over revving?

  • Thread starter chameleon2
  • 74 comments
  • 6,572 views
I looked but I don't seem to be able to find an answer to my q.
What actually is the point in over revving all the way up the red line until it hits te electronic limiter? Besides stuff like perfect shift point and such, I can only come up with one answer that would make sense: to get into a meatier portion of torque when the next gear hits? I can't think of anything else, and I'm still confused about torque and force. I believe because of more revs, more force is generated. But peak torque isn't usually all the way into the redline, it seems to be dropping on some cars when over a certain amount of revs. For example, with the BMW M5 I seem to be accelerating faster when I drive in it's peak torque (2000 - 4000 rpm) instead of completely overreving it. It might produce less sound so it looks as if you accelerate slower, but when looking at the speedometer it's looks as if it's faster??

Basically I suppose I wanna know which is faster? Always go all the way till the electronic limiter? Or should I drive in the peak torque? Guess every car being quite different is another factor making it a bit confusing, but I have a feeling that peak torque delivers the greatest times? arrggg confused confused :dunce:
 
It's hard to tell without accurate torque curves and complete gearing information for each car... which would make it easy (if tedious) to calculate.

But typically, it's worthwhile to go past the torque peak in a lower gear in order to be closer to the peak in the next gear up. This usually means shifting at or above redline, but before hitting the rev limiter (obviously). Here's a good essay on the subject:
Ed Lansinger
A discussion of engine power, and the theory behind shifting.

Greetings to all who love torque and horsepower,

First, a clarification: torque is no more real than power. The Neon's DOHC puts out 133 ft-lb of ground-pounding torque, but I've seen some older Neons that are leaking torque and you have to avoid driving behind them because the torque, once leaked, is slippery. Don't bother picking it up and adding it to your engine as it degrades quickly and will take you out of Stock class. Consider torque and power as concepts used to describe how things interact to produce movement and how "energy" (another concept) is transferred.

Both torque and power can be observed "directly". Think of slowing a free-spinning tire with your hand. Feel the tug on your palm and the tension in your arm? That's a measure of torque, the torque the tire experiences as a result of your palm slowing it down. Feel the heat build up from friction? That's a measure of power.

Incidentally, water brake dynamometers get a direct measurement of power by measuring the increase in the temperature of water flowing past a propeller spun by the engine under test. You can solve for torque if you know engine RPM.

MAXIMUM ACCELERATION vs. TORQUE:

I'd *like* to think that torque is an intuitively easier concept to understand. If that were true, though, then more people would understand the relationship between torque, horsepower, and vehicle acceleration. In reality, none of it is intuitive. If it were, Newton wouldn't be considered the Really Great Guy that he is.

The classic mistake is to conclude that the fastest way down, let's say, a 1/4 mile drag strip is to keep the engine RPM at the torque peak (or as close as possible). The technique is usually stated as "shift just after the torque peak", or "shift N RPM above the torque peak so you are N RPM below the torque peak in the next gear when you finish the shift".

Unfortunately, *engine* torque does not tell you the full story. What matters is the torque *delivered to the tires*, including the effects of the transmission. We all know a car does not accelerate as hard in second gear at peak torque RPM as it does in first gear. The transmission amplifies or multiplies the torque coming from the engine by a factor equal to the gear ratio. So to determine how much the car is accelerating at a particular instant, you have to know both the torque output of the engine as well as the gear ratio.

To figure out your shift points knowing only torque, generate tables of transmission output torque vs. RPM for each gear. To get transmission output torque, multiply the engine torque by the gear ratio. You are simply comparing gear to gear, so the final drive ratio can be ignored. You may also need to know the relationship between RPM in one gear and RPM in another gear (which is RPM * (gear2ratio / gear1ratio) at any particular vehicle speed.) Then it's easy to see what shift points to choose to maximize your transmission output torque at all times.

Here's an example for the DOHC motor w/ std. 5spd. Before you flame, understand that I do not have an accurate torque curve for this motor. I'm estimating visually from the curve printed in the '99 brochure, which is seriously flawed (it makes a lot more sense if the torque curve is shifted to the right 1000 RPM). I get:
Code:
    Engine     Transmission output torque (ft-lb):
           Torque      1st     2nd     3rd     4th     5th
     RPM  (ft-lb)     3.54    2.13    1.36    1.03    0.72  <- gear ratio
    ----    -----     ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
    1000       50      177     107      68      52      36
    1500       65      230     138      88      67      47
    2000       80      283     170     109      82      58
    2500       92      326     196     125      95      66
    3000      104      368     222     141     107      75
    3500      114      404     243     155     117      82
    4000      120      425     256     163     124      86
    4500      125      443     266     170     129      90
    5000      130      460     277     177     134      94
    5500      133      471     283     181     137      96
    6000      130      460     277     177     134      94
    6500      122      432     260     166     126      88
    7000      110      389     234     150     113      79

    (note: peak torque is at 5500 RPM, peak horsepower is at 6500 RPM)
Without graphing, there's something immediately apparent: in any gear, at 7000 RPM, the transmission torque output is always higher than at any RPM in the next gear up. What this means is, for this car:

Shift at the redline, not at the torque peak!

