Just have a request - can you please re-do this video once again ?? I think now your setup is much more capable and so as your ability to speak and explain things to a person like myself. Think about it - Thanks!
Hello, First, let me introduce myself. I am an automation engineer(electrical) and I have some experience with electrical motor control, therefore I know some stuff about mechanics. I saw a lot of people asking for SI units and I'll try to explain as good as I can. I'll use the following symbols in my explanation: M[N*m] - Momentum(torque); F[N] - Force; d[m] - distance between rotation point and force appliance point; V[m/s] - linear speed; r[m] - radius(distance between piston and crankshaft joint and crankshaft's axis center in this case); omega[rad/s] - angular speed; n[1/min] - angular speed, also called RPM; P[W] - power. Here are some formulas: P=M*omega; (1) M=F*d; (2) omega = V/r;(3) omega = 2*pi*n/60 = pi*n/30. (4) To "generate" torque(M) on the crankshaft you need to apply force(F) on the piston. That force comes from the combustion. The distance(d) is the length of the piston and it's constant. So M is a function only of F. Pressing the gas pedal injects more fuel to the cylinder, therefore you generate more force, and more force leads to more torque(formula 2). The linear velocity(V) of the piston transforms into angular velocity(omega) (formula 3). This multiplied by the torque gives the power(P) (formula 1). Unlike torque, which is function of only force, power is function of both speed and torque(P=f(M,omega)), therefore you need to increase at least one of them in order to gain more power. So, if at a given time the crankshaft turns with 2000 RPM(omega=3.14*2000/30=209.33 rad/s) and has 100 Nm torque, it will have power P = 100*209.33 = 20933 W = 20,933 kW. That's approximately 28 HP. Let's see what happens at the magic number 5252 RPM (omega = 3.14*5252/30 = 549.71 rad/s). P = 54971 W = 54.971 kW - approx. 73.7 HP. Note: 1 kW = 1.34 HP (approximately). I hope this was useful. :)
Mehmed Mehmedov Well actually, with SI units you just have to change the conversionfactor and you can still use rpm's instead of the angular velocity, that is easier to understand for poeple without a technical background. The Formula with SI Units and rpm is simply M (Nm)* n (rpm)/9550=P (kW) or divide by 9.55 if you want Watt. Or M (Nm)* n (rpm)/7025=P (HP)
force is not the only variable in the torque formula. torque is the cross product of force and distance. that distance is the cranskshaft arm length. since were dealing with a cross product, we multiply the product by the sine of the angle which is created by the force vector and distance vector, which reaches a maximum when the piston is midstroke (crank arm is 100% horizontal). you need to therefore use calculus to determine how much torque there actually is, since that angle and distance factor are constantly changing as time goes by.
a) I have read and watched a considerable amount of material on this subject in order to more fully grasp HP vs T. I can only chuckle that by 0:47 this soft-spoken, near-monotone serious young man has revealed a key which I have never yet grasped (it's possible I've read/heard it repeatedly, but it has never registered) and which suddenly makes the matter make sense to me at a level it never has before. I think this is why he has 745,000+ subscribers as of this comment. (And 690,000+ views for this one unsophisticated amateur video.) b) As he continues by so elegantly simplifying the mathematical relationship between HP and T it just gets better. Suddenly their relationship as shown on the dynometer graph (versions of which I've seen many, many times) makes sense. And he makes the math itself completely straightforward. Hats off, EE. Much appreciated!
that analogy was just perfect. I think it's the most simple and effective way of comparing torque and horsepower. A thing a lot of channels have failed to do. not only does he explain the detailed science, but he can also illustrate it and simplify it very well. keep it up!
EE, You are spot on right up to your analogy part. If horsepower is derived from a multiplication of RPM(speed) and Torque(force) it matters not which has the greater torque(force) value. The one with the higher horsepower figure will be able to do more work in a shorter duration of time than the other. Notice that in order to calculate power you simply implement time into the equation. Work is a force being applied to something resulting in movement of an object with no relevance to time. If two things make the same horsepower but one has higher torque all other things equal that higher torque value will have no advantages over the other again so long as the horsepower is the same. to correct your analogy if both the body builder and sprinter have same horsepower ratings but one is bigger and stronger he simply needs some sort of leverage advantage device aka gear box to give him the speed advantage to equal the sprinter and if a load is required the sprinter will need a gear box to reduce his natural speed advantage and give him a torque advantage to match the natural ability of the body builder, call the body builder a semi truck and the sprinter a sports car. if both have same horse power ratings both can pull same load granted that the gear box(torque/speed advantage compensating device) is capable of equalizing the two. why then are cant you put an LS1 motor in a semi and have it work. it was never intended to put out full horse power for a million miles. the Cat C-15 however is designed to survive the conditions.
