CypherAZ

HP is just a number that sells cars, TQ is what moves the car....and gearing is how it effectively puts that power to the ground. Both of you morons arguing w/ wisconsin are making me laugh, obviously shorter gears are going to be faster, since you'll spend more time at higher rpm. Maybe you forgot that the s2k makes peak power pretty damn close to redline.

Wisconsin S2k

ok, then which equation uses horsepower? F=ma? using accleration to determine velocity?

please tell me!

the gear lines aren't approximating horsepower, since horsepower remains unaffected by gearing. yet the two lines are quite different. am i missing something here?

jasonw

I stated the equation for you because you seemed to be unaware that HP IS related to TQ and RPMS. You're really grasping for straws here when you could be reading a good Calculus book.

Wisconsin S2k

i'm well aware hp is related to torque and rpms.

however, that does not mean that horsepower is used to determine acceleration. which was my argument from the start.

F=ma. again, point out to me where horsepower is used in this equation to determine acceleration.

speaking of grasping for straws... i'm not the one using the "straw man" argument and dodging the question and saying i need to use a calculus book.

mikegarrison

Yup. You are missing that power = F*V. So the total available power determines the maximum force at a given velocity. It provides a lid on how much force can be applied at a particular speed. That's the invisible line I am referring to, the ideal force v. speed line that we would have if we had an infinitely continuous gearset that let the engine operate at peak power all the time.

It's not in the equation used to generate the plot -- it's in the physics behind that equation.

mikegarrison

Wisconson, Jason,

There's a classic argument that occurs in aviation forums about how planes acheive lift. Some people fall on their swords defending Bernouli, saying that lift has to be generated by pressure distribution on the wing. Others talk about momentum theory and say that lift is generated by reaction by pushing the airstream down.

The truth, of course, is that both are true, and that they are linked phenomena. When the one happens, the other happens. So it is STUPID to argue about "which one" is happening.

You both recognize that power and torque are related by speed, right? So I would suggest you stop arguing about "which one" is more important to this problem. Unless you are enjoying this debate, of course.

jasonw

This is in fact, another straw man fallacy. When you try to distort something I've said in an attempt to create an opening.

Wisconsin S2k

[QUOTE=mikegarrison,Aug 24 2005, 12:13 PM] Yup. You are missing that power = F*V. So the total available power determines the maximum force at a

Wisconsin S2k

there, now mike had the courtesy to simply try to explain it to me in one post, rather than argue with me bout it for 3 pages. which makes it look like you really had no clue in the first place.

jasonw

Clue about what?

How you can calculate area under the curve with Physics but not Calculus?