Horsepower is NOT how fast you hit the wall. Torque is NOT how far you take the wall with you
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 พ.ค. 2021
- Last Sunday I published a video where I tried to make a very down to earth and visual explanation of Horsepower and Torque to help anyone confused by the two concepts wrap their head around them. And apparently it worked for a lot of people as I received a lot of positive comments and feedback. This made me extremely happy and I am very grateful for all the comments and feedback. But I also received a very high number of comments containing this phrase: "Horsepower is how fast you hit the wall. Torque is how far you take the wall with you". I decided to make this follow up video in hopes of clearing away the misconceptions around this and similar explanations of horsepower and torque that are very frequently used in the car community. I believe that reinforcing these explanations as facts isn't a very good idea as they are ultimately misleading and will serve as a poor knowledge foundation for someone who doesn't understand the concepts.
NOTE: In the video I said that we will come back to the first part of the definition "horsepower is how fast you hit the wall" but I didn't actually come back to it. I apologize for that. This video was completely unscripted and made ad-hoc as I was getting overwhelmed with the sea of identical comments. What I wanted to say was this: If our two cars from the same example have everything identical except the amount of horsepower, then yes, the one with more horsepower will be capable of hitting the wall faster. But if everything else is identical (max rpm) than the car with more horsepower also must have more torque. This means that you could just as well say that Torque is how fast you hit the wall.
The gist of the video is that horsepower is not how fast you hit the wall. That's speed. And horsepower is only one factor influencing speed. There are also aerodynamics, gear ratios and much more. Torque is definitely not how far you take the wall. That's momentum. If we imagine two cars, one with 1000 Nm of Torque and the other with 100 Nm of Torque, with everything else on the cars being absolutely the same, these two cars will carry the wall the absolutely same distance if they both have the same mass and hit the wall at the same velocity. This is because momentum is only influenced by mass and velocity.
Basically the main problem with all the quasi definitions of horsepower and torque are that they're trying to correlate horsepower and torque to acceleration and speed. This doesn't work because acceleration and speed are complex concepts influenced by multiple factors so these "definitions" need like 5 disclaimers to have an even remove chance of working, and a definition that needs disclaimers isn't very good at doing it's job. The only definition that really doesn't need a disclaimer is that torque is a rotational force and horsepower is the rate of that force. This definition underlines another key problem of the other "definitions" and that's their separation of torque and horsepower. Trying to draw distinction between the two concepts only creates confusion because horsepower and torque are in fact inherently connected. Horsepower is torque times rpm. Horsepower is very much dependent on torque. The more torque you have the higher the chances that you'll also have more horsepower.
If you must have a car and a wall here's a better use of a car and a wall. Torque determines whether you can move the wall from a standstill. Horsepower determines how fast you can keep pushing the wall. This is still far from perfect and refutable but it's a better definition as it isolates torque and horsepower a bit better and takes acceleration and velocity and vehicle mass out of the equation.
Original artwork characters in the thumbnail are from POWeeeeeRRRRRRRRRRrrrrRRRRRRRR by Sadyna
www.deviantart.com/sadyna/art...
A special thank you to my patrons:
Daniel
Peter Della Flora
Daniel Morgan
William
Richard Caldwell
Pepe
Brian Durning
Andrew Ruud
Brian Alvarez
Holset90
D4A merch: teespring.com/en-GB/d4a-merch
Patreon: / d4a
#d4a #horsepower #torque
d4a is part of amazon affiliates - ยานยนต์และพาหนะ
"Speed doesn't kill. It's suddenly becoming stationary, that's what gets you." - Some Old Brit.
Some say... that this old Brit is Jeremy Clarkson.
@@xynostasos9022 no its queen elizabeth ii
Exactly.
It’s not the fall that kills you, it’s the sudden stop at the bottom…
no, it was a guy who demolished chimneys
Torque is the rotational equivalent of linear force/Horsepower is the rate at which work is done. You explained it very well in your electric motor vid.
That torque analogy works even easier if you use the SI units. Force [N] x distance [m]= work [Nm or Joule]. Joule is unit for energy. Energy [J]/ time [s]= power [J/s or Watt]. Power=Torque x angular velocity [rad/s], angular velocity can be derived from RPM. So basically: Torque [Nm] / CxRPM[s] = Power [Nm/s]
With gears you can convert toque, but power stays the same: i.e. gear reduction of 2:1 -> double (the torque) x half (the Rpm) = same (power).
Fuel = energy. Twice the fuel = twice the work = twice the torque and power or twice the distance. Imagen you have 1 tractor with 2 gears (1:1 and 2:1) and a tank of fuel.
