5252 and the torque curve

obi_waynne

Administrator
Staff member
Moderator
Points
1,157
Location
Deal, Kent UK
Car
A3 1.4 TFSI 150 COD
There is a point on a power graph where the Torque and BHP cross.

This magic event happens at 5252.

Is there something significant about this number? Is 5252 RPM worthy of note.

Why does this happen? Is 5252 a measure of RPM/Torque/Force or a ratio?
 
Last edited:
You cant separate Torque and BHP as they are bound together.
Horsepower = Torque x rpm/5252 or Torque = Horsepower x 5252/rpm
Any Power/Torque graph you see will cross at 5252rpm if it don't its a dud as maths don't lie.
The Topspeed of a car is determined by the Peak Power however if the Torque dies too early it may take a long time to get there. What you need is a big flat Torque curve so that when you change up at peak power your revs drop back onto that Torque & off you go again in each gear.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You cant separate the two they are bound together.
Horsepower = Torque x rpm/5252 or Torque = Horsepower x 5252/rpm
Any Power/Torque graph you see will cross at 5252rpm if it don't its a dud as maths don't lie.
The Topspeed of a car is determined by the Peak Power however if the Torque dies too early it may take a long time to get there. What you need is a big flat Torque curve so that when you change up at peak power your revs drop back onto that Torque & off you go again in each gear.

Torque is a force and BHP is power, ie. rate of work - units of work done per unit of time. The number 5252 is irrelevant, it's not revs. It's a ratio, ie it has no units!!!

Change any unit of measure (eg. measure torque in Nm; power in kW; angular velocity in radians per second) and 5252 disappears.

The arithmetic is correct, but the maths is wrong. Work and angular velocity both includes units of time and thus cancel each other.
 
OG not worthy of a reply guys a nut. To argue with someone who has done this all his life been a Senior designer at BAe systems & done more calcs than this rather silly Mr. founder is not worthy of my time. SIR YOU ARE AN IDIOT !!!!!!

Suit yourself, Rod.

Just because something is said enough times does not render it accurate.

There's no need to be offensive either.

The formula you give is correct and can be used to calculate Brake Horse Power from engine speed measured in Revs Per Minute and Torque measured in foot-pounds. This works for any engine speed.

I am merely point out that 5252 is just 5252. It is a ratio. It's not 5252 Revs Per Minute.
 
Yes but 5252rpm is not actually significant. It is a unitless ratio, as are all ratios. Measure torque in Nm and 5252 will disappear from the equation. (incidentally it's lbft not lb/ft).

We cannot possibly say torque and power are the same when they are different units of measure. Even if the numbers are identical.

It's like comparing gallons and acres. Different units for different pruposes.

In response to the original question though both BHP and torque are relevant measurements.
 
(incidentally it's lbft not lb/ft).

A little research resulted in me being even more confused. Even learned gentlemen and scientists disagree on which is correct. I have seen lb/ft, lbft, lb-ft, lbf. I guess they all convey what the writer means.

Lb/ft seems to = Torque

Ft/lb = Work
 
The / infers lbs per foot or feet per pound depending upon order.

lbft, ftlb, lb-ft and ft-lb are all one and the same. All will interchange quite safely. lbf likewise is fine, although possibly might be mistaken for pounds force which is a linear force.

Torque is an angular force (although through an infinitely short arc it can be considered to be linear) but is still acting about a centre of rotation.
 
When used in lb/ft the / doesn't infer lbs per foot any more than it does in 07/10/2015 :)

However, I will use lbft in future when talking torque in order to avoid any confusion :)
 
Yes 5252 is a value.......
But what Madrod said was the formula means the two lines have to cross at 5252 revs and this is correct.
And if two terms are in an equation then they are related
 
Really?

Provided that we use BHP and lbft as units. Plot power in kW and 5252 disappears.

It is simply an equation to calculate BHP from torque and angular velocity.

Torque and power are related but the crossing of lines at 5252 is not relevant.
 
We have a new thread about 5252 RPM, Please edit your posts to make them consistent with this debate.

I've made a few very minor additions to posts to help people pick up on the context. I've also dropped a few posts that didn't add to this topic, sorry @thexav @MADRod @HDi fun they are still there in the original thread though.
 
Steve (old git) has asked me to calm down & post this & don’t get into battles with your founder. He is confusing his units & is a case of little knowledge is worse than none. I don’t make this stuff up its maths & is always correct.

