Horsepower vs. Torque vs. Tractive Thrust. Putting an end to the debate.

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
I did not compile this info, but it applies to every motor made and is a great technical read for those like me who enjoy this kind of stuff.

Original post here: http://www.d-series.org/forums/engi...-torque-vs-horsepower-debate.html#post1865664

_____________________________________

After hearing/reading so much misinformation regarding torque and horsepower, I figured this write-up was needed. Although I have to go over some basic physics for this article, I’ll keep calculus out of it. Let’s start by going over the relevant terms:

Thrust
Thrust is the force that drives your car forward. It doesn’t matter how much torque your engine makes, what your gearing is, how large your wheels are, how shiny your muffler is, or how many stickers you have on your doors – thrust determines how fast your car can accelerate. In racing, acceleration is what really matters, and there are only a few immediate ways to make your car accelerate faster:

ΣF = ma
Where, ΣF= the sum of the forces acting on the car
m = the mass of the car
a = the acceleration of the car

If you want to increase acceleration, you need to reduce weight, increase thrust, or decrease other forces that oppose thrust (namely drag).

Torque
Torque is a force applied about a moment arm (commonly described as a “twisting” force). Instead of a force that propels an object forward, think of it as a force that causes the object to rotate. If I apply a force about some point, the torque applied is the product of the distance to the point and the portion of the force which is perpendicular to that distance. The equation used to calculate torque is:

τ = Fd
Where, τ = torque
F = the portion of the total force acting perpendicularly to the distance vector
d = the distance between the fulcrum and the point at which the force F is applied

Note that torque is instantaneous. It doesn’t matter how long or the distance over which the force is applied.

Work
Work is the energy used to move an object. Forces and torques might always exist, but unless the object has moved, no work has been performed. If I try to move an object, but I can’t make it budge, then I’m performing no work. I’m using a lot of energy to develop force, but it’s being used to create heat, not to perform work. Once the object moves, then I’m using some of that energy to perform work. The equation used to determine the work performed on an object is:

W = Fx
Where, W = the work performed
F = the force applied to the object
x = the displacement of the object

Work can also be performed on a rotating object, such as a crankshaft. The equation in this case is slightly different:

W = τθ
Where, W = the work performed
τ = the torque applied
θ = the angular displacement (in radians)

Instead of force, torque is used, and the displacement is expressed in radians instead of feet or meters. If an object makes one revolution, its angular displacement is 2π radians (or 360°), if it makes ¼ revolution, its angular displacement is π/2 radians (or 90°), etc. Based on this equation, it should be apparent that torque is not a measure of work. If torque is applied to a shaft, but it does not rotate, no work is performed. It’s a little confusing since both have the same units, but they do not measure the same quantities.

Power
Power is a measure of how much work is performed (or energy used) per unit of time. It doesn’t measure how much torque is applied over time, just the work performed. For engines, the unit “horsepower” is used. If an engine produces 1 hp, then it can perform 550 ft-lb of work (not torque) every second. It doesn’t matter if the engine produces 1 ft-lb of torque or 100 ft-lb of torque. The equation for power is:

P = Fv
Where, P = power
F = the force applied
v = the velocity at which the force is applied

For a rotating object, it’s:

P = τω
Where, P = power
τ = the torque applied
ω = the rotational speed at which the torque is applied

For engines, we commonly see the equation: Horsepower = (Torque)*(RPM) / 5252

However, what does this really mean? Where does the constant 5252 come from?

Calculating Horsepower
As mentioned, power can be calculated by multiplying the torque applied to a rotating object by the speed at which it rotates. However, the base unit for rotational speed is radians per second, and we normally measure engine speed in revolutions per minute. Therefore, if we want to use rpm, we need to convert. Since there are 2π radians in one revolution, and 60 seconds in one minute, we have to divide by 60 and multiply by 2π:

P = (Torque) * (RPM) * (1 min / 60 s) * (2π rad / 1 rev) = 2π*(Torque)*(RPM) / 60

Next, we want power expressed in horsepower, not ft-lb/s (which is the base unit). Therefore, we need to divide by 550:

Horsepower = 2π*(Torque) *(RPM) / (60 * 550) = 2π*(Torque) *(RPM) / 33000

Since 33000/2π is about 5252, we just use: Horsepower = (Torque)*(RPM) / 5252

Now you can see that it’s not just a random equation with a meaningless result. It’s a measure of the rate at which energy is produced and the rate at which work is performed.

So What?
By now, you’re probably getting tired of my physics lesson, so I’ll move on. How do we use this information to design our engines? Do we want to produce tons of torque like a diesel engine or gobs of horsepower like a motorcycle engine? Let’s take a look at some examples.