With that tractorengine you can pull 1 plought in gear 1:1 and it takes 1 whole day to plough 1 field. Then with gear 2:1 you can pull 2 ploughs, but at half the speed, so at the end of the day you still have done 1 field (=work) with 1 tank of fuel.
In the corner of the shed lays a same engine, somehow you manage to mount them side by side onto the tractor. Twice the horsies, twice the torque. So now you can pull 1 plough twice as fast or 2 ploughs at the same time without reduction gear, either way that 1 field is done in half a day, but with 2 engines also twice the consumption, so still 2x1/2 tank. (in real world we have non lineair resistance like wind --> 2 times the power means about 1,4 times the speed)
If you have a flat toque curve (would not be a curve then), then the powercurve would also be a straight curve. Since combustion engines are not perfect lineair, you will have different characters for different engines. Simplified you could say that in the torque-RPM-powe triangle a modern diesel engine compensates the low RPM with huge amount of torque, while a petrol engine compensates torque with high RPM, so they produce the same power and with ideal gearboxes they will have same speed and pulling power. Imagen a Formula 1 engine with 700bhp @ 20kRPM (= ca 250Nm) with a 15:1 reduction pulling a heavier load than a truck engine with 2500Nm@1500RPM.
Horsepower is Torque in Fast Forward, lol.
@@Jeroen_M625 yes! It's called horsePOWER. As it's more directly related to total power. It can be given another name with another system of units but I like horsepower as it's relatable. But pounds/feet/seconds could be another one?
@@TravisTellsTruths yes, but Dutch (Pk) and German (PS) translates to ‘horse force’. Imagen a discussion between the scientists and a marketing guy, guess who lost. ;)
Yes agreed
This man is such a legend, the car community needs to treasure him
Man's even a treasure to the motorcycle community. "An alliance once existed between motorcycles and cars. Long ago we built and raced together. I am here to honour that allegiance."
I'm always amused to see whole cartridges flying rather than just the bullet. But in any case, this analysis is well-done and pretty darn accurate.
You're not alone. It gets me every time.
I've seen indian bollywood movies where someone shoots a gun (in slow motion) and the whole bullet and cartridge come flying out the end of the barrel, it's supposed to be a sad moment as a beloved character is getting killed but i can never stop laughing at it
yeah or seeing artwork of bulletholes, fools drawing cracks around caps. do'h
At Aperture Science, we shoot the WHOLE bullet; that's 60% more bullet per bullet!
It kinda makes me mentally glitch a bit when I see that, then I want to go on a rant about people not having common knowledge about some apparently very common things like how bullets work, then realise that "apparently" and "evidently" are not the same thing, then start considering how many people actually muck about with guns on a regular basis enough to know about how bullets work, compare it to what "common knowledge" evidently is, then remember a rather stupid argument I once got dragged into on a paintball field with a gun nut who was startlingly ignorant about his own favourite subject, and at that point I get bored and want to go with Plan F.
So I now associate guns firing whole cartridges with wanting to go drinking. For context, Plan F = "F*** it. Pub."
Thank you. I've heard this statement waaaay too many times.
The visual with the bullet still in the casing was funny
at least it was impulsed out of a rifled bore blowgun... :D
Some people don't know nothing what a bullet really looks like so usually when some is speaking about it the always leave it in the casing so everyone's not guessing what they are looking at.
It's a royalty free green screen animation. You can't expect much 😂
@@d4a the rotation is what killed me
@@d4a I was about to blast you for using an example that you didn't understand. I'll let it go... this time! Keep up the good work!
If people are having trouble with torque vs power, then torque multiplication via gearing is REALLY going to throw them for a loop! 😛
You literally explained this shit in the simplest, best way possible and some people still manage to fuck it up...
My disappointment is boundless --_--
[Also thanx for bothering to upload another video regarding this
Lmao.
In my opinion even simple physics concepts can be difficult to understand, especially if you have preconceived notions about them that may or may not be correct (in this case, I think the wall analogy was certainly not helpful).
At a certain point you just can't simplify something any further.
Dumb but catchy stuff wedges into people's memory sadly.
Especially if they fucking slept thru physics in high school
I mean 9/4 people understand a joke
And he got it wrong.
Thanks. I grew tired of explaining this to people, now I can just link this video! haha
Explain it to me again
@@elcaminoguy2188 th-cam.com/video/DEzK7fnlLXE/w-d-xo.html
Torque is how hard something is spinning. RPM is how fast something is spinning. Horsepower is just the combination of these two things to get the job done.
Something spinning with a lot of torque but with very low RPM will be very slow but very hard to stop (like a tank cannon). This thing could get the job done but it will take forever, so it has low horsepower. An example would be the motor for an elevator, it's moving a lot of mass but it does it slowly.
