Physics: How does more rpm = more power

I know what torque and hp are by definition but what I am wondering is how does more rpm = more torque on most combustion engines. Does the faster burning of more gas stack up the power? It just puzzles me a little bit because i think of this analogy. Say there is a bolt that requires 100 ft/lbs of torque to bust it loose and your ratchet can only give 80 ft/lbs. No matter how much you power the ratchet for, it wont stack up to the 100 required.

I don't know if this makes sense but can you explain to me what goes on exactly and possibly even explain to me what i am thinking because Im not too sure it is correct either.

What do you mean more RPM = more TQ..... there is a limit to that. A small block V8 in 300+ cube area has a hard time making peak TQ over 5000rpm and 6000rpm is usually the limit.

Bret

Well yeah I know there is a limit but how does spinning faster make more power in the range that it is in. I would think that spinning faster doesnt mean more power if you use the analogy with the impact ratchet.

It just puzzles me a little bit because i think of this analogy. Say there is a bolt that requires 100 ft/lbs of torque to bust it loose and your ratchet can only give 80 ft/lbs. No matter how much you power the ratchet for, it wont stack up to the 100 required.


Torque is a force. Power is potential work. Work is force over distance. If the bolt simply doesn't move, you are not doing ANY work but you are producing a force.

Now, if the bolt required a constant 80 lb*ft to cause motion to back it out, the faster you can spin it, the more power you are making (using).

You can never forget about that magical dimension of time... it can make huge differences ;) The faster an engine spins, the more power pulses per second, the more times torque is applied to the crank, the more work it can do in the same amount of time than if it were going slower.

Think about this. Power to the rear wheels is more or less constant for a given drivetrain and conditions. Torque to the rear wheels can be changed by gearing (and wheel tire diameter, etc.) but power will be the same.

The title of your post makes sense, but you're losing the train of thought in your post.

The ability for an engine to make torque at high RPM is quite complex; it's mostly
about how much air and fuel can be taken into the combustion chamber per intake stroke.

As the other gentleman is describing, an engine will encounter pumping loses
due to friction, valve train losses (valve bounce), etc. as RPM rises.

Making power on the other hand is a different story. If RPM can increase rapidly
with little loss of torque...then power will continue to increase.

Since power is product of work completed over time, you can plot the toque
over time and calculate the point of where power peaks and begins to roll off.

Try this link for some more information:

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

http://www.hardtail.com/techtips/hpandtorque.html

One way to clarify this is to try to answer a questioned posed as follows. Would you rather have a motor that made 300 ft.lbs. peak torque at 3,000 rpm or at 6,000rpm? Why? Which would make more hp?

Rich

One way to clarify this is to try to answer a questioned posed as follows. Would you rather have a motor that made 300 ft.lbs. peak torque at 3,000 rpm or at 6,000rpm? Why? Which would make more hp?
Rich

6,000rpm because you will spend more time there when racing? From what I understand it is better to make torque at higher rpm

6,000rpm because you will spend more time there when racing? From what I understand it is better to make torque at higher rpm
From a racing stand point it is better to make torque all the way through the band, but if need be you would want the torque to start as low as possible, with a higher torque peak. If you turn 6000 rpm and only make max at 3000, and then it drops off, what is the point of the extra 3000? What is the point of working harder when no power is being produced? That's my thought of it.

Well yeah I know there is a limit but how does spinning faster make more power in the range that it is in. I would think that spinning faster doesnt mean more power if you use the analogy with the impact ratchet.

Anywho, back to the original question. If you try moving a very heavy wheel with your hand, what is easier. Spinning the wheel at low speeds, or high speeds? The faster you get the easier it is to move the wheel, and the harder it is to stop it also. Eventually you'll reach a point though where limits are reach, and it doesn't matter how fast you spin the wheel, you will not make any more power. That's why more rpm = more torque. Also explains why torque eventually drops off.

