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?
03-17-2009, 12:50 PM
#46
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Yes, 1-3psi of net pressure gain can be found with an electric supercharger depending on the model. Are we talking axial flow or centrifugal?
Last i heard, Jim's chips work better after being zaped in a microwave.
I like oranges.
QUOTE=Bryan Watts;6389350]Is the pressure created with an electric supercharger? Will Jim Conforti be tuning the microwave? Yes or no, do you prefer apples or oranges?[/QUOTE]
Last i heard, Jim's chips work better after being zaped in a microwave.
I like oranges.
QUOTE=Bryan Watts;6389350]Is the pressure created with an electric supercharger? Will Jim Conforti be tuning the microwave? Yes or no, do you prefer apples or oranges?[/QUOTE]
03-17-2009, 12:53 PM
#48
Rennlist Member
03-17-2009, 12:53 PM
#49
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I the idiot pushing the vacuum cleaner was doing the work 
03-17-2009, 12:54 PM
#50
Rennlist Member
03-17-2009, 12:57 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
03-17-2009, 12:58 PM
#52
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
03-17-2009, 01:07 PM
#53
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Bump
So, less than half the respondents picked that there would be no way a lower torque, same HP race car would be better on a road course. Would anyone like to back up their understanding with an explanation?
Keep in mind, we are talking two exact same race cars, but the drive train (engine/transmission-same gear spacing) could be the one with high torque or lower torque.
So, for those of you that voted that higher torque engines always are better on a race car, care to share your logic. Expecially in light of an example that proves otherwise?
I found a two equal HP engines from two different race cars. If the lower torque engine was used in the comparison, it would provide more "rear wheel torque " at any speed, any point on any track, compared to the higher torque engine in the same race car!l This is because it is the broader HP curve that only matters!
I would like to hear ONE single logical, mathematical, spiritual, imperical reason why 14 who voted for "higher torque", that can prove that claim.
There will be prizes for the best answer, placing 1st though 3rd.
(Prediction: VR will not be able to make the podium)
Mk
Keep in mind, we are talking two exact same race cars, but the drive train (engine/transmission-same gear spacing) could be the one with high torque or lower torque.
So, for those of you that voted that higher torque engines always are better on a race car, care to share your logic. Expecially in light of an example that proves otherwise?
I found a two equal HP engines from two different race cars. If the lower torque engine was used in the comparison, it would provide more "rear wheel torque " at any speed, any point on any track, compared to the higher torque engine in the same race car!l This is because it is the broader HP curve that only matters!
I would like to hear ONE single logical, mathematical, spiritual, imperical reason why 14 who voted for "higher torque", that can prove that claim.
There will be prizes for the best answer, placing 1st though 3rd.
(Prediction: VR will not be able to make the podium)
Mk
03-17-2009, 01:08 PM
#54
Rennlist Member
You're "losing" your own "vote", Mark. 
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
03-17-2009, 01:10 PM
#55
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Kelowna, BC, Canada
Posts: 1,031
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, if you must know...
It all starts with the conditions under which the popcorn kernel will pop.
The kernel acts as a pressure vessel, and in normal atmosphere, it's the pressure build-up that occurs inside of the kernel (due to the vapourization of the moisture) that is sufficient enough to create a pressure differential large enough to cause it to mechanically fail/rupture (or pop).
Depending on the type of kernel, the structure of the shell, and the actual pressure differential between the inside and outside of the kernel, the temperature of the kernel (is it in space, in the sun?), it may or may not pop.
So, IT DEPENDS.
A generic scenario could be made to both have a kernel of popcorn pop and not pop.
If you want to start asking or talking about non-specific pie-in-the-sky physics questions, without providing the details required to solve the problem, then you can expect to NOT get a specific answer.
Just sayin.
It all starts with the conditions under which the popcorn kernel will pop.
The kernel acts as a pressure vessel, and in normal atmosphere, it's the pressure build-up that occurs inside of the kernel (due to the vapourization of the moisture) that is sufficient enough to create a pressure differential large enough to cause it to mechanically fail/rupture (or pop).
Depending on the type of kernel, the structure of the shell, and the actual pressure differential between the inside and outside of the kernel, the temperature of the kernel (is it in space, in the sun?), it may or may not pop.
So, IT DEPENDS.
A generic scenario could be made to both have a kernel of popcorn pop and not pop.
If you want to start asking or talking about non-specific pie-in-the-sky physics questions, without providing the details required to solve the problem, then you can expect to NOT get a specific answer.
Just sayin.
03-17-2009, 01:18 PM
#56
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Hey, dont shoot the messenger! Bryan wanted to discuss popcorn.
The question was, " what causes the popcorn to pop, pressure or vacuum" . and you said , "it depends". I asked, " on what?" Did you not understand the question? The question could be asked in another way. "what is the force that causes the popcorn to pop?"
I just said it was pressure that did the work of "poping". popcorn in space. it may or may not "pop". it does depend on the differential pressure and strength of its shell.. put it 30,000feet under the water, and it might implode due to pressure. It depends there too. What is your point? bottom line, presssure does the work, not vacuum.
mk
The question was, " what causes the popcorn to pop, pressure or vacuum" . and you said , "it depends". I asked, " on what?" Did you not understand the question? The question could be asked in another way. "what is the force that causes the popcorn to pop?"
