Hp vs. Torque - Page 3

IkeRay · 04-03-06, 04:32 AM

well, an inch is 2.54 cm to be exact, but yeah you got the idea.

and if we are multiplying by the inverse then for your abreviations please put ft(^-1)*lbs...thanks.

kotetu · 06-26-06, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bang&Olufsen DK

you divide 100lbs by 500lbs/ft and get 5ft. for every 1 ft there was 100lbs of force applied. thereby, the resulant functioning force of the rod for torque multiplication would be 100 pound per foot, OR 100lbs/ft.

no disrespect or anything, but your units are reversed. Torque is a force multiplied by a distance, not divided by a distance. This is the essense of your example. 100 lbs of force, multiplied by a 5 ft lever gives you 500 lbs*ft of torque. It is because they multiply that levers give you MORE torque instead of less.

If it was divided then your lever would make it harder to turn a bolt instead of easier. Also, just examining the units by themselves, if you had 500 lbs/ft of something and divided it by 100 lbs, you would get 5/ft which is not the same as 5 ft. If you divide the 100 lbs by 500 lbs/ft you will get 1 ft / 5, which is clearly not what you are looking for. The units are just reversed, that's the only thing I see wrong.

Anyway, that was a great writeup on horsepower, I very much enjoyed reading what it means in relation to work, rpm, and time.

IkeRay · 06-26-06, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kotetu

no disrespect or anything, but your units are reversed. Torque is a force multiplied by a distance, not divided by a distance. This is the essense of your example. 100 lbs of force, multiplied by a 5 ft lever gives you 500 lbs*ft of torque. It is because they multiply that levers give you MORE torque instead of less.

If it was divided then your lever would make it harder to turn a bolt instead of easier. Also, just examining the units by themselves, if you had 500 lbs/ft of something and divided it by 100 lbs, you would get 5/ft which is not the same as 5 ft. If you divide the 100 lbs by 500 lbs/ft you will get 1 ft / 5, which is clearly not what you are looking for. The units are just reversed, that's the only thing I see wrong.

Anyway, that was a great writeup on horsepower, I very much enjoyed reading what it means in relation to work, rpm, and time.

which was exactly my point for the past page, i just didnt know how to word it. thank you, kotetu.

i never meant any disrespect bang, it was a good write-up, but i just couldnt make you see that it IS ftlbs because its ft*lbs and not because it is lbs/ft and its easier to say ftlbs...

Mikey851 · 06-28-06, 02:11 AM

Actually Kotetu it can be said both ways but they arrive at a similar conclusion, just looked at in a different way.

I'll admit there was some confusion in this thread and people misunderstood each other but they do break down to roughly the same thing, just looking from a different perspective.

Bang was right it was changed by us in the automotive industry. Just think of it this way: When you are talking about the specification of a force that must be applied to a specific bolt, it is the opposite of the way of finding out how much force an engine applies to the flywheel.

I'll go into further detail if you'd like, but I'm bout to hit the sack. Pretty much everyone in this thread is right, but no one is really wrong. That's why the debate started in the first place is because it was mentioned that Bangs info wasn't actually correct (don't worry Ikeray, not saying anything bad just explaining the situation) which it actually was in the context of which he was speaking.

IkeRay · 06-28-06, 02:30 AM

just HUGE misunderstandings....

Mikey851 · 06-28-06, 02:33 AM

Hahahaha ^ that picture is funny.

EvoOwnerLegendLover · 05-11-07, 12:32 AM

I know I'm years late on this post but....

THANKS MAYNE! Breakin it down what's already been all brewing around the old skull up there.........

Pinyix · 05-11-07, 09:44 AM

Oh shit. Thanks for resurrecting. Now I need to perform a search and see what the F kinda torque my car has.

IkeRay · 05-18-07, 02:54 PM

the tundra commercial pisses me off! its towing 8500 lbs (or so they say) and ask, "what does it take to earn the award for best towing?" or something like that, "raw horsepower".....wait, isnt it torque that lets you go from 0-60 the fastest when towing, not hp?

AustinForester · 05-18-07, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IkeRay

the tundra commercial pisses me off! its towing 8500 lbs (or so they say) and ask, "what does it take to earn the award for best towing?" or something like that, "raw horsepower".....wait, isnt it torque that lets you go from 0-60 the fastest when towing, not hp?

lol i noticed that too, but i guess most people who dont know about HP and TQ dont know the difference, and they are more familiar with HP so thats what they market. But that new Tundra is a beast,

im a big fan of Toyota trucks, they are very well made.

