[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Can you please explain your physics to me.

Mine goes like this.

800 HP @ 6500 = 646.4 torque

800 HP @ 9500 = 442.2736842105263 torque

What is important is what we can delivery to wheel to accelerate the car.

9500 / 6500 = 1.461538461538461

1.461538461538461 * 442.2736842105263 = 646.3999999999997

So at 6500 axle RPM they both produce torque of 646.4

Now if you want to talk about 2 engines producing the same torque but at different RPM you are on to something.

Stan

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

Mike,
Thank you for your reply. It shows your clear ignorance of the laws of physics and the relationship between between HP, RPM and torque. Also stop swinging from Jack's balls and put away your clear CV-1 BS. While I did not do the Photoragphy, they did have my name so it could be listed in the article. I have no head preference, but I post up a response when people like you post up BS about someone's product.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Thank you for your reply. It shows your clear ignorance of the laws of physics and the relationship between between HP, RPM and torque. Also stop swinging from Jack's balls and put away your clear CV-1 BS. While I did not do the Photoragphy, they did have my name so it could be listed in the article. I have no head preference, but I post up a response when people like you post up BS about someone's product.

Stan

You sir are lost on the reality of the topic. If you truly believe its the same you are lost on practical application of physics. Matters not how great you are at designing simulators. I understand all about how the horsepower is calculated and torque is measured. You aren't the only one with an engineering background. The NUMBER is the same, not the usable power when applied over seconds of the engine running and doing work. If your point is valid then why do all engine builders in corporate a higher rpm into their engine designs when trying to improve or maximize et potential in a vehicle? So they can spend more money and increase the work load on parts only to achieve the same results. I'm not ignorant of physics at all Stan, but if you think that saying that makes it so then I understand why you think what you do about this any many other subjects.
As far as swinging from jack. I do t think anybody does that. I think jacks upgrades will take some trial and error to achieve the results he expects. And I'm not and never have bashed a product.... Just the nut swingers that all jump on the band wagon for emotional reasons. Sorry you fit right in with the group. Feel free to help an na car of similar weight and your beloved c 1 wool my a$$. I'll accept defeat with grace.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

You sir are lost on the reality of the topic. If you truly believe its the same you are lost on practical application of physics. Matters not how great you are at designing simulators. I understand all about how the horsepower is calculated and torque is measured. You aren't the only one with an engineering background. The NUMBER is the same, not the usable power when applied over seconds of the engine running and doing work. If your point is valid then why do all engine builders in corporate a higher rpm into their engine designs when trying to improve or maximize et potential in a vehicle? So they can spend more money and increase the work load on parts only to achieve the same results. I'm not ignorant of physics at all Stan, but if you think that saying that makes it so then I understand why you think what you do about this any many other subjects.
As far as swinging from jack. I do t think anybody does that. I think jacks upgrades will take some trial and error to achieve the results he expects. And I'm not and never have bashed a product.... Just the nut swingers that all jump on the band wagon for emotional reasons. Sorry you fit right in with the group. Feel free to help an na car of similar weight and your beloved c 1 wool my a$$. I'll accept defeat with grace.

Why are the Pickett's running a 428 ci engine and shifting at 10000 plus RPM?

Oh Oh Oh Oh I know. They want to run Tom's race.

Which is based on Pounds per Cubic Inches

Stan

PS - So you are Ass hurt by CV-1s

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Why are the Pickett's running a 428 ci engine and shifting at 10000 plus RPM?

Oh Oh Oh Oh I know. They want to run Tom's race.

Which is based on Pounds per Cubic Inches

Stan

PS - So you are Ass hurt by CV-1s

Are you serious? Riddle me this riddle me that,Stan just had a SMART ATTACK!

So if the Pickets had a choice to make as much as they could with the inches they chose to make weight with. Why run it to 10000 rpm? It makes like 920, it was likely possible To do that at a lower rpm. Why would they want to run that rpm Stan? They did not want to run the race they wanted to win it!

Are you trying to make my point?

The only a$$ hurt I have regarding cv1s is sore gluteus muscles from having it work my foot back out of there a$$. It took a little to extract it after I was able to finally get my foot outa the shoe. Keep to shoe.

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Are you serious? Riddle me this riddle me that,Stan just had a SMART ATTACK!

So if the Pickets had a choice to make as much as they could with the inches they chose to make weight with. Why run it to 10000 rpm? It makes like 920, it was likely possible To do that at a lower rpm. Why would they want to run that rpm Stan? They did not want to run the race they wanted to win it!

Are you trying to make my point?

The only a$$ hurt I have regarding cv1s is sore gluteus muscles from having it work my foot back out of there a$$. It took a little to extract it after I was able to finally get my foot outa the shoe. Keep to shoe.

