On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 03:38:07 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 20:01, tabbypurr wrote:
On Saturday, 7 October 2017 18:38:52 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 16:47, Bill Wright wrote:
On 07/10/2017 15:39, Roger Hayter wrote:

But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Not in my car.


I dont think we are talking about Noddy's pedal car, Big Ears...

It was a remarkably unrealistic claim.

I borrowed a new car recently, flooring it on the motorway made no noticeable difference.


Hardly 'at low speed' then.

Do you really not grasp that if it has next to zero acceleration at speed it's not got much hope of burning rubber in town either? Do you really think it's worth wasting time arguing about?

Not Mr Clutch-Bag hello ducky then.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an increase
in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?



michael adams

...

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.

As indeed we are ourselves. But I think primitive ideas of
'naturalness' made sense to people and self-propulsion was probably
regarded as an aspect of life rather than mechanics. It is hard to put
oneself into the mind of people who really see animals operating on
totally different physical laws to vehicles, but this may still be the
majority view?



--

Roger Hayter

On 07-Oct-17 9:26 PM, Rod Speed wrote:


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

By getting the engine to increase the speed of the stationary car, stupid.

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

Stop snorting that dog ****.

Acceleration/Deceleration results in a change of velocity and hence
change of kinetic energy. Even if the change in speed is measured in the
frame of the earth's rotation / solar system / galaxy / universe it is
still a change in velocity with a resulting change in KE.

To start a car moving KE is transferred from the rotating engine to the
wheels. The increased KE required for acceleration comes from the
chemical energy of the fuel released by combustion. Modern engines with
computer controlled idle can be made to pull off without an initial
increase in rpm but as it uses some the engine's KE there will be a
reduction in rpm that results in the ECU opening the idle air valve to
maintain rpm, which releases more chemical energy required for the
change of KE.

Since the 1911 (over 100 years ago) to start the engine moving chemical
energy is converted into electrical energy and then to KE by rotating
the starter motor. No pushing or towing required unless the chemical
energy store is depleted. Before the starter motor was dependable most
people used a hand crank which wasn't deleted until the 1950's. While
the kick start remained on motorcycles until the late 1980's.

As for torque. A vehicle parked on a slope is held in place by the
torque generated in the brakes. No power required or energy expended.
Even though they are producing torque the brakes don't get warm. They
get warm when they dissipate the cars KE as thermal energy to the air.

What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that
if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are
geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly
the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

On Sunday, 8 October 2017 10:30:26 UTC+1, Peter Hill wrote:

Since the 1911 (over 100 years ago) to start the engine moving chemical
energy is converted into electrical energy and then to KE by rotating
the starter motor. No pushing or towing required unless the chemical
energy store is depleted. Before the starter motor was dependable most
people used a hand crank which wasn't deleted until the 1950's. While
the kick start remained on motorcycles until the late 1980's.

Ladas still had crankhandle starting in 83


NT

On 08/10/2017 03:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 07/10/17 20:51, michael adams wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
o.uk...

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news .

Do you understand that an increase in a car's speed requires an
increase in kinetic
energy?

And the kinetic energy of a stationary vehicle is what exactly ?

You're increasing that from zero, stupid.

How can you increase the speed of a stationary car if, according
to Fred, you first require an increase in kinetic energy ?

The only way you could do that would be to push start the
car, or get a tow.

I see that a fundamental understanding of science does not exist in what
passes for your mind...


...a fairly typical remoaner, it would seem.

There seems a common theme that Remoaners seem out of touch with the
real physical world.

I'm sure there are exceptions to the rule, but certainly true of the
more vocal ones in this and a parallel thread.

On 08/10/17 09:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.

As indeed we are ourselves. But I think primitive ideas of
'naturalness' made sense to people

Judging by the green movement, that is certainly the case today. I am
not sure that it used to be the case though. I dont think they had any
concept of 'naturalness' before the devloment of Romanticism....

....

"Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an
artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in
Europe toward the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its
peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was
characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as
glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather
than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial
Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of
Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature€”all
components of modernity.[2] It was embodied most strongly in the visual
arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on
historiography,[3] education,[4] and the natural sciences.[5] It had a
significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers
influencing liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and nationalism.[6]"

(wiki)

Needless to say it was of course Germany that spearheadead the whole
nonsense...and it was then as bow an affectation of the slightly
educated middle classes.


and self-propulsion was probably
regarded as an aspect of life rather than mechanics. It is hard to put
oneself into the mind of people who really see animals operating on
totally different physical laws to vehicles, but this may still be the
majority view?

Yep. Totally true. These are the people who go on about inhumane
treatment of animals...;-)






--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 08/10/17 09:30, Roger Hayter wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 07/10/17 23:48, Roger Hayter wrote:
I believe some
of the more inflexible sections of the 19th century population did
suspect something not quite natural, and a bit magical, about a vehicle
moving without being pulled or pushed.

I think we had horses for a millennia. They are self propelled.

As indeed we are ourselves. But I think primitive ideas of
'naturalness' made sense to people

Judging by the green movement, that is certainly the case today. I am
not sure that it used to be the case though. I dont think they had any
concept of 'naturalness' before the devloment of Romanticism....

I have no knowledge of that. Presumably previously such properties of
animals were thought simply to have been imparted by god. Certainly
very few people at any time in history have seriouslly thought about the
mechanical processes involved. Though clearly some have, for some
thousands of years.




...

"Romanticism (also the Romantic era or the Romantic period) was an
artistic, literary, musical and intellectual movement that originated in
Europe toward the end of the 18th century, and in most areas was at its
peak in the approximate period from 1800 to 1850. Romanticism was
characterized by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as
glorification of all the past and nature, preferring the medieval rather
than the classical. It was partly a reaction to the Industrial
Revolution,[1] the aristocratic social and political norms of the Age of
Enlightenment, and the scientific rationalization of nature€”all
components of modernity.[2] It was embodied most strongly in the visual
arts, music, and literature, but had a major impact on
historiography,[3] education,[4] and the natural sciences.[5] It had a
significant and complex effect on politics, with romantic thinkers
influencing liberalism, radicalism, conservatism and nationalism.[6]"

(wiki)

Needless to say it was of course Germany that spearheadead the whole
nonsense...and it was then as bow an affectation of the slightly
educated middle classes.


and self-propulsion was probably
regarded as an aspect of life rather than mechanics. It is hard to put
oneself into the mind of people who really see animals operating on
totally different physical laws to vehicles, but this may still be the
majority view?

Yep. Totally true. These are the people who go on about inhumane
treatment of animals...;-)

I agree with them. But simply because of their empirical ability to
suffer discomfort and distress. The animals as well.

Perhaps we had better not do theories of mind here. I prefer to stick
to my prejudices.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
We are also talking about cars, and we know that in practice moving off
from stationary is a rather discontinuous process. But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Eh? I have two cars. Both with way more power and torque than the average.
Both can be accelerated away from rest as fast as they are capable of on a
good surface with no loss of traction.

There are very few production cars which will break traction when starting
off - except by being silly with a manual clutch. And I'd love to hear of
any which would break traction once the clutch is fully home. On a good
surface and in a straight line, obviously.

--
*Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted someone
else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank refuse to
address any points arising from that.

--
*You are validating my inherent mistrust of strangers

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that
if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are
geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly
the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as one
with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear, which
doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red herrings
most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

--
*Two many clicks spoil the browse *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
We are also talking about cars, and we know that in practice moving off
from stationary is a rather discontinuous process. But it is also true
that in any real car the acceleration at low speed is very much limited
by the traction the tyre can achieve rather than the power the engine
can produce.

Eh? I have two cars. Both with way more power and torque than the average.
Both can be accelerated away from rest as fast as they are capable of on a
good surface with no loss of traction.

There are very few production cars which will break traction when starting
off - except by being silly with a manual clutch. And I'd love to hear of
any which would break traction once the clutch is fully home. On a good
surface and in a straight line, obviously.

