::: Power vs Torque :::

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

::: Power vs Torque :::

  • Power

    Votes: 11 13.6%
  • Torque

    Votes: 35 43.2%
  • Depends [on the application]

    Votes: 35 43.2%

  • Total voters
    81
I guess that math is beyond this group. You are all torqued off to boot. If you do not stop this maddness, I will start posting the calculus equations on power! So once again, the simplified physics equation is:

chainsaw power = torque x revs

More revs, more power. More torque, more power. Either way, more power, as long as torque and revs are greater than zero. If either are zero, you get nothing.

Got torque? :buttkick:

:

Hey, you for got volumetric efficiency!
chainsaw power = torque x revs + air injection:monkey: :popcorn:
 
You all are completely forgetting the effect of an auxiliary transduction boosting plow port. With the right adjustment, you won't give a shat about little boy "torque!"
 
Just try to move that chain with out any Torque!!!!!!!

Torque and Power, Torque and Power, Goes together like dirt and flowers,,,,

Can't have one without the other!!!!!!

2095,,,,, did you do this on purpose??????

Well yes I did River, but I am not trying to 'start anything'. I think Hp is used all too frequently as the measure as if it is superior in itself, without understanding its true importance. I know the poll is technically incorrect - I tryed to point that out to those who would recognise it. I wanted this thread to have the merits of engine performance pointed out to those who do not understand, and several have done as fine a job as I could have of explaining the pro's & con's; in their own words.


Steve summed up the poll nicely [below]:

i think everyone is still missing the point that both torque and power are relative.................



which saw should i buy?


And Treeco posted his version:

Which gallon is bigger?
attachment.php

Depends on the application!



So yes:

A RIGGED thread? I'm shocked!!!!!
 
You can never have power with no movement. Torque applied to a static bolt that stays static will result in zero horsepower.


You can keep trying to turn your stuck bolt...but if you don't have a horse pulling 33,000 foot-pounds per minute in the first place, you wont have very much of anything to measure your torque now will you.
 
yep!!!!

If im flushcutting a big hardwood stump getting ready for grinding a 32-42" bar is pretty common,,,

I like a big saw with some big grunt!!!!!! 044 or bigger!!!!!
attachment.php


This is my minimum saw with a 36" full comp on a 42" willow oak buttress flare, blow down!

So I like Torque!!!!!!with my HP!!!!!!!!!!
 
Last edited:
You can keep trying to turn your stuck bolt...but if you don't have a horse pulling 33,000 foot-pounds per minute in the first place, you wont have very much of anything to measure your torque now will you.

If I grab a wrench and try to remove a stuck bolt without measuring the torque, does that mean I didn't apply torque to the stuck bolt? I don't think so. The torque existed whether I measure it or not.
 
You can keep trying to turn your stuck bolt...but if you don't have a horse pulling 33,000 foot-pounds per minute in the first place, you wont have very much of anything to measure your torque now will you.

You are demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of the subject. Torque is an element of horsepower, and is measured independently of movement. And yes, if you're using a torque wrench on a stuck bolt, you have an accurate way to measure torque with no horses present.

I'll not post again on the subject, as this is the third time I've explained it. If you continue to make such arguments, I'll be forced to conclude that you're either trolling or being a complete dolt.
 
Nice pic River

If im flushcutting a big hardwood stump getting ready for grinding a 32-42" bar is pretty common,,,

I like a big saw with some big grunt!!!!!! 044 or bigger!!!!!
attachment.php


This is my minimum saw with a 36" full comp

So I like Torque!!!!!!with my HP!!!!!!!!!!

Thats a foot pound in each camp!!:D

I like Torque too; you just need to look at my avatar to figure that, but I guess it does depend...
 
And Treeco posted his version:

Which gallon is bigger?
attachment.php

The volumetric analogy here is a good one, except the units are in the wrong place. The gallon should be power, and the dimentions should be torque and revs, not torque and power. You see, the more torque, the more power.

I see that I am going to have to explain this with calculs. So take your headache meds, its gonna hurt your poor little synapses.
 
The volumetric analogy here is a good one, except the units are in the wrong place. The gallon should be power, and the dimentions should be torque and revs, not torque and power. You see, the more torque, the more power.

I see that I am going to have to explain this with calculs. So take your headache meds, its gonna hurt your poor little synapses.

I think what Treeco has posted is a hydraulic press without a connecting tube between the two cylinders.

The volume of the cylinder is Displacement, the diameter of the cylinder gives the area of the applied force or the force that must be applied (representing Torque - though not rotational in this case), and the distance the fluid will travel when this force is applied is the work rate/Hp.

The speed of the force applied is irrelevant.
 
Thats a foot pound in each camp!!:D

I like Torque too; you just need to look at my avatar to figure that, but I guess it does depend...

