|
|
02-11-2014, 09:58 AM | #397 |
Banned
65
Rep 1,381
Posts |
You're putting words in my mouth and making strawman arguments. I never mentioned peak torque. That's an irrelevant number. What I meant was the torque curve at the wheels. Your argument seems to hinge on using power to weight for its predictive value regarding vehicle performance. And I agree it's a good metric with some predictive power. However, it is also based on the assumption that peak power correlates with overall power throughout the rev range, and that is mostly true for modern engines since they're designed to have a semi-constant torque curve. But hp/lb isn't always a good predictor of performance.
For example an Evo X GSR has 291 hp and 3527 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08251. 0-60 is 4.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 13.6 s On the other hand an AP1 S2000 has 240 hp and 2745 lb of weight for a power to weight ratio of 0.08743. However, 0-60 is 5.9 s and 1/4 mile time is 14.4 s. Your metric of power to weight ratio would predict the S2000 would be faster, yet it is substantially slower than an Evo X. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 10:01 AM | #398 | |
Banned
65
Rep 1,381
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 10:47 AM | #399 | |
Banned
477
Rep 1,711
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:08 AM | #400 | |
Private
2
Rep 53
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:30 AM | #401 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Sheesh. I fought quite a bit in high school, but then I grew up. I suggest you do the same. On the other hand, see my next note. I feel the need to apologize. Bruce |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:45 AM | #402 |
Banned
477
Rep 1,711
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:56 AM | #403 | |
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
On the other hand, quarter mile ET is hard to predict from power to weight deltas. What weight over power predicts with some accuracy is trap speed. No it's not perfect. Far from it, in fact. But on the other hand weight over torque predicts absolutely nothing in terms of acceleration performance, over a quarter mile or whatever. Having said that, however, it's true that if you compare two cars with roughly equal power-to-weight numbers, the car with better torque-to-weight numbers will tend to win the drag race, because it will make more power after each shift, backing up your statements regarding average power over whatever duration. The early C63s vs E92s demonstrated this point. The bimmer had a slightly better power-to-weight number, but couldn't stay with the Merc over a quarter mile. As an example of variances within a power-to-weight spectrum, I predict the M4 will outperform normal expectations based on power to weight, because it will essentially continually stay at max power from third gear on, quite unlike, say, the E9X M3, or the new Corvette. Those cars drop quite a bit of power after each shift. Bruce PS - Just as a rule of thumb, quarter mile trap speed varies as per the cube root of the power to weight delta. Torque need not be considered. As an example, the Dynojet folks calculate power by having your drive wheels accelerate a known mass from some speed to another speed. They don't bother with torque unless you want to hook up a tach feed. Then they'll calculate torque from their power readings at whatever rpm - but they don't need that and don't give a damn about it. Last edited by bruce.augenstein@comcast.; 02-11-2014 at 12:03 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:29 PM | #404 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Thank you, spot on. Not directed at you, since you "get it" but I've never claimed (peak) power to weight is an omniscient predictor, just the best simple predictor by far.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
02-11-2014, 11:50 PM | #405 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
I already addressed your example above on the two specifics. But again, finding an exception to the rule does not detract from the rule's simplicity and predictive power. As a small concession I think I understand where the idea that torque is "what matters" or torque is what accelerates a car comes from. Torque is simple, concrete, its just a force acting through a distance (typically on a rotating object). When you think about the physics of the car, the drivetrain and its acceleration and of course when writing a spreadsheet or vehicle acceleration simulation tool, the first thing one would likely do is make tables of torque at the wheels as a function of each gear and all rpms. Then a basic force and torque balance provides the net thrust force on the car (with some careful treatment of losses and interias). After all torque twists that wrench when we work on our cars and torque twists the crankshafts and ultimately the wheels. There is nothing wrong with this point of view. Power on the other hand is slightly more abstract, especially to the lay person (not you, obviously with your background). It's not until one carefully dissects the problem and resolves my prior numbered statements about torque and power (even those are actually only "first order" correct, there are corrections abound which have all been discussed in great detail here on this forum) that the simplicity and importance of power and then peak power becomes transparent and even enlightening. Last but not least, I ain't a mod here, but I will try to help self police the forum. Bruce made a uncalled for insult. However, the threat (even a loose one) of physical violence is totally unacceptable here. Please keep that in check to insure this is a place we all want to hang out. Cheers.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2014, 12:43 AM | #406 | ||
