Author Topic: torque vs. HP  (Read 24973 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline paulages

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,876
  • 1976 cb735
    • DOOMTOWN RIDERS P.R.M.C.
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #25 on: September 22, 2009, 10:48:31 PM »
thanks soichiro! it helps me a lot to have the math explained so well, actually. i've always found that grasping abstract equations is much harder than when you understand why the equation works.

i think you made a mistake though, highlighted in red:

"power = work/time                          : start with the definition
         = force*distance/time              : replace work with its definition
         = force*(2*pi*radius)*RPS        : distance is the circumference of our wheel, time in RPS
         = force*(2*pi*radius)*(RPM/60) : convert RPS to RPM
         = force*radius*RPM*(2*pi/60)   : rearrange
         = torque*RPM*(2*pi/60)           : torque=force*radius"
paul
SOHC4 member #1050

1974 CB550 (735cc)
1976 CB550 (590cc) road racer
1973 CB750K3
1972 NORTON Commando Combat
1996 KLX650 R

Offline Joksa

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #26 on: September 23, 2009, 03:36:36 AM »
We shouldn't forget the transmission. Torque on the output shaft does not motivate the vehicle, but the torque at wheels. Basically more HP means more torque at wheel. On a single gear the vehicle accelerates fastest at torque peak.

Offline mlinder

  • "Kitten Puncher"
  • Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,013
  • Stop Global Tilting now!
    • Moto Northwest
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #27 on: September 23, 2009, 09:12:35 AM »
Simply put, again, torque is how much force is being exerted at a given time. Horsepower is how often that force is being applied.
No.


Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #28 on: September 23, 2009, 09:20:56 AM »
But, they are both happening at the same time..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline mlinder

  • "Kitten Puncher"
  • Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,013
  • Stop Global Tilting now!
    • Moto Northwest
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #29 on: September 23, 2009, 09:45:40 AM »
But, they are both happening at the same time..
Yes, of course... your point?
No.


Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #30 on: September 23, 2009, 10:06:51 AM »
I have no point in that post, just mentioning that both happen the whole time it is running, so I am not getting the explanation.

 Keep in mind tho, that it is a combo of torque & hp that gets the job done..
 if you think you wil embarass a 100hp vtwin with a 120hp 4, you may be in for a surprise.. in a top gear roll on at hiway speeds, hp will not pull you thru..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline mlinder

  • "Kitten Puncher"
  • Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,013
  • Stop Global Tilting now!
    • Moto Northwest
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #31 on: September 23, 2009, 10:13:01 AM »
I have no point in that post, just mentioning that both happen the whole time it is running, so I am not getting the explanation.

 Keep in mind tho, that it is a combo of torque & hp that gets the job done..
 if you think you wil embarass a 100hp vtwin with a 120hp 4, you may be in for a surprise.. in a top gear roll on at hiway speeds, hp will not pull you thru..

That's because at a top gear roll on from 60, a 120hp 4 is sandbagging, way down it's power curve. A 120hp 4 is around 3 or 4 grand in 6th at 60... at 1/4 of it's max RPM.
a 100hp twin is around half it's max rpm, already IN it's powerband. You can't use this as a comparison.
Fact is, if the 4 is near it's peak curve (this is where the gearbox comes into play...), the 4 will walk away from the twin in the roll on.


All you are saying is that an engine operating near it's peak power band will accelerate faster than a bike operating far below it's powerband. That's a given. It's not a valid comparison.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 10:16:07 AM by mlinder »
No.


Offline Joel

  • Hot Shot
  • ***
  • Posts: 718
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #32 on: September 23, 2009, 12:31:19 PM »
Simply put, again, torque is how much force is being exerted at a given time. Horsepower is how often that force is being applied.

HP isn't how often.  It's how much per unit of time.

Offline mlinder

  • "Kitten Puncher"
  • Moderator
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,013
  • Stop Global Tilting now!
    • Moto Northwest
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2009, 12:41:40 PM »
Simply put, again, torque is how much force is being exerted at a given time. Horsepower is how often that force is being applied.

HP isn't how often.  It's how much per unit of time.

Uh, those are the same things.... towards what I meant, anyway. Trying to keep this simple.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 12:45:35 PM by mlinder »
No.


Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2009, 02:38:09 PM »
thanks soichiro! it helps me a lot to have the math explained so well, actually. i've always found that grasping abstract equations is much harder than when you understand why the equation works.

i think you made a mistake though, highlighted in red:

"power = work/time                          : start with the definition
         = force*distance/time              : replace work with its definition
         = force*(2*pi*radius)*RPS        : distance is the circumference of our wheel, time in RPS
         = force*(2*pi*radius)*(RPM/60) : convert RPS to RPM
         = force*radius*RPM*(2*pi/60)   : rearrange
         = torque*RPM*(2*pi/60)           : torque=force*radius"


Hi Paulages,
No mistake.  60 seconds in a minute.  So 60*RPS=RPM.  Solving for RPS gives RPS=RPM/60.  Since our gauges read RPM and not RPS, I replaced RPS with its equivalent (RPM/60).

Anyway, I hope the previous spiel helped.  I was thinking about your friend's argument.  Maybe it's just his experience that hp always falls off with torque for the engines he's put on the dyno...?  But either way, it's the power that governs the acceleration, so that is the quantity we want to maximize.  And power comes from the combination of torque and RPM.  So if you want high acceleration at low RPM, then to maximize the power you need to maximize the torque (because the RPM is low). 
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline Joksa

  • Enthusiast
  • **
  • Posts: 196
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2009, 03:03:32 PM »
Unfortunately it seems that v8914.com I was earlier referring to is down at the moment, but google have cached it.

Quote from: www.v8914.com/Horsepower-v-torque.htm
back to question in hand 'which is king' Torque or Horsepower?

Well the question is in fact a non-starter, as stated, torque means absolutely nothing without rpm, so you cannot compare the two.
It's like saying which is faster 100miles or 100mph WTF! Dumb question hey?

An excellent analogy I've seen on the web is the Waterwheel that produces 2600 lbf-ft of torque, that's impressive, if we connected the water wheel up the wheels of a car then we could shoot up to 60mph in a flash, without the Waterwheel noticing. Wrong! Back to gearing again, the ratio required to spin the wheels at 60mph would leave us with 43 lbf-ft of torque at the wheels, which equates to 6hp!

Answer: Horsepower is King! (the more horsepower the more torqueat the wheel )


Offline paulages

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,876
  • 1976 cb735
    • DOOMTOWN RIDERS P.R.M.C.
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2009, 06:45:27 PM »
Gotcha soichiro- I was just thinking about what you wrote wrong.

Maybe you can provide numbers for the "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" question. I get it, as RPM is always increasing at the moment torque peaks (and therefore more power is made at least for a short part of the curve past peak torque), but like to see it written mathematically. I plugged some random numbers in to find limits, but that's a pretty backwards approach.
paul
SOHC4 member #1050

1974 CB550 (735cc)
1976 CB550 (590cc) road racer
1973 CB750K3
1972 NORTON Commando Combat
1996 KLX650 R

Offline myhondas

  • Not really such a
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,439
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2009, 06:56:32 PM »
Put my 750K4 on a dyno a few weeks ago and this is what it did.





if you cant see it you can make your browser zoom in .
1974 CB 750 K4 SHOWROOM
1974 CB 750 K4 IN PART-OUT PROCESS (my original bike)
1965 C100 CUB 50 (PIT BIKE)
1996 VF 750 CD daily rider
1983 VF 1100 V65 Magna in restoration process
SOHC# 5105 11228

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2009, 07:03:19 PM »
Sure it's been posted before, but please read:
http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html


A word of caution about this article.  It's actually 3 articles.  The first one is misleading, but the second one addresses what is wrong with the first.  I say this because it's pretty long, and if someone just reads the first and skips the rest they will be left with false ideas about torque and power.  If anything, start with the second one.
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2009, 07:16:14 PM »
my browser cant zoom in, it nearly useless.
..................................................................................
 paul, I get lost always, on certain parts if this discussion..

 so I will try to stay out a bit

.. just want to put forth what I learned over the years, which is mostly  my personal feeling..

 .. I am (Now) more inclined to build an engine more for torque, at the expense of a bit more  HP. Simple reason.. unless I spend a significant amount of time at the track, ie most of the time.. I will get more use  out of torque (and be legal while using it), than I will out of HP...Right now I have a pretty good combo that pulls harder thru midrange than most 4s ever will, and it been a lot of fun.. pulls similar (off low rpms)to an early Ducati  monster.. try that with most 4s.

