Is it Torques or Horsepowers that really determines the capacity of a transmission?

I'm noodling a coupling method for Bike engines to car trannies and running into capacity issues with the smaller transmissions I've found.

Is it Torques or Horsepowers that really determines the capacity of a transmission?

I'm noodling a coupling method for Bike engines to car trannies and running into capacity issues with the smaller transmissions I've found.

Torque. There may be a speed limit to the bearings.

And can we not say 'torques'? It's just at easy to type 'ft-lbs'

I was thinking it that torque was the main culprit, which if so is good because since bike engines are normally low on Torques that lets you use a smaller unit (with less loss) than with the same HP'd car engine. Or at least that's my theory.

I was hoping for some vindication.

RossD wrote: And can we not say 'torques'? It's just at easy to type 'ft-lbs'

It's Torques you bloody savage.

mndsm wrote: Horsepower is how fast you go. Torque is how you quick you get there. That's what I got.

False.

And yes, transmissions usually have a TQ limit, but not a HP limit.

RossD wrote: Torque. There may be a speed limit to the bearings. And can we not say 'torques'? It's just at easy to type 'ft-lbs'

Actually, the correct term is lb-ft.

And I fully agree about torques and horsepowers. Make one sound like they watch too much Top Gear. At least he didn't say Brake Horsepowers.

Torque is a real number. Horsepower is a function.

If things break because of power, it's torque.

If things break because they spun too fast, it's probably horsepower.

I always thought of torque as how hard you twist and horsepower as how fast you twist it. This is why a diesel engine can pull a house, but cannot acclerate to save its life (unless properly turbocharged).

carguy123 wrote: Is it Torques or Horsepowers that really determines the capacity of a transmission? I'm noodling a coupling method for Bike engines to car trannies and running into capacity issues with the smaller transmissions I've found.

actually... it is a twin variable equation... torque... and the vehicles mass you are using it in.

bravenrace wrote:RossD wrote: Torque. There may be a speed limit to the bearings. And can we not say 'torques'? It's just at easy to type 'ft-lbs'Actually, the correct term is lb-ft.

x * y=y * x Commutative property Both are the same.

RossD wrote:bravenrace wrote:RossD wrote: Torque. There may be a speed limit to the bearings. And can we not say 'torques'? It's just at easy to type 'ft-lbs'Actually, the correct term is lb-ft.

x * y=y * x Commutative property Both are the same.

No, a foot-pound is a unit of force whereas a pound-foot is a unit of torque.

RossD wrote:bravenrace wrote:Actually, the correct term is lb-ft.

x * y=y * x Commutative property Both are the same.

Yes, but no. foot pound is a unit of work. Pound feet is a unit of torque. No big deal. I just thought if someone was correcting someone they might as well be correct.

They would be different if they gave you different answers, but they don't because multiplication is commultative. It's really symmantics and is as close to some peoples hearts as politics and religions, so I digress.

What's not correct is ft/lbs.

In reply to RossD:

One is correct and the other not. I understand that mathematically they are the same, but they are different because they refer to different things.

Torque.

PS - "Torques" is acceptable as it can be measured in pound-feet, kilogram-meter, etc.

People say "horsepower" without quantifying SAE vs euro or gross vs net or a million other ways of measuring it, so why get all pissy about torque?

I don't get the people who get pissy over "torques".

To answer the question, my understanding is torque is what will break a transmission. Torque is the actual force exerted, horsepower is measuring the timeframe over which that force is applied. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to get to the breaking point, what matters is if you exceed it or not.

You'll need to log in to post. Log in