0 bhp at 400 rpm???

  • Thread starter Thread starter duhuh
  • 61 comments
  • 4,413 views
Messages
170
mmm.... thats very strange. could someone explain this?
 

Attachments

  • forum.JPG
    forum.JPG
    26.6 KB · Views: 536
Cosmic
Ehh...I just noticed something , you need to win it , you can't buy it 💡

You wanted to buy it?

Its interesting (of course) but i'd rather win it than buy it.
 
Symtex
I'm sure a couple of hamster can generate more power then that lol !!

HP = Hamster Power

1 horsepower = amount of power required to lift 550lbs through 1 vertical foot in 1 second.

Do you think that two hamsters possess the power to lift 220lb (100kg) up 12 inches in one second?
 
Famine
1 horsepower = amount of power required to lift 550lbs through 1 vertical foot in 1 second.

Do you think that two hamsters possess the power to lift 220lb (100kg) up 12 inches in one second?

If you give them Barry Bonds and Marion Jones proteins maybe :)
 
Famine
1 horsepower = amount of power required to lift 550lbs through 1 vertical foot in 1 second.

Do you think that two hamsters possess the power to lift 220lb (100kg) up 12 inches in one second?

That's SAE horsepower. A metric hp is defined as the energy required to lift a 75kg weight at a rate of one meter per second. I doubt a couple of hamsters could pull off either though......
 
Majin SSJ Eric
That's SAE horsepower. A metric hp is defined as the energy required to lift a 75kg weight at a rate of one meter per second. I doubt a couple of hamsters could pull off either though......

Indeed (although it's not defined as the energy required to do anything. It's the POWER required - energy per time unit). But metric horsepower is more properly referred to as "Pferdenstarke" (PS), whereas we were clearly talking about horsepower.

Incidentally, kudos to Symtex for top satire.
 
Famine
Indeed (although it's not defined as the energy required to do anything. It's the POWER required - energy per time unit). But metric horsepower is more properly referred to as "Pferdenstarke" (PS), whereas we were clearly talking about horsepower.

I was merely mentioning that your description of a "horsepower" is not the only accepted definition of the term. Incidently, "Pferdestarke" (PS) is not the only name for a metric hp as the French "cheval-vapeur" (CV) is also widely accepted. 👍
 
Duhuh, we're all looking back at the automobile's history and having fun with it.

I'm going with Famine about the 0.4 hp it produces. I will doubt you'll be able to give it a Stage 4 turbo or a killer GT wing to it, but fun can still be had. After all, let's face it. You're not going to win the Grand Valley 300km with it, much less the 24h at the Nurburgring. Car with that sort of power will probably do well at Autumn Ring Mini or Motor Sports Land. Think about this, also. You may have drifting anyways with thin, wooden wheels. I guess the best way to imagine racing with this machine is to picture it racing in its lifetime. No Le Mans. No Daytona. No Indianapolis. No Juan Miguel Fangio. No Aryton Senna. No Michael Schumacher. We're talking about cars before even 1900. I've seen how racing was like in the past in a Speed Channel series called "Racing Mercedes." The way we see racing now, we have to imagine it in the past, and that's why I think PD wanted to concentrate even more on past automobiles. It was told to be a celebration of automobile history. We've gone from past technologies to futuristic racing (not in the sense of WipeOut or Xtreme G, though).

So there can still be fun in racing even with a 0.4 hp machine like this one. Most power tools have less than 1 horsepower, so if you can imagine less than one hp in a power tool, you may imagine less than 1 hp in a car like this. But I know this: when you have a car from the past, differences in handling are more apparent. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Ford Model T to handle like it's doing ice racing.
 
I agree. As useless as they might be in a race (except with other cars from that period), I'm still looking forward to driving them.
 
Back