It's more about the rpm it makes power at, you pretty much have 400 hp available to you anytime you need it.
Is More Flow Better, Is The Smallest Intake Port That Flows The Most The Best
- Thread starter 273
- Start date
-
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Oh dear. 400hp is available at all times, is it?
Please explain this to us:
How can an electric engine be rated at 1000kW regardless of RPM???
We all know 1kW = 1.34HP so how does that work?
Explain.
EDIT: It doesn't matter. We're just going around in circles now. There's nothing else I can add.
Last edited:
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Save yourself the grief. It’s a simple test to see who knows what the **** they are talking about and who doesnt.
Take all the torque you got, put the ***** in high gear and see how fast it gets moving. It will be a PIG.
Because TQ never moved anything. It’s that simple.
RPM and gearing moves the car or whatever. RPM makes horsepower.
Those who have made it to their 40’s and older who have been doing this forever and don’t get that simple concept will NEVER learn.
I give up. I hope they all build junk with a TQ curve that’s higher than the HP curve and then be disappointed in what they have.
Making it at low rpm and 13 gears available i'd say yes
Here's a dyno of an electronic motor other than a aggressive 0-3000 rpm looks no different
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Fastest accelerating production car in the world. Has one gear. I've said it already: you don't understand even basic physics.
Rimac Nevera - Wikipedia
can you explain to me why an engine making similar tq at different rpms say 500 lbs-ft @ 3500 rpm & 4500 rpm if I'm wrong it ain't per revolution and why does it make same tq and more hp at 4500 rpm and what does rpm have to do with all this?
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Oh dear. Put the car in top gear and went nowhere! Not.
Look at the dyno chart, electric engines have an aggressive power curve a car accelerates to that curve.
Horsepower and Torque curve for 2021 Rimac Nevera (aut. 1) offered since mid-year 2021 for Europe Asia worldwide
Wouldn't copy and paste.
Last edited:
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
I'm tired of explaining basic physics to people. You know the answer, I know the answer. Everything has been explained 10-fold in this thread.
A 1000kW electric engine is a simple equation that disproves your theory of time. V x A = 1000kW. No rpm, no dynos, no amount of elapsed time.
If you can't understand that potential energy exists regardless of rpm, then I really can't think of another way to explain it.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Great memes. No-one's ever used those before.
You think you have
electric engine aren't my thing I'd have to think about it. But i'm sure i'll find why it's wrong,
My first guess off the top of my head if you apply V & A and no rpm must turn to heat not saying that's right.
A gas engine no rpm no potential energy can't when no power stroke are happening and when running potential goes up with rpm cause it's displaces more fuel and air higher up in it's powerband.
I'm good leaving it here
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Mate, seriously. Heat is just a measure of energy transfer.
Potential energy is potential energy. It doesn't change. You can't create it nor destroy it – you can only transfer it or convert it to mass.
I'm not trying to be a smart-arse, I'm actually trying to help people understand why torque moves things. And I'm trying to explain to you why time doesn't matter to a potential force.
You think that because an engine only applies torque when it's running, that torque and rpm are inextricably linked – which is not the case.
I am saying that the potential for that torque already exists before it is applied. Ie; before you even start the engine.
An electric engine is a prime example of this. We already know how much torque we have before we start using it, because we know how much energy will be used. That energy is the potential force (converted to a rotational force = torque).
Is it that hard to understand?
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Look at the goal posts moving.
You‘ve got a wanker thinking he’s teaching physics. And electric motors.
Thats what wankers do when they have issues. Just to another platform.
Maybe Joey needs to start two new forums. One for electric car junk so they don’t pollute good threads and a forum just for wankers.
They can hang out there and dazzle each other with their bullshit.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
You‘re joking right? TQ without RPM does what?
Never mind. I don’t want to hear your bullshit.
Back on ignore you go with the rest of the wankers where you belong.
I know
I know
Same here lol
your wrong
This is ridiculously wrong
There's potential in splitting atoms but unless do it means nothing, just cause you got a battery hooked to an electric motor means nothing until you flip the switch. Just because you have a tank of gas and air all around your car means nothing until you start your car.
