Power & Torque: Acceleration Exposed

[@We_Are_I_Am]

This video still impresses me greatly, because I remember when I was trying to understand all these questions addressed in the video, I could not believe that nobody was clear or knew about what was the real factor in acceleration, instead all bickering against each other, and it was even more ridiculous that in all the vast wealth of the internet, that so few have actually answered the debate properly. This was the video that finally clarified the war to me a year ago, and thus Killrob, I thank you. You should make more educational videos like this.

[@AutomationGame]

Glad to hear that! :) Before I made the video indeed I looked around on KZbin and there was not a single explanation of the matter that was close to satisfying my desire for depth, simplicity, and accuracy... there is SO MUCH misinformation and pseudo knowledge floating around. :s Thanks for letting us know that this actually helps and makes a difference :)

[@Sedan57Chevy]

It's strange: I hate math but I love physics. Very interesting educational presentation.

[@AutomationGame]

+Sedan57Chevy Thank you! For me it was similar... didn't really enjoy maths or maths disguised as physics until I "got" what physics is about :) then mathematics "just" becomes the tool to explain the world and is far less of a burden.

[@Sedan57Chevy]

Exactly, Once a math is actually a tool, something you can use to do something else, then it actually becomes useful and not quite as bad.

[@Gloggglogg]

Math is the language of physics. So its like saying you love reading fantasy books, but you hate English. Its just required.

[@celtiberian]

In the academy you learn that biology is chemistry, chemistry is physics, physics is math and math is just crazy.

[@bautistap8515]

Same, and I'll be studying engineering while hating maths!

[@neckstumping]

The best explanation I have found ever on the internet. Fantastic work. Thank you.

[@AutomationGame]

Great to hear :) thanks!

[@pinch-of-salt]

I came here to fix acceleration on my automation build, and boy did I learn more about physics than an actual educational video would offer.

[@AutomationGame]

Haha nice! Probably didn't quite fix your acceleration problems in Automation, but it sure provides a solid foundation for how to approach it. xD Cheers

[@johandeklerk1572]

Insane Video, I finish my mechanical engineering degree in 6 days so I knew everything you said in a more "book smart" sense having you explain the graphs and give physical examples just triggered my love for cars and my love for physics to an insane level again

[@AutomationGame]

Awesome to hear :D Cheers mate!

[@adisdedic96]

I'm studying electrical engineering, and I'm building race cars, modifying them, using standalones and more...Now i watched one of your videos and I'm shocked how perfectly you explained the principals behind the engine. Respect! I will soon buy your game, and have fun learning new thing...BTW now are turbochargers mainstream, and it's hard to finde compressor maps that could be a good feature in the game...keep the good work going i hope my child is going to play this game. Best regards from Bosnia and Herzegovina

[@AutomationGame]

Cheers mate, thanks for that! Took quite a while to put that video together :) definitely worth it seeing how much misinformation and half-truths are out there in the automotive world. I've had a go at compressor maps and tried to procedurally generate them... without too much luck, this stuff is really hard :D cheers

[@ragingbull94mtx]

Absolutely brilliant! Great job Killrob, I really learned a lot watching this. So many light bulb moments in such a short period of time. :)

[@AutomationGame]

+ragingbull94mtx Excellent! :) Glad this helps.

[@zacharris6299]

Thank you so much. I try to explain this quite often, and this will be a very valuable resource for my conversations.

[@AutomationGame]

+Zac Harris Excellent! :) Glad it helps.

[@zacharris6299]

8 years later and this is still the only entirely accurate video I've found on the subject.

[@frn583]

You literally saved my project, thanks for explaining so well.

[@AutomationGame]

Glad I could help!

[@AlyxMSC]

This is like a more detailed version of the old "Power & Torque: An Accelerating Experience" video. Love it & Learnt a lot from it! Hope more is coming!

[@AutomationGame]

+Lu Tianyi (AlyxMS) Yes it is! The old power torque video was kind of just an example of this but people liked that and still a lot of people view that video every day, so I thought it'd be a good move to make a proper video about the topic. :)

[@MrSkysommer]

Thank you for this video! Very informative and easy to understand. I would love to see more videos like this.

[@AutomationGame]

+Skyler Sommer Glad you enjoyed it! This topic especially lends itself to such a video. I think the only other topic suitable would be forced induction, although I know too little about that topic yet to see the potentially many flaws in general opinion. :P

[@StratovariusFTW]

This is an amazing explanation, very detailed and at a comfortable pace, with good understandable examples to put the theoretic into "practice" Never thought I'd learn so much from a game. Just goes to show that learning is damn fun if there's incentive and it's made enjoyable!

[@AutomationGame]

Cheers mate, glad this is helpful :D

[@matthewimposter8010]

This complies with my own analysis. Thank you :)

[@srinitaaigaura]

Best explanation till date.

[@djjesus.hediedforyourspins3154]

well, I'll be damned. How come i didn't learn this in the physics class in college?

[@AutomationGame]

+DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins Hmm, good question! Unfortunately there are a lot of interesting things you don't learn in school... I didn't learn this either but had to sit down and derive things myself :) sometimes it is up to your initiative to learn things.

[@djjesus.hediedforyourspins3154]

AutomationGame Indeed.

[@SkyWKing]

+DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins Basically all these equations shown in the video can be derived purely using high school level physics and maths.

[@Lowezar]

+SUN SU Yeah but nobody ever mentioned direct connection, so I was more interested in other things for self-learning. :) Sometimes kids need simple plain and stupid answers to make them interested first - then they'll dig deeper.

[@peaveawwii1]

DJ Jesus.He Died for your spins cause college is a scam

[@mrabudi1]

When you floor it on first gear and can't get any power to the ground because 600+ horsepower #firstgearproblems

[@AutomationGame]

indeed! xD

[@pencilcase8068]

@@AutomationGame laughs in 2818 horsepower snap oversteer

[@Rararawr]

I really wanted to know if doubling the power and halving the rpm would be the same power. Thank you for confirming my thinking

[@matthewimposter8010]

Doubling the torque and halving the rpm would be the same power, because power is the product of torque and rpm. hp = (torque x rpm)/5252. Torque is meaningless by itself. Power is everything.

[@TORTOISESMASH3R]

Why would the acceleration for fixed gear ratios look like the torque curve? @11:45

[@AutomationGame]

The video explains that, have another look. The short of it: RPM increasing linearly makes power increase linearly. Power need to keep constant acceleration also rises linearly. Those two cancel each other out, so what is left is the torque curve.

[@fundles420]

Like right here bro. I'm the guy you've been arguing with. This is not true as proven in a CVT transmission. Power stays the same throughout all acceleration and gearing. The reason the cars acceleration slows down is due to the gear ratio changing, and wind/road resistance. A rocket (or jet engine drag car) is a good example of this. Until an object reaches near the speed of light, extra required energy for constant, consistent acceleration is negligible.

[@GERntleMAN]

What I'm intersted in is the following: Inline 6: 2.5l 180 hp and 250Nm V 6: 2.5l 180 hp and 250Nm Both have the same torque and power curve. Will you feel a different characteristic in how the engine delivers the power?

[@AutomationGame]

No you won't. The only main differences you will be able to tell are: a) engine sound, b) engine vibrations (I6 being much smoother)

[@chadw4638]

you are assuming that at all rpms the power is identical.... all you showed was the same peak power at the same rpm... they would have different power outputs at NON peak rpm... in the real world

[@AutomationGame]

Chad W No, you missed this: "Both have the same torque and power curve."