  I figure I may as well enjoy the characteristics of a single cam 2 valve motor, that I probably wont get, out of a "modern" four, and be able to tour on it as well...  as long as we all have fun, and get out of it what pleases us.. its all good..i am thinking.. ;)

 I have had a sohc 4 since 74, got no desire to ride a no-kicker bike, had 2 great rides in the last few years, on sohc 750,s.. which all seems to reinforce that it is probably  THE bike I will ride most of the rest of my life .. its been 1/3 century already..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2009, 08:37:58 PM »
Maybe you can provide numbers for the "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" question. I get it, as RPM is always increasing at the moment torque peaks (and therefore more power is made at least for a short part of the curve past peak torque), but like to see it written mathematically. I plugged some random numbers in to find limits, but that's a pretty backwards approach.


I think you have the right idea.  On the dyno graphs, RPM is always plotted on the horizontal x-axis (and torque or hp on the vertical y-axis).  The 'after' in the question "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" means higher RPM.  Okay.  It's late, and I can tell the more I try to explain it in words, the more confusing it'll sound (perhaps I'll try to explain it in words tomorrow).



But anyway, here's the math...

First a little calculus tutorial:
A derivative is a measure of the rate of change of a quantity.  The derivative of a function f with respect to some quantity x is a measure of the rate that the quantity f changes with respect to the quantity x, and is written as df/dx.  Here is the important part for this discussion; the derivative is either positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing at all).  (We will use this fact later.)

All right.  We have a function (equation) for the horsepower:

hp = torque*RPM/5252

To make this function looks 'nicer,' let me write it as

h = T*x/c

where h = horsepower,
         x = RPM,
         T = torque, and
         c = 5252.

Now, bear with me...
let's take the derivative of h with respect to x (in other words, we ask, how does hp change with respect to RPM):

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

To get that, I had to use calculus, and something called a "product rule."  (Anyone interested can find these differentiation rules in any first-semester calculus text.)

Okay... remember when I said that a derivative is either positive, negative, or zero...
it turns out that when it is 0, it is at either its maximum or its minimum.  One quick look at myhondas' graphs (or anyone else's) and we see that it would be a maximum (i.e., where it rises, just levels off, and starts to turn down).  We could justify that it's the maximum (as opposed to the minimum) with a little more math, but we might as well use common sense to spare us the work.  So when the derivative is zero, it's at its max (another important fact we'll use later).

All right.  Either I'm getting rusty, or the above equation, when equated to zero, becomes a complicated differential equation that seems hard to solve.  My hunch is that I'm rusty.  But it turns out with a little cleverness we can avoid that.  Let's look at the equation again:

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

What happens when the torque (T) is at its max.  Remember, when it's at its max, its derivative is zero (dT/dx=0).  So let's plug that in the equation above and see what we get:

dh/dx = (x*0 + T)/c = (0 + T)/c = T/c, or simply

dh/dx =  T/c.

This tells us what the horsepower (h) is doing with respect to the RPM (x) when the torque (T) is at its max (and remember 'c' is just 5252).  

Ahah!  
Remember what I said about derivatives?  
Is dh/dx positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing)?  

The torque (T) is at its max (hence, a positive number), and c is just 5252 (also a positive number), and thus T/c is positive, which means dh/dx is positive (and remember, dh/dx is the rate of change of horsepower with respect to RPM).  




So when the torque is max, the horsepower is increasing (its derivative is positive), which means that it must peak after the torque peaks.


Whew!   :)

« Last Edit: September 23, 2009, 08:44:55 PM by soichiro »
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline moham

  • .fnord.
  • Expert
  • ****
  • Posts: 1,108
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2009, 08:46:57 PM »
Maybe you can provide numbers for the "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" question. I get it, as RPM is always increasing at the moment torque peaks (and therefore more power is made at least for a short part of the curve past peak torque), but like to see it written mathematically. I plugged some random numbers in to find limits, but that's a pretty backwards approach.


I think you have the right idea.  On the dyno graphs, RPM is always plotted on the horizontal x-axis (and torque or hp on the vertical y-axis).  The 'after' in the question "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" means higher RPM.  Okay.  It's late, and I can tell the more I try to explain it in words, the more confusing it'll sound (perhaps I'll try to explain it in words tomorrow).



But anyway, here's the math...

