Sooo,
those that think the word "torques" is silly and dumb, you realize that some people use it because Top Gear calls them Torques, right?
I saw no smiley faces to think one way or the other.
Besides, The spark has the most torques........
.....In tha whirled.
I just drove home behind a Spark and they have some skinny-ass little wheels. The torque will have to be artificially limited to keep it from shredding those tires.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
1) Disable traction control/torque limiting
2) Put on some massive slicks
3) ???
4) Profit?
Javelin wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Torques is longer than "pound feet"? Come on man, you're being a pedantic old coot and you know it.
Torque could be measured just as easily measured in Newton meters as lb ft. Saying something has so many torques is as useful as tits on a bull.
I tried out the normal Spark. It really sucked.
It is completely hideous IMO.
BUT the electric one has a whoooole bunch o' torques!
Javelin wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Torques is longer than "pound feet"? Come on man, you're being a pedantic old coot and you know it.
Torque is a term, pounds-feet is one unit of measure of torque. Torques may or may not be a term, but it is no way a unit of measure. So torques is comparable to torque, not pounds-feet.
wvumtnbkr wrote: Sooo, those that think the word "torques" is silly and dumb, you realize that some people use it because Top Gear calls them Torques, right? I saw no smiley faces to think one way or the other. Besides, The spark has the most torques........ .....In tha whirled.
I do know that. And while I enjoy the show, I don't use them or anything they say as a reference for what is correct.
bravenrace wrote:wvumtnbkr wrote: Sooo, those that think the word "torques" is silly and dumb, you realize that some people use it because Top Gear calls them Torques, right? I saw no smiley faces to think one way or the other. Besides, The spark has the most torques........ .....In tha whirled.I do know that. And while I enjoy the show, I don't use them or anything they say as a reference for what is correct.
whichever measurement you want to use, it still has moar torques than anything else in it's class. so it's usage is perfectly cromulent.
GameboyRMH wrote: I just drove home behind a Spark and they have some skinny-ass little wheels. The torque will have to be artificially limited to keep it from shredding those tires.
Well sure, if they only used one torque. This thing has hundreds of 'em!!
an EV Spark
I get's it, lols
... n I ain't the sharpest knife in the tool shed
Teh E36 M3 wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: I just drove home behind a Spark and they have some skinny-ass little wheels. The torque will have to be artificially limited to keep it from shredding those tires.Well sure, if they only used *one* torque. This thing has hundreds of 'em!!
Ha! ... I found that far funnier than I should've. Girlfriend's giving me weird looks now.
accordionfolder wrote:Gearheadotaku wrote: One of the many things I don't get about EV's and Hybrids is the amount of 'fancy' electrical extras they have. Power windows, computer screens for the radio and climate control, nav systems, etc. Look at the new Tesla sedan, there a huge computer screen in the dash! Why add all this stuff that will only put more load on the battery and reduce range? Wouldn't roll up windows, a very basic anolog speedometer, and simple radio be better? Lights, wipers, and heat should be the main draws after the motor itself. Yeah, A/C is needed in some ares, make it an option.I daresay that the Tesla has all the "fluff" because of target market. They're not cheap, and therefore expected to do "not cheap things."
You're forgetting how much energy it takes to move a car.
It takes, roundly, 20kW to cruise down the road at 60mph in that Tesla. All fancy electronics are in the noise compared to that. Consider the display screens: for one mile of travel in 60 seconds (333Wh), you can run an iPad for nearly 3 days!
I forget just how crotchety some people on here are. I use "torx" to make fun of all my hondar co-workers. They have no comprehension what "torque" is, so there's no point in using "correct" terminology with them when they think power!= vtec.
wvumtnbkr wrote: Sooo, those that think the word "torques" is silly and dumb, you realize that some people use it because Top Gear calls them Torques, right? I saw no smiley faces to think one way or the other. Besides, The spark has the most torques........ .....In tha whirled.
Well this is why Top Gear is juvenile, dumb, and clearly sourced in China.
Javelin wrote: In reply to bravenrace: Yeah, you've never said "mags", "diff", "posi", "carb", or "boss" before, huh? I reccon I finna skirt cha lawn na.
FTFY
I do know that. And while I enjoy the show, I don't use them or anything they say as a reference for what is correct.
Amen.
This thread made me giggle.
I hope I never work on a car with someone who would assume I meant newton meters if I asked for something to be tighten to "70 torques." At the same time, I don't think I would ever tell someone that in the first place. I'd just grab the torque wrench and tighten it myself. To 70 torques. Per pound. Of foot.
GameboyRMH wrote: I just drove home behind a Spark and they have some skinny-ass little wheels. The torque will have to be artificially limited to keep it from shredding those tires.
Don't forget that the gearing will be completely different from a gas powered version, so it's hard to say how the tires will handle the torque. A gas engine with only 100lb-ft going through a 4:1 first great and then through a 3:1 final drive is putting 1200lb-ft through the tires. Assuming the electric motor has no transmission, you're down to just the multiplier from the final drive ratio. It could be a tire-smoking good time, or it could be fairly anti-climactic.
4cylndrfury wrote: ......a joking sense which, as I view it, makes light of people who are afflicted with rotary motors
Rotary motors, whats wrong with them? So are you using linear motors?
Schmidlap wrote:GameboyRMH wrote: I just drove home behind a Spark and they have some skinny-ass little wheels. The torque will have to be artificially limited to keep it from shredding those tires.Don't forget that the gearing will be completely different from a gas powered version, so it's hard to say how the tires will handle the torque. A gas engine with only 100lb-ft going through a 4:1 first great and then through a 3:1 final drive is putting 1200lb-ft through the tires. Assuming the electric motor has no transmission, you're down to just the multiplier from the final drive ratio. It could be a tire-smoking good time, or it could be fairly anti-climactic.
Good point, most EVs are transmission-less, I'd assume this one will be. They usually don't strictly require the torque multiplication that a gas engine requires since they have such a linear/instant torque curve. 400lb/ft is substantial though, even in the transmissionless world of EVs.
I'm quite positive, out of anyone in this thread, that I am the only one allowed to comment about torques.
And my GMC TBI truck STILL does not have any.
HiTempguy wrote: I'm quite positive, out of anyone in this thread, that I am the only one allowed to comment about torques. And my GMC TBI truck STILL does not have any.
i 98 Cavalier had enough torques to beat an old Prelude in a race at a stoplight the other day... well, i wasn't racing, but the kid in the Prelude thought he was.. i was just driving nice and pulling away from him, but i could hear that he was going all "fast and furious" as he ran thru the gears..
i learned that while it has a severe lacking in the torques department, an OHV 2.2 in a beat up Cavalier with 296,500 miles on it has moar torques than whatever they put in beat up old Preludes..
novaderrik wrote: i 98 Cavalier had enough torques to beat an old Prelude in a race at a stoplight the other day... well, i wasn't racing, but the kid in the Prelude thought he was.. i was just driving nice and pulling away from him, but i could hear that he was going all "fast and furious" as he ran thru the gears.. i learned that while it has a severe lacking in the torques department, an OHV 2.2 in a beat up Cavalier with 296,500 miles on it has moar torques than whatever they put in beat up old Preludes..
Depends on how old the prelude was: pre-88 sure it's just an accord. 88-91 are pretty frisky. Unless it was carb'd they are pretty quick. 92-96 They had a great potential to be very frisky, unless it was the "S" trim which is pretty vanilla. 97+ are all go fast, a bit heavy though.
It definitly wasn't this one (ignore the terrible music)
My old car made 257 torques, 215 horsepowers, and was running 15 boost pressures.
You'll need to log in to post.
