Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Charlatan wrote:
Richard wrote: ...
However torque is needed if you want to know the force in something.
...
I think this is where you are missing the point; Power is Force times Speed, no reason to involve Torque to figure out the Force.
Where does the force come from?
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Charlatan
Charlatan
0
Joined: 07 Apr 2015, 21:58

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Just_a_fan wrote:
Charlatan wrote:
Richard wrote: ...
However torque is needed if you want to know the force in something.
...
I think this is where you are missing the point; Power is Force times Speed, no reason to involve Torque to figure out the Force.
Where does the force come from?
Above 100 km/h it's mostly from air-resistance, which is then countered by engine power, as power is force times speed.

Stradivarius
Stradivarius
1
Joined: 24 Jul 2012, 19:20

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Charlatan wrote:
Richard wrote: ...
However torque is needed if you want to know the force in something.
...
I think this is where you are missing the point; Power is Force times Speed, no reason to involve Torque to figure out the Force.
If you are only considering the motive force, you are correct, but I think he made it clear that he is not necessarily only considering the motive force, because he is not necessarily only considering the performance. If you want to verify that the teeth on a gear is strong enough to handle the loads to which it is exposed, you basically need to study the tangential force which is equal to the torque multiplied by the radius of the gear. It's not enough to know the power in that case, you need the torque. Of course, you may calculate the torque from the same formula you keep quoting, but it's still the torque you need to consider. If you want to ensure that the tortional stiffness of the drive shaft is sufficiently hight, it's the torque, not the power, you need to take into account.

There may be other applications, such as traction control (anti spin) systems where the torque curve is of particular interest. Although the absolute values are not interesting, the shape of the curve is. Such systems are often quite complex, but one simple effect which is easy to understand is that a torque curve with a negative slope is stable, while a torque curve with positive slope is unstable. So with a negative slope, if the wheels start spinning, the torque will decrease as the rpm increases. But with a positive slope, wheel spinn will cause higher torque as the rpm increases. In formula 1 the technical regulations prohibit a slope less than -0.045Nm/rpm.

Another effect regarding stabilty, which you may feel in any car is that if you are in the regime of negative torque slope, you don't need to work as much with the throttle in order to maintain a certain speed for example when arriving a steep hill. When the resistance increases, the speed goes down and as a result the torque goes up, i.e. a stable system. If you are in the regime of positive slope, the increased resistance will still cause lower speed, but this will again cause lower torque which in turn will mean even lower speed, amplifying the effect, i.e an unstable system. The means you either need to shift down or use rather large corrections on the throttle.

At all times, the current force is equal to the current power output divided by the current speed, but that equation alone does not allow you to make considerations such as the above.

On a side note, it has already been pointed out that torque is the equivalent of force, in rotational form. But I would like to add that the torque can also be seen as energy per revolution, or more precisely; energy per radian. The torque in Nm is actually equal to the energy in joules per radian. This is why, when you multiply the torque with the angular velocity in radians per second, you get the power in watts. When it comes to performance, it all boils down to how much work you can do in a given period of time and therefore energy per angle is of no interest before you multiply it with angle per time.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
591
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Charlatan wrote:
Just_a_fan wrote:
Charlatan wrote: I think this is where you are missing the point; Power is Force times Speed, no reason to involve Torque to figure out the Force.
Where does the force come from?
Above 100 km/h it's mostly from air-resistance, which is then countered by engine power, as power is force times speed.
We're talking about the engine.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: 01 Sep 2014, 05:10
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Richard wrote:
J.A.W. wrote:....
As many others have pointed out, power and torque are different ways of describing the same thing.

What is your point?
As previously noted, the hp figure is - a convenient 4th dimensional fiction - directly derived from the torque force..

The frequently hyped max hp value - does of course, only exist - at a singular rpm point..
Last edited by Steven on 28 Apr 2015, 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Removed lots of blank lines
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

xxChrisxx
xxChrisxx
44
Joined: 18 Sep 2009, 19:22

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

J.A.W. wrote:
Richard wrote:
J.A.W. wrote:....
As many others have pointed out, power and torque are different ways of describing the same thing.
What is your point?
As previously noted, the hp figure is - a convenient 4th dimensional fiction - directly derived from the torque force..
The frequently hyped max hp value - does of course, only exist - at a singular rpm point..
Charlatan is being slightly dogmatic and tautological with the recitation of P = F * V, but at least it's logically irrefutable. Work done per unit time, is the very definition of power. Where as calling power a '4th dimensional fiction' is just --- nonsense.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: 01 Sep 2014, 05:10
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

The 4th dimension is time.. the hp is 'fictional' mathematical figure calculated from the torque x speed/5252..