[@GERntleMAN]

AutomationGame Okay, thank you! So the "characteristics" people are speaking of, come down to the individual properties of the engine layout itself. Speaking of free mass forces and such. But if you have the same curve, there is no additional attitude the engine can have besides smoothness and sound. Very cool. I always thought about it because I couldn't believe how quick Porsches felt when driving them compared to comparable cars. I worked at a Porsche dealership for a while but they were always quicker than their counterpart! It went like this: "The 911 GTS has 408PS? Seriously? I just smoked that M5 up the motorway access breaking no sweat and accelerating to 220 before he even came back into sight."

[@AutomationGame]

GERntleMAN I think what you are feeling to a large extent is the throttle response and the overall weight distribution along with the suspension setup in that case :) The cars certainly feel different but that is not necessarily down to the engine, although the feedback coming from the engine might be different due to how it's set up. Cheers!

[@vaishnavalappatt5476]

Well done, the video was extremely useful and clarified many concepts . A big applause!

[@AutomationGame]

Thank you! :)

[@vaishnavalappatt5476]

Welcome

[@vaishnavalappatt5476]

+AutomationGame Hey can you please do a video like this one regarding forced induction engine and naturally aspirated engine covering topics like mpgs, power, efficiency and torque. It would be very helpful.

[@ZVMoYxMAjTEwAMEb]

This is amazing! Very informative

[@AutomationGame]

+Kyle Belouin Thank you!

[@Ceffeer]

Very precise, and very correct, I like your work guys. Keep it up!

[@AutomationGame]

+Ceffeer Thanks! Appreciate it :) was a lot of work to put together, too.

[@tycondero1647]

Nice lecture about torque and power. I have one interesting question though. Eventhough, I like combustion engines much more as an engine than electric ones. I do have the fear/impression that electric engines are in fact superior over old combustion engines, due to the almost constant torque they can provide. Is this correct and how do you guys feel/think about this?

[@AutomationGame]

+Tycondero I think you meant "constant power they provide" :) well yes, electric engines are far superior if you do NOT consider the fuel and its energy density. Combustion engines with CVT are superior to electric engines taking into account just how much their fuel weighs (so many batteries!). That may change in the coming years as battery tech advances, but currently the unmatched energy density of petrol and diesel is what gives combustion engines the edge.

[@tycondero1647]

Thanks for you explaination. That's true, I'm still a bit thorn whether electric engines will be the future or whether hydrogen as a fuel will be. The benefit for hydrogen is that we already have most of the infrastructure (fuel stations), however it seems hydrogen systems have "lost" the race against electric/batteries.

[@petarpili7055]

I just have one question that I can't grasp my mind around, in a given gear ratio, peak acceleration will accur at peak torque, i.e. at the most amount of work done per combustion cycle, but why doesn't peak acceleration accur at peak power if the formula a=P/mv still holds true for a given gear ratio?

[@AutomationGame]

Peak acceleration can only occur at peak power if it is the same as peak torque :) the reason is that you're faster! When you're faster, you need more energy to increase the speed by one unit compared to when you're slower. Accelerating from 50 to 51 takes half the energy as accelerating from 100 to 101. So while you make more power at peak power, you don't in relation to how much energy is needed for further acceleration.

[@ruolbu]

4:24 I can't quite follow that step. Yes I recall that an assumption like "X is very small so it can be neglected/considered = 0" is a valid action. But I imagine you would need to apply that to the entire formula and thereby also neglect the delta_v you multiply with V_0. Since you don't do that I have one clue as to why. delta_v^2 is of course exponentially smaller then just delta_v and therefore more plausible to be ignored. But somehow I feel like that is a bit arbitrary :/

[@AutomationGame]

+ruolbu Fair question, I myself often had doubts about that during my university studies. Let me give you a practical non-hyperbole example to show this is valid as an approach: take v0 to be 10 m/s, a pretty small velocity, the mass is 1000kg, we say that deltaV is 0.001 m/s, which I would say is a "practically almost zero" number. starting off at the third line where I would get rid of the deltaV^2 term: = 0.5 * 1000 * ( 10^2 + 2 * 10 * 0.001 + 0.001^2 - 10^2) = 500 * ( 0.02 + 0.00001 ) = 10 + 0.005 So what I am doing here is getting rid of the 0.005, that creates an error of 0.05%. I think you see why I am inclined to accept this error in order to make the rest of this derivation possible :) Also note that I correctly state that this is NOT exactly true but very close to the truth, indicated by using ~ instead of = when it comes to denoting the resulting acceleration. I doubt that after seeing what little error is introduced you keep worrying though ;)

[@InitialD91]

Any updates on the new engine calculations? I'm more excited for those than any other feature so far.

[@AutomationGame]

+Matthew Ramos Still the same status: they will make it into the game first when we have the unreal version running. :)

[@vaishnavalappatt5476]

What does the crossover point signify in physical terms? I agree that the rpm of crossover point varies according to system of units used. But is there any significance whatsoever physically or is it like comparing apples to oranges?

[@AutomationGame]

It doesn't signify anything at all. :) Indeed it is apples vs. apple juice.

[@vaishnavalappatt5476]

+AutomationGame Thank you very much☺

[@freshmilk980]

Hey, one more question (sorry for all the comments, and this is a long one, but I just re-discovered this video and I love it) -- I want to express the displacement of a car in terms of time, assuming constant maximum power (so I guess acceleration is decreasing but speed is increasing such that a*v is a constant). I have: v(t)^2 - v(0)^2 = 2(a_ave)(distance) a_ave = P/(mv_ave) distance = (v_ave)(t) So: v(t) = sqrt [ 2(P/m)t + v(0)^2 ] And now if I want to express displacement in terms of time I just integrate this last equation, right? I ask because I tried it another way: distance = v(0)t + 0.5(a_ave)t^2 a_ave = P/(mv_ave) v_ave = distance/t So: distance = v(0)t + 0.5(Pt/m/distance)t^2 Rearranging: distance^2 = (distance)v(0)t + Pt^3/(2m) Then I solved the quadratic for distance but got a different equation than I got using the other method.

[@AutomationGame]

If you assume constant power and disregard drag then this should be pretty straight forward to solve once you have found the function for the velocity (I assume by displacement you mean "how far the car has travelled from zero"). You'd need to integrate that to get the function for distance travelled as a function of time, yes. Dealing with integrals means you'd have to use the more accurate representation without averages though: v(t) = dx/dt and a(t) = dv/dt. The averages point to the use of non-infinitesimal points in time... that doesn't mix well :) can't help you more with that though, cheers.

[@freshmilk980]

Cheers! :)

[@xbox819]

Any idea when the open beta will be released? Thanks

[@AutomationGame]

+xbox819 Early next week is our aim.

[@xbox819]

Thanks

[@RNA0ROGER]

+AutomationGame everyone loves v12 turbo's

[@AutomationGame]

***** Monday will be used for a final look through stuff, handing it over to the testers and then on Tuesday would be the first open beta version, yes.

[@MrHamof]

23:18 You say here that Electric engines get mostly flat power curves across their entire rev range, but looking up the power & torque curve of the Tesla Model S shows that this isn't the case, what am I not understanding?

[@AutomationGame]

How they modulate their power curves is up to them, an electric engine is pretty close to an idealized engine. efficiency does not vary much in a wide range of RPM. :)

[@MrHamof]

@@AutomationGameI was wrong anyway, the Model S has a rising curve to about 7k, then only slightly declining the rest of the way to 18k. Definitely counts as "mostly flat" to me.

