i was thinking that if i got the rods to turn around at a quarter of the way down, that should pretty much get rid of all my torque. my car would be way faster then just think of how fast it would rev since the total distance the rods move is only half as much so knowing that i run a 16 second quarter mile now id be down to 8 right, plus doubleing the horsepower would double my top speed of 120 so 240 right, im not sure on this if anyone could varify this that would be great. o my gosh i have such a good idea what if i cut the rod distance in half again then i would be able to go 480 mph do a quarter mile in 4 seconds and get 32 mpg to boot. my next project- amplify the engine im talking 1000 watts, only gets you about 100 horsepower but hey i need all the power i can get, at least until i do my rod thingy.

 

stupid double post look below: sorry dang work computer

 

you never took physics did you?

 

somebody f-ingaround LOCK.........

 

oh i know physics ask me any question i promise i wont search the internet question also any logic and reasoning questions to

 

WTF..

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by whitecrx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">oh i know physics ask me any question i promise i wont search the internet question also any logic and reasoning questions to</TD></TR></TABLE> what formula's are you using to draw your statement above, do you not know about friction? constant velocity? acceleration? weight vs. power?
sad day on HT

 

ya i know you would need calculus to figure out acceleration change since the ratio of stuff changes at any rate i posted earlier could a car with less torque same horsepower be faster and the answer is of course image a 100 horsepower and torque car verses a 100 horsepower and 1000000 torque car the car with a horsepower to torque ratio of 100 to a million would be like a huge steel drumming rotating at hardly any speed. the question was simply at what point in time is torque going to slow your car

 

These have to be the longest, rambling incoherent run-on sentences I've ever seen. I can't even understand what you're trying to say.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wiZCo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">These have to be the longest, rambling incoherent run-on sentences I've ever seen. I can't even understand what you're trying to say.</TD></TR></TABLE>i think he is saying he doesn't understand physics/and or calc. but his theories about automobiles have to be correct

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 89efDUSTY &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i think he is saying he doesn't understand physics/and or calc. but his theories about automobiles have to be correct </TD></TR></TABLE>

OK, I just carefully read this. He's saying that if you shorten the rod length in half that his 1/4 mile times will drop in half and his top speed will double. He's trying to make the assumption that lower rod stroke means higher revving and more speed / power.

Please, if you seriously want to talk to somebody about this, go visit the All Motor forum.

 

what im trying to say is that people think that certain things equal such as

torque=fast, an assume for every scenario

how the hell are you going to rotate an object with way the hell more rotational eneria, ie torque, with only 100 horsepower

next question

horsepower=max revs over 5252 in a ratio of torque in other words if your car revs 6k then using the horsepower formula you should have 6 over 5252 horsepower to torque ratio which isnt always the case because that would render it impossible for any performance part to add lets say 5 torque and 10 horsepower when you dont rev to 5252(x2)

 

x 10000000

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by wiZCo &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

OK, I just carefully read this. He's saying that if you shorten the rod length in half that his 1/4 mile times will drop in half and his top speed will double. He's trying to make the assumption that lower rod stroke means higher revving and more speed / power.

Please, if you seriously want to talk to somebody about this, go visit the All Motor forum.</TD></TR></TABLE> he is making sense if physics doesn't apply because he is saying that at the crank it spins 1/2 the speed as up top, so if he makes that spin twice as fast "top then doubles as well" he can do twice the speed...

 

not so fast guys....everybody laughed at einstein at first as well

 

um actually i wanted the rod to completely change direction which is rediculous im not that dumb but cutting the stroke in half is a terrible idea seriously you would need like 6in tires. which brings me to my next idea. suppose that the crank of an engine rotated with the wheel the reason being that the power would be applied towards the outside of the wheel thus making it much easier to spin to draw a picture basically the axles would revolve instead of rotate the only problem would be that it would be terribly difficult to spin the other side of the wheel so what if you had 2 or 4 spinning axles things

i want to post more can i not be a newbie

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mahatma &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">not so fast guys....everybody laughed at einstein at first as well </TD></TR></TABLE>but thats because Einstein was creating new theories...this guy is basically trying to change previous theories...

 

seriously if you guys are gonna go crazy when im sarcastic like this then thats too bad since i just posted a serious question(not this one but one from yesterday) that you guys either didnt think about enough or just didnt understand and that obviously didnt work plus its funnier to make **** up so cooties to that guy who wanted to lock me but just so you know thinking the way you guys are will never get you anywhere, you got to think differently to come up with different conclusions.

 

heres my new theory then

no movement can exist in the universe because any object will remain motionless relative to some distant body, it takes the earth just less than 24 hours to rotate 360 degrees because the points of tangency changes as 1 revolution equals 1 rotation, but that statement would only be correct assuming relative movement was to the sun, so by assuming that the sun rotates around something and then that something in turn rotates around something else, after awhile the earth would take an infinite amount of time to rotate or possibly move for that matter compared to the inverse earth, so that is my theory there is another earth far far away and that if you would looking at them both at the same time you would see no motion, im not sure if this would be the inverse earth or exactly the same.

 

and just to prove that i know what torque comes from its because... well imagine a sphere now rotate the sphere obviously the inside moves less, and knowing that the same force is being applied to the entire sphere the center will effectively have more torque

 

This looks like a post from the MKIV forum on the vw vortex.

 

Can you tell us how to divide by zero also?

IBTL

Janos

 

Get a job.

IBTL

 

holy expletive my head just exploded. what a great waste of bandwidth. im goign to go slit my wrists now.

bye bye

 

Hahaha.

I like how people think hondas have torque?

IBTL.