The ratchet/bolt analogy can't be compared to an engine. Using your analogy, you are stating you need constant pressure of 100 ft/lbs to brake loose a 100ftlb bolt. That is true, but an engine is running in a circle. So if you want to compare them you need to change the "constant 100ft/lb pressure" part to "100ft/lbs in motion". 80 ft/lbs in motion (i.e. dropped or spun) can brake loose 100ft/lbs at the right speed. Motion is like a torque multiplier if you want to think of it that way.

Thanks guys, i understand it now. I knew that my train of thought was bad, i couldnt really described what i was thinking but, i do understand now.

If you turn 6000 rpm and only make max at 3000, and then it drops off, what is the point of the extra 3000? What is the point of working harder when no power is being produced?


Are you stating that it's useless to spin the motor beyond the torque peak?




Anywho, back to the original question. If you try moving a very heavy wheel with your hand, what is easier. Spinning the wheel at low speeds, or high speeds? The faster you get the easier it is to move the wheel, and the harder it is to stop it also. Eventually you'll reach a point though where it doesn't matter how fast you spin the wheel, you will not make any more power. That's why more rpm = more torque. Also explains why torque eventually drops off.

That's actually backwards to what you should be thinking. What about
spinning the wheel faster from it's current rotation? Don't you think it would
take more power to spin the mass at 5000 RPM than it would take to spin at 2000 RPM?

Are you stating that it's useless to spin the motor beyond the torque peak?
I did not say that. But in general, not always, it is useless to work harder for less. Cars is an exception. You need that RPM for speed and to keep the car moving.

That's actually backwards to what you should be thinking. What about spinning the wheel faster from it's current rotation? Don't you think it would take more power to spin the mass at 5000 RPM than it would take to spin at 2000 RPM?
Let me better explain this.

A spinning wheel is like an engine. In some places it is not though. Spinning a plain wheel at a higher rpm than the current will always make more power the faster it turns. An engine is the same way, but it has limiting factors. Those factors are mainly how much air can be taken in, and how much gas can be supplied. If those factors prevent it from making more power at 3000 rpm, then that's the peak.

Now if we can only find a way to take away those limiting factors....:shrug:

shibby i'm not slamming you, but a spinning wheel is not like an engine. a spinning wheel has momentum (angular) and produces no power. it is also not any easier to accelerate a wheel no matter what the rpm's as long as the change in velocity is the same (ignoring friction and drag), the same goes for something in linear motion. linear momentum (and angular) is a measure of the energy an object carries the formula for that is mass x velocity. no matter what the starting velocity is the increase in enegry will be the same.

for an example lets use a 1lb object.

at 5fps its momentum is 5
increase the velocity to 10 and it has 10
so the change in energy there is obviously 5

take the same object starting at 100fps and the momentum is 100
then bump the speed to 105fps and the momentum is 105
again the change in energy is 5

there are equivalent equations for angular momentum but often times thats a hard bump for folks to climb over quickly.

on the where do you want the peak tq at 3000 vs 6000rpms that rich asked. you want it at 6000 because you can use "twice" the gear and effectively double the force thats accelerating the car at the same velocity.

Torque is the force and RPMs are the force applied. So if you make X torque do you want it applied 3000 or 6000 times?

The thing is, generally it's physically harder to move the same amount of air 6000 times than 3000 times. For example 200(ftlbs)*3000(rpm)=100ftlb*6000(rpm) but in this example you are doing the same amount of work overall.

But say you can make 200ftlbs at 3000 and 190ftlbs at 6000, you may be making less torque but you're making only slightly less twice as fast.

This is what HP is for. Measuring your torque over time.

shibby i'm not slamming you, but a spinning wheel is not like an engine.
How so? A wheel spins, so does an engine. Spins around the crankshaft.

it is also not any easier to accelerate a wheel no matter what the rpm's as long as the change in velocity is the same (ignoring friction and drag), the same goes for something in linear motion. linear momentum (and angular) is a measure of the energy an object carries the formula for that is mass x velocity. no matter what the starting velocity is the increase in enegry will be the same.
Are you saying an engine doesn't have momentum? And also, how does a spinning wheel have no power? It takes power to get it moving, but it also has to protrude that same power. So in a sense it has power. If a disc is spinning in space, you can obviously stop it if something is not driving it. But if something is driving it, you need to over come the power of the driver, since the power is being transfered. I guess that is really what I was getting at.