[@mociczyczki]

@@AutomationGameelectric engine well all which im seen have peak constant torque on engine up to some rpm than torque drop down ., power isint peak constant it grown grown grown achieve peak which hold not so long and than again power drop down its not perfect graph .,well it can be if we consider tires dont have grip and engine is very powerfull and torquie that can go on tores border grip from stand still however if we do unlimited tires grip than all electric engine in modern car is very far from perfect power torque graph which should look like this cvt acceleration speed graph i mean torque graph so insane high at very low rpm and constant drop down while rpm grovn such kind of torquee graph give constant peak power from lowest rpm up tp highest so you have still peak power whichout gearbox and clutch no matter at what kind of speed ypou are and engine rpm just floor and you go in any moment at max acceleration rate or with max tires twisting force .,

[@emrekucuk61]

Great work! Just wanna ask one thing. So the force in energy per combustion cycle, acting on a radial distance must always be greater than the forces acting on the wheel of the car;such as friction,gravity etc. For example, in a tug of war contest the car putting more energy per combustion cycle, or torque is gonna win whatever its horsepower is, just due to the fact that the force in torque( energy per cumbustion cycle) dominates the other car's.

[@AutomationGame]

You're trying to see it from the perspective of forces instead of energy :) sure can do that, but it is a lot more complex that way to get it right. You are confusing terms. Force is not torque! Work is torque. When you mean forces, they fluctuate wildly during the combustion cycle and are not useful to calculate performance, only to calculate stress on parts. When you lean against a wall, you produce a lot of torque (the torque you talk about: force), and yet you don't move the wall (you produce no work, the torque that the video talks about, the correct torque to talk about when it comes to engines) . Only when the wall starts moving have you actually performed any work. So step away from the concept of torque = force, that is not how it works in automobiles. :)

[@daverr8163]

If the small v12 car and the big v12 car weighed the same and made the same power then both cars should accelerate the same. The smaller v12 which revs higher would have to launch at a higher rpm where as the big v12 would launch at a much lower rpm.The drag test between both cars showed the lighter car with the same power had a greater speed at the end of the 1/4 mile which is due to a better power to weight ratio.So the lighter car could of accelerate faster/ won the race if you had the lighter car launch at a higher rpm. Great video btw.

[@aaronmachado13]

Is this the same for motorcycles regarding power plant ?

[@AutomationGame]

Of course it is, this is true in general. :)

[@aaronmachado13]

AutomationGame ok I thought due to the rpm being higher on average it'd cause torque and power all together to be differently measured

[@RNA0ROGER]

I'm bad at the math side but I got this video pretty well nice one.

[@dedisetiawan6796]

Hello sir, I am from Indonesia. May I ask about the software? is this software only for multi cylinder simulation? can it make a simulation for motocycle with a single cylinder? I am looking forward to your reply, sir. Thank you very much

[@AutomationGame]

The game is not a "proper" simulation. :) Check it out on Steam here: store.steampowered.com/app/293760/Automation__The_Car_Company_Tycoon_Game/ Regarding what engines are in the game, have a look here: steamcommunity.com/app/293760/discussions/2/1742232339925657365/ Cheers!

[@charlieabbot3649]

Great video! Technical, but understandable.

[@AutomationGame]

Cheers mate!

[@TORTOISESMASH3R]

Could you find acceleration by taking the torque at the wheels? B/c energy would be constant from the engine to the wheels?

[@AutomationGame]

Yes you could, that is one of the things I cover in the Q&A at the end of the video.

[@Owais-Ali]

Excellent, but what software did you use at start of this video.

[@AutomationGame]

You mean Automation? That's the game we create. Links in description :)

[@ritvikrajbhushan847]

Can you Please tell me what simulator are you using ???

[@AutomationGame]

Check out the video description, there are links to the game right at the bottom :)

[@freshmilk980]

Love this video! Just one thing I'm hoping you can clear up: So when a manufacturer refers to a car's engine producing, say, 250 lb*ft of torque, they are referring to the amount of energy the engine produces per combustion cycle, and not actually the amount of "twisting force" the engine exerts on the crankshaft? Or are these descriptions actually the same thing and one just makes more sense mathematically?

[@AutomationGame]

They do mean the amount of energy per combustion cycle if they talk about reality. What you call the "twisting force" varies greatly over the course of one combustion cycle and goes far beyond the average that could be inferred from the 250 lb*ft figure. That fact tells you straight away that "torque" as a "force" (which it is NOT) is not a good way to talk about this, but rather in terms of energy. :)

[@freshmilk980]

Okay, cool, I think that makes sense! Thanks! :)

[@freshmilk980]

5 months later and I think I finally figured out how to tell if car manufacturers are reporting average energy per combustion cycle or average "rotational analogue of force" per combustion cycle: since you get work by integrating torque with respect to angle, then average energy = average torque * theta, so you'd just see if you still need to include the 2*pi factor in the equation for power in terms of torque. If you don't need to include it, it was already factored in and they are reporting energy per combustion cycle. Correct?

[@freshmilk980]

Oh, wait ... I forgot that they are reporting peak numbers and not average numbers -__- I wish they reported averages; it would make calculations so much easier! Instead I have to find actual torque curves...

[@MisterMomotaro1996]

Is there a replacement for displacement?

[@AutomationGame]

Sure is.

[@Doc-Ready]

Momotaro Yes, it is called forced induction. Which is pretty much acting as more displacement if you think of it since it literally allows an engine to displace more air

[@elvamp789]

I can't find the part where you put the turbo curves on the graph! One of the example makes it seem like turbo is a straight downgrade compared to stock (less power)?! How is that possible?

[@AutomationGame]

There is no turbo discussion in this one. I don't even know what you are talking about? Do you mean this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rImbqJ-hiKmqibs

[@elvamp789]

My bad. Yes that's the video at 11mins. Nvm my question the turbo graph is the left one everything is good. But I have another question tho.. What RPM corresponds to maximum acceleration (@ v=0 and v=C)? Maximum power's RPM or maximum Toque's RPM? Since a=P/mv0 I would say the Power's RPM but in your video you show that the acceleration graphs are a compressed image of the Torque's curve.. Thanks.

[@AutomationGame]

Younes Taghi That question has three answers: 1) If you use a fixed ratio gearbox then at peak torque you get maximum acceleration because of the limitations of fixed gearing. 2) If you have fluid gearing like in the case of a CVT, then you accelerate the hardest at peak power. 3) If you have the choice of fixed gearing and want the car to accelerate hardest at a certain speed, you tune the gear such that the engine is at peak power in that gear at that speed.

[@jayl4565]

How did you factor the drag into the torque vs. km/h graph? (Equation)

[@AutomationGame]

I did a simple PowerLost = Speed * AirDensity / 2 * EffectiveAreaOfCar * Speed^2 where I used an average, reasonable figure for the car's effective area. Drivetrain friction was not taken into account.

[@jayl4565]

So... Is it those quantities minus torque? Im trying to creat an optimum shift point calculator.

[@AutomationGame]

Hmm? I don't get where you want to get with that question. Torque doesn't come into it at all. drivetrain friction is a power loss, "power at the wheels" is what accelerates a car as demonstrated to the n-th degree in the video, so why do you even mention torque?

[@karimabdalnaby6563]

what is the name of program that used

[@AutomationGame]

What is the name of the channel that posted the video? ;) you have the answer right there. Automation.

[@wyskun]

Hi I have a question about power and torque I understand 90% of it but one thing i dont understand. If for better acceleration we need power not torque, so why in my car 1.8t chipped i feel better acceleration for example on 3rd gear betwen 2,5k-4k rpm (where average power and torque is 135hp & 290Nm) than between 4,5k-6k rpm (where average power and torque is 180hp & 240Nm) ?? I know there is a air resistance but i dont belive that is so big. Same feeling on 2nd gear. Same example is in diesel 1.9tdi 130hp. On 3rd gear at 4k rpm (max power) accelerate slower than at 2.5k rpm All I want to know why I fell more counter force on my seat when I 'am betwen 2.5k-4k RPM than between 4,5k-6k RPM although power of engine is bigger there Why is that?