& is commonly shown - as charted on dyno graphs - as crossing the torque/hp lines - at the 5252rpm point..
Last edited by J.A.W. on 27 Apr 2015, 23:01, edited 1 time in total.
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

Manoah2u
Manoah2u
61
Joined: 24 Feb 2013, 14:07

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

I'm sure this forum will attract more techinical minded people if people that do not [immediately] share the same view get hammered down and downvoted like as if they're unworthy........for the 'bright minded', that's sarcasm. Read: show some respect that other people have different opinions and a different approach to a certain matter. If somebody has an opinion on a matter, they're free to speak their minds. If for some reason somebody is ill-informed or unaware of certain aspects then atleast give them the time to understand and realise this so they can advance, instead of simply sledgehammering people down because of self-approved and self-inflicted selfrighteousness. Really, come on. Live and let live.

The greatest discoveries and inventions aren't made because people think like the masses or because they choose to be caged. It happens because people dare and try to have different opinions, different approaches and different ideas about something, which from time to time happens to result in discovering something that either was not discovered yet, or perhaps an improvement of something that already excists.

That's why an aerodynamist simply goes ahead and try to see what effect a wing here or a wing there or a shape here or a shape there will have. He won't be hammered down becuase his colleagues say it wont work or because similar aerodynamists say it doesnt work like that.

Live and let live.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"

Stradivarius
Stradivarius
1
Joined: 24 Jul 2012, 19:20

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

J.A.W. wrote:The 4th dimension is time.. the hp is 'fictional' mathematical figure calculated from the torque x speed/5252..
& is commonly shown - as charted on dyno graphs - as crossing the torque/hp lines - at the 5252rpm point..
I find it a bit hard to understand what you mean here: First of all, you say that on dyno graphs, the torque graph crosses with the hp line at 5252 rpm. Does this mean you you think there is anything particularly special happening at this point? To ask in another way, do you think there is something fundamentally different about rpm lower than 5252 compared to rpms higher than 5252?

Secondly, what do you mean by the word "dimension" when you say that power is the 4th dimension? What are the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dimensions, and is the order of significanse? I think it is worth pointing out that although you only seem to look at power as the product of torque and engine speed, the definition of power is really the time derivative of the work (energy) output, which is in no way a fictional figure.

The unit horsepower originates form the 18th century when James Watt needed a way of comparing the performance of his engines to that of the horses that were used in the mining industry running elevators. His approach was most practical as he simply observed that a horse could lift a certain weight (m*g) a certain vertical distance (h) in a certain amount of time (t) and this was how he the unit hp was born. This is not a fictive property, it is highly real, practical and relevant. In this case, the power p is given as m*g*h/t. If you look closer as this equation, m*g is a force, while h/t is a speed, so we arrive at the exact same equation that Charlatan has been very eager to emphasize: power = force * speed. James Watt used this to compare his machine to the horse capstan and it made perfect sense. He didn't use torque for this comparison. That would not have made any sense.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: 01 Sep 2014, 05:10
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

See here for 5252 constant matters: http://www.kawtriple.com/mraxl/articles ... bikes2.htm
Dyno charts show the hp exceeds (the numerically plotted) torque figure on the same graph at 5252rpm..

A. Einstein reckoned that time - was useful to be considered - as the 4th dimension..
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: 01 Sep 2014, 05:10
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Strad, this is a 'General chat' topic.. no need to contribute, or seek to quash it..

& by 'fiction' - in the torque /hp relationship - I mean in the manner of a 'convenient', or 'legal' - 'fiction'..

..whereby the hp number/range is simply a ( mathematically charted) artefact..
.. of the mill's torque curve characteristics - in the 4th dimension..

