228 replies to this topic

[Kami P]

What would be more important in F1, 50 horsepower, or 50 nm's of torque?

[ViMaMo]

Good question but its very vague. I don't know the answer.

If you are refering to say a decent engine, and what would be a better option: 50 extra bhp or 50 extra Nm?

I'm very tempted to go for the 50 bhp.

[Kami P]

Originally posted by vivian
Good question but its very vague. I don't know the answer.

If you are refering to say a decent engine, and what would be a better option: 50 extra bhp or 50 extra Nm?

I'm very tempted to go for the 50 bhp.

Well this is what I'm trying to figure out.
Lets say everything was equal except that each car could choose an additional 50hp or 50nm, which increase would best translate as on track performance?

[-RM-]

50 nm.

[J. Edlund]

If the engines got an extra 50 Nm at or near peak power speed that would have the largest effect. 50 Nm at those speeds means an additional 130 hp.

To give the best answer on your question; what will improve mean power output the most will have the largest effect on performance, and since F1 engines spend most of their life at 15,000 rpm and above it's here we usually will get most of our increase in power.

[Bill Sherwood]

At what revs?

[Kami P]

Originally posted by J. Edlund
[To give the best answer on your question; what will improve mean power output the most will have the largest effect on performance, and since F1 engines spend most of their life at 15,000 rpm and above it's here we usually will get most of our increase in power.

Ok that makes sense, if they're at higher revs more often then HP's gotta be more valuable.
My curiosity was whether or not more torque down low could help with overtaking at low speed corners.

[Greg Locock]

Kami, I think you'll find most F1 cars are fitted with gearboxes.

[Kami P]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Kami, I think you'll find most F1 cars are fitted with gearboxes.

Oh, so once a Gbox is installed, the car can no longer benefit from more power or torque....why didn't someone just say so

[Greg Locock]

Well, since you are new here, and I'm not, perhaps you'd like to do us the courtesy of checking through past threads, at least one of which is sure to answer some aspects of your question.

[ray b]

drag race truth
HP gives top speeds TORQUE WINS RACES

I vote for 50 FT/LBS of TORQUE

[Kami P]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Well, since you are new here, and I'm not, perhaps you'd like to do us the courtesy of checking through past threads, at least one of which is sure to answer some aspects of your question.

I don't grant people any special status based on seniority as message boards.
In future either report what you consider an offending post or mind your own business.
People can act in a variety of ways, you've chosen to act the pratt, thanks for showing your hand straight up.

[BRIAN GLOVER]

Hey McGuire, Deal with this fellah will yeah?

You just blew it with perhaps the most knowledgeable member of this board.

Originally posted by Kami P


I don't grant people any special status based on seniority as message boards.
In future either report what you consider an offending post or mind your own business.
People can act in a variety of ways, you've chosen to act the pratt, thanks for showing your hand straight up.

[Greg Locock]

Nah, just the second grumpiest. Sorry guys.

[Hoop-98]

At 5252 rpm I'll take either. Above that power, below that torque. The late 60's Cozzie made the roughly same torque as today's engines, the IRL 3.0 makes a lot more torque than a F1 engine, which would you run?

rh

[dc21]

Originally posted by Hoop-98
At 5252 rpm I'll take either. Above that power, below that torque. The late 60's Cozzie made the roughly same torque as today's engines, the IRL 3.0 makes a lot more torque than a F1 engine, which would you run?

rh

Surely you'd do it the other way round. Since torque and hp are inseperable, and looking at the equation, HP = (torque * rpm)/5252, below 5252, increases in torque result in comparatively smaller increases in power. So increasing by 50HP will result in a massive torque increase. Over 5252, small changes in torque result in comparatively larger changes in HP. Increasing torque here will result in a larger change in HP.

Dave

[shaun979]

Uh oh not another one of these threads. :yawn:

I sincerely believe there isn't anything new that can be mentioned in this thread that hasn't already been covered in the recent one that contains the monster HP vs TQ argument (the one McGuire was heavily involved in). Do a search and you'll find it - it had something to do with shift points.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by shaun979
I sincerely believe there isn't anything new that can be mentioned in this thread that hasn't already been covered in the recent one that contains the monster HP vs TQ argument (the one McGuire was heavily involved in). Do a search and you'll find it - it had something to do with shift points.

IMO that thread is a waste of time. Anyone who seeks an understanding of hp and torque would do better NOT to read it: the signal-to-noise ratio is totally prohibitive.

[McGuire]

This thread won't be any better. A poster had an honest question, politely stated. However, it was decided that this question was best answered by adopting the tone of a condescending asshole. That set the tone, and it won't improve.

