ClioSport.net
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Yep and also not quite on a par with some nice factual smoothed longitudinal accelerometer data of acceleration values at peak power.
Come clean Stan, you must be a Clio DCi man.
How about some nice fruity data logged wheel sensors with angular velocities converted into chassis axis aligned vehicle acceleration values and thus proving acceleration close to peak power is greater than at peak torque?
In the correct gear of course.
"Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
Damn, Ive broken my third rule.
Oh well...have a read of this admitadly americanised and annoying web-page. Solid thoery though non-the-less.
The text under the second heading makes for intresting reading especially
http://www.houseofthud.com/cartech/torqueversushorsepower.htm
Crikey, he does like using the "T" word though doesnt he?
Damn, Ive broken my third rule.
Oh well...have a read of this admitadly americanised and annoying web-page. Solid thoery though non-the-less.
The text under the second heading makes for intresting reading especially
http://www.houseofthud.com/cartech/torqueversushorsepower.htm
Crikey, he does like using the "T" word though doesnt he?
"Never argue with an idiot, they will only drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience".
Damn, Ive broken my third rule.
Oh well...have a read of this admitadly americanised and annoying web-page. Solid thoery though non-the-less.
The text under the second heading makes for intresting reading especially
http://www.houseofthud.com/cartech/torqueversushorsepower.htm
Crikey, he does like using the "T" word though doesnt he?
Top marks for persistency Stan.
You either don’t have the breadth or depth of knowledge or you are just choosing to ignore the concept that has been put to you so many times now, and not just by me.
Let’s keep it on topic and try once more. To quote directly from your own internet article:
“You maximize torque to the ground through gearing keeping the engine in the rpm range where the engine generates the most ground speed for a given torque value”
Key words above: gearing, rpm and most ground speed. Not mentioned: maximum torque.
So answer the simple question - will a Clio 197 accelerate faster exiting a corner (at the same road speed in both cases) in 4th gear 1000rpm below peak torque or in 3rd gear 1000rpm below peak power?
Take some time out to ask Clio Cup drivers what rpm they shift at. It isn’t at the rpm that equates to peak engine torque with a series of short shifting Stan. They work the peak power curve. Power does not ‘mean s**t ‘ corner to corner in this case as you suggest. Gearing, gearing, gearing.........
f**k me... this is heavy going. Interesting debate - Just wish I could follow it.
In laymans terms, I always thought torque was what provided the accelerative force and that power determined the rate at which the work is done.
All I know is, my 2.0 NA needs to have it's neck wrung to get anywhere quickly... thus I'm chasing peak power and not peak torque?
I R confused lol
In laymans terms, I always thought torque was what provided the accelerative force and that power determined the rate at which the work is done.
All I know is, my 2.0 NA needs to have it's neck wrung to get anywhere quickly... thus I'm chasing peak power and not peak torque?
I R confused lol
Correct. You are working peak power for maximum accleration between gears.
No offence but can you stop your discussion, people have no idea what your talkin about.
LY 182
what a utterly stupid half brained moronic thing to say.
you dont get it so you want him to stop talking about it
i bet you dont understand politics either have you sent letters to number 10 telling them to shut it?
172 - 249bhp @ the wheels
he has a point. it's off topic and boring. good news though, I've found the cure for insomnia
Its only you thats put any argument.
Someone else made a couple of statements, which really werent relevant or correct.
In answer to your question: In third gear....
Simply because its a lower gear, therefore has more torque available at the wheels upon exit. It so happens to be 1000rpm below max power in your analogy. So what? The fact of it is 3rd gear allows more available torque at the wheels.
Its the same reason you pull away in first gear, and not 4th.
As you keep saying, and im not disagreeing, gears arent to be over looked! As I said, the technical description of a gearbox is "torqu multiplier". Why do you think this is???
Also from the article:
"Maximum acceleration of a car is made possible by maximizing your output
torque at the wheels at ALL times."
There is no argument to this. Its fact, its based on solid physics, and its my last word in the discussion....as you really arent grasping things aswell as you think you do.
My last post also as we thread drift.
The only reason I pressed on this was your wild and completely unfactual statement about torque being the only pre-requisite for speed between corners, max engine torque is where you need to be at and Bhp was complete s**t.
You also kept this thread rolling and have now back tracked.
Fear not Stan, I fully understand the engineering, physics and mathematics or what you only seem to grasp as ‘just talking (more) s**t now’.
ITB'd MK1
it's proper technical discussion. something that needs encouraging not locking
'92 172, Lotus Elise
agreed, nothing wrong with debate!
can I just throw another question in to the mix to get your opinions? it's kinda related to this argument..
people say that raising the rev limiter is a waste of time given that the power drops off, but I would've thought the advantage is that when you change up a gear you end up shifting closer to the peak power, so the trade off is worth it? (providing the power doesnt drop off *hugely*)
is there any truth in that?
can I just throw another question in to the mix to get your opinions? it's kinda related to this argument..
people say that raising the rev limiter is a waste of time given that the power drops off, but I would've thought the advantage is that when you change up a gear you end up shifting closer to the peak power, so the trade off is worth it? (providing the power doesnt drop off *hugely*)
is there any truth in that?
agreed, nothing wrong with debate!
can I just throw another question in to the mix to get your opinions? it's kinda related to this argument..
people say that raising the rev limiter is a waste of time given that the power drops off, but I would've thought the advantage is that when you change up a gear you end up shifting closer to the peak power, so the trade off is worth it? (providing the power doesnt drop off *hugely*)
is there any truth in that?
Not worth it on a standard engine unless associated with additional engine mods that shift the overall power curve.
You are already past peak power at the standard rev limit and going slightly beyond would, overall, not provide you with a significantly better acceleration regime.
Optimum gear change points are a bit more problematic to determine. The best way is to data log acceleration values on a specific vehicle and then correlate each gear shift point to harmonise the overall best acceleration parameters through a series of gear shifts. You would find there is not always one fixed perfect rpm shift point for all ratios. They all interact slightly differently and each gear has a different peak acceleration threshold.
Many other factors also play a part. Unless you are running a sequential with fairly fixed shift times, each person shifts ratios at a different rate and has a different human factor input to the perceived rate of rpm rise. Your perception of 7000rpm may be different to mine. Some lead, some lag.
Holding a gear to the limiter can also be an advantage for certain timed speed runs where a loss in acceleration can be more beneficial than an additional gear shift and on circuit, running the limiter for a few second prior to a braking point can reduce lap times compared to an additional shift and a further unbalancing mid corner shift for best exit acceleration.
All good stuff, but when it comes down to it and you are in a racing environment, there is a lot more going on. Being able to shift at the optimum point tends to go out of the window when you are engaged in close racing. A quick glance, a bit of peripheral tacho vision, shift lights glowing or using your well toned ears for the familiar strained engine note are often all you can rely on.
Similar threads