I wasn't really trying to get at all the acceleration stuff.

Here's a good article -

HOW TO GET MAXIMUM ACCELERATION by Mike Clements

http://mclements.net/mrc-PowerTorque.html

How so? A wheel spins, so does an engine. Spins around the crankshaft.

You speak as if the "wheel" is some sort of perpetual device and spins without
use of force?

What do you think is spinning the wheel? Itself? You need power to spin the
wheel. The motor spinning the wheel requires a certain amount of power to
sustain the motion.

Your analogy between the engine and wheel is not valid.

Power is just work over time. How much work per time.

also

power = torque * angular speed (in rad/sec)

You speak as if the "wheel" is some sort of perpetual device and spins without
use of force?

What do you think is spinning the wheel? Itself? You need power to spin the
wheel. The motor spinning the wheel requires a certain amount of power to
sustain the motion.

Your analogy between the engine and wheel is not valid.
Read again.
It takes power to get it moving, but it also has to protrude that same power. So in a sense it has power. If a disc is spinning in space, you can obviously stop it if something is not driving it. But if something is driving it, you need to over come the power of the driver, since the power is being transfered. I guess that is really what I was getting at.

My "spins around the crankshaft" was a very broad statement. Yes I know there needs to be energy, did I ever say there didn't need to be?

An engine spins around the crankshaft. What is spinning the crankshaft is the power coming from the cylinders. If the cylinders were not limited by factors such as air intake and gas, they could essentially have enough power and speed to make the crank spin as fast as you want. There are a ton of little limiting factors too. (ie valvetrain, drivetrain, strengths, friction)

Now a wheel is the same thing, except it doesn't necessarily have to be powered by cylinders. Anything can power a wheel. There can also be limiting factors like friction, strengths, and whatever depending on the powerer and enviroment.

Now how is my analogy not correct? A wheel and an engine both have to receive power to move, both have to give off that same amount of power received, and both need to receive constant power to stay moving. After all, what is that big thing behind the engine, I think it's called a flywheel.

I didn't read all the posts... so, sorry if someone said this already, but

Horsepower = Power

Power = Work/Time

Torque = Work

Now think of it like this:

Seneario 1
Lets say 1 crankshaft rotation takes 1 second at 3,000 RPM (I know that makes no sense in reality.. but just bare with me)

Senario 2
Now lets say, at 6,000 RPM, 1 crankshaft rotation takes 0.5 seconds (makes sense, right? Because the engine is spinning faster so the time it takes to make one rotation will be less)

And lets also assume that at BOTH 3,000 and 6,000 RPM the engine produces 300 ft-lbs of torque.

Ok... now remember, Horsepower = Power and

Power = Work/Time

Work = 300 ft-lbs for both senarios

Senario 1

Horsepower = 300ft-lbs/1second = 300HP

Senario 2

Horsepower = 300ft-lbs/0.5seconds = 600HP

So to summarize as best I can

If the same amount of Work(Torque) is being produced all across the RPM range, the higher the RPM's the less time it takes for the engine to produce the same amount work(torque) so by

Horsepower = Torque/Time If Torque remains constant, as time decreases, horsepower will increase.

Hope that makes sense :)

Thats a pretty good explaination.

Its really simple if you look at the formula

power = torque * omega (angular speed, can be replaced with RPM)

If torque is constant and RPM is faster than you are using more power

Now how is my analogy not correct? A wheel and an engine both have to receive power to move, both have to give off that same amount of power received, and both need to receive constant power to stay moving. After all, what is that big thing behind the engine, I think it's called a flywheel.


