Machines

[BigV]

Very early run-flats, just not very-fast

[xoxoxoBruce]

M&S tires.*


*Mud & Snow, also good when you're in deep shit.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Why? I'd say for the military given the time frame and color.
Yeah but why a 30 cylinder, 2.5 ton monster to get only 400 horsepower?
Because horsepower don't mean shit, torque is what does work.

[Griff]

I see what you did there.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Because horsepower don't mean shit, torque is what does work.

Any kid from elementary school science can see through that lie. Same torque can be obtained from the motor in an electric clock. Just change gear ratios.

It is a 19.5 horsepower per liter engine. If diesel, then acceptable for that period. If gasoline, it was a marginal design. Which would explain why it was only made for a short time. Too little speed to provide necessary torque - due to insufficient horsepower.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Any kid from elementary school science can see through that lie. Same torque can be obtained from the motor in an electric clock. Just change gear ratios.

That electric clock motor won't provide enough torque to overcome the frictional loss in all the gears it would take to do anything useful.
All the gears in the world won't change the torque the motor produces, just multiply the torque by reducing the speed of the output thereby reducing the calculated horsepower.

Theory is bullshit, torque does the work.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Who say cheaters never win, both NHRA and NASCAR checked the Carb, Intake, Bore, Stroke and Heads,
but not the bottom end. Taking off the Intake they should have spotted the cam bearings though.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Who say cheaters never win, both NHRA and NASCAR checked the Carb, Intake, Bore, Stroke and Heads,
but not the bottom end. Taking off the Intake they should have spotted the cam bearings though.

They even took it a step further...

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That electric clock motor won't provide enough torque to overcome the frictional loss in all the gears

You have assumed conventional gears.

And have totally ignored the point. Same torque can be provided by all sorts of horsepower - high and low. Irrelevant is torque when speed also matters. Only increased horsepower means sufficient speed at that torque. Only horsepower matters. Even a 2 liter four cylinder engine can provide the same torque. But does not have speed.

Obviously that torque myth is popular among many who forget that simple formula taught in school science.

Torque is obviously irrelevant if enough horsepower does not exist to provide minimal speed. Only horsepower matters.

Why do eighteen wheelers with 350 horsepower engines have enough torque for 60,000 pounds? Many gears. Which eighteen wheelers get up to speed faster? Those with 500 horsepower engines. Both have same torque. More horsepower means better speed (and acceleration).

Horsepower is the relevant number.

How did Shell create a 100 MPG car in the 1950s? A two horsepower engine had plenty of torque - and not much speed. Simple multiplication.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, I assumed conventional gears, my bad for not considering your magical frictionless fairy gears. My only excuse is I'm stuck in the real world.

You have it backwards as usual, horsepower is the product of torque times speed over constant. The 30 cylinder engine was designed to produce the torque they needed at the speed they wanted. Yes the hp rating could be increased by increasing the RPMs, but that would be stupid. All that would be accomplished is more wear on the engine and the need to gear it back down to a usable speed. They already had the torque they needed and Torque Does the Work.

Your 2 liter 4 won't get far in a tank or a semi.