How do you drive a manual transmission automobile?

In that case proper gear for corner is 3rd ... not 2nd or 4th. 2nd will put you in situation that you described and 4th will put you in situation that I described.

btw hi Mogg

 

In real life I often ride the torque band and not actually the power band. this is because often but not always the torque band is lower down the revs and longer across the range. Starting lower down and shifting earlier you can kind of ride the wave. Torque is what throws you back in your seat pulls you out of corners and up hills. I often ride the torque in trucks and motorcycles in real life.

Sometimes starting at a lower rev range and leaving long between shifts is really good and makes you go quicker out of the corner. One example I can think of is the Formula Abarth, many times staying in the gear higher than you might think for example 3rd instead of 2nd you can pull out of the corner a fair bit better and get much better lap times as a result. Of course Torque and power don't exist in isolation, they are part of the whole picture together. Also it does very on the vehicle or engine, some things seem quicker running on the torque band sometimes it makes little difference. What is sure is very often you can drive more relaxed and let the car start from the bottom of the torque band and be quicker or as quick as people who are shifting up around the red line constantly.

 

Physics 101 people, kinetic energy (speed) is measured in Joules, Joules measure POWER * TIME. So in the same amount of time, to gain the most kinetic energy (i.e. the most speed), you have to use as much POWER as possible. Engine torque doesn't matter. Basically 8th grade math/physics.

Of course if you measure torque at the wheels, it's another story, because torque at the wheels is proportional to power at any given speed. But you guys seem to confuse everything.

 

At last, someone acknowledges the presence of the legend Good to see you here, mate. I will have to try and remember to join the SROUK P&G3 races again on Thursday nights. To be honest, I have been too busy testing AC cars, flying in FSX/P3D, and working my way through Half Life 2 again

 

You seem a bit confused...Kinetic energy is power, power is torque, that's why they use Nm (Newton meter) to measure it...exp. if you have 1000hp but 0 torque you won't move, because there's no kinetic force applied to move...

 

power is torque... this is... just no!

 

I'm pretty sure you're the one who is confused torque only makes sense if you measure at the wheels, and it's basically the same as measuring power.

Engine torque figure is only useful to figure out how much power you can get at a given RPM. Power is what makes you fast, not engine torque.

 

First you say "torque is only useful to figure out how much power you can get at a given RPM" then you say "Power is what makes you fast, not engine torque"...mmmm...so you saying power is torque...you seem a bit confused

maybe if you start calling things the right way I won't get confused

 

easy to say no, can you explain why?

 

Because my friend, torque by definition is the moment of force, that is why it is Nm not just N


Power vs torque is a discussion all to itself and not to be included here because of pages of physics and theory crafting involved. (imho it is way off topic)

What I think would be useful for this thread is deciding which cars are torque "driven and which cars are hp "driven".


Big old V8 cars are really torque cars in the sense that their hp really tapers off after their run on max torque. Short shifting is a given to stay in the powerband. Ex: old musclecars but does apply to the modern ones too in some extent

Old turbo cars are really hp cars and must be reved all the way to get the most of them (F40, Anything with a turbo built until the mid 90ies)

Most modern turbo vehicles have a very flat torque curve from as low as 1800 rpm but having smaller turbos their hp can taper off towards the rev limit, short shifting these is no issue (most modern turbo production cars, but it is really apparent in the FAbarth as well)

NA cars with not too big motors are usually hp motors producing power all the way to redline so it is best to ignore torque and go for the higher revs. Extreme case is the S2000 which has probably the narrowest powerbands in modern NA performance cars. NA motors are an interesting bunch as displacement and intended use gives them very distinct "personalities". Compare a big V8 with a medium V6 and an smallish L4 they all have very different characteristics and thus require different shift points to get the most of them.

 

We probably saying the same thing...let's get over it

 

If you do not understand basic physics concepts it's not useful for you to go further in this discussion.

Kinetic energy is the integral of power over time. The higher the power of your car while you are pushing the gas, the higher the kinetic energy you get. Torque alone is not sufficient to accelerate.