Something spinning with a high RPM but with a little torque will be very fast but very easy to stop (like a handheld fan). This thing might not even get the job done because it is so weak and easy to stop, so it has low horsepower. An example would be a desk fan, it's moving mass quickly but it's not a lot of mass, it's just air.
Something spinning with a lot of torque and a high RPM will be very fast and very hard to stop. This thing gets the job done AND does it fast, so it has high horsepower. An example of this would be a sports car engine, it's moving a lot of mass really quickly.
In the context of everyday driving:
Whenever you shift gears you're telling your car how much torque vs RPM you want at the wheels in that moment.
When you're in first gear, you're telling your car "I need you to push harder, not faster." Since it takes a lot of force to push a car from a stationary poisition, you start it off in first gear. When you're on the road and want to go faster, you shift to a higher gear, telling your car "You don't need to push as hard, just push faster". You can see how an engine with a lot of torque is more useful to a semi-truck than an engine with less torque but capable of a higher top speed.
10/10 on that explanation. Informative, effective, elegant.
The way you said was so good that I'll try to use it when explaining it to coleagues and friends. Might be the best writen explanation I've seen.
Maybe: Torque is the ease with which something can be made to spin?
Must be a better word than "hard", it's a kind of indistinct word than means several things, sometimes seemingly in opposition, even in the concept of something spinning. "Harder" can mean more difficult and slower to spin rather than more forcefully. Higher torque will make something spin more forcefully or with more ease. So "easy" and "hard" describing something spinning seem to be trying to express the same concept while also being apparent opposites.
So is it better to say?: Torque is the ease with which something can be made to spin. RPM is how fast it spins. Horsepower is the combination - How fast something can be made to spin.
Which kind of describes a vehicle dyno.
@@DiscoFang Torque is the force that generates that torsion. The pressure in the cylinder pushing the piston is the force that turns the crankshaft. That pressure force becomes twisting force when transferred from the piston to the crank via the rod. When you tighten a bolt, you are applying a linear force to the wrench, that linear force is translated to torque. When you put a wrench on the crank and turn the engine over, your muscles are applying a force, which translates to torque. The rate at which torque is produced is power. A force averaged over one foot, or meter, happens x amount of times per minute is how we measure power.
I love it. Toss the "bro science" out the door.
Gotta love talking torque
😆😆
you can talk the torque, but can you walk the worque?
The most fitting comment I’ve ever seen
Ayyyy talking torque! Nice drag races 🏁
Haha love this (the comment AND the video)
The soup / knowledge analogy was pretty good.
Oh beautiful day, another D4A video 😊
I just found out this channel and it's great to see that Engineering Explained is not the only one explaining automotive mechanics from a physics standpoint.
EVERYTHING is physics , you just need to learn how to apply them
I think a good way to portray this is to use the concept of a motor as a wrench instead of a spinning object. You take put wayyyyyy more torque into a large wrench and the numbers will be far higher (the big motor is just a large circular wrench in essence) but when you try to spin that giant thing fast, its hard. On the other hand if you have a tiny wrench, you dont get much turning power, but you can spin the ever living hell out of it quite easily.
No!
Sry dude but nope I have really tryd to get it in a right way and I failed.
A nice way to imagine it with physical work imagine bench presses torque is how much weight you cann press and HP is how often you can do it in a minute
@@TheLtVoss sorta correct. Similar concept, but a bench press is a force, not a torque, keep in mind.
@@t_c5266 torque is rotational force soo not fare a apart from the linear forces at a bench presses and the math doesn't have a problem with that and a small reminder that your simile wasn't a good one to begin with I mean look it isn't easy to follow and threads on nuts and screws a basically levers the more threads on the same length the longer is the primary movement and therefore the secondary movement get smaller per turn and became stronger (the basic leverage trade of distance and force) and adding a second lever (the long and short wrench) doesn't do any good for that too well with lots of good will I was able to put same sence in your simile:" if a engine has lower torque but the same HP as a bigger engine it is probably because the smaller engine in revving to the Stars" but it doesn't explain the relelation between torque or power
@@TheLtVoss you look like you hurt yourself in the confusion.
Also you're wrong in the screw thing too. It acts like a ramp, not a lever.
HP = torque * RPM, which is why it is a better performance metric than torque since it measures total power. If you have the hp, you can alter the torque through gearing and wheel sizes.
Had a huge arguing lately when I tried to explain to a "tuning expert" the fact that the Dyno does not measure HP but torque and then calculates the HP based on the measured torque at a certain RPM.
Depends on whether it is a load or inertia dynamometer...
Dyno measures horsepower , torque is calculated if you know rpm. You dont need to know rpm to measure horsepower.
@@V8Lenny Bullshit!