A flywheel needs no net power nor does it need any net torque to stay moving.

remeber newton? A body in motion stays in motion unless acted on.


to make things clear here are the units.. They help me understand things

work/energy/torque= N-m also known as a joule
power = joule/s also known as watt


in english units

work/energy/torque = ft-lbf
power = 550ftlbs/sec also known as a HP

Are you saying an engine doesn't have momentum?

an engine and trans most definaitly has momentum (more than one kind even in a moving car!), you get to feel the effects of it every time you upshift, that short sudden boost of acceleration when you hit the next gear is the rotating parts giving back energy to the system.

And also, how does a spinning wheel have no power?

it doesnt have power it has angular momentum(energy), power to me would suggest some sort of force output, and a disc afaik falls very short in its design at getting anywhere near being something that can produce power, all of them i've seen have been pretty good at storing energy though (flywheels etc)

It takes power to get it moving, but it also has to protrude that same power. So in a sense it has power.

say wha :confused:

If a disc is spinning in space, you can obviously stop it if something is not driving it. But if something is driving it, you need to over come the power of the driver, since the power is being transfered. I guess that is really what I was getting at.

i'm still not sure i understand where you're going with that, wrt to the conversation. but at a glance i think we agree on the energy (word) equations there.

I wasn't really trying to get at all the acceleration stuff.

maybe i misunderstood when you started talking about spinning the disc faster and it being easier the higher its angular velocity was. that was the whole point of my momentum example.

The spinning wheel analogy loses me completely, and I'm still trying to find a definition of "protrude" that has anything to do with energy :) . The spinning wheel would continue to spin without additional power input, if you could just get rid of that pesky friction. It is not "protruding" (?) any energy, except to overcome fricton. The spinning wheel is all about inertia. I don't see the relevance to the question.

I know what torque and hp are by definition but what I am wondering is how does more rpm = more torque on most combustion engines. Does the faster burning of more gas stack up the power? It just puzzles me a little bit because i think of this analogy. Say there is a bolt that requires 100 ft/lbs of torque to bust it loose and your ratchet can only give 80 ft/lbs. No matter how much you power the ratchet for, it wont stack up to the 100 required.

I don't know if this makes sense but can you explain to me what goes on exactly and possibly even explain to me what i am thinking because Im not too sure it is correct either.

Guys, terminology is very important. Don't confuse power, work, torque, momentum, etc. Those words and definitions are being used very loosely in this thread. The terms are NOT interchangable!

No offense pHEnomIC, but I'm not convinced that you do understand torque and hp. Torque, as produced by an rotating engine is work. Work over a time period is power, as Alvin said.

Example of work and power:

You weight 165 lbs. and walk up a flight of stairs that is 10 feet high. You did (165 lbs. x 10 ft) or 1650 lb-ft of work. If you took your time and did it in 60 seconds, you produced 1650/60 or 27.5 lb-ft/sec of power. Because one horsepower is defined as 550 lb-ft per second, you produced 27.5/550 or .05 hp. That's 1/20 of a hp.

If you climbed the stairs in 6 seconds you would have produced 1650/6=275 lb-ft/sec or 1/2 hp. If you ran up the stairs in 3 seconds, you produced.....I'll leave the math to you. In each case the work was the same, only the time, and therefore the power varied.

HP can be thought of as how fast you produce torque. That's in the formula: HP = torque x rpm/5250. So the higher the rpm you can make torque, the more power you are producing. 300 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm is 171.36 hp, but 300 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm is 342.72 hp. That's why a 183 cubic inch F1 engine can produce 900 hp @ 18,000 rpm. It's only getting 262.6 lb-ft at that rpm, by the way.

So if the F1 engine is only producing 262.6 lb-ft at its 18,000 rpm power peak, how could it accelerate a car quicker than an engine making 300 lb-ft at say 6000 rpm power peak? This opens a whole new container of worms, doesn't it?

MyShibbyZ28,

I've read your replies more than once in hopes that I had miscontrued your
intentions.

