Quote:
Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses
Looks like he just took the numbers on the graph and did the 15% correction without converting to ft-lbs. I ran the numbers last night, but don't remember what I got and I'm busy doing data entry right now.
|
Peak stock looked to be about 190Nm. The conversions I'm finding is putting that at 140ft-lbs which is very high.
AHH! I just looked again and noticed it says "Flywheel Torque". That explains it, making it a touch low. In that case:
150 / 140 = 1.07
Modified peak torque look around 290Nm, or 214ft-lbs.
214 * 1.07 = 229 ft-lbs at the flywheel.
229 * .85 = 195ft-lbs at the wheel.
Before people get all flustered, this is an aproximation of a graph that was then converted to another unit of measurement and then had a second aproximation applied via simplistic math that doesn't take into account the nuances of this kind of measurement.
So, yeah.. These numbers could be complete junk. But I'm fairly confident they are within the same state. (maybe Texas..)