Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Acceleration - Torque vs Power


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

Poll: Max accelleration at max torque or max power (51 member(s) have cast votes)

Assume we have a car traveling at speed and a gearing so we can select gear to have the engine running at a rpm where it's either produces max torque or max power. What gear would achieve maximum acceleration, the one that put engine rpm at max torque or at max power?

  1. I am sure it is at max torque and know the formula to prove it (6 votes [11.76%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.76%

  2. I know it is at max torque as I read it in books (2 votes [3.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.92%

  3. I believe it is at max torque by reading forums like this (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  4. I think it is at max torque (4 votes [7.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.84%

  5. I have no idea what rpm would generate max acceleration (4 votes [7.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.84%

  6. I think it is at max power (11 votes [21.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.57%

  7. I believe it is at max power by reading forums like this (1 votes [1.96%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.96%

  8. I know it is at max power as I read it in books (3 votes [5.88%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.88%

  9. I am sure it is at max power and know the formula to prove it (20 votes [39.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#201 GodHimself

GodHimself
  • Member

  • 206 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 19 May 2013 - 01:22

Fascinating read, that Einstein article, thank you NTSOS. And yep saudoso, that was me. I like to drop a hint from time to time.

GodHimself

Advertisement

#202 NTSOS

NTSOS
  • Member

  • 692 posts
  • Joined: February 05

Posted 19 May 2013 - 15:25

Fascinating read, that Einstein article, thank you NTSOS. And yep saudoso, that was me. I like to drop a hint from time to time.

GodHimself


:up: :wave:

#203 pizzalover

pizzalover
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 06 June 2013 - 19:10

From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia....roll_(Internet)


In Chinese, trolling is referred to as bái mù (Chinese: 白目; literally "white eye"), which can be straightforwardly explained as "eyes without pupils", in the sense that whilst the pupil of the eye is used for vision, the white section of the eye cannot see, and trolling involves blindly talking nonsense over the internet, having total disregard to sensitivities or being oblivious to the situation at hand, akin to having eyes without pupils. An alternative term is bái làn (Chinese: 白爛; literally "white rot"), which describes a post completely nonsensical and full of folly made to upset others, and derives from a Taiwanese slang term for the male genitalia, where genitalia that is pale white in colour represents that someone is young, and thus foolish. Both terms originate from Taiwan, and are also used in Hong Kong and mainland China. Another term, xiǎo bái (Chinese: 小白; literally "little white") is a derogatory term that refers to both bái mù and bái làn that is used on anonymous posting internet forums. Another common term for a troll used in mainland China is pēn zi (Chinese: 噴子; literally "sprayer, spurter").

In Japanese, tsuri (釣り?) means "fishing" and refers to intentionally misleading posts whose only purpose is to get the readers to react, i.e. get trolled. arashi (荒らし?) means "laying waste" and can also be used to refer to simple spamming.

In Icelandic, þurs (a thurs) or tröll (a troll) may refer to trolls, the verbs þursa (to troll) or þursast (to be trolling, to troll about) may be used.

In Korean, nak-si (낚시) means "fishing", and is used to refer to Internet trolling attempts, as well as purposefully misleading post titles. A person who recognizes the troll after having responded (or, in case of a post title nak-si, having read the actual post) would often refer to himself as a caught fish.[citation needed]

In Portuguese, more commonly in its Brazilian variant, troll (produced [ˈtɾɔw] in most of Brazil as spelling pronunciation) is the usual term to denote internet trolls (examples of common derivate terms are trollismo or trollagem, "trolling", and the verb trollar, "to troll", which entered popular use), but an older expression, used by those which want to avoid anglicisms or slangs, is complexo do pombo enxadrista to denote trolling behavior, and pombos enxadristas (literally, "chessplayer pigeons") or simply pombos are the terms used to name the trolls. The terms are explained by an adage or popular saying: "Arguing with fulano (i.e. John Doe) is the same as playing chess with a pigeon: the pigeon defecates on the table, drop the pieces and simply fly, claiming victory."

In Thai, the term "krean" (เกรียน) has been adopted to address Internet trolls. The term literally refers to a closely cropped hairstyle worn by most school boys in Thailand, thus equating Internet trolls to school boys. The term "tob krean" (ตบเกรียน), or "slapping a cropped head", refers to the act of posting intellectual replies to refute and cause the messages of Internet trolls to be perceived as unintelligent.[citation needed]


Urban myth. The term Troll had nothing to do with trawling. If it did, the proper name would not be Troll which is a tenuous link at best.