+Engineering Explained after reading your discription I retract my statement entirely, you are one of the few people that actually understands the concept good job with your entire operation
P=τω, with τ in Nm and ω in radians/second, giving power in watts.... (RPM to radians per seconds is 1RPM = (1/60) rps = (2π/60) radians / s = (π/30) radians / s. So if R is speed in RPM, P=(τRπ)/30. With this you can calculate the power curve from the torque curve
i am Viking It took me a couple tries to understand. Don't focus too much on the 33,000 and the 5,252, they are just constants that will always be the same. Focus more on how it horsepower and torque work, try not to get lost in the numbers.
+i am Viking torque is strength. horsepower is basically RPM and strength multiplied together. horsepower is just a strange unit of (torque X RPM) because it is an old unit. if you know electronics, its easier to understand this because voltage is like RPM, amperage is like torque and wattage is like horsepower. actually 1 horsepower is 750 watts.
This was an awesome video... Great explanation of the relationship between the two. I learned a lot. Thank you for your time and for sharing your knowledge.
Haha probably my greatest compliment yet! I just saw him in a RU-vid video actually, was surprised to see him still going at it, hadn't seen him since 6th grade until then.
Horsepower is the amount of WORK done. Torque is the amount of pressure exerted on to the piston minus the friction it takes to make it to the ground. that is it. a 300hp 12 liter inline six 1500 ft/lbs at 1050 rpm motor cannot move as much weight as a 350hp gas turbine engine that makes 35.35 ft/lbs at 52000 rpm given both are connected to a theoretical CVT that keeps the motors at their peak HP rpm the entire time. people need to stop focusing on torque. It's about how much fuel your engine can burn and at what efficiency. If you can burn a gallon a minute at 30% efficiency then you have more power than an engine that burns half a gallon a minute at 40% efficiency. People need to stop saying, X car with 100 more ft/lbs beat Y car with 20 more HP so torque is better. both cars are completely different with different weight, aerodynamics, drivetrain efficiency. theoretically, you can have a motor that makes a million ft/lbs of torque, but is so slow moving that it has one horsepower. 1hp = (1,000,000 ft/lbs * .005252 rpm)/5252
I don't agree, because in this crazy hypothetical, I can hook up a super crazy 2000:1 production gear transmission to that 1,000,000 ft pounds of torque and spin a drive shaft faster than the speed of light and send myself to the moon...lol Use the torque Luke...lol
highvelocity123 I am sorry, but it doesn't work like that. Foot pounds is a measure of moving one pound a foot. If you can move one million pounds a foot then you have 1million ft/lbs. But if your motor/engine/Jedi mind tricks is/are so slow that it takes a million years to move that 1 million pounds a foot, then you don't have much power. and strapping a highly geared drive shaft will most likely stall your motor before you could get much power out of it. So, to surmise, pound-feet of torque is a static force with no given time and therefore has no work rating. Horsepower, kw, PS are measures of WORK done. which is your foot/lbs over a time period. and IF you did hook a theoretical transmission like that up to a slow high torque motor/engine/jedi mind, than you would most likely stall said motor.
KTMcaptain I understand completely when you say static force. Or when RPM or time component is so small that it does take a million years to turn once. However, if you use a little more real world items such as a Emma Maresk cargo ship engine. Which turns just 102 RPMs and produces 109,000HP and Torque rating of 5,612,431.37 ft pounds. Torque would be the main component when compared to time/RPM to develop HP. It would take over 22,500,000 F1 engines turning 18,000 RPM @ 250 ft pounds to equal that torque number, and Chewbauka pushing. And 136 F1 engines to equal that HP number. At the end of the day there still is no replacement for displacement. But, I guess you can always spin the piss out of something untill it breaks to get your,,,"Power". I still like using the "torque side" better.
