Drive Accord Honda Forums banner

21 - 40 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Brian is on to something! I suspect we are arguing "chickens and eggs" here.

I'll briefly try to explain why I don't think much of Horsepower ratings again, and it all goes back to the definition of "engine power": P = T x RPM.

Now, consider placing the gearshift in neutral and then stepping on the gas pedal - all the way down. I suspect, you'll get a rather high value for the engine's horsepower if you measured it at that moment, but, would you be getting to your destination? Possibly, this is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral.

Now, I'm interested in the force the wheels apply to the road that gets me to my desired driving speed and keeps me there, under all conditions. If I'm going uphill, this force has to increase. If I'm driving against a headwind, I need more force, If I'm going downhill, that force requirement drops. The force that's applied to the road is simply the torque on the axle divided by the radius of the wheel. That torque, then, generates my needed force and it comes from the engine. This is why engine torque is important to me.

As an aside, a jet engine is NOT rated in power or horsepower either, it's rated in "thrust" - a "force" that pushes the plane to the desired speed.

Finally, "FORCE" applied to mass can raise its "ENERGY". Energy comes from force. And yes, stored energy or generated energy can also generate force, when it is dissipated. This is what I meant earlier when I used the "chicken and egg" analogy.

I'll let this go now - there's no real need for me to beat this to death.

- Jack
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
consider placing the gearshift in neutral and then stepping on the gas pedal - all the way down. I suspect, you'll get a rather high value for the engine's horsepower if you measured it at that moment
No. Under no load, if you hit the gas pedal it simply revs high but this burns very little gas and you will measure near-zero horsepower as well as near-zero torque.

If you are coasting downhill at 1st gear, the engine can go redline rpm but it is now making negative power and no gas is burning inside the cylinder.

I see what you are messing up with. An engine's rated torque/power at a given rpm is only the max value, but it can work anywhere below these values at less intake air and gasoline. So is an electric motor. If no gasoline is burning, it can even consume energy because now air inside the cylinder is resisting piston from moving back-forth, thus, creating a negative torque.

Possibly, this is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral.
Again, no. You only see rpm revs high, but actual power is near zero, so is actual torque. Working at 6200 rpm doesn't mean it must output max power or torque.

In fact, your engine is going to overheat and bang if you try to make max power at zero speed, when air flow through the cooling fan is rather limited. Sure, the car's computer will prevent such idiot suicide behavior from happening.

The force that's applied to the road is simply the torque on the axle divided by the radius of the wheel. That torque, then, generates my needed force and it comes from the engine. This is why engine torque is important to me.
I see the reason behind your focus on torque. However, torque is just one solo example from so many kinds of engines. To make you move forward, there are many ways to apply force backwards and thus you are pushed forward by the counterforce. This includes rotating the wheel and rubbing on the ground, or pushing air backwards, or simply stepping on the ground with your own leg strength. Then, your power level rules all kinds of 'pushing you forward' i.e. determines how fast you can go.

I was using the jet engines to demonstrate that torque isn't the origin but power/energy is. As you said, their ability to move is rated by thrust, or the force pushing backwards. But how does this happen different from ICE? From the beginning jet engine still burns fuels, letting the air to expand and pass through the turbine, therefore creating a rotational force on the turbine, which now has the motivation to rotate fan and push more air backwards. In this case, the rpm, power, and thrust are interrelated just as rpm, power, and torque for an ICE. Yet, you can't deny that burning fuel is the starting point.

Energy comes from force.
Wrong. As @JeffJo said, energy comes from burning gasoline. Then the air is expanded, thus pushing piston down and create the torque on crankshaft. This is what engineers want the ICE to do -- turning the piston back-forth moving into rotating which can easily drive wheels.

You first have energy (here, from burning gas) then determines how to utilize it, or, generate force via engineering. Your causal relation is simply wrong.

This is what I meant earlier when I used the "chicken and egg" analogy.
It's never "chicken and egg" analogy. It's very solid causal relationship that energy from burning gas is what motivates a vehicle in the form of making the wheel to rotate or applying torque on driving axle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
I'll briefly try to explain why I don't think much of Horsepower ratings again, and it all goes back to the definition of "engine power": P = T x RPM.
Should I do the same, explaining why I don't think much of miles-per-hour? It all goes back to the derivation

MPH=60*RPM/5280 * (Gear Ratio)* pi*(Tire Diameter)​
So is MPH also a "derived value"?

