Too much torque?!?!?
10-25-05, 12:21 PM
#1
Too much torque?!?!?
Okay, there was a thread going on in the other section regarding the V8 engine having too much torque and making the car undrivable in the twisties.
This seems utterly ludicrous to myself, but I'm always up for a calm, calculated debate, so let's hear the opinions on this matter.
I'm linking this to the other thread, so that the contestants there can jump in.
I'm interested in what you think, and am happy to be proven wrong if such is the case, though as of now I don't think it is.
This seems utterly ludicrous to myself, but I'm always up for a calm, calculated debate, so let's hear the opinions on this matter.
I'm linking this to the other thread, so that the contestants there can jump in.
I'm interested in what you think, and am happy to be proven wrong if such is the case, though as of now I don't think it is.
10-25-05, 12:36 PM
#3
Zero Rotor Motorsports
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Glen Burnie, MD
Posts: 2,525
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Opinions can't be wrong. That's why I'm always right 
I suppose the benefit of not having much torque is it's impossible to break the rear tires loose in a turn unless you drop down two gears or pull the e-brake. V8's have a tendency to get sideways under partial throttle, where rotaries need a lot more convincing. I've always preferred throttle control to handicapping myself, personally.
I suppose the benefit of not having much torque is it's impossible to break the rear tires loose in a turn unless you drop down two gears or pull the e-brake. V8's have a tendency to get sideways under partial throttle, where rotaries need a lot more convincing. I've always preferred throttle control to handicapping myself, personally.
10-25-05, 12:49 PM
#4
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Memphis, TN
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, there is always the case of the 13B with a VERY large single turbo...
Not enough torque to get yourself in trouble in a turn...initially! Since it's so hard to accurately modulate or predict the output of a big turbo motor, I could see the brutal rush of torque as being a nuisance on a road course. You're apexing, on the throttle, accelerating a little. Then, WHAM! You hit boost... Spin!
I could see that the torque could be a problem in that scenario. I would argue, however, that torque is not the problem. The inability to easily modulate the engine is the problem. Hell, this can even be a problem on small engines with small turbos. I drove a Mazdaspeed Miata the other day. Throttle control was terrible. Honestly, the turbo was constantly spooling when I wasn't expecting nor wanting it to. Cruising throttle, just enough to maintain speed; randomly, the turbo starts winding up, and I am accelerating. Wasn't trying to...
Not enough torque to get yourself in trouble in a turn...initially! Since it's so hard to accurately modulate or predict the output of a big turbo motor, I could see the brutal rush of torque as being a nuisance on a road course. You're apexing, on the throttle, accelerating a little. Then, WHAM! You hit boost... Spin!
I could see that the torque could be a problem in that scenario. I would argue, however, that torque is not the problem. The inability to easily modulate the engine is the problem. Hell, this can even be a problem on small engines with small turbos. I drove a Mazdaspeed Miata the other day. Throttle control was terrible. Honestly, the turbo was constantly spooling when I wasn't expecting nor wanting it to. Cruising throttle, just enough to maintain speed; randomly, the turbo starts winding up, and I am accelerating. Wasn't trying to...
10-25-05, 01:03 PM
#5
See, the flaw I've seen in all the reasoning so far (not meaning in this thread in particular), is that it's too hard to control.
....that's not torque's problem, that's the driver's problem.
Not to sound like a jerk... but LEARN TO DRIVE BETTER. I'm not insinuating no talent, rather that controlling a powerful, race-bred vehicle requires LOTS of talent, and LOTS and LOTS of practice.
I can guarantee that Mark (GNX7) would be the first to admit, that his times in both the drag strip (not what his car is setup for) and definitely the road course would be dramatically better, if he had more seat time in the car.
Having to peddle it a bit in the corners is a GOOD thing, that means you have more power on tap then your suspension/grip package can handle, which just means you need more grip, not less power.
....that's not torque's problem, that's the driver's problem.
Not to sound like a jerk... but LEARN TO DRIVE BETTER. I'm not insinuating no talent, rather that controlling a powerful, race-bred vehicle requires LOTS of talent, and LOTS and LOTS of practice.