I fear you are being kind to your cars without giving it conscious
thought, just because you are competent driver I believe most modern
cars can spin the wheels easily, say at 5000 rpm in 1st. You are not
using maximum power from when the clutch is engaged.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
There are very few production cars which will break traction when starting
off - except by being silly with a manual clutch. And I'd love to hear of
any which would break traction once the clutch is fully home. On a good
surface and in a straight line, obviously.

I fear you are being kind to your cars without giving it conscious
thought, just because you are competent driver I believe most modern
cars can spin the wheels easily, say at 5000 rpm in 1st. You are not
using maximum power from when the clutch is engaged.

There is simply no point in revving to maximum then dropping the clutch.
Traction from a spinning wheel is less than from one still gripping. So it
simply bad driving.

The fastest start will be by controlling clutch slip away from rest
carefully so you are delivering the maximum torque the tyres can cope with
before loosing traction. But you're not going to be slipping the clutch up
to maximum speed in 1st gear.

Breaking traction away from rest by vicious use of the clutch is a true
example of the kinetic energy of a rotating mass - since the actual
torque/power output of the engine isn't sufficient to do this by itself.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/10/2017 14:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
There are very few production cars which will break traction when starting
off - except by being silly with a manual clutch. And I'd love to hear of
any which would break traction once the clutch is fully home. On a good
surface and in a straight line, obviously.

I fear you are being kind to your cars without giving it conscious
thought, just because you are competent driver I believe most modern
cars can spin the wheels easily, say at 5000 rpm in 1st. You are not
using maximum power from when the clutch is engaged.

There is simply no point in revving to maximum then dropping the clutch.
Traction from a spinning wheel is less than from one still gripping. So it
simply bad driving.

The fastest start will be by controlling clutch slip away from rest
carefully so you are delivering the maximum torque the tyres can cope with
before loosing traction. But you're not going to be slipping the clutch up
to maximum speed in 1st gear.

Breaking traction away from rest by vicious use of the clutch is a true
example of the kinetic energy of a rotating mass - since the actual
torque/power output of the engine isn't sufficient to do this by itself.

Assuming in first gear grip and gearing is such that traction is
maintained at maximum torque, the fastest off the mark is the person who
can maximise the rotational kinetic energy and using the associated
angular momentum to add to the engine torque.

Making the clutch slip, or wheels spin is very much the same result.

If you think the best acceleration from start is to raise the engine
revs, and maintain them at maximum torque, you're wrong, yet again.

Perhaps best stick to your Labour Remoaning themes and leave simple
Newtonian Classical Mechanics to those who know.

On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted someone
else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank refuse to
address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

On 08/10/2017 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is that
if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed are
geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at exactly
the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as one
with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear, which
doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red herrings
most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

It proves that power is the cause of acceleration, which is the product
of torque and rpm. You've already been given the formulae some time ago,
but clearly you don't seem to have learnt anything if your best reply is
"Eh?".

There are no red herrings apart from those you introduce.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
There are very few production cars which will break traction when starting
off - except by being silly with a manual clutch. And I'd love to hear of
any which would break traction once the clutch is fully home. On a good
surface and in a straight line, obviously.

I fear you are being kind to your cars without giving it conscious
thought, just because you are competent driver I believe most modern
cars can spin the wheels easily, say at 5000 rpm in 1st. You are not
using maximum power from when the clutch is engaged.

There is simply no point in revving to maximum then dropping the clutch.
Traction from a spinning wheel is less than from one still gripping. So it
simply bad driving.

The fastest start will be by controlling clutch slip away from rest
carefully so you are delivering the maximum torque the tyres can cope with
before loosing traction. But you're not going to be slipping the clutch up
to maximum speed in 1st gear.

Breaking traction away from rest by vicious use of the clutch is a true
example of the kinetic energy of a rotating mass - since the actual
torque/power output of the engine isn't sufficient to do this by itself.

You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.


--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted
someone else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank
refuse to address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

I asked you ages ago how BHP (an imperial unit) was calculated, and it was
very obvious you didn't know.

So much for one who claims to understand basic mechanics. It's rather
obvious you don't understand them at all - but merely find things on
Google.