This isn't an argument over torque being used to calculate work or not. Obviously it is. The only number that matters in the end is Horsepower, as it is the measure of work. Broader Horsepower is obviously better, and lower RPM Horsepower helps trucks. And there are replacements for displacement. Called superchargers. FYI, there is a thing called point of diminishing returns... It pretty much shows how pure displacement without increasing the cylinder amount is not a good thing. Look at Fords ECOboost engine for their upcoming F150. 2.7 liters and it has 325HP and 375ft/lbs. Makes more low end horsepower while not dropping power in higher rpm operation. Best start expanding your bounded rationality, cause technology is not going to slow down for you. Cap' out!
can this be explained this way: The more torque the car has the earlier in the rev range can it's horsepower be delivered. As in if a car has 500 hp and low torque it needs to rev a bit till it can reach those 500 hp, but if it has 500 hp and lots of torque the power is almost instantly there.
İt is impossible to create 500 hp with such a low torque engine. Sınce the force(in order to revolute the crankshaft) created by pistons are insufficient
yea more less .,the more torque engine have at te sae specified rp it produce more power at this rpm so to have fll pictre of sitation how engine beheve at specified rpm we need whole torqe engine graph to rpm graph because not neccessery higher torqe engine mst achieve pea power earleir /on lower rpm because some high torqe engine ma have huge torq veeeery low on rpm where it prodce 1/2 power from peak and from this point orqe graph can be so specific that peak power be achievable ,ch much higher on rpm for egzample 1000ftlbs at 2000 rpm but peak power at let sa 9000 rpm vs we can have 500ftlbs at 2000rpm and peak power at 5000 rpm depend how torqe line go above peak torque pointg rpm so its not so obviouus what mean higher torque for sure is that at rpm where those higher torqe is engine be produce ,more power compare to lower torquue engine at this rpm so peak power is again lil diffrent stuff .i dont egzqacly look on this proportion but maybe in most cases this what ou claim maybe is true this dont mean like im write that always ..
It's more accurate to say that the car has more horsepower at lower rpm. think of it like this. if a car has more torque than power it dies at the top end.
So, say two engines have 2hp. One revs to 2000rpm and the other revs to 4000rpm. The torque curves on both engines are completely flat, but the engine that revs to 4000rpm only has half the torque. These engines would produce the same acceleration with properly matched transmissions. The engine with half the torque compensates by having the engine output shaft spinning twice as fast. Is this correct?
This example doesn't take weight into consideration. The lower torque engine isn't going to move a heavier weight/mass as efficiently as the higher torque engine. As the weight increases, the ability of the lower torque motor to move the mass is decreased compared to the higher torqued engine.
I'm nearly 30 years old and have been working on my own cars my entire life. I also enjoy auto racing in general and could never get a solid understanding on horsepower until watching this video. Thank you. I've always been told it was just a marketing scam used to sell sports cars....
The imperial units are confusing me a little. Can torque be written in units of Newton-Metre? If yes, then does the "lb" in lb-ft represent Force applied or mass?
+Engineering Explained Thank you for clarifying doubts, your videos are teaching me a lot. Could you make a video on common SportBike engines (e.g. Inline 4 or Parallel twins) and their main differences? I'd really love to see that
+skateroftheville That equation is correct, when you use a consistent set of units. Such as Watts for power, Newton-meters for torque, and radians per second for the value of omega (w). The horsepower unit isn't consistent with squat, so don't expect that formula to apply to anything where you'd be using horsepower as the unit for power, without a unit translation factor.
+Engineering Explained Does this apply to electric vehicles? In one video about an electric motorcycle they stated that it has the same horse power as the 500cc motorcycle gasoline engine, but it has the torque of a 1000cc engine.
You've finally seen the light!! I'm so glad this has been resolved. Wasn't too long ago you were saying "And I KNOW that engine torque doesn't matter." But alas, you are confused no longer.
Honesty I find this concept difficult to comprehend but your example is the best I've seen so far, especially the trunk/bodybuilder sportscar/sprinter analogy. Thank you.
Think of two bodybuilders, both have 400 Torque for descriptive purposes. One bodybuilder has 200 horsepower and the other 400 hp. Both can bench 400 lbs 10 times. The 200 hp bodybuilder can do it in 20 seconds, but the 400 hp bodybuilder can do it in 10 seconds. The 400 hp bodybuilder can move the weight faster. Same way with hp and torque on a vehicle, torque is how much force is being pushed, and horsepower is how fast you can push it.
