Max Force from a Car: Decoding the Limits of Torque and Final Drive Ratio

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tiiba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Car Force Max
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the maximum force a car can generate, focusing on the interplay between torque, gear ratios, and real-world performance metrics. Participants explore theoretical calculations versus actual performance, considering factors like acceleration and dynamic behavior of vehicles.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant attempts to calculate maximum force using torque, gear ratios, and tire dimensions but questions the accuracy of their results.
  • Another participant agrees with the general approach but clarifies that maximum torque should be calculated using first gear and axle ratios, suggesting a different torque value at the wheels.
  • Concerns are raised about the simplification of acceleration calculations, noting that the acceleration curve is not constant and varies during a car's performance.
  • A participant references the performance metrics of top-fuel dragsters as a potential source of maximum force data, indicating a lack of readily available information.
  • Another participant highlights the distinction between the direction of acceleration and gravitational force, suggesting a more complex interaction in calculating performance metrics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the calculations and assumptions regarding torque and acceleration. There is no consensus on the correct approach or final values, indicating ongoing debate and exploration of the topic.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential misunderstandings of gear ratios, the impact of dynamic forces during acceleration, and the reliance on simplified equations that may not capture the full complexity of vehicle performance.

Tiiba
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I tried to figure out the absolute maximum force that a car can create. But the numbers I got are obviously wrong.

I started by trying it on the http://www.supercars.net/cars/1177.html" . Torque is 649.4 Nm. First gear is 3.23. Then there's a "final drive ratio" of 2.37. I thought that this is first gear multiplied by the rear differential, and should be around 10. So I decided that this is the rear differential, and got a product of 7.6551. So the torque at the axle is 649.4*7.6551 = 4971.22194. Given a tire diameter of .315*.9 m + 17 in = 0.7153 meters, this means a force of 4971.22194 / 0.7153 = 6949.84194 N.

But!

"(60 mph) / gravity on Earth = 2.73512362 seconds" - Google. F1 has a 0-60 of 3.2, giving 0.854726131 g. That by the mass of 1140 gives a force of 974.38779 kgf, or 9555.48002 N

So, the theoretical force is 6949.84194, and the real is at least 9555.48002. Probably more, because the car can't be at peak torque the whole time. That is impossible.

What did I do wrong? My guess is that it has to do with the final drive thing. Or maybe I left something out, like bore and stroke. I don't know what I need to do with them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Engineering news on Phys.org
Well, you're baically correct in your calculations, peak torque in the engine multiplied by the transmission and axle ratios should give you the maximum torque at the wheels. This would be the torque at a fleeting moment in time if the car was driving such that the engine is putting out maximum torque but the engine is not accelerating.

EDIT: I just realized because the final drive ratio is the TALLEST gear multiplied by the axle ratio... maximum torque would have to be first gear multiplied by the axle ratio. It looks like the car's axle ratio is 2.55 if you take the final drive divided by 6th gear, so you maximum torque ratio would be 3.23*2.55=8.23; giving you a maximum torque of 5350 N-m... taking 5350 N-m divided by the rear tire radius (not diameter) gives you about 14,960 N.

The basic problem is that looking at the peak torque and horsepower for the engine can't give you the whole picture of the accelerating car. For starters, the acceleration curve of a car going from zero to sixty is not a flat line, but your calculation of the car's acceleration assumes it is.

The same problem is run into from a conservation of energy standpoint. The McLaren can do 0-60 mph in 3.2s so that means if we divide its kinetic energy at 60 mph by the total time taken to get there we should get the average power output from the engine for that run. Problem is, this gives you an average of 171.8 hp, far short of the McLaren's peak horsepower output...

Basically, there are far too many dynamic issues in an accelerating car to solve for using simple equations.
 
Last edited:
"radius (not diameter)"

Aaaah.
 
I remember an incredible e-mail that a racing friend sent me a while back. It was the numbers for power, torque, acceleration, fuel consumption, etc. for top-fuel dragsters. Unbelievable. So if you want to know the max that you can get, look into the numbers for top-fuel dragsters.

I tried a little googling to see if I could find the info, but didn't exactly find it in my brief search. Did find this interesting article about torque and horsepower for cars and dragsters at Yahoo answers, though:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070701151309AATLWgi

And this dragstrip ET extimation calculator:

http://www.performancesimulations.com/
 
Tiiba said:
"(60 mph) / gravity on Earth = 2.73512362 seconds"

Google. F1 has a 0-60 of 3.2, giving 0.854726131 g.

60 mph is attained in X direction, 'g' acts in negative Y direction.
Taking m~1200kg and force~7000, acceleration is (7000/1200)
Now apply (Final velocity/Acceleration in the direction of motion) = Time.

And the downward acc is far more greater than 1g for a formula car
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
36
Views
12K
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
9K