Troll come from the three Billy Goats Gruff fairy tale and refers to Trolls lurking unseen under bridges. Users of chat rooms over 20 years ago who did not make a contribution, but were only present for voyeuristic reasons were called Trolls for this reason.

Troll then become a term for any undesirable internet user of comments pages, chat rooms having become practically defunct.

#204 MatsNorway

MatsNorway
  • Member

  • 2,043 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 06 June 2013 - 19:30

I suggest watching the movie trollhunter if you want proper trolls. None of that tiny stuff. Proper Norwegian ones.

My recommendation is to not read up or watch the front cover. As it spoils the movie.

Cover spoiler if you must.
http://ia.media-imdb...,0,214,317_.jpg

^^

Edited by MatsNorway, 06 June 2013 - 19:37.


#205 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 29 June 2013 - 14:42

Good Lord, I left this thread on April 8th and it's been going on until recently?

At least two thirds of the voters got it right.

Edited by Rasputin, 29 June 2013 - 16:09.


#206 WhiteBlue

WhiteBlue
  • Member

  • 2,135 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 07:43

Given the vague description of the poll one has to assume that we are close to top speed and any kind of torque curve is applicable. That leads to the assumption that a local maximum of the product of torque and angular speed can be off the peak torque point or plateau. Hence logic tells you the last option must be correct.

It would obviously be a bit different if we were discussing acceleration out of corners. In cars that are not traction limited with say AWD torque will play a bigger role. In that situation you are usually not at peak power and torque is your trump card. We will see this in LMP1 next year when they will have monster torque from the turbo engines and the AWD electric hybrid drives. LMP1s will be even more superior in performance over GTs and LMP2s than they are today in the cornering sections.

Edited by WhiteBlue, 01 July 2013 - 07:50.


#207 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 01 July 2013 - 13:03

Perhaps you're missing the trick here. No one is debating that the greatest available thrust comes from the greatest torqe at the wheels - torque moves the pork. At any given road speed, the greatest available thrust is in the lowest gear that permits (accceleration at) that speed. That will invariably put the engine speed above the torque peak.

Clearly, if we were constraining with a fixed gear rather than fixed speed, the torque peak would provide the greatest acceleration.

#208 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 17:30

But at the end of the day, acceleration is about wheel-torque, or shear-force at the tire's contact patch, torque and rpm before the clutch is irrelevant.

#209 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 18:54

I've always rationalized torque and HP, internally this way; torque is a function of engine displacement/stroke (mechanical leverage?) and horsepower is a function of engine breathing (atmospheric leverage?)

Large displacement engines don't need great atmospheric leverage and small ones do. Recently I've become much more interested in gearing and how gearing leverages a particular engine's characteristics/output and tire traction and chassis balance...and I know next to nothing about gearing!

Edited by meb58, 01 July 2013 - 18:55.


#210 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 19:18

At any given road speed, the greatest available thrust is in the lowest gear that permits (accceleration at) that speed.

Not true for all engines/vehicles. See, for example, this graph.
Posted Image

#211 meb58

meb58
  • Member

  • 603 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 01 July 2013 - 19:49

...so given my quest in post #209, how do torque/hp curves change with gear ratios? I assume that gearing affects both power curves?

quote name='CSquared' date='Jul 1 2013, 15:18' post='6338748']
Not true for all engines/vehicles. See, for example, this graph.
Posted Image
[/quote]


#212 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 July 2013 - 20:09

It could be explained much simpler, I picked up this piece from another site;

What should be interesting to Pirelli here is obviously the wheel-torque, or rather the shear-force on the contact patch.

This can be calculated in two ways:

A) With 588 kW (800 Hp), the wheel-torque will of course taper-off with the speed, but at 30 m/s (108 km/h), two 660 mm dia wheel will spin with 14.5 Rps (868 Rpm) and 6470 Nm,
resulting in a shear-force of 6470/0.330 =19.6 kN on the two wheels.

B) With 588 kW at 30 m/s, the total shear-force will be 588 000/30 = 19.6 kN as Power is Force times speed.


Quite brilliantly expressed me thinks.

Edited by Rasputin, 01 July 2013 - 20:12.


#213 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:55

Not true for all engines/vehicles. See, for example, this graph.

Nice graph what is it - 200 hp turbo thingy geared for 165 mph?

Edited by gruntguru, 02 July 2013 - 06:09.


#214 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,488 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 July 2013 - 04:31

Csquared- what is that graph supposed to be proving? Surely having a red line much higher than max power rpm is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion?