Walk through an example. You're hammering down the track in 1st gear. Engine RPM is 6000, just past the engine's torque peak. Do you shift? Well, if you do, the engine will be pulled down to 3600 RPM, and 2nd gear will send 246 ft-lb of torque to the wheels (actually, to the differential first, which amplifies the torque by a constant factor and sends it to the wheels). Don't you think it would be better to hold it in first gear? Torque is dropping off, but it's still 389 ft-lb at 7000 RPM, right before the 7200 RPM redline. So, for this powertrain, first gear is *always* the best deal for acceleration, at any speed, except that you can't accelerate past the redline.

The 1-2 shift at 7200 RPM pulls the engine down to 4400 RPM, where 2nd will deliver 265 ft-lb of torque. Not only did you win by maintaining the high torque of 1st all the way to 7200 RPM, you are now better off in second gear.

Same thing goes for the 2-3 shift. 2nd gear output torque at the redline is still greater than 3rd gear output torque at any engine speed, so you wind her out as far as she'll go before you shift to 3rd. Same for the 3-4, same for the 4-5.

But, you ask, isn't your acceleration greatest at the torque peak? Yes, it is! BUT ONLY WITHIN THAT GEAR. The next gear down will give you even greater acceleration at the same speed, unless the vehicle speed is too high for that gear.

To use engine torque to understand how your car performs, you MUST include the effects of the transmission.

MAXIMUM ACCELERATION vs. POWER:

OK, so what about power? As has been noted by a previous contributor, Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM / 5252. Note that power is also force * velocity, specifically:

Power (hp) = Force (lb) * Velocity (MPH) / 374

That's net horsepower, which is engine power minus losses like transmission and tire friction. The force is the sum of the longitudinal forces at the contact patches of the two driven tires.

Hmmm... P = F * V ...rearrange to get F = P / V ... that means that you get the maximum force pushing the car if you maximize your *Power* at any given velocity. This gives us another useful rule:

Shift to maximize engine POWER, not engine torque!

This is *exactly* the same as saying "shift to maximize transmission output torque". But it's a little easier to apply. Here's how.

Using the torque information above, I get the following power curve:
Code:
     RPM     HP
    1000    10
    1500    19
    2000    30
    2500    44
    3000    59
    3500    76
    4000    91
    4500   107
    5000   124
    5500   139  (peak torque)
    6000   149
    6500   151  (peak power)
    7000   147
The tires don't see quite these numbers due to losses, but I'm going to assume that the losses are comparable from gear to gear and that the overall shape of the power curve remains the same.

Applying the maximum power rule, we'd like to race down the 1/4 mile with the engine always as close to 6500 RPM as possible. If we had a continuously variable transmission, the lowest E.T. would be achieved by keeping the engine dead on 6500 RPM. 5500 is not the best; at any vehicle speed, the engine would put out more torque but the transmission will have a less advantageous gear ratio, so you get a net loss of force to the tires. Apply P = F * V or P = T * RPM to prove this.

Since the Neon doesn't have a CVT, we have to shift. The shift points are pretty easy to determine. In fact, you don't really need to know anything about the gear ratios of the different gears, which is why power is sometimes easier to understand than torque.

I'm going to assume that the DOHC puts out at least 145 horsepower at the redline (7200 RPM). Shifting at the redline in each gear should drag the engine down as follows:
Code:
    shift    RPM drop       Horsepower change
    ------   ---------------    ------------------
    1->2   7200->4700    145->114
    2->3   7200->4600    145->110
    3->4   7200->5500    145->139
    4->5   7200->5000    145->124

    (I derived this, but all you really need to do is drive the car, shift, 
     and find out where the motor lands)
Note - and this is important - the transmission does not amplify power. Power in = power out, minus losses (which are low for a manual transmission). This is predicted by the law of conservation of energy.

Is 7200 the correct shift point? It would *not* be the correct shift point if the engine was making more power in the new gear than the old gear. That would mean that you should have shifted earlier. But in this case, the power output at redline is always greater than the power output after the shift. So it's the best performance you can get.

A more rigorous way of doing this is to graph horsepower vs. velocity in each of the gears. If power in one gear drops below the horsepower of the next gear at a particular MPH, then that MPH is where you should shift, otherwise shift at the redline.

I leave as an exercise for the reader the following: predicting shift points based on engine torque, RPM, and gear ratio gives the same results as predicting shift points based on power and vehicle velocity.

EXCEPTIONS:

There are no exceptions; a car running at its (net) power peak can accelerate no harder at that same vehicle speed. There is no better gear to choose, even if another gear would place the engine closer to its torque peak. You'll find that a car running at peak power at a given vehicle speed is delivering the maximum possible torque to the tires (although the engine may not be spinning at its torque peak). This derives immediately from first principles in physics.

