Torque

what, do you think we're retards who failed high school physics or something anon?

:^)

>>15734599
Torque is extremely important. You could have a 1 million horsepower engine with 1 lb*ft of torque and never go faster than 1mph.

Torque is how much "force" a car can use to push off the ground, horsepower is how fast it can "use" the torque or in other words once the force pushing back on a car is enough to create a moment equal to the torque the car cannot go any faster.

Think of it this way.

1) Low power low torque: You pull string wrapped around a pulley and lift 100lbs, 60ft in 60s.

2) High power low torque: You pull a string around a pulley and lift 100lbs, 60ft in 30s.

3) Higher power and high torque: You pull a string around a quadruple pulley and lift 200lbs, 60ft in 30s.

If that still isn't good enough imaging a sports car with 300hp and 300 lb*ft of torque drag racing against a semi truck with 300hp and 600 lb*ft of torque. Alone the sports car will run rings around the semi but attach a 10,000lb trailer to the back and it would be a different story.

>>15734705
Everything in your post is wrong

>>15734745
It isn't

>>15734788
The more power the faster and further you pull the string

>>15734705
So basically torque is like a limiter, you just need enough to do what you need to do as excess torque is wasted. Meanwhile more horsepower is always better. Torque is acceleration and horsepower is top speed. Makes sense senpai makes sense

>>15734798
Isn't that what the guy is sayin.

I fell for the low torque high revving hp meme.

Don't do the same, power should be usable if you daily drive

>>15734800
If you have no gears this is true.

File: phys2_8f_5.png (61KB, 1304x860px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1304x860px

>>15734599
>peak torque @ 3300 rpm
>peak hp @ 5500 rpm

torque = pounds per foot of radius
hp = moment of angular momentum per Radian per second

>>15734859
Stop trying to lug your rx8 around at 500rpm, leon

File: Koenigsegg-Regera-06.jpg (79KB, 1080x720px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1080x720px

>>15734859
monoblock inline six turbo diesel with Electro-hydraulic transmission is the best ?

File: wrong.gif (2MB, 400x198px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 400x198px

>>15734800
>torque is acceleration and hp is top speed

where the fuck did this meme come from?

i have a gutless diesel that can pull anything but sucks on hills

>torks ftw

>>15734800
if people here ever spent a decent amount of time on a bicycle they might understand power delivery a little better

>>15734859
Shift later faggot

>>15734745
The torque part of the analogy isn't the best but oh well.

>>15734800
>>15734863
Even if you do have gears, I think golf carts are a vehicle that will run out of daka before it "redlines". With the case of an engine you can run into the rev limiter before there is enough force to naturally stop the cars acceleration. Assuming the engine had no rev limit and every part of the drive train could spin infinitely fast without failing then the only thing that would stop the cars acceleration would be forces generated by wind, friction, etc the only way to counter act those would be by producing more torque to keep pushing on.

>>15734798
Power=(force*displacement)/time so an increase in force and or displacement will create more power, also a decrease in time will increase power.

>>15734705
>You could have a 1 million horsepower engine with 1 lb*ft of torque and never go faster than 1mph
Because your only forward gear is 5.252 billion:1 and your rev limiter is set to 5,000,000,000 RPM?

>>15735103
Edit: before there is confusion torque is not acceleration it is a "force", by applying a force you can create acceleration. Horsepower (power) will help dictate how much acceleration.

>>15735122
Well I just made up a theoretical engine so yes.

>>15734859
Must be quite the meme, even F1 fell for it

>>15734705
>Alone the sports car will run rings around the semi but attach a 10,000lb trailer to the back and it would be a different story.
The problem isn't torque, it's gearing. A NASCAR has the power and the torque to pull that trailer, but it could never get it rolling because a NASCAR idles at 30 mph in first gear. You'd burn the fuck out of your clutch. Likewise, an S2000 wouldn't be able to get it rolling because you can either burn out the clutch trying to keep the RPM up, or you can dump the clutch and enjoy your 35 horsepower at 3000 RPM.

For further proof that torque doesn't matter for towing, I'll point out that an M1 Abrams tank weighs 150,000 pounds and is powered by an engine that puts out a measly 300 ft-lbs of torque, and yet it can reach freeway speeds.

>>15735176
Gearing multiplies torque m80

>>15735176
I'm just making generalizations and ignoring gearing. I am also very sure the Abrams tank make a whole lot more torque than that. It requires a lot of torque to be able to move anything using tracks.

Looking off Wikipedia the Abrams power plant, Honeywell AGT1500, makes 1500hp and 2750lb*ft, while I'm on it ft*lb is the same thing but ft*lb is usually used for work and lb*ft is usually used for torque. Think about it, the engine of the Abrams needs to be able to produce a force between the tracks and the ground that will be able to push it forwards. Sure in a zero friction universe 300lb*ft would be enough to start moving it, but with friction you might not even be able to move the track with that 300lb*ft might not even be enough to overcome the mass of the track with the tank jacked up in the air.

>>15734643
After reading this thread, yes