View Poll Results: Who won the debate: MK (HP) or VR (Torque)
Mk won with a simple to understand concept that HP determines torque at the wheels at any speed.
25
17.48%
MK won: When comparing equal HP cars, the one with less torque COULD be better on the road course.
6
4.20%
VR won: When comparing equal HP cars, the one with more torque is better on a road course.
44
30.77%
Neither, as physics dont apply to race cars
18
12.59%
I don't want to open this can of worms again!
50
34.97%
Voters: 143. You may not vote on this poll
Poll: Who won the HP vs Torque debate?
03-23-2009, 01:20 PM
#406
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Notice how NO ONE has chimed in to change their choice, even VR. Ive posted the curves set out by Dez who started with the question. The curves I posted clearly meet his requirement of two cars having the same HP but one with greater torque (lower rpm) than the other (higher rpm).
This is not a grey are question. The clear answer is if the curves look like the one I posted, then yes, the lower torque engine will be a clear winner and have more REAR WHEEL forces at ANY vehicle on any track at any point on the track at any speed! I also backed this up with the actual dyno graphs of two other engines that have the same HP yet, different torque values.
Anyone can just take this bit of information, to any knowegeable resource and confirm that it is just plain factual. There is no grey area. Power at any vehicle speed determines rear wheel forces at any speed. PERIOD.
If you dont agree, post why or forever hold your peace!
mk
This is not a grey are question. The clear answer is if the curves look like the one I posted, then yes, the lower torque engine will be a clear winner and have more REAR WHEEL forces at ANY vehicle on any track at any point on the track at any speed! I also backed this up with the actual dyno graphs of two other engines that have the same HP yet, different torque values.
Anyone can just take this bit of information, to any knowegeable resource and confirm that it is just plain factual. There is no grey area. Power at any vehicle speed determines rear wheel forces at any speed. PERIOD.
If you dont agree, post why or forever hold your peace!
mk
03-23-2009, 01:36 PM
#407
For answers I would guess they would go like this.
A) Because NOBODY cares.
B) Because MK is an idiot.
C) Because we knew the real answer long ago, please review posts.
D) Because MK just likes to inflate himself.
E) Because I already lost bet when I couldn't get post to 30 pages in 1 day.
F) All of the above.
03-23-2009, 01:49 PM
#408
Rennlist Member
Sounds like this should be another poll for you to post Mark !
For answers I would guess they would go like this.
A) Because NOBODY cares.
B) Because MK is an idiot.
C) Because we knew the real answer long ago, please review posts.
D) Because MK just likes to inflate himself.
E) Because I already lost bet when I couldn't get post to 30 pages in 1 day.
F) All of the above.
For answers I would guess they would go like this.
A) Because NOBODY cares.
B) Because MK is an idiot.
C) Because we knew the real answer long ago, please review posts.
D) Because MK just likes to inflate himself.
E) Because I already lost bet when I couldn't get post to 30 pages in 1 day.
F) All of the above.
LMMFAO!!!!
Come on 30 pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
03-23-2009, 02:26 PM
#409
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Sounds like this should be another poll for you to post Mark !
For answers I would guess they would go like this.
A) Because NOBODY cares.
B) Because MK is an idiot.
C) Because we knew the real answer long ago, please review posts.
D) Because MK just likes to inflate himself.
E) Because I already lost bet when I couldn't get post to 30 pages in 1 day.
F) All of the above.
For answers I would guess they would go like this.
A) Because NOBODY cares.
B) Because MK is an idiot.
C) Because we knew the real answer long ago, please review posts.
D) Because MK just likes to inflate himself.
E) Because I already lost bet when I couldn't get post to 30 pages in 1 day.
F) All of the above.
03-23-2009, 02:30 PM
#411
03-23-2009, 03:17 PM
#412
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Deflection! nice job guys!
You know, dont discount the subject matter, it has been debated by far lesser greats than those on this list.
