it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 10, 2014
Messages
1,981
Country flag
topic was Commando motor in solid frame
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202.html

what started it
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202.html#p332619
it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle. See throttle marks I use to check this.
it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"


a challenge began with these comments
jseng1 wrote:
Top speed is around 130 because the wind resistance rises exponentially.

Dances with Shrapnel said:
Rohan said:
Lets not beat around the bush, air resistance rises with the cube of the speed.
THE huge factor in top speed.

A minor point, but good to quote accurately...
Again, .............no Rohan.

Air resistance rises with the square of the speed, ............power rises with the cube of the speed.

A major point, but good to quote accurately... :lol:

Postby Rohan » Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:12 pm
Power REQUIRED rises cubed. ..

wiki link referenced
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)

next points
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-15.html#p332776

commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-30.html#p333023

the main argument as i understand and subject for debate
Rohan wrote:
air resistance rises with the cube of the speed.

the counter
Dances with Shrapnel said:
The whole point is power requirements to overcome wind resistance is proportional to the cube of the speed, something that maybe you still do not get and is likely the whole point of your handbag war here. Take the time to do the math. Air resistance does not "rise with the cube of the speed" as you so incorrectly stated.

related
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-60.html#p333236
L.A.B. said:
I thought it was 'the square of the speed'? :?
 
Re: it started with " it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"

Ay, ya yay... (as they say around here)

Get out your slide rules, students...
 
Good account.
Dunno why we wasted all those words.
Are we any the wiser though, except for that 30hp, slide rules and all....
 
we at least seem to have the basic main positions/arguments to move forward with,

rather than how it was mixed up all over in anther thread, should be easier for understanding

here's what i'm understanding from 3 diff posters

air resistance rises with the cube of the speed

these comments with supporting links i believe were addressing the above
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202-60.html#p333236
I thought it was 'the square of the speed'?

The whole point is power requirements to overcome wind resistance is proportional to the cube of the speed

Air resistance does not "rise with the cube of the speed

there were also initial words/challenge? to this part that led to the above

"what started it"
commando-motor-solid-frame-t25202.html#p332619
it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle. See throttle marks I use to check this.
it started with "it pulls 100MPH at only 1/2 throttle"
 
After a good start, we seem to be repeating ourselves ?
No doubt shrapnel will correct us, even if we are correct....

There is quite a good discussion/summary of this hp and speed malarky in "Tuning for Speed", as oft mentioned here. page190 and thereabouts in my edition.
What makes it so good is that this text has been refined over quite a number of revisions of this book, dating back into the 1920s as the science evolved as they say, so that all ambiguities have been reworded so that its crystal clear in it meanings.
 
there are direct opposing positions with this part

air resistance rises with the cube of the speed

this also has not been addressed

I thought it was 'the square of the speed'? :?

the counter was & explains why(?)

The whole point is power requirements to overcome wind resistance is proportional to the cube of the speed

Air resistance does not "rise with the cube of the speed
 
Take it from an aerodynamicist:

air resistance ( a force) increases with the square of speed (up to approx 350 mph, then compressibility of air causes more effects). Unless you are going for the 400 mph land speed record, there is no need to elaborate on compressibility.

power = force X distance / time

distance / time = speed

then power varies as force (a function of V pwr 2) X speed (a function of V pwr 1) = a function of V pwr 3 or:
power varies as cube of speed. This is the power to overcome air resistance.

A motorcycle at speed has additional forces acting on it besides air resistance. There is rolling resistance of the tires, and the frictional resistance of the front axle (spindle) bearings. The rolling resistance increases with speed due to tire hysteresis, axle torque is probably relatively constant. I do not claim to be particularly expert in these forces, and will not attempt to elaborate further, except for a Note below.

The rear tire must exert a force to overcome air resistance + Rolling resistance + front axle torque.

The engine must supply the necessary force to the rear tire, but at the same time the engine "sees" additional forces which the rear tire does not "see". These additional forces are the mechanical friction losses in the power transmission system, beginning at the drive sprocket and ending at the rear axle bearings. Usually, mechanical power transmission losses are estimated to be some percentage of the gross power transmitted. For autos, 15 to 18 % is a typical estimate. Chains, as well as the spur cut gears in a mc gearbox, are relatively more efficient than the auto power transmission system, so I would expect the loss percentage of a motorcycle to be less than that of autos. Thus, the engine must deliver at the crankshaft, (1 + mech loss %/100) X required power at rear tire.