[@AutomationGame]

The reason is that the faster you go, the more energy you require to accelerate by 1 km/h. At 3000 RPM let's say you have a speed of 60 km/h, then you have a speed of 100km/h at 5000 RPM. If acceleration at 60 km/h takes one unit of energy, then it takes (100/60)^2 = 2.78 units of power to do the same at 100 km/h. With the power numbers stated that would mean that: you have 180/135 = 1.33 times the power at 100 km/h, but you need 2.78x the power to accelerate the same amount. That means: At 100km/h you accelerate 2.78/1.33 = 2.09 times slower than at 60 km/h.

[@wyskun]

So: Double the speed, four times the energy? So if I need for example 10Hp to drive 50km/h and if I drive 100km/h i need 40Hp. Is that true?

[@AutomationGame]

That is true, but you arrived there with the entirely wrong reasoning. YES driving twice as fast gives you four times the energy, that follows from E = 0.5 * m*v^2. But YES you do need four times the POWER (not energy, but energy per second) to drive twice as fast, that is due to air resistance being quadratic in nature, it goes with v^2 as well. Don't confuse these things or a physicist will come by and kill you in your sleep :P

[@wyskun]

ok, next question because i don't fully understand this:) You said: "locked in the fixed ratio gear when the car goes twice the speed the engine spins twice as fast hence the idealized engine will produce twice as much power when when the car goes twice as fast, this doubling in power offsets completely the additional energy demand from the higher speed and keeps acceleration constant in this example where we do not consider any air resistance in order to keep things simple" So that's mean if there is no air resistance and I drive in my car in fixed gear i need twice as much power when i drive twice as fast, but when the air resistance is I need 4x of energy per second to drive twice as fast? And one more question: We need 4x of power to drive twice as fast (Do You mean constant acceleration in this example??? - I mean for example I need 10Hp to accelerate in 5 second from 0-50km/h and I need 40HP to accelerate in 5 second from 50-100km/h ??? ) I can't stop thinking about this and I'am so confused .... :)

[@BP-fx3qc]

My brain is mulltttinnn daaaoooonnn uuuhhh.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

It's sad how few views this has. I've linked more than a few people to this video now because they don't understand this subject, they just ignore it and come back to me to prove that they can't do basic math.

[@AutomationGame]

Haha yes, unfortunately most are not actually interested in understanding the topic and rather would like to have confirmed what they "feel" is right. This video is not compatible to that. :) Cheers!

[@savagekando4677]

How do i opt for the beta version of the game in steam ?

[@AutomationGame]

+Filip Muresan right-click, properties, betas, select openbeta

[@savagekando4677]

+AutomationGame What is the code ?

[@AutomationGame]

+Filip Muresan there is no code! select the openbeta, its called "open" for a reason ;)

[@umbrere7250]

Great Video!

[@nagaraju-t6g]

whether the torque numbers should be more ( ex.300 nm) or less (100 nm ) for controlled driving

[@AutomationGame]

Doesn't matter, unless you are not using a gearbox :P

[@Fin4L6are]

Shouldn't the Acceleration vs. Speed In Air graphs show power curves instead of the torque curves?

[@AutomationGame]

+EriksR Yes, kind of, but only if you have CVT gearboxes or electric engines. It is the limitations of the fixed ratio gearbox that makes the torque curve visible!

[@IgorArkin]

I wonder why simulation estimates engine weight difference so dramatically. We know from practice that modern v8 pushrod engines weight around the same as much smaller OHC engines with less cylinders and produce higher power and energy. Even if you bore your v12 you will save weight on engine block, though will compensate with heavier rotating assembly. Probably you even need to boost smaller v12 to keep it up with larger one in terms of power, thus increasing weight of the smaller engine.

[@AutomationGame]

Because of the higher torque you will need a stronger drivetrain and gearbox, bigger starter motor, more coolant, etc. That is where a lot of that weight comes from. It should be somewhat accurate as an estimate.

[@aiquelindo]

Fird gear??? Did you mean first or third?

[@jayl4565]

Also, where does the first speed in your equation come from?

[@AutomationGame]

v0 is whatever speed you start out with. Could be zero.

[@denismorissette419]

Correct me if I'm wrong but the better efficency of a diesel engine also comes from the high compression ratio. One of the easiest way to increase the efficency of an engine is to raise the compression ratio.

[@AutomationGame]

Sure is, also you can boost the shit out of them, because "knock" is a good thing in Diesels xD

[@cuepusher2504]

why do suck, squeeze, bang, fart, engine get more efficient as the compression ratio increases? No one has been able to explain this to me. excellent job on torque, thanks.

[@AutomationGame]

The engine is powered by the force of the expanding gas on the pistons. If you have a higher compression ratio you extract more energy from that expansion process - starting to extract energy form a denser state.

[@ΑΡΗΣΚΟΡΝΑΡΑΚΗΣ]

don't forget that in diesel engines, if an injector malfunctions the fuel will be take the return line

[@raybob9571]

Part of the thing about large torque-y engines and diesels that you didn't mention is that besides just the torque curve, these larger stronger engines are also typically far more reliable and durable and thus are preferable for work-intensive applications. You got close to pointing this out with your illustration of the F1 engine in a truck. Trucks prefer using diesels obviously because an F1 engine is not going to make it to 500,000 miles, and an F1 engine is going to use orders of magnitude more fuel. Plus, in reality any F1 engine that is geared to run 15 mph at 20,000 rpm is going to use a very expensive gearbox with a lot of friction that also doesn't last very long. Not always, but in general, engines with bigger cylinders and slower revs are going to be a bit more efficient (hence why trucks often use very large 6-cylinder engines that top out at 2500 RPM - a 50% efficient diesel in a ship would be the extreme example of this principle). With the big and the small V12s you used at the beginning, two major things the big V12 has going for it is that it's a) probably going to cost a lot less to build and b) it's going to last a lot longer. Torque curve is certainly part of the equation but that's not the only thing people are thinking of.

[@AutomationGame]

+Ray Beck I agree with all the points you made and would like to point out that the nature of diesel engines not revving high directly leads to lower RPM which mean less friction and less wear, making them last longer. I am not sure if a petrol engine tuned similarly and limited to the same redline would break earlier, although the petrol 4 stroke cycle is slightly more complex.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

+AutomationGame I just want to say thanks for making this video, it's so much easier to point people to a video than it is to try to knock all of their misconceptions down individually. I do disagree with you here, though. Modern diesels are actually considerably more complex than modern gasoline engines.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

+Ray Beck Greater displacement doesn't automatically translate to greater longevity, with diesels it's also that they're typically built to be two to three times heavier than gasoline engines of a similar displacement. That extra mass does often translate to much greater longevity. As AutomationGame has said, gasoline engines would benefit from being built in this manner as well. In fact, gasoline engines are able to be extremely reliable while weighing much less than diesels. Also, you're not considering some aspects of the engine design with the V12s. A small engine will typically have a shorter stroke than a large engine, which can translate to lower piston speeds at similar or higher rpm, reducing wear and stress on the internal components. It's not uncommon to see 300,000 miles on a high revving Honda engine and a slow turning V8 in the junkyard before it's gone half that many miles.

[@Joe_Rebel]

So it's not really the amount of torque it's how much is available at all rpms like a flat torque curve. So that being said a car with 200 ft-lbs of torque all over the rev range can accelerate better than a car with 300 ft-lbs but only on the top half and a low amount of torque (lets say 70 ft-lbs) on the bottom half. Is my theory correct?

[@AutomationGame]

+Fudge You uhh... I don't quite follow, but let me say this: the only thing that matters is how much power you produce across the usable rev range. How you produce that power (low RPM + high torque or high RPM + low torque) doesn't matter. Talking about absolute torque numbers is pretty meaningless, power accelerates a car, not torque.

[@Joe_Rebel]

+AutomationGame Ah ok.