Even in the physics community, these types of debates take some time, BECAUSE a picture is worth a 1000 words. I posted the two sets of graphs making the point
The reason this information is useful, is that when you finally get it , and realize that torque values of an engine make no difference unless you know the HP or RPM of the engine at the point on the track you care about, you are just shooting in the breeze, riding on intuition and in VR's case in the subject, limited "experience".
You know, just because you can, on occasion, can predict something . (ie like VR choosing a higher torque engine of equal hp to another because a few times it had more "grunt" out of the corners") doesnt make it righ or prove you understand the basic principles. I have shown what those principles are and how they effect performance. by understanding them, you can quickly look at a set of HP curves and determine what is the best for your use at any track. (if we are talking about two engine choices for the same car, as was the orignial question). Just think how useful you could REALLY be VR when you are coaching clients and they ask this question of two engines they might be looking to buy, and you stop and say, "hmm, that depends. can I look at the dyno runs for both and Ill give you the trade offs and answer which one i believe to be better" the knee jerk reaction answer of choosing a high torque engine has a certain probability that it will be wrong. proof is below.
So, in the end, people always mock what they dont understand.
VR and others will continue to propagate nonsence, when it comes to this topic. And by the way, IF you get to 30 pages VR-Bull/S- and Viking, it will be on your own. I'm only answering questions regarding to the original subject matter.
That's ok, I'm going racing this week and life is good!
Ha!
Over and out
Let me leave you with two sets of graphs where lower torque engines will outperform a higher torque engine/drivetrain under any circumstances, in the same car. The first graph meets the requirement of Dez's original question. the second two are two different engines, one being 60ft-lbs more engine torque but both have the same HP. the lower torque engine would be better at any point on the race track because, as I have beaten to death, HP determines torque at the same sized rear wheels at any MPH on the track!
If anyone has any more discussion (and there was some good discussion here at points between RV-Bull- and Viking's BS posts), I will answer. otherwise. SEE-YA
EDIT: I just noticed something about the two actual dyno runs. VR always is talking about torque/acceleration out of turns. one thing that i never mentioned or talked about , is yes, out of turns, the rpm can be less than just the redline minus 27% rpm drop. (e.g 6300rpm to 4500rpm). It could be down as low as 3700rpm in that case. If that is the senareo that you want to look at, and for good reason, look at the high torque engine below. it would be at 200hp out of a turn, at 3700rpm. The lower torque engine would be at 205Hp at 4500rpm, (same % drop) which is even under and greater than the normal shift rpm drop, out/in of a turn, the lower torque engine would still have more rear wheel force accelerating out of the turn. Key point!
mk
You know, dont discount the subject matter, it has been debated by far lesser greats than those on this list.
Even in the physics community, these types of debates take some time, BECAUSE a picture is worth a 1000 words. I posted the two sets of graphs making the point
The reason this information is useful, is that when you finally get it , and realize that torque values of an engine make no difference unless you know the HP or RPM of the engine at the point on the track you care about, you are just shooting in the breeze, riding on intuition and in VR's case in the subject, limited "experience".
You know, just because you can, on occasion, can predict something . (ie like VR choosing a higher torque engine of equal hp to another because a few times it had more "grunt" out of the corners") doesnt make it righ or prove you understand the basic principles. I have shown what those principles are and how they effect performance. by understanding them, you can quickly look at a set of HP curves and determine what is the best for your use at any track. (if we are talking about two engine choices for the same car, as was the orignial question). Just think how useful you could REALLY be VR when you are coaching clients and they ask this question of two engines they might be looking to buy, and you stop and say, "hmm, that depends. can I look at the dyno runs for both and Ill give you the trade offs and answer which one i believe to be better" the knee jerk reaction answer of choosing a high torque engine has a certain probability that it will be wrong. proof is below.
So, in the end, people always mock what they dont understand.