@@hansphurz9411 you are full of it.
@@V8Lenny How do you directly measure horsepower? A dyno has a load cell that measures force, which is torque. Torque and speed gives you the horsepower.
Horsepower and Torque
Who kills, voltage or current
Pressure or flowrate
Questions that will divide society until it's end
First off i know this is a joke BUT
-This video already explained HP and torque.
-As for voltage and current both kill just in different ways, voltage fries your insides and current fucks with the functioning of your heart.
-Pressure is the amount of force applied to something by something else in direct contact with it, flow rate is the measure of a volume of fluid that moves in a certain amount of time.
@@arozin6773 You can't have a lot of current flowing through a person without voltage though. Ohm's law; current that will flow is determined by voltage divided by resistance. A human has a lot of resistance so almost no current will flow unless the voltage is high. Hence why I can touch the terminals of a car battery that can deliver 700 Amps and nothing will happen to me, virtually no current will flow. However if I touched a 1000V power source that could deliver 700 Amps I would be toast.
Also you have it the wrong way round, voltage interferes with heart function and current fries your insides.
@@xeigen2 Care to elaborate on your second point about how i got the way voltage and current kill wrong, because based on what i know i am not wrong so i wanna hear your reasoning.
@@arozin6773 Current is what causes heating, it's why we step voltage up to 800,000V in transmission lines. If they passed the same amount of power at low voltage they would melt.
Again you need both to kill a person but it only takes a few milliamps through the heart to stop it.
Cooking a person doesn't happen til a lot of current is flowing through them.
@@xeigen2Fair enough
Kudos for correction people who just can't see what they say are wrong/incorrect.
In fact, my brother gave me the same explanation because he "learned if on the internet". He got mad when corrected.
I tried responding to the first batch of those comments. Boy was that a mistake 😂
@@d4a Yeah.. most of the online communities are toxic. Sad but true.
10:02
This moment was priceless to me. I didn't know for sure, what Horsepower is. I knew what torque was. I figured it would be something along the lines of "the frequency at which torque is applied". Finally, I have clarification, and no longer have to guess in the dark.
Thank you!
P = F * v
Just physics.
Thank you for doing this... the amount of people in comment sections who think they are above the laws of physics and don’t understand basic physics is very annoying
Awesome video dude, the last video was so clear to understand bhp and torque its hard to believe that people could even make any sense of "bhp is how fast you hit the wall, and torque is how far you make it move" it literally makes no sense, how ever adding the fact that hp = torque x rpm has just made the first video even more clear, awesome videos.
Well after watching this video i feel much smarter. I finally understand the concept. Thank you.
Your way of explaining electro/mechanical/hydraulic theories is an artform.
here is the simpliest explanation: you have pile of coal which you need to move to another pile. Torque is how much you can carry in one go, horsepower is how much coal you can move from pile to pile in 1 minute. It equals /how much you can carry/ x /RoundsPerMinute/ = torque x rpm = horsepower. To move more you need to carry more or move faster or usually both.
Great explanation and clarification! I never liked the the expression 'horsepower is how hard you hit the wall, torque is how far you take it!!' Your definitions are visually clearer and easier to understand. WELL DONE 👍
Great video! I love hearing people talk about subjects that they really understand. So much better than listening to generalized explantions that don't make sense. Thanks for taking the time to correct this misconception.
Horsepower is how many torques you can fit in a second
Here we go again.. horsepower is torque times rpm.
Pretty much. The difference between a torquey engine and a buzzy engine is basically engine design. You get low-down torque because you get a big wallop at every combustion event, but often you compromise you max rpm, because that engine is bigger and heavier. Probably drinks more, factor in costs, materials, ect... It's all compromises, and what you want the car to be.
@@flexairz rpm. r.p.m... revolutions... per... minute. rev/min
minute? a unit of time? like seconds... rev/(60seconds)
torque * rpm = torque/(60 seconds)
oh. my. god.
@@IgorArkin rpm isn't velocity. And torque isn't force
@@IgorArkin that literally proves what I said.
love your explaination! great videos
Im so glad you made this video!
Keep it up!!
Another video victory for common sense and actual facts. Keep up the great work.
These concepts were clear last week, but this was certainly a great follow up. Your content is nothing short of fantastic, D4A! Also....
LEGOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSS!!
I always used the hammer swing at the arcade as my analogy, torque is how hard your hitting, hp is how often you’re hitting.
I've always found that using a "big slow man vs small fast man when driving fenceposts into the ground with a sledge hammer" to be a handy analogy.
Except HP isn't how often. He's literally just explained that HP = Torque x rpm
@@ChrisLee-yr7tz Yep. Dude confused rpm with hp.