[@HazewinDog]

k I want to see a truck with an F1 engine now xD #firstgearproblems

[@AutomationGame]

+HazewinDog I'd really want to see the stupid VW commercial where the car pulls an airliner redone to the 100cc engine pulling the airliner :P really slowly.

[@HazewinDog]

AutomationGame I wish I knew that commerical, haha. I have't watched TV since a couple years now

[@AutomationGame]

HazewinDog Found it, although technically not a commercial, it really is :P kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZ6wXmlpareFbNE

[@HazewinDog]

AutomationGame haha, yeah that would definitely work as a good commercial :) so um.. did you guys make enough money yet to rent an airfield strip and a 747 for a few hours? let's see a 100cc engined car pull it :D

[@AutomationGame]

HazewinDog We blow all our earnings on that :P sounds like a brilliant idea, let me call in a group meeting right now!!

[@IgorArkin]

Hello again First lets check if everything is correct here. T=force times length of an arm W=T times rotational distance. So work per one rotation is T*2π and measured in Nm like linear work because length of arm which is radius is now distance traveled because of 2π multiplication. Now the question. What dynamometer actually measures? Say we get 400nm measurement. Is it a peaked torque along this particular revolution or is it work per this particular revolution? Everyone talks of it as torque but is it true? If it is work then torque is 400/2π=64nm (average) Piston stroke is realistically 8cm which results in 64/0.08=800N of average useable force applied on crankshaft. I find it plausible, considering it is average and not peak, and lots of piston force is lost between piston and crankshaft due to geometry, friction etc so this still leads to hundreds of kilogram-force from a tiny drop of fuel. But if that is 400nm of torque this leads to ~6.28 times more of average force from a drop of fuel

[@AutomationGame]

The torque (force) varies massively during the combustion cycle and is negative for most of it. The torque (work) the engine produces is the measure to be used to make sense in terms of performance. Torque as a force is only ever useful when you try to determine the mechanical stress on internals.

[@IgorArkin]

@@AutomationGame right, this is why I called it "average" torque per rotation, which, multiplied by 2π is a work per rotation. So 400nm @ 4000 rpm reading from dyno, what is it?

[@AutomationGame]

400 Nm of engine torque would be the total area under the curve, which also comes from all cylinders, not just one. So you need to divide that by cylinder count too if you want to look at forces. :) Then on top of that you have those forces from the combustion acting with a sin(crankangle) multiplier to give you force figures. The dyno measures power, from which you can derive torque, and from that in turn the forces if you go through a LOT of calculations that are not necessary unless you are an engineer. 400 Nm at 4000 RPM means the engine outputs 2pi * 400 Nm * 4000 / 60 seconds = 167550 Nm/s = 167550 J/s = 167.55 kW Not sure if the dyno measures the kW or the Nm + Speed :) it doesn't matter, as both are power.

[@Bahookers]

When's the open beta coming out? Thanks for the informative video!

[@AutomationGame]

+Bahooki Early next week, more info coming soon :)

[@Bahookers]

yahoo! thanks :-)

[@AhmedMHIZ2010]

amazing video, and you even bothered yourself to list imperial and metric units

[@AutomationGame]

Glad you found it interesting! Cheers

[@donuthunter2621]

Was it explained what the torque number is for? If power is all that matters why do manufacturers/the game tell us the engine torque? Also, what is a combustion cycle? Also, are you supposed to shift at peak torque or at redline? Just a little confused, but I'm kinda dumb too so.

[@AutomationGame]

Hey, knowing you're a little dumb makes you smarter than most! Torque describes pretty well how efficient the engine is and describes how power is delivered. That is useful to know :) You usually want to shift at the redline or shortly before in order to have the next gear's start RPM to be high enough to produce the maximum amount of power. That is in a racing situation only though, of course... I'd not recommend that for normal driving xD

[@donuthunter2621]

Wow that was a fast reply! ... but I do have 1 more question. Is a 100 torque engine more efficient than a 400 because less power is 'wasted' at low RPM? Btw, I bought the game thinking it was something else. But before I played it, car engines were magic to me. It's very interesting to see how it all works, thanks for making it! :)

[@AutomationGame]

Not necessarily, no. For naturally aspirated engines of the same capacity you can compare torque numbers to see efficiency. When comparing differently sized naturally aspirated engines just divide the torque by the capacity and compare those numbers. Once boost comes into the picture you would have to divide by the total pressure (in bar), too.

[@kikkheh]

Nice video. The things will be more easier if the instead of calling torque (N.m), they call it Energy (J)? In the answer at the end you compare oversquare vs undersquare engine, I would be fine if you made a video comparing the volume engine but with different geometric.

[@AutomationGame]

It is so easy to just say torque, so no one will ever change that :) it should be called "work" instead, or work per combustion cycle. Cheers!

[@kikkheh]

I did a little of math, to find out if there is any difference between "work p.c.c" and torque, and yes it is. The work p.c.c in a single piston engine, will be Pm.Ap.Stroke- (J) and in the same piston the max torque will be Pm.Ap.(Stroke/2)- (N.m). Of course I did a lot of assumptions but I think it is enough to see the concepts. Pm=average pressure Ap=Area of the piston Cheers

[@xeno126]

Power is how fast energy is transferred. In an ideal world, why the acceleration isn't the same in all gears regardless of how fast the car is and in what gear? After all the power is the same. I don't get it when it's in terms of power, but in torque, it's easy to understand that the torque and speed of the engine is transformed through the transmission and so acceleration becomes less with higher gears because torque because the transmission decreases the torque and increases the speed.

[@AutomationGame]

The question you ask is answered clearly in the video: higher speeds require more energy for subsequent speed increases, hence at constant power, acceleration goes down. I highly doubt you "get it when its torque", that way is much more complicated than calculating it from first principles based on energy.

[@xeno126]

That's it, I don't understand how "higher speeds require more energy for subsequent speed increases". What bothers me is that I took mechanics courses in uni and did well, but it seems I didn't reach the understanding to know this. Thank you very much for your time :)

[@AutomationGame]

Ahh okay, good on you for pointing this out directly, which indeed is the core problem. Any object that moves has kinetic energy. Kinetic energy is calculated by E = 0.5 * mv^2. If you want to increase the speed of this object from v0 to v1, then that action requires energy. As you can see the dependency is not linear, but quadratic with speed, hence a speed increase at higher speed requires more energy. Take another look at that section in the video, too.

[@xeno126]

Ah! Never knew about that! I'll revisit the derivation section. Thank you for putting the time to answer this! Subscribed :)

[@srinitaaigaura]

Because Power = Force x Velocity. At constant power and no drag, your acceleration (F = ma = P/v) is inversely proportional to speed so you accelerate slower as you go faster. Gears just approximate the same effect in a staggered manner, the difference being that when the engine revs drop at every gear change, you lose some power. An electric car like the Tesla does it smoothly as the electric motor gets up to full power and stays there. If you take aero drag into account, then Power required is roughly directly proportional to the cube of speed, so your acceleration goes down much faster. Your definition of constant acceleration requires constant FORCE, which means your engine will have to generate more and more power at higher speeds to keep the acceleration constant. (Rockets do this, the faster they go, the more power they make, while thrust is constant -- the extra energy comes from the kinetic energy of the onboard fuel).

[@nathanbaeyens2856]

i learned a lot. thanks.

[@LearningFast]

Great video but you do have one assumption wrong. Electric motors certainly can have flat power curves. However, in most modern consumer electric cars they often do not have flat power curves. EVs like the Tesla Model 3/Y, Kia EV6, and Porsche Taycan all have power curves that fall off significantly at higher speeds. In fact the Porsche Taycan even has a second gear to combat this. The Tesla Plaid vehicles all have essentially flat Horsepower curves all the way to their 20K+ rpm limit. There is no need for a variable gearbox with those cars.

