And divide by the mass of the car to get acceleration . . .
Kevin Stevens wrote:
>
> 2.66 x 3.42 x 345 = "only" 3,139. Of course, that's peak torque. Now go look
> at the torque curves...
>
> KeS
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > [mailto:owner-ba-autox@autox.team.net]On Behalf Of Michael R. Clements
> > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2000 16:24
> > To: lollipop@ricochet.net
> > Cc: ba-autox@autox.team.net
> > Subject: Re: best line
> >
> >
> > Sure, the rear end ratio would be included if one is measuring
> > the total gear ratio from the crankshaft to the wheel. That would
> > be the transmission ratio multiplied by the differential ratio.
> > For example, in my RX-7 1st gear is 3.483 and 4.1, which amounts
> > to 14.2803, which means 225 ft. lbs. at the crank is converted to
> > 3,213 ft. lbs. at the wheel. Incidentally, divide that torque by
> > the wheel radius, divide by the mass of the car and you have more
> > than 1 g of acceleration in 1st gear which thanks to lofty rotary
> > redlines goes to just over 40 mph.
> >
> > Too bad I can't get it into 1st when it's rolling anything faster
> > than 10 miles per hour.
> >
> > Pat Kelly wrote:
> > >
> > > Then you toss in the rearend ratios. For instance, for years we ran a
> > > 4:55 rear. When we rebuilt the car, we went to a shorter (4:88) and
> > > found we had to shift too often, losing time. So we went to a 4:11
> > > because the new engine pulls so well, and heaven has arrived, at least
> > > as long as this Rebello engine survives.
> > > --Pat K
> > > "Michael R. Clements" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scot Zediker wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Guess they're geared a
> > > > > lot higher than my car,
> > > >
> > > > Which gave me a major epiphany (thank you Scot).
> > > >
> > > > This touches on a confusion I've always had about gearing
> > > > terminology. From an engineer's point of view, the total gear
> > > > ratio is measured as the rate of rotation of the crankshaft
> > > > divided by the rate of rotation of the wheel of the car. That
> > > > means 1st is higher than 2nd, etc.
> > > >
> > > > But often times, the colloquial terminology is the opposite. As
> > > > an engineer, one would say that a Vette (for example) is geared
> > > > lower than a Miata (for example). However, I've heard people
> > > > (Scot, for example) say the opposite while meaning the same
> > > > thing. That means the layman's meaning, and the engineer's
> > > > meaning, of the same word, may be opposites.
> > > >
> > > > So in layman's terms,
> > > >
> > > > 1. Is 1st gear higher or lower than 2nd gear?
> > > >
> > > > 2. Is 1st gear taller or shorter than 2nd gear?
> > > >
> > > > 3. Is 1st gear "bigger" or "smaller" than 2nd gear?
> > > >
> > > > P.S.
> > > >
> > > > I think I'm finally understanding why people argue about power
> > > > and torque so much -- they actually agree, but they attach
> > > > opposite meanings to the same words!
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Michael R. Clements
> > > > mrc01@flash.net
> > > > We must make clear that communism and the governments it now
> > > > controls are enemies of every man on Earth who is or wants to be
> > > > free.
> > > > -- Barry Goldwater
> >
> > --
> > Michael R. Clements
> > mrc01@flash.net
> > We must make clear that communism and the governments it now
> > controls are enemies of every man on Earth who is or wants to be
> > free.
> > -- Barry Goldwater
> >
> >
--
Michael R. Clements
mrc01@flash.net
We must make clear that communism and the governments it now
controls are enemies of every man on Earth who is or wants to be
free.
-- Barry Goldwater
|