I just said it was pressure that did the work of "poping". popcorn in space. it may or may not "pop". it does depend on the differential pressure and strength of its shell.. put it 30,000feet under the water, and it might implode due to pressure. It depends there too. What is your point? bottom line, presssure does the work, not vacuum.
mk
Well, if you must know...
It all starts with the conditions under which the popcorn kernel will pop.
The kernel acts as a pressure vessel, and in normal atmosphere, it's the pressure build-up that occurs inside of the kernel (due to the vapourization of the moisture) that is sufficient enough to create a pressure differential large enough to cause it to mechanically fail/rupture (or pop).
Depending on the type of kernel, the structure of the shell, and the actual pressure differential between the inside and outside of the kernel, the temperature of the kernel (is it in space, in the sun?), it may or may not pop.
So, IT DEPENDS.
A generic scenario could be made to both have a kernel of popcorn pop and not pop.
If you want to start asking or talking about non-specific pie-in-the-sky physics questions, without providing the details required to solve the problem, then you can expect to NOT get a specific answer.
Just sayin.
It all starts with the conditions under which the popcorn kernel will pop.
The kernel acts as a pressure vessel, and in normal atmosphere, it's the pressure build-up that occurs inside of the kernel (due to the vapourization of the moisture) that is sufficient enough to create a pressure differential large enough to cause it to mechanically fail/rupture (or pop).
Depending on the type of kernel, the structure of the shell, and the actual pressure differential between the inside and outside of the kernel, the temperature of the kernel (is it in space, in the sun?), it may or may not pop.
So, IT DEPENDS.
A generic scenario could be made to both have a kernel of popcorn pop and not pop.
If you want to start asking or talking about non-specific pie-in-the-sky physics questions, without providing the details required to solve the problem, then you can expect to NOT get a specific answer.
Just sayin.
Last edited by mark kibort; 03-17-2009 at 01:37 PM.
03-17-2009, 01:28 PM
#57
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Still cant add either, not losing yet. ( 17 to 19)
Its amazing there are not smarter folk on a racing forum. Lots of religion out there and not enough knowledge. That has plagued our sport for years!
It just means my work here is not done!
Remember the folks (and church) in the 16th century that thought the world was the center of all things, and all things revolved around it, because there were "some" that could predict the movement of the stars and planets?
Just because you can predict something, doesnt mean you understand the principles.
same goes here. You are right when you "generalize" about big engine torque. usually , it points to a broad HP curve, BUT its not the rule and thats my ONLY point here. I have shown CLEARLY, that there can easily be a case where a low torque, high rpm engine can make more torque at the rear wheels at any vehicle speed. Just because people are generally product of mass marketing, doesnt mean they are right or informed.
I challenge you to give one point in the operational range of the two engines I provided (both with the same peak HP values) that would point to the higher torque engine providing more accelerative force at any point on a road race course than the the lower torque engine. the fact is, there isnt. Yet you continue to laugh your way out of it. Ill predict something. you will never admit you are wrong, because it somehow would devalue your precieved value to potential students. Trust me, my best coaches and teachers were those that were constantly learning themselves.
mk
Its amazing there are not smarter folk on a racing forum. Lots of religion out there and not enough knowledge. That has plagued our sport for years!
It just means my work here is not done!
Remember the folks (and church) in the 16th century that thought the world was the center of all things, and all things revolved around it, because there were "some" that could predict the movement of the stars and planets?
Just because you can predict something, doesnt mean you understand the principles.
same goes here. You are right when you "generalize" about big engine torque. usually , it points to a broad HP curve, BUT its not the rule and thats my ONLY point here. I have shown CLEARLY, that there can easily be a case where a low torque, high rpm engine can make more torque at the rear wheels at any vehicle speed. Just because people are generally product of mass marketing, doesnt mean they are right or informed.
I challenge you to give one point in the operational range of the two engines I provided (both with the same peak HP values) that would point to the higher torque engine providing more accelerative force at any point on a road race course than the the lower torque engine. the fact is, there isnt. Yet you continue to laugh your way out of it. Ill predict something. you will never admit you are wrong, because it somehow would devalue your precieved value to potential students. Trust me, my best coaches and teachers were those that were constantly learning themselves.
mk
03-17-2009, 01:40 PM
#59
Rennlist Member
Wrong as usual, Mark.
Your 2nd poll option is "maybe", and, frankly, is also "maybe not", so it is, at best, spurious "data".
Your 1st option is the polar opposite of your 3rd option, and you are (so far) "losing" that comparison.
Professional Racing and Driving Coach
03-17-2009, 01:41 PM
#60
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I found a place where you and your 17 followers so far will be rigth at home.
http://www.fixedearth.com/
Plato = VR (universe revolves around earth) 500AD
Copernicus = MK ( Earth revolves around sun) 1500-current
http://www.fixedearth.com/
Plato = VR (universe revolves around earth) 500AD
Copernicus = MK ( Earth revolves around sun) 1500-current