Funny, I thought this about you. What I don't comprehend is why all disagreements in this site must develop into unpleasant confrontation.Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Clearly wimms the problems here are, you don't read what I am writing, or, it is a comprehension problem, or, you are simply ignoring the facts and fishing me
chill. We talked about torque, not tranny. Effect you implied would have to manifest with any tranny. And of course I meant manual tranny when I said clutch.I stated a car with an automatic tranny, you come back with popping the clutch stalls out the motor!
Have it occured to you, that moving 1 lbs 3M feet in one second and moving 1650 tons 1 feet has a difference?So wimms, 1 (one) horsepower equals 33,000 lbs/ft/minute, or 550 ft/lbs per second. The rails engine has 6000 HP, so 3,300,000 ft/lbs per sec, or 1650 TONS/ft/sec, or 165 tons/ft/tenth of a second.
Engines generate torque. Horsepower is product of torque and rpm:
Horsepower = Torque x 2 pi x rpm / 33000 which simplifies to:
Horsepower = Torque x rpm / 5252
Torque = Horsepower x 5252 / rpm
for 6000hp @8200rpm this is 3842 lbs.ft of torque, meaning 3842 lbs of force at arm length of 1 ft, at tangential velocity of 858ft/sec, which is achieved only at the end of drag run with chassis speed of over 200 mph. Sure, if you had gearing ratio of 858:1, you'd have 858x3842 = 3M lbs x 1ft /sec, but your gearing ratio is 3.2:1 !
So gimme a break with this 1650 TONS of lifting force. This is not heavyweight lifter crane, its a vehicle. Max HP is developed only when vehicle is speeding. At low speed you have nearly no HP, and only torque.
If you want launch forces, talk about torque. I specially searched for you and found a spec with 6,250 lbft of torque, which is more than is produced at 8200rpm, normal for any engine.
I spent time to find the calculations needed. You obviously didn't read anything. You see 6000HP -> boom - 1650 tons of lifting force.
Interesting. What is the supporting reaction force? Surely not inertia of car to acceleration, right? Some magical 'sticking' to the ground. Wheels spinning, producing 50000nm of traction torque, and for the first 10th of a second vehicle instead of accelerating, opts to spend some fun time on lifting its fronts instead.P.S. You seem to wish to use the "5 G" figure for the cars acceleration, it does not develop that 5 G immediately, first tenth of a second, but it does lift it's wheels
In first 1/10 seconds, 5Gs produces 25cm displacement. Calculate. 5Gs all the way! I can agree that 5Gs aren't achieved immediately, because of engine reving up and tires warming up, but I can't see how lifting can be independant from acceleration.
You're arguing wrong thing. So far angular moment of inertia of rear wheels haven't been discussed, but spinning up rear wheels takes considerable amount of energy. That might be your first 10th of a second you are seeking for.
English is not my language. I meant crank. If you'd not mean disrespect you'd not try to make fun of it. Or, is it that I'm having personality comprehension problem here?Sooo, PLeeease Explain to everyone here how cam radius is related to wrist pin pressure!
(Don't know much about engines do you?)