RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (Full Version)

All Forums >> [RC Cars, Buggies, Trucks, Tanks and more] >> RC Car General Discussions



Message


Billyman -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:05 AM)

You left out blueprinting and getting the tune as close to stoichiometric as possible. :p




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:16 AM)

Ya for sure, blue printing may not. Or if it does it can fall under efficiency. What is stoichiometric?
Is that the perfect air/fuel mixture?




Billyman -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:28 AM)

Blueprinting does give (or rather unleashes) added horses and yes, it falls nicely into the efficiency category. :)

Stoichiometric—Yes, the theorized perfect air/fuel mixture.

Good job! :D




KillerWabbit -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 6:04 AM)

guver - I think you got it all backwards. Torque does all the work. Horsepower is simply a formula derived from torque. Increasing bore does not produce more torque like increasing the stroke does.

There are tons of factors that affect torque and horsepower, but I can only offer a general theory assuming all other variables are identical. Torque = Force x Distance. A longer stroke makes more torque because the connecting rod travels around the centerline of the crank in a circle of a larger diameter. The connecting rod is getting more leverage on the crankshaft.

Let's say I'm trying to break loose a lugnut on my car. I weigh 150 lbs and I am standing on the end a 6 inch long lug wrench trying to break this lug loose. Torque (lb-ft) = Force (weight in lbs) x Distance (in feet)... so 150 x .5 foot = 75 lb-ft of torque. That's not enough to get my lugnut loose, but I have this 1 foot long breaker bar.... so 150 x 1 foot = 150 lb-ft torque.

I know you understand my example, but I used it so anyone can easily understand why a longer stroke creates more torque than simply increasing bore. Yes, bore will increase the torque a little just because of a larger displacement, but torque is ultimately determined in the stroke of the motor.

As far as diesel engines... A modern diesel truck engine has around 300 hp and almost 1000 lbs of torque. So how can 300 hp be doing all the work? Torque is the measure of real power and horsepower is simply how efficient you use that torque at a given RPM. That also explains why a Peterbilt has like 15 speeds (or however many). Torque and gearing is what gets a 30,000 lb truck moving, horsepower has nothing to do with it.




KillerWabbit -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 6:05 AM)

FYI: Stoich for a 4 stroke gasoline engine is 14.7:1

I don't know what it is for 2 stroke Nitro motors.




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 7:14 AM)

Blueprinting will only give more hp if the engine is on the low spec side of things. For instance, if my engine happened to come thru with the rods on the long side and the crank throw on the hi side, even on just a few cylinders it will produce more power and if you were to place it on exact factory specs, you'd get less power not more. Typically engines are all over the place and blueprinting normally will help, but not always. That's why I said that it may or may not.




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 7:15 AM)

Is that stoich by weight or volume?




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 7:36 AM)

Your right about the stroke length increasing the distance and getting more leverage and increasing the tork. You have doubled your stroke length in your example. Bore size does the same thing only it increased the force in your example (I get on the wrench with you for 300 pounds). Either way you get more tork. Just a side note is that bore size increases will do far more to increase power than stroke increases of the same dimention. In otherwords if I doubled the bore I would (in theory) get maybe three times the force increase however when doubling the stroke (in theory) will only be double the increase.

You get an A for your example and for your perfectly accurate formula.
However you get an F for your comparison of tork and hp. Tork is merely a measure of twisting force (just like your example) hp is a measure of actual work (add time into the equation)
Hp is also directly convertable to kwh and other measures of actual work. You can't convert any measure of tork to hp or kwh or btu. unless an rpm is specified.




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 7:46 AM)

Here is another way to think of it. Imagine I have a tiny rc engine (2hp) and it has 10 ft/lb of tork at the flywheel or crank. I hook a gear box to it and gear it down with a gear reduction of 100 to 1. I now have 1000 ft/lb of tork coming out of the output shaft just like your dsl engine and guess what I can also get the load moving. we have the same tork, but you having 300 hp can do some actual work like pull 100000 pounds down the road at about 55 mph. My little 2 hp engine (with 1000 of tork) can only pull 100000 punds at a speed of less than 1 mph.

Why is that so? cuz the 300 hp does the work not the 1000 tork. You have heard that "tork wins races" It's not true unless an rpm is specified (or implied)along with the tork figure.




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 7:54 AM)

The reason a pete has 15 speeds? Well the real question should be why does it have such a low gears? It's to increase the tork of the output shaft on the transmission to get the load moving from a standstill. That's why everytime you gear down you need to increase the shaft size cuz it has more tork and spins slower, but the hp is the same (minus parasitic losses from heavy parts of course)

Input shaft of gear boxes are smaller than output shaft if it's a gear reduction unit. Increasing the tork, decreasing the rpm, but hp remaining the same.