At this point, you need to take this debate back to your grade school physics
teacher and try to explain your position. Everyone in this thread is quoting
you for a reason. Please try to take their advice and learn from them.

So if the F1 engine is only producing 262.6 lb-ft at its 18,000 rpm power peak, how could it accelerate a car quicker than an engine making 300 lb-ft at say 6000 rpm power peak? This opens a whole new container of worms, doesn't it?

you just couldnt resist could you. :p

given the same tire height and vehichle mass and perfect traction the f1 car can use 3x the gearing as the 6000rpm street car.

f1 262.6 x 3 = 787.8 lb-ft
street car 300 x 1 = 300 lb-ft :(

using force = mass (accel) and ignoring force and mass since they're equivalent. the f1 car should accelerate at a rate 2.626 times that of the 6000rpm engine.

note: if you could get the street car to duplicate the tq output of the f1 engine the bhp would be the same at the axle.

I left out tire radius, thrust, and effective gearing on purpose to avoid even more confusion, and to simplify the example.

Guys, terminology is very important. Don't confuse power, work, torque, momentum, etc. Those words and definitions are being used very loosely in this thread. The terms are NOT interchangable!

No offense pHEnomIC, but I'm not convinced that you do understand torque and hp. Torque, as produced by an rotating engine is work. Work over a time period is power, as Alvin said.

Example of work and power:

You weight 165 lbs. and walk up a flight of stairs that is 10 feet high. You did (165 lbs. x 10 ft) or 1650 lb-ft of work. If you took your time and did it in 60 seconds, you produced 1650/60 or 27.5 lb-ft/sec of power. Because one horsepower is defined as 550 lb-ft per second, you produced 27.5/550 or .05 hp. That's 1/20 of a hp.

If you climbed the stairs in 6 seconds you would have produced 1650/6=275 lb-ft/sec or 1/2 hp. If you ran up the stairs in 3 seconds, you produced.....I'll leave the math to you. In each case the work was the same, only the time, and therefore the power varied.

HP can be thought of as how fast you produce torque. That's in the formula: HP = torque x rpm/5250. So the higher the rpm you can make torque, the more power you are producing. 300 lb-ft @ 3000 rpm is 171.36 hp, but 300 lb-ft @ 6000 rpm is 342.72 hp. That's why a 183 cubic inch F1 engine can produce 900 hp @ 18,000 rpm. It's only getting 262.6 lb-ft at that rpm, by the way.

So if the F1 engine is only producing 262.6 lb-ft at its 18,000 rpm power peak, how could it accelerate a car quicker than an engine making 300 lb-ft at say 6000 rpm power peak? This opens a whole new container of worms, doesn't it?

Pretty much addresses what I was trying to get people to think about if you carry it one step further and answer the last question. And believe me, with the right gearing that F1 motor WILL make a vehicle accelerate faster than the "lazy" 300ft.lb. @ 6,000rpm motor. So, isn't it ridiculous when people say "hp doesn't matter, it's just torque that matters?" They are directly related (HP = torque*rpm/5250) so if one matters, so does the other.

Rich

MyShibbyZ28,

I've read your replies more than once in hopes that I had miscontrued your
intentions.

At this point, you need to take this debate back to your grade school physics
teacher and try to explain your position. Everyone in this thread is quoting
you for a reason. Please try to take their advice and learn from them.


Pot meet kettle..


Your post are full of mistakes and wrongs also.

Power and force are two seperate things. It takes force to accelerate a wheel spinning or counter friction in your real world senerio, there is no net power needed to sustain a spinning wheel nor is there any net force require to sustain a wheel spinning.

there is no net power needed to sustain a spinning wheel nor is there any net force require to sustain a wheel spinning.

There is if it's attached to a car with aero drag and
moving several miles per hour.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what we're discussing? Engine torque
and horsepower?

you just couldnt resist could you. :p




Pretty much addresses what I was trying to get people to think about if you carry it one step further and answer the last question. And believe me, with the right gearing that F1 motor WILL make a vehicle accelerate faster than the "lazy" 300ft.lb. @ 6,000rpm motor. So, isn't it ridiculous when people say "hp doesn't matter, it's just torque that matters?" They are directly related (HP = torque*rpm/5250) so if one matters, so does the other.