I did a little searching and found a dyno plot from Race Prep Engineering which contains results from three different engines: a b16a, a d16a6, and a b18a. I digitized the curves and recreated them for you:

TorqueCurve1.jpg


wol_error.gif
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image.
PowerCurve1.jpg


As seen in the graphs, the b16a produces 100.3 ft-lb of torque and 140.1 whp, the d16a6 produces, 104.5 ft-lb of torque and 110.9 whp, and the b18a produces 118.1 ft-lb of torque and 123.3 whp. As expected, the b16a makes the least torque but the most horsepower, the b18a makes the most torque, and the d16a6 makes the least horsepower. These curves are useful by themselves, but they don’t tell us anything about thrust, which is what we really care about. So, we need to do a little math. First, I needed the gear ratios for the transmissions used with each engine:

Gearing.gif


I’ll also assume that each engine/transmission is used with a 23.4” tire. Using this information, and assuming perfect launches and shift points, we can figure out how much thrust each setup will produce at any speed.

However, there’s a catch. At low speeds, there may be too much thrust for the tires to handle, and they’ll spin. If the tires are spinning, they cannot develop as much force as if they were rolling (or slightly slipping, which is most desirable). Therefore, the car cannot use more thrust than its traction limit. Without going into too much detail, the traction limit of a car (at steady-state) is dictated by its center of gravity, weight, wheelbase, and tires. When the car is launched, these factors affect how much weight is transferred from the front wheels to the rear wheels. However, FWD cars want as much load on the drive wheels as possible, and weight transfer works against them. This puts them at a major disadvantage for drag racing. I’ll spare everyone the math, but in this example, I’ve estimated that the traction limit is about 1344 lb for a typical Civic using street tires, which corresponds to a maximum acceleration of about 0.54 g.
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Maximum Tractive Effort

When all of the above information is combined, we get a plot like this:

wol_error.gif
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image.
TractiveEffort1.jpg


In this chart, you can see how much thrust each engine can produce at any speed. Notice that below 30 mph, all three engines can only produce 1344 lb of thrust, since the car is traction-limited. You can also see how thrust drops five times in each curve – once at the end of each gear. Based on the results, the b16a produces an average of 858.3 lb of thrust between 0 and 120 mph, the d16a6 produces an average of 774.5 lb, and the b18a produces an average of 821.8 lb. Since this comparison uses the same drag and weight for each case, each car’s acceleration will follow these trends. That means the b16a can accelerate (on average) 4% faster than the b18a and 11% faster than the d16a6.

Why does the d16a6 make so much less thrust?
Let’s take a closer look at the curve for the d16a6. You’ll notice that the x-axis is vehicle speed (velocity), and the y-axis is thrust (force). If you remember from earlier in this article, the product of velocity and force is power. If the engine can only produce 110.9 whp (as is the case for the d16a6), then the product of vehicle speed and thrust can never be greater than 110.9 horsepower. Whereas engine torque is manipulated by gearing and tire size, horsepower remains constant (neglecting drivetrain friction). Now, let’s plot the curve for the d16a6 alongside its horsepower limit. I’ve included the b16a curve for comparison:

wol_error.gif
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image.
TractiveEffort6.jpg


You can see that the curve for the d16a6 touches its horsepower limit five times – once in each gear. These points occur when the engine is producing peak power, and for any given speed, that’s when the car will accelerate fastest. Therefore, if we can change the torque curve and/or gearing so that the tractive effort curve rides closer to the horsepower limit, we can produce more average thrust, and car will go faster.

What if the d16a6 has better gearing?
Fair enough. Let’s give the b18a and the d16a6 the same gearing as the b16a and see what happens:

wol_error.gif
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image.
TractiveEffort3.jpg


The better gearing helps – but only by so much. The b16a still makes 3% more average thrust than the b18a and 9% more average thrust than the d16a6. What if the b16a uses taller gearing and the d16a6 uses shorter gearing?

wol_error.gif
This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image.
TractiveEffort5.jpg


In this case, the b18a is close to the b16a, and all else being equal, it would only be 1% slower. However, the b16a still makes 7% more average thrust than the d16a6. It doesn’t matter how you gear the two cars; the d16a6 suffers by producing 30whp less than the b16a, even though it makes more torque.

The Bottom Line
If you want your car to be faster, you want more average horsepower. It doesn’t matter if you’re building a Formula 1 car, a Pro Stock car, or a weekend autocross car. In racing, horsepower is king. If you have a legitimate counterargument for this, feel free to share it. Otherwise, please stop saying “Horsepower sells cars, but torque wins races”.
 

krazyrabbit

Active Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
727
Reaction score
14
Location
Richmond, VA
Confirms what my dad always says, "The only thing that really matters is how many horses are under the hood!"
 

the.greg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2009
Messages
1,269
Reaction score
82
Location
Gastonia, NC
Very cool info, but I'm curious the traction difference the fwd civics on street tires vs rwd mustangs with say drag slicks as related to "thrust". Cool read anyway.
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Very cool info, but I'm curious the traction difference the fwd civics on street tires vs rwd mustangs with say drag slicks as related to "thrust". Cool read anyway.