Thanks for this video clarifying the misconception visibly widespread. This completes the video partly explaining the difference between diesel & petrol engines.
Best explanation I’ve heard in a long time. Thanks
What people don't get is that what matters at the end of the day is the hp, because the torque of the engine itself does not mean anything except the corresponding amount of hp at certain rpm transmitted to the wheel, but it is the wheel torque that matters. And the wheel torque is detetmined based on the engine hp not the engine torque.
I remember there was like a post about how there's a cool electric bus that only has 20 hp but has 1000 Nm torque
I said torque doesn't mean anything, people laughed at me and said I don't know shit about cars apparently, insane
@@kerimca98 It's also the media's fault with their misinformation.
Just found your channel. It is excellent.
Finally someone made this video. My simple explanation is that we never cared about engine torque, we care about available wheel torque at a given wheel speed. And for that... available horsepower is the one and only factor that determines that. When I say "available" I'm taking into account gearing.
Strictly speaking, what you’ve just said is 100% accurate. However, as you well know, as soon as we start talking about available torque at the wheels for a given wheel speed, we are discussing Hp by design but it’s still just torque at the tyre for a given speed. Eg. If you know the torque and the rpm, horsepower is calculated from this two variables. Not disagreeing with you at all. I think we both know that torque at the tyre is literally what does the accelerating.
@@burkeyatm yeah basically the same thing different words. The things that drive me up the goddamn walls is when some press outlet will publish an EV's peak motor torque number with an exclamation point next to it. That number is fully, fully, fully meaningless. It truly means nothing at all without us knowing the reduction ratio which is almost never posted, and if it is it's not calculated in or published next to the motor number. So then you get this sloppy ass numbers game where Tesla pulls out 10,000 ft/lbs (!!! Omg!!!). But that was a wheel torque figure, and not incredible compared to diesel trucks, or high powered performance cars like the Demon. It totally lacks that built in context that gasoline and diesel engines have. And then there's the justification of horrible truck diesel swaps "because torque" when it's just more money, weight, and fabrication to go slower.
@@Levibetz That’s a good point you make, I saw recently an electric bike with 750lb/ft of torque and was amazed. However, when you discover that there is no gearbox, it becomes a little more murky. I think we both agree that 750lb/ft at 1:1 ratio is effectively the same as 250 @ 3:1 (ok the EV has less frictional losses because no gearbox, but we’re being pedantic)
@@burkeyatm Exactly, and it creates an engineering pressure from marketing departments that is not rooted in actually optimizing what we care about, which is wheel torque at wheel speed. So if we're talking gearing and EVs, just put a more aggressive gear in any EV and your peak wheel torque comes up linearly with it. But top end may be sacrificed if the motor falls off it's power curve. But you might get a headline vs. not.
Great video! Although I knew those analogies in the comments were wrong, this really helped clear up how the correlation between power and torque works.
7:20 if that would be true, my dads 1.9 TDI Octavia with 105HP and 250NM of torque would be faster than an S2000 with 240HP and 210NM. Great video, finally someone made a video about this
Great explanation like always, can you do another engine balance vid on V8s and V12? Would be greatly appreciated.
Knowledge=power. Therefore, more knowledge allows you to hit the wall faster.
Thanks for this second video and keeping it simple to understand and not to wordy....cheers!
Subscribed 👍
Hey Good Job on this video i really enjoyed it and i appriciate the effort you put into making it
also could you do a video where you explain the torque-power curve
Will do!
You explain things so well, you're legit my favorite youtube teacher for cars :) thank you so much!!!! !!!
You did an exelant job of explain the difference between torque and hp. Keep in mind that torque does no imply movement. An easy formula to remember is force = mass × acceleration.
If you do double the mass, you double the force, but if you double the speed, the force goes up by the square. Hope this helps
Good follow up mate, always love your vids!
I'm sort of hoping for 1FZ-FE iconic engine video but also not wanting the price of the blocks to go up after it! Looking forward to some classic rap next week 🤙
Horsepower is BOTH the rotational force and the rate.
Your definition is no better than the last.
I would like to argue that torque has nothing directly to do with acceleration. Instead power (not 'horsepower') subject to all other factors determines the acceleration of a vehicle, if we assume that we have in our disposal a gearbox. That is, because we can convert our power to the product (equal to our power) of any rotational velocity and torque we need. We can choose how much torque to be at wheels from our available power.
The only way engine torque affects acceleration is through determining (among its rotational speed) its power.
Torque has always been an easy concept to understand, because it simply is a force applied to an object that rotates.
Horsepower, however, seems harder to understand because many people tend to think that torque and horsepower aren't related, when in actuality they are directly connected. Once people understand that the two are related, I think it becomes much each to better understand both concepts.