Or should I point out that you are ignoring Gear Ratio, which is why Torque is a less transparent measurement to base an analysis on than Power? They both show the same thing, but you ignore a necessary component.

Now, consider placing the gearshift in neutral and then stepping on the gas pedal - all the way down. I suspect, you'll get a rather high value for the engine's horsepower if you measured it at that moment,
Nope. The measurement you are thinking of is called Brake Horsepower, since it is measured when there is a resistance applied to the engine. Take it away, and there is very little power because there is nothing to push against.

This is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral.
Nope. Its the combined power that can be generated by the ICE, and the battery. What's bad about it, is they don't do it at the same time.

Now, I'm interested in the force the wheels apply to the road that gets me to my desired driving speed and keeps me there, under all conditions. If I'm going uphill, this force has to increase.
And you can describe the process either by force needed to lift the car up that hill, or by the gain in potential energy over time. Which is power. They are just two ways of measuring the effort needed to do the same thing.

And the same kind of analysis can be applied, with either torque or power, to headwinds, downhills, rainfall, rough roads, extra weight, etc., etc., etc. Just because you lack the knowledge on how to do it, does not mean it isn't the same analysis.

I'll let this go now - there's no real need for me to beat this to death.
You are the one beating it to death. We are just pointing out that you are wrong in how you do it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
I remain of the opinion that the advertised "combined HP" of 212 is only realizable at highway speeds well above the speed limit. Since HP is torque x rpm (basically) for both the gas engine and the main drive motor, you need to have the main electric drive motor running at fairly high revs for it's HP contribution to be anywhere near its rated max. And on top of that, you need some non-trivial contribution from the gas engine, either from being coupled to the driving wheels at a high rate of speed, or else de-coupled and revved up even higher rpms, to generate additional electrical power for the main drive motor.

Maybe you come close if you are accelerating strongly at normal highway speeds, such as going up a steep grade at 75 mph, or perhaps accelerating to pass someone at 75 mph. But my instinct is that you maybe need to be going much faster than that, so that both the main drive motor and the gas engine are at high(er) rpm.

It's certainly not as obvious a calculation as for a gas engine with a transmission that has multiple gears (or even a "regular" CVT)....
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
I'll let this go now - there's no real need for me to beat this to death.
If you wish to make constructive discussions, you need to recognize truth and what you believe is truth.

We also feel meaningless to beat this to death since you seem a bit reluctant to correct your less-correct statements. However, if we let you spread your less-correct statements without correcting you, readers who are willing to learn new things will be misled.
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
I remain of the opinion that the advertised "combined HP" of 212 is only realizable at highway speeds well above the speed limit. Since HP is torque x rpm (basically) for both the gas engine and the main drive motor, you need to have the main electric drive motor running at fairly high revs for it's HP contribution to be anywhere near its rated max. And on top of that, you need some non-trivial contribution from the gas engine, either from being coupled to the driving wheels at a high rate of speed, or else de-coupled and revved up even higher rpms, to generate additional electrical power for the main drive motor.

Maybe you come close if you are accelerating strongly at normal highway speeds, such as going up a steep grade at 75 mph, or perhaps accelerating to pass someone at 75 mph. But my instinct is that you maybe need to be going much faster than that, so that both the main drive motor and the gas engine are at high(er) rpm.

It's certainly not as obvious a calculation as for a gas engine with a transmission that has multiple gears (or even a "regular" CVT)....
You can see my first reply on this thread.

I agree that 212 hp shouldn't only happen at 150+mph. Then, the only possible scenario is that the main drive motor, which is rated at 183 hp, is able to overclock short-term by 17% to 212hp when the engine is offering [email protected] and the battery is discharging at ~60kW. Then, this can happen literally at any speed as long as the battery is charged.

Sadly, this means our Accord hybrid falls short in providing long-term high power. After a max of 60s discharging, the battery is depleted and then total output shrinks to 143hp, way less peppy than 1.5T from here...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Oh dear! I fear I've somehow offended you Ziyang. I always stated in this discussion that I (ME) valued torque over Hp. I don't really care what YOU value. My arguments were in support of why I thought torque was more important. Power CAN be important, if we're discussing the application of force over a given amount of time. You appear to be doing this, I'm not. If YOU (and anyone else) wants to rate the quality of an engine on its rated Hp, that's fine with me. I simply value torque more. Does this make me "less-correct", or, unwilling to learn?