[Paul Ranson]

The poster has a question that cannot be answered. So he needs to be educated so it can be rephrased in way that can be answered more comprehensively than 'it depends'.

Paul

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Paul Ranson
The poster has a question that cannot be answered. So he needs to be educated so it can be rephrased in way that can be answered more comprehensively than 'it depends'.

Paul

So let's do it in a polite and friendly way. One thing I can't stand about this forum: how many times we see posts that begin with "I have finally worked up enough nerve to ask my first question..." I HATE that ****. Enthusiasm should be the only requirement. All should feel free to ask whatever questions and make whatever observations they like without having alleged "experts" jump down their throats.

[McGuire]

If the torque curve is raised 50 nm the result will be more torque AND power than simply raising the power curve by 50 hp. Horsepower, torque, and engine speed are totally interrelated: simply put, hp is the product of torque and rpm.

Torque is a measure of rotational or angular force at the crankshaft: either instantaneous, or over one operating cycle/unit thereof. Horsepower is a measure of this very same force as recorded in unit of time, or in other words, angular force times angular velocity.

Thus the issue of which is "more important" with respect to torque and horsepower is essentially meaningless. In an internal combustion engine one will not be found without the other; changing one will change the other. These are simply two different measures of the same output of the same machine. At the same time, the relationship between the two is absolutely cast in stone relative to engine speed. In the English system of pounds and feet, HP = torque x rpm / 5252.

"My curiosity was whether or not more torque down low could help with overtaking at low speed corners."

Absolutely. That F1 cars also happen to have gearboxes is rather beside the point. If two cars have equal gearing, power and traction, the one with the superior torque curve wins the corner. On a road course, an engine spends a small part of each lap at peak hp rpm. Everywhere else, TORQUE MATTERS. The only surprising thing about this statement is the mental somersaults people will put themselves through in inventing ways to argue with it.

Torque is extremely important in F1, not only in performance but in engine development. This is precisely why peak torque figures are, if anything, even more closely guarded than the horsepower numbers. The fans and media tend to obsess over the peak hp number, but it's really only a peephole into the big picture in engine performance.

[Paul Ranson]

IIUC at speeds below about 100mph an F1 car is traction limited. This is why engine revs are allowed to drop so low in slow corners, you don't need more power than you can use. If you invest in the Peter Wright Ferrari book you'll see rpm/speed charts that show rpms as low as 6000 being used for acceleration out of a slow corner in 1st, but at higher speeds the engine will be being operated between 16000 and 18000. This is obviously 5 year old data, you can assume more power everywhere nowadays, and traction control allowing fiercer torque curves. Anyway as a general rule I'd have thought that more power between 16000 and 18000 would be more useful to lap times than more torque at 12000.

Paul

[Hoop-98]

What I think many people mean with this question is more related to a broad torque rise vs a narrow but peakier one.

A good example might be the current 750 BHP Champcar engine vs the prior 800 HP version. The new engine has as much or more power "under the curve" than the older because of a relatively flat torque curve.

I would aways take the highest average axle torque during the usable rpm range uness maybe I was racing on ice

The thing about torque is that it is an unusable value without RPM.

Here are some "hypothetical engines". Note torque per cubic inch is in foot pounds, Torque is Newton Meters

2005 IRL
CID RPM BHP BMEP TPCID Torque
183.00 10,300 670 281.5 1.87 463.2

2005 F1
CID RPM BHP BMEP TPCID Torque
183.00 19,000 900 205.0 1.36 337.3

1969 F1
CID RPM BHP BMEP TPCID Torque
183.00 9,500 450 205.0 1.36 337.3


2005 Champ Car
CID RPM BHP BMEP TPCID Torque
161.50 12,000 750 306.5 2.03 445.0

2005 Winston Cup

CID RPM BHP BMEP TPCID Torque
358.00 9,500 800 186.3 1.24 599.6


And here is a bit of cut and paste of a spreadsheet I built.

First I put in some aero numbers then average speed.

Input
200MPHDF Speed L/D
4800 75.00 2.97

ActDF Drag Aero HP
675 227.3 45.5

Then I integrate the area under the curve to get a compensation value, .95 means that the average torque is .95 of the peak torque.

Torque Compensation 0.95

Then some power, weight, gearing, parasitic loss etc.. numbers.

