Torque vs Energy. Same units, not the same thing

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Tim.Wright wrote:I'm only making this one post.
FoxHound wrote:So why would it not be plausible that a 150bhp 200nm Diesel of same mass and size to that of a 170bhp 120nm Petrol, would be quicker.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/v9xGQ ... 35-h330-no
End of discussion...

SameSame wrote:
Cold Fussion wrote:Are you saying torque is energy?
Indeed I am. Think about power. rad/s (angular velocity) x N.m (Torque) = J/s. (A radian is dimensionless)
A shaft can be in static equilibrium under loadcase of 2 equal and opposing 100Nm torques. The torque in the shaft is 100Nm, the energy in this shaft is ZERO. Therefore torque =/= energy.

End of discussion.
This simply does not play out like that on a track day.
JET set

SameSame
SameSame
4
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 18:44

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Cold Fussion wrote:
Cold Fussion wrote: But it just doesn't check out at all. If torque is energy, how would one apply the conservation of energy in a gearbox?
I quite clearly state that conservation of energy applies in a gearbox. If torque is energy and energy is conserved, and there's a difference of torque between input and output, how do you rationalise that energy (which for you is torque) is conserved?
You see, this is where I can automatically see you know very little about dynamics. And that's okay, I know very little about other things and that's why I come to this site. To learn.

I'm going to try and put this in as layman terms as possible:

We know 1 Nm = 1 J. That's a fact. So let's use it interchangeably for this examples sake. So gear 2 and 1 have a gear ratio of 2:1 Gear 2 spins at HALF the speed of gear 1 but has DOUBLE the torque (so double the J in the case of this example. )

Now you ask, is energy conserved?Lets go through the four cases.

Case 1: The gears are not spinning.
No energy/torque is transferred between the gears and therefore energy is conserved.

Case 2: The gears experience torque and are static.
The sum of the net torque acting on each gear is zero (that is why they are static or at constant velocity) and again energy is conserved.

Case 3: The gears are rotating at constant velocity
Read above. Net torque is zero.

Case 4: The gears are accelerating.
Now the some of the net torque acting on the gears is NOT zero. BUT gear 2 will angularly accelerate at HALF that of gear 1. The moment of inertia will also factor in (if the gear was standalone and accelerating) and at the end of the day the rate of torque/energy (POWER) in the two systems will be conserved.

First law of thermodynamics: Energy is always conserved.

SameSame
SameSame
4
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 18:44

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Tim.Wright wrote: A shaft can be in static equilibrium under loadcase of 2 equal and opposing 100Nm torques. The torque in the shaft is 100Nm, the energy in this shaft is ZERO. Therefore torque =/= energy.

End of discussion.
Come on Tim… You know when it's static the sum of the net torque acting on the shaft is zero…

Edit: Just to really put it out there if the sum of torques = 0 then the energy = 0 for this case. At constant velocity power is conserved and therefore energy is not zero. When you say something is static you automatically imply the net sum of the torques acting on it is zero

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Phil wrote:
FoxHound wrote:So why would it not be plausible that a 150bhp 200nm Diesel of same mass and size to that of a 170bhp 120nm Petrol, would be quicker.
Have you ever heard of gearing? And perhaps that any bhp figure is only at a particular point of a wide rev-range? To determine which car is actually quicker, depends on the gearing and how much power is available at that particular rev-range...

Simply talking about a peak figure is not very indicative. And not in F1 either, obviously, e.g. all this talk about the Merc engine having the highest peak bhp is pretty meaningless without understanding how long they can sustain it and/or how much power the engine makes at a different rev-range etc.
Gearing will be optimal to the power available to the engine.
170bhp with 120nm torque suggests to me a peaky nature, with maximum power available for a short time before reaching to swap cogs. The diesel easily has more of the power availablemore of the time.
JET set

Cold Fussion
Cold Fussion
93
Joined: 19 Dec 2010, 04:51

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

FoxHound wrote: 170bhp with 120nm torque suggests to me a peaky nature, with maximum power available for a short time before reaching to swap cogs. The diesel easily has more of the power availablemore of the time.
That's a bold statement to make when you haven't done the calculations. If we take a look at the specifications of two similar cars, in this case I've chosen the Mercedes C300 and C250D. The C300 has a maximum power of 180 kW and max torque of 370 Nm, and the C250D has 150 kW and 500 Nm respectively; this is a somewhat similar to the example scaled before, just scaled up. I've chosen these two because they're essentially the same car from the same manufacturer and spec sheets provides the required information to do some calculations (manufacturers put out some pretty terrible spec sheets these days).

