Now someone dyno the 4 and 4S in their two configurations.
People always doing it with the biggest brothers. Arguably the least sold version of the car.
I believe 200 Nm more torque explains that? Easier movement of the massive weight.Now I'm curious what a Taycan Turbo generates in terms of power.
It is known that a Turbo S without LC has better acceleration than a Turbo but I like to see those numbers as well...
Power (kW) = Torque (N.m) x (Speed (RPM) * 2 * pi / 60)It doesn't matter what unit you use.
Let me explain:
HP=torque*rpm/5252
In units:
HP=Nm*rpm (5252 is unitless).
So, now the question is: what do we use for rpm? m/s?
In that case rpm is a measure of speed/distance but in reality you don't know anything about the distance/perimeter...
So HP=Nm^2/s?
I don't think so.
What about radius/s?
...
You see where I am going?
It doesn't make sense.
In my view HP doesn't have a valid unit in this equation, metric nor imperial...
I hope one day someone can explain that to me...
And he has a Belgian driving license ...It is the other way round.
Jos actually is Dutch.
Max's mother is Belgian and he was born in Belgium and has a Belgian passport.
However Jos and Sophie split up, Max went with his Dad (and his sister stayed with Sophie, I believe) and Jos got Max a Dutch competition license when he started out in Karting and he still races with a licence from the Dutch motorsport authority and is entered as Dutch.
I agree and AFAIK, you can’t completely turn regen off. Even with overrun recup off, I see some amount of regen above 60mph or so. But I don’t know much about dynos, so I hesitate to comment further. I could hazard some guesses, but that’s all they’d be.But...is the power loss plotted as the green line attributable to regen in addition to the coasting rolling resistance? If it is, then the rolling resistance- and therefore the power output of the motor- is being overestimated.
It's all down to cooling. Porsche decided that, to stay under thermal limits, the power available at overboost cannot be maintained for longer periods. The chief reason for this is the risk of demagnetizing the permanent magnets in the motor's rotor which would be very bad. Other reasons are magnet saturation and limitations of motor windings.Is there a reason Porsche has an over boost instead of that full power always being available? I assume it's due to longevity?
Agreed and I am annoyed by this common mistake too. A lot of people when they say "torque" they are really talking about non-peak power at lower RPMs without realizing. This half-knowledge / fallacy I think is caused by increasing popularity of turbo engines (diesel & petrol) in 2000s. People would see the higher peak torque levels for turbo engines in data sheets, and feel the low RPM elasticity when they drive those cars and conclude that "oh higher torque alone must be causing this". In reality what they feel is a "fatter" power curve which helps the engine deliver most of its full potential even at lower RPMs. A maximum torque figure by itself does not tell you a thing about capability of an engine if there is no RPM info comes with it. This fallacy is a bigger problem with the electric engines where gearing/rpms are very different than ICE engines. I am not a formula 1 engineer, I am not an engineer at all but at least was able to figure this out on my own.I know all this, I am an engineer who worked in Formula 1 for over 30 years.
Power is what actually does the work and, yes, it is calculated from torque and speed.
Two hypothetical engines, one with twice the torque but at half the rpm as the other have the same power, and, geared to do the same speed, the thrust at the tyre is the same for both because it is power, not torque that counts.
One of my old friends was technical director of the Ferrari F1 team. If an engineer came for a job interview his first question was always “which is important torque or power?” If the candidate answered torque the interview went no further.
It is a common mistake made by non-engineers and a disappointing number of people who think of themselves as engineers.
I see your point but I think the proper equation uses radians per second which is the proper engineering unit for rotational speed, and has the units 1/s, not rpm but this is accounted for in the value of the constant.It is horsepower. HP
The original definition, not the new one almost the same but defined using metric values rounded to a whole number (75kg raised 1m in 1 sec), variously described a PS, CV etc.
The definition of a horsepower is 550 lb-ft/sec which is what I think you correctly get if you use that equation with torque in lb-ft
a metic horsepower (wtf) was defined decades later than the original.
I prefer the standardising of watts for power but in the USA they still use the original and some people use the metrified one for cars and so forth, it makes them look more powerful than they are to people brought up on real horsepower
Exactly. The 5252 factor includes the factor to convert rpm to /sec and take account of the 550 in order to calculate HP.
Torque is in lb-ft
RPM is in revolutions per minute so has the unit /time. The 5252 is simply the factor which takes into account the 550 and the fact revs is per minute so the equation has the units ft-lb/sec.