Thank you for clearing this up with everyone
Why are so many people so interested in hitting walls?😂🤣🤣
It's like the no replacement for displacement lie. It's engineering that's the replacement for displacement.
No replacement for BMEP + displacement
well, more displacement means more power soo. No need for turbos and stuff
Anericans and their sayings
With that voice you could tell me little ponies are inside my engine and I'd probably believe you
You mean there aren't? *hopes and dreams dashed*
You’re fuckin with me
@@FlesHBoX The true mystery is what inside an electric car 😮.
@@killerdinamo08 electrons
@@steamdriver6964 You think that, but electricity is a mystery, as J.May puts it 😂.
Very well explained again. Since the 400 horsepower engined car will most likely either have a faster frequency multiplier for its power delivery or it will have higher power already with slower frequency with the latter making their point seem more relevant but the first one also seems to drive the point but not a correct analogy definitely. Work multiplied by the frequency. I learned from your previous video. Thanks. 10:25 is the best simple explanation
Thank you for clearing the air. I have debated this with many people
Currently undergoing degree in engineering and if I said this I would probably be slapped 😂
Yes you would...do not embarrass me, licensed engineer, by ever saying this.
when i stand right on the pedals of my bicycle i send ~200Nm of torque to the crankshaft. (100kg of mine x 0,2m pedal lenght).
my motorcycle has ~110Nm of torque.
Am i faster or more powerful with my bicycle?
no, cause i have very low rpm with my legs and feets, thus produce low power.
my motorbike revs to over 10k rpm and produces far over 100hp, can use very aggressive gear ratios and is fast as hell.
torque and rotation creates power.
power will stay the same in a drivetrain, torque and rpm can be changed with gears.
besides the shape of the torque curve of an engine, power always matter.
Great example 👍🏻
thanks for the clarification mate, please also consider making a video on the tyre size and speed
Your are doing extremly good on your way, im from PuertoRico, and not a expert in inglés but you make me undertand thanks for all videos.
that's the stig.. isnt it?
My dad taught it to me as a kid by saying torque is how hard I can twist your finger, horsepower is how fast I can do it. Made sense to me.
This is why we can't have nice things!!! It was a funny quote, but some people lack any critical thinking ability, so here we are explaining the joke. It's really too bad so many seem to lack any interest in actually knowing and understanding.
The application of gear ratios is a wonderful thing. I had a 1990 Ford Bronco with an automatic trans and a 351 engine, and 4 wheel drive. I needed to move an 8,000 lb storage container (the box) about 1 foot. Using 4 wheel drive and the normal driving range it would not move the box. However, when I put it in low range with lowered the top speed in first gear to about 15 mph, there was enough torque and horsepower and traction that I could move the box the required amount. I wouldn't want to try and tow the box because that amount of stress would break the Bronco after a relatively short distance. But the tiny amount of time I stressed it, it was fine.
D4a: Let's expose this nonsense.
D4a: shows a bullet flying that's still in the casing.
Lmao I was scrolling through the comments to see if anyone else noticed. As an American, I guess you could say I was... triggered. 😂
Domain knowledge != Engineering Knowledge i.e. in the bullet example if the bullet did somehow stay in the shell and flew at normal bullet velocity it would have more mass and therefore more momentum than the bullet alone.
It's not in a shell , it's in it casing . A shell is a payload carrying projectile (think HEAT round) or the british .303 incendiary (for rifle rounds) .
The only exception to this rule is a shotgun shell . But then shotguns are exceptions to many things . 🤔
@@edmundscycles1 Thanks for clarification, I'm learning new things every day.
The better analogy i think was "torque gets you moving, and horsepower keeps you moving"
as in, the more torque you have, the heavier objects you can start from a standstill, however it tells you nothing about your top speed or energy. But the more horsepower you have, the more you can translate that torque into increased top end speed. Horsepower, being a unit of power, is literally energy production, and the more energy you use (or produce) means the more your vehicle will be capable of higher speeds.
No, cause you have a torque multiplier, a gearbox, clutch, hydraulic coupling and so on...
@@TheEsseboy And all of those factors considered, the engine that has more power available to it will be able to move itself at a higher speed. Like I stated, its all about energy. The more you have, the more you can translate into linear motion.
An engine with higher horsepower will always be able to be combined with those constituent components to go faster than a car with lower horsepower.
Power gets you moving. It is just at what RPM the power is available. There is no need to reference torque at all, unless you are using your car to tighten a screw. Side note: I have just driven a car that had substantially more horsepower and torque than my own. It drove like dog, much slower in normal driving. That is because it had a turbo which delivers more power and torque. The problem is to use that the extra power you need to place "a reservation" well in advance.
