Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

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.
User avatar
flynfrog
Moderator
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 22:31

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

engineer_roy wrote:Acceleration from any point is dependant upon the power (torque X rpm) but it assumes two things. Firstly that torque will be constant as rpm increases and Secondly that the inertia of the acceleration in the engine itself is not an unacceptable matter. The increase in rotational speed must not consume more than the increase in power expected.
Some clues are in the e_book, PLAN by Roy Franklin.
Stop spamming your book

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

engineer_roy wrote:Acceleration from any point is dependant upon the power (torque X rpm) but it assumes two things. Firstly that torque will be constant as rpm increases and Secondly that the inertia of the acceleration in the engine itself is not an unacceptable matter. The increase in rotational speed must not consume more than the increase in power expected.
Some clues are in the e_book, PLAN by Roy Franklin.
The power in the engine is generated from the explosion of gases which have no torque. Torque is mere geometrical imposition. Not all combustion engines generate torque, but they all generate power.

Torque does not equate to work rate.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

n smikle wrote:
engineer_roy wrote:Acceleration from any point is dependant upon the power (torque X rpm) but it assumes two things. Firstly that torque will be constant as rpm increases and Secondly that the inertia of the acceleration in the engine itself is not an unacceptable matter. The increase in rotational speed must not consume more than the increase in power expected.
Some clues are in the e_book, PLAN by Roy Franklin.
The power in the engine is generated from the explosion of gases which have no torque. Torque is mere geometrical imposition. Not all combustion engines generate torque, but they all generate power.

Torque does not equate to work rate.

Oh yeah? :lol:

Show me an engine where torque is not generated....
Do you assume that there exists an engine where rotation is not involved?

Power = Force x Velocity

Torque = Force x Radius

Both require force to be applied. There are intimately related. Get over it or go back to school.

if you assume Gas turbines do not generate otrque then ask yourself how do they turn the compressor with the turbine.. :?: :roll: :wink:

DumHed
DumHed
0
Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 06:13

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

torque = force (a static measurement where no work is being done)

power = torque x revs (work is being done at a certain rate)

acceleration = force x speed (work is being done at a certain rate)


so, power = acceleration


the torque figure at a certain rpm will determine the acceleration - but that is because there is power being made. You can't have acceleration without power.

When people say "power sells cars but torque wins races" they're really talking about an engines torque curve - not a peak torque figure.
Even then it's not really true - but an engine that produces good torque over a wider rpm range for a given peak power will have more average power, be easier to drive, and result in a faster car.


Gearing won't give you power, but lets you match the car's target speeds to the engine's output curve so you can make the most of the engine's power.


Raw torque figures are useless when you're talking about engines - because there is always power being generated if the engine is turning - and power is what you need to do work (accelerate a vehicle)

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Go back to school.

Torque is not Force.
It is Force acting a unit distance hence the units N.m i.e. Force x distance
torque is also = angular velocity X r.
Power is Force x velocity.

Can't have acceleration without Power???!
You cannot have acceleration without force acting on a body.
F=m.a
therefore a = F/m

Power is merely the rate at which work is done, hence over a time period.
I think you will find that since torque requires force, work is indeed being done.

User avatar
strad
117
Joined: 02 Jan 2010, 01:57

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Still going? Damn you guys can make something simple sooooo hard.
No wonder so many topics wind up locked.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss

DumHed
DumHed
0
Joined: 17 Jul 2011, 06:13

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Raptor22 wrote: Torque is not Force.
trying to make it simple. It's rotational force - the distance is standardised so you can use torque as you would force in calculations.


The important thing is that you can have an engine producing massive torque - but not much power, which results in a slow car since you need power to accelerate.

Sure, you can't have acceleration without force acting on a body, but power is being generated / used to keep that force present at the rate of acceleration.

If you're going to use torque when looking at a car's acceleration, torque at the axle and wheels is what counts. Engine torque is multiplied or divided by the gearbox and diff ratios.
You could recalculate the relationship for each gear - or you could just work from power, since power in = power out (with some losses due to efficiency)


You can't work out the acceleration of a car based purely on the engine's torque figures, unless you also know the gear ratio it is in, final drive ratio, tyre rolling diameter, etc.
If you know the power figures you can get pretty close.

torque is also = angular velocity X r
??? angular velocity X r will relate to surface velocity. Where's the force?

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Raptor22 wrote:
n smikle wrote:
engineer_roy wrote:Acceleration from any point is dependant upon the power (torque X rpm) but it assumes two things. Firstly that torque will be constant as rpm increases and Secondly that the inertia of the acceleration in the engine itself is not an unacceptable matter. The increase in rotational speed must not consume more than the increase in power expected.
Some clues are in the e_book, PLAN by Roy Franklin.
The power in the engine is generated from the explosion of gases which have no torque. Torque is mere geometrical imposition. Not all combustion engines generate torque, but they all generate power.

Torque does not equate to work rate.

Oh yeah? :lol:

Show me an engine where torque is not generated....
Do you assume that there exists an engine where rotation is not involved?

