So more revs for a constant Torque = more Power
More Torque for a constant RPM = more Power
Torque is the turning force of the engine at a specific RPM.
Power is a product of both Torque and RPM in combination.
An engine producing 200 NM of Torque at 9000 RPM will provide identical acceleration (if geared accordingly) as an engine producing 100 NM of Torque at 18000 RPM. Assuming the RPM curves of both engines are proportional.
Yes...I did the reading thing...and the practical thing...a few years ago now it must be said.
Please explain where I went wrong?...I am not being funny at all...just I am not understanding what you are getting at...honestly.
Thanks for the comments on engine power and torque. Basically, I'm trying to either prove my thesis correct or incorrect which was this:
Then I received this response:
I'm not really sure who to believe at this point. My assumption about torque is that it's essentially only useful when wheel spin doesn't occur prior to full throttle (which in F1, makes it almost irrelevant in low - lower-mid speed corners).
For future reference use "confirmation bias". That's what you're describing, and it's much easier to understand when stated that way. It's an epidemic by the way
Allright I'll try but really there are tons of people better at explaining this than I am.
Power is the rate at which the wheel can turn
Rate ? As in Rotational speed ? I'm not sure what your rate here means. Power is simply torque x rpm. Engine torque alone means nothing without the rpm at which it is produced. Put the two together and you have power. DaveWS is spot on, two engines can output any amount of torque you want, if the power output is the same, your gearing will compensate and they will accelerate the same.
torque is the force behind the wheel
True. But the torque at the engine still means nothing. Torque at the wheels is the force accelerating the car but it is not linked to engine torque, it is linked to engine power. An engine that spins faster will have shorter gears that will multiply torque more than longer gears would. If your engine spins fast, you only very little torque, the gearbox will take care of multiplicating it for you.
If the wheel has a lot of torque then it will get to maximum speed quicker than a wheel with less...if a wheel has more power then it will get to a higher maximum speed than with less...
I'm not even sure where to start. Let's just say the biggest amount of torque at the wheels will make you accelerate faster and reach a higher top speed as well. They are not exclusive things like torque does one thing and hp does another. Doesn't work that way.
A modern(pre-2014) F1 engine that was not fuel limited or heavily limited in rpm was outputting the same amount of torque a big family sedan does. Why did they chose to design them that way? Because engine torque is irrelevant. All you need is HP to produce torque at the wheels.
2014 engines output more torque. Cool. At what rpm are they running? 10000. Oops. No more 18000 rpms ? No. Crap. Gearing now has to be longer. All that extra torque is gone at the exit of the gearbox. You end up with the same amount of peak torque at the wheels than you had in 2013.
What has changed is how wide the power band is(only due to fuel flow limit curve btw). Whenever someone is saying "wow this engine has a lot of torque", what he really should be saying is "wow this engine outputs a big % of its peak power even at low-mid rpms".
In 2013, you step on it out of a corner your are maybe 1000-3000 rpms below the peak hp rpm. The powerband is so thin that at that rpm you are at least 100 hp down from peak, that is a lot of hp missing. Kind of easy to drive.
In 2014, the power curve is almost flat over the whole used rpm range.
step on it at 9500 rpm: close to peak hp
step on it at 10500 rpm: close to peak hp
step on it at 11500 rpm: close to peak hp.
Always. Boom. "Woah soooo much engine torque!". NO. Big amount of power, anywhere, anytime, instantly.
I guess I should have wrote "wheel"...I was referring to "wheel" as our workload...so I should have wrote- power is the rate at which the workload can be done.
This is where confusion arises...I am only talking about engines. Of course you want your gearbox to accelerate correctly and get to a certain top speed.
I can give a scenario- Consider two engines connected to a single geared car...one engine has more power (it will rev higher) and the other more torque (but it will not rev so high)...which will get to a higher top speed and which will accelerate faster?!
Yes, there is, a correlation of power/torque...so if you have low power but high torque engine you will need different gearing to achieve the same result as the high power-low torque engine....both are used to give a greater insight to the engine performance.
How can that be?
If I have 1 torque and 1 power on one engine and the other has 1 torque and 2 power then clearly these are different engines designed for different duties?
The difference in weight is why the F1 car may only need X torque compared to the "big family sedan"...torque is our turning force.
You are missing a large trick in all of this....the cars this year are allowed more electric "power"...electric "power" is more or less instantaneous torque (not power...torque...turning force).
Yes and no...If I step on the gas and my head goes back instantaneously then I say that it is torquey....if it will rev to the moon then it has a lot of power.
Your understanding is not that bad...You only need to do one last step. You have to separate in your head torque at the wheels from torque at the engine. Once you do that and you understand the role of gearing in between them you'll get it. You really are not that far IMO.
the 'teams' mentioned in this are Lotus and Caterham who are falling behind on engine deal payments, this is starting to show the costs are starting to become unsustainable, if these two get withdrawn due to not paying up this will be a huge blow.
It might not be Caterham actually, considering the relationship with Alpine being owned by Tony fernandes its highly unlikely a subsidiary of Renault that's owned by him would be under pressure like this.