Horsepower & Torque will always cross at 5252.1 rpm.
That's a fact that occurs regarding horsepower and torque they cross & are equal at 5252.1 rpm.
I will try to explain it the best I can.

To begin, we should start with gentleman named James Watt. He is the one who developed the entire idea of a "horsepower" and of course, the SI unit of power, the watt.
Watt sugested that the average horse could do work at a rate 550 foot lbs per second, or 33,000 foot lbs per minute. This means that on average, a horse could move 33,000 lbs 1 foot in 1 minute. So 1 hp=33,000 foot lbs per minute.

Now, since we're talking about engines, work is being applied to a rotating crankshaft. This means that we need to talk about torque. But what does a ft-lb of torque mean? Well, it means that we have a 1 lb weight attached to a weightless bar 1 foot from the fulcrum.
Now imagine that we rotate that bar an entire rotation, 360 degrees. The distance traveled is the circumference of the circle made, which is 2*radius*pi, which equals 6.28319 ft. So the distance traveled in one rotation is 6.28319 ft and so 6.28319 ft-lbs of work (torque) was done.
Now let's go back to Watt's equations for hp. Watt figured out that 33,000 ft-lbs of work per minute equals 1 hp. If we divide 33,000 by 6.28319, we get 5,252.1. This means that for every 5,252 revolutions per minute of 1 ft-lb of torque, we get 1 hp.

So a dyno measures Torque & then uses the equation to calculate horsepower.
 
How does this work for turbos that have a definite step flat torque plateau across range of revs?

If I look on superchips website at the curves for the remap on my car, well for one it doesn't even get to 5252 rpm. Secondly peak torque is at 2435 but it is pretty flat between 2k and 3k and peak power is at 3903, again fairly flat between 3k and 4k.

So I'm with HDI. The figure 5252 is meaningless without units to define it.
 
It still works for engines that don't reach 5252rpm. As you've concluded the figure is not important it's just there and one of those things.

To reiterate...
To work out HP or Torque you use the following formula.
Horsepower = Torque x rpm/5252
Torque = Horsepower x 5252/rpm​

Yes it's just maths! 5252 is the factor applied RPM to come up with Torque or HP. :D This causes the points to cross on a graph.
 
Rod, I am not confusing anything. My maths and physics go to first year degree level.

Torque and power can never be equal. They are measures of different things. Whether or not the numbers are the same. It's like comparing gallons and square feet. They are totally different units of measure. It's you who is confusing the units not me!

So back off right now and stop the belittling comments such as "He is confusing his units & is a case of little knowledge is worse than none."

I apologise to all other members for the direct response to Rod but I feel it essential to respond as such.
 
Last edited:
I can agree with OBI's statement that 5252 is the factor. I can also see that it might be true for n/a engines. But it cannot be the rpm for a turbo diesel where torque is flat from say 2k to 3k and then starts to drop off after that.
 
5252 is simply a conversion factor used when calculating power (in BHP) from torque (measured in lbft) and engine speed (measured in revolutions per minute). It has no units. It's not 5252rpm.

If we plot a graph of power and torque but scale the power Y axis in KW then the lines won't cross at 5252 on the X axis.

Torque and power can never be equal. Despite being related they are different measurements. The numbers don't actually matter.

It's like trying to say 20 litres equals 20 hectares!! Or 20 minutes equals 20 grams!!!

Let's swap the units around.

For example: we want to know power in kW and we are measuring torque in Nm. Keep speed in revs per minute for now.

We now have the formula:

Power (kW) = Torque (Nm) x Speed (RPM) / 9.5488

Does that mean that torque and power are equal at 9.5488rpm?

See what I mean? It's simply a ratio - a conversion factor.

If you ran an engine (or any other rotating machine) at 9.5488rpm and measured the torque (in Nm) to be, let's say, 40Nm then calculating the the power output (in kW) would yield the result 40kW. Obviously, because 9.5488 divided by 9.5488 equals one.

But 40kW is not 40Nm !!
 
