Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +from:mrc01@flash.net: 130 ]

Total 130 documents matching your query.

121. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 13:55:37 -0800
On an autocross shifting gears slows you down so you want a flat torque curve that allows you to use a single gear over a wide range of speeds. But it doesn't matter how _much_ torque you have, it's
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00197.html (10,037 bytes)

122. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:12:41 -0800
Kinda long but it's the shortest explanation I can give. . . I remember. The 550 is actually 552.59. 1 horsepower is 746 watts, 1 lb. ft. is 1.35 n*m. 746 / 1.35 = 552.59. and This is WRONG (though i
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00204.html (12,517 bytes)

123. Re: Defending the Wankle (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 16:21:03 -0800
I just read about the new wankel and it's even more amazing: 275 hp out of 1.3 liters and they are normally aspirated.
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00205.html (6,869 bytes)

124. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:13:56 -0800
Right. That's why power determines acceleration, while Torque and RPM are equal contributors each of which in itself means nothing. Now let me take Katie's advice and provide a simple example. Imagin
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00210.html (9,799 bytes)

125. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:21:33 -0800
My sweeping statement was power determines acceleration, not torque. Of course the condition is that the gearing of the car is matched to the engine. This was so obvious that I neglected to mention
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00213.html (9,418 bytes)

126. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:25:50 -0800
Now that you're introducing real-world factors, let me introduce another. The higher revving engine (B) is usually smaller and lighter than the engine that gets the same torque at lower RPM (B). This
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00214.html (10,143 bytes)

127. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 08:56:25 -0800
My last bike had torque and power increasing to 11,500 RPM, where torque leveled off. Power increased to 13,000 RPM, where it hit the rev limiter. On the S2000, Torque & Power both increase past 5,25
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00224.html (10,728 bytes)

128. Re: driving to events on race tires (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 14:55:15 -0800
I never drive my RX-7 on anything *but* race boots. When I experienced for the first time how awesome race boots are a few short years ago, no other boot has been installed on the car. I get about 50
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00245.html (9,287 bytes)

129. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 15:13:46 -0800
Of course it's the 6000 hp that's moving the train. You can get that 6000 hp any way you want. The train uses 35,014 ft. lbs. at 900 RPM. But you could also get it with 3,500 ft. lbs. at 9,000 RPM, o
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00246.html (9,916 bytes)

130. Re: Rotary torque & noise (score: 1)
Author: "Michael R. Clements" <mrc01@flash.net>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 20:00:51 -0800
He sounds like an interesting character, but some of his comments contradict reality thus should be taken with a grain of salt. He's basically saying the following: "Low torque, high RPM engines are
/html/ba-autox/2000-01/msg00268.html (13,112 bytes)

Current List: 121 - 130
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
This search system is powered by Namazu