+Chad W What Ironwind said is actually based on the definition of torque and power. Maybe he should have said that torque is what is being produced in each engine revolution, and power is how many torque "productions" you can squeeze in a minute (or unit of time). Both this simplistic explanation and this video, do not take into account the effect engine speed has on the friction generated in the moving parts. Which of course, requires some of the produced torque, to overcome.
TrollingSince1991 NO there is no opinion when it comes to tq and hp. either you are right or wrong.... he is wrong. I dont care if it "makes sense" making sense doesnt mean its true... and in fact, what he said isnt true. he all ready agreed on this and apologized so if your looking for an education on this tpoic, this isnt the video.... nuff said
+Chad W I'm not sure what your deal is, but it wasn't meant to be an exact definition. It was mean to be a parable on how torque and horsepower work together. I didn't apologize, nor do I have anything to apologize for.
Solidfreeman01 lb is *weight* not mass, which is the downward force exerted due to mass, so it makes a bit more sense when you think of it like that. I agree though, SI is better.
+Sadpants McGee are u serious? lb is a unit of MASS. The unit of WEIGHT could be lb*inch/sec or something weird like that. (and wrong) Actually, the world use Kg as unit of mass and N as unit of forces. Since weight is a force, N is the correct measurement unit.
"Gearing makes the torque output of any engine completely irrelevant?" REALLY?! So then why don't we all use gear reduction transmissions such as that in the M1 tank (Even if we were to exclude size, which is ridiculous) with super low torque engines since torque doesn't matter at all? Ohh, that's right. Because road cars travel at speeds much greater than tanks. Low gearing is wonderful, but it doesn't allow for high speeds (RPM limits)!
That's probably it... Thank you! I appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions. I love all your videos, you do a great job at understanding and explaining very interesting and technical things.
I really love your videos because you truly do get into detail with how things work and me wanting to be a future mechanical engineer, it has helped me with getting a better understanding of how different parts of the car function :)
I learned that electric cars have a lot of torque cuz they are running at max torque the second they step on the gas... Is this true??? Cuz if it is, I might think twice about judging electric cars
This is true, this is also the reason many of them don't use a transmission. ICE's produce most torque at a specific RPM range so a transmission is needed to keep the engine at that range but its not needed with electric.
***** Every car has a transmission... it needs to transmit the energy from the power source to the road. I think the term you're looking for is single gear transmission.
trident3b by definition, a transmission transmits energy from a power source, whether it is an electric motor or ICE, to the vehicle's axle regardless of efficiencies. Now if you're referring to a gearbox with multiple gears, then no, electric cars do not need that. But it is incorrect to say there is no transmission.
Well... you are correct that the electric motor can be directly connected to the wheel. But we are generally talking about production cars, not a modded car or concept car that uses impractical hub motors. The argument is not that the short drive shaft is a transmission not should it be. The argument is being accurate. After all, I did mention "the TERM you're looking for is single gear transmission." If you look at any electric vehicles like the Tesla or Nissan leaf, you'll see that there is a single gear transmission. To say many electric cars do not have a transmission is just wrong. But at this point, it seems we're just beating a dead horse so I'm gonna stop lol
Great job of explaining all your videos, I used your videos to explain how a motor works to my wife after I blew up our boat, she now has a better understanding of why there are so many things that could have blown the motor and the parts it will take to get the boat up and running again. Thanks
ummmm....Not at all??? I don't know where you got this,. But you can't use other concepts in physics as an analogy. How fast you hit something is your velocity, how far you drag it is a function of your velocity and mass which we call linear momentum or just momentum. Engines don't produce horsepower. Horsepower is only a concept of Torque over a unit a time. Engines only produce torque, Dynomometers, only measure Torque ( At various engine speeds ). Horsepower was only made popular as an advertising tool it doesn't really mean anything. MAX TORQUE is also a useless figure to post without including a graph. In other words, the title of this video is also nonsense, Torque Vs Horsepower makes no sense and it's merely a click bait for the dim witted. Because you can't really versus them, there is no contrast, they are the same thing in essence. Horsepower is a concept used to describe the rate of torque production. This is why ALL horsepower and Torque graphs intersect at 5252 RPM. This would be an anomaly if you didnt know that the reason why this happens is because torque and engine speed are measured to calculate horsepower. You get confused the moment you start to think that these are two independent attributes of an engine. Only torque is an attribute of the engine and can be measured. You can't measure horsepower because it's just a description of how torque is being delivered.