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 8:01 AM)

The definition of 1 horsepower is the ability to do 33,000 pounds-feet of work in one minute. So horsepower is a measurement of torque over time. The measurement of horsepower was invented by James Watt when he replaced horses turning a water pump with a steam engine and wanted to know how many horses the engine could replace in order to rate the engines power. He figured that a horse could pull with 180 lbs. of force. The horse traveled in a circle with a 12 ft. radius, and could make 144 complete revolutions in 1 hour. This means that the horse traveled 181 feet per minute. 180 lbs. of force times 181 feet equals 32,580 pounds-feet of work in 1 minute. Watt rounded that up to 33,000 pounds-feet of work in 1 minute.

Figuring Engine Horsepower

Watt's definition of horsepower is a horse pulling on lever, so the power was applied to the lever. An engine does not work like this, the power is made at the crankshaft. So to know the horsepower of an engine you will need to imagine a 1 ft. lever at the crankshaft and figure the circumference of that one ft. lever and how many rotations per minute it is traveling. A 1 ft lever will have a circumference of 6.2831853 ft., so the formula for hp would look like this:

HP = (6.2831853 × RPM × Torque) ÷ 33,000

And can be simplified to:

HP = (rpm × Torque) ÷ 5252

By using this formula you can see that HP and Torque curves will always cross at 5252 rpm. To help put horsepower into perspective, imagine two engine that both make 300 ft. lbs. of torque One engine makes it at 3000 rpm and the other makes it at 6000 rpm. Which one makes more power? The one revving at 6000, because the same amount of torque is being used twice as fast. Gearing the engine down to the the same 3000 rpm will double the torque at the final drive making it 600 ft. lbs. If both engines had the same final drive, they would be able to do the exact same amount of work (300 ft. lbs. worth), but the 6000 rpm engine will do it in 1/2 the time.

Torque

Torque is simple, imagine a 1 ft. lever with 1 lb. of force pushing on it. That is 1 pound ft. of torque. The formula to figure torque from a known HP is:

Torque = (5252 × HP) ÷ rpm

Brake Horsepower and Torque

Dynamometers measure torque by use of a brake. Brake torque is simply a measurement of how much resistance is needed to hold the engine at a steady rate of speed. This is commonly referred to as a step test, usually taken in 250 rpm increments. Brake Horsepower (BHP) is then figured using the above formula. The problem with brake torque is that it is not effected a measurable amount by the inertia of the engines rotating and reciprocating parts. For an acceleration engine, there is a better way.

Acceleration Horsepower

For an acceleration engine, you want to measure power as the engine is accelerating. You don't only care how much HP the engine has, you also want to know how fast it can rev up. This will take into account all of the inertia of the rotating and reciprocating parts. So instead of a brake holding the engine at a steady speed, the brake holds the engine at a steady acceleration rate, 300 rpm per second and 600 rpm per second are commonly used. Hp and Torque readings will be lower, due to less braking force required, but the mass of all the moving parts will be better measured. You could have two engines put out the exact same brake power readings, but if one has much lighter pistons crank and rods, it have more acceleration power and be quicker at the track. To put this into perspective, it is easy to lose 6 lbs. from a stock small-block Chevy crankshaft and actually make it stronger in the process. My Camaro has a 3.27:1 1st gear ratio and a 3.50:1 rear gear ratio making a total ratio of 11.445:1. Losing 6 lbs. rotating weight is like losing over 68 lbs. off the car in 1st gear. That's just the crank, using lighter pistons, rods, pins, and aluminum flywheel can get the rotating and reciprocating mass over 20 lbs. lighter. Now 229 lbs. lighter in 1st gear is a big difference. You see why people get crazy to loose a few lbs.

Building Power

Many engine builders will say that torque is what wins races and too much emphasis is put on horsepower. It is true that torque is what actually pushes the car, but torque and horsepower are directly related, you can't have one without the other. The chart below shows how you can increase the rpm range of an engine to get more horsepower, at the cost of torque, but still make more rear wheel torque.

Engine Horsepower @ RPM Flywheel ft. lbs. @ Peak Horsepower Final Drive Ratio Rear Wheel ft. lbs. @ 1000 RPM
First 500 @ 6000 437.6 6:1 2625.6
Second 550 @ 8000 361.1 8:1 2888.8


In this example, both engine have the same rear wheel speed, but the higher rpm engine, which makes less flywheel torque, makes more rear wheel torque. Torque does win races, but you need horsepower to put it to use, so saying torque is more important than horsepower is really a contradiction. For a street car, an 8000 rpm engine and steep gears are not practical, but for all out drag racing, build as much horsepower as you can and just gear it to suit. If you build the horsepower, the torque will be there through gearing. The engine with the most average hp for the rpm range used will have more average power, period.




guver -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 8:06 AM)

Here is a link describing tork and hp

http://www.g-speed.com/pbh/torque-and-hp.html

I hope that's ok to post....




