x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home

# Power to acceleration relationships watch

Announcements
1. This discussion is awful.

Implying different engines, cars, model, etc. Don't all have different power bands, gear ratios, grip, transmission losses, etc...

Also, measuring HP/Mass isn't the 'Correct' way of thinking about it, try Torque/Mass. It might be easier for you chaps to understand.
2. (Original post by JDV10)
This discussion is awful.

Implying different engines, cars, model, etc. Don't all have different power bands, gear ratios, grip, transmission losses, etc...

Also, measuring HP/Mass isn't the 'Correct' way of thinking about it, try Torque/Mass. It might be easier for you chaps to understand.
In fairness to the OP, your last line doesn't exactly show a lot of technical understanding - power is more important than torque. If you've got enough power but insufficient output torque, you just need to adjust your gearing. If you've got adequate (but not excess) torque and your rotational speed is too low, you're stuffed until you can get more power...
3. (Original post by JDV10)
This discussion is awful.

Implying different engines, cars, model, etc. Don't all have different power bands, gear ratios, grip, transmission losses, etc...

Also, measuring HP/Mass isn't the 'Correct' way of thinking about it, try Torque/Mass. It might be easier for you chaps to understand.
Really don't see why torque is more important than bhp. If that was the case all the diesels would be fast and the petrols slow.
4. Well, this thread is categorizing things into an automotive application in one post, the physics in the other.

Like saying, double the horsepower and you will half the 0 - 60 time?!

Horsepower isn't even a force. When have you ever seen
F=M*A with horsepower?

Never, because torque is a force, over a distance.

Torque is more appropriate because horsepower is related to torque at a specific RPM, high revving diesels generally have more 'power' than petrol cars, however, they're harder to make.

As much as I appreciate people applying STEM course material to Automotive discussion, they're are too many dynamic variables that you guys just haven't considered.

tl;dr

Horsepower is a man made thing, it's used in the modern day for mouth breathers to find out 'how wikked sik mi whip is doe'
5. (Original post by JDV10)
Well, this thread is categorizing things into an automotive application in one post, the physics in the other.

Like saying, double the horsepower and you will half the 0 - 60 time?!

Horsepower isn't even a force. When have you ever seen
F=M*A with horsepower?

Never, because torque is a force, over a distance.

Torque is more appropriate because horsepower is related to torque at a specific RPM, high revving diesels generally have more 'power' than petrol cars, however, they're harder to make.

As much as I appreciate people applying STEM course material to Automotive discussion, they're are too many dynamic variables that you guys just haven't considered.

tl;dr

Horsepower is a man made thing, it's used in the modern day for mouth breathers to find out 'how wikked sik mi whip is doe'
Nah, you have to quadruple the horsepower to half the 0-60 time
6. While I realise the OP can be a little 'over enthusiastic' and his obsession with saloons is bordering on the comical, I don't think people are being very fair here. There's not many people on this forum with a technical interest in cars so it's a shame to see it being discouraged. That said of course, if you (OP) are going to create a thread like this, don't just tell people they're wrong!

(Original post by JDV10)

Never, because torque is a force, over a distance.
Force x distance is work, not torque. Torque is a force acting about an axis. Whilst I'll accept that might be what you were trying to say, your wording was closer to the definition of work than torque and was at best ambiguous.

Torque is more appropriate because horsepower is related to torque at a specific RPM, high revving diesels generally have more 'power' than petrol cars, however, they're harder to make.
Power is related to torque at all speeds, as power = torque x rotational speed. Nothing more, nothing less. Peak torque doesn't tell you much in all honesty. A BMW 335D has higher peak torque than a John Deere 6630, but there'll only ever be one winner in a tug of war. There's a limit to what power will tell you, but it does at least give you a reasonable idea of the capability of a piece of equipment.

If you're going to try and knock someone on a technical basis, at least make sure you know what you're talking about.
7. (Original post by CurlyBen)

Force x distance is work, not torque.
Torque is measured in Newton Meters or lb/ft

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of force/distance

for example:

420 Newtons over 1 Meter. Thus 420 NM

I understand where I may have confused people not mentioning that it's a rotational force however.
8. (Original post by JDV10)
Torque is measured in Newton Meters or lb/ft

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of force/distance

for example:

420 Newtons over 1 Meter. Thus 420 NM

I understand where I may have confused people not mentioning that it's a rotational force however.
Lb/ft is a unit of mass per length, or a way of expressing a distributed load. The unit you're looking for is lbf.ft (note that it is lbf. - a pound is a unit of mass, pound force is a unit of force, although this is often missed). / and over mean divided by. Force/distance doesn't feature in any common equation I know! 420Nm is equivalent to a force of 420 Newtons acting radially at a distance of 1 metre. 420 Newtons over a meter would be a force acting above a piece of measuring equipment.
If you can't get these basics right, you're on pretty shaky ground...
9. (Original post by CurlyBen)
A BMW 335D has higher peak torque than a John Deere 6630, but there'll only ever be one winner in a tug of war..
That's only cause the tractor weighs more that it would win the tug of war lol
10. (Original post by traintracks1995)
That's only cause the tractor weighs more that it would win the tug of war lol
The Deere is less powerful and it generates less torque at the flywheel. The BMW just lacks the appropriate gearing... (and admittedly enough fatties in the boot to keep traction)
11. (Original post by CurlyBen)
The Deere is less powerful and it generates less torque at the flywheel. The BMW just lacks the appropriate gearing... (and admittedly enough fatties in the boot to keep traction)
But if they both weighed the same and the beemer had a short enough first gear then the beemer will win?
12. (Original post by traintracks1995)
But if they both weighed the same and the beemer had a short enough first gear then the beemer will win?
Ish. There's a whole bunch of other factors (wheel size, tyre type etc. etc. etc.) but assuming both machines can fully utilise their power the more powerful will win.

The Deere engine would still be the better choice for powering a tractor though.
13. (Original post by CurlyBen)
Lb/ft is a unit of mass per length, or a way of expressing a distributed load. The unit you're looking for is lbf.ft (note that it is lbf. - a pound is a unit of mass, pound force is a unit of force, although this is often missed). / and over mean divided by. Force/distance doesn't feature in any common equation I know! 420Nm is equivalent to a force of 420 Newtons acting radially at a distance of 1 metre. 420 Newtons over a meter would be a force acting above a piece of measuring equipment.
If you can't get these basics right, you're on pretty shaky ground...
Ok, you're either a textbook engineer or trolling now.

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: February 1, 2014
Today on TSR

### Loughborough better than Cambridge

Loughborough at number one

Poll
Useful resources