However, note the following:
-- Transmission losses are not shown on engine power curves. The net power curve (power delivered to the ground) may have a different shape or even a different peak RPM as a result. This would result in different shift point. Best results are obtained from a power curve measured by a chassis dynamometer.
-- The discussion above assumes negligible tire slip. If you exceed the maximum traction available from the tires, then additional power doesn't help. That's why it's sometimes no loss at all to shift early when the tires break loose, and in fact it can be a benefit.

TO THE POINT!

Torque and power are (almost) flip sides of the same coin. Increasing the torque of an engine at a particular RPM is the same as increasing the power output at the same RPM. Power is just as useful and relevant in determining vehicle performance as is torque. In some situations it's more useful, because you may not have to play with gear ratios and a calculator to understand what's going on.

A car accelerates hardest with gearing selected to stay as close as possible to the engine *power* peak, subject to the traction capability of the tires. Not all cars should be shifted at the redline for maximum performance. But it's true for many cars. You can determine optimal shift points by graphing horsepower vs. velocity or transmission torque vs. RPM. Engine torque alone will not determine shift points."

- Ed Lansinger
(Design Engineer, Ford Motor Company, Visteon Automotive Systems)
(former Design Engineer at GM Powertrain; inventor of Cadillac's Performance Algorithm Shifting feature)
 
If you don't want to read all that, the basics are ...

You'll produce the most force in any single gear at peak torque ... However, you'll produce the most force at any given SPEED at peak horsepower ...

Therefore, you should keep horsepower as high as possible to achieve maximum acceleration ...
 
Different cars in the game have different powerbands. If you want to find out if your car makes more (or less) power AFTER redline, try racing with a ghost. Find a long straight (Las Vegas track works well), and try driving it shifting at redline. Then try it shifting at the fuel cutoff. See how you do against your own ghost.

-a
 
Thanks for all the info.....so basically I was right about getting the best performance shifting at the redline. Not in all cars though but I'm getting the concept here. Crazy calculations though....how long did you study for that?
 
That was a great excerpt from the Ford guy. Very interesting, but I have a problem with the recommendation to always shift at the redline.

The trouble is with the Transmission output torque chart (Figure 1). The example engine has peak torque at a fairly high RPM. The case when a car should shift before redline is when the engine has peak torque at a fairly low RPM. I believe that if the chart were made on that basis (ie. peak torque at 3000 RPM), it would show that it's possible to get more torque in the next higher gear than at the redline in the current gear.

Figure 1
Code:
    Engine     Transmission output torque (ft-lb):
           Torque      1st     2nd     3rd     4th     5th
     RPM  (ft-lb)     3.54    2.13    1.36    1.03    0.72  <- gear ratio
    ----    -----     ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
    1000       50      177     107      68      52      36
    1500       65      230     138      88      67      47
    2000       80      283     170     109      82      58
    2500       92      326     196     125      95      66
    3000      104      368     222     141     107      75
    3500      114      404     243     155     117      82
    4000      120      425     256     163     124      86
    4500      125      443     266     170     129      90
    5000      130      460     277     177     134      94
    [B]5500      133      471     283     181     137      96[/B]
    6000      130      460     277     177     134      94
    6500      122      432     260     166     126      88
    7000      110      389     234     150     113      79

    (note: peak torque is at 5500 RPM, peak horsepower is at 6500 RPM)

Here is my completely made up data to illustrate how I think some engines opperate:

Figure 2
Code:
    Engine     Transmission output torque (ft-lb):
           Torque      1st     2nd     3rd     4th     5th
     RPM  (ft-lb)     3.54    2.13    1.36    1.03    0.72  <- gear ratio
    ----    -----     ----    ----    ----    ----    ----
    1000       50      177     107      68      52      36
    1500       65      230     138      88      67      47
    2000       80      283     170     109      82      58
    2500       92      326     196     125      95      66
    [B]3000      133      471     283     181     137      96[/B]
    3500      130      460     277     177     134      94
    4000      122      389     260     166     126      88
    4500      110      311     234     150     113      79
    5000      100      252     201     139     102      71
    5500       91      215     187     121      89      62
    6000       84      189     165     104      81      54
    6500       78      164     146      88      75      49
    7000       71      149     133      79      68      42

An example of an engine like this is the Mazda Autozam AZ-1. The best performance comes from keeping the revs between 4k and 6k RPM (peak torque is just after 4k RPM, redline is at 9500 RPM).

If you let the AZ-1 engine rev all the way to redline, it barely has enough power to maintain its speed. But as soon as you shift up to the next gear, acceleration resumes.
 
Forget all the detail.

Test a few cars.

The license tests include a few mini experiments.

Viper likes changing below the redline - that is how I golded the accelerate and brake license test.

The lower powered cars prefer to be revved past the redline to just before the point of no more acceleration. That is how I golded those acclerate and brake tests.