The assumptions I made are as follows:
1. The maximum rpm is at max power (because the spec sheet has no information on this)
2. When constructing the power curve it is a linear interpolation (because I have no other information)
3. The cars are always in the optimum gear
3. The cars operate between 1600rpm to max rpm

With the data in the spec sheet we can construct a power vs velocity graph and in doing so we can see which car has a greater average power.

Image

Quite clearly in this example the C300 has more power available virtually all of the time. This is not to say it will always be the case, however I see it as unlikely that ever sacrificing 10-20% peak power for a flatter power curve will be advantageous.

The matlab code is here if anyone thinks I've made an error and wants to check it.
Last edited by Cold Fussion on 09 Aug 2016, 12:58, edited 4 times in total.

sosic2121
sosic2121
13
Joined: 08 Jun 2016, 12:14

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Cold Fussion wrote:Torque is a meaningless quantity when considering the performance of a vehicle.
exactly!
IMO all this talk about torque is manufacturers trying to sell you more expensive, but in many ways inferior product.

bhall II
bhall II
477
Joined: 19 Jun 2014, 20:15

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

International Bureau of Weights and Measures wrote:For convenience, certain coherent derived units have been given special names and symbols. There are 22 such units, as listed in Table 3. These special names and symbols may themselves be used in combination with the names and symbols for base units and for other derived units to express the units of other derived quantities. Some examples are given in Table 4. The special names and symbols are simply a compact form for the expression of combinations of base units that are used frequently, but in many cases they also serve to remind the reader of the quantity involved. The SI prefixes may be used with any of the special names and symbols, but when this is done the resulting unit will no longer be coherent.

Among these names and symbols the last four entries in Table 3 are of particular note since they were adopted by the 15th CGPM (1975, Resolutions 8 and 9), the 16th CGPM (1979, Resolution 5) and the 21st CGPM (1999, Resolution 12) specifically with a view to safeguarding human health.

In both Tables 3 and 4 the final column shows how the SI units concerned may be expressed in terms of SI base units. In this column factors such as m^0, kg^0, etc., which are all equal to 1, are not shown explicitly.

The values of several different quantities may be expressed using the same name and symbol for the SI unit. Thus for the quantity heat capacity as well as the quantity entropy, the SI unit is the joule per kelvin. Similarly for the base quantity electric current as well as the derived quantity magnetomotive force, the SI unit is the ampere. It is therefore important not to use the unit alone to specify the quantity. This applies not only to scientific and technical texts, but also, for example, to measuring instruments (i.e. an instrument read-out should indicate both the unit and the quantity measured).

A derived unit can often be expressed in different ways by combining base units with derived units having special names. Joule, for example, may formally be written newton metre, or kilogram metre squared per second squared. This, however, is an algebraic freedom to be governed by common sense physical considerations; in a given situation some forms may be more helpful than others.

In practice, with certain quantities, preference is given to the use of certain special unit names, or combinations of unit names, to facilitate the distinction between different quantities having the same dimension. When using this freedom, one may recall the process by which the quantity is defined. For example, the quantity torque may be thought of as the cross product of force and distance, suggesting the unit newton metre, or it may be thought of as energy per angle, suggesting the unit joule per radian. The SI unit of frequency is given as the hertz, implying the unit cycles per second; the SI unit of angular velocity is given as the radian per second; and the SI unit of activity is designated the becquerel, implying the unit counts per second. Although it would be formally correct to write all three of these units as the reciprocal second, the use of the different names emphasises the different nature of the quantities concerned. Using the unit radian per second for angular velocity, and hertz for frequency, also emphasizes that the numerical value of the angular velocity in radian per second is 2π times the numerical value of the corresponding frequency in hertz.

In the field of ionizing radiation, the SI unit of activity is designated the becquerel rather than the reciprocal second, and the SI units of absorbed dose and dose equivalent are designated the gray and the sievert, respectively, rather than the joule per kilogram. The special names becquerel, gray, and sievert were specifically introduced because of the dangers to human health that might arise from mistakes involving the units reciprocal second and joule per kilogram, in case the latter units were incorrectly taken to identify the different quantities involved.

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

bhall II wrote:What, did we interrupt the weekly Hamilton/Rosberg circle jerk or something?

:lol:
Theres the irony.

I mean if it was useful to discover that Mercs V6 utilised its torque(and we could agree on the definition) in a certain way, which assisted tyre life, wouldnt that be directly pertinent to the discussion?
JET set

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

bhall II wrote:What, did we interrupt the weekly Hamilton/Rosberg circle jerk or something?