I can guarantee that Mark (GNX7) would be the first to admit, that his times in both the drag strip (not what his car is setup for) and definitely the road course would be dramatically better, if he had more seat time in the car.
Having to peddle it a bit in the corners is a GOOD thing, that means you have more power on tap then your suspension/grip package can handle, which just means you need more grip, not less power.
10-25-05, 01:20 PM
#7
Full Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: so cal
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone who says that an LS1 in an RX-7 has too much torque making it undrivable in tight stuff, is... how can I put this nicely... a total and utter moron. People who say this have 1. probably never even ridden in let alone driven an LS1-powered RX-7 and 2. this one time at band camp they got a chance to drive a rwd car with some ***** and couldn't keep the car from going sideways. Like you said, learn to drive.
Trending Topics
10-25-05, 04:30 PM
#9
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 363
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
too much torque for the twisties???
uhm...
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
as far as i know throttle control is sensetive...not on/off switch...this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
uhm...
AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAH
as far as i know throttle control is sensetive...not on/off switch...this is the dumbest thing I've ever read.
10-25-05, 04:45 PM
#10
I have a 'big' turbo FC.
If anything, I would say the broader power and torque curve of say an LS-1 or LS-6 would be easier in the twisties. Power delivery should be much smoother, compared to the more 'on/off' feel of my car. I really need to work the rpms and throttle to keep the boost up. That is fun in its own right, though.
You can certainly make some legitimate pro-rotary arguments, but that one seems dumb.
If anything, I would say the broader power and torque curve of say an LS-1 or LS-6 would be easier in the twisties. Power delivery should be much smoother, compared to the more 'on/off' feel of my car. I really need to work the rpms and throttle to keep the boost up. That is fun in its own right, though.
You can certainly make some legitimate pro-rotary arguments, but that one seems dumb.
Last edited by eViLRotor; 10-25-05 at 04:52 PM.
10-25-05, 04:50 PM
#11
King of the Loop
I personally get sick when i hear about a v8swap, i am not a fan at all and am totally aginst it. But I still muc agree whoever said that a vahicle can have too much torque/hp or anything is a flat out fucktard. The only think a v8 swap can have too much of is **** talking.
10-25-05, 06:58 PM
#15
Mechanical Engineering
i too do not understand why people create lies about cars they have never seen or heard about. just because they (personally) havent seen or done anything with it must mean its bad?? i dont get it, if i dont understand something i try to find out something about it and not make slanderous comments about stuff i dont know. this goes for alot of stuff not just V8s but alos rotaries, i hear my "Motorhead" freinds talk about cars and when i mention im into rotaries or im putting a V8 in my Rx7 they say 1. rotaries dont last that long you gotta rebuild them like every 30k miles and a bunch a BS 2.your cars gonna handle like **** with that V8 and stuff they dont know about.
and IMO there is such a thing as TOO much torque, but thats to the extreme such as having 1000ft/lbs on the twisties in an RX7 or a miata, only so much of that 1000ft/lbs is going to be used and be able to be put down effectively. so i guess what im saying is that if you have 1000ft/lbs doesnt mean you cant modulate it but if you try to use it all i think its not gonna end well.
and IMO there is such a thing as TOO much torque, but thats to the extreme such as having 1000ft/lbs on the twisties in an RX7 or a miata, only so much of that 1000ft/lbs is going to be used and be able to be put down effectively. so i guess what im saying is that if you have 1000ft/lbs doesnt mean you cant modulate it but if you try to use it all i think its not gonna end well.
10-25-05, 08:15 PM
#16
Full Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston TX
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Historically, the more rotating mass an engine has, the harder it is to spin the wheels in undesirable or desirable circumstances.
Turbine engines, due to their high-rpm guts, have lots of internal rotating mass that is hard to just snap up to higher speeds, unlike a piston engine.
The STP turbine-powered Indy car of yore was banned from racing after kicking the piston-car's butts, (they said it was because it had a big air brake it flipped up to slow down) especially in the rain. It didn't spin out in the rain as easily because when it ran over a patch of lower-traction surface (such as a pool of water or a slicker section of wet track) its turbine had too much rotating inertia in the engine to just snap up to redline like a piston engine would given the same circumstances, spinning the tires.
