I know horsepower is not measured on a dyno.It is calculated from torque and rpm measurements.It is calculated with the formula Hp=RPMxTorque divided by5252.My question is could anybody post snowmobile track dyno figures that back up Supertuners statements that I think are correct.
RXONE
Expert
Torque!
I have to side with Freddie on this one LB. Torque wins races when your running short distances. (500-1000 ft.) You want to pull the max torque from the bottom end through the midrange. Which for an RX 1 is (correct me if I'm wrong) somewhere around 9600-9900 rpms. Freddie knows the exact numbers. I'm simply giving an example here. After 9900 into the 10,500 rpm range is where you want to be for peak hp for best top end correct? I'm no expert on this but I have drag raced enough to know that torque is the name of the game when drag racing. So what I'm saying is the same as what Roadrunner and Supertuner are saying!. If you can pull any sled out of the hole and pull that same sled in the midrange. You'll be so far ahead of them that they'll have to overcome alot to catch you. I'm not trying to start a pissing match either. I just know alittle something about racing. Simple! Man I know I'm gonna take alot of grief for this post. But ah what the hell! :lol: I stand corrected!
I have to side with Freddie on this one LB. Torque wins races when your running short distances. (500-1000 ft.) You want to pull the max torque from the bottom end through the midrange. Which for an RX 1 is (correct me if I'm wrong) somewhere around 9600-9900 rpms. Freddie knows the exact numbers. I'm simply giving an example here. After 9900 into the 10,500 rpm range is where you want to be for peak hp for best top end correct? I'm no expert on this but I have drag raced enough to know that torque is the name of the game when drag racing. So what I'm saying is the same as what Roadrunner and Supertuner are saying!. If you can pull any sled out of the hole and pull that same sled in the midrange. You'll be so far ahead of them that they'll have to overcome alot to catch you. I'm not trying to start a pissing match either. I just know alittle something about racing. Simple! Man I know I'm gonna take alot of grief for this post. But ah what the hell! :lol: I stand corrected!
The only reason a 600pd sled can race and beat a sled that weighs 100pds less with basic 130 hp. Torque.according to hp to weightratio this sled should not be able to run with any revs or firecats .
LazyBastard
TY 4 Stroke God
YES, TORQUE, but NOT CRANK torque, DRIVESHAFT torque.
LazyBastard
TY 4 Stroke God
SUPERTUNER said:
Could you please provide substantiation for your claim of torque increasing at constant RPM, throttle position, air density, and engine temperature?
I would like to see a chart showing an RX1 motor spinning at 10200 rpm and WOT, that demonstrates *under these conditions*, the torque increasing over time. In fact, I would like to see this same chart for both a stock RX1 motor, AND for one with your filter kit on it.
Without providing this, you have not proven ANY substantial benefits from your kit.
Also, have you ever measured the G-force exerted on a small car being rear-ended by a tractor trailer at 90 mph? If the car and truck don't buckel under the force, then it would easily be in the *tens of thousands*. It makes no difference if you are gradually subjected to high-G force or instantly, EXCEPT for the *shock* on your nervous system. This is because G is *rate of change of velocity*... did you know that we are at this moment moving at a velocity of 10000 mph with respect to the center of the galaxy?
AND.... the reason you're not instantly subjected to the entire force that the engine is capable of producing is this;
1) clutch slippage.
2) track slippage.
If you could get both of those slippages down to zero, then believe me, you would *never* be able to hold on.
LazyBastard
TY 4 Stroke God
redbarron said:
Actually, its because a machine with greater horsepower can beat the coefficient of friction. It doesn't matter what the machine weighs, you have the same amount of friction, and its friction thats our biggest enemy.
Without friction, you could theoretically achieve infinite velocity. (and don't quote relativity, it only applies to *perception* of time)
SUPERTUNER
TY 4 Stroke Master
Perhaps there is some hope for you LB. You make some valid points but I am certain my prior staements are accurate.
The tractor trailer was only for conversations sake. Please do not read into that too literally.
And...yes I do have technical backup and graphs showing all that you ask for. I never make strong statements like I have here without knowing for a fact that I am correct. But, like I said, I care not for this to turn into a pissing match and really don't feel like arguing about what I know is scientific.
I do like some of your analogies though.
Oh...do you have any charts or graphs that disprove what I say to be the truth? Feel free to fax or e-mail them to me if you want. I ask this with alkl due respect as I am not into a challenge of wits. Perhaps you could teach us all something here.
Freddie
The tractor trailer was only for conversations sake. Please do not read into that too literally.
And...yes I do have technical backup and graphs showing all that you ask for. I never make strong statements like I have here without knowing for a fact that I am correct. But, like I said, I care not for this to turn into a pissing match and really don't feel like arguing about what I know is scientific.
I do like some of your analogies though.
Oh...do you have any charts or graphs that disprove what I say to be the truth? Feel free to fax or e-mail them to me if you want. I ask this with alkl due respect as I am not into a challenge of wits. Perhaps you could teach us all something here.
Freddie
tundra
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
i read you post LB and Supertuner, and it's make me think. :?:
and search
is acceleration of our sled is the combo of HP and Tq ?
Because i think that, if you take, say a torque wrench and apply 250 lbs of twisting force on the drive shaft of the sled for make her move, she will not move that fast, because of the speed of me to apply this force. Like is logical to think (for me) that hp is the capacity of the motor to reproduce the torque. It's why it take a good balance between both.
