BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > M3 (E90 / E92 / E93) > General M3 Forum (E90 + E92 + E93)
 
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      04-18-2008, 05:53 AM   #1
anidjare
Second Lieutenant
9
Rep
232
Posts

 
Drives: Le Mans E93 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Florida

iTrader: (1)

m3 brochure Dyno Graph

This may have been discussed, but I just picked up the new m3 brochure, and the dyno graph on page 36 shows horsepower and torque crossing over each other at about 3900 rpm.

I always thought that was supposed to occur at the constant of 5252 rpm.

Any thoughts?
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 06:08 AM   #2
Wads
Second Lieutenant
Wads's Avatar
4
Rep
257
Posts

 
Drives: E93 M3 & Tuned Focus ST
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Garage List
are the units in bhp and lb/ft? if not maybe Kw and Nm cross at a different point?
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 06:47 AM   #3
anidjare
Second Lieutenant
9
Rep
232
Posts

 
Drives: Le Mans E93 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Florida

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wads View Post
are the units in bhp and lb/ft? if not maybe Kw and Nm cross at a different point?
It was bhp and lb/ft at the crank.
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 08:59 AM   #4
rai
Captain
rai's Avatar
United_States
13
Rep
649
Posts

 
Drives: M3 coupe with DCT
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: maryland

iTrader: (0)

as far as I know there is not a place where HP and TQ are supposed to cross each other and in fact there are engines where the HP is never more than the TQ.
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 09:51 AM   #5
bruce.augenstein@comcast.
Lieutenant Colonel
21
Rep
1,908
Posts

 
Drives: Legacy GT - 13.704@99.39
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Manheim, PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by rai View Post
as far as I know there is not a place where HP and TQ are supposed to cross each other and in fact there are engines where the HP is never more than the TQ.
Horsepower and torque always cross at 5252 rpm. That's because the formula to convert one to the other is (torque X rpm)/5252 = horsepower.

The reason they didn't cross at that point on the graph is that there are two different scales on that graph - one on the right and one on the left, with the bottom scale denoting rpm.

Bruce
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 10:15 AM   #6
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

The two lines do not really cross. Power and torque are different concepts, and thus have different units (I'm not talking metric vs whatever; torque is force x distance, and power is work per unit time). You can't plot data that are expressed in different units on the same graph. Well, you can to present them together in one chart, but that doesn't really mean anything and what you really have is two seperate overlay graphs with different units, scales, etc.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 12:21 PM   #7
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
The two lines do not really cross. Power and torque are different concepts, and thus have different units (I'm not talking metric vs whatever; torque is force x distance, and power is work per unit time). You can't plot data that are expressed in different units on the same graph. Well, you can to present them together in one chart, but that doesn't really mean anything and what you really have is two seperate overlay graphs with different units, scales, etc.
Great explanation. I would add that IF you make the "mistake" of plotting them on the same graph where the height of the hp curve is hp and the height of the torque curve is in ft lb then indeed they will always cross based on the definition as Bruce mentioned.
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 04:31 PM   #8
rai
Captain
rai's Avatar
United_States
13
Rep
649
Posts

 
Drives: M3 coupe with DCT
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: maryland

iTrader: (0)

my mistake, I was thinking about some engines that have more TQ than HP and the HP never catches the TQ but then those are engines that don't reach the 5252 rpms
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 05:40 PM   #9
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
128
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

I think its good to see them on the same graph- if you keep the engine between the torque peak and the HP peak you will get the best performace. can someone attach a pic of the graph in question?
Appreciate 0
      04-18-2008, 09:23 PM   #10
oneginee
Banned
6
Rep
416
Posts

 
Drives: GT3 RS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE

iTrader: (0)

As usual you can get the exact answer from me in those things :


for a given torque and RPM we all know :

hp = tq(in lbs.ft)* RPM * 2 PI / 33,000

hp = tq(in lbs.ft) * RPM / 5,252


if you look at the torque characteristic on p 36 the torque scale on the left is compressed by a factor of 2X compared to the hp scale on right (plus they made a typo should read HP not kW)

then on top of that they shifted up the zero references by aligning 10 Nm of torque with 10 hp instead of 0 Nm of torque with 0 hp (you will see by the end of this post what difference it makes)

So if you take the hp scale as the reference and using

1 foot = 0.3048 metres
lb = 0.45359237 kg
g = 9.8 m.s^-2

hp_curve = tq (in N.m) / 0.45359237 / 0.304 / 9.81 * RPM * 2 PI / 33,000

and due to the torque scale compression and offset :

tq_curve = tq (in N.m) / 2 + 10


then finding where torque curve and horsepower curves cross
is done by posing hp_curve = tq_curve and solving for RPM

RPM = (tq / 2 + 10 ) / tq * 0.45359237 * 0.304 * 9.81 / 2 PI * 33,000

or after calculating the constant term :

RPM = (tq / 2 + 10) / tq * 7,105

Surprise ! it is not a constant (like 5252 RPM if they had referenced torque and hp on the same axis and used torque in lbs.ft)
This means the speed (RPM) at which torque and hp curves will cross will BE DEPENDENT on the actual torque curve of the car the data is taken from.

if you put 400 N.m of torque in the equation the result is

speed = (400 / 2 + 10 ) / 400 * 7,105 = 3,730 RPM which is what you get on p 36.


