Comments by "Golden Croc" (@GoldenCroc) on "Лошадиная сила против крутящего момента - простое объяснение" video.

  1. The other way around, actually.
    4
  2. Tyler Rodriguez no, but I know simple physics. Your example is apples and oranges. We are talking powertrains here, not cars. Corectly geared and in the same chassis, the civicsengine would be faster, yeah.
    4
  3. Old sayings are fun, but not always correct.
    1
  4. He is very knowledgable no doubt, but he aims to entertain, and a classic qoute, even though it is wrong can be fun sometimes. Regarding your question: The would accelerate exactly the same and reach the same top speed. The torque is utterly irrelevant for these things.
    1
  5. Funny you should ask that, I have owned a BMW 525 with exactly that engine in it. The answer is that the 328 has the peak power for longer i.e. it might have an average of 160hp between 4500-6500 rpm, while the 325 might have the same average power but only in a smaller rev range ie 5200-6500 rpm. Since these cars comes with a gearbox with fixed ratio you are force to use a rev range while accelerating. What accelerates your car is the average horsepower in the gear you are in. That is why the 328 is a little bit faster. In lower revs the 328 makes more horsepower, no doubt, which makes it accelerate faster if you dont downshift on acceleration.
    1
  6. An electric engine does have moving parts, not sure why you thought otherwise.
    1
  7. Yes.
    1
  8. Nice. My gsxr 1000 is about the same, but the torque takes a little bit longer to come in. Of course, it also keeps it a bit longer as well.Upside is max power is at 12100 rpm, which means a bit more hp than you got.
    1
  9. Yes, a lower gearing would just make it flip over easier, so they have high lower gears to allow closer higher gears.
    1
  10. It is of no use at all concerning acceleration. It is only a way to say "horsepower at the max efficiency rpm". Interesting for commercial operators for sure, but not so much for normal motorists. Seems the term has stuck around, even though it is of questionable use. Probably because of motor journalist and other people of little technical knowledge.
    1
  11. Yes, if everything else is optimized for best acceleration.
    1
  12. Yes, if you dont increase the horsepower at the same time. But this is easier said than done, normally both increase at the same time. But taken as just a number in isolation "400 ft lbs (or Nm)" says nothing about the acceleration or top speed of a car.
    1
  13. Really small, with a good driver.
    1
  14. Generally they have more torque, yes. However, as you have seen in this video, that is irrelevant. The reason is more likely their lower fuel consumption for a specific power output, and the fuel is often cheaper in itself.
    1
  15. They will pull the same load actually, and at the same speed to! Generally its not such a big difference as you might think, the gearing most certainly could compensate in most cases. However you are right in that it will result in a engine that is way more sensitive to being "bogged down" and such.
    1
  16. It could probably be more fuel efficient, and maybe longer lasting.
    1
  17. The torque is irrelevant as a performance metric, sorry. Horsepower is what is is all about.
    1
  18. No, power under the curve. Tomatoe, tomato.
    1
  19. What curve exactly are you talking about here? Nevertheless, hosepower is what makes a car fast, not torque.
    1
  20. No you have more wheel torque. Hence the only advantage is getting the gearing closer together, so you can easier keep as close to the max HP when going through the gears.
    1
  21. Depending what you do with your car, It can also have other benefits, such as easier launch, more pulling power without burning the clutch, etc.
    1
  22. It is because the camshafts, exhaust and so on can only give peak efficiency at one point. That is where your max torque is, more or less.
    1
  23. They do. Even though they have no crank, think of the rotor as a piston and connecting rod in one. However, because of a myriad of technical reasons, they generally have a low torque compared to piston engines of the same horsepower rating.
    1
  24. If by "no" you mean "quite low" then, yes we are in agreement.
    1
  25. Yes, if you could use the power effectivly with the gearbox.
    1
  26. Correct. However, as you might already know the a lot of people call gearing for higher top speed "higher gearing" and others call higher numerical gearing which would mean a lower top speed "higher gearing" which gives rise to quite a few misunderstandings.....
    1
  27. No, maximum power sets both. Torque has no direct relevancy what so ever, even though it may be hard understand. (I simplified a bit, but generally this is true)
    1
  28. It has relevancy in as much that it also denotes horsepower i.e. if you got a lot ot torque in the midrange you also got a lot of horsepower just a little bit higher up the revrange. Concerning "revy" I think I see what you are getting at and kind of agree. However, If you look at certain motorbike engines for example they have a really good torque figure for their capacity "slagvolym" and still rev a lot. An old bike of mine was quite happy in 6th gear at 40kph (km/h) and still revved to about 12500 without a sweat. If they would have geared it higher and put an artificial rev limiter to 8000rpm nobody would have complained. But a higher max rev means you can get away with lower gears which help alot in a performance vehicle. You are correct in saying that a lot of people use "horsepower" when meaning power in the high power band and "torque" when talking about power in the lower power band. Since you can calculate the cars acceleration and top speed and such just by inputing horsepower in the formula, while torque will not let you calculate or approximate anything at all, it is seems smarter to say "horsepower in the midrange/lowrange" compared to saying "torque" even if you mean the exact same thing, since this misunderstanding that torque effects performance seems to stem from the overuse of the word. P.S Jag finner det lustigt att vi har denna konversation på engelska, men det går bra för min del.
    1
  29. As I said earlier: If by "torque" you mean (horse)power in the lower revrange, then we are in total agreement. If you however believe that torque by itself have anything to do with acceleration, which it seems to me by your examples, then you are completely wrong. the F in F=ma is a force, not a torque. The A in that forumula includes the component of time, which is not availible in the torque measurement. However, it is handily enough availible in the power measurement. Almost as if time matters when you are talking about acceleration. Funny that, huh? Your "real world" examples make it seem to me like you drank to much manufacturer cool-aid, and is a bit lost. Understandable, but I will gladly dismantle them as well, depending on if you see the light after this post. No hard feelings, we all make mistakes some time, especially if you have been "taught" things which are flat out wrong.
    1
  30. If you really want to get tecnhical you can call it that you convert energy. But "energy conversion rate" does not have the same ring as horseower. If you drop the "torque" naming scheme, I promise to start calling it energy conversion rate, deal?
    1
  31. But it does explain why you need gears? Since power is Torque*Revs then power increases with revs until the torque drops so sharply that the increased revs cant compensate in the calculation. An engine with perfectly flat torque curve will double its power when you double the revs. Oh and by the way, have you seen the torque curve of a modern engine? for a normal car, above 2000 rpm they are almost flat! If torque accelerated the car, then the car would accelerate at the same rate at 2000rpm as 4000 rpm, as the torque is the same, right? But as Im sure you are aware, it does not. So power absolutely expalain why you need gears: To keep in the right powerband. However if torque was the factor, the yes, between 2000-5000rpm you would need no gears as the torque stays almost the same. I think you just disproved your own agrument?
    1
  32. Last post on this: If you want to know the performance, you have to quote both torque and the revs at which you have that torque. Quoting only the torque number, as is often done, will not suffice. If you quote the power, that is the only figure you need.I choose option 2, and I think every one else should do the same so as to avoid misunderstandings such as is rampant even in this comment section.
    1
  33. It implies that the engine with the most horsepower is always the fastest.
    1
  34. In real life that is not always the case, because normal cars are not 100% acceleration focused. For race cars however, you can almost certainly take it as a fact.
    1