Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
It's Official! 2020 GT500 Makes 760HP
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tt335ci03cobra" data-source="post: 16267488" data-attributes="member: 68944"><p>On the thermal note, there is some amount of transfer loss from metal to metal torque distribution, but I think gtpremi nailed it</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly this. The faster you try to get those stationary objects to spin up will take more torque.</p><p></p><p>The total force required to take a hypothetical 100lbs drivetrain to accelerate from 0rpm to 4000rpm in let’s say 3 seconds is much more than to do so in 6 seconds. I completely agree.</p><p></p><p>There are many forces at play here.</p><p></p><p>The LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR is that force we just described. That is why once in motion, it will take much less torque to keep it spinning, just as the other member, [USER=159453]@AustinJ427[/USER] was saying. Once the drivetrain has reached a speed, maintaining it won’t take much torque at all, probably about 1/10th the force needed to get it there. </p><p></p><p>Take a plate and spin it on a top. Then just flick it a little to keep it spinning. It took much more input force to get it to spinning than to keep it there.</p><p></p><p>To the idea of say a 50tq engine driving a gt500 drivetrain to 4000rpm, I totally agree it could, but it will be very innefiicent at doing so. It will likely take it a lot more gasoline to do so and do so much more slowly. </p><p></p><p>It would actually be a very interesting experiment to see what happens when you strap a heavy duty drivetrain to a tiny engine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tt335ci03cobra, post: 16267488, member: 68944"] On the thermal note, there is some amount of transfer loss from metal to metal torque distribution, but I think gtpremi nailed it Exactly this. The faster you try to get those stationary objects to spin up will take more torque. The total force required to take a hypothetical 100lbs drivetrain to accelerate from 0rpm to 4000rpm in let’s say 3 seconds is much more than to do so in 6 seconds. I completely agree. There are many forces at play here. The LARGEST CONTRIBUTOR is that force we just described. That is why once in motion, it will take much less torque to keep it spinning, just as the other member, [USER=159453]@AustinJ427[/USER] was saying. Once the drivetrain has reached a speed, maintaining it won’t take much torque at all, probably about 1/10th the force needed to get it there. Take a plate and spin it on a top. Then just flick it a little to keep it spinning. It took much more input force to get it to spinning than to keep it there. To the idea of say a 50tq engine driving a gt500 drivetrain to 4000rpm, I totally agree it could, but it will be very innefiicent at doing so. It will likely take it a lot more gasoline to do so and do so much more slowly. It would actually be a very interesting experiment to see what happens when you strap a heavy duty drivetrain to a tiny engine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
It's Official! 2020 GT500 Makes 760HP
Top