thank you i am well aware of the science behind this and I do understand that horsepower is a function of torque and yada yada yada, i was trying to make a simple more visual comment for everybody to understand.
unfortunately your comment does not help people who don't understand this video. relative to an actual engine, its easier to explain how torque and horsepower effectively change your driving experience so that other people can get a simple understanding. you can explain acceleration as being more related to horsepower or "speed", because it describes the amount of torque applied throughout the power band. And low end torque can be associated with towing capacity because it allows the engine to haul large items without working as "hard" or being at a high rpm. horsepower is what makes a car "fast" though, it of course needs an amount of torque as well for the horsepower to exist. But a car with high torque and low horsepower will not be fast but it will be able to "drag" a heavy wall a lot further with less effort. you see my analogy is not as destructive as you think. You and I clearly understand what engine torque is and how it relates to horsepower, instead of writing a lengthy confusing comment like this one, I chose to type 2 lines that people would actually read. though it's extremely vague and not truly accurate or correct; I'm sure people will get a lot more from reading that comment than yours or this one. 90% of this videos audience have never been to a dyno or worked on a car, there is no way they could understand this video as it's presented.
There should be many educational sites that will fully explain it for you. As I'm 'old school' I'm used to imperial but the last couple of decades have been metric and, overall, it is a much easier system.
It sounds to me like you nailed it...Couldn't have said it any better. Once you know that equation well, you know what your saying 100% spot on. It took me a bit to fully grasp it, but now I have it.
Great question, which I've answered in pretty good detail in my "formula 1 vs nascar - horsepower vs torque" video. One of these has high HP and lower torque (F1) the other has high torque. Ultimately the result will be very similar if they are both at the same power. A 5 horsepower 500 torque engine (which would be operating at extremely low RPM) would be very slow (speed).
That is perhaps the most BS statement that gets trotted out by people who have no idea what they're talking about. Irrespective how it's gained. The plain fact is that, at the same road speed, the power of two differently configured vehicles with the same torque at the wheels will be exactly the same - as two vehicles with exactly the same power will have exactly the same torque - the variables will be engine rpm and overall gearing. I can only surmise that it's due to the mistaken impression that lower rpm power is torque and high rpm torque is power when power and torque will apply at any rpm (except at zero rpm you can have torque but zero power) - the idea (that I agree with) is that a high power engine with a narrow power band is less effective than an engine with a little less peak power but a wider power band.
GordonWG1 Gordon I'm not sure what statement you are referring to Gearing is important, no doubt. But gearing is really just the next step after you choose your power characteristics. Gearing is an "If-Then" equation. And statement you said was mistaken is correct. To make a lot of low rpm power you need big big torque numbers. And if by some miracle you can carry that torque number to say 6000 rpm you will be making extreme HP. 2000lbs tq at 2000 rpm is 761HP. 2000lbs tq. at 6000 rpm is 2,284 HP. Now we add the right transmission to that and you have what you want.
highvelocity123 I was referring to Jasonlyric's comment. To put it as simply as possible, any rotating shaft that is applying torque (AKA a moment) either positive or negative relative to the direction or rotation, is also producing power - this applies from n>0 up. AT ALL rpm (other than 0rpm) if it's will be producing torque it's producing proportional power - you cannot separate them like JL did. You're correct in that gearing will follow the engine (or motor) characteristics, and desired output characteristics - so I really don't see why you can't grast the rest? It's possible I've made a typo', however, so if you care to quote the problematic section, I'll see what I can do to clarify it. Sometimes tghe curves are compared as 'power under the curve', which is basically the power available. To illustrate the importance of the power curve characteristics, many years ago a friend build a very quick engine, but with a rather narrow power band but with the normal close ratio gearbox it worked well - however he blew it and used a factory 'box as an interim - however, with the stock ratios the rpm drop into top gear was too great and the engine was too low on it's power curve to pull the gear - but if he drove downhill when changing into top, it would pull, and hold it as less power was required to overcome the resistance to motion - you can substitute torque curve just as effectively, but that can introduce additional calculations. Remember, chassis dyno's just measure the shear force the tyre is applying to the drums/rollers and hence the torque at the roller, then from that the power - if it has a pickup that monitors the engine rpm, it can then calculate the torque at the engine
From a girl who has been trying to understand torque for the longest time now, thanks. Because I've always liked cars, always wanted to learn more about them but the topic of torque almost always comes up and I'm just left there confused because no one could explain it properly. You on the other hand have explained it perfectly :) The analogy really helped too. (y)
You are correct, gearing throws off the analogy depending on how it's applied. Have I referenced my video description yet? It should be noted that this argument is basically summed up in the description.
