• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Are high horse power cars really necessary for racing?

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: OS
Originally posted by: Vic
I'm sorry, I asked to define power in mechanical physics without using work. I'll wait for that. I imagine that will be a long time.


What does that have to do with anything, don't divert away now.

I'm just saying your first statement with the "/thread" and such is flat out wrong.

Originally posted by: Vic
A race is a contest of speed. Speed = distance over time (v=d/t).

Torque is work (force*distance). Power = work over time.

Speed to win races means covering the same amount of distance faster. More horsepower means making a similar amount of work (torque) faster.

/thread.
What's "flat-out" wrong about this statement beyond the fact that you feel I should have wrote "rotational torque is work"??

Do tell...

Give it up dude, you were wrong, stop trying to weasel out. I know it sucks, but you can't be right all the time.

Okay, you say I'm wrong (not just wrong, but "flat out wrong"), but you won't say what I'm wrong about. That's very interesting. Nor will you explain how I could go from torque to power without the application of work. Hmmm.... obviously that brick wall went a long way.

Whose ego was this about again?

Sorry man, but hes right... Torque is *force* not *work*. work would be torque x radians. Power would be torque x radians x seconds, (or work x seconds) as a result of torque. That's why horsepower = (torque x revolutions x minutes) / (conversion factor of 5252).

The conversion factor is simply to express rotational power as linear power because 1 HP = 33,000 ft-lb/min in a straight line. One ft-lb torque over a distance of one revolution = 1 ft-lb x 2pi = 6.28 ft/lbs so in order to get 33,000 ft-lb/min (or 1 horsepower) from a torque force you would have to apply 1 ft-lb of torque at 5252 RPM. In other words a 1 HP wench would have to rotate 5,252 times in one minute with a force of 1 ft-lb in order to finish pulling the same load the same distance that a single horse pulls in one minute of work.

To put it simply though, torque is what pins you to your seat, horsepower is what overcomes wind resistance and friction at high speeds.

Of course there is nothing wrong with making a maximum possible constant torque through your entire power band... You get your bottom end torque for launching hard, and still have the same torque up high to make high RPM horsepower necessary for turning the tires at high speeds through the upper gears. This is what roots and screw blowers do and thats why top fuel cars are all blower driven and not turbo.
 
Originally posted by: eldorado99
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
You can't have horsepower without torque.

So you can't build a 600 lb/ft of torque gas engine with only 250 hp. Not possible. You also can't have an engine that puts our gobs of torque at low RPM, then also gobs of HP at high RPM.

The lower an RPM you can get HP at, you will have more torque. This is what big cube engines are good at. A small engine simply won't make that much horsepower at a low RPM, so you have to rev it to get power....and if your HP peak is at a higher RPM, so will your torque peak be.

My car has roughly 200 HP and 550 Ft. pounds of torque...
you have a 1970 Caddy with the 500cu.in. mill.:

"The Eldorado (actually Fleetwood Eldorado) for 1970 carried over the 1968 and 1969 body design with an improvement in the engine displacement. The 472 cubic inch engine was bored out to a colossal 500 cubic inches. This was (and still is) the largest passenger-car engine ever built for production. It had 400 horsepower and 550 lbs/ft of torque."

200 hp, eh?
 
Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
Originally posted by: Googer
Originally posted by: Vic
Yeah, 'cause diesels rule the racing circuits. :roll:

Horsepower is torque over time. More horsepower means the ability to output torque more rapidly.

:thumbsdown:

Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall and torque is how far you take the wall with you. Torque is for accelaration and horsepower determines how fast you will go.

A low horse power engine but high torque will accelarate quickly but it will have a very limited top speed.

Wrong, maybe if both platforms had the same transmission, the one with more HP would move faster than the one with less HP. But if you were to tune the transmission to have more speed, you should be able to go the same speed as the car with more HP but less torque and untuned transmission.
Who told you that crap?
 
Originally posted by: eos
It's exdeath's fault.

BURN HIM! 😉

I can't leave a thread on cars, guns, computers, or audio/video, to die on a note of confusion or misinformation 😉

I think where the confusion might be between Vic and OS is in the units and notation conventions.

ft-lb at first glance looks like work because it has force and distance due to the lever arm convention used to define torque. ft-lb is a singular unit of twisting force "ft-lbs" and is the magnitude of a force. It must not be confused with ft x lbs as in force x distance, the definition of work.

So:

ft-lbs = force
ft-lbs x radians = work
ft-lbs x radians x seconds = power

<3 physics
 
Back
Top