And, Jeff, I honestly value your posts and have learned much from them. But please, don't mis-quote me! I DID NOT say: "This is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral." I said, "Perhaps, this is....". I was NOT making a "definite" assertion.

And, certainly, speed is a "derived" value, as is force.

But yes, you were correct in saying I was suddenly talking about "Brake Horsepower", rather than "Shaft Horsepower". I should be more careful - but that's part of why I don't like Hp, there are too many kinds of it!

But, the "force" needed to move the car up a hill is quite different than the potential energy it gains. The car's potential energy at the top of the hill is simply its mass x height x g (where g is the rate of acceleration due to gravity). However, this value will be MUCH less than the energy needed to get it up there in the first place. There are significant losses due to air resistance, road friction, and engine losses. The gain in potential energy ignores these losses, so an energy analysis based on potential energy would be incomplete.

Finally, I said, "...there's no real need for me to beat this to death." You did not have to tell me I (me) was the one doing it. I'd already admitted to that. (And, I guess I still am! :oops:)

- Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
I remain of the opinion that the advertised "combined HP" of 212 is only realizable at highway speeds well above the speed limit.
The clutch will never be closed in such situations, so the power that can be applied to the road maxes at 181 HP.

Since HP is torque x rpm (basically) for both the gas engine and the main drive motor, you need to have the main electric drive motor running at fairly high revs for it's HP contribution to be anywhere near its rated max.
The motor's ratings are based on two limits.
  • Torque at any speed is proportional to the current in the motor. The coils will melt if you send too much current through them, so there is a software limit on current. It establishes the 232.1 lb-ft maximum torque.
    • But Power = Current*Voltage. To keep the same current as speed increases, voltage has to go up.
  • There is also a power limit of 181 HP. At speeds above some fixed speed, Vmax, increasing the speed means max voltage stays the same but max current decreases.
    • I believe that Vmax is about 36 mph, but I'm not sure.
    • Below Vmax, Tmax = 232.1 lb-ft, and Pmax = V/Vmax * 181 HP
    • Above Vmax, Tmax = 232.1*Vmax/V lb-ft, and Pmax = 181 HP.
And on top of that, you need some non-trivial contribution from the gas engine, either from being coupled to the driving wheels at a high rate of speed, or else de-coupled and revved up even higher rpms, to generate additional electrical power for the main drive motor.
In Engine Drive, 2000 RPM corresponds to 54 mph. So to hit the max power, at 6200 RPM, the car has to be going 6200/2000 * 54 = 167 mph.

It won't do that.

Again, 212 is the maximum combined power of the battery and the ICE, without then being in the car. This is consistent with how engines are rated, but they never get "added" to anything..
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
Oh dear! I fear I've somehow offended you Ziyang. I always stated in this discussion that I (ME) valued torque over Hp. I don't really care what YOU value. My arguments were in support of why I thought torque was more important. Power CAN be important, if we're discussing the application of force over a given amount of time. You appear to be doing this, I'm not. If YOU (and anyone else) wants to rate the quality of an engine on its rated Hp, that's fine with me. I simply value torque more. Does this make me "less-correct", or, unwilling to learn?

And, Jeff, I honestly value your posts and have learned much from them. But please, don't mis-quote me! I DID NOT say: "This is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral." I said, "Perhaps, this is....". I was NOT making a "definite" assertion.

And, certainly, speed is a "derived" value, as is force.

But yes, you were correct in saying I was suddenly talking about "Brake Horsepower", rather than "Shaft Horsepower". I should be more careful - but that's part of why I don't like Hp, there are too many kinds of it!

But, the "force" needed to move the car up a hill is quite different than the potential energy it gains. The car's potential energy at the top of the hill is simply its mass x height x g (where g is the rate of acceleration due to gravity). However, this value will be MUCH less than the energy needed to get it up there in the first place. There are significant losses due to air resistance, road friction, and engine losses. The gain in potential energy ignores these losses, so an energy analysis based on potential energy would be incomplete.

Finally, I said, "...there's no real need for me to beat this to death." You did not have to tell me I (me) was the one doing it. I'd already admitted to that. (And, I guess I still am! :oops:)

- Jack
This exactly shows how unwillingly you want to learn by playing with word games and ignoring the major science flaw in your writings. I appreciate your great wording skills; English isn't my native language, which really makes me fall short in this aspect.

