HP, HP-seconds, area under the curve, etc.
my car vs others with even more car is a perfect example of this. I have lower HP than most of my competitors, but my higher average HP is what gives me an acceleration edge, not the engine torque value. I would glady put in a gt3rs engine in my car if it would fit, and run 438rwhp with 275rwt.
Its all about power.
Im not questioning your education , but your comprehension.
Where did you get your hp to weight ratios?
in order to both to be around 7.5:1, the GT3RS would have to weigh 3100lbs vs the Turbo would have to weigh 3600lbs. Is this what you are telling us?
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Edit: I just looked up the weights. 3500lbs for the turbo. what a pig! anyway, your comparsion is make our point as well. the turbo has more HP all the way around, due to the turbo. this has never been part of the debate. what you have shown us, is that the turbo has more weight, is still faster even though it has a slightly better HP /weight ratio (expected). The HP curve of the turbo is going to be much more flat than the GT3RS.
mk
I dont know where you got your HP to weights, but the turbo has near 480hp and the GT3 has 415hp. who knows what the test weights were, but it doesnt matter. HP-seconds my friend. the turbo has more of them and thats the reason for its greater acceleration in all areas. Its greater torque indicates more average HP, HP-seconds, area under the curve, etc.
my car vs others with even more car is a perfect example of this. I have lower HP than most of my competitors, but my higher average HP is what gives me an acceleration edge, not the engine torque value. I would glady put in a gt3rs engine in my car if it would fit, and run 438rwhp with 275rwt.
Its all about power.
Im not questioning your education , but your comprehension.
Where did you get your hp to weight ratios?
in order to both to be around 7.5:1, the GT3RS would have to weigh 3100lbs vs the Turbo would have to weigh 3600lbs. Is this what you are telling us?
This is an apples to oranges comparison.
Edit: I just looked up the weights. 3500lbs for the turbo. what a pig! anyway, your comparsion is make our point as well. the turbo has more HP all the way around, due to the turbo. this has never been part of the debate. what you have shown us, is that the turbo has more weight, is still faster even though it has a slightly better HP /weight ratio (expected). The HP curve of the turbo is going to be much more flat than the GT3RS.
mk
Last edited by mark kibort; 02-06-2009 at 09:39 PM.
02-06-2009, 09:23 PM
#40
Mark simply stated that if "when any two same cars are being compared, if they have the same HP at any same vehicle speed, they will have the exact same accelerative forces."
02-06-2009, 09:43 PM
#41
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Exactly.
Here is a turbo 911 set of dyno runs playing with boost. Tons of power, made early!
Go plot this dyno run on the Viper's dyno run and tell me what you see. Use the same 455rwhp 911T dyno run as the 455rwhp viper run. The turbo makes more power down low than even the Viper.
There is no point to this as both cars if they are going to have the same acceleration potential will have the same HP at any vehicle speed. now, if we were able to find a turbo that reved up to 9,000rpm and looked at the graph, we might see some relatively low torque values , but still the same HP for the same range of speed.
mk
Here is a turbo 911 set of dyno runs playing with boost. Tons of power, made early!
Go plot this dyno run on the Viper's dyno run and tell me what you see. Use the same 455rwhp 911T dyno run as the 455rwhp viper run. The turbo makes more power down low than even the Viper.
There is no point to this as both cars if they are going to have the same acceleration potential will have the same HP at any vehicle speed. now, if we were able to find a turbo that reved up to 9,000rpm and looked at the graph, we might see some relatively low torque values , but still the same HP for the same range of speed.
mk
I hope you're not referring the maximum torque figure being the one causing the 997 Turbo go quicker. Because it's completely incorrect. And if someone "educated" you in that manner - ask for your money back.
Mark simply stated that if "when any two same cars are being compared, if they have the same HP at any same vehicle speed, they will have the exact same accelerative forces."
Mark simply stated that if "when any two same cars are being compared, if they have the same HP at any same vehicle speed, they will have the exact same accelerative forces."
02-06-2009, 09:43 PM
#42
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
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"!
02-06-2009, 09:43 PM
#43
Race Car
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: With A Manual Transmission
Posts: 4,728
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Just like we've seen mag tests of the 997 GT3 trap 120 mph and the fastest TT trap we've seen is what 121-122? That hardly suggests what this test does. And the GT3 is far more driver dependant even driving in a straight line.
I'd bet money there isn't one RS that's a legit 7.4 lbs per hp. Porsche left that number the same from the 996's and it's nonsense. They are more like 3220 lbs for the base GT3 and 3180 for the RS. 7.66 to 7.3 hp for the Turbo.
They are not even close to the power/weight ratio that you show, not only that but the DF on the RS makes it less aero dynamic which will take affect at higher speeds.
02-06-2009, 09:52 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Nice to see you back again. And I do like the 911 by the way.
Junk science? foundation for our racing. Got to know it.
Mk
Junk science? foundation for our racing. Got to know it.
Mk
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...?
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...?
02-06-2009, 09:57 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Hey, not even in debate here. Two very different cars and I've raced against both types. They have their own unique advantages.
all sorts of factors involved. sure, not only the mild downforce for added drag, but dont forget the extra power the turbo has to fight the HP/drag race too! It gets fairly substantial at the higher speeds.
Again, apples and oranges. But, interesting time segments.
Mk
all sorts of factors involved. sure, not only the mild downforce for added drag, but dont forget the extra power the turbo has to fight the HP/drag race too! It gets fairly substantial at the higher speeds.
Again, apples and oranges. But, interesting time segments.
Mk
First off the residual affects of a better launch are felt throughout the acceleration table for any car. The fact that the TT has an AWD launch will have an affect far beyond just 0-60 mph.
Just like we've seen mag tests of the 997 GT3 trap 120 mph and the fastest TT trap we've seen is what 121-122? That hardly suggests what this test does. And the GT3 is far more driver dependant even driving in a straight line.
I'd bet money there isn't one RS that's a legit 7.4 lbs per hp. Porsche left that number the same from the 996's and it's nonsense. They are more like 3220 lbs for the base GT3 and 3180 for the RS. 7.66 to 7.3 hp for the Turbo.
They are not even close to the power/weight ratio that you show, not only that but the DF on the RS makes it less aero dynamic which will take affect at higher speeds.
Just like we've seen mag tests of the 997 GT3 trap 120 mph and the fastest TT trap we've seen is what 121-122? That hardly suggests what this test does. And the GT3 is far more driver dependant even driving in a straight line.
I'd bet money there isn't one RS that's a legit 7.4 lbs per hp. Porsche left that number the same from the 996's and it's nonsense. They are more like 3220 lbs for the base GT3 and 3180 for the RS. 7.66 to 7.3 hp for the Turbo.
They are not even close to the power/weight ratio that you show, not only that but the DF on the RS makes it less aero dynamic which will take affect at higher speeds.