Why is it that every time people talk about wheel hp vs crank

File: 1496298458765.png (295KB, 571x720px) Image search: [Google]

295KB, 571x720px

>tuned GTR makes 1200 at the crank
>800 at the wheels

>a civic makes 110 at the crank
>80 hp at the wheels

makes you think.................

>being retarded

>Why hasn't anyone made a system where the drivetrain actually adds horsepower

/o/ posters, ladies and gentlemen.

File: Capture.png (253KB, 495x324px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 495x324px

>>17372688
>>17372682
>has never heard of turbonique

OP needs a drag axle

>>17372665
>running above 100% efficiency
Fuuuuuuck

>>17372674

> Percentages, percentages everywhere.

>why don't we just ignore thermodynamics

>>17372724
It's not above efficiency if another system is making up for losses dunderhead

File: 1495407010096.jpg (62KB, 667x798px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 667x798px

>>17372731
what if we put the civic trans in the GTR, that way it will only lose 30 hp not 400

>>17372733
You're retarded

>>17372665
Everyone can call you a retard but none of these retards can answer the question...
(Why hasn't anyone made a system where the drivetrain actually adds horsepower?)

>>17372745
Let's hear your brilliant plan, anon

>>17372665
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vehicle_drivetrain

>>17372769
Because you would be creating energy from nothing, which is literally physically impossible to do.

The only potential option is an electric motor supplement, but at that point the weight of the batteries and motors would probably negate a lot of the gains while making the vehicle cost a lot more both in the short- and long-term.

>>17372777
Well seeing as we're talking about at the crank vs at the wheels we've already passed the combustion part numb nuts.

It's all mechanical loss because the power has to go from the crank to the tranny into the driveshaft then through the diff into the wheels. At no point is there any thermo related losses.

Stop being a fake engineer

>>17372665
WHY ARE THREADS LIKE THIS ALLOWED

>>17372665
>why hasn't anyone broken the laws of physics

>>17372797
Not them, and while I usually hate getting nitpicky, technically at any point that any drivetrain part makes contact with literally anything else, friction is occurring and a by-product of that is heat, obviously in varying levels. So while direct mechanical loss is probably the biggest offender, energy is still lost in heat in the drivetrain.

>>17372741
Honda engineering wins again

File: 1405991877186.jpg (44KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 960x960px

>>17372665

>>17372813
I guess that's true. Just ass mad when people pretend to know what they're talking about.

>>17372665
May I ask, are you high right now? How many bong hits have you had?

>>17372739
But the engine will always be the source of energy for whatever "system" your drive train is using for more theoretical horsepower

>>17372745
WEW LAD

>>17372866
not if you add more energy sources in the drivetrain

Why not add reverse reduction gears at some point in the drivetrain, so the driveshaft spins faster than the crank, making up for the loss in hp?

>>17373271
So like a 1:3 final drive?

File: 1463913164964.jpg (25KB, 419x651px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 419x651px

>>17372665
What the fuck is the first law of thermodynamics, faggot?

>>17373389
Within it's inertial reference frame, and object in motion tends to stay in motion, and an object at rest tends to remain at rest, unless acted on by an outside force.

Not sure how that applies to this.

>>17373424
"ore specifically, the First Law encompasses several principles:

The law of conservation of energy.
This states that energy can be neither created nor destroyed. However, energy can change forms, and energy can flow from one place to another. A particular consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that the total energy of an isolated system does not change."

TL;DR:

You cannot create more power than the one you recieve without drawing power from somewhere else. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

You cannot have more power going on the wheels than on the crank without using something like KERS or something that uses extra power. But assuming we are talking there is no KERS there is no physical way to do such thing.

Its like the perpetual motion machine. It violates the laws of physics.

>>17373271
What a strange idea... We could call it... Overdrive?

>>17373271
That's an overdrive ratio in the transmission, present in all modern vehicles, and it can't affect power, only torque.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gear-output-torque-speed-horsepower-d_1691.html

>why don't poor people just buy more money!
That's how retarded you are

>>17372859
I don't know I'm trying to figure out the thermal efficiency of my bong.

File: Toyota Prius WRC.jpg (242KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

242KB, 1024x768px

>>17372665

> Why hasn't anyone made a system where the drivetrain actually adds horsepower?

It's called a hybrid.