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
Quote:
There is only a 3% difference in the predictive capability of power to weight vs. trap and power to weight vs. ET. And in fact the model for ET actually has fewer outliers: http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-hp-et-mph.htm Quote:
We have to accept (observe) that average power correlates reasonably well with peak power. If that wasn't the case we would not have such a strong predictive power in this model. However, power and torque are certainly correlated as well. Of course since peak torque and peak power pretty well never occur at the same rpm we can't use the rigid relationship at a given rpm. However, not surprisingly peak torque and peak power as well as average power are all correlated. The R^2 value when running the regression is a surprisingly high, 0.78. Again that is compared to a 0.93 for trap speed vs. (peak) power to weight. So in short the torque to weight model is only capturing 15% less of the observed variation. Last but not least, we should observe that despite this reasonable correlation this relationship is still entirely less CAUSAL than regressing vs. power to weight. Recall the important distinction between correlation vs. causation. The physics indicate we should observe a correlation in the power to weight case and we do. It just so happens that peak torque also correlates with peak power. There is no reason this has to be so, as evidenced by F1 cars that make absurd power with very little torque. And again we can do the thought experiment where we double peak torque and performance won't change appreciably, we can't do the same with power. I won't be surprised if you have a more elegant way of explaining why the correlation is much better than expected.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | Last edited by swamp2; 02-12-2014 at 12:52 AM.. |
||
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2014, 11:38 AM | #407 | |
Colonel
1309
Rep 2,785
Posts |
Quote:
And since you are into generalizations and think only grandpa's drive Corvettes. Here is a generalization for you, anyone that lives in North Carolina a redneck. Last edited by DieGrüneHölle; 02-12-2014 at 11:45 AM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2014, 01:41 PM | #409 |
First Lieutenant
35
Rep 343
Posts
Drives: 2008 Jet Black E90 M3
Join Date: May 2012
Location: NW Arkansas
|
Does it have leaf springs?
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2014, 02:42 PM | #410 |
Colonel
1309
Rep 2,785
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-12-2014, 05:59 PM | #411 |
Banned
58
Rep 1,017
Posts |
The topic is about individual views on the C7 zo6 which is what my posts are. You don't like my views, go deal with it (to put it politely). Everyone is welcome to express their views on the topic without having some ____ like you go personal on them and namecalling an entire state for it.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 03:40 AM | #412 | |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
From a similar thread in a similar topic a couple years back...
Quote:
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 12:05 PM | #413 | |||
Colonel
99
Rep 2,000
Posts |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
First, taken across a plethora of data points, torque-to-weight will generally be a rough average percent (compared to power) across many internal combustion engines. Second, expect the rough average to change as we move further into force-fed proliferation of engines, and particularly, force-fed diesels. In these cases, the torque-to-power relationship changes pretty dramatically, while quarter-mile performance changes only somewhat.. Lastly (and just in agreement), power and weight will be a strong predictor of quarter mile performance case by case, and torque and weight will not be. The fact that you've found a moderately loose relationship across a large number of cars is interesting, but no more than that. Bruce |
|||
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 12:12 PM | #414 |
Banned
477
Rep 1,711
Posts |
Very interesting video, that demonstrates how much stronger the CF drive shaft is vs the conventional steel one. CF will used in C7 Z06
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 12:30 PM | #415 |
Lieutenant General
634
Rep 10,407
Posts |
That is a good video. It has been discussed in some detail in the M4 section as that new car also has a CF drive shaft. One of the main points I made over there was that this is definitely neither new nor exotic. The 2001 Mitsubishi Montero had one. The 350Z had one in the Japanese version in 2002. The Mazda RX-8 had one as well in 2003. The Acura RL in 2005. I think maybe even earlier Nissans had them as well. Don't drink all of the CF this and CF that BMW Kool-Aid.
__________________
E92 M3 | Space Gray on Fox Red | M-DCT | CF Roof | RAC RG63 Wheels | Brembo 380mm BBK | | Vorsteiner Ti Exhaust | Matte Black Grilles/Side Gills/Rear Emblem/Mirrors | | Alekshop Back up Camera | GP Thunders | BMW Aluminum Pedals | Elite Angels | | XPEL Full Front Wrap | Hardwired V1 | Interior Xenon Light Kit | |
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 12:36 PM | #416 | |
Banned
37
Rep 1,312
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-13-2014, 09:58 PM | #417 |
Banned
477
Rep 1,711
Posts |
Shark grey c7z06
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=eucnb7Qf08U |
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|