--
*Taxation WITH representation ain't much fun, either.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is
that if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed
are geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at
exactly the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as
one with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear,
which doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red
herrings most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

It proves that power is the cause of acceleration, which is the product
of torque and rpm. You've already been given the formulae some time ago,
but clearly you don't seem to have learnt anything if your best reply
is "Eh?".

Pray tell how that example proves it to you, Fred? Or you might ask Peter
how it does too.

What it does say is two identical cars with the same torque *at the driven
wheels* will accelerate the same.

But thanks for confirming your total lack of understanding.

--
*Few women admit their age; fewer men act it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/10/2017 19:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted
someone else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank
refuse to address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

I asked you ages ago how BHP (an imperial unit) was calculated, and it was
very obvious you didn't know.

These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W. There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.

The inch is similarly defined, apologies if I gave you the impression I
didn't know.

So much for one who claims to understand basic mechanics. It's rather
obvious you don't understand them at all - but merely find things on
Google.

Any link I use is to explain things to you in a simple effective way
such that most people would understand. I generally use websites like
wikipedia as a reference.

I have used a number of equations and referenced them to wikipedia.
Unfortunately they were way beyond you ability to comprehend, and you
snipped the bits as you always do to anything that is too difficult for you.

On 08/10/2017 19:17, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is
that if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed
are geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at
exactly the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as
one with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear,
which doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red
herrings most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

It proves that power is the cause of acceleration, which is the product
of torque and rpm. You've already been given the formulae some time ago,
but clearly you don't seem to have learnt anything if your best reply
is "Eh?".

Pray tell how that example proves it to you, Fred? Or you might ask Peter
how it does too.

You wouldn't understand, so it's a pointless exercise.

On 08/10/2017 16:24, Fredxxx wrote:
Assuming in first gear grip and gearing is such that traction is
maintained at maximum torque, the fastest off the mark is the person who
can maximise the rotational kinetic energy and using the associated
angular momentum to add to the engine torque.

Making the clutch slip, or wheels spin is very much the same result.

If you think the best acceleration from start is to raise the engine
revs, and maintain them at maximum torque, you're wrong, yet again.

The salesmen got to the engineers on mine.

On a dry road, in a straight line, maximum torque will just about break
traction in 1st. The fastest acceleration is to slip the clutch to hold
the engine at peak torque, with the tyres making various complaints,
until the clutch is fully up. At that point the revs will rise. Let them
go to the rev limiter, then drop it into 2nd. You don't need to lift the
accelerator; the rev limiter will do it for you. It will then get to
100KPH (62MPH) in 2nd.

I've never done it. It's bad for the clutch, the tyres, the engine and
the environment.

Andy

On 08-Oct-17 7:17 PM, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
What proponents of "torque wins races" can't come to terms with is
that if two otherwise identical cars, running at the same road speed
are geared correctly, a car with 100Nm at 7000rpm will accelerate at
exactly the same rate as one with 200Nm at 3500rpm.

Eh?

To get the car with 100Nm at 7000rom to be at the same road speed as
one with 200Nm at 3500 rpm means you have to use a 2:1 reduction gear,
which doubles the torque at the driving wheels. Ignoring the usual red
herrings most seek to introduce.

Just what point do you think that proves?

It proves that claims regarding engine torque without quoting the gear
ratio are worthless. No one quotes wheel torque. Powertrain engineers
work with traction force curves, which takes the installed wheel size
into account.

Whereas bhp at engine arrives at the wheels, only affected by the
efficiency of the transmission. Most cars suffer very similar
transmission losses.

It proves that power is the cause of acceleration, which is the product
of torque and rpm. You've already been given the formulae some time ago,
but clearly you don't seem to have learnt anything if your best reply
is "Eh?".

Pray tell how that example proves it to you, Fred? Or you might ask Peter
how it does too.

What it does say is two identical cars with the same torque *at the driven
wheels* will accelerate the same.

But thanks for confirming your total lack of understanding.


And the reason they have the same torque at the wheels is because they
have the same power.