Rotaries don't rev up quite as fast as piston engine, I have noticed, for the same reason. More rotating mass inside the motor, in the form of the rotors, than a piston engine has.
However, how spiky your engines power curve is over the RPM range will affect how hard it is to control in corners, also. If, instead of having a smooth power curve that changes gradually through the usable RPM range you have a power curve that has deep dips and spikes in it, as you apply power, and the RPMs rise, and you run into one of the sudden rises in power, the back end can snap out suddenly.
To this end, the F1 Ferraris have a jagged powerband in their motors. To smooth it out, the computer takes throttle inputs, and varies the actual throttle opening to smooth out power delivery.
Ferrari had to lobby hard to convince the FIA that they were NOT using artificial anti-slip regulation to control wheelspin in varying traction situations, but, if you put the gas pedal half down the intake butterflies would open, but then vary their position (even though your highly paid foot was in the same position on the pedal) according to a pre-programmed map so that the engine output rose in a smooth curve as it climbed the RPM range, instead of the jagged peaks and dips that it would encounter if the butterflies stayed in the same position through the RPM range.
But, there is no such thing as too much torque. The all-dominating Can-Am Porsche 917/30 had 1100 hp and somewhere around 1120 ft-lbs of torque. In a car that weighed about 1800 lbs. However, I have seen the power curve for said motor, and it was relatively smooth. Mark Donahue had to calm down the Deutsche engineers because they were hypnotized by its original 1500 hp, but it was very "peaky" horsepower way up in the RPM band. He had to convince them to cam it for a smoother, but lower overall powerband. They utilized cams that, were it naturally aspirated, would have given the motor a very low-RPM torque curve, and the turbos provided the boost up higher in the rev range, so the result was a very driveable 1100 hp.
Perhaps their internal angular inertia makes a N/A rotary not quite as twitchy in corners, because momentary traction loss will not result in quite as fast a climb to higher revs as it will with a piston engined car.
I think that a rotary with similar power characteristics will be a *bit* harder to induce unwanted wheelspin in than the same car with a piston engine.
Turbine engines, due to their high-rpm guts, have lots of internal rotating mass that is hard to just snap up to higher speeds, unlike a piston engine.
The STP turbine-powered Indy car of yore was banned from racing after kicking the piston-car's butts, (they said it was because it had a big air brake it flipped up to slow down) especially in the rain. It didn't spin out in the rain as easily because when it ran over a patch of lower-traction surface (such as a pool of water or a slicker section of wet track) its turbine had too much rotating inertia in the engine to just snap up to redline like a piston engine would given the same circumstances, spinning the tires.
Rotaries don't rev up quite as fast as piston engine, I have noticed, for the same reason. More rotating mass inside the motor, in the form of the rotors, than a piston engine has.
However, how spiky your engines power curve is over the RPM range will affect how hard it is to control in corners, also. If, instead of having a smooth power curve that changes gradually through the usable RPM range you have a power curve that has deep dips and spikes in it, as you apply power, and the RPMs rise, and you run into one of the sudden rises in power, the back end can snap out suddenly.
To this end, the F1 Ferraris have a jagged powerband in their motors. To smooth it out, the computer takes throttle inputs, and varies the actual throttle opening to smooth out power delivery.
Ferrari had to lobby hard to convince the FIA that they were NOT using artificial anti-slip regulation to control wheelspin in varying traction situations, but, if you put the gas pedal half down the intake butterflies would open, but then vary their position (even though your highly paid foot was in the same position on the pedal) according to a pre-programmed map so that the engine output rose in a smooth curve as it climbed the RPM range, instead of the jagged peaks and dips that it would encounter if the butterflies stayed in the same position through the RPM range.
But, there is no such thing as too much torque. The all-dominating Can-Am Porsche 917/30 had 1100 hp and somewhere around 1120 ft-lbs of torque. In a car that weighed about 1800 lbs. However, I have seen the power curve for said motor, and it was relatively smooth. Mark Donahue had to calm down the Deutsche engineers because they were hypnotized by its original 1500 hp, but it was very "peaky" horsepower way up in the RPM band. He had to convince them to cam it for a smoother, but lower overall powerband. They utilized cams that, were it naturally aspirated, would have given the motor a very low-RPM torque curve, and the turbos provided the boost up higher in the rev range, so the result was a very driveable 1100 hp.