First a little calculus tutorial:
A derivative is a measure of the rate of change of a quantity.  The derivative of a function f with respect to some quantity x is a measure of the rate that the quantity f changes with respect to the quantity x, and is written as df/dx.  Here is the important part for this discussion; the derivative is either positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing at all).  (We will use this fact later.)

All right.  We have a function (equation) for the horsepower:

hp = torque*RPM/5252

To make this function looks 'nicer,' let me write it as

h = T*x/c

where h = horsepower,
         x = RPM,
         T = torque, and
         c = 5252.

Now, bear with me...
let's take the derivative of h with respect to x (in other words, we ask, how does hp change with respect to RPM):

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

To get that, I had to use calculus, and something called a "product rule."  (Anyone interested can find these differentiation rules in any first-semester calculus text.)

Okay... remember when I said that a derivative is either positive, negative, or zero...
it turns out that when it is 0, it is at either its maximum or its minimum.  One quick look at myhondas' graphs (or anyone else's) and we see that it would be a maximum (i.e., where it rises, just levels off, and starts to turn down).  We could justify that it's the maximum (as opposed to the minimum) with a little more math, but we might as well use common sense to spare us the work.  So when the derivative is zero, it's at its max (another important fact we'll use later).

All right.  Either I'm getting rusty, or the above equation, when equated to zero, becomes a complicated differential equation that seems hard to solve.  My hunch is that I'm rusty.  But it turns out with a little cleverness we can avoid that.  Let's look at the equation again:

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

What happens when the torque (T) is at its max.  Remember, when it's at its max, its derivative is zero (dT/dx=0).  So let's plug that in the equation above and see what we get:

dh/dx = (x*0 + T)/c = (0 + T)/c = T/c, or simply

dh/dx =  T/c.

This tells us what the horsepower (h) is doing with respect to the RPM (x) when the torque (T) is at its max (and remember 'c' is just 5252). 

Ahah! 
Remember what I said about derivatives? 
Is dh/dx positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing)? 

The torque (T) is at its max (hence, a positive number), and c is just 5252 (also a positive number), and thus T/c is positive, which means dh/dx is positive (and remember, dh/dx is the rate of change of horsepower with respect to RPM). 




So when the torque is max, the horsepower is increasing, which means that it must peak after the torque peaks.


Whew!   :)





Man, I was really hoping to see pi in there somewhere. I mean, who doesn't love pi?
78 750K-The Ocho
74 550-The Cherry Picker
70 750K0 motor-Dick in a Box

Offline paulages

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,876
  • 1976 cb735
    • DOOMTOWN RIDERS P.R.M.C.
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2009, 09:27:13 PM »
Cherry pi?  ;D

Soichiro- thanks again!  It seems like you mathmatically described what seemed common sensical to me. Maybe we should make another attempt at translating this stuff to the mathematically challenged.  ::)
paul
SOHC4 member #1050

1974 CB550 (735cc)
1976 CB550 (590cc) road racer
1973 CB750K3
1972 NORTON Commando Combat
1996 KLX650 R

Offline sangyo soichiro

  • Tuck
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,167
  • ☢ the atomic playboy ☠
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2009, 02:06:01 PM »
Maybe you can provide numbers for the "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" question. I get it, as RPM is always increasing at the moment torque peaks (and therefore more power is made at least for a short part of the curve past peak torque), but like to see it written mathematically. I plugged some random numbers in to find limits, but that's a pretty backwards approach.


I think you have the right idea.  On the dyno graphs, RPM is always plotted on the horizontal x-axis (and torque or hp on the vertical y-axis).  The 'after' in the question "why peak torque can never appear after peak HP" means higher RPM.  Okay.  It's late, and I can tell the more I try to explain it in words, the more confusing it'll sound (perhaps I'll try to explain it in words tomorrow).



But anyway, here's the math...

First a little calculus tutorial:
A derivative is a measure of the rate of change of a quantity.  The derivative of a function f with respect to some quantity x is a measure of the rate that the quantity f changes with respect to the quantity x, and is written as df/dx.  Here is the important part for this discussion; the derivative is either positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing at all).  (We will use this fact later.)

All right.  We have a function (equation) for the horsepower:

hp = torque*RPM/5252

To make this function looks 'nicer,' let me write it as

h = T*x/c

where h = horsepower,
         x = RPM,
         T = torque, and
         c = 5252.

Now, bear with me...
let's take the derivative of h with respect to x (in other words, we ask, how does hp change with respect to RPM):

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

To get that, I had to use calculus, and something called a "product rule."  (Anyone interested can find these differentiation rules in any first-semester calculus text.)