Enjoy your day though:) nothing hurts if you believe in something which unfortunately happens to be wrong, as long as you don’t work in that field or educate/mislead others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Oh, good grief! I'm hardly plying "word games". I'm simply using scientific definitions relating to work, power, force, etc.

You say I'm unwilling to learn, but it's only because I happen to have a different subjective opinion than the one you have. Let's change the topic: I happen to like the color "blue", because I find it "restful", pleasant to look at, a color that is predominant in nature, etc..... Now, you might think a different color is better, and you offer your reasons for liking it. If you cannot make me change my opinion to match yours, does that make me wrong?

- Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
...<snip>... Again, 212 is the maximum combined power of the battery and the ICE, without then being in the car. This is consistent with how engines are rated, but they never get "added" to anything..
Jeff, this is exactly why I don't think much of using Hp to rate an engine.

- Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Jack, that is exactly why it is used as a rating for an engine, not a car. A car cannot achieve the engine's rating because there are losses further down the line. So the number should be used for comparison, not calculation. That works only when the rest of the drivetrain is similar. Which ceases to be true for HEVs.

But if you compare the HAH's 212 HP claim, to say, the Camry's 208 HP, the HAH out-performs it by more than this difference suggests. Except at high speeds. So it is not decpetive.

And besides, the same caveats apply to the torque rating you prefer, since they are based on the exact same measurements. Why don't you dislike them for the same reason? At least with power, you don't have to know an additional parameter - Gear Ratio - to know what it does.

But, the "force" needed to move the car up a hill is quite different than the potential energy it gains.
Nope. The power to go uphill for 1 mile in 1 minute (60 mph) is pretty much (there are differences in efficiencies) the power needed to go the same 1 mile in 1 minute on level ground, plus the power represented by the change in potential energy divided by 1 minute.This is why an analysis based on power and/or energy is so useful.

Maybe a point I made in another forum will help you understand this:
  1. In a vehicle with a single gear, acceleration is maximum when the car's speed is such that the engine is revving at its max-torque rate. It is less at any other speed.
    • But most cars don't have just a single gear.
    • And you really aren't interested in maximizing acceleration at only one speed.
  2. If want the maximum acceleration at each speed, you want a perfect CVT that will match each speed to the engine's max power.
Electric Vehicles (the HAH is usually an Electric Vehicle, just not a Battery Electric Vehicle) get around the shortcomings in point #1 since the max-torque rate is 0 rpm to some larger number, usually corresponding to something near 40 mph.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Fair enough, Jeff. And yes, I'm interested in what the vehicle can do for me, not just the engine. I need enough power/torque, whatever, to get me to my desired speed and keep me there, PLUS a reserve that will allow me to pass someone quickly and safely. I simply see that as a torque reserve, which can move me faster in the "future", rather than a Hp value which is describing what I'm doing now. In my way of thinking, it's the torque that applies the force to the road that moves me faster.

I still don't agree that you achieve a potential energy gain that's equal to the energy expense needed to get you to that higher point in space (which is what you seem to be implying). If it were so, you'd have a "perpetual motion" machine. There are always losses, and I think, because the engine is having to work harder to "lift" the mass, it will produce more heat, which is seen as an energy loss. In my approximately 64 years driving, I never get identical fuel economy driving in the mountains to that which I get driving on level terrain. It's always less, even with the Hybrid engine, which attempts to recover some of the energy that would be otherwise wasted. In your posts, you seem, to me, to be minimizing those losses.

I possibly don't understand this, but I THINK our Hybrid drive trains don't actually use a transmission? Aren't they essentially "single gear"? I don't even know that they need a Torque Converter, since if you are stopped, the engine does not have to turn over to "stay online", and, since the wheels are being driven by an electric motor, you don't need the torque multiplication that an ordinary piston engine needs to provide power when the vehicle speed is slow. Yes, there is a gear ratio in the axle, but that's fixed also, isn't it?

I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to explain why I prefer to consider torque over Hp, and, in my previous post I SHOULD have said it's "... why I don't think much of Hp to rate a vehicle"..

- Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Fair enough, Jeff. And yes, I'm interested in what the vehicle can do for me, not just the engine. I need enough power/torque, whatever, to get me to my desired speed and keep me there, PLUS a reserve that will allow me to pass someone quickly and safely.
And while both power and torque ratings are for the engine, not the car, power is the one that is more accurately reflected in the car's performance. Both need another parameter to be used. For torque it is the (usually) too-variable gear ratio, while for power it is the car's velocity which is known.