In general I have performed better when holding gears until right at the limit and I believe this is for 2 reasons.

1. You may get 1 or more less gear change(s) which saves time. It does on the mini at Tsukuba B license test and the accelerate and brake tests.
2. The car accelerates better in the next gear. The Viper is the only car I have found where this is not the case.

I prefer to do the test on the track than read the graphs.
 
Say for example, And I'm just throwing some numbers out here:

A cars max torque is at 4500 RPM's, does it mean for every single gear? or just for certain gears? Would a car have say a Max torque of 4500 RPM's in First Gear, but say 5000 for Second gear?
 
In each gear, the peak force will be at peak torque ... However, at any given speed, whichever gear is making the most power will be making the most force ...

Let's say your engine makes 150 lb-ft @ 4500 RPM but only 125 lb-ft @ 6000 RPM ... In 3rd gear, your engine is at 6000 RPM but it would be at 4500 RPM in 4th gear at the same speed ... Which gear should you be in ?

Force (lbs) = Wheel Torque (lb-ft) * Gear Ratio * Final Drive Ratio *24 / Tire Diameter (in)

Final Drive = 4:1
Tire Diameter = 24"
3rd gear ratio = 4:3 (1.333)
4th gear ratio = 1:1

3rd gear Power @ 6000 RPM = 142.8 hp
4th gear Power @ 4500 RPM = 128.52 hp
3rd gear @ 6000 RPM makes 11.111% more Power than 4th gear @ 4500 RPM

3rd gear Force @ 6000 RPM = 666.667 lbs
4th gear Force @ 4500 RPM = 600 lbs
3rd gear @ 6000 RPM makes 11.111% more Force than 4th gear @ 4500 RPM

The speed (though irrelevent) is 80.357 MPH ...

Anyways, the point is that the difference in Force at a given speed will always be proportional to the difference in Power at that speed (Power1/Power2 = Force1/Force2) ...
 
apart from getting into peak torque again in the next gear by shifting late, you also stay longer in the lower gear where you can accelerate faster even with less torque due to the shorter ratio.
 
And there is always gear change inertia to consider.

After your RPM rises above peak power in any gear the rate of acceleration in that gear will drop off. If the peak power is reached well before the redline, by the time you get to the redline the car has stopped accelerating quickly.

This is the problem with the Mazda Autozam AZ1 mentioned a few posts before. This is also where having the upgraded clutch comes in handy for the quicker shift so the engine inertia is not lost during gear changes.
 
oh my, the numbers are making me dizzy...
applying all the numbers and all that mumbo jumbo stuff while targeting the apex will be quite a challenge resulting to data overload to the driver. i have a less technical approach that will just require your talent- raise the TV volume a bit so that you can hear the engine revs, then wait for the "brrrr" sound indicating overrev then shift to the next higher gear and quickly glance at the revmeter to see where that overreving happened. On the next gear try to anticipate and shift before it overrevs. After a few laps your brain will get the hang of it. Talent will be the key, not charts. Downshifting properly will then present an even greater challenge (and an exciting one once you get it). Now where is that downshifting thread......
 
So instead of just looking at the power graph to determine your gear ratios and shift points and doing a few very basic calculations, you should just listen for a "brr" sound that supposedly indicates that the power is dropping off substantially ?

How do you set up your gear ratios ?
 
Wow, you guys have really gone all out with this, good stuff :D

Can I just throw a wet blanket on this and say most of it is probably best applied to drag racing, or high speed racing only. On circuit-style tracks I find myself often short-shifting through some corners, while other times revving way too high in some gears just to be in a better position for "grabbing" the next gear. This is mostly because of the difficulty turning the steering wheel with one hand while shifting with the other (try it on the DFP with 100% FF).


How do you set up your gear ratios ?

Buy "Fully customizable transmisson" or whatever it's called.
 
Actually that's a good question for the mathematicians and engineers on this thread: downshifting. I would imagine that optimal engine braking is achieved in a similar way to optimal acceleration, only in reverse. In other words, downshifting at the point where the RPMs in next lowest gear would be at peak power provides the best engine braking. Would this be correct?
 
Ikari_San
Buy "Fully customizable transmisson" or whatever it's called.
You misinterpreted my question ...

I was asking him how he goes about setting his gear ratios ...

I don't see how this isn't applicable to circuit racing ...
 
ZeratulSG
Actually that's a good question for the mathematicians and engineers on this thread: downshifting. I would imagine that optimal engine braking is achieved in a similar way to optimal acceleration, only in reverse. In other words, downshifting at the point where the RPMs in next lowest gear would be at peak power provides the best engine braking. Would this be correct?
It doesn't really work in reverse ... The faster the engine spins, the more resistance, so you want to keep your revs as high as possible without hitting the rev-limiter when downshifting (theoretically) ...
 