Okay... remember when I said that a derivative is either positive, negative, or zero...
it turns out that when it is 0, it is at either its maximum or its minimum.  One quick look at myhondas' graphs (or anyone else's) and we see that it would be a maximum (i.e., where it rises, just levels off, and starts to turn down).  We could justify that it's the maximum (as opposed to the minimum) with a little more math, but we might as well use common sense to spare us the work.  So when the derivative is zero, it's at its max (another important fact we'll use later).

All right.  Either I'm getting rusty, or the above equation, when equated to zero, becomes a complicated differential equation that seems hard to solve.  My hunch is that I'm rusty.  But it turns out with a little cleverness we can avoid that.  Let's look at the equation again:

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

What happens when the torque (T) is at its max.  Remember, when it's at its max, its derivative is zero (dT/dx=0).  So let's plug that in the equation above and see what we get:

dh/dx = (x*0 + T)/c = (0 + T)/c = T/c, or simply

dh/dx =  T/c.

This tells us what the horsepower (h) is doing with respect to the RPM (x) when the torque (T) is at its max (and remember 'c' is just 5252).  

Ahah!  
Remember what I said about derivatives?  
Is dh/dx positive (increasing), negative (decreasing), or zero (not changing)?  

The torque (T) is at its max (hence, a positive number), and c is just 5252 (also a positive number), and thus T/c is positive, which means dh/dx is positive (and remember, dh/dx is the rate of change of horsepower with respect to RPM).  




So when the torque is max, the horsepower is increasing (its derivative is positive), which means that it must peak after the torque peaks.


Whew!   :)




I was thinking about this some more.  Another way to see it is this:

Going back to this equation

dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c

Remember, this equation describes how horsepower (h) changes with respect to RPM (x).  It is the derivative of hp with respect to RPM.  Also recall that it gives the maximum when this equation is equal to zero (i.e., hp is at a maximum when this equation equals zero): dh/dx = (x*dT/dx + T)/c = 0.

This can only equal zero if

x*dT/dx + T = 0.

So hp is at a maximum when x*dT/dx = -T.

Notice the negative in front of the T.  x is the RPM, and is always positive, so for x*dT/dx to be negative, dT/dx must be negative.  But dT/dx is the rate of change of torque with respect to RPM.  This can only be negative if the torque has already peaked and is coming back down.  

So that is another way to see that hp peaks after the torque has peaked.



But...
The above results are clearly true if torque and hp increase somewhat smoothly to only one peak for each (see first graph below).  In mathematical terms, it is said that the functions increase to the peak monotonically.

If, on the other hand, the torque and hp increase, then come down a bit, increase some more, then back down, then increase again (see second graph below), then it is not as clear that the above results are true (i.e., that hp peaks after torque).  Sure, hp always has a peak after the corresponding torque peak, but it is not clear that the absolute maximum of hp is peaked after the absolute maximum of torque (see this link again about 'global' and 'local' maxima).

My hunch is that it is absolutely true that hp peaks after torque (and is definitely true if the graphs only have one peak), but it will take a little more work to show the general case mathematically.  

Below is a dyno run with only one peak (the choppy stuff at the high RPM is instrumental noise, not a bunch of peaks).  The light gray line is torque, the black line is hp.




Here is one where there are several local maxima.  Light gray is hp, black is torque (reverse of the color scheme of the other plot).  It looks like hp peaks just after torque for each local maxima.  The first peak and last peak look pretty close though.




[Edit:] Notice on both graphs the hp and torque cross at 5252 RPM.  This will always happen when torque is in ft*lb and power in hp.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2009, 04:20:39 PM by soichiro »
1974 CB 750
1972 CB 750 http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,57974.0.html
1971 CL 350 Scrambler
1966 Black Bomber
Too many others to name…
My cross country trip: http://forums.sohc4.net/index.php/topic,138625.0.html

Offline Really?

  • I've come to the conclusion that I AM a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,269
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2009, 05:13:06 PM »
horsepower is how fast you are going when you hit the wall. torque is how far you take the wall with you after you hit it

too much hp makes you crash into a wall.
torque is related to how hard the impact is.

mec

I will go with these. Less strain on the brain!
I don't have a motorcycle, sold it ('85 Yamaha Venture Royale).  Haven't had a CB750 for over 40 years.