I knew you guys would understand why I said that. :)

I'm not sure if it makes sense to everyone. Some (of us) are more confused than others about how Ma Nature works. The bright side is that She really doesn't care if we understand her or not...She just keeps doing Her own thing. That's probably why we (men) call her Mother Nature, not Father nature. Our "job" is to figure her out, and use what she is to make more torque/power/rpm/lower BSFC, etc., whatever it is you desire with your engine. You ain't going to change Ma Nature's ways...well, perhaps not until the "Big Crunch" when some of her "laws" may be rearranged. But that's another topic, for Cosmology.com, not CamaroSS.com. :)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protrude

Protrude: To push or thrust outward.

I see how protrude is awkward, maybe "given off" would be better.

One more shot at the wheel analogy. If a wheel is being spun with X amount of force, it also has to "push or thrust outward" (give off) X amount of force if it is under constant force. An engine is under constant force as long as the engine is running, and the crankshaft is "giving off" the X amount of force that it is receiving from the cylinders.

Like OldSStroker said, I think we are all confusing terms.

Like OldSStroker said, I think we are all confusing terms.

Sometimes we don't see/hear ourself as others do.

I was trying to be nice. :)

Getting back to the original question... :)

I know what torque and hp are by definition but what I am wondering is how does more rpm = more torque on most combustion engines.Torque does not continue increasing until redline on most engines. It peaks and then falls off at higher rpm as the ability of the engine to breathe (efficiently fill its cylinders) becomes more difficult to sustain. That can be due to restriction in the intake, heads, exhaust, or a function of the profile of the cam(s), among other factors. They all work together to define the breathing characteristics of the engine, and any combination of those factors listed can be a barrier to further power production.

Simple example: Run 100 yards with no restriction on your breathing. Easy, right? Run the same 100 yards breathing through a straw... if you can. :)

The L98 TPI motors are another great example. Notoriously torquey on the low end but torque (and therefore horsepower) hits a brick wall at about 4,500-5,000 rpm because the intake becomes a restriction. Replace the intake with a more free-breathing design and suddenly the engine makes more torque (and horsepower) at 4,500+ rpm without any other changes because that particular restriction was eliminated. The heads might then become the biggest restriction to power, then the exhaust, and so on.

Power is all about filling cylinders with air and fuel and burning it. The more fuel you can burn during a given period of time, the more power you'll make. Period. You can do that several different ways; increasing displacement, "artificially" increasing displacement with forced induction or nitrous, or by turning more rpm. At some point, you will reach a point at which you can no longer effectively fill the cylinders and torque will begin to fall off. It is inevitable, and that's why torque curves traditionally look like umbrellas, not Evil Knievel ramps. :)

Does the faster burning of more gas stack up the power?I think I understand what you were trying to say here. "Faster burning" = the number of combustion events (cylinders fired per second, minute, whatever period of time) increases with rpm, and the result is more power delivered over the same period of time.

300 lb-ft. @ 3,000 rpm = 171 horsepower
300 lb-ft. @ 4,500 rpm = 257 horsepower
300 lb-ft. @ 6,000 rpm = 343 horsepower

The faster you turn the engine, the more often you're filling the cylinders, and we're back to "the more fuel you can burn during a given period of time, the more power you'll make. Period." :)

There is if it's attached to a car with aero drag and
moving several miles per hour.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that what we're discussing? Engine torque
and horsepower?


Again there is no net force required to sustain anything at any speed. If you don't believe me pick up a physics book and look up newtons laws.


I think if you guys with questions or misconseptions would just look at the units you'll see how things cancel and what HP and what Tq actually are.

Alvin,

I have no problem with your replies. Ihave no issues with Newtons 1st and 2nd laws. I don't believe "we" were ever discussing net forces in this thread?