I saw your avatar,,,,,and I like it as well!!!!!!! it looks like a set of Torque HP curves but the #'s & letters are so small,,,, My Old tired Eyes can't make them out!!!!!!!
 
My last post on this one (and a long winded one). I probably won't change anyones mind on anything...however it is worth one last try.

Torque is the "rotational push" that the engine can produce. Power is that rotational push multiplied by the rpm and is a measure of work produced over a specific length of time. (Horspower involves a correction factor to make it relavent to the work a horse can do).

It is common for engines to be built "square" with the bore and strokes similar in size - and the torque and horsepower tend to be good for most applications and most engines are very close to being built square and don't go to extremes away from being square. When high torque is needed for pulling heavy loads the strokes get a little longer to get lots of torque at low rpms- horsepower is generally reduced as the engines turn slow - the long strokes cause very high piston speeds as the rpm's increase and can limit the speed at which an engine can turn. Small intake passages make the engines efficient at the low engines speeds and don't allow the engines don't breath well enough to make horsepower at high engine rpm's. Big heavy flywheels are used to help smooth out the long powerstrokes and make the engine run smoother (The heavy flywheels do not make torque but make an engine very good at taking load changes without changing rpm quickly). Engines with short strokes and large diameter pistons don't make lots of torque as the crankshaft throws are short, the piston rods are short and don't have a large amount of leverage on the short crankshaft throws. These engines normally turn high rpm's and have light flywheels and can accelerate quickly. (The light flywheels don't have a lot of inertia and cause the engine speed to change quickly if the load changes quickly - it is easy to stall an engine with a light flywheel as there is little inertia in the engine).

Diesel engines are much better suited to pulling heavy loads since they make lots of torque at lower rpms. The diesel engines used in light trucks and SUV's probably have most of the torque available at 1,200 rpm up to the redline - and the gearing is set up so that the torque is available at normal driving/towing speeds. The gasoline engines don't have a lot of torque available at low rpm's and the torque and horsepower build as the rpm's increase.

Stevethekiwi posted:

Take my nissan utes for example (I use the diesel)

Petrol - 200kw power 4L v6 385nm torque
Diesel - 100kw power 2.5L 4cyl 403nm torque

The torque difference in these engines is not that great - but at driving speeds and normal rpm's the diesel engine probably has most of that 403 nm of torque available - the gas engine doesn't have good torque available unless it is turning enough rpm's to get up to about 75% of it's rpm limit - and it may not be geared to keep the engine up where it makes the 385 nm of torque available between gear shifts. (I would not be surpised if the diesel engine has twice the torque of the gas engine at normal driving speeds and engine rpm's at that speed). If the gas engine was geared low enough to keep the engine speeds up it would probably pull the loads - but most SUV's are geared to get good fuel economy and not for pulling heavy loads. It is absolutely no surprise that the diesel engine is better at pulling heavy loads up hills at normal rpm's - that is what it is good at. When accelerating without any loads the gas engine does better as it does not have the rotational mass built into the engine that the diesel engine does and the engine stroke is probably shorter in the gas engine, and the transmission components are probably lighter in the gas engine as it doesn't have to withstand the high torgue during low rpm's that the diesel engine can make.

It is a pretty sure bet that a diesel engine is better suited to working under a heavy load than a gas engine is - and that a gasoline engine will be better in the performance car. The diesel engine however does require very heavy components and is not suitable for use in a chainsaw....which I assumed was the intent of the orignal HP vs.Torque question that was posted. It is my opinion that you need both in a chainsaw that can be used for general use. Racing chainsaws can favor Horsepower and lose some torque and cut very fast as the conditions are pretty well controlled and the rpm/s can be kept up for those 3 very fast cuts. A milling chainsaw that will be running a long bar and chain would probably be better off with lots of torque and a little less horsepower (rpm). A general purpose saw will need a good balance of both so that it can both cut quickly (rpm) and cut big logs (torque) when called on to do so.
 
Last edited:
POWER and HORSE POWER are not the same thing. The fact is that power and torque are almost faternal twins. This was definately a rigged thread. :popcorn:

darn trouble-making kiwi's.:jester:

Who meeeee...:spam:

I don't profess to 'know it all'. I am sure you both and several others here could tell us more. I don't mind saying I have even 'talked' to Dean about getting more Torque from the 2095, albeit briefly (not ready yet Dean). Just be nice to hear the advantages of one saw over another other than Hp only.

Hey KIWIs... I hear things were rocking and rolling around Gisbourne yesteray. 6.8?

Yes, but it was 50km off shore, so not major. No tsunami. Some buildings did collapse though, other than than don't know much more.
 
I saw your avatar,,,,,and I like it as well!!!!!!! it looks like a set of Torque HP curves but the #'s & letters are so small,,,, My Old tired Eyes can't make them out!!!!!!!

Just for Rivers "old tired eyes" :D

attachment.php


Thanks River for the compliment.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top