Understanding Torque Transmission in Engine Clutches

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between engine torque and the torque transmitted to the clutch, emphasizing that the torque at the clutch is calculated by subtracting the torque needed to accelerate the engine's rotating components from the total engine torque. It highlights that while the engine produces torque, some of it is consumed to overcome the inertia of its parts during acceleration, which reduces the torque available for driving the wheels. Participants clarify that this inertial loss is relevant primarily during acceleration, and once the engine parts reach a constant speed, they no longer consume torque. The conversation also distinguishes between the moment of inertia of engine components and the overall mass of the engine, noting that both contribute to power loss but in different contexts. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for optimizing engine performance and minimizing parasitic losses.
R Power
Messages
270
Reaction score
0
Hi guys
I read somewhere that "the actual torque transmitted from the engine to the clutch is the total engine torque subtacted by the amount of torque required to accelerate the inertia of rotating components of engine.i.e:"

T(c) = T(e) - [ I(e) x \alpha(e) ]

where T(c)=Torque at clutch
I(e)= inertia of rotating engine parts
\alpha(e)=angular acceleration of rotating engine parts

Can you explain this?
I mean, I(e) x alpha(e) is the amount of torque produced by engine, then why it is subtracted as inertial loss.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Hi R Power! :wink:

Total torque in = total torque out.

So torque from engine = torque taken by clutch + torque taken by engine parts.

What's worrying you about that? :smile:
 
Engine parts are producing torque or I can say engine is producing torque by moving it's parts like crankshaft, how can you write "torque taken by engine parts", it is these engine parts only which carry all the torque to transmitt it further.
 
What you're saying is true when the parts are accelerating (their rpm is increasing). If it takes 50lb-ft to accelerate the flywheel, then obviously that 50lb-ft is going to have to come from the engine, leaving less to move the wheels. The engine also has inertia, so when revving up it will use up some of its own torque. However, once the parts are up to speed and at constant rpm (such as on a highway at constant speed), then they don't take up that torque anymore, and you have more power to drive the wheels.

The engine is also one of the heaviest parts of the car, and indeed when the car is accelerating, a big chunk of its power goes into accelerating itself...
 
an engine can in fact produce torque. but...in order to produce this torque, the comonents of the engine must move. to move these parts, energy in the form of torque is required. call it parasitic drag, friction or what ever but resistance to movment is present and the rotaating and reciprocating assemblies suck off a finite amount of power (torque) in the process of producing the resultant useable torque measured at the flywheel. it si a mute point in that this is always the case and by using proper assembly proceedures one ca nmaximize the total torque and minimize the parasitic effects.
 
Lsos
Are you not confusing the moment of inertia of the rotating parts of the engine with the mass of the engine which is lumped together with the rest of the vehicle? It is only the MI which takes away some of the torque delivered to the wheels, surely.
 
No, I didn't confuse them. I know they are separate things, that's why I separated them into two paragraphs.

The first paragraph deals with moment of inertia, while the second paragraph deals with just inertia.

They are separate things, but they are, however, very similar concepts. One deals with mass spinning, the other deals with mass moving linearly...but they both deal with accelerating a mass.

The second paragraph was simply meant to show that just as much as an engine wastes power in accelerating itself linearly, it also wastes power in accelerating itself rotationally. I figured this would help make sense of the situation.
 
OK, I see what you mean.
But the linear aspect of engine acceleration has varying relevance to the discussion - particularly if we are discussing a stationary engine.:smile:
 

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top