Hp vs. Torque - Page 6

sap · 05-31-09, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendvr

Looks like we got a showdown on sesame street here...

I better not participate in this...

Then why bump it

.

I've said my bit, and I think Ivan and I are man enough that we can agree to disagree on this

. I'd hardly call it a showdown either, I probably wouldn't have had this discussion with someone I didn't get along with well

.

IkeRay · 05-31-09, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by B+O

^

??

I'm talking about the Units used to understand torque.

I'm not talking about what car, has what horsepower/torque, where, and why. I'm pretty sure i've harped about torque long enough in my first thread...

Anyway, lbs/ft is not the same as lbs-ft is interpreted...

lbs-ft is interpreted as "Force times a distance acting on a fulcrum"...lbs/ft is "Force acting FROM a fulcrum to a standardized distance." that distance would be 1 foot...

So in effect, no Lbs-ft and Lbs/ft are not the same.

I said this already...that exact example is in the first post.

this was my only argument in the whole thread...lol. It's funny to see sap and you having the same argument.

I agree 100% with your first post and everything you have said, my only argument is the lbs/ft =/= lbs.ft (aka ft.lbs) its actually an exponential difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gothche

Huh, how stupid is this..... I know this post is very old, but I couldn't help it.
Kg is a weight and lbs is a weight, they are just different. Kg being the european version and lbs being the american.

and since I was quoted, I figured I'd give you an answer from myself even though it was already covered.

grams are a measure of mass, pounds is a measure of force. Force=Mass x Acceleration and since we assume all over the globe that earth's gravity applies a 9.8meters/(second^2) (terminal velocity in a vacuum I believe its called). the difference comes into affect when we measure ourselves in space. you will be the same Mass, unless you lose a limb or something, but you will be "weightless" meaning you will not be applying a force to anything, and thus 0 lbs.

say whatever you want about all the other crazy americanized measuring units (cups/gallons/feet/miles/etc) but americans sort of got it right with the whole weight issue, except when not on earth (which any american that didn't take physics class wouldn't know and actually be confused by this very conversation).

legendvr · 06-02-09, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sap

Then why bump it

.

I've said my bit, and I think Ivan and I are man enough that we can agree to disagree on this

. I'd hardly call it a showdown either, I probably wouldn't have had this discussion with someone I didn't get along with well

.

That's not what I meant...

Quote:

grams are a measure of mass, pounds is a measure of force.

Pounds can be a measure or mass or a measure of force.

92drls · 06-02-09, 03:39 AM

Here we go again...

Gothche · 06-09-09, 09:03 PM

yes here we go again.
There's no torque vs. HP, and that's it.
It's actually the same thing in the end.
The higher the max torque is reached the higher the HP will get and then it doesn't matter if you have 210 reached at 4500rpm instead of 206 reached at 5000rpm, the 206 is still more powerful.
It is the HP that makes a car fast, so torque is just a different measurement of the power. It's the optimal working conditions for the engine(when it reaches max torque).
In our Legend engines with normal fuel injection you can't have one without the other. What makes turbo cars or VTEC cars quicker is because they reaches the max torque at lower rpm without loosing the max HP, since the max HP is still reached at higher rpm which gives a wider powerband. But when talking about Legends there's no discussion.

IkeRay · 04-16-10, 02:45 AM

can't believe I'm logging in after ALL this time for one thing only because I finally came up with what I was trying to convey.

Wikipedia describes the initial concept best, if you can't grasp what is being explained you'll never understand that ft * lbs =/= ft per lbs

Quote:

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Torque has dimensions of force TIMES distance [newtons=force; meters=distance]. Official SI literature suggests using the unit newton metre (N·m) or the unit joule per radian.[7] The unit newton metre is properly denoted N·m or N m.[8] This avoids ambiguity—for example, mN is the symbol for millinewton.

The joule, which is the SI unit for energy or work, is dimensionally equivalent to a newton metre, but it is not used for torque. Energy and torque are entirely different concepts, so the practice of using different unit names for them helps avoid mistakes and misunderstandings.[7] The dimensional equivalence of these units, of course, is not simply a coincidence: A torque of 1 N·m applied through a full revolution will require an energy of exactly 2π joules (2pi=radians/revolution). Mathematically,

E= τ θ

where E is the energy, τ is magnitude of the torque, and θ is the angle moved (in radians). This equation motivates the alternate unit name joules per radian.[7]

Other non-SI units of torque include "pound-force-feet" [I believe this is where the confusion lies as some people might mishear "force" as "per"], "foot-pounds-force", "inch-pounds-force", "ounce-force-inches", and "metre-kilograms-force". For all these units, the word "force" is often left out,[9] for example abbreviating "pound-force-foot" to simply "pound-foot". (In this case, it would be implicit that the "pound" is pound-force and not pound-mass.)

now, the Newton*meters is clearly defined as torque, there should be ZERO argument

so now to foot*lbs (which are quite obvious foot=distance, pounds=force; see wikipedia quote torque = force TIMES distance):

1 newton = ~.225lbs
2.54cm = 1inch = .0254m * 12inches = .3048m = 1ft

so .3048Nm=.225ft-lbs or 1Nm = ~.738ft-lbs or 1ft-lb = 1.356 Nm

look up the conversions (ft-lbs to Nm; Nm to ft-lbs), they're close enough, I rounded 'newtons to pounds' to the 3rd decimal, thus all calculations, if rounded to 3rd decimal, match.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legendvr

That's not what I meant...

Pounds can be a measure or mass or a measure of force.

my argument on that is that pounds is only a unit of mass because of ignorance and resilience to change. the only reason it is widely accepted is because nobody cares to change their weight (lbs) in accordance to distance from sea level. as someone put perfectly, its foolish for a company to brand something X lbs for Denver and Y lbs for Hawaii, its forced into everyone's brains so early into education that 1lb = .454kg that not many will see it otherwise.

93LegendSedan · 04-16-10, 03:42 PM

Why don't you stick around man?