Re: [DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Hor
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [DMCForum] ATTN: Jim Strickland -- "300 HP" Does *NOT* Mean "300 Horses Coupled Together"

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:59:40 -0000 "content22207"
<brobertson@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> You've got the equation a bit backwards: HP = Torque x RPM /5252. I'm
> not making "$hit" up -- that's how HP is calculated.

and what?  Horsepower is nothing more than torque measured at a specific
RPM.  Does that make you happier?

> I think the problem is: you continue to labor under the mistaken
> notion that HP somehow equates to a mythical number of horses
> coupled
> together. Makes sense, I know, but that concept is totally wrong.
> Think about it -- merely counting the number of horses coupled
> together would tell you NOTHING about what kind of horses they are.
> 300 Clydesdales coupled together would be able to pull a lot more than
> 300 circus ponies coupled together, but in your vision both are "300
> horsepower".

So you're saying that your american muscle has clydesdales power and
japanese engines are pony power?  Can ponies run faster once they get
horsepower is a static measurement, I don't see why you think it changes.
The assumption is an average horse, I'm sure ponies, over time, sustain
much less than 1 HP.  FWIW, I've seen horse pulls, where a horse can
generate about 35 horsepower over very short intervals. 

> HP is basically a measure of TIME, expressed not in the rotation of
> hands on a clock, but in rotations of an engine crankshaft. A high

I'll respond to this comment in about 15 horsepowers.

> HP
> engine is doing one of two things:
> -Spinning slowly with a lot of torque in each revolution
> -Spinning rapidly with very little torque in each revolution

WRONG.  1000HP at 20,000RPM is still more torque than 170HP at 3600RPM

> The reason high torque engines are used to pull heavy loads is not a
> simple matter of convenience. It's because a low torque engine
> simply
> couldn't do it. At least not without Martin's mythical transmission
> (which would render the vehicle totally impractical, I hasten to
> point
> out). We're talking about real world applications, in which I have
> *NEVER* seen a vehicle with a low torque engine pull anything bigger
> than a little 2 wheel trailer with personal watercraft, but I *HAVE*
> seen vehicles with low torque engines struggle to reach the top of a
> long steep grade with NOTHING coupled to their rear.

Martin is correct that gearing multiplies torque.

> BTW: Andrei himself quoted 350 HP for his Porsche in Message #10020.
> If you don't like that number, complain to him, not to me.

He never said this, you're lapsing again.  He said "A porsche".
Apparently his porsche in the future.

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!
Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!
Only $14.95/ month - visit to sign up today!

Yahoo! Groups Links

Home Back to the Home of PROJECT VIXEN

Copyright 2006  All rights reserved.

Opinions expressed in posts reflect the views of their respective authors.
DMCForum Mailing List Archive  DMCNews Mailing List Archive  DMC-UK Mailing List Archive