Correct, though it follows the assumption that diesel engines typically have more torque. No, this is not fact, but most of the time, diesel engines will have greater torque than equal powered gasoline engines (gas engines rev higher). With greater torque (and sometimes lower gearing), there is ultimately a greater force at the wheels, so added weight will not affect a car as much depending on it's torque/gearing. I have additional comments in the description on this analogy.
The torque is measured by braking (not to be confused with breaking) the flywheel at a certain RPM. The engine is supplying a specific torque, and this can be measured by measuring the force required to stop the flywheel at a certain RPM (or hold it at an RPM). It's not necessarily a measurement from 2 revolutions of the crank.
It's typically recorded at the wheels since dynos are typically large drums driven by your wheels. Though there are engine dynos as well in which you connect a brake to the flywheel/crank in order to measure the engine's HP.
i love your videos man, i try to do this research myself and get a decently complex understanding of how all engines and engine components work and through the miracle of the internet my own mechanical tinkering and videos like yours ive come to understand these things without any formal education ( because im still in highschool ) and that is a great thing, thanks
Can I just say I love your explanations!! They're easy to understand if you have a decent knowledge of what your talking about, and your way of speaking and drawing just tie the whole package together. Please don't stop making vids and just do you, cuz you da best lol
It's a powerful engine, it could be used in many applications, given that it received proper cooling. My analogy is just a very basic rule of thumb, which also deals a lot with the rev limit of the engine. Truck engines typically have lower revving engines, thus lower horsepower than torque (though these are different units, again), since the 5252 rpm line is never crossed.
it amazes me, torque is simpley a measure of force at a distance, but sometimes you have to go into deatail like this. horsepower is the amount of work done. i like your videos. keep them coming.
you mainly want to know your engine speed. Say for example your in a F1 race. You don't know your speed to well but you have to know your engine speed so you don't blow the engine. Those engine's typically rev to about 10k+ rpm before needing to shift to the next hear. Engines can't rev to infinity, something on them will eventually break. You did a good job of explaining horse power vs torque.
You are welcome, there's no harm in asking a lot of questions, I encourage it if you don't understand. Not only does it help you learn, but it helps me understand what parts of my videos should have a clearer explanation. Glad to help you out!
Engines create torque. The pressure increase from combustion creates a force on the piston pushing it down, rotating the crankshaft with a certain torque. How frequently this occurs (torque with respect to time) is the power created (or work done). But yes, engine torque is measured, from that and RPM, engine power is calculated.
Because since I view these words as having different meanings (unlike yourself), I used them in an analogy (in the video we're currently discussing). Engines with high torque (regardless of rpm) are in my opinion "strong" in that a high torque engine is capable of moving large amounts of mass. A high hp engine is "fast" in that a high hp engine is capable of moving mass at high speeds.
Your presentational skills have improved considerably since you made this video. It isn't bad or wrong, but it could be clearer. I agree with the commenters who suggest that this video would benefit considerably from a remake, with some thought given to explaining horsepower and torque, and then the relationship between them.
If you increase bore/stroke you increase the volume of your engine. Larger engines means more room for air, more air means more fuel can burn, which ultimately leads to more power, or an engine capable of more power.
Thanks for the video! All this makes much more sense to me when someone says it, rather than me reading it. Sprinter vs. body builder analogy did it for me.
Higher compression ratios will produce more torque, and they do it more efficiently as well. Think about it. If an engine were to have a compression ratio of 2:1 (extremely low) when the air expanded it would hardly have any force at all. Now if that air is extremely compact (with fuel mixed in) and ignited, the force when it expands will be much greater, hence more torque/power.