[@AutomationGame]

You're of course right about that :) the base assumption of a flat power curve is basically like the base assumption that a combustion engine has a flat torque "curve" :D okay, that's a bigger difference but you see where I'm coming from. First order correctness xD

[@LearningFast]

@@AutomationGame yes, I do see where you are coming from. However, a lot of people make the assumptions that all engines have flat torque curves and all electric motors have flat torque and flat HP curves. The latter is of course impossible. I just wanted to try to set the record straight. I am a huge fan of your videos. Tons of great information. I have been doing extensive testing with the Tesla Model 3 Performance and I am trying to model that car’s acceleration. Your videos have helped tremendously with that. I am able to do 0-60 mph in 3.00 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 11.17 @ 120.0 mph.

[@ruolbu]

I'm not a cars person, so everything after the "a physicist would stop here" was a bit hard to follow for me. But whenever I read about the torque of a car I was kind of thinking in terms of torque at the wheel. It seems to me that I managed to misunderstand something that other people misunderstand as well but in another way. It's a bit funny to me.

[@AutomationGame]

+ruolbu All roads lead to misunderstandings? :P

[@DoubleCGamesStudios]

So basically, without taking account of each engine's weight, the big V12 would have a better acceleration because it makes more torque at lower rpm, thus hp will come at a lower rpm compared to the smaller V12, I suppose. But in the comparison before adding each engine's respective weight, you mentioned each engine's average hp. What did you mean by average hp? The average of the max hp made by the engines in all the gears?

[@AutomationGame]

Average hp = the average power produced over the whole rev range. So in practice: (power@MinRPM + ... + power@2100 + power@2200 + ... + power@MaxRPM) / NumberOfSteps. i.e. the true average power the engine produces. The big V12 produces more power on average, which indeed comes from the higher torque values.

[@AutomationGame]

Yes, there are so many misconceptions floating around, it's disheartening at times. It's like blasphemy towards the Torque gods when you say how it really works :P

[@jellybob4605]

when will there be superchargers in automation

[@AutomationGame]

+Jellybob 460 When you read the FAQ ;) link in video description!

[@crackedemerald4930]

Jellybob 460 READ THE DAMM FAQ IT HAS BEEN A YEAR

[@AlastorTheNPDemon]

Before I watch this feature-length video, I have this basic understanding of torque and horsepower: Torque is obviously a twisting force. RPM's are a measure of how quickly torque is applied. I think of it as a sort of awkward multiplier of torque. Horsepower, then, would be the product of these two numbers - true driving force.

[@AutomationGame]

And what *advanced* understanding do you have after watching this feature-length video? :D cheers

[@AlastorTheNPDemon]

AutomationGame Well, I certainly know more about power curve comparisons between "high-power" and "high-torque" engines, but I had my suspicions already. Here's an interesting engine for you: Chrysler 426 HEMI. It is a "high-torque" engine that peaks in power around the 5k RPM region, so an ideal shift point to match gears would be 5500rpm or so. However, this engine still produces reasonable torque all the way out to 7000rpm, and seems to lose but a mere ten or fifteen horsepower, so it may well be fine to stay in the power band all the way to 7k, or shift at 5500 to maintain around 425 horsepower at all times. Dare I say that this engine is pure engineering genius?

[@AutomationGame]

You mean the engine drops in torque only slightly more than linearly with RPM such that power is constant. Yes, that makes shifting really easy when you want to extract the maximum amount of performance. :)

[@DreadlockDrummer]

North Americans as soon as he said "newton metres" of torque: Ummmm..... what? lol

[@wyskun]

am I right kW = Nm x RPM ÷ 9549 is same as HP = Nm x RPM ÷ 7021

[@AutomationGame]

something like that, yes.

[@wyskun]

I want to pull caravan. Someone told me that we need car with a lot of torque. I think he's wrong, couse we need power to pull this caravan couse Power makes acceleration. Which vehicle pulls stronger? vehicle A with constant 2000 rpm with 500Nm or vehicle B with constant 13000 rpm with 100Nm? In my opinion Vehicle B couse it has more power (185hp) than vehicle A (142hp) I know 13000rpm is irrational and better is to have car with a lot of low rpm power. But in this example vehicle B pulls stronger Am I right?

[@AutomationGame]

For an answer to that you need to calculate the power the respective engines make around cruise RPM values, 2000-3000 RPM and see which one delivers more power. Torque indeed is irrelevant, but people tend to use it as a benchmark because peak torque usually is made at lower RPM, i.e. an indicator for pulling POWER. :)

[@krinkles1590]

My mind has melted

[@AutomationGame]

+Justaguy 220 Hope you got earplugs to keep it well contained :P

[@ramjb]

You already did a video like this 2 years ago. Insisting on old topics, I see? ;). Amazing job btw, particularily the FAQ at the end was brilliant. On another whole different topic, you're one of the very few guys who puts up videos in youtube who's boring to watch with subtitles turned on. Not a single funny translation there and maybe 90% of the automatic subtitles being correct. I hate your voice's "ideal torque curve", dangit. Makes me jeallous XDDDD (I guess you know about my loathsome accent by now XDDDD).

[@AutomationGame]

+ramjb Yes, the Power Torque video from 2 years ago basically was equivalent to practical example 3 in this video. I did an improved version now because the old video was a really popular slow burner, with over 20k views nowadays, getting more and more views every day. Considering how popular the topic seems to be, there are very few to no good videos on the topic. So I decided to get that hole filled in, provide some free value to people so that they get happy and get exposed to a) truth and b) Automation; c) naturally follows like for every good German: world domination. Ohh interesting about the subtitles! I have practiced and done a lot of public speaking, with some 5 years of university teaching experience too. Being very clear and articulate is so important when not just casually talking about stuff. :) On that note, isn't your accent part of your unique selling point though?

[@ramjb]

+AutomationGame Depends on whom you ask, it is, or it's not. It's curious to have people telling me they utterly love my accent to then read someone else in one of my comment sections telling me to pull my (censored) out of my mouth while I talk. As most things in life, it's one of those subjects that gets very different feedbacks XDDDD And yup, it's obvious to see you've got practice in teaching. Clear points, easy to follow train of thought, good examples and summing up, effective, while not very long. Had I had to do this It'd been 50 minutes long and I'd never known when to stop insisting in a concept to move on to the next. One of my big problems when transmitting ideas, and english not being my native language doesn't help either XD. I've taken a lot of notes from this video, believe it or not, to use them on my own. Really excellent explanation and examples :).

[@AutomationGame]

ramjb Especially accents really come down to taste, I agree... the stronger it is, the more polarized the reactions, I would think. :) I wish I could just do this stuff on display in the video live :P unfortunately it took me about 1.5 weeks of full time work to prepare and fine-tune the script and graphics to optimize the flow and maximize understanding. One iteration of a test video and comments on that also helped. So overall it is just a fuckton of work (at least for me) to get something to that level, so it is impressive, but it doesn't come naturally to me either. :P

[@ramjb]

+AutomationGame Heh, if it makes it you feel better I also usually spent quite a lot of time in my own "teaching" videos, and they all ended up being much less precise and quite a lot longer. I guess they got the job done but not in the most efficient way. And I like efficiency a lot :P. So for what is worth, the time you took to make this one was well spent time indeed ;).

[@AutomationGame]

ramjb :) Thank you!