And like LB said is drive shaft torque that made the sled moving, the motor can't produce torque peak at zéro temp(Sec), but the driveshaft can, because is the crank shaft that unleashed that power to the drive, but because of all that slippage, is'nt reality.
his my opinion, i'm far from an expert, i'm just a knowledge junkie that love to see post like this. :lol:
i found a very good article on that subject.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/868/index.html
and search
is acceleration of our sled is the combo of HP and Tq ?
Because i think that, if you take, say a torque wrench and apply 250 lbs of twisting force on the drive shaft of the sled for make her move, she will not move that fast, because of the speed of me to apply this force. Like is logical to think (for me) that hp is the capacity of the motor to reproduce the torque. It's why it take a good balance between both.
And like LB said is drive shaft torque that made the sled moving, the motor can't produce torque peak at zéro temp(Sec), but the driveshaft can, because is the crank shaft that unleashed that power to the drive, but because of all that slippage, is'nt reality.
his my opinion, i'm far from an expert, i'm just a knowledge junkie that love to see post like this. :lol:
i found a very good article on that subject.
http://www.carcraft.com/techarticles/868/index.html
LazyBastard
TY 4 Stroke God
I actually don't have any graphs or impirical evidence to provide to you as I don't have the necessary equipment to obtain this information from, which is why I'm asking you for it.
I *sincerely* would like to see how a sled equipped with your filter AND your own clutching, and a very huge track for no slippage would compare side-by-side to one with stock intake, *my* clutching, and the same track. The reason I specify a huge track is that it is very difficult to compare the actual performance of two sleds with different amount of slippage, because the one with more power output will tend to slip more... which is why my Exciter could beat my RX1 to 200 feet - the RX1 can just sit there spinning for 3 or 4 seconds.
BTW: Nothing that I have said denies that your kit may make a sled faster. Even though the gains are smaller, your numbers *did* say it increased horsepower at peak.
I *sincerely* would like to see how a sled equipped with your filter AND your own clutching, and a very huge track for no slippage would compare side-by-side to one with stock intake, *my* clutching, and the same track. The reason I specify a huge track is that it is very difficult to compare the actual performance of two sleds with different amount of slippage, because the one with more power output will tend to slip more... which is why my Exciter could beat my RX1 to 200 feet - the RX1 can just sit there spinning for 3 or 4 seconds.
BTW: Nothing that I have said denies that your kit may make a sled faster. Even though the gains are smaller, your numbers *did* say it increased horsepower at peak.
LazyBastard
TY 4 Stroke God
Tundra:
Imagine this:
Your engine is spinning at 9000 rpm, WOT, 75 ft-lb (actual number here not entirely relevant). Horsepower (based on the formula) is 128. Now you increase to 10200 rpm, 70 ft-lb, 136 hp. (these numbers are made up off the top of my head).
At both of these speeds, you pick the gear reduction that will give you X rpm on the final driveshaft. Now you go the other way with the formula, assuming a loss-less transmission (in reality, it will be loosing about the same % at either ratio), you get 128*5252/X ft-lb at the enging speed 9000 rpm, or you get 136*5252/X ft-lb at 10200 rpm. Look at those two numbers carefully, and you can see that at 10200 rpm, your driveshaft torque is 136/128 times the torque from 9000 rpm, *with* the driveshaft spinning *AT THE SAME SPEED*.
This is *despite* the fact that the crankshaft torque is actually *LESS*.
Imagine this:
Your engine is spinning at 9000 rpm, WOT, 75 ft-lb (actual number here not entirely relevant). Horsepower (based on the formula) is 128. Now you increase to 10200 rpm, 70 ft-lb, 136 hp. (these numbers are made up off the top of my head).
At both of these speeds, you pick the gear reduction that will give you X rpm on the final driveshaft. Now you go the other way with the formula, assuming a loss-less transmission (in reality, it will be loosing about the same % at either ratio), you get 128*5252/X ft-lb at the enging speed 9000 rpm, or you get 136*5252/X ft-lb at 10200 rpm. Look at those two numbers carefully, and you can see that at 10200 rpm, your driveshaft torque is 136/128 times the torque from 9000 rpm, *with* the driveshaft spinning *AT THE SAME SPEED*.
This is *despite* the fact that the crankshaft torque is actually *LESS*.
tundra
TY 4 Stroke Junkie
if i understand well.(not so bilingual )
it's why with this reduction gear , torque at the crankshaft that his giving by yam is'nt the real life to evaluate the power and the tq of the sled.
)it's why with this reduction gear , torque at the crankshaft that his giving by yam is'nt the real life to evaluate the power and the tq of the sled.
Roadrunner
Expert
LB, Theories and equations are just that, theories and equations. What we as "speed junkies" are concerned about are maximizing the rate of acceleration and top speed. Not one of all the great tuners out there has been able to do what you have stated (that is instantaneous max hp and Rpm's along with no slippage in a trailable sled.) As Freddie put it a sled with an on/off switch. There isn't a belt out there that could handle the power. I agree with a lot of your thinking but I don't know anyone who can actually make it work 100%. We are forced to use what is available to us or somehow reinvent other ways to increase the performance of our sleds. I believe that the ECP kit works along with many other people out there. Would your theoretical sled beat a ECP equipped sled, probably, and when someone makes it available at a reasonable price, I will probably buy it. Racers a lot smarter than me say you don't race dyno's so don't get too caught up in the numbers. It's what wins at the track that counts. Forget the dyno numbers, the reports that I am reading on this board are proof enough for me. Maybe perfect clutching is the answer, but nobody's figured it out yet. Next time you get beat, try telling the other guy that if you had perfect clutching how you would have beat him and see how hard he laughs. The kit is real and I can buy it now.