The Wife's Bike - 750K5
The Kid's Bike - 750K3

Offline paulages

  • Old Timer
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,876
  • 1976 cb735
    • DOOMTOWN RIDERS P.R.M.C.
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #45 on: September 25, 2009, 12:34:27 AM »
horsepower is how fast you are going when you hit the wall. torque is how far you take the wall with you after you hit it

too much hp makes you crash into a wall.
torque is related to how hard the impact is.

mec


I will go with these. Less strain on the brain!

...not really a good analogy, as speed (inertia) has everything to with "how hard you hit the wall." maybe this is better: think about pulling a breaker bar really hard on a stuck bolt. think of that force is torque. HP is if you could keep applying that same force to the breaker bar once it breaks, and measured over time. in real life you stop pushing so hard once the bolt comes loose, but the pistons don't.
paul
SOHC4 member #1050

1974 CB550 (735cc)
1976 CB550 (590cc) road racer
1973 CB750K3
1972 NORTON Commando Combat
1996 KLX650 R

Offline 754

  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 29,058
Re: torque vs. HP
« Reply #46 on: September 25, 2009, 08:07:27 AM »
I gave up on the math, or rather did not even look at it..

 Its a bit like compression readings.. do you have more than before.. thats a good thing.

 As far as what the other guys have, numbers dont matter, what happens on the track does..


 Consider this..
 you have a Sportster 1200cc with a 100 hp at rear wheel.
 and a CB 750 1000cc with 115 hp at the rear wheel..

 given that both bikes are set up for 1/4 mile, have decent clutches and good riders..same reaction time.. for arguments sake.. same (experienced)rider on each.

 Which (do you think) will win in a 1/4 mile race, and why?

 Its not a trick question, but it illustrates a point..
Maker of the WELDLESS 750 Frame Kit
dodogas99@gmail.com
Kelowna B.C.       Canada

My next bike will be a ..ANFOB.....

It's All part of the ADVENTURE...

73 836cc.. Green, had it for 3 decades!!
Lost quite a few CB 750's along the way

Offline kslrr

  • There is always a Blaster when there is a
  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,542
  • Raising her up right!
Re: torque vs. HP
« Reply #47 on: September 25, 2009, 08:20:39 AM »
I would say that the Sportster gets the hole shot due to torque advantage and the CB750 wins on the big end due to HP advantage (i.e. higher revs).
Now  1972 CB350FX (experimental v2.0)
        1981 CB650c Custom with '79 engine (wifes)
        1981 CB650 engine
        2004 HD XL883C Custom
        1977 Yamaha XS750D (in progress)
Then 1972 CL175
        1964 Yamaha YGS-1T
No ride is a Bad ride

Offline kenolds

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Before the Dismantle
Re: torque vs. HP
« Reply #48 on: September 25, 2009, 11:20:43 AM »
What about comparing the area under the torque curve taken over the used RPM range?  I have heard this is the best way to compare two different engines...  Anyone...

They make pretty accurate computer programs that will tell you an E/T if you input all of the relevant info like mass, overall gearing, time lapse to shift gears, torque curve, aerodynamic drag, etc.

Kenolds
Parts, Parts, Everywhere - But Not A Bike To Ride.

Offline Really?

  • I've come to the conclusion that I AM a
  • Really Old Timer ...
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,269
Re: torque vs. RPM
« Reply #49 on: September 25, 2009, 11:34:24 AM »
horsepower is how fast you are going when you hit the wall. torque is how far you take the wall with you after you hit it

too much hp makes you crash into a wall.
torque is related to how hard the impact is.

mec


I will go with these. Less strain on the brain!

...not really a good analogy, as speed (inertia) has everything to with "how hard you hit the wall." maybe this is better: think about pulling a breaker bar really hard on a stuck bolt. think of that force is torque. HP is if you could keep applying that same force to the breaker bar once it breaks, and measured over time. in real life you stop pushing so hard once the bolt comes loose, but the pistons don't.

Well, I am having focus issues so the shorter and less involved it is, the better I is.  I am on pain killers, muscle relaxers and steroids.  I have about 6 bulged discs in my spine.  This is some goood stuff!  Well, the meds are, lol.
I don't have a motorcycle, sold it ('85 Yamaha Venture Royale).  Haven't had a CB750 for over 40 years.

The Wife's Bike - 750K5
The Kid's Bike - 750K3