Irrespective of its torque no gearing could save the ass of a lower
power car. Eg 180Nm @ 4000rpm or 200Nm @ 3600rpm v's 100Nm @ 8000 rpm.
Even though they have 80% and 100% more torque, the 180Nm/200Nm cars are
losers, 75Kw 83Kw. This is contrary to all claims regarding torques
ability to win races.

On 08/10/2017 21:32, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 08/10/2017 16:24, Fredxxx wrote:
Assuming in first gear grip and gearing is such that traction is
maintained at maximum torque, the fastest off the mark is the person
who can maximise the rotational kinetic energy and using the
associated angular momentum to add to the engine torque.

Making the clutch slip, or wheels spin is very much the same result.

If you think the best acceleration from start is to raise the engine
revs, and maintain them at maximum torque, you're wrong, yet again.

The salesmen got to the engineers on mine.

On a dry road, in a straight line, maximum torque will just about break
traction in 1st. The fastest acceleration is to slip the clutch to hold
the engine at peak torque, with the tyres making various complaints,
until the clutch is fully up.

Most cars the tyres don't break away, even in first gear, in your case
I'm sure you've everything about optimum. As you say not the sort of
thing I would want to do every day!

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.

--
*Wrinkled was not one of the things I wanted to be when I grew up

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Fredxxx wrote:
I asked you ages ago how BHP (an imperial unit) was calculated, and it
was very obvious you didn't know.

These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W.

I asked about BHP, Fred. I take it you don't know the difference.

There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.

It was not a definition of horsepower, Fred. It was a formula used to
calculate taxation classes. Nothing more.

--
*A backward poet writes inverse.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 08/10/2017 20:44, Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 19:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted
someone else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank
refuse to address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

I asked you ages ago how BHP (an imperial unit) was calculated, and it
was
very obvious you didn't know.

These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W. There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.


IIUC, it's not knowing what it is, but how it's calculated to
understanding the various relationships.


--
Cheers, Rob

In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
Irrespective of its torque no gearing could save the ass of a lower
power car. Eg 180Nm @ 4000rpm or 200Nm @ 3600rpm v's 100Nm @ 8000 rpm.
Even though they have 80% and 100% more torque, the 180Nm/200Nm cars are
losers, 75Kw 83Kw. This is contrary to all claims regarding torques
ability to win races.

Racing engines are a very special design. Generally with the peak torque
and peak BHP very close together, RPM wise. Making it near impossible to
determine where the peak acceleration in a single gear occurs.

But this discussion didn't start out about specialist engines.

--
*Preserve wildlife - Go pickle a squirrel*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
RJH wrote:
These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W. There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.


IIUC, it's not knowing what it is, but how it's calculated to
understanding the various relationships.

Quite. Odd that one who claims such an in depth knowledge of Newton
mechanics (or any other fancy name he can find) doesn't seem to get that.

FWIW if you measure any electric motor at 746 watts, if won't be
generating 1 HP.

--
*To be intoxicated is to feel sophisticated, but not be able to say it.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 09/10/2017 09:33, RJH wrote:
On 08/10/2017 20:44, Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 19:12, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Fredxxx wrote:
On 08/10/2017 13:52, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â*Â* Fredxxx wrote:
I find it most disturbing you need to ask twice.

An odd statement given the vast number of times you have reposted
someone else's data about BMWs as a question to me. And point bank
refuse to address any points arising from that.

Some basic questions can be answer by young schoolchildren. Classical
mechanics tends to be on a further education or A-level syllabus.

When stupid questions are asked and it is clear the person asking them
has no understanding of the subject there is little point in replying
with an answer. In any case the answer has already been given here.

I asked you ages ago how BHP (an imperial unit) was calculated, and
it was
very obvious you didn't know.

These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W. There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.


IIUC, it's not knowing what it is, but how it's calculated to
understanding the various relationships.

All units of power are work done / time. Is that what you are alluding to?

On 09/10/2017 11:26, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
RJH wrote:
These days the definition of a Horsepower is 746W. There was an old
definition of horse power that involved just bore size leading to
undersquare engines.