Mike,
Since you are the smart one here. Why don't you show KRE and the Pickett's how to make the same HP at a lower RPM with the same cubic inches. I am sure that they would appreciate the help and the money saved. There is no question more power cycles (RPM) and more mass flow makes more HP no one was question that. 800 HP @ 6500 vs 800 HP @ 9500 was the discussion and no where's did cubic inches or car weight come into the discussion.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
Since you are the smart one here. Why don't you show KRE and the Pickett's how to make the same HP at a lower RPM with the same cubic inches. I am sure that they would appreciate the help and the money saved. There is no question more power cycles (RPM) and more mass flow makes more HP no one was question that. 800 HP @ 6500 vs 800 HP @ 9500 was the discussion and no where's did cubic inches or car weight come into the discussion.

Stan

You are the one who brought their CID and tried to divert the conversation to axle torque instead of usable power and its application.

2 DOUBLE FACE PALMs. Two for Stan and two for John.

[johnta1]

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

You sir are lost on the reality of the topic. If you truly believe its the same you are lost on practical application of physics. Matters not how great you are at designing simulators. I understand all about how the horsepower is calculated and torque is measured. You aren't the only one with an engineering background. The NUMBER is the same, not the usable power when applied over seconds of the engine running and doing work. If your point is valid then why do all engine builders in corporate a higher rpm into their engine designs when trying to improve or maximize et potential in a vehicle? So they can spend more money and increase the work load on parts only to achieve the same results. I'm not ignorant of physics at all Stan, but if you think that saying that makes it so then I understand why you think what you do about this any many other subjects.
As far as swinging from jack. I do t think anybody does that. I think jacks upgrades will take some trial and error to achieve the results he expects. And I'm not and never have bashed a product.... Just the nut swingers that all jump on the band wagon for emotional reasons. Sorry you fit right in with the group. Feel free to help an na car of similar weight and your beloved c 1 wool my a$$. I'll accept defeat with grace.

Are you serious? Riddle me this riddle me that,Stan just had a SMART ATTACK!

So if the Pickets had a choice to make as much as they could with the inches they chose to make weight with. Why run it to 10000 rpm? It makes like 920, it was likely possible To do that at a lower rpm. Why would they want to run that rpm Stan? They did not want to run the race they wanted to win it!

Are you trying to make my point?

The only a$$ hurt I have regarding cv1s is sore gluteus muscles from having it work my foot back out of there a$$. It took a little to extract it after I was able to finally get my foot outa the shoe. Keep to shoe.

Quoted for stupidity.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by johnta1

Quoted for stupidity.

That really hurt coming from you. I'm crying here.

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.

I LMAO @ CV notel !!!!!!

[Aaron Quinton]

Mike,

I have the utmost respect for you and the numbers your car runs. I hope my car can achieve what you've done in the future.

In theory, hp is what moves a vehicle. It doesn't matter if it's an 800 hp Pontiac at 6000 rpm or an 800 sbc at 9000 rpm moving the car. If the cars are able to deal with the power applied, they should run the same numbers. The difference may be in the instantaneous torque levels applied by the crankshaft to the rear end. The torque measured during a dyno pull is the average torque vs. rpm. The running engine produces a sine wave torque pulse that has highs and lows vs. the average. The higher rpm engine will have more pulses that have lower highs and lows as compared to the lower rpm engine. Maybe this is enough difference to allow the higher rpm engine to have traction to accelerate the car vs. the lower rpm engine due to the lower torque pulses applied to the tires. What do you guys think?

This never occurred to me until I had a discussion with a seasoned motorcycle road racer years ago. I'm a big 2 stroke GP fan that has been disappointed ever since 4 stroke engines took over GP. I had a discussion with this guy and never understood why the 4 stroke engines took over. He had ridden both 2 stroke and 4 stroke engines with similar power and was faster on the 4 stroke bike. His feedback was the 4 stroke bike had higher torque pulses which let the rider know better when the bike was closer loosing traction as compared to the 2 stroke. The 4 stroke bike provided more rider feedback on traction limitations than the 2 stroke providing more confidence for the rider and faster track times. This was a revelation to me as a novice 4 stroke rider.

Maybe the lower torque pulse engine (higher rpm) allows a traction limited car to run faster (the opposite of the motorcycle example in a real world applciation)?

Stan, can you modify your code to take into account the torque pulses if it doesn't have this capability?

Maybe Mike and Stan are both right and we just have to bridge a minor gap in experience vs. practical application.

Let's pull together and move forward instead of pissing at each other!

Merry Christmas to the PY crew,

Aaron

Originally Posted by mike leech

Quoted for (I'm trying to be nice)Ignorance. Any person that portrays themselves as smart as you do, KNOWS the point of my post. In the real world the car that peaks higher has 2 advantages 1,higher average power 2,more power "events". It will go faster in a "REAL" car unless the person running it is a dolt.
The problem with calculator racing is you can manipulate the inputs to try and make your point or outcome whatever you want. The parameters were engine rpm not torque at the tire at axle rpm. Using your "brilliant" calculations why would they not have the same torque at 9500 axle rpm? They will NOT perform the same and if you and john think so...get a room at the CV1 notel, where fantasies abound and everyone hates Jack and believes whatever they like is true.