ZeratulSG
Actually that's a good question for the mathematicians and engineers on this thread: downshifting. I would imagine that optimal engine braking is achieved in a similar way to optimal acceleration, only in reverse. In other words, downshifting at the point where the RPMs in next lowest gear would be at peak power provides the best engine braking. Would this be correct?

Downshifting is not for stopping the car. That's what the brakes are for.

You downshift so that you'll be in the proper gear for turn exit.

The greatest engine drag occurs at the highest rpm (not the peak torque rpm), and you want to _avoid_ this because it tends to snatch up the drive wheels and change the effective brake bias of the car, possibly causing a spin or other bad effects. Also, if you're shooting for downshift to max rpm and you mistime it a little, you will blow up your engine, and the rev limitter can not save you (of course, that's not a consideration in GT).

- Skant
 
In GT, you do want to downshift to help slow down. I haven't ever had a problem with it spinning me out, it just slows me down faster. Also, you obviously don't have to worry about blowing up your engine, so that's not a concern. Only thing is, don't downshift so fast that your engine bounces off the rev limiter, because that seems to basically do nothing. In real life, you obviously wouldn't want to downshift to near redline to slow your car down, but it's ok to use it in lower rpms.
 
In previous GT games, when you bounced it off the rev-limiter (downshift too early), your tires would lose traction, greatly increasing your braking distances ...

Not sure about GT4 ...
 
This brings up memory of an article I saw YEARS ago in Road & Track about finding shift points.

Torque should be thought of as the force available for acceleration. Horsepower should be thought of as the force available to displace the air the car moves through. The two are mathematically related, but have different relationships to performance. High torque gives great acceleration. High HP gives great top speed.

Now to find shift points- - - -

Take your engine's torque curve (this is a totally fictitious curve, RPM on the X-axis, torque on the Y):



I'm not showing units because I just want to show a concept. Higher RPM is to the right, higher torque is to the top.


Now multiply the curve by each gear ratio.

torquecurve28ed.jpg


More torque multiplication in lower gears.


Now plot these six curves against vehicle speed instead of engine speed.

torquecurve38ff.jpg


Shift when the lines cross. That's it. If you carry more engine speed, the torque for that gear is actually lower than the torque in the next gear, so you're not getting maximum acceleration.

This graph is called a cascade, and that's what the magazine article was talking about. Obviously, there's a significant fudge factor for frictional losses in the drivetrain, but if you can dyno the drive wheel torque in each gear, you can get this graph.

As for GT4, you don't have access to this data, so all you can really do is drag race the ghost car on the test course.
 
Here's an article I've been working on about this subject. Still a little rough yet, but hopefully the points are clear.


FORWARD

There is a lot of confusion when it comes to measuring how powerful an
engine is. Horsepower? Torque? Which is the more important figure? Why
are there two? What does it mean?

It's a subject that bewilders a lot of people. Even worse, there are many
who think they understand but don't. It has been my observation that most
people fall into one of three camps:

A) They know the equations. They try to explain it to other people in terms
of complex mathematics and a big list of quoted laws and theorems from
physics books. I have long suspected that most of these folks have just
memorized the equations but don't actually understand why they work.

B) They know an oversimplified (and fairly erroneous) saying and think that
covers it. The one most commonly quoted seems to be "Horsepower gives you
top speed, torque gives you acceleration". These folks are generally
bewildered when the real world doesn't behave anything like how they thought
it would.

C) They know that they don't understand horsepower and torque. And they
just figure bigger numbers are better numbers. Understanding more than that
looks to be pretty difficult. Especially when the type A guys above talk
about it.

It's not all that difficult really. This article seeks to make sense of
this mess by explaining it in clear terms without resorting to deep math
equations or oversimplifications.


WHAT'S THE POINT?

Lets start by defining our goal here.

What we're really interested in is how the engines makes the car move. At
the end of the day, it's all about understanding how horsepower and torque
play into 0-60 times and top speeds.

It must be understood that the engine output is only one of the factors that
determine these end results. Because discussing the engine in vacuum isn't
all that useful, this article will cover all of the elements which have a
strong effect on the final results.


TORQUE

Torque at the drive wheels is what really matters. Greater torque means
both faster acceleration and higher top speed.

The amount of torque applied at the wheels directly translates into forward
thrust against the mass of the car. So the rate at which the car actually
accelerates is affected by both the torque and the weight being moved.
These relationships are linear. That is, if the car is half as heavy, it
will accelerate twice as fast. If the car has twice the torque, it will
accelerate twice as fast.


HORSEPOWER

Torque is what actually makes the car go. The problem is already solved.
So why does horsepower even matter?

Lets start by getting one thing clear. Horsepower and torque at the engine
are not the same as horsepower and torque at the wheels. This is where a
lot of the confusion comes from.

So far I've said that torque at the wheels is the most important figure.
But at the engine, horsepower is generally the most important figure. The
torque figure at the engine is often ignorable.