:lol:
It makes a change from CFD images of vortices in diffusers, I suppose... :wink:
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

Just_a_fan
Just_a_fan
593
Joined: 31 Jan 2010, 20:37

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

FoxHound wrote: I mean if it was useful to discover that Mercs V6 utilised its torque(and we could agree on the definition) in a certain way, which assisted tyre life, wouldnt that be directly pertinent to the discussion?
It would be pertinent, yes. We don't need to agree on a definition of torque - it's already defined. We also don't need a discussion on the definition of power. That's already defined. We sure as hell don't need a discussion about whether torque is energy or whether man landed on the Moon or any other wacko ideas.

As we don't know the torque curve of the Mercedes ICE, we can't really discuss how the torque delivery affects the tyres in any meaningful way. So it's going to be a very short discussion on that front.
If you are more fortunate than others, build a larger table not a taller fence.

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

But we can speculate.

If we knew we wouldnt discuss it. Or would you truly prefer a Hamilton/Rosberg love in/bashing affair?
If torque was readily defined to the layman, we'd have moved on by now. Instead we discuss it, to meet the ends of what we can speculate.

Everywhere I've looked has described torque as 'rotational force'.
If that is easily dismissed as "not energy" I'd like to know why.

And in so far as the tyres go, a point was raised as to why the engine could be responsible for the excellent use of tyres Mercedes have demonstrated.
My response to this equated to the fact the engines are fuel flow limited, and that torque would broadly be similar. Saving different maps and gear ratios, the torque would not be as critical a factor as aero and chassis (mass distribution).

Hence the importance of it's definition.

I wanted to eliminate that theory by way of investigation. Not assumption and 'knowing' without ever bothering to scratch the surface. Maybe even learn something in the process...
The last 2/3 pages may not strictly be on topic, but they related directly to the teams use of tyre's.

I wont take it as a slight if its moved into an abyssal thread, it just makes bloody good reading to get some good answers to questions that we'd all want to get closer to knowing, and if its done on the same thread it would be doubly enlightening.

Beats the handbags we see flung over petty driver discussions, which ideally should belong on race threads if anywhere.
JET set

User avatar
SR71
5
Joined: 27 Jan 2016, 21:23

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

I certainly thought the torque handbags were much prettier....

SameSame
SameSame
4
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 18:44

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

FoxHound wrote: Everywhere I've looked has described torque as 'rotational force'.
If that is easily dismissed as "not energy" I'd like to know why.
Let's go back to where all of this energy started… The fuel is combusted and ENERGY is released from it. From there, the piston moves and thanks to some clever kinematics a crank shaft is rotated. The torque in the crank shaft is just the mechanical form of the energy that the fuel produced. So although it's not good practice to use the terms interchangeably, torque is energy. SI units do not lie.

Energy is always conserved, whether it is in the kinetic/electrical/chemical/potential forms.

Mercedes seem to be doing the best job of using their available energy in all the right places :mrgreen:

User avatar
FoxHound
55
Joined: 23 Aug 2012, 16:50

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

SameSame wrote:
FoxHound wrote: Everywhere I've looked has described torque as 'rotational force'.
If that is easily dismissed as "not energy" I'd like to know why.
Let's go back to where all of this energy started… The fuel is combusted and ENERGY is released from it. From there, the piston moves and thanks to some clever kinematics a crank shaft is rotated. The torque in the crank shaft is just the mechanical form of the energy that the fuel produced. So although it's not good practice to use the terms interchangeably, torque is energy. SI units do not lie.

Energy is always conserved, whether it is in the kinetic/electrical/chemical/potential forms.

Mercedes seem to be doing the best job of using their available energy in all the right places :mrgreen:
Nicely woven into the topic batman!

So for the purpose of the discussion, and not the wider context.... A V6 Turbo producing 500nm torque and reving to 12k, with linear deliver from the worst to best engines at a rate of around 870 to 900bhp, is this fuel-energy-converted-torque at a wide enough discrepancy to be a differentiator in tyre usage?

At this level of torque, for a car weighing it 700kgs, with the tyres provided, breaking traction is inevitable for every car.
Just a case of when. So I'd say the engine itself is not a good explanation.
Gearing and mapping comes into this equation, but teams will converge on the ideal settings as choice is limited, particularly with gearing.
JET set

SameSame
SameSame
4
Joined: 16 Jun 2016, 18:44

Re: 2016 Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team - Mercedes

Post

Thank you :D

I'm not too sure to be honest, I think there are people here that are very knowledgeable on the topic and would be able to offer a much better answer. There's just so many variables I can think of that come into play, especially car setup.

What makes the drivability (and therefore tyre usage?) of a particular engine bad? The mapping will affect it but is there certain combustion issues that can cause the power delivery to be unpredictable?

I'm not sure it's the outright amount of power and torque that will affect the tyre usage, but more about the delivery of those two.

Whatever it is, Mercedes certainly has gotten it right. :D