[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by mike leech

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

Foolish me for bring what actually moves the car down the track into the discussion.

Stan

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Foolish me for bring what actually moves the car down the track into the discussion.

Stan

Half right. Foolish

[johnta1]

So, an ehead HP is less than a Visner head HP?
(what's that head called anyway?)

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by johnta1

So, an ehead HP is less than a Visner head HP?
(what's that head called anyway?)

I do not know what to say besides wow. That is all.

[Stan Weiss]

Mike,
What NHRA Pro Stock has done is shift the torque curve to a higher RPM. With all of your knowledge I am sure you understand what that does.

Stan

Ps- Keep the BS coming it has been a bad day and I need the comic relief.

[Aaron Quinton]

3 out of 5?

Originally Posted by David Holmberg

Aaron, on Ben's Malibu we're running two 10lb bottles and change them after 2 passes, but there is enough left for another pass. Jack can run two 20lb bottles, if needed.

Besides, if Jack wins the first two there is no need for a third.

Like I said its a pick. Either car has the chance to beat the other on any given day. IMHO

[LiL Jack]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
What NHRA Pro Stock has done is shift the torque curve to a higher RPM. With all of your knowledge I am sure you understand what that does.

Stan

Ps- Keep the BS coming it has been a bad day and I need the comic relief.

CV1TTFMF

That one makes me laugh when people post that one!

[Half-Inch Stud]

I dunno what's a going on. all i know is,
the beer is good right now,
any race fella needs to get the engine into the peak HP region to do the most work the most quickly.

BUTT, how do you get there & and stay there with gear-fixed RPM sweeps, until the next shift? 6-speed transmissions? Say it isn't so!

[Half-Inch Stud]

Suppose 1 engine has 600 HP at 8000 rpm, vs an engine with 570 HP at 6000 RPM.

when a fella plots the HP & TQ of each engine, the 570 HP @ 6000 RPM may jump out as a real gem. I'll pick that 570 HP @ 6000. HIS

[Stan Weiss]

Originally Posted by LiL Jack

CV1TTFMF

That one makes me laugh when people post that one!

Lil Jack,
I will see your - CV1TTFMF

and raise you a VBHTTFMF

Stan

[LiL Jack]

we shall see.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by Stan Weiss

Mike,
What NHRA Pro Stock has done is shift the torque curve to a higher RPM. With all of your knowledge I am sure you understand what that does.

Stan

Ps- Keep the BS coming it has been a bad day and I need the comic relief.

Wow. We both know hp is tq x rpm / 5250(I think we both know). So even a lower tq number occurring at a higher rpm can make a higher hp number. The real reason to move the useful rpm range high is the further it occurs above 5250 the higher the average power will be throughout the useful range.

How do you not get that an engine that makes peak hp at 6500 will make less average. Period.

[KO]

My 2 cents, not trying to argue or pick sides but my observations working in and around race cars for a couple years: area under the curve is more important that peak, the engine spends more time under the peak than at the peak. Also, nitrous is a power ADDER, a 100 shot is 100 everywhere throughout the HP curve. 500HP @ 8000 RPM will out run 500HP @ 10000 RPM anytime especially with a torque converter equipped car.

Right now I'm building a car to run in heads up class, NA 7#/CID, car is now 499.999 CID and 3500#, will a smaller engine at less weight be faster?

Rule of thumb: it's OK to beat your wife with a stick as long as it's no wider than your thumb, its true look it up

[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.

[johnta1]

Wow. We both know hp is tq x rpm / 5250(I think we both know). So even a lower tq number occurring at a higher rpm can make a higher hp number. The real reason to move the useful rpm range high is the further it occurs above 5250 the higher the average power will be throughout the useful range.

They reason most rev higher (like Pro Stock) is that they can't make enough HP at the lower RPM.

Per the equation more RPM equals more HP even if the torque stays the same.
They have exhausted about all there is to get out of the engine at a certain RPM.
So, if they work on getting it to rev higher it will make more HP.

Doubt the 'average' HP or area under the 'curve is any better?



But this is basic math, so maybe some can't handle it?

[johnta1]

I do not know what to say besides wow. That is all.

Can't tell you what to say.

You seem to think those little HP guys can tell what is producing them.

[twooldgoats]

Originally Posted by johnta1

......
(what's that head called anyway?)

Jack-offs??

Jim

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by KO

My 2 cents, not trying to argue or pick sides but my observations working in and around race cars for a couple years: area under the curve is more important that peak, the engine spends more time under the peak than at the peak. Also, nitrous is a power ADDER, a 100 shot is 100 everywhere throughout the HP curve. 500HP @ 8000 RPM will out run 500HP @ 10000 RPM anytime especially with a torque converter equipped car.

Right now I'm building a car to run in heads up class, NA 7#/CID, car is now 499.999 CID and 3500#, will a smaller engine at less weight be faster?

Rule of thumb: it's OK to beat your wife with a stick as long as it's no wider than your thumb, its true look it up

you will struggle at that weight against cars that are 350 lbs lighter and making power at high rpm NA. you will see.

this again makes my point. hp is hp was the comment. "with a power adder the 100 extra is everywhere" the peak number is not the holy grail. the average will affect the acceleration more. rpm in the range i gave will be faster 9 outta 10 times if not more NA.

800 peak@ 6500 will get whooped by 800 that peaks at 9000. The whole usable curve is way above 5250 and the average power will be higher. The engine that peaks at 6500 has part of its power curve at or very near 5250 so its average will suffer. Its math guys, not emotion.

[mike leech]

Originally Posted by twooldgoats

Jack-offs??

Jim

Now thats funny right there.

[Jeff Kinsler]

i will simplify this.

FOOT ON GAS PEDDLE = GO FAST..

EHTTFMF

VISNERS TTBMF!