#215 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 02 July 2013 - 05:03

Csquared- what is that graph supposed to be proving? Surely having a red line much higher than max power rpm is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion?


I think it pretty much proves that Power is always Force (Thrust) times Speed?

2500 lb at 30 mph in first gear equals 500 lb at 150 in 5th, doesn't it?

#216 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 July 2013 - 06:33

Csquared- what is that graph supposed to be proving? Surely having a red line much higher than max power rpm is pretty much irrelevant to this discussion?


At least it does disprove Canuck's statement . . . . .

Perhaps you're missing the trick here. No one is debating that the greatest available thrust comes from the greatest torqe at the wheels - torque moves the pork. At any given road speed, the greatest available thrust is in the lowest gear that permits (accceleration at) that speed. That will invariably put the engine speed above the torque peak.

Clearly, if we were constraining with a fixed gear rather than fixed speed, the torque peak would provide the greatest acceleration.


Not true for all engines/vehicles. See, for example, this graph.


. . . . eg at 100 mph Canuck's statement suggests you should be in third gear when in fact there is better acceleratiopn in fourth.

Note to all: These "thrust" curves mimic the engine's torque curve not the power curve. For example in 4th gear (RED curve), max torque occurs somewhere between 85 and 100 mph and max power occurs at about 115 mph (where an imaginary smooth curve drawn to "touch" each thrust curve - touches the red curve).

It is interesting to note that each gearchange hits the next gear at obout max torque (except 1 - 2 shift which hits below max torque rpm). This only coincidence. If the ratios were closer, the upshifts would hit the next gear above the max torque rpm.

Max torque rpm is irrelevent to shift point selection.

#217 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 02 July 2013 - 06:46

At least it does disprove Canuck's statement . . . . .
. . . . eg at 100 mph Canuck's statement suggests you should be in third gear when in fact there is better acceleratiopn in fourth.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. If my post or the graph were unclear, I apologize. I searched something like "torque gear curve" and picked the first image that came up where the lines crossed. From the image's URL, I'm assuming the car is a 3rd-gen RX-7.

I don't see why the redline makes the graph or the engine irrelevant to the discussion, though.

#218 Canuck

Canuck
  • Member

  • 1,642 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 02 July 2013 - 11:43

Urgh. I stand by what I meant if not what I typed. If you're being a technical pedant, then my statement is incorrect. Clearly if you're operating the engine at such a high (relative) RPM that the engine torque multiplied by drivetrain ratios produce less torque at the wheels than the next higher gear selection, you will find greater acceleration in the next gear at that road speed.

In the context of the question - peak power or peak torque at a given road speed - the lowest possible gearing at peak power will produce the greatest instantaneous acceleration at the given speed. People so busy looking to prove someone else wrong, they're happily missing the point.

#219 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,488 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 July 2013 - 23:36

Correct. If you add dots on that graph to indicate max power and max torque in each gear then I strongly suspect all you discover is that the red line is very high compared with max power rpm.

Advertisement

#220 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 July 2013 - 01:53

So racing,you wring it's neck in each gear till it sounds unhappy and acceleration is heading south,then change up,...agrees with Canuck's graph.
Looks like you would change up from third to fourth at 92 mph. Each gear will have a slightly different rpm change up point I think?

#221 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 03 July 2013 - 06:01

People so busy looking to prove someone else wrong, they're happily missing the point.

I am OK with Csquared's post, the point I think needs to be made is - for max acceleration you should be in the gear that sees the highest engine power. Any other suggestions about "higher revs", "lowest gear", "torque peak" etc are irrelevent.

When the power has dropped off to the point where an upshift will produce identical power - its time to upshift (ie the intersection of lines on the thrust chart above.)

#222 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 03 July 2013 - 06:45

I am OK with Csquared's post, the point I think needs to be made is - for max acceleration you should be in the gear that sees the highest engine power. Any other suggestions about "higher revs", "lowest gear", "torque peak" etc are irrelevent.

When the power has dropped off to the point where an upshift will produce identical power - its time to upshift (ie the intersection of lines on the thrust chart above.)

Finally some words of wisdom, thank you.

#223 rgsuspsa

rgsuspsa
  • Member

  • 230 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 03 July 2013 - 22:41

Finally some words of wisdom, thank you.