Hp RPM Torque
850 12000 372.02
AeroCorrected Horsepower
804.5 352.12
Driveline Eff. 90.00%
Tire Diameter 30
Trans Ratio 5.50
Gear Ratio 3.80
Axle Torque 6292
Axle RPM 574
Tractive Force 5034
Speed FPS 75.16
Acceleration
Weight 1800
Accel F/s/s 112.39
Starting MPH 40.00
Time 1
Ending MPH 116.62
Feet Covered 114.86
AVG MPH 78.31

I use two sets of these to look at potential acceleration differences of various combinations.

This spreadsheet helps me to make quick rough approximations of performance potentials.

rh

[NTSOS]

Why don't we just agree to eliminate HP numbers and concentrate on torque values exclusively? Obviously, when using torque values, HP is redundant and a source for potential confusion......just bottom line it....strive for as much torque *everywhere* in the curve and as a result, HP will follow merrily along, but in silence.

John

[Hoop-98]

I prefer power. All things being rational, the 900 HP engine will beat the 800 HP engine, but a 300 ft pound engine might be far better than a 500 ft pound.

In most relatively open formulas torque per cubic inch (BMEP by another name) has not changed much in 40 years. Maximum power is normally in that 1.2 -1.4 range or around 200PSI BMEP.

Now certain RPM limited formulas such as the F3000 and IRL have much higher BMEP because they can't turn it faster to make HP.

rh

[Paul Ranson]

Why don't we just agree to eliminate HP numbers and concentrate on torque values exclusively?

Because torque values do not tell you anything without knowing the rpm they're recorded at. Which means what you're actually concentrating on is the power...

Paul

[Engineguy]

As Jerry Seinfeld or Ray Barone would say... Heeere we go... :yawn:

[NTSOS]

Because torque values do not tell you anything without knowing the rpm they're recorded at. Which means what you're actually concentrating on is the power...

I think I did mention "curve", which implies multiple RPM data points.......a torque curve.

John

[NTSOS]

I prefer power. All things being rational, the 900 HP engine will beat the 800 HP engine, but a 300 ft pound engine might be far better than a 500 ft pound.

Because the 900 HP engine has more torque. I don't understand the second part.

John

[Hoop-98]

The data of torque and RPM = power. I can easily make 1000 foot pounds of torque for hours, only need a long breaker bar and a seat, but I can't make too much power...

rh

[-RM-]

Paul:
You can not decouple hp from torque.

Hoop-98 and dc21:
Remember that we are talking about Nm in this thread. 7120 rpm is the crossover.

shaun979:
That thread was not about about hp, torque or shiftpoints so it can be difficult to get anything about those three things out of it.

[Hoop-98]

Well 7121 or 7120.6616 lol, yes mixing english and si is frought with confusion...and since F1 engines operate well above that value, take the torque is the simplest answer because 50 extra N.m at 19000 rpm = 133.42 more horsepower.

rh

[J. Edlund]

A modern F1 engine spends most of its life at high engine speeds, and since acceleration below around 100 mph (depending on aero settings) are traction limited increases in power/torque will have the largest effect if they can be made at high engine speed. A wider torque curve can improve driveability but will likely have a smaller effect on performance. Typically 2000-3000 rpm between max torque and max power, and the possiblity to rev 500-1000 rpm above max power is enough, and it have been so the last 50 years.

At LeMans, with a powerband of 6000 rpm to 9000 rpm the engine (data from Mazda) spent 95% of all time at full throttle in this range. About 75% of full throttle time was in the range 7000-8500 rpm. LeMans is a high speed circuit, but still this should give an idea where gains in torque/power will have the largest effect.

[NTSOS]

In the real world, there is zero difference between power/torque, it's the same damn deal, just two different words relating to the same exact interelated bottom line.

A wider torque curve can improve driveability....well, you could say that a wider HP curve can improve driveability, since the HP number generated depends on torque and RPM.

Seriously, pick *one*....only one is needed to contemplate, the biggest number generated is good at *any* RPM, especially in the context as it relates to a *fat* curve.

Jeeze....do the math!

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

so

TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

John

[Paul Ranson]

There's always one.

HP tells you about the capability of an engine to do work, torque doesn't, unless you combine it with rpm in which case you have HP. And so we go round and round.

Paul

[NTSOS]

Hi Paul,

You should be clear on the concept that Power is dependent on torque. TORQUE and RPM are the MEASURED quantities of engine output. Power is CALCULATED from torque and RPM.

John

[Paul Ranson]

I don't understand your point. Are you suggesting that the technology choice a dyno manufacturer makes implies something about the physics?