@@jamescaley9942 in stop and go a turbo engine drives like a normal 4 cylinder because it cant spool, obviously. But torque does still need to be referenced otherwise when comparing a large turbodiesel to a corvette engine you'd just say "well the corvette has more hp therefore it can tow better" not factoring in the fact that due to such large torque, the power available to the engine is available at a much lower RPM. So its definitely critical that torque be referenced and factored in.
@@t_c5266 It just confuses people to reference torque like a totally separate measurement though. We would be better off having, for example, power at 2k RPM and peak power.
It was a great marketing tactic though. Makers of terrible low compression, low revving, high displacement engines with no power but lots of torque loved that consumer misunderstanding and pushed it hard.
I ve just found your other video comparing and showing everything I ever wanted to know :) thx
Thank you! Drives me crazy to hear this repeated all the time.
Torque determines whether you can move the wall from a standstill.
Horsepower determines how fast you can keep pushing that wall.
Better!
Basically
I've given up on the internet. When I was maybe 10, I opened one of my automotive books and looked up the definitions of torque and horsepower. Problem solved. Some people just can't grasp this.
Damn bro, did you figure out E=mc^2 at 11?
@@Krosis_ * did a report on it at 14. But that was for school. I'm not a physics professor, but I did spend my life in the car business.
@@HoosierDaddy_ That's crazy, my dude.
Absolutely bonkers.
Do you watch Rick and Morty by any chance?
@@Krosis_ * my kids do, lol. I did act like a mad scientist with engines all of my life. As soon as I saw my first dragster, I was hooked like a heroin addict!
D4A, I get excited to learn the same thing from you by how you can explain the same thing in many different ways!
Thank you for this video. This was a very good presentation.
A car accelerates fastest at peak HP. Not peak TQ. Period.
Oof. Bullets don’t shoot with the casing 😂
That distracted me for a moment too. :-)
I'm going to lightly defend the acceleration and velocity saying. The way I've heard it it's not that torque IS acceleration and horsepower IS speed, but rather that horsepower influences speed and torque influences acceleration. They're not the only factors that influence them but it is useful to explain which "inputs" affect which "outputs".
That said, this video and the last are a gem for understanding these concepts at a deeper level above simple phrases and sayings.
'Specious'. This is like when people try to argue that voltage isn't dangerous, amperage is. Through a resistance (you) they are inseparable through a similar equation, V=IR.
I always thought those overly simplified "definitions" very confusing, and dumb to be honest.
6:33 Ok, I have to rip you on this one. That “bullet” animation is actually a “Round” or “Cartridge”. The bullet is the projectile, not the system as a whole. That you have a complete, unfired round floating around just looks ignorant.
profile pic checks out 😂
I remember learning in my engineering dynamics course that power=force*velocity. That one really shook me up and it took a lot of pondering to finally make sense of it.
Good explanation. For those wanting a mental image here is mine. Torque is a force. Think of a weight dropped from a given distance. It will hit the ground with the same force everytime it is dropped. Power is the volume of that force. The more frequently you drop the weight the more power you will create. Force x volume = power. Same idea but with a hammer also works in my mind.
Torque is a static force and practically meaningless unless you are tightening a bolt. When discussing dynamic performance of a car there is no need to introduce the concept of torque at all. All that is required is the power vs RPM curve, the total area under that curve is probably the best single metric for performance.
So wrong. Spinning fast means nothing without the torque to do work.
You can't even factor what your saying without torque. All that is a function of torque.
@@coilbiohazard Correct, and you need to know torque in order to work out your gear ratios - which are torque-multipliers not power multipliers. Torque is a rotational force, not a static force! Amazing the things people come out and say as fact when they really have no idea. lol.
@@coilbiohazard Of course you need torque to make power. The point is that there is no reason to reference the torque output once you know the power band of an engine, because torque is already factored into the power.
Knowing the peak torque output of an engine in a vehicle is only helpful when you only have the peak horsepower number and not a dyno chart, because it allows you to make a rough estimate of where the power band is.
@@IgorArkin If it's a race car, yes, you are right, but for most street purposes, peak power is not how you want to be driving. Some cars have better driving characteristics on the street by focussing more on torque spread than peak power - otherwise you will be redlining it the whole time. I don't know about you, but I find it irritating to be red-lining a lot. A good street car has a torque spread that covers a wide RPM range, and gear ratios that do the same. It's more forgiving for regular drivers.
Speed is how fast you hit the wall
Kinetic energy is how far you take the wall with you
Not directly kinetic energy, more the momentum, but the two are depending on each other.
It's more like "momentum is how far you take the wall with you". Linear momentum is linearly dependant of speed and mass but kinetic energy depends quadratically of speed
Power is how fast you can get to the top of that hill, and torque is how easy it sounds when you do it.