Why is that? Because there is gearing inbetween the engine and the wheels.
The torque at the engine is multiplied by the gearing before it becomes the
torque at the wheels. You can have as much torque as you like just by
choosing the gear ratio. So a drive train with half the torque at the
engine but twice the gear ratio turns the wheels just as hard.

Well, that's just great then. We can take an engine of any strength and get
as much acceleration as we want out of it just by using higher and higher
gear ratios in the drive line. But wait... there's a catch, isn't there?

Of course there is. The problem is that any engine can only spin so fast.
It has an rpm limit. A red line. Higher gear ratios make the car
accelerate faster, but they also reduce the speed at which the engine
reaches its rpm limit and therefore can not accelerate further.

That is... just by using a very high gear ratio, you could make an economy
car with a tiny engine accelerate like a Porsche... but only up to 5 mph.

This is why transmissions have multiple gear selections. In lower gears,
you have higher torque multiplication (and therefore greater torque at the
wheels) but more limitted maximum possible speed.

And that finally brings us to explaining horsepower. Horsepower is simply
the torque multiplied by the rpm. Unlike the torque figure, horsepower is
_not_ changed by gear ratios because it takes into account both the torque
and rpm. When gearing doubles the torque, it halves the rpm... so the
horsepower ends up the same regardless.

This means that the level of horsepower at the engine determines what can be
done with gearing to produce torque at the wheels. Greater horsepower at
the engine means you can have greater torque at the wheels and/or higher
possible top speed without compromising one for the other.


POWER CURVES

So far, we've talked about engines as if they produced a fixed amount of
torque. They actually don't. They produce different amounts of torque at
different rpm speeds.

Normally, engines will achieve their peak torque somewhere in the middle of
the rpm range. However, they don't usually achieve their peak horsepower at
the same rpm... horsepower comes from multiplying torque by the rpm, and it
turns out that in most engines, the rpm wins out over the torque as the
dominant part of the peak horsepower determination. So the peak horsepower
will be found at a higher rpm.. usually at or near the redline where the
torque has fallen down lower, but the rpm is at its highest.

There are a lot of people that seem to think that increasing the torque in
the engine will accelerate the car faster. While increasing the horsepower
will only increase the top speed and not acceleration.

This is sortof true. But it's an oversimplification, and it depends on a
lot of assumptions.

The horsepower and torque figures advertised for an engine reveal some
information about what the torque curve looks like. But they can be very
deceptive. The peak horsepower and torque are usually reported along with
the rpm speeds at which they occur. Essentually, you are only being told
where two points are on the power curve graph. And that's not enough.

If you had two different engines with completely identical ratings, one of
them could accelerate the car much faster than the other. Why? Because the
ratings only show the power curve at two points. All of the other points
could be entirely different.

Similarly, you could make a modification to the engine which increases it's
power strongly at the low end of the rpm range while decreasing it slightly
at the high end of the range. The peak torque figure will probably improve
because it's at a point toward the low end of the range. And the peak
horsepower figure will go down because it's at the high end of the range.
But overall, the car accelerates faster because there's more total area
under the entire torque curve. So you have a car that accelerates faster
despite reduced peak horsepower.

That's where the saying 'torque gives you acceleration, horsepower gives you
top speed' comes from. There are a lot of modifications that do this.

The funny thing is, the reverse is also true. You could make a modification
to an engine that reduces the power slightly at low rpms but increases the
power strongly at high rpms. The peak torque figure will be reduced and the
peak horsepower figure will be increased. But again the total area under
the power curve is greater overall and so again, the car accelerates faster.

So it becomes apparent how the situation gets oversimplified. No
manufacturer advertises the _average_ torque output of the engine. Now
there would be a useful figure...

The upshot of all this is that the peak horsepower and torque figures can
lie about the engine. Many modern small engines have very peaky power
curves that make them look like they produce as much power as larger,
beefier engines because the figures at the peaks are the same or even
higher. But compared to a wide, flat power curve, they actually produce
much less power overall. The peaks are high, but the average isn't. Sorry
folks, but all else being equal, a bigger engine still produces more power
than a smaller engine. Manipulating the tuning to advertise bigger peak
values doesn't change that.


SHIFTING GEARS

So now that we understand more about the relationship between horsepower and
torque, lets look at the transmission a little closer to see what effects it
has on 0-60 times.

We know we can produce pretty much any amount of torque we want at the
wheels just by gear selection... but we pay the price for it in rpm limit
(and therefore speed limit).

The most ideal transmission would have an infinite number of gear ratios so
that it could always keep the engine operating at its peak torque rpm. Most
transmissions, however, have only a handful of gear ratios available. So
they can only approximate this ideal.

The more ratios a transmission has, the closer to the ideal the transmission
becomes. They can keep the engine in the beefiest part of its power band
more of the time _and_ they can more accurately make the ideal trade off at
any particular speed between torque multiplication and max rpm. Very often,
a transmission upgrade will improve a car's performance more than engine
upgrades would.