[@antiHUMANDesigns]

I find it a bit confusing that talking about the velocity of the car, you use the formula e=½mv^2, since that is the formula for the kinetic energy of something. We're talking about the velocity (speaking of acceleration) of something, not its energy. Wouldn't something like v=sqrt(2e/m) make more sense, assuming "e" is only the kinetic energy? I dunno, I'm not so good at math, it just seems more intuitive to me... :/ I have no idea if I even know what I'm talking about. But I think it's great that you take the time to go into physics about this, since it's not really in your "job" to teach people physics. :)

[@AutomationGame]

+antiHUMANDesigns Well, yes, that would make sense, but the most fundamental characteristic of an object is not its velocity but its energy. Coming from a torque (energy) and power (energy per time) angle, it makes sense expressing everything in terms of energy. Also, expressed in the way you'd want to see it it would have to be v = +/- sqrt(2e/m) because velocity is a vector. So the simpler way to write it in this discussion at least I find to be the way I chose. Cheers!

[@szymoniak75]

isn't it acceleration=torque/inertia though? even if you substitute power in your equation "a ≈ P/mv" with power=torque*angular velocity you get a = T/m back (m should be inertia here though) so how I think about it is that power is just the potential of how much speed we can trade for torque or vice versa. If a car produces 200 Nm at 3000 RPM and 200 Nm at 6000 RPM wouldn't it accelerate the same at these particular RPM values? it's just that at 6000 RPM you can use higher gear ratio to get more torque to the wheels, because for given const power value you have infinitely many pairs of (torque, rpm) for which torque*rpm=this power value you even said it yourself with the gearing example: the acceleration is pretty much the mirror image of torque curve. It's just that with lower gear ratios you have less torque to the wheels so slower acceleration but higher speed.

[@szymoniak75]

yeah I think we agree on this, it's just the wording: you said that power accelerates the car. I say it's the torque at wheels. In the end it's the same thing said differently

[@AutomationGame]

Correct, torque at the wheels is directly translatable to power! I find looking at the energy state of the car way easier because it skips the entire drivetrain conversions of torque back and forth and gets straight to the point :D

[@chevyspeed6368]

Great video, until the end. You said that when you feel acceleration, it's horsepower not torque. As a mechanical engineer, I disagree. You are feeling torque during acceleration. Horsepower wouldn't exist without torque, and vice versa. But, taking a look how a car is moved forward, which are the tires. In a easy example, a rear wheel driven car, The more torque, the more the front tires want to lift off the ground. Therefore torque is causing the acceleration that you feel.

[@AutomationGame]

Torque is energy, energy is not felt unless transformed in a meaningful way. Thus, ENGINE torque can only be felt by the engine tilting, but torque at the wheels is a different story, which is what you guys usually refer to.

[@chevyspeed6368]

AutomationGame First of all, even though energy and torque have the same units, torque is not to be confused with energy. Energy is a scalar, while torque is a vector. The engine "tilting" is because torque is causing the engine to rotate about that axis (side to side), thats true... But that same torque is then transmitted through the transmission where it is multiplied by gearing, then it goes through the drive shaft, then the differential, and then through the wheels which changes axis of rotation front to back. Thus it's all the same torque. You can't say that you can only feel torque when engine is tilting cause, at the end of it all, it travels to the wheels. Torque cause acceleration, which is what we feel. Hypothetically, you can have a 500hp car with only 10ft-lbs of torque and the car has a top speed of 200mph... It might take you all day to get there but technically it can. That's why torque is important, because with more torque it can help you reach that speed faster.

[@AutomationGame]

I don't think we're in disagreement here at all. My point is that you need torque over time/distance in order to create work, just torque doesn't do anything. I think I explained that pretty well in the video. It is interesting to see the different approaches, the mechanical engineer going the forces route and the PhD in physics going the energy route. Both approaches are valid, although I'm of course biased to think the energy route is preferable due to it being more about fundamental physics. :P

[@IgorArkin]

A prove from practice: Shift a gear down at peak torque - you get more acceleration despite engine torque is lower after its peak. This works up to peak power. If you shift down at peak power you will feel less acceleration. Sorry for necro posting, there is just another wave of torque praying on youtube due to driving 4 answers stupid videos

[@someweeb3650]

Wait, so what happens if you give a car a bunch of gears, all with the same ratio?

[@AutomationGame]

All gears with the same ratio? That's like having a single gear. About the second question: No. I don't know how to make it clearer than in this video. Power (at the wheels) accelerates the car.

[@pencilcase8068]

I have an easy solution, just add more power and torque. Adding 1000+ horsepower usually fixes any acceleration problems

[@BrandonHall916]

Should bring back the diagram display

[@timjohnson2731]

So the only way high end horsepower can match low end torque is if the high rpm hp car is 10%lighter. Glad we cleared up what I already knew. The high torque engine being heavier is not always a given. High rpm hp is needed in very specialized applications. In a street car, torque isnt the ONLY thing that matters, but its close.

[@mociczyczki]

no its not true he forget about clutch you can form stand still twist engine at optimal rpm range and than loose clutch at clutch sliding you achieve more force twisting tire from stand still with high end more hp but if didffrenc isint very big higher hp car can transfer overall less force to tires because of bigger diffrenc in clutch disk rotational speed so more sliding looses anyway if you must chocie let say 200 hp car 100 nm vs 100 hp car 200 nm both with optimal gearing and optimal clutch take 200 hp 100 nm be alot faster unlees you cant start properly but if it have launch control high end hp win overall look at top fuel from how high rpm they start kzbin.info/www/bejne/inKWmmWKg9qrmbs angine right when vehicle start to move twist around 6-7 k rpm according to this video ...

[@markm.9458]

This was all well known, and described, in pre-war 2, prior to 1935. Almost all relationships of power/ rpm/torque/horsepower were fully understood during ww1. Material science lagged behind. The British, as this channel suggests, are still catching up.

[@SkyWKing]

This video pretty much explains how Teslas trounce supercars in short range acceleration even with much inferior power-to-weight ratio. If there was a practical CVT that could be mounted on a Ferrari the performance would be insane.

[@AutomationGame]

+SUN SU Indeed! I think better CVTs would be the answer to performance electric cars, as combustion engines have the advantage of higher energy density fuel and thus are lighter... what limits them is the fixed-ratio gearboxes.

[@jayl4565]

I will Email you a copy of my shift point calculator to see what you think. :) it is a work in progress.

[@tonifakerman9639]

Ohhhhh ok so power is sorta the vertical shift to acceleration whereas torque is the function that defines the line

[@AutomationGame]

+Toni Fakerman Yeah, kind of... the shape of the acceleration curve in a fixed-ratio gearbox comes from the torque curve, the performance comes from the power and gearing.

[@Kachok80]

In theory a 200hp engine with ideal gearing will accelerate at the same speed be it a high reving 1.3L out of a Hyabusa or a torque rich 3.8L V6, in practice however given cars of similar hp/weight ratios the one with significantly more torque almost always is quicker to 60mph the 2004 Mustang GT vs the Honda S2000 being a prime example. I have always felt the reason for this is in the transmission and the reciprocating mass of the larger engine, or more accurately the application of said energy upon launch and the last factor being the narrow power bands usually associated with high reving engines. An S2000 makes piss poor torque in the low and mid range so launching can be much more tricky then the the Mustangs V8 which if memory serves made over 90% of its peak torque from just over idle which is a huge advantage when launching from a standstill since I can apply power to maximize my traction rather then having to fight to keep my engine in it's peaky powerband. The real world result the Stang was 0.6 seconds faster to 60 despite having less aggressive tires and a lower rubber/weight ratio aka similar tredwidth/contact patch but 700lbs more weight. Though if you mated a super fast shifting DSG to an S2000 I don't believe the difference would be as much if any.