Two vehicles with the same top power figure and weight will be able to get to the top at the same time, but the one with much lower torque will be screaming (higher revs) and the other will be chillin'.
Whenever I try to explain mechanical concepts these days, I refer people to your videos. Saves me having to do all the work! Saying HP is torque with engine speed seems to get the message across. I have a 250cc motorbike with 35HP and a 500cc bike with 35HP. The 500cc has nearly twice the torque and has far more "grunt" despite having the same power.
True, but that rear wheel doesn't necessarily care, shift that 250 down a gear!
No it doesn't, if they both have 35 hp they will produce the same torque at the wheel.
"Horsepower is NOT how fast you hit the wall. Torque is NOT how far you take the wall with you"
Scarry how ppl act as if a meme is science and fact
Last week's video helped me be able to explain it to friends lol
The modified wall example reminds me of one of the other simplistic examples I've heard "Torque is what throws you back in your seat, Horsepower is what keeps you there". Either way, you descriptions are spot on!
@@IgorArkin They would agree as they are some of the most educated on physics with respect to getting the car to do what they want. When a car accelerates, the person's body is at rest and will experience a force "pushing" them backwards (while in reality it's actually the car accelerating behind them and pushing them forwards). Formula one cars have 600+ N•m in an 800kg chassis, while making up for the 'lack' of torque with a considerably high redline to get their horsepower. Like I said it still falls victim to the misrepresentation of torque ≠ acceleration, but it's more accurate than the previous example if hitting a wall.
@@IgorArkin (Rotational analogue of force) Torque = (Force × Distance), Horsepower = (Torque × Velocity ÷ 5252). In order to increase horsepower you have to increase torque or velocity (in this case angular velocity being rpm). Formula 1 cars have a modest torque, but make large power through their high revving engines. I believe you're thinking horsepower decides torque, when in reality torque × rpm dictates horsepower.
@@IgorArkin I believe we're discussing different things. If you were to achieve peak torque and perfect grip to throw you back in your seat the pressure experienced would be at its maximum, but physics doesn't work in the 100% instantaneous nature. In reality it would be ramped up to the peak torque rpm (otherwise this would cause tire spin) and that difference in time in which you start accelerating until you've hit maximum acceleration is what's referred to as impulse or jerk. What I was referring to is if you had Car A with 100 N•m of and car B with 200 N•m, Car B with 200 N•m will typically throw you back in your seat more than the first (again as stated in the video Torque ≠ acceleration so this is a misnomer). However, if Car A could Rev to 18,000 rpm with 100 N•m (producing ~340hp) vs Car B only revs to 5,000 rpm (~190hp) it seems likely that the first car will continue to hold that pressure for longer (albeit possibly with a lesser absolute force, but we're talking about area under the curve for acceleration over time).
Re-read the second sentence of my last response as that is the answer to your question.
Absolutely awesome content.
An intelligent and articulate person simply explains a concept/s. A person still not understanding the concept/s feels insecure and blurts out nonsense they heard from someone else in an attempt to restore their security. No accusations here cause lord knows I’m guilty.
Best title I've seen. Had me in stitches
Great explanation D4A. I almost understand it.
horse power is how fast u can accelerate to 200km/h but torque is how much payload capacity you can carry to have the same rate of acceleration. This is the best analogy for me in my head.
Thank you!! I always found the original wall analogy absolutely terrible and misleading for understanding power and torque. Your version of it is so much better.
Bullets actually don't have much momentum, but they do have a lot of kinetic energy (mass * (velocity squared), rather than just mass * velocity for momentum), which determines their penetration distance. A bullet with half the mass but twice the velocity will penetrate farther, but has the same momentum. The same thing applies to braking: the time it takes to come to a complete stop while applying a constant braking force is directly proportional to momentum, whereas the braking distance is proportional to kinetic energy.
Good job here. Yes, new Iconic Engines next week. I can't wait.
Love you man great videos.
I wish you the best of luck making rational explanations to people driven by popular opinion on social media. You are outnumbered 20 to 1...keep trying...may the FORCE (per unit time) be with you
Love your videos man! Was wondering if you would do one on the Duratec V6 such as in the Noble M10 and M12, owned 5 of them in Mondeos, bulletproof, very rev happy and amazing engines!
This is much better than the other video. I can't tell you how much I hate that wall analogy.
But it just makes no sense at all to refer to the rate of a force. You make the explanation much more complex and confusing and less correct by leaving work and energy out of it.
I always liked the way Truck guys talk about it. Torque is how big of a house you can drag, Horsepower is how fast you can pull it. Wheels on the house are actually optional depending on the size of both the house and the truck.