| Author |
Message |
    
Aaron
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:39 am: | 
|
Lornce: perfect! |
Aaron
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 12:42 am: |
|
Ray, M1 ... I agree ... I also prefer a bike that makes it's power with relatively high torque and low rpm. More fun to ride IMO. We're the target market for V-twins. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 02:47 am: |
|
The little 3.8m earth station satellite antenna that I'm working on sees upwards of 10,000 FT*LBs of torque at its elevation axis in operational wind conditions. It must be able to operate/track/slew when encountering such wind loading. It uses a 0.5 HP electric motor to do so. It slews at 0.5o/s which equates to 0.083 RPM. Work it out... 10,000 FT*LBs x 0.083 RPM / 5252 = 0.16 HP. So the 1/2HP motor has plenty of margin even considering around 20% parasitic drivetrain losses (lots of gear reduction and an inefficient worm driven screw jack actuator).
Torque doesn't matter without revs.  |
Glitch
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:56 am: |
|
So torque is work, and horsepower is how fast you get the work done? |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 11:13 am: |
|
Glitch - HP is the rate that work gets done, but torque is not work. Torque is the angular equivalent of force. Just as force actually has to cause something to move in order to do work, torque has to cause something to turn in order to do work.
(I loved Physics  ) |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 01:58 pm: |
|
Jim, My favorite weekend work 'stuff.'
  |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 02:17 pm: |
|
Greg, I love the hat. Where did you find it? |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 02:23 pm: |
|
Jim, You gotta to get yourself one!
http://www.cafepress.com/subjective/216996
That's were I found the pic, but mine was a gift from some Indentured Servants (read as grad school students.) |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 04:01 pm: |
|
Vell here ve are in ze nice kettle of fisk, as ve scientists say, haha.
Ze whole problemm can be easily explained like ziss.
Iff ve calculate ze size of ze hoss or to give it it's prrroper name Pferde und ve divide by ze bs coefficient, ve vill find zat ze following statement holts true.
"There ain't no substitute for cubic inches" |
Dsergison
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 04:13 pm: |
|
^^^ yeah but it dont roll off the tounge as well as:
"no replacement for disaplacement" |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 04:53 pm: |
|
Dave (Glitch),
"So torque is work, and horsepower is how fast you get the work done?"
Not quite. Work would be the torque times the number of revolutions and to get it in meaningful units of FT*LBs, we would need to multiply by 2P. Divide that by how much time it took in seconds to complete that work and you have power in FT*LBs/s. Divide that by 550 and you have transformed power in units of FT*LBs/s to HP.
Or use minutes for your time unit of measure and divide by 33,000 to transform power from units of FT*LBs/min to HP. |
Rek
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 05:20 pm: |
|
I've been following this thread in the hope that some of the obvious intellegence (that there book larn'n) displayed will rub off on me. So far it hasn't.
So...my obviously uniformed question would be why can my antique '73 GT750 go as fast at top end (~125mph) as my awesome new(ish) S3T w/ twice the cc's?
And please don't call me stupid 
Rob |
Ray_maines
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 05:44 pm: |
|
Just a guess here; the 750 motor turns twice as many RPM's as the S3 but is geared way lower. The old 750 doesn't have the HP to pull higher gearing, but if you could sprinkle magic fairy dust on the old dear and give it twice as much HP you could gear it higher and go much faster. |
Buells Rule!
(Dyna in disguise)
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 06:11 pm: |
|
There ain't no substitute for cubic inches
So long as those cubic inches are either geared to the moon & its a short race, ir you can rev it to 12,000+ rpms.
If the cubic inch theory is correct, why will a lil ole 600cc kick the snot out of a 1450cc V-twin? |
Lornce
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 07:11 pm: |
|
Rek,
If your S3 is '98 or newer, it'll sport a 100HP T-Storm motor and the only thing keeping it from seeing 140-145 mph is short gears. What is it with you American guys and short gears? Why are you always in such a hurry? 
No matter how tall you gear your GT750 Water Buffalo, it'll never have enough power to pull beyond 120-ish or so. In fact, over-gear it and it'll not even see 120-ish in 5th if the rpm for peak HP production can't be reached.
Hope this helps.
Lornce |
Rek
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 07:39 pm: |
|
I'm getting a glimmer of understanding here. Just because my John Deere 8840 has a 500hp engine doesn't mean it'll go 500 mph... Still you'd think a modern 1203cc engine could run long (tall?) enough to out run a puny, 30 year old 750cc.
But like they say, facts is facts, and whether it's gearing or just plain ol' umph (torque?)the '73 Smoker stays right w/ the Buell all day long (as long as you discount the minor wiring issue...)
Don't get me wrong, the Buell gives me a genuine boner like nothing else, while the Suzy is just a casual little toss we take out for a spin once in a while (like your best friends slutty sister).
Whatever. If its got two wheels and'll pull the hat off my head I'm game.
Rob
(Message edited by rek on December 21, 2004)
(Message edited by rek on December 21, 2004) |
Lornce
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 07:52 pm: |
|
Rek,
Can't vouch for your mind on your buddy's sister, but try to get your head around the fact that your Buell - will - go 140-145 mph.... if you gear it tall enough.
From the factory they're geared to provide optimum acceleration in the speed range they're expected to be ridden on public roads. Or for wheelies: I'm not sure which.
Your 2000, if stock, has 27/61 pullies. Try winding it out with 29/61 pullies and you'll see what I mean.
You'll need to figure a way to recalibrate your speedo, though, cause your bike's speedo pickup is on the 27 tooth countershaft pulley.
FWIW, 99X1 has figured out a way to do just that.
Lornce |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2004 - 10:44 pm: |
|
Rek, it's because your GT750's speedometer is off by more |
Jlnance
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 09:44 am: |
|
Blake, from CNN:
The successful launch was a critical milestone for the Delta 4 Heavy, which features three of the company's common core boosters joined side-by-side. Fired simultaneously, each of the three hydrogen-powered Rocketdyne-built RS-68 main engines generates 17 million horsepower, about the equivalent of 11 Hoover Dams.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/12/21/delta.launch.ap/index.html |
Glitch
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 10:53 am: |
|
Yeah well that's all well and good, but how's it handle the twisties. |
Mr_grumpy
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:38 pm: |
|
What Twisties?  |
Fdl3
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 12:50 pm: |
|
Well, with that much power, I would imagine that it can darn near twist anything! |
Tripper
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 03:57 pm: |
|
quote: but how's it handle the twisties.
Typical sensitive to being underpowered Bueller response. |
Rek
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 06:00 pm: |
|
Rek, it's because your GT750's speedometer is off by more
Darn! I was hoping nobody would clue in on that.
Rob |
M1combat
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 22, 2004 - 06:13 pm: |
|
"Typical sensitive to being underpowered Bueller response."
Typical sensitive to always riding a boat non-bueller response. |
|