The way it was explained to me is that HP is how fast you can go, and T is how fast you can get there. Obviously that's really dumbed down, but for my applications that has been more than enough. Great videos by the way
I'd rather not classify them that specifically, but you could look at it like that. The reason why horsepower is important for top speed is because if you have high torque, and you have gear reduction (thus increasing the force at the wheels), you also rev much more quickly, and reach higher rpms at low vehicle speeds. If you want to have high vehicle speeds, you need consistent torque at high rpm while in a high gear.
They both could likely pull the load. The truck's frame will be heavier duty and meant for the additional stresses. Also, one of the biggest factors are the brakes. Since the truck weighs more (and hauls) it will have much larger brakes, allowing it to stop with a trailer. The trucks acceleration will be slower due to it's heavier weight.
The material used wouldn't change the force acting on the crankshaft, however, a lighter crankshaft would have a lower moment of inertia. What this means is it would take less torque to get the crank rotating if it were aluminum (side note - shouldn't use an aluminum crank haha, not strong enough) than steel or iron, so less power would be lost. So, if you did have an aluminum crank, you'd have slightly more power at the wheels, assuming it didn't torque in half.
Understeer is when you hit the wall with the front of the car. Oversteer is when you hit the wall with the back of the car. *Horsepower* is how fast you hit the wall. *Torque* is how far you take the wall with you after you hit it. But guess your analogy works too lol, awesome videos dude.. subbed!!
I've got a video on piston speed coming up which I'll mention bore/stroke ratios. Flame propagation can only occur so quickly, so it's important to get your bore and stroke right if you plan on revving super high. Piston speed can give you a ballpark idea. But perhaps I can look more into the B/S dimensions and see what information comes up.
You're right, my engineering degree wasn't quite enough. Perhaps your wiki page will enlighten me. I'm sorry, but this video was for people who wanted a general idea of the difference, and that is what it has provided. If you want to get more technical, get into gearing (hey I've got videos on that too, search my channel for "first gear torque") that's fine. But this video serves it's purpose, and my understanding of hp/tq isn't as limited as you'd like to believe.
A lot of people seem to confuse torque at the engine with torque at the WHEEL (hey, there's a gearbox in between!). Acceleration (leaving traction issues aside) is proportional to torque *AT THE WHEEL*. Torque at the wheel depends on *POWER* at the engine and gearing ratios. So - ultimately - vehicle acceleration depends on the POWER produced by the engine throughout the entire RPM range.
No, torque is not a unit of power; hence why manufacturers list HP. HP is a unit of power, which includes time. Time is a necessary variable if we are going to discuss things moving (to acquire speed). Torque can occur without any movement at all.
The idea I'm attempting to get across is that torque and power, although related, are not one in the same. Yes, power is important, but it doesn't REQUIRE high torque, it can be done with less torque. And as you mentioned, a low rpm 700 hp engine would not compete well in F1 due to weight, and just as important, efficiency.
If your units are HP and lb-ft and it's an ICE engine, both units will cross at 5252 RPM, always. Yes, the powerband is different for all engines, but this is the RPM range that engines operate most efficiently, not where torque and HP cross paths.
Daniel, I realized the units I saw on my motor graphs were different. Yes, at 5252 you get HP=torque because of the common factor of 5252/5252 = 1 which means that it is mathematically impossible to get an intersection somewhere else if using 5252 for imperial units of HP that involves Ft*Lbs for torque. Good catch.
There's probably a speed (rpm) where the explosion's force is best delivered to the piston, and not restrained by the compression of another cylinder or restricted by some other means. There's just a level of rpm when the combustion is most efficient at creating a useable force. Not sure what all factors play in to this; interesting question.
Yes, power output of the nascar engine was halved, as a result of lower torque. It's great to see that you now understand the importance of torque. Except that you don't, because you're just going to reply that "I halved the power!" It's an equation, either side can be manipulated to affect the other. If you want to disagree on which side is the root cause, whatever, I'm no longer interested. Final Note: TORQUE AND RPM ARE MEASURED, HORSEPOWER IS CALCULATED =>>> HP DEPENDS ON TORQUE!!
Well, it's the drivetrain and parasitic loads that cause the power loss, not the efficiency of the engine. Friction through the gears, transmission, diff, bearings, etc. I'm actually going to have a video on this soon.