Power = Force x Velocity

Torque = Force x Radius

Both require force to be applied. There are intimately related. Get over it or go back to school.

if you assume Gas turbines do not generate otrque then ask yourself how do they turn the compressor with the turbine.. :?: :roll: :wink:
I hope you are being sarcastic.

Some engines without Torque:

Rocket Engine
Pulse Jet engine



It's not just about faffing about with equations on paper. You have to visualise the processes involved. The actual power development from engines is from the combustion phenomenon. You will get power generation without any torque what so ever.

Where torque is generated FROM the combustion is when you add a crankshaft, some pistons and connecting rods. The torque derives from the geometry.

Torque by itself means nothing. Power by itself, you can do anything. Power is the basis. Just look at the sun!
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

been a while since i've seen a rocket or pulse jet engine in a car... :roll:

I think you're confusing energy with power. One is the driver for both power and torque.
Energy converted to heat energy through combustion drives a piston that produces a torques on a crankshaft turns wheels and ultimately.
One measures energy exerted to create rotation
the other measures energy to create linear motion.

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

btw, A rocket engine has to create rotation or spin so that the rocket can fly in a stable maner.
A pulse jet has t create pressure with closes the air inlet that allows an expansion through a nozzle. Without torque on the doors they would not close.
for those engines we deal with impulse and acceleration.
Tghis topic is F1 engines, i.e. ICE engines with pistons and conrods and crankshafts.

User avatar
PlatinumZealot
550
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 03:45

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Raptor, you are twisting these things up. Power is energy transfer within the flow of time.

Torque is simply a twisting effect that can cause and object or a part of an object to rotate around some point. Torque can exist WITHOUT energy transfer or motion. For example a compressed spring. The whole crux of an engine is energy transfer AND motion. Which is why you need power to operate an engine.

That is why people use the words "Nuclear Power Plant" and not "Nuclear Torque Plant." If you want to do some form of work, Power is everything. It doesn't matter how you want to twist it.

Which one would you rather have? And F1 engine with 250lbft of torque and tops out at 400hp.. or one with 250lb ft of torque and tops out at 600hp? (lets say same peak torque range). This could be the same engine in a lower fuel mode. All he did was change the timing of the spark and the flow of fuel...affecting the combustion. He didn't directly affect anything with torque, but he affected the timing and energy release, hence the power of the combustion.
πŸ–οΈβœŒοΈβ˜οΈπŸ‘€πŸ‘ŒβœοΈπŸŽπŸ†πŸ™

Raptor22
Raptor22
26
Joined: 07 Apr 2009, 22:48

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

"Power is energy transfer within the flow of time".correct.

"Torque is simply a twisting effect that can cause and object or a part of an object to rotate around some point."


"Torque can exist WITHOUT energy transfer or motion."
really? Wow.

" For example a compressed spring. The whole crux of an engine is energy transfer AND motion. Which is why you need power to operate an engine. ".

Power is a result of the operation of an engine. Energy, not power is contained within fuel. Thats enrgy conversion acts in a confined space that results in displace both linearly and rotationally/ Power and Torque co-exist in this application.

"That is why people use the words "Nuclear Power Plant" and not "Nuclear Torque Plant." If you want to do some form of work, Power is everything. It doesn't matter how you want to twist it."
actually its called a Nuclear Energy plant. The power comes as a result of TURNING a turbine...can you see the relationship with Torque?

"Which one would you rather have? And F1 engine with 250lbft of torque and tops out at 400hp.. or one with 250lb ft of torque and tops out at 600hp? (lets say same peak torque range). This could be the same engine in a lower fuel mode. All he did was change the timing of the spark and the flow of fuel...affecting the combustion. He didn't directly affect anything with torque, but he affected the timing and energy release, hence the power of the combustion."

Wow you loaded that dice quite nicely didn't you. YOU provide two engines one with a clear perforamnce benefit either due to incresed displacement or increased stress levels.
Assuming the lower rpm engine has a braoder torque band, I'd opt for that. But I'm sure you didn't mean that. The higher P output engine will result in higher top speed. But if the lower output engine has a broader torque band then it will accelerate out of teh corners quicker due to being able to turn a more optimal set of gear ratio's

I'd rather have the engine that gets me out of the corners quicker, results in better acceleration to top speed. Then the guy with more power can catch me If he can down the street. But by the time he is at power peak I'd be long gone.

P=2piNT/60

2pi/60 is a constant.
Power is proportional to RPM and Torque if the input energy is also constan i.e. Fuel mass flow rate in MJ/kg/minute.

SPIN it whichever way you want.

If you would like an example of how torque can be emersely beneficial just ask an F1 driver who is able to employ KERS through the twisty section of a track. The additional torque provide better acceleration that allows more power at peak rpm.
Its also why a Tesla Electric sports car is a hoot to drive even if the power from its motor is less than what a small IC engine can provide. Torque = acceleration. sure you need power too but the relationship is given in he formula above. Torque and troque curve is the secret ingerdeint toe high performance engines that oerate under varying lad.

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

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

The argument about which is more important is a bit of an own goal as everyone is actually arguing the same thing, but looking from different perspectives. Torque and power are so inherently linked that it's not worth worrying about.