The required power at the rear tire equals appropriate factors times (V X air resistance (function V pwr 2) + rolling resistance (function V pwr 1) + Constant). Note: the rolling resistance may not be perfectly linear, that is, the exponent may be more or less than 1.0 . More or less linear is only my "off the top of my head" estimate, don't take that as Gospel.

Slick
 
Indeed.

Something to watch out for here, and where some of the confusion is creeping in, is that there are 2 rather different sets of equations involved here.
The straightforward power= blah blah ones,
and the differential power= blah blah blah ones.
The differential ones are the RATE OF CHANGE (per per per) (and so involve another per), so squared becomes cubed. ie per second per second per second, as distinct from just per second per second.
Say like - what is the difference in power required if we go from that 50 to 100 mph.

If that gross simplification makes any sense whatsoever.
You have to have an inkling of maths and differential equations to see them...

I'm not going to defend that air resistance cubed comment, that was incorrect in the context I mentioned.
It should have been squared. If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed.
 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Tuning+f ... WvesKsu5AN

http://tuningforspeed.com/files/Tuning_for_Speed.pdf

http://www.triumphrat.net/classic-vinta ... rving.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Irving

Rohan said:
There is quite a good discussion/summary of this hp and speed malarky in "Tuning for Speed", as oft mentioned here. page190 and thereabouts in my edition.
What makes it so good is that this text has been refined over quite a number of revisions of this book, dating back into the 1920s as the science evolved as they say, so that all ambiguities have been reworded so that its crystal clear in it meanings.
 
Rohan said:
No doubt shrapnel will correct us, even if we are correct....

We? Laughable! :lol: Another Rohan subterfuge as if "he" has been on board with things all along. There's nothing to correct as TexasSlick and 84oK have it correct. They easily grasped the concepts and spoon fed it for you.

And then Rohan goes on to dispute the laws of physics again. Clearly the simple algebra and math (the heavy lifting of calculus has already been done) are too much for the old fellow. This is "Rohanism" at its best!

So simple:
Force rises (varies) proportionally to the square of the airspeed.
Power rises (varies) proportionally to the cube of the airspeed.

Two simple algebraic equations - so simple, and you only need one equation to figure out the change in power required.

The above are the essence of what Phil Irving presented and are fundamental. Proportionality and as TexasSlick nicely stated, valid until perhaps a few hundred miles per hour. Horsepower numbers Rohan loosely bantered about may or may not also include other losses such as rolling resistance (as used by Phil Irving in his graph); the source and pedigree of these "commonly quoted numbers" are unknown and do not fit the simple proportionality laws I have cited.

If one wants to capture other power losses, a polynomial equation would likely be applied (ex. aV + bV^2 + cV^3) as suggested by TexasSlick to factor in such things as brake drag, front and rear tire rolling resistance etc. and then you are well on your way to figure power required at the crankshaft. For pure power at the road surface to overcome a given wind speed, it is a simple proportionality to the cube of the windspeed.

Your last post shows your utter confusion on the subject. Carry on. :D
 
so we have/had 3 folks who agreed with

texasSlick said:
air resistance (a force) increases with the square of speed (up to approx 350 mph,

vs

Rohan said:
I'm not going to defend that air resistance cubed comment, that was incorrect in the context I mentioned.
It should have been squared. If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed.
 
Paint the bike black, it will go faster.

Pure and simple, no math required.
 
texasSlick said:
air resistance (a force) increases with the square of speed (up to approx 350 mph,

Yes, agree air resistance (call it drag force in aeronautical terms) changes proportionally to the square of the air velocity. Also, power required to overcome a given air drag force is proportional to the cube of the air velocity.


Rohan said:
I'm not going to defend that air resistance cubed comment, that was incorrect in the context I mentioned.
It should have been squared. If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed.

"Not going to defend"!?!?! "That was incorrect in the context I mentioned"?!?!? A gem of a Rohanism! I would love to see you expound on the context! Let me be a bit blunt here :D and say you screwed the pooch on this one so why not just come out and say it rather than confuse yourself and possibly others while wasting the forum bandwidth? Having said that, we all make mistakes and really not earth threatening in the context of a motorcycle forum. In my opinion, how we recover (learn or not learn) makes a world of a difference.

As for "If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed.", as best as I can tell, nobody on this thread or the previous thread are even looking at "rate of change of air resistance". I sense some confusion on your part. We have been discussing power requirements to overcome air drag at any given velocity and comparing different air drag power requirements at two or more different velocities. The "commonly quoted" numbers bantered about most likely include other losses such as rolling resistance of both front and rear wheel, axle resistance, brake drag and perhaps whole drive line losses.
 
my take was an admission of being incorrect initially saying cubed in the context of the rest of it
Rohan said:
air resistance rises with the cube of the speed

explaining
Rohan said:
I'm not going to defend that air resistance cubed comment, that was incorrect in the context I mentioned.
It should have been squared.

then adding
If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed

=========================================================================
Rohan said:
I'm not going to defend that air resistance cubed comment, that was incorrect in the context I mentioned.
It should have been squared. If we were exploring the rate of change of air resistance, it would be cubed.

Dances with Shrapnel said:
"Not going to defend"!?!?! "That was incorrect in the context I mentioned"?!?!? A gem of a Rohanism! I would love to see you expound on the context!
 
Allow me to "clean up" the expression (expression - not equation) for power required to propel a mc at speed, and correct an inadvertent typo error.

First, I slipped in the symbol V to represent speed. We aerodynamicists use V (velocity) to express speed. Velocity is numerically equal to speed, but has the additional property of direction.

Second, since I cannot type with superscripts or subscripts, let us define ^ as the symbol to raise a number to an exponent. Then V^2 is speed raised to 2 power or squared.

As Dances notes, air resistance is referred to as Drag, and is a force. Drag = Cd x 1/2 (Rho)V^2 . Cd is the coefficient of drag, and Rho is the density of air. Aerodynamicists use a "standard" density of air for calculations; sea level barometric pressure and temperature = 59 deg F - why 59 F? It is the mean global air temp. between the temperate latitudes.

From the above, the Drag force can be precisely calculated, if one knows precisely the value Cd, which for a mc is not easily estimated. It also show how and why air temp and baro. pressure affect the result.

Now, let's define the mechanical power transmission loss as "tr" and express it as a decimal fraction, that is, if the loss is 15%, then express it as 0.15 (not say'n that is the value, it is only an example). Then the power that must come out of the engine's crankshaft is (1 + tr) x necessary rear wheel power.

The necessary rear wheel force equals the sum of Drag + Rolling Resistance + Spindle (front) torque. Let's call rolling resistance RR, and spindle torque Ts.

and power being force x distance/time, or power = V x force

Then, necessary power at rear wheel = (1 + tr) x V x (Drag + RR + Ts) ...... my inadvertent typo put the V inside the quantity brackets!!!

Expressed as a function (f) of speed or V,

Prw ~ (1 + tr) x V x [ (f)V^2 + (f)V^y + Ts] ............ here I substituted 'y' for the rolling resistance exponent since I do not know with any conviction what value is has. Surely, engineers have done tons of research on this and it should be available if anyone cares to research it. Those who are going for speed records should do so, as it is the second most important component limiting maximum speed. Any light airplane pilot will tell you that the airplane seems to leap forward as soon as the wheels clear the ground.

At the risk of being overly pedantic, note that the V outside the brackets [ ] raises the exponent of the terms inside the [ ] by a factor of 1.0 when the multiplication is carried thru.

Slick
 
texasSlick, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

From Tuning for Speed, Second Edition, Phil Irving suggested 2% for rolling resistance as "a good average figure to employ". For perspective, from recollection, heavy off-highway equipment usually uses about 3% rolling resistance (Caterpillar Handbook). Rolling resistance factors in tire/wheel properties as well as of rolling surface properties be they of concrete, asphalt, well compacted rock/earth, etc.

Good stuff!
 
Perhaps you guys can clear something up for me ? Why is it that a two-stroke doing 100 MPH slows down more when hit by a gust of wind than a four-stroke with a heavy crank doing 100 MPH under the same conditions ? Or does it ?
 
Rohan - how about an honest answer - how many times have you done 100 MPH on a motorcycle ?
 
acotrel said:
Perhaps you guys can clear something up for me ? Why is it that a two-stroke doing 100 MPH slows down more when hit by a gust of wind than a four-stroke with a heavy crank doing 100 MPH under the same conditions ? Or does it ?

If the two stroke is lighter than the four stroke, then ask Moe Mentum.

Slick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top