[@aaronmansfield4758]

For judging what's going to feel faster. Imagine using transmission gear of 1.0 (normally 4th or 5th (5 or 6 spd trans), and equivalent final drive gearing. Then tq and hp can be compared "fairly". Really the Tq and HP numbers displayed together really just convey the powerband the car has. So if you see high hp and low tq you know it makes power up top. and high tq, low hp you know it's down low. Area under the curve is really what is goign to give you a real idea of the actual acceleration (how fast the car is). Generally high hp low tq engines end up being slower because most of the time when people build for high rpm they only concentrate on hitting a peak HP number, rather than keeping a large powerband of usable power. This ends up with a small area under the curve, so you'd have to gear your car to stay between your 7500-8500rpm rev limit as you accelerate from 0-60 or 60-100. Low tq cars are generally "faster" on freeway pulls, because they can control RPM, longer, and those usable 1000RPMs are stretched over a longer speed range, so your usable power is applied usably. Drift cars we look at the top 3500rpms and lay everything out to keep the power-band there. My old 4 cyl pro am car was 600whp 500tq. This is a close spread for a 2L revving to 8k. The power was dying off at passed 7500, but that was planned partially with compressor/turbine maps and cam efficiency ranges, as well as cross section vs avg mass flow rates per port, runner, or pipe. Drift cars need a decently usable rpm range as we modulate wheel speed to control the car, and to shift every time you need to adjust (in tandem this is very often) would cause lag, and more variables to mistakes to happen.

[@dasbanhammer]

Here in Russia we say that knowledge is a power, and from this video we know that the power is producing acceleration. So, question number XIV: is professor's car much faster than student's one? :D

[@AutomationGame]

+Дмитрий Петров Correct! xD BUT the professors gearing is not as optimized as a student's, so the cars accelerate about at similar speeds ;)

[@jackbutler183]

5:08 Infinitesimal calculus has been phased out ever since we’ve have limits but other than that amazing explanation.

[@AutomationGame]

Cheers mate :) appreciate that. Infinitesimal calculus is very illustrative and easy to wrap your head around though, hence why I like to use it.

[@mareksumguy1887]

Is that really the reason why Diesels can't rev as high?.... because of flame propagation limitations??. I thought it was mainly due to the fact that Diesel engines use cylinder heads with porting designed for low end VE optimization.

[@AutomationGame]

Flame propagation is a big part of it as far as I know. That then leads to them being optimized for low end.

[@MyLonewolf25]

Also that and they have to have VERY heavy internals making them not rev high But I doubt they are being limited by gas expansion at a bit over 3k

[@K0xGH0STZz]

Will Electric Motors ever be added to the game. Also will we ever see diesels.

[@AutomationGame]

+TF Racing Have a look at the FAQ linked in the description, that gives more detail than I could here.

[@rykalskyes8888]

Now I'm disappointed. The phrase "you buy horsepower but you drive torque" sounded so good. But it's still true in a colloquial sort of way...especially if the people you're talking to haven't seen this vid.

[@AutomationGame]

+Michael Howatt If enough people believe it, it kinda becomes self-fulfilling I guess. :P Repeat a lie often enough...

[@mareksumguy1887]

Did F1 engines ever reach the speed limit of flame propagation for Gasoline?.

[@matthewimposter8010]

No, they just shorten the stroke as needed. The rpm limit is mechanical.

[@mareksumguy1887]

You think it was a valve train limitation... or bottom end?

[@mareksumguy1887]

Well... we don't know that they DID reach the limit. I wonder how much higher they could have revved them.

[@matthewimposter8010]

I'd say valve train first, then rods and bottom end.

[@matthewimposter8010]

+Marek Sumguy It's an interesting question though. There has to be a limit, otherwise infinite rpm would be achievable! Imagine a 10mm stroke for example? At some point the friction will become the barrier, but I suspect that valve train limitations will be the hardest to overcome.

[@nimiba1]

Hello, I would like to know whether the game supports the Russian language? (thanks Google)

[@AutomationGame]

+nimba 5000 Eventually, yes! We definitely want to support Russian before we release the game.

[@iknowmywomans8394]

a sugestion for the future is to let people place 2 engines in a car like the mclaren p1 an electric then a v12.

[@AutomationGame]

+amethist massi Unfortunately that is out of the scope of our game, hybrids are something we thought of but can't put in because of how long that would take and how much resources it would consume.

[@iknowmywomans8394]

ok

[@Phos9]

+AutomationGame why is it so much work to add electric motors? It seems quite straightforward, unless you want to get into the number of windings, phases, and sources of magnetism.

[@iknowmywomans8394]

employees. i think i don't know

[@iknowmywomans8394]

or tools

[@KrystianSaren]

Most "petrolheads" should watch this video

[@AutomationGame]

+Krystian Sarna Agreed, it may be uncomfortable though as for many it destroys their torque-centric world. So while it is a must watch, for many it won't be fun at all... ;)

[@matthewimposter8010]

Even more 'diesel heads' should watch this video, because it calls into question their peak flywheel torque obsessions!

[@chadw4638]

you will accelerate at your hp output at that given time based on speed ..... period.......(assuming you have a transmission)

[@deadchannelcolon3]

every car has a transmission...

[@mrmete]

If gearing is the same for both the big v12 would out accelerate it even still.

[@AutomationGame]

Uhh, yes, but only if it magically weighs the same as the little V12.

[@mrmete]

AutomationGame if both weigh different it depends on the difference between the two. So based on max torque alone the accelrative g force for the small v12 is .2 vs .39 for the big v12. Ive come up with a gearing in first gear 2.66*3.42*398=3620/3465= G force 2.66*3.42*185=1682/3127= G force direct gear 3.42 total force at the tire 1361 big v12 632 small v12

[@joelcarvalho5791]

Power=how fast you hit the wall. Torque=how far you take the wall with you. 😝

[@AutomationGame]

+Joel Carvalho Unfortunately not a good metaphor, no... would be a fun one if it was correct :P

[@MyLonewolf25]

That big engine vs small engine in acceleration isn't super accurate because that big v12 would have easily made much more power

[@AutomationGame]

How is that relevant? It serves the purpose of this comparison very well and shows that torque is not what is important for acceleration but power output itself. That doesn't make the example inaccurate in any way.

[@MyLonewolf25]

AutomationGame if you are going for more than power to power with torque being the only difference it is great But if you're going for 2 full "built" engines to the same degree of "build' ( which is more along the lines of what I was trying to say and what I think would be more practical real world application )

[@AutomationGame]

You are correct in that. Still it is not relevant as this example shows a physics principle and not "what is realistic IRL".

[@MyLonewolf25]

AutomationGame ahhh ok Only thing I think that could have made this better is to touch on that side of real world aspect of it a bit more No replacement for displacement Boost will only make it better;)

[@fededevi1985]

You also have to consider that a small engine will usually be capable of higher rpm. This together with the weight advantage is why you do not have huge displacements on performance car.

[@MyLonewolf25]

Btw the reasons diesels rev so low isn't because of flame propagation Less efficient yes Impossible no There are diesels that rev 5500+ Most don't because they aren't built for performance and because they have to be built for the higher torque

[@AutomationGame]

If what you say is true then we would see a lot more Diesel racecars - as the fuel has a higher energy density. So what keeps them from being race cars then?

[@MyLonewolf25]

AutomationGame there are plenty of diesel racers There was a lmp car that was one The problem is you have to build the rotating assembly so heavy and they aren't as well known and tested as gas in racing As well as on average the engine is heavier I haven't seen an aluminum block diesel yet Personally And that's a dam shame

[@MyLonewolf25]

AutomationGame Wikipedia I know but it proves my point en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_automobile_racing

[@AutomationGame]

That doesn't go into any arguments though, it just states it exists. The question is: are there any diesel race cars that rev beyond, say, 8k RPM? Of course an engine needs to be heavier if you produce more torque, the parts are put under a higher stress because of it.

[@Diesel8290]

AutomationGame Mercedes 2.5l 5 cylinder diesels can rev to 7.5k and still make power at that.. probably due to the idi design that has a constant flame front in the prechamber