DRAG

So far, we've ignored the effect of drag on the car. Drag is force that
pushes against the weight of the car opposite the direction it is moving.
It acts to slow it down.

There are multiple kinds of drag, but the one that's most interesting to the
automotive world is wind resistance.

Wind resistance comes from the force of air pushing against the car as it
moves. At low speeds, wind resistance is quite minor and the car can
happily drift at the same speed with the engine in neutral for quite a long
time. But at high speeds, wind resistance becomes enormous. In fact, wind
resistance increases as the square of speed. That is, if the vehicle moves
twice as fast, the wind resistance will be four times as great!


TOP SPEED

In order for a car to accelerate, it must generate more forward thrust from
the drive wheels than reverse thrust from drag.

As the car goes faster and faster, the drag increases exponentially (because
of wind resistance). Eventually, it must overcome the torque at the drive
wheels. Even worse, the torque at the drive wheels decreases because less
torque multiplication is available in high gears.

It's a losing battle. And the point at which the torque at the wheels and
the drag become equal is where the vehicle reaches its top speed.

Peak engine horsepower is king here. Additional top speed can not be
attained by trading off rpm for more torque multiplication. So it will just
have to be brute force and lots of it. Horsepower would have to be
quadrupled in order to double the top speed.

Aerodynamics have a dramatic effect on top speed. A car with half the wind
resistance will have twice the top speed.

One element that is unexpectedly _not_ part of top speed is the vehicle
weight. Why? Because in order to accelerate, the thrust force must be
greater than the drag force. Weight has nothing to do with that.

The difference between those forces works against the weight of the car.
And so the weight affects how quickly the car will accelerate but not
whether it will accelerate.

If the drag force is greater than the force at the wheels, the car will
decelerate. And greater weight will reduce the rate of deceleration, too.


ROTATING MASS AND DRIVETRAIN FRICTION

A 2:1 ratio gearing does double the torque running through it. However, it
also increases the mass that torque must accelerate. The gears themselves
have mass. And the greater the ratio, the more mass they will have. They
also have friction. And that eats part of the torque.

High rotating mass is a big penalty. While it may seem strange to be so
concerned about as little as a pound or two here and there in the drive
train, it makes a big difference. The mass of the drive train has to be
accelerated to much higher speeds than the rest of the car. And a
significant portion of it has to be spun up to speed multiple times... once
for each gear! So it's often been said that each pound removed from the
rotating mass is the equivalent of 10 pounds removed from the rest of the
car.

This is why light weight flywheels are often a serious performance upgrade
for any car.

It's also another reason why cars with high peak horsepower but very low
torque are often not as fast as their horsepower ratings would lead you to
believe. These cars need substantial torque multiplication and all that
gearing adds to the rotating mass. In addition, much of the drive train has
to spin up to much higher speeds, so the penalty for that mass is even
greater.

That's not to say that high rev, low torque engines are inferior. It's an
engineering trade off. The rotating mass issues are weaknesses that must be
overcome by superiority in other areas. For instance, these engines tend to
be smaller and lighter than high torque engines, and that has obvious perks.


FINAL WORD

By now, you should understand why a light car with low horsepower but a high
power to weight ratio still doesn't have a very high top speed. Or why a
300hp high torque V8 car can often outrun a 300hp low torque rice rocket
which is lighter. Or why it could be the other way around.

It's just not as simple as comparing the horsepower... or even the power to
weight ratios.
 
Skant
Downshifting is not for stopping the car. That's what the brakes are for.

You downshift so that you'll be in the proper gear for turn exit.

The greatest engine drag occurs at the highest rpm (not the peak torque rpm), and you want to _avoid_ this because it tends to snatch up the drive wheels and change the effective brake bias of the car, possibly causing a spin or other bad effects. Also, if you're shooting for downshift to max rpm and you mistime it a little, you will blow up your engine, and the rev limitter can not save you (of course, that's not a consideration in GT).

- Skant

Damn right Skant, the only way you should be stopping/slowing a car on the track is with the brakes. GT4 makes high speed threshold braking a very, very easy task when compaired to the real world (its good don't get me wrong, better than GT3, but still a way to go). Engine braking is the surest way to unbalance the car, screw up your brake bias and lock the wheels.

The downshifts on GT4 help massively, with almost perfect heel and toe downshifts that help keep the revs in the right range and you never mess them up (now that is different from real life).

BTW nice piece above, have just given it a scan, will read it fully later.

Regards

Scaff
 
Soyfu
That's how I've always thought about it, but some people are saying you want to focus on "power" (HP).

I can't tell if you guys are in agreement or not. Which is it?

Also, thanks to both of you for trying to explain this stuff.
We are in agreement, to some degree ... High torque does not necessarily equate to high acceleration ...

The Force vs. Speed (or Output Torque vs. Speed) graph is entirely correct ... If you actually figure out the Power made in both gears at the transition point (place where they intersect), you'll see that they're both making the same amount of Power at that speed. After that point, the lower gear is making less Power (thus less Force).

