Gearing only confuses others who attempt to introduce it to support a fallacious argument. Like you.
Do wonder why you attempt to confuse a very simple concept with so many red herrings.
Really? My original statement is still accurate. You seem to try every trick in the book in an attempt to prove black is white.
Now explain Brake Horse Power, and why it is called that.
I have an engineering qualification, yes. Hence attempting to get you to understand the basics.
Is that an admission you were talking crap about BHP?
Is that your version of 'Strong and Stable' ;-)
And you've just said power (BHP being the way it is quoted on a car engine)) is independant of torque.
Perhaps you might explain this rather 'controversial' notion. I'm all ears.
So you haven't a clue.
The simple concept is that acceleration needs power and not torque, or gear, or rpm in isolation.
Your original statement was entirely wrong and has been proven so in terms you clearly don't understand.
You tell me? It's pretty obvious to most, but you won't have a clue.
The basics? Your basic, and wrong, understanding is that acceleration is just dependent on torque? Had they not invented simple 'mechanics' in your day?
You still don't seem to grasp the very, very simple concepts: To accelerate a car we are increasing its kinetic energy. It takes energy to accelerate a car, and that the rate that energy is applied to the the car is called power.
When you've mastered these simple concepts of mechanics you might be able to get a GCSE O level.
But in reality you don't understand this.
No, just illustrating you don't have a clue.
Is that how you demonstrate ignorance?
You still don't seem to grasp the very, very simple concepts: To accelerate a car we are increasing its kinetic energy. It takes energy to accelerate a car, and that the rate that energy is applied to the the car is called power.
But I doubt you'll understand.
' Not when you use 'energy' like that.
Just another word you scatter around like confetti without clue. Rather the same as power.
If by power, you mean BHP then please say so.
If by energy you mean kinetic, potential, light, sound, or even nuclear please make it clear too.
There really is no point in trying to have a technical discussion with one who doesn't understand technical terms.
If you're asking that question you haven't a clue.
This is the issue at hand:
To accelerate a car we are increasing its kinetic energy. It takes energy to accelerate a car, and that the rate that energy is applied to the the car is called power.
Do you accept this, even if you don't understand it?
Does that mean it can't be switched off?
Not sure, but lots of more recent cars don't have the ability to do so.
Chris
I can't understand why you are trying to complicate what is a very simple matter. By introducing more red herrings than in any barrel.
You are wrong in thinking maximum acceleration occurs at maximum BHP. It occurs at maximum torque. End of.
It's traction force at the wheel contact patch that moves and accelerates the car. That by definition means there has to be torque at the hub.
It winds up the tyre sidewall and deflects the tread blocks before it moves the car so the hub rotates (and axle moves nearer the road) without the car moving off. Softer sidewall tyres used by drag racers show what happens to make a vehicle start to move. Rigid tyre on rigid rail like steel railway locos have to slip.
Once moving such that car moves even at namometers/eon (or the wheel rotates at nanoradians/eon) it takes power. The definition of power being the product of torque and angular speed. Or in linear terms traction force x linear velocity.
If it moves its using power.
Perfectly possible. Quite common on 2 strokes.
BMW 530d at 60 mph in 4th, 2315 rpm with 369 Nm (89 Kw) BMW 530d at 60 mph in 3rd, 3300 rpm with 350 Nm (131 Kw).
BMW 530i at 60 mph in 3rd, 3890 rpm with 295 Nm (120 Kw) BMW 530i at 60 mph in 2nd, 5900 rpm with 277 Nm (169 Kw).
Both cars are pedal to the metal on the flat. Which car is accelerating the quickest and which gear does it accelerate quickest in? The one with more power or the one with more torque?
Of course
Quite. But if you were to measure the BHP at the wheel when moving off, it would be tiny compared to the torque.
Err, can you explain why you would even attempt to compare different cars with different gearing?
Think we all know different cars perform differently.
on 07/07/2017, Peter Hill supposed :
They do of course wind up, but the function of the clutch is to also act as sort of extremely crude variable speed gearbox.
The wheels do not have slip at initial take off, they slip only if too much power is applied, which overcomes the steel to steel friction.
The 'moving off' is typically where the clutch is used to 'slip'. It's usually a short duration before full engine power is transmitted to the wheels.
This is the issue at hand:
To accelerate a car we are increasing its kinetic energy. It takes energy to accelerate a car, and that the rate that energy is applied to the the car is called power.
Do you accept this, even if you don't understand it?
Not it isn't, you get more acceleration in first gear than you do second for the same torque. End of what?
To accelerate a car we are increasing its kinetic energy. It takes energy to accelerate a car, and that the rate that energy is applied to the the car is called power.
Do you accept this, even if you don't understand it?
To show prowess in basic physics? To predict acceleration times? In race cars, to optimise engine mapping and gearing to minimise lap times? Throw in the modelling of drag and downforce. There is nothing magical here or mysterious.
The art is understanding why. Something you clearly do not understand.
This is well beyond Dave's ability. The answer is trivial as long as the weight is similar for the two cases.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.