Yeah the first time I posted it I had mentioned something about it, but it got caught up in the post limit and I forgot to put that part back in!

Basically, our cars will support much more thrust than the civics, but what it shows is that ultimately you are using HP through the gears. So HP is the main determining factor. Or more specifically, an even torque band is. Given that HP is just a function of Torque at any given RPM.
 

330CubeGt

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
99
None of this matters without Traction. Without it your thrust, torque and hp not being applied to the ground is pointless.

Hence 1300 HP Supras that run 12s
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
None of this matters without Traction. Without it your thrust, torque and hp not being applied to the ground is pointless.

Hence 1300 HP Supras that run 12s

Yep and the author makes that point clear under the Tractive Thrust section.

'Tractive thrust' rephrased would be something among the lines of 'maximum thrust capable of being applied.' In any case, given 100% traction -- you want to strive for the highest amount of tractive thrust at any given time. And the author relates thrust to horsepower. And comes to the conclusion that in order to maximize available thrust, you need to maximize average HP. Since Thrust is a function of Torque, and HP is a function of torque at any given RPM.
 

330CubeGt

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
3,880
Reaction score
99
I must have misses that, didn't have time to read the entire thing :(
 

white95

Apex Junky
Admin
Joined
Dec 30, 2007
Messages
20,615
Reaction score
8,752
Location
Prairieville, LA
Wow.. Lot of good informations right there!! I know now I need more horsepower and less drag.
 

Raffaelli

Active Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2010
Messages
418
Reaction score
9
Where is this 109 hp coming from?! I've seen all sorts of Hondas at my tech school lay down 57whp.

Not sure if I agree with this guy. 400 hp turbo Honda and 400hp turbo diesel powerstroke in the same weight chassis. 300tq vs ~1000.

i don't buy it.
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
HP is calculated. TQ is measured.

Correct.

Where is this 109 hp coming from?! I've seen all sorts of Hondas at my tech school lay down 57whp.

Not sure if I agree with this guy. 400 hp turbo Honda and 400hp turbo diesel powerstroke in the same weight chassis. 300tq vs ~1000.

i don't buy it.

What kind of Hondas are you dynoing? My N/A no-Tec SOHC D16A6 puts down about 106. The DOHC Vtec hondas like the B series will put down 150s easy. And the K series and H series make more HP than a NPI Mustang! lol

And you can't compare torque for torque like that without any given RPMs. The author isn't saying that a higher peak HP is going to be the faster car, he said the higher average HP is going to be the faster car. And remember, HP is just a function of torque at any given RPM. So if you can produce a more even torque band and have a higher average HP than the other car, yours will be faster.
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
You own a honduh and your on a SN forum?

Yessir, I race in a Nascar Mini-stock division with my Civic. Its a metric shit ton of fun. Affordable too as far as racing goes. At 1400 lbs it's pretty fast as well. I also own a Mustang obviously too lol.
 
OP
OP
Burninrock24

Burninrock24

Active Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Messages
644
Reaction score
71
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Tq is what actually gets the wheels spinning. When you tighten a fastener on an engine, you don't use HP. You use Tq. Tq is acceleration. HP is speed.

Kind of, HP doesn't equal speed necessarily. I don't really get what you're trying to prove here really.

It just is a measure of work done over time. Having a lot of Torque at a low RPM is not as good as a lot of horsepower at a higher RPM. Because remember your engine works in a series of strokes. So while yes you are making 400ftlbs during your power stroke at low RPMs you are only doing that a few times a second, so your total work (force*distance) in that second is not very high. Which is exactly what horsepower describes. The amount of force being done over a distance over time.

Where as an engine that is making less low end torque but more horsepower than the previously described engine at a higher RPM is doing more work over time. Which translates to more torsional force being applied to the driveline.

If you're trying to argue that a high powered motor at low RPMs (aka. High torque) is better than a high-revving high hp motor then you're looking at it completely wrong. It's all about maximizing the total work being done over time to the driveline. Which translates exactly into horsepower.

So when you are looking for the faster car, you want the maximum total work being done over time throughout the entire RPM band. And straight out of basic calculus, use a definite integral to find the area under the function of hp.

So what I'm saying is that it's not as easy as saying "low-end power is better because its what gets you going" and I'm not saying "High-end power is better because it's more force being applied over time". Because the low-end power monster can run out of power in the upper RPMs and the high-end car might not be able to move it's tires from a dig.

What matters is maximizing your total work being done to your driveline over a period of time. And the way to find that is by maximizing your average horsepower. Period.
 

AaRoN

King Post Whore
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
33,968
Reaction score
50
Location
Orlando, Florida, United States
No. HP is speed. TQ is acceleration. I know you looked this up on the interwebz but remember, it's not always accurate. I have a degree in Automotive Technology and engineering.
 
Top