Nitroaddict -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 1:31 PM)

Well - Let's get back to my original question for a moment. What have we decided? In theory, will the .26 rc engine develop more torque at high rpm or ow rpm than a .21? Will it develop less torque? How about HP? Wow - Do I know how to get a good thread started? LMAO




speeddemon32 -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 4:40 PM)

He he he, i am with you on that one Nitroaddict... the messages being left in this thread are acting like you can accuallly answer the question. as i said before this is somewhat an un answerable question.

as you can tell i have given up trying to argue my point, everyone has the oppinion, and everyone thinks there own thing.

but anyways, in a very general answer, (in my oppinion) the .26 should produce more power on the bottem end.

Is that the more general answer you were looking for, instead of a 3 page thread? [:D]

he he anyways, have a good one Nitroaddict.




Frost_ -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 4:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nitroaddict

Well - Let's get back to my original question for a moment. What have we decided? In theory, will the .26 rc engine develop more torque at high rpm or ow rpm than a .21? Will it develop less torque? How about HP? Wow - Do I know how to get a good thread started? LMAO


.26 = slightly more torque at all RPMS assuming only a bore change and all engine accessories are the same. The same is true for HP, although if all things are =, you may not have the 'flow at the upper end of the RPM spectrum to take advantge of the additional RPM's and higher torque range... This is what I would expect.




Nitroaddict -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:00 PM)

speed - it is, but I was trying to find out a factual answer rather than one based upon opinion, even if the opinion is coming from someone who is very knowlegable such as yourself.




guver -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:01 PM)

What about those cats...... and dogs.....




guver -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:03 PM)

Frost gets an A




KillerWabbit -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:21 PM)

guver - That was way more than I'm willing to read right now. HA, maybe I'll save it for a rainy day.

speeddemon's right though. As I said before, there are too many factors to really answer the question. All you can do is speculate based on general theories, I guess.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nitroaddict

Well - Let's get back to my original question for a moment. What have we decided? In theory, will the .26 rc engine develop more torque at high rpm or ow rpm than a .21? Will it develop less torque? How about HP? Wow - Do I know how to get a good thread started? LMAO


If the 26 and 21 have identical strokes and the only difference between the two is bore, the 26 won't lose torque, but it will gain a little torque from the larger displacement, but, I think you'll mostly get hp from a larger bore.

Again, it is a hard question to answer because there are other things involved like the port design and all that stuff. But, this is what I believe as a general rule based on my experience in building and racing Honda engines. Everyone has different experiences.

If you just want solid fact without anyone's opinion on this type of thing, I think that'll be hard to find.




guver -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:33 PM)

Here is neat little fact,

If the piston is at tdc and you rotate the crankshaft 90 degrees, the piston will be more than halfway down the cylinder.




Nitroaddict -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:34 PM)

killer - Your post makes sense. Thanks.




Frost_ -> RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 5:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: guver

Frost gets an A

As well do you for your fact-filled post from the top of this page. This thread generated a myriad of responses from people with various levels of experience. This thread is also becoming a good guide for people who do not really grasp the relationship between torque, HP, and RPMs. There are many people here with a good amount of knowledge in this area. Maybe we need a new technical internal-combustion thread.

Something like.... I dunno, a thread on BSFC, or when it is the highest, or what it is telling us.... This is a hazy area for many.

Sorry for rambling, I have a tendency to daydream.




guver -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 6:13 PM)

Yes, I tried to give only facts, the only opinion was about the group of fuels. The thing of it is a mathematical fact about tork and hp that cannot be changed or helped. I also tried to qhalify what I stated by saying "all else being equal" cuz there are many many variables and just about the time I say that increasing bore size "always" gives more tork then sure enough there is certain engine that it does just the opposite. That's also why I would take issue with someone saying "dls engines have more tork"

thanks for the A, I like this thread from the very begining , I learn how to spell torque and diesel too.




KillerWabbit -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 6:19 PM)

Check this link out. This is the "most powerful diesel engine in the world."

http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

Here's a quick pic...
[image]http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/rta96c_crank.jpg[/image]




Frost_ -> RE: RE: RE: A curious question about engine displacement (3/9/2004 6:33 PM)

I saw that link on Linkfilter a few months ago. If I remember that company makes the biggest in the world, and they turn slow as hell...




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>  

Valid CSS!




SITE MAP!   : :   FORUM RULES

© 2001 - 2007 24-7 RC, LLC, all rights reserved.
0.421875