VR and others will continue to propagate nonsence, when it comes to this topic. And by the way, IF you get to 30 pages VR-Bull/S- and Viking, it will be on your own. I'm only answering questions regarding to the original subject matter.
That's ok, I'm going racing this week and life is good!
Ha!
Over and out
Let me leave you with two sets of graphs where lower torque engines will outperform a higher torque engine/drivetrain under any circumstances, in the same car. The first graph meets the requirement of Dez's original question. the second two are two different engines, one being 60ft-lbs more engine torque but both have the same HP. the lower torque engine would be better at any point on the race track because, as I have beaten to death, HP determines torque at the same sized rear wheels at any MPH on the track!
If anyone has any more discussion (and there was some good discussion here at points between RV-Bull- and Viking's BS posts), I will answer. otherwise. SEE-YA
EDIT: I just noticed something about the two actual dyno runs. VR always is talking about torque/acceleration out of turns. one thing that i never mentioned or talked about , is yes, out of turns, the rpm can be less than just the redline minus 27% rpm drop. (e.g 6300rpm to 4500rpm). It could be down as low as 3700rpm in that case. If that is the senareo that you want to look at, and for good reason, look at the high torque engine below. it would be at 200hp out of a turn, at 3700rpm. The lower torque engine would be at 205Hp at 4500rpm, (same % drop) which is even under and greater than the normal shift rpm drop, out/in of a turn, the lower torque engine would still have more rear wheel force accelerating out of the turn. Key point!
mk
Last edited by mark kibort; 03-23-2009 at 06:14 PM.
03-23-2009, 04:00 PM
#414
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Unbelievable that you still don't understand that I (and likely many others) am not mocking the simple physics that many have discussed here, including you. The mocking is aimed specifically at YOU and your antics on this and the many other threads that you have beaten to death. So, anyone who doesn't support your condescending attitude, relentless overstatement of the very basic concepts, and continued initiation of threads on the same "look at me/listen to me" topic with the same approach, is an example of "mock what they don't understand"?
03-23-2009, 06:03 PM
#415
F=ma -> At the rear wheels the largest force at the contact patch will provide the greatest acceleration. It is a function of the torque and rolling radius. If we assume the same rolling radius, the vehicle with the larger rear wheel torque will produce the greater force. Note that this is rear wheel torque and is directly proportional to the engine torque and the overall gear reduction. Therefore, for two different vehicles to produce the same rear wheel torque at the same vehicle speed the engine torque, gear reduction, RPM, and rolling radius have to be manipulated for a theoretical comparison to be valid and there are a lot of iterations plausible.
I think this is where you need to alter your formula.
F = ma gives you the acceleration at an instant moment. Instant moment is when you get the F pulse from the engine. In other words when a cylinder fires.
To calculate the acceleration of the car you need acceleration over a time-period. It could be as simple as 0.1s.
When using acceleration over time, all other components of F=ma must also be over time. F(t) = m(t) x a(t). Since mass change over the time period will be insignificant during 0.1s, we can use simple m.
We'll have F(t) = ma(t). This is substantially different than F = ma.
F(t) will be the average applied F over a time-period.
The torque, producing the F(t), will then be over a time-period.
An engine producing 300 ft.lb @ 3000 RPM and 300 ft.lb @ 6000 RPM is substantially different.
Since during 0.1s, the 3000 rpm will generate an half the average torque than the 6000 rpm.
Therefore the 6000 RPM will accelerate twice as fast. The acceleration will be a result of generated torque and RPM, which is HP.
A 150ft.lb @ 6000 RPM will be the same as 300 lb.ft @ 3000 RPM. Both will generate the same torque at the wheels and both will generate the same HP at the engine.
----
However, if you don't alter the formula and stick to F = ma. It will tilt out the RPM out of the equations and would cause the acceleration being a pure result of Torque and not HP. This will describe the instant acceleration of each combustion.
03-23-2009, 06:25 PM
#418
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
03-23-2009, 06:33 PM
#419