GreekPower · 11-16-07, 05:13 PM

Move this to its proper section in Automotive Discussion

06-28-06, 02:11 AM	#34 (permalink)
Mikey851 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 2,715 Car 1: 1992 Acura Legend LS Coupe iTrader: (0)	Actually Kotetu it can be said both ways but they arrive at a similar conclusion, just looked at in a different way. I'll admit there was some confusion in this thread and people misunderstood each other but they do break down to roughly the same thing, just looking from a different perspective. Bang was right it was changed by us in the automotive industry. Just think of it this way: When you are talking about the specification of a force that must be applied to a specific bolt, it is the opposite of the way of finding out how much force an engine applies to the flywheel. I'll go into further detail if you'd like, but I'm bout to hit the sack. Pretty much everyone in this thread is right, but no one is really wrong. That's why the debate started in the first place is because it was mentioned that Bangs info wasn't actually correct (don't worry Ikeray, not saying anything bad just explaining the situation) which it actually was in the context of which he was speaking. __________________ http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Picture076.jpg

06-28-06, 02:33 AM	#36 (permalink)
Mikey851 Registered User Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Houston, Tx Posts: 2,715 Car 1: 1992 Acura Legend LS Coupe iTrader: (0)	Hahahaha ^ that picture is funny. __________________ http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c1...Picture076.jpg

05-11-07, 09:44 AM	#38 (permalink)
Pinyix Keep.It.Stock.Guy Join Date: May 2006 Location: Central NJ Posts: 3,707 Car 1: Legend Saloon iTrader: (11)	Oh shit. Thanks for resurrecting. Now I need to perform a search and see what the F kinda torque my car has. __________________ .:JDM/EDM Non-Navi DIY:. .:JDM Navi Console DIY:. .:Cluster/Speedo Replacement DIY:. I think OEM is the best look. I just don't happen to think any of the various arrangements of OEM got it exactly right all at once

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Torque this, torque that...	KindBuddy	Engine & Performance Modifications	14	02-24-05 08:47 AM
Wheel size/weight: torque > inertia?	Volk Racing	Second Generation Legend (1991-1995)	28	05-28-04 10:03 AM
Responsive to mods	tnelson	Second Generation Legend (1991-1995)	10	07-05-03 08:38 PM
Horsepower vs. Torque	biyonic	The Lounge	7	05-08-03 12:14 PM
jmo torque converter	blaxos	Engine & Performance Modifications	7	11-21-02 03:10 PM

04-03-06, 04:32 AM	#31 (permalink)
IkeRay Mr. X (aka #5) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston Posts: 4,167 Car 1: 1989 White Coupe (dead) my baby! Car 2: 1987 Brown Coupe L Car 3: 1994 Accord Sedan EX iTrader: (3)	well, an inch is 2.54 cm to be exact, but yeah you got the idea. and if we are multiplying by the inverse then for your abreviations please put ft(^-1)*lbs...thanks.

Remove Advertisements Sponsored Links
The Acura Legend & Acura RL Forum Advertisement

06-28-06, 02:30 AM	#35 (permalink)
IkeRay Mr. X (aka #5) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston Posts: 4,167 Car 1: 1989 White Coupe (dead) my baby! Car 2: 1987 Brown Coupe L Car 3: 1994 Accord Sedan EX iTrader: (3)	just HUGE misunderstandings....

05-11-07, 12:32 AM	#37 (permalink)
EvoOwnerLegendLover Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Location: Ft.Lauderdale, FL Posts: 51 Car 1: Mistubishi Evolution9 Car 2: BMW 5.35I 1990 Car 3: BMW 3.30I 2002 iTrader: (0)	I know I'm years late on this post but.... THANKS MAYNE! Breakin it down what's already been all brewing around the old skull up there.........

05-18-07, 02:54 PM	#39 (permalink)
IkeRay Mr. X (aka #5) Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Houston Posts: 4,167 Car 1: 1989 White Coupe (dead) my baby! Car 2: 1987 Brown Coupe L Car 3: 1994 Accord Sedan EX iTrader: (3)	the tundra commercial pisses me off! its towing 8500 lbs (or so they say) and ask, "what does it take to earn the award for best towing?" or something like that, "raw horsepower".....wait, isnt it torque that lets you go from 0-60 the fastest when towing, not hp?

11-16-07, 05:13 PM	#41 (permalink)
GreekPower Banned Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Pittsburgh,PA Posts: 10,458 Car 1: 1992 Acura L"S" Sedan Car 2: 1991 3/S Turbo's 2x Car 3: 2005 Grand Prix iTrader: (13)	Move this to its proper section in Automotive Discussion

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)