How to explain Torque ?

imagine you're a fighter

torque is the heaviness of your punch

hp is how often you deliver it in a given period of time.ie the speed of the punch.

so the sv has a big punch and therefore doesn't have to hit as often.
the fz6 is a wimp and has to hit you 13,000 a minute to make you notice

now add the static force and rotational force bobbins:
you can't feel the punch unless it hits you.

...and there you go. obvious really

the SV rocks

the fz6 is crap

Can't be arsed to read the others ideas of Torque and BhP. BUT, the best description I got was from BIKE magazine.

BHP and torque can be explained like a boxer.

BHP is the amount of punches he can throw, whilst Torque is the Strenght of the punch he can throw.

So, is he has High torque and low BHP, he can throw a few REALLY powerfull PUNCHES but tires out quickly. But his BHP and low torque, means he can punch away for ages without much grunt.

ALSO, I can explain it with a car I used t have a TDI polo. 144BHP and 70 bhp.

not a lot of BHP compared to the torque, so it would have alot of acceleration(the torque) but in only a small rev range.

Hope that helps!

Originally Posted by Jools'SV Now

imagine you're a fighter

torque is the heaviness of your punch

hp is how often you deliver it in a given period of time.

so the sv has a big punch and therefore doesn't have to hit as often.
the fz6 is a wimp and has to hit you 13,000 a minute to make you notice

WHAT Jools SAID!
LOL, I really should read the posts ! LOL

OK, I've not followed the links up, so I my look foolish here, but ...

Originally Posted by sdusk

Torque is static turning force

It's the word 'static' that's wrong. Torque is just the turning force that causes angular acceleration, regardless of whether the target is already rotating or not. It's how hard you're twisting the thing.


I do think though that there is always some confusion whenever this is discussed because it is assumed that 50nm at 5000 rpm is just as good as 50nm at 10,000rpm. It's not as these are engine speeds, and by the time it's geared down to achieve the same road speed on both bikes, the higher revving bike will have twice the torque at the wheel.

Sorry Dr Rich, I wouldn't want you to feel left out. I agree with both you and K

Okay, nicked a dyno chart from the web. When you are riding your SV, which chart best describes what you feel: the torque curve showing that the show is over by 7,500 rpm, or the power curve that shows a good increase from 7 to 9,000 ?


<tr><td class="type5" width="90%" valign="top">

?

[Stu]

Originally Posted by therealvw

TDI polo. 144BHP and 70 bhp.

Maybe what you post as well

Jool's analogy is quite a good one, however 'torque' is mostly just a marketing term that has been abused beyond belief when what they really meant was a broad spread of power, or good power low down.

Mac99, I won't dwell on the static bit (versus steady rpm) especially as the engine has to be turning or it won't provide a very useful dyno chart

You bring up a very good point about gearboxes being torque multipliers.

Originally Posted by Dr Rich

Hey, what about K...

what about me.....

K's cool, but we don't want to give her a big head. You already have a big head.


.

Okay, instead of write an essay I have taken the easy way out and found a web article

Have a look at: http://www.fjr1300.info/misc/torque-power.html

This article makes the following points:

- Dynometers do in fact measure power directly.

- For a given velocity and mass, the acceleration is directly proportional to the power.