BOTTOM LINE : they can use different scales and offset between the two curves plotted on the same graph to MAKE THEM CROSS WHEREVER THEY CHOOSE. Had they not offset the origin the curve would have crossed at 3,552 RPM and had they not doubled the hp scale the crossing point would have been at 7,105 RPM which may not have looked as good.

good marketing !!
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2008, 03:13 AM   #11
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneginee View Post
As usual you can get the exact answer from me in those things...
I beg to disagree. I'd say we get the typically overly complicated and not very useful answer. Bruce and Lucid had it covered 110%. You do like to toot your own horn don't you.
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2008, 07:26 AM   #12
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I beg to disagree. I'd say we get the typically overly complicated and not very useful answer.
+1. Honestly, I didn't take the time to read through the algebra, but it sure seems unnecessary.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2008, 08:21 AM   #13
anidjare
Second Lieutenant
9
Rep
232
Posts

 
Drives: Le Mans E93 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Florida

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bruce.augenstein@comcast. View Post
Horsepower and torque always cross at 5252 rpm. That's because the formula to convert one to the other is (torque X rpm)/5252 = horsepower.

The reason they didn't cross at that point on the graph is that there are two different scales on that graph - one on the right and one on the left, with the bottom scale denoting rpm.

Bruce
Thanks, not sure how I missed that.
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2008, 11:57 AM   #14
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
128
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)

can someone link to the graph?
Appreciate 0
      04-19-2008, 12:10 PM   #15
sayemthree
Brigadier General
sayemthree's Avatar
128
Rep
4,845
Posts

 
Drives: bmw
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: usa

iTrader: (0)



found it!
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 04:15 PM   #16
oneginee
Banned
6
Rep
416
Posts

 
Drives: GT3 RS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I beg to disagree. I'd say we get the typically overly complicated and not very useful answer. Bruce and Lucid had it covered 110%. You do like to toot your own horn don't you.
Actually it is straightforward and 100% correct. These mathematical results are not open to discussion. I like to get the right answer rather than listen to a few people (but not all) making half guesses and then think they are entitled to diss hard facts backed by mathematical proof. Sorry pal but if you can't follow move to the right lane.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 04:25 PM   #17
swamp2
Lieutenant General
swamp2's Avatar
United_States
215
Rep
10,201
Posts

 
Drives: E92 M3
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Diego, CA USA

iTrader: (1)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneginee View Post
Actually it is straightforward and 100% correct. These mathematical results are not open to discussion. I like to get the right answer rather than listen to a few people (but not all) making half guesses and then think they are entitled to diss hard facts backed by mathematical proof. Sorry pal but if you can't follow move to the right lane.
I am not necessarily saying your result was incorrect or "non-mathematical". Just that it was way too complicated and again Lucid and Bruce had it covered 100% with much more brevity and eloquence. Others agreed with me.
P.S. you won't get very far trying to "one up" me on the Math side, one of my degrees is in Math. You are not the only mathematically inclined fellow here.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 04:35 PM   #18
oneginee
Banned
6
Rep
416
Posts

 
Drives: GT3 RS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I am not necessarily saying your result was incorrect or "non-mathematical". Just that it was way too complicated and again Lucid and Bruce had it covered 100% with much more brevity and eloquence. Others agreed with me.
P.S. you won't get very far trying to "one up" me on the Math side, one of my degrees is in Math. You are not the only mathematically inclined fellow here.


I tend to go into details so that there are no doubts left as to how I come to the results.

Quote:
P.S. you won't get very far trying to "one up" me on the Math side, one of my degrees is in Math. You are not the only mathematically inclined fellow here.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 04:40 PM   #19
lucid
Major General
lucid's Avatar
United_States
116
Rep
8,034
Posts

 
Drives: E30 M3; Expedition
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: USA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by oneginee View Post
Actually it is straightforward and 100% correct. These mathematical results are not open to discussion. I like to get the right answer rather than listen to a few people (but not all) making half guesses and then think they are entitled to diss hard facts backed by mathematical proof. Sorry pal but if you can't follow move to the right lane.
I am not trying to flame you, but what exactly did you prove with the algebra? What exactly is "correct" in what you posted?

The relationship between torque and power is carved in stone. The rest is just about how one defines the axis and scales and all that. Plus, all of this is pretty much meaningless for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
__________________
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 04:57 PM   #20
oneginee
Banned
6
Rep
416
Posts

 
Drives: GT3 RS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I am not necessarily saying your result was incorrect or "non-mathematical". Just that it was way too complicated and again Lucid and Bruce had it covered 100% with much more brevity and eloquence. Others agreed with me.
P.S. you won't get very far trying to "one up" me on the Math side, one of my degrees is in Math. You are not the only mathematically inclined fellow here.


Yes I tend to go overly into details so that there are no doubts left as to how I come to the results.

Quote:
P.S. you won't get very far trying to "one up" me on the Math side, one of my degrees is in Math. You are not the only mathematically inclined fellow here.


I went through and graduated from superior and special mathematics classes in France (Math sup/ Math spé). If you do not know about these I suggest you search it. You're quite presomptuous, same comment to you about trying to "one up" me.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 05:01 PM   #21
oneginee
Banned
6
Rep
416
Posts

 
Drives: GT3 RS
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: SE

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by lucid View Post
I am not trying to flame you, but what exactly did you prove with the algebra? What exactly is "correct" in what you posted?

The relationship between torque and power is carved in stone. The rest is just about how one defines the axis and scales and all that. Plus, all of this is pretty much meaningless for the reasons I explained in my previous post.
I gave a full mathematical answer to the original question that leaves no possible doubt. Yes I read your comment and there is nothing meaningless about superimposing two curves even if using different scales, slope signs and monotonicity are still visible which is usefull to interpret the data.
Appreciate 0
      04-20-2008, 05:04 PM   #22
gasman
Member
gasman's Avatar
15
Rep
505
Posts

 
Drives: 08 RR Sport SC, 08 AW/FR M3
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Antonio, TX

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
I beg to disagree. I'd say we get the typically overly complicated and not very useful answer. Bruce and Lucid had it covered 110%. You do like to toot your own horn don't you.
Boy...talk about the pot calling the kettle black!!
__________________
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST