ft-lb, hp...please help
#41
Most people don't realize that dyno's only measure torque...Hp is a mathematical equation...I always find it funny when someone quotes HP/torque numbers that are not possible, and anyone with a calculator can call BS.
FYI horsepower ratings are quickly becoming an "American" thing. Most of the rest of the world has dropped HP ratings on industrial engines and electric motors...they are rated in Kilowatts and even calories...but most cars are still rated in HP because it sounds "cool".
Last edited by Tom84FXST; 12-17-2011 at 08:18 AM.
#42
FYI horsepower ratings are quickly becoming an "American" thing. Most of the rest of the world has dropped HP ratings on industrial engines and electric motors...they are rated in Kilowatts and even calories...but most cars are still rated in HP because it sounds "cool".
Power is power no matter what units you measure it in.
1 HP = 0.745699872 kilowatts
#43
Well, your statement "Horsepower is nothing but a numerical representaton of force being applied over distance and time, or work being done" is absolutely correct, and also proves you wrong on two counts. The "force" you are referring to is rotational force or torque. That's what you feel - not horsepower. And, just as you said, horsepower is the rate at which work is done. You can NOT feel work. The only thing you can actually feel is the applied force (torque) that causes work to happen. That being said, I stand by my original statement.
Oh, I just thought of an example that we use when we teach the difference between applied force and work. If you push on a wall with your arms, you can feel the force you are applying to the wall in your arms. However, the wall isn't going to move so there is no work performed. If no work is performed the only thing you can possibly feel is the force you've applied to the wall.
Oh, I just thought of an example that we use when we teach the difference between applied force and work. If you push on a wall with your arms, you can feel the force you are applying to the wall in your arms. However, the wall isn't going to move so there is no work performed. If no work is performed the only thing you can possibly feel is the force you've applied to the wall.
#44
I'll be the black sheep in the family here--the 1982 Kawasaki KZ1100cc offered around 110 hp w/ 135 ft-lb of torque (please quit sayin lb-ft). That makes it the strongest of any engine at its time--overall--period. Many tried & failed, miserably. Something to note here--see the ft-lb it is well above the hp--slightly different than many engines? Well, if i were a gambling man I'd suppose I could take it (hp) over the torque, considering many high hp engines.
Post a dyno of the KZ1100cc vs. a bike that's putting out 150whp and 135ft/lb.
#45
The other issue that becomes a problem with higher speed operation is breathing. Getting fuel and air into the engine and exhaust out of it. A four valve per cyl engine will breath a lot better than a 2 valve per cyl. engine. Also the valve area/displacement ratio is another way to look at the same problem. A 1000cc 4 cyl. engine with 16valves is going to have a higher ratio and therefore breath better than a 1000cc 2 cyl. engine with 8 valves. This is why you see 8 and 10 cyl engines in formula one which has a 2400cc displacement limit.
Finally higher speed operation generates more heat which necessitates water cooling to maintain durability/longevity.
Last edited by fat_tony; 12-19-2011 at 08:01 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
balanced, convert, crank, davidson, difference, engine, ft, ftlb, harley, hp, lb, methodj1349, testing, torque, unbalanced