Gear ratios, number of ratios, contact patch and any number of other parameter are irrelevant to the central issue of how fast a mass can be accelerated. The rate of kinetic energy gain by the mass, (rate of gain of (1/2 X Mass X Velocity squared)) is the only issue. The rate at
which kinetic energy is gained by the vehicle is maximized by definition at maximum power of the power source. In an actual race car, gear ratios, contact patch and all other parameters relevant to operating at maximum power are selected such that this is achieved to
the greatest degree feasible within rule limitations and physical limits of materials.

Ron Sparks

Edited by rgsuspsa, 03 July 2013 - 23:07.


#224 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:35

I am OK with Csquared's post, the point I think needs to be made is - for max acceleration you should be in the gear that sees the highest engine power. Any other suggestions about "higher revs", "lowest gear", "torque peak" etc are irrelevent.

When the power has dropped off to the point where an upshift will produce identical power - its time to upshift (ie the intersection of lines on the thrust chart above.)

Seconded. People coming up with various rules of thumb is the #1 reason that this discussion can get so confusing. Those rules of thumb almost always correlate well with the correct things to do with the real engines we actually have, which is why they're hard to disprove, but they are not generally correct. Yes, in reality, engines that we all drive don't redline at RPM far above power peak, and in reality we don't have gearboxes with 100 gears, so waiting to upshift until you hit the rev limiter can't be that wrong, but that beats around the bush in a way that "always be in gear that gives you maximum power at that speed" doesn't.

Edited by Dmitriy_Guller, 04 July 2013 - 01:38.


#225 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 July 2013 - 01:47

Urgh. I stand by what I meant if not what I typed. If you're being a technical pedant, then my statement is incorrect. Clearly if you're operating the engine at such a high (relative) RPM that the engine torque multiplied by drivetrain ratios produce less torque at the wheels than the next higher gear selection, you will find greater acceleration in the next gear at that road speed.

In the context of the question - peak power or peak torque at a given road speed - the lowest possible gearing at peak power will produce the greatest instantaneous acceleration at the given speed. People so busy looking to prove someone else wrong, they're happily missing the point.

I guess you're not going to like what I'm about to say next then. However, I must. When you are at peak power at a given speed, the lowest possible gearing or highest possible gearing won't matter, you will be accelerating at the same rate.

#226 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:05

If you're being a technical pedant ...

This is The Technical Forum, son! :wave:

#227 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:11

I guess you're not going to like what I'm about to say next then. However, I must. When you are at peak power at a given speed, the lowest possible gearing or highest possible gearing won't matter, you will be accelerating at the same rate.

If you wish to BE at peak power (I presume you mean engine rpm peak power)at any given speed,does not that automatically require you to be at a quite precise gearing !!! ? You appear to be saying acceleration in first gear has no potential to be superior to acceleration in top gear.

Edited by johnny yuma, 04 July 2013 - 02:11.


#228 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:21

I am saying that if several different gears all put you in peak power at the speed you're in, it doesn't matter which one of those gears you choose.

#229 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 July 2013 - 02:34

I am OK with Csquared's post, the point I think needs to be made is - for max acceleration you should be in the gear that sees the highest engine power. Any other suggestions about "higher revs", "lowest gear", "torque peak" etc are irrelevent.

When the power has dropped off to the point where an upshift will produce identical power - its time to upshift (ie the intersection of lines on the thrust chart above.)

This is it really, gruntguru hit the nail on the head, as acc is Force over Mass and Force is Power over Speed, it's all about keeping the engine at its powerwise sweetspot.

That's all there's to it.

#230 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:09

I am saying that if several different gears all put you in peak power at the speed you're in, it doesn't matter which one of those gears you choose.

How can several different gears all put you in the power peak at a given speed ???

#231 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:27

How can several different gears all put you in the power peak at a given speed ???

You can have a flat power peak (or plateau, if you will). Many new turbo engines at least on paper have those.

#232 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 03:57

You can have a flat power peak (or plateau, if you will). Many new turbo engines at least on paper have those.

Well good-oh , but you will still accelerate at a greater rate in a lower gear even if you do have a flat graph.Dare I add it's because ,mechanically,and in no way relating to what your flat graph engine might be doing,your Torque at the Axles is much improved by the lower gearing chosen..Thus,the Force at the tyre/road contact patch is greater,thus greater acceleration. In other words torque at the first motion shaft of the gearbox won't change with your flat graph engine,but it will change at exit shaft from gearbox in each gear,unless it's 1:1.

Edited by johnny yuma, 04 July 2013 - 04:03.