Some cars with high torque have near peak power very early in the rev range so you don't necessarily have to go to the rev limiter to use it fully but in the end it's the fact that the usable power is high that makes you accelerate fast, not torque alone. Torque is merely one of the factors (well the other one is rpm to get the power value)

 

Mate just said "let's get over it"...and by the way I didn't ask you...back to topic now

 

I am actually getting an acute degree of feeling while using the wired 360 pad. I feel the road, each of the 4 wheels (positionally relative to car wheels & the pad's shape) and their slippage in corners or similar situations. I've actually been surprised at the sensitivity of the analog controls, - how little they can be nudged to just as subtly impact the traits of the car be it breaking, gas & acceleration, or steering.

At the end of the day holding the pad seems to mirror virtually holding a small car in your hands. The 4 corners of a car as well as its overall functioning seem to be mirrored by the pad. Is this IRL realistic? I suppose not, yet i'm not sure that holding a steering wheel is as immersive as the pad. If one's an accomplished or even average RL driver i can appreciate how going from a wheel to a pad would wholly confuse and ruin expectations learned through other regular ways of driving & controlling a vehicle.

 

At worst, using the automatic (with auto clutch/blip) yet making up and down shifts when i want, - sometimes the automatic transmission in 10% of cars, will race through the early gears for example: the 458, when starting from 0 km/h, ... it'll race through 1st & 2nd gears before i have a chance to manually shift it up through them.

Where as say, the Elise, i can fully control the precise time i want it to shift up & down.

Somehow i suspect this is related to the incredible amount of power the 458's engine has on tap and the rev range it seems to want to live in.

 

You save oversteering with your thumb plus a bit of crazy index fingers, how come that could be more immersive than steering a full size wheel while flooring pedals?
How can you feel the road? Is there any FFB applying to the stick you use as a steering device?
Have you ever tried a proper configured FFB wheel?

I used to fly Falcon with a Saitek X-45. I gave up on BMS and currently fly DCS A-10C with a Hotas Warthog. But when I just want to relax and play Skydrift, I use my 360 pad.
I use my Logitech G25 with AC, Race 07 or rFactor. But when I just want to relax and play NFS Shift2, TDU2, Flatout, NFS Rivals, ETS2, I use my 360 pad.

 

Generally i've realized that controlling AC with a pad seems to require extremely gentle minor input despite one's typical arcade style of reflexive hard inputs. Small nudges, and presses of the ~analog~ inputs (left stick for steering, and the 2 triggers break and gas). Slippage, and minor undulations in the road can be ~felt~ through the stick and the pad (in the location of slippage eg. left front or rear wheel / part of car,). I can then make very tiny corrections or changes to other inputs to compensate. Again, with subtle, soft nudges or presses.

With a wheel, i'd imagine i'd not know if it's the rear or front of the car where there's an issue to be addressed. I've seen it suggested that with sims it's hard to get the seat of the car feeling before the car's about to slip, - where as when i use a pad i can feel the whole car from its 4 corners to center. In fact this is why i absolutely love AC. I've tried the pad in GRID and other automotive games and i have absolutely ~not~ had this same degree of immersion and perception through pad alone. The othe games feel sloppy and i feel very disconnected from their vehicles and road.

While driving AC, the pad (and it's FFB) ~is the car~ and the road all at once.

Edit: To be fair, no, i've not tried using a sim wheel or sim-wheel+pedals setup.

 

Don't forget gearing which means that the lower gears always put more torque down than the higher gears, so for any given wheel speed you'll ALWAYS get more power (torque * rpms) in the lower gear.

For all the cars in AC, max acceleration = rev to redline, shift, repeat.

 

Not only that. First gear on 458 is too short maybe because of F1 legacy ... not that F1 have too short first gear, it is 7 of them so they need to spread gear ratios to be usable ... personally I`m short shifting from 1st to 2nd.

btw Damien ... torque in physics and torque in automotive is two different things. In automotive when we say (wrongly) "torque" it actually means work since we expect movement as a result of applied power, torque, vudu magic ...
The more torque (real one) produced by an engine, the more work potential it has. Since the torque (real one) is easier to measure, it is used to calculate the power (torque times RPM divided by 5,252) ... All of you are talking about the same thing naming it differently ...

 

As Jeremy Clarkson repeatedly said: "No one can really explain what torque is."