Force = Power/Speed
Acceleration = Force/Mass
Acceleration = Power/(Speed*Mass)

From this, you can understand that, at a given speed and mass, the vehicle making more power will be accelerating faster. This means that you could take an extremely low torque engine and use very high and close gear ratios to keep power high and you'd out-accelerate a high-torque diesel engine, even off the line. This is because, even at 5 MPH, the vehicle making more Power will be accelerating faster (assuming equal mass). Of course, that low torque vehicle would probably have to sacrifice top speed a lot unless it revved insanely high ...

You also have to remember, though, that more Torque at a given RPM = more Power at that RPM.

Plotting Power vs. Speed is a much easier way to find shift points (much less math). However, you can integrate Aerodynamics into Force vs. Speed, but you can't for Power vs. Speed. This allows you to find your theoretical top speed and makes it easier to compare multiple vehicles with differing aerodynamic properties.
 
There are some parts of that article where he may confuse the reader ...

Torque at the drive wheels is what really matters. The torque figure at the engine is often ignorable.

Greater horsepower at the engine means you can have greater torque at the wheels.

Then he goes on to say ...

But overall, the car accelerates faster because there's more total area under the entire torque curve.

Then, he confuses the reader by putting 2 paragraphs down ...

But again the total area under the power curve is greater overall and so again, the car accelerates faster.

Then he confuses the reader yet again with ...

No manufacturer advertises the _average_ torque output of the engine. Now there would be a useful figure...

And, finally, ...

Many modern small engines have very peaky power curves that make them look like they produce as much power as larger, beefier engines because the figures at the peaks are the same or even higher. But compared to a wide, flat power curve, they actually produce much less power overall.

Area under the Power curve is what determines acceleration and he said that many times, although he seemed to contradict himself several times as well ...
 
Jmac279
There are some parts of that article where he may confuse the reader ...

<snipped>

Area under the Power curve is what determines acceleration and he said that many times, although he seemed to contradict himself several times as well ...

I'm afraid I don't see where I'm contradicting myself. The statements you have quoted are all correct. If I'm confusing you, I'd like to know exactly how so that I can clarify the article. Your post doesn't make it very clear to me what you think is actually wrong.

- Skant
 
Oh, didn't read the first sentence ... :P I thought you got it from somewhere else thus "he"

Anyways, when you said

But overall, the car accelerates faster because there's more total area under the entire torque curve.
This would only be true if the area under the power curve were greater as a result of an increase in the area under the torque curve. Also, it should be noted that, unless you were using wide gear ratios, the decrease in high-end power may well result in slower acceleration beyond 1st gear.

Also, when you say "The torque figure at the engine is often ignorable." then you keep referencing torque (I assume it's engine torque being referenced in sentences such as "No manufacturer advertises the _average_ torque output of the engine. Now there would be a useful figure..." It may lead to confusion and gives the impression of contradiction ... Though, it's not difficult to get the point of the article and is pretty easy to understand ...
 
Jmac279
This would only be true if the area under the power curve were greater as a result of an increase in the area under the torque curve.
Actually, that statement would always be true. It's an excerpt from a paragraph which is talking about engine alteration, not gearing changes. This article was actually written for RL and most people can not change the gearing in their cars (except the differential ratio). So its examining a change in engine output only.

You are correct in that it's technically possible to increase the area under the power curve while decreasing the area under the torque curve, and gearing may be able to take advantage of this. But then again, it might not.

Also, it should be noted that, unless you were using wide gear ratios, the decrease in high-end power may well result in slower acceleration beyond 1st gear.
If the increased torque is below the usable range, yes. However, I don't think any engine alterations on the market purposefully increase torque below that range. (And by 'usable', I mean the rpm range that it rolls through as you shift from one gear to the next)

There were a number of strange theoretical scenarios which are technically possible which I didn't discuss in the article because they only serve to obfuscate the real issues. I wanted to tackle only the real points that an RL racer needed to understand about modifying his car.

In short, the article was not written for engineers designing aftermarket parts. It was written for racers trying to understand which to buy and/or normal people just trying to make heads or tails of the whole mess.


Also, when you say "The torque figure at the engine is often ignorable." then you keep referencing torque (I assume it's engine torque being referenced in sentences such as "No manufacturer advertises the _average_ torque output of the engine. Now there would be a useful figure..." It may lead to confusion and gives the impression of contradiction ... Though, it's not difficult to get the point of the article and is pretty easy to understand ...

Manufacturers advertise the peak torque figure... which isn't the same thing as the torque curve. I've tried to make it clear the differences between peak engine torque, engine torque curve, and the torque at the wheels... which are all surprisingly divergent from eachother. Because all of these are referred to as 'torque', that's where a lot of the confusion comes from. I've tried to explain that in the article, but it sounds like I may not have hit on that point well enough.

- Skant
 
Back