Perhaps their internal angular inertia makes a N/A rotary not quite as twitchy in corners, because momentary traction loss will not result in quite as fast a climb to higher revs as it will with a piston engined car.
I think that a rotary with similar power characteristics will be a *bit* harder to induce unwanted wheelspin in than the same car with a piston engine.
Last edited by Smilodon; 10-25-05 at 08:43 PM.
10-25-05, 08:23 PM
#17
Lean Mean Speed Thingie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moscow, ID
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by turbogarrett
I'm nowhere near an expert driver, but for me, the ls1 is much more predictable and easier to drive at the limit. The people who constantly bitch about these swaps (usually seems to be teenagers with 16 second n/a cars) have never ridden in one.
well thats a good job of lumping rotorheads into one group
But I will say, there are some people who are pretty ignorant when it comes to accepting v8 swaps. I have accepted the fact that an LS1 or similar high output lightweight engine can make an rx7 just as fast, or faster than the rotary engine can. But in my opinion that doesn't make it right, and I'm choosing not to accept it for that reason.
It's like a man and a woman having sex, that's the way it should be. But there are men that have sex with eachother, and thats wrong, even though its still sex. I'll respect their own decisions to be gay, but I'm not accepting it or condoning it.
And yes, I basically just called v8 swaps gay....sorry
10-25-05, 09:08 PM
#20
moon ******
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Jacksonville, Florida
Posts: 1,308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smilodon - just FYI, generally, the speed at which a engine free-revs has to do with the inerta of the engine itself (including the flywheel) relative to how much torque is at that particular rpm. Also, as speeds double, ineta quadrouples.
Also, if the wheels are spinning out, the inerta of the whole driveline (transmission, DS, rear end, whels, etc) plus the dynamic friction of the tires comes into play. Piston engines have angular momentum too.... I doubt flywheels and crankshafts are especially lightweight.
Oh, and the rotor spins 1/3 of the way around per rpm of the E-shaft...
And uh, McNannay...
"Originally Posted by turbogarrett
I'm nowhere near an expert driver, but for me, the ls1 is much more predictable and easier to drive at the limit. The people who constantly bitch about these swaps (usually seems to be teenagers with 16 second n/a cars) have never ridden in one."
Where is the word "rotor" or "head" in that? Its not :P
Also, if the wheels are spinning out, the inerta of the whole driveline (transmission, DS, rear end, whels, etc) plus the dynamic friction of the tires comes into play. Piston engines have angular momentum too.... I doubt flywheels and crankshafts are especially lightweight.
Oh, and the rotor spins 1/3 of the way around per rpm of the E-shaft...
And uh, McNannay...
"Originally Posted by turbogarrett
I'm nowhere near an expert driver, but for me, the ls1 is much more predictable and easier to drive at the limit. The people who constantly bitch about these swaps (usually seems to be teenagers with 16 second n/a cars) have never ridden in one."
Where is the word "rotor" or "head" in that? Its not :P
10-25-05, 09:17 PM
#21
Full Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mcnannay
^ does that make me ignorant too?
You know a chick named Stephanie Mika? She is 21 and from Moscow, and goes to Stanford? Has HUGE ***** (36DD)
Just a shot in the dark...
-Jason
10-26-05, 01:34 AM
#25
Lean Mean Speed Thingie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Moscow, ID
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by payne
If you really have issues with gay people, then yes.
lets just say i'm from idaho
Originally Posted by Nihilanthic
And uh, McNannay...
"Originally Posted by turbogarrett
I'm nowhere near an expert driver, but for me, the ls1 is much more predictable and easier to drive at the limit. The people who constantly bitch about these swaps (usually seems to be teenagers with 16 second n/a cars) have never ridden in one."
Where is the word "rotor" or "head" in that? Its not :P
"Originally Posted by turbogarrett
I'm nowhere near an expert driver, but for me, the ls1 is much more predictable and easier to drive at the limit. The people who constantly bitch about these swaps (usually seems to be teenagers with 16 second n/a cars) have never ridden in one."
Where is the word "rotor" or "head" in that? Its not :P
sorry guys, i hope im not pissing anyone off, im just playin, really!