See this link for '5252' explanation: http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_te ... torque.htm
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

sgth0mas
sgth0mas
3
Joined: 18 Mar 2015, 03:42

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

The preferred unit of measure depends on how you intend to use said data, but to say there's no sense in using torque is absolutely silly. As has already been mentioned, torque is very important to most any engineer involved in design and development, while horsepower is important to marketing and performance groups.

The few times I've designed and/or analyzed gear sets in my career, ive cared about torque and rpm. Torque is the value you need to characterize the tooth loading...horsepower cannot give you that in most cases.

Even in other kinematic assemblies that were purely linear, I cared about force first.

Now when I buy a performance car, I'll care about horsepower (as well as torque to an extent depending on the event). For towing, torque absolutely matters.

Power is also useful for systems engineers and electrical engineers when energy consumption and battery storage are of concern.

Both units of measure are useful, it just depends on what you're using them for.

J.A.W.
J.A.W.
109
Joined: 01 Sep 2014, 05:10
Location: Altair IV.

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

Stradivarius wrote:
The unit horsepower originates form the 18th century when James Watt needed a way of comparing the performance of his engines to that of the horses that were used in the mining industry running elevators. His approach was most practical as he simply observed that a horse could lift a certain weight (m*g) a certain vertical distance (h) in a certain amount of time (t) and this was how he the unit hp was born. This is not a fictive property, it is highly real, practical and relevant. In this case, the power p is given as m*g*h/t. If you look closer as this equation, m*g is a force, while h/t is a speed, so we arrive at the exact same equation that Charlatan has been very eager to emphasize: power = force * speed. James Watt used this to compare his machine to the horse capstan and it made perfect sense. He didn't use torque for this comparison. That would not have made any sense.


Watt produced stationary steam engines, not motor vehicles - AFAIR,
& anyhow steam recip' mills, - like electric motors - produce max torque from the get go (straight from stall),
- quite unlike a hi-po ICE..
"Well, we knocked the bastard off!"

Ed Hilary on being 1st to top Mt Everest,
(& 1st to do a surface traverse across Antarctica,
in good Kiwi style - riding a Massey Ferguson farm
tractor - with a few extemporised mod's to hack the task).

User avatar
machin
162
Joined: 25 Nov 2008, 14:45

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

sgth0mas wrote:For towing, torque absolutely matters.
Motive force determines towing capability, and the car with the most power can generate the most motive force at any given road speed due to the gearbox's ability to exchange speed for force (and vice versa). That last bit is crucial to understanding this, and explains why a little gasturbine can move a huge ship despite generating very little torque (but lots of RPM) at the output flange.

To make towing in a car pleasurable/easy, you'd ideally have an engine with a flat power curve (which means it has a downward sloping torque curve).
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

Stradivarius
Stradivarius
1
Joined: 24 Jul 2012, 19:20

Re: Power vs Torque Questionnaire -RESULTS

Post

J.A.W. wrote:See here for 5252 constant matters: http://www.kawtriple.com/mraxl/articles ... bikes2.htm
Dyno charts show the hp exceeds (the numerically plotted) torque figure on the same graph at 5252rpm..
I know what you mean when you say that the power exeeds the torque on the same graph in numerical value. I was just asking you the question why you are pointing out that this happens at 5252 rpm and if you think that this is of any significance one way or the other.
A. Einstein reckoned that time - was useful to be considered - as the 4th dimension..
Ok, you are talking about the four dimensional time space. I was confused because I thought you were talking about dimensional analysis, where properties such as mass, length, speed, acceleration, force, torque, power and time all are of different dimensions. By the way, power is not the only property that includes the time dimension. Force also does that (and acceleration and speed and energy), but for some reason you don't consider force as a fictional property as you do with power. (Allthough I have tried to point out that power, i.e. the amount of work done in a limited time, is a very real and practical property, so I don't think I understand what you mean by fictional.)

But I don't quite see the relevance to relativity here, as the speeds in question are several orders of magnitude lower than relativistic speeds.The equations we are dealing with here work perfectly well when considering only one spatial dimension. Whether a car accelerates on a road going north, west or south makes no difference here. The equation P = F * v is the scalar (dot) product, which means that Power is a scalar, not a vector, and the simplified version discussed here assumes the force and velocity are in the same direction, so we don't need to include cosine of the angle between them.