I said there is a certain amount of power required to sustain motion.

The motor spinning the wheel requires a certain amount of power to
sustain the motion.

I really don't know why the analogy was brought forth to begin with.

If you read post #5 and #11 you will see with whom and why I am debating.

Yeah and my Pot meet kettle post was to tell you that you have things backwards left and right here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=protrude

Protrude: To push or thrust outward.

I see how protrude is awkward, maybe "given off" would be better.

One more shot at the wheel analogy. If a wheel is being spun with X amount of force, it also has to "push or thrust outward" (give off) X amount of force if it is under constant force. An engine is under constant force as long as the engine is running, and the crankshaft is "giving off" the X amount of force that it is receiving from the cylinders.

Like OldSStroker said, I think we are all confusing terms.

Still makes no sense at all... maybe even less with that explanation.

Explain "it also has to "push or thrust outward" (give off) X amount of force if it is under constant force." What force is being applied to the wheel? What is it "pushing outward on"? You need to keep applying a force to the wheel to keep it spinning at a constant speed because you have to overcome the friction. You're off in a completely different topic. Its not relevant to what is being discussed.

Alright Alvin,

Maybe you can PM and tell me what is backwards. We can discuss vectors
and all that fun stuff if you wish.

As for posts 5 and 11, I'm happy with them.

wow vectors .....NO thanks!

You win.

;)



serously :rolleyes:

I Guess I'm not #1 on your list? Hey, if you're going to tell me I'm off my rocker,
you could at least point out what you're referring to. Maybe I can learn a thing,
or two from you...maybe.

PM would be best as I'd hate to clutter this thread any further.

I knew you guys would understand why I said that. :)

I'm not sure if it makes sense to everyone. Some (of us) are more confused than others about how Ma Nature works. The bright side is that She really doesn't care if we understand her or not...She just keeps doing Her own thing. That's probably why we (men) call her Mother Nature, not Father nature. Our "job" is to figure her out, and use what she is to make more torque/power/rpm/lower BSFC, etc., whatever it is you desire with your engine. You ain't going to change Ma Nature's ways...well, perhaps not until the "Big Crunch" when some of her "laws" may be rearranged. But that's another topic, for Cosmology.com, not CamaroSS.com. :)

So how does a car that only weigh's 1500lbs and is geared to the moon acellerate fast?;)

and as far as mother nature is concerned "dont try to **** with mother nature." Smokey Yunick

So how does a car that only weigh's 1500lbs and is geared to the moon acellerate fast?;)

Why it's torque at the drive wheels....(and traction control), of course. You referring to F1?

and as far as mother nature is concerned "dont try to **** with mother nature." Smokey Yunick

A mentor of mine, way back when the car division I worked for had Smokey working for them, or at least running their brand, said it in a more PC way: "You can't rape Mother Nature."

Still true.

Why it's torque at the drive wheels....(and traction control), of course. You referring to F1?



A mentor of mine, way back when the car division I worked for had Smokey working for them, or at least running their brand, said it in a more PC way: "You can't rape Mother Nature."

Still true.

LOL I'm reading "best damn garage in town" right now Man! Old smokey has lived about 6 life times in one!

Power is literally work over time.

Work is force times distance.

If you visualize and or fiddle with dimensions of tq and rpm, you'll see how hp = tq x rpm ( x some constant depending on unit of measurements)

Otherwise, here is a way to FEEL it first hand:

go out and ride a multispeed bike..

Your legs are the engine.

The instant amount of force you exert, and I guess times the distance away from centerline of the shaft to the pedal is torque.

The speed which you move your feet around is rpm.

power is literally work over time.. Work is

Imagine the odd extremes.. Having huge powerful, but very slow legs... vs having skinny, but lightning fast legs.

Imagine what it would be like if you could put 4x amount of force on the pedals, at the same speed you are currently.

Imagine what it would be like if you could spin the pedals 4x as fast, with the same force you are currently.

then throw in gearing.