Last edited:
At 5252.1 rpm Torque in ft/lb will = Horsepower your rantings wont change that we are not talking in kw or NM. You said that statement was nonsense & I said your a nut. Im told you will now keep on about this forever so carry on bud there will be people that believe you. By the way at BAe I looked after the Uni guys they were much the same as you really 20 years away from making a good designer or having any grasp of the stuff they had learned like a parrot. You are stuck in a text book somewhere without a grasp of what it means & there im going to leave you & say farewell to this site. Sorry OG but if hes not going to leave then it will be me. Farewell all.
 
You did also call me an idiot but nevertheless this wasn't quite the result I envisioned, nor intended.

I'm sorry you feel that way and hope that you will change your mind, but either way I respect that your decision is yours and yours alone.

Best regards,
P.
 
Well I've finished my popcorn soooo if you boys don't play nice then.....
Top-40-Minions-Quotes-humor-Minions_zpslozcam4x.jpg
 
I will try one more time........text book definitions , explanations and examples just complicate things
So let's keep it simple because that way people should get the point.

There are two plotted lines on the graph that is being discussed - both use rpm as one axis .
The other axis are bhp and ft lbs . They could be anything but in this specific discussion they are as stated so let's leave it that way especially as that was the original topic

Now It is not inevitable that the two lines cross , theoretically the bhp could be higher all the time than ft lbs or vice versa

But they do always cross ( as long as motor revs to 5252) and always cross extremely close to 5252 rpm . Whether this is because of the formula/factor or because it is Tuesday doesn't matter
They cross which was all that was said

What was said further was that for maximum driveability you want the torque line as close to the bhp line as possible when it is the lower line . This is not an opinion it's a fact

Neither MRD or I said they were the same when the lines cross . We said the values of the axis are the same which is different.
For someone to say that if you changed the scale ( say from bhp to kW) they would cross elsewhere is obvious and irrelevant since the topic was bhp and torque and their relation.
 
Just had this thread brought to my attention: This is an interesting thread and I have learnt quite a bit since reading through the posts. Let us keep the posts civil gentlemen from NOW on or I will lock the thread and that would be a shame.

T9 man
Super Moderator.
 
It applies to all rotating machines, steam turbines, waterwheels, everything.

Why are we specific about power in BHP and not about torque - which has to be quoted in lbft for the 5252 conversion factor to be applied?

This seems to be the general misunderstanding. Not just here, but across many motoring related web sites.

Even though the lines do cross at 5252 on the X axis it is completely meaningless.

Try plotting the same graph with the Y(1) axis for power (in bhp units) scaled at 10bhp per centimetre and the Y(2) axis for torque (in lbft) scaled at 100lbft per centimetre. The lines will never cross.

Torque and power are measurements of different phenomena. To plot them side by side on the same graph is useful in understanding the power and torque characteristics of an engine, since lbft and BHP are well known and respected units so it makes sense to use these.

Some people prefer to work in kW and Nm, and in this case the lines would cross at 9.5488rpm. This would not attract any attention whatsoever and thus no urban myths would have been created.

I've given a few analogies in previous posts but here's another:

5 eggs is equal to and the same as 5 ounces of sugar? (Guess who's hungry :) )
 
Last edited:
We (MYSELF and the entire moderation team) are frankly embarrassed at the petty bickering and name calling in that thread (regardless of provocation and who started it). We do not and will not condone this behaviour.

Our policies on dealing with complaints against a member were clearly explained here...
http://www.torquecars.com/forums/threads/how-to-complain-about-a-members-behaviour.13173/
posted back in 2010.

Punitive measure vary from warnings to bans of varying lengths are applied to remind users of our rules and keep this a nice place for all (these are applied after the moderation team have discussed them at length and mutually agreed on a course of action). Nobody wants to walk in on an argument or row and it really puts people off and loses members and sign ups.

The free speech and rights of one person does not outweigh the rights of 27,000 others who want to visit a friendly positive site.

Being NICE and FRIENDLY are two principles on this site which we require our members to adhere to.

MadRod has chosen to leave the site for now, we hope that he will come back noting that we take the conduct of our members seriously and we want to build a friendly productive community. He is also now aware of our policies on dealing with complaints against other members now rather that taking this on in a public area personally.

HDifun has had his moderation status removed, will be banned for 14 days (as a long term member we expect a much higher standard of conduct, and continuing to bicker and wind up another member, and failing to formally apologise for a tactless, inflammatory and poorly worded opening post).​

Both members will be subject to premoderation checks of all posts to ensure that no further conflict occurs.
 

Similar threads


Please watch this