People also tend to make the cirtical mistake of only looking at one insular part of the powertrain (the engine), and forget that we have a driveline and transmission connecting the engine to the wheels.


A few comments I have. I realise you may know this, but I am just clarifying and not trying to undermine or belittle anyone by being basic.

n smikle wrote:Which is why you need power to operate an engine.
An engine, by definition, produces power.

In the context of a car engine, the power is produced by the expanding combusion gases, which in turn produces a torque at the crank.

This is not to say that torque is produced then power is a result. They are both one integral 'thing'.

Raptor wrote: But if the lower output engine has a broader torque band then it will accelerate out of teh corners quicker due to being able to turn a more optimal set of gear ratio's
Acceleration through time is basically applying a force over the given distance you are accelerating. ie Work. By definiton you can do more work by having more power.

As we have a transmission, how that power is produced is irrelevent. (ie high torque low revs, or low torque high revs). With more power you can always use a larger reduction ratio and get more torque at the wheels and conseqently more acceleration.

Now this is obviously subject to practical considerations. For example (an extreme one, but it helps illustrate the point:

An engine that produces all the power in the world between 10,000 and 10,001 RPM and nothing either side is going to be useless for driving, as you would need so many gears that it just becomes impractical.



So to sum up: a practical 'good' engine will have a balance between good solid power output and a good torque band or drivability. As both curves are inherently linked together, you can use either to determine where you need to tune for.

So it boils down to: we want more of both.

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

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

The following post doesn't really add anything that hasn't been said before, but I hope it might illustrate what others have said, cement everything in people's minds and hopefully make understanding the subject a little easier.

Lets say we have two engines, with the torque curves as shown below. These two engines essentially have the same power curve.

Image


Engine one has a peak flywheel torque of 63.5lbft, and engine two has a peak torque of 127lbft.

Assuming that the gearing can be optimised for each engine which one can accelerate the car quicker at a speed of 60mph? (N.B. this IS a trick question!)

Lets say the driven wheels have a Diameter of 0.6metres. That means at 60mph the rear wheels need to turn at approx 850rpm.

Given that the wheels of both cars are the same size this means that the car which can produce the highest torque at the road wheels will be able to produce the most motive force at the tyre contact patch, and since f=mA it will have the higher acceleration (assuming mass, inertia and drag are all equal).

First we will optimise the gearing of each engine such that the peak torque can be transmitted to the road at 60mph.

Image

Engine 1 creates it peak torque at 9000rpm. In order to match this engine speed to the road wheel speed of 850rpm we need a gear ratio of 10.59:1. That means the flywheel torque is increased by 10.59 times: 63.5 x 10.59 = 672lbft.

Engine 2 creates its peak torque at 4500rpm. In order to match this engine speed to the road wheel speed of 850rpm we need a ratio of 5.29:1. That means the flywheel torque is increased by 5.29 times; 127 x 5.29 = 672lbt!

So the engines have exactly the same capability to accelerate the car. The clue was in the statement at the very beginning; "Both engines have essentially the same power curve".

Hopefully that has shown that it is difficult to compare one engine to another on flywheel torque, and easy to compare them on flywheel power (higher power = higher acceleration potential).



Now lets look at how much torque each engine can generate at the road wheels, at 60mph, if we gear the engines such that the engine is at a higher RPM than the peak torque figure (an RPM where both engines generate more power)

Image

Lets take Engine 1 as an example. At 15,000 rpm it can generate 52lbft (considerably less than its peak value of 63.5lbft). To match 15,000 rpm to the 850 rpm required to turn the wheels at a speed equivalent to 60mph it needs a ratio of 17.65:1. This means the flywheel torque is multiplied by 17.65; 52 x 17.65 = 917.8lbft!!!! A lot more than the 672lbft generated earlier.

Since the two engines generate the same power, engine 2 also will be able to generate 917.8lbft at the driven wheels, I'll leave that check to anyone keen enough to prove it for themselves (the numbers are 104lbft and 7500rpm).

I hope that illustrates why it is easier to compare the output of an engine in terms of its power output rather than its torque output, even though either can be used to determine the acceleration, and both will give the same result.

A word of warning, as others have said; What we've done is pick two points on the torque/power curve. In reality the acceleration is determined by the driven wheel torque/power that the car can create at all engine speeds which are used during acceleration. For a typical 5 or 6 speed gearbox equipped car this means the top 30 to 40% of the rev-range. So what we need to do is compare the top 30 to 40% of the power curve -the one with the higher power over that rev range will be able to accelerate the car faster (mass, inertia and drag being equal), assuming gearing can be optimised in each case.
Last edited by machin on 12 Nov 2011, 01:50, edited 2 times in total.
COMPETITION CAR ENGINEERING -Home of VIRTUAL STOPWATCH

User avatar
ced381
0
Joined: 30 Dec 2010, 06:06
Location: Montreal

Re: Torque and Horsepower - A Primer

Post

Thanks to OP, the first few post were interesting, after that it looks like a bunch of schoolboys arguing on who has the strongest father or the biggest d**k...
'09 Volkswagen CC Sportline 2.0TSI 'Jennie'