#233 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:00

Well good-oh , but you will still accelerate at a greater rate in a lower gear even if you do have a flat graph.Dare I add it's because ,mechanically,and in no way relating to what your flat graph engine might be doing,your Torque at the Axles is much improved.Thus,the Force at the tyre/road contact patch is greater,thus greater acceleration.

No. If you have a flat POWER curve, it doesn't matter which gear you are in. A flat power curve will have a torque curve that rises sharply as revs reduce.

#234 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:08

This is The Technical Forum, son! :wave:

Yeah,only boffins and rocket scientists allowed. :cry:


#235 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 04:11

No. If you have a flat POWER curve, it doesn't matter which gear you are in. A flat power curve will have a torque curve that rises sharply as revs reduce.

yeah right,Hey I gotta get me some of these fancy curves,dammit !...(no harm in feeding the chooks is there?) :cat:

#236 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 06:33

yeah right,Hey I gotta get me some of these fancy curves,dammit !...(no harm in feeding the chooks is there?) :cat:


Posted Image


Posted Image

#237 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 July 2013 - 08:08

Posted Image


Posted Image


All this reminds my of why I became an engineer, kudos en masse to gg!

Though I can add that as Force is Power over Speed, Force goes to the sky at zero speed, why we have whee-spin.

Edited by Rasputin, 04 July 2013 - 08:43.


#238 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,458 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:03

Though I can add that as Force is Power over Speed, Force goes to the sky at zero speed, why we have whee-spin.


Oh, so that's why.



Once again I would like to congratulate myself for not participating in this discussion.

#239 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 04 July 2013 - 13:56

Oh, so that's why.



Once again I would like to congratulate myself for not participating in this discussion.


Happy o enlighten you, in theory you have as much force as you want at take-off, funny isn't it?

Advertisement

#240 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 04 July 2013 - 18:25

Happy o enlighten you, in theory you have as much force as you want at take-off, funny isn't it?

This is an area where our simplifying assumption really break apart. It's impossible to accelerate from zero without a slip somewhere, and once you have a slip somewhere, these simple equations which are still very hard for some people to fathom don't apply anymore. Usually one of the hardest racing physics things to program in racing simulations is the tire behavior at low speeds.

#241 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 04 July 2013 - 22:52

If only we could divide by zero.

#242 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 04 July 2013 - 23:40

Oh, so that's why.



Once again I would like to congratulate myself for not participating in this discussion.



to quote John Cleese's customer, " I came here for an argument"

Cleese replies "no you didn't".........etc etc.

Edited by johnny yuma, 04 July 2013 - 23:41.


#243 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,488 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:04

It's impossible to accelerate from zero without a slip somewhere

Pedantic interlude...
It is not impossible, even in a normal car. Switch engine off. Engage first gear. Release clutch. Crank engine.

Now, that is a completely useless exercise 9 times out of 10, but it is SOP when starting up a steep slope in a 4wd diesel. If you slip the tires you will skid to the bottom of the hill, on typical clay dams for example.


#244 Dmitriy_Guller

Dmitriy_Guller
  • Member

  • 4,032 posts
  • Joined: July 01

Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:00

Pedantic interlude...
It is not impossible, even in a normal car. Switch engine off. Engage first gear. Release clutch. Crank engine.

Now, that is a completely useless exercise 9 times out of 10, but it is SOP when starting up a steep slope in a 4wd diesel. If you slip the tires you will skid to the bottom of the hill, on typical clay dams for example.

Point taken. In that case, at standstill, you're going to be dividing zero power by zero speed, which would reduce to some finite acceleration once you cancel out the terms that give you zeros at standstill.

#245 johnny yuma

johnny yuma
  • Member

  • 928 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 05 July 2013 - 05:09

Pedantic interlude...
It is not impossible, even in a normal car. Switch engine off. Engage first gear. Release clutch. Crank engine.

Now, that is a completely useless exercise 9 times out of 10, but it is SOP when starting up a steep slope in a 4wd diesel. If you slip the tires you will skid to the bottom of the hill, on typical clay dams for example.

Electric motor has max torque from 0 rpm.Will spin wheels if insufficient traction just the same,low range or high.Is SOP in petrol 4WDs too(14 years with Parks and Wildlife Service)for starting movement on steep slippy slopes.But it can't extract you if you're bogged !! Best to keep off muddy roads in wet weather,farmers justifiably hate you when you rut their roads.

#246 Rasputin

Rasputin
  • Member

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 06 July 2013 - 09:49

If only we could divide by zero.

Isn't that called an asymptote or something?

#247 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,190 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 07 July 2013 - 23:50

Very hyperbolic oh proboscotic one.