That's my question to you, obviously you have a grasp but your off on how your applying it you need to rethink everything.
How hard is it to accept that tq and rpm is what moves and accelerates a car and we call that hp ?
Last edited:
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
You were saying?
Do please put me on ignore. It's a measure of the man who can't face reality.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
The reason I can't accept it is because the greater amount of force (TQ) being applied at any given rpm will accelerate the same mass faster.
OK, my final attempt . . .
You are in a turbo-charged car and you are travelling at 100mph holding a steady 5000rpm. To go faster, do you need to increase RPM? No. You can increase boost (which increases torque) at the same RPM and now you can go faster.
In the example above, the RPM hasn't made the car go faster – the torque has. It's as simple as that. You can't say that "TQ and RPM is what moves and accelerates a car" when in this case only the TQ made the car accelerate and not the RPM.
Do you understand that bit? I take all your points, and I even said much of what you have said in my very first post that "Torque moves the car, Horsepower determines how fast it accelerates", but they are not the same thing.
We're 99.9% in agreement – I even agree with you that you can't have a rotational force (TQ) without a rotation! But force and power are not the same thing.
F=MA
P=F*v
These equations prove it. P(ower) is not F(orce). If you are not saying that, then I apologise, but it does appear to me that is what you have been saying.
Yes at any given rpm, different engine operate at different powerbands one of the reasons why we need the hp measurement in the first place.
What does more tq make at same rpm, more hp, same thing would happen if it was an NA engine with a power band that goes higher more gas more rpm with same basic torque amount possibly less, at peak hp torque is at about 90% of it's peak. Which again more hp.
In that case increased hp is what made it go faster which was done through more tq and same rpm.
Any movement has an acceleration component. Go zero to 1 mph it takes some acceleration to do that and staying at 1 mph is still distance over time.
Never said hp is force, you keep acting like tq does everything and rpm and hp play near zero roll, you don't seem to realize any movement car does powered by the engine is work and takes hp to do that work which is tq and rpm.
Last edited:
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
It's OK, I kind of figured this was going nowhere from the start.
F=MA
^ See this equation? It was written by a man far smarter than you or I.
What does it say? Does it say "Horsepower = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "RPM = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "Work = Mass x Acceleration"?
It doesn't say any of those things. You should try arguing with Sir Isaac Newton, not me.
The earth revolves around the sun – it is moving – it is not accelerating. You confuse movement with acceleration just as you confuse Force with Power.
No. Increased TQ made it go faster. HP is simply a MEASURE of the increased amount of TQ at the SAME RPM.
F=MA
^ See this equation? It was written by a man far smarter than you or I.
What does it say? Does it say "Horsepower = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "RPM = Mass x Acceleration"? Does it say "Work = Mass x Acceleration"?
It doesn't say any of those things. You should try arguing with Sir Isaac Newton, not me.
Cause when you talk tq or force your only talking about one revolution worth when i'm talking hp I'm factoring all the revolutions all the revolution of force being applied. So in other words you keep on arguing that one revolution is accelerating moving etc... I'm saying it's all of them which is hp.
If i'm wrong and torque ain't per revolution why can an engine with a fairly flat torque curve eg.. Making a 500tq at 3000 and 4000 rpm that's 12,000 & 16,000 power strokes how are they making the same torque with a difference of 4000 power strokes? We know the engine makes more power at 4000 rpm how why? Why is rpm even part of hp then ?
Last edited:
People forget what horse power actually is. It's a measure of WORK. In other words a measure of MOTION.
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Aussie Charger
Well-Known Member
Sorry. That's rocket science. If you truly believe that torque is "one power stroke" – as your signature attests – and not the force (combustion) that causes that rotation in the first place, then I can't expect you to understand rocket science. You already have combustion engines wrong.
Force and Work
If we hold a 10 lb. weight we are applying a 10 lb. force. If we move (displace) the weight a distance of 3 feet we have done work. We have done 30 lb-ft of work.Power
Power is how much work can be done in a period of time.Horsepower
The definition of 1 Horsepower is displacing 1 lb. 33,000 ft. in one minute or 33,000 lb-ft / minute.obviously force is baked into the formula
-