'HP' contains more information than 'Torque' or 'rpm'. Neither of the latter by themselves tell you anything at all about the performance potential of an engine. Consider a 1/4 mile time or 0-60 time for an otherwise unknown car. How much torque has it got? We've no idea. How much power? We can make an informed guess.

Anyway, I think the OP's intended question has been answered in an F1 car's context.

Paul

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Engineguy
As Jerry Seinfeld or Ray Barone would say... Heeere we go... :yawn:

Just like GMI...without the intellect and wit.

[NTSOS]

Consider a 1/4 mile time or 0-60 time for an otherwise unknown car. How much torque has it got? We've no idea. How much power? We can make an informed guess.

If you can make an informed quess on how much power it has, then we can make an informed quess on how much torque it has.

John

[jb_128]

Originally posted by NTSOS


If you can make an informed quess on how much power it has, then we can make an informed quess on how much torque it has.

John

No you can't. It could be a low torque engine running at extremely high revs, or a high torque engine running at low revs.

I'm amazed how often this subject is discussed for pages on end in all sorts of fora. It really isn't that hard. There is really not much to say about it other than: an engine produces POWER. Full Stop.

It doesn't matter how this power is produced, wether at low revs or high revs, all that matters is much power we get over a period of time.

[-RM-]

jb_128:
Yes he can. Look at Paul's statement again.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by jb_128
I'm amazed how often this subject is discussed for pages on end in all sorts of fora. It really isn't that hard.

That's the problem: if this were the question about Einstein's theory of relativity, then the debate would be sophisticated. However, since this question is deceptively simple, it invites many people to enter the arena who think they have the necessary analytic skills to answer it but actually don't. The unfortunate paradox is that someone who lacks analytic skills to approach the correct solution also lacks the same skills to understand when their solution is irreparably flawed, leading to what programmers call infinite loop.

[NTSOS]

>>If you can make an informed quess on how much power it has, then we can make an informed quess on how much torque it has<<

>>No you can't. It could be a low torque engine running at extremely high revs, or a high torque engine running at low revs.<<


Really......I think there is no difference!

Please explain the difference using the simple formulas.

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

so

TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

John

[Dmitriy_Guller]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by NTSOS
[QUOTE]If you can make an informed quess on how much power it has, then we can make an informed quess on how much torque it has.

No you can't. It could be a low torque engine running at extremely high revs, or a high torque engine running at low revs./QUOTE]

There is no difference!

Please explain the difference using the simple formulas.

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

so

TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

John [/QUOTE]
The trouble is that you don't have the RPM figure.

[jb_128]

Originally posted by Dmitriy_Guller

That's the problem: if this were the question about Einstein's theory of relativity, then the debate would be sophisticated. However, since this question is deceptively simple, it invites many people to enter the arena who think they have the necessary analytic skills to answer it but actually don't. The unfortunate paradox is that someone who lacks analytic skills to approach the correct solution also lacks the same skills to understand when their solution is irreparably flawed, leading to what programmers call infinite loop.

Yeah, that sounds like a reasonable expanation of why these threads go on forever (as will this one).
It doesn't really explain though why people who have not yet fully understood the nature of torque and power are so hellbent on trying to prove sound mathematics wrong instead of genuinely trying to learn more about the subject.

[NTSOS]

The trouble is that you don't have the RPM figure.

Ok...pick one......any one and plug it in!

John

[jb_128]

Originally posted by NTSOS
>>If you can make an informed quess on how much power it has, then we can make an informed quess on how much torque it has<<

>>No you can't. It could be a low torque engine running at extremely high revs, or a high torque engine running at low revs.<<


Really......I think there is no difference!

Please explain the difference using the simple formulas.

HP = TORQUE x RPM ÷ 5252

so

TORQUE = HP x 5252 ÷ RPM

John

Taking only the above equation into account is not enough to explain the difference between guessing a power value and guessing a torque value. The answer lies in the physical properties of power and torque.
I'll try to explain with an analogie I (I just made it up in case it sounds a bit weird ) Imagine I make a footprint in soft earth. You could look at how deep it is and then make an estimation of my weight. Could you make an estimation of how fat I am? No because you don't know how tall I am!
My weight is
weight=tallness*fatness*5252
but you can only guess my weight because my weight is what caused the footprint, not my tallness or my fatness. In the same way it is power that makes a car go, not torque or rpm.

[Dmitriy_Guller]

Originally posted by NTSOS


Ok...pick one......any one and plug it in!

John

Oh, but you shouldn't just pick any one. You should pick the right one, which you have no way of knowing.

[NTSOS]

Hi Dmitriy,

Ah, OK.....pick a curve then.....the highest overall average curve value wins the race!

John