IIUC, it's not knowing what it is, but how it's calculated to
understanding the various relationships.

Quite. Odd that one who claims such an in depth knowledge of Newton
mechanics (or any other fancy name he can find) doesn't seem to get that.

FWIW if you measure any electric motor at 746 watts, if won't be
generating 1 HP.

You might be confusing power in and power out, they are usually very
different.

The excuse you need to know engine power in BHP rather than kW in order
to solve a simple question is just that, an excuse for why they don't
know the answer.

You could just divide the power in kW by 0.746 yourself if you feel it
is any help, or is that beyond you too.

On 09/10/2017 11:22, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Peter Hill wrote:
Irrespective of its torque no gearing could save the ass of a lower
power car. Eg 180Nm @ 4000rpm or 200Nm @ 3600rpm v's 100Nm @ 8000 rpm.
Even though they have 80% and 100% more torque, the 180Nm/200Nm cars are
losers, 75Kw 83Kw. This is contrary to all claims regarding torques
ability to win races.

Racing engines are a very special design. Generally with the peak torque
and peak BHP very close together, RPM wise. Making it near impossible to
determine where the peak acceleration in a single gear occurs.

But this discussion didn't start out about specialist engines.

Correct, it was a very, very simple question you are unable to answer.

On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Andy

Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-10, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Once you switch the "traction control" off, at least.

Good point! I'd forgotten everything has traction control nowadays.

--

Roger Hayter

In article ,
Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Break traction after the clutch is fully home in a straight line on a good
surface?

Think you need to get some decent tyres of the correct size.

--
*What boots up must come down *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-10, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically,
let the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to
the rev limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good
surface in a straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely
dangerous, and the maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Once you switch the "traction control" off, at least.

Good point! I'd forgotten everything has traction control nowadays.

So just which car without traction control did this? It would be slated in
a press report as being dangerous.

--
*Honk if you love peace and quiet.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 10/10/17 21:17, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote.Â*Â* Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st.Â* I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Andy

‚¢iopes even my 1967 Bedford van ould do it. Up to about 1mph


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On 11/10/17 10:25, Huge wrote:
On 2017-10-10, Roger Hayter wrote:
Huge wrote:

On 2017-10-10, Vir Campestris wrote:
On 09/10/2017 00:41, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Roger Hayter wrote:
You're reading the very opposite of what I wrote. Specifically, let
the clutch fully in and accelerate with maximal throttle up to the rev
limit in 1st. I think you will spin the wheels.

I'd love to hear of any road car that will do this on a good surface in a
straight line. Likely none, as it would be extremely dangerous, and the
maker would be sued in the US.


Every 2 litre FWD car I've ever driven would do it.

Once you switch the "traction control" off, at least.

Good point! I'd forgotten everything has traction control nowadays.

I'd argue that very few cars actually have traction control (Ferarris,
maybe), which is why I put quotes round it. What they actually have is
"Stop morons from crashing" control. As soon as it detects that a wheel
is spinning it cuts power.

Yeah. I test drine a Jaguar XKR which didnt have the traditional lSD.
When I took it back the guy said 'how to fo like it?'

I said 'It stops well from 130mph, but I dont like the way the inside
rear wheel lifts on a fast corner - it cuts all power'.


--
How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don't think.

Adolf Hitler

In article ,
Huge wrote:
Good point! I'd forgotten everything has traction control nowadays.

I'd argue that very few cars actually have traction control (Ferarris,
maybe), which is why I put quotes round it. What they actually have is
"Stop morons from crashing" control. As soon as it detects that a wheel
is spinning it cuts power.

My old BMW applied the brake to only that wheel approaching losing
traction. Causing the differential to transfer 'power' to the other wheel.
Useful on a corner where weight transfer can affect grip. If you carried
on trying to apply even more 'power' than it could cope with (on a poor
surface) it did cut the 'power'. Worked pretty well in practice.

Not sure it would be nice on a FWD drive, though. Pulling the steering
each and every way. ;-)

--
*I know a guy who's addicted to brake fluid. He says he can stop any time.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.