I simply see that as a torque reserve, which can move me faster in the "future", rather than a Hp value which is describing what I'm doing now. In my way of thinking, it's the torque that applies the force to the road that moves me faster.
And if the gear ratio changes, you get less wheel torque. The power is the same.And, Jeff, I honestly value your posts and have learned much from them. But please, don't mis-quote me! I DID NOT say: "This is where the mythical 212 Hp is actually reached, in neutral." I said, "Perhaps, this is....". I was NOT making a "definite" assertion. o

I still don't agree that you achieve a potential energy gain that's equal to the energy expense needed to get you to that higher point in space (which is what you seem to be implying).
Fortunately, the Laws of Physics don't think that your opinion matters. Energy is conserved, which means power is conserved. If all else is equal in a 1 minute span, except this change in potential energy, then all the engine has to add is the corresponding power.

If it were so, you'd have a "perpetual motion" machine.
?????

I possibly don't understand this, but I THINK our Hybrid drive trains don't actually use a transmission? Aren't they essentially "single gear"? I don't even know that they need a Torque Converter, since if you are stopped, the engine does not have to turn over to "stay online", and, since the wheels are being driven by an electric motor, you don't need the torque multiplication that an ordinary piston engine needs to provide power when the vehicle speed is slow. Yes, there is a gear ratio in the axle, but that's fixed also, isn't it?
And so we have to distinguish whether we are talking about the HAH, or engines in general. HYour broad statements seemed to be about the general case. But there are other characteristics of the electric motor.

It has max acceleration based on 232.1 lb-ft of torque from 0 mph to (I believe) 36 mph. Above that, it has acceleration based on 181 HP, or 143 HP if the battery is drained.

I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to explain why I prefer to consider torque over Hp, and, in my previous post I SHOULD have said it's "... why I don't think much of Hp to rate a vehicle"..
But that is what all vehicles do. And your way really has little meaning to the HAH.
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
Above that, it has acceleration based on 181 HP
Would you comment on the overclocking hypothesis? I learned it from somewhere else and tend to believe this is the only possible way to reach total 212 hp. Though, I am lack of experimental proof.
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
Fair enough, Jeff. And yes, I'm interested in what the vehicle can do for me, not just the engine. I need enough power/torque, whatever, to get me to my desired speed and keep me there, PLUS a reserve that will allow me to pass someone quickly and safely. I simply see that as a torque reserve, which can move me faster in the "future", rather than a Hp value which is describing what I'm doing now. In my way of thinking, it's the torque that applies the force to the road that moves me faster.

I still don't agree that you achieve a potential energy gain that's equal to the energy expense needed to get you to that higher point in space (which is what you seem to be implying). If it were so, you'd have a "perpetual motion" machine. There are always losses, and I think, because the engine is having to work harder to "lift" the mass, it will produce more heat, which is seen as an energy loss. In my approximately 64 years driving, I never get identical fuel economy driving in the mountains to that which I get driving on level terrain. It's always less, even with the Hybrid engine, which attempts to recover some of the energy that would be otherwise wasted. In your posts, you seem, to me, to be minimizing those losses.

I possibly don't understand this, but I THINK our Hybrid drive trains don't actually use a transmission? Aren't they essentially "single gear"? I don't even know that they need a Torque Converter, since if you are stopped, the engine does not have to turn over to "stay online", and, since the wheels are being driven by an electric motor, you don't need the torque multiplication that an ordinary piston engine needs to provide power when the vehicle speed is slow. Yes, there is a gear ratio in the axle, but that's fixed also, isn't it?

I'm not trying to nit-pick here, just trying to explain why I prefer to consider torque over Hp, and, in my previous post I SHOULD have said it's "... why I don't think much of Hp to rate a vehicle"..

- Jack
It may sounds offensive, but this reflects your lack of a physics knowledge reserve to make meaningful discussion.

What you are trying to argue gives me an impression that 'I know more about torque than anybody.' That's why I gave up. Your wonderful day is still wonderful with your wrong understanding of power/torque or whatsoever. Now I 100% agree with all of your sayings; please forgive my replies before if they sound offensive to you.

You may start with a classic physics book. Richard Feynman, the American scientist who received Nobel Prize in Physics, has a great book The Feynman Lectures on Physics. Why not increasing your knowledge reserve from here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
428 Posts
Okey Dokey - it seems we all agree to disagree. So be it!

- Jack
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Would you comment on the overclocking hypothesis? I learned it from somewhere else and tend to believe this is the only possible way to reach total 212 hp. Though, I am lack of experimental proof.
I have seen nothing attributed to a Honda source that even mentions it. I have seen direct references from Honda engineers that "only 181 HP can come from the traction motor." I have read the (2013) paper "Development of Motor and PCU for a SPORT HYBRID i-MMD System," which makes no mention of it (it's for the 2014 PHEV Accord, with a 166 HP motor). Here's what it says:

524237
.

The 212 HP figure represents the power system's theoretical output, not power to the wheels. This is consistent with how all engines are rated, but less appropriate in a two-power-plant system since both will never be at max output at the same time. But it is just as inappropriate to compare the max HP of an ICE to that of an electric motor, or hybrid system, since the rpm profiles are completely different.

The way I look at it is that the "212" HP Accord has much better performance than the "208" HP Camry, except at high speeds. So its profile is better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
332 Posts
Okey Dokey - it seems we all agree to disagree. So be it!
Comments in a forum have to be directed to both the post being responded to, and future readers who may be influenced by what is said. You may not care that you accept incorrect ideas, but I do care that others may see them.

The maximum acceleration at any speed is achieved when the engine is producing the most power that it can at that speed. In a single-gear system, that only means max throttle. In a system with changeable gears, it is not from the max engine torque. That's because

Wheel Torque = (Gear Ratio) * (Engine Torque).​
= (Gear Ratio) * [(Power)/(RPM)]​
= (Power) * [(Gear Ratio)/(RPM)]​
= Power / Velocity​
I think you are confusing Engine Torque with Wheel Torque, and imagining drains on power that aren't there.​
 

·
Registered
2020 Accord Hybrid EX-L
Joined
·
130 Posts
I have seen nothing attributed to a Honda source that even mentions it. I have seen direct references from Honda engineers that "only 181 HP can come from the traction motor." I have read the (2013) paper "Development of Motor and PCU for a SPORT HYBRID i-MMD System," which makes no mention of it (it's for the 2014 PHEV Accord, with a 166 HP motor). Here's what it says:

View attachment 524237 .

The 212 HP figure represents the power system's theoretical output, not power to the wheels. This is consistent with how all engines are rated, but less appropriate in a two-power-plant system since both will never be at max output at the same time. But it is just as inappropriate to compare the max HP of an ICE to that of an electric motor, or hybrid system, since the rpm profiles are completely different.

The way I look at it is that the "212" HP Accord has much better performance than the "208" HP Camry, except at high speeds. So its profile is better.
This sounds very logical. Thanks for your input. I agree that 212hp may only refer to the max Engine power plus battery discharge power. Maybe this combined 212hp, due to some conversion loss and internal resistance drop, turns into 183 hp output from the motor?

As for the Camry hybrid, I really have no idea about how the power splitting system works in detail. Though, many reviewers do comment that high speeds mpg is better for Camry hybrid vs Accord hybrid.

Okey Dokey - it seems we all agree to disagree. So be it!

- Jack
It is actually a good thing that you are observing and thinking about force, torque, energy etc. It's just sometimes our common-sense happens to be incorrect when confronting counterintuitive science principles, because things which should be taken in account are overlooked without scientific thinking trainings.

I myself happily admit that when it comes to electromagnetism or even relativity and quantum mechanics in physics, my understanding is so poorly limited. Therefore, I tend to be modest and remain silent in most cases when reading others' discussions on these things.

It's not a disgrace if I don't understand something, but I myself think it a disgrace to pretend that I understand something which I actually don't understand.

BTW, I agree to your perception of your ideas, but still disagree with every single incorrect point in your ideas.

Comments in a forum have to be directed to both the post being responded to, and future readers who may be influenced by what is said. You may not care that you accept incorrect ideas, but I do care that others may see them.
Exactly. This is the origin of my persistence in correcting the incorrect or misleading contents from @jackpine .

While different opinions on the same thing are always appreciated, bottom lines should be maintained including but not confined to science principles, law requirements, and ethics. Otherwise, I'm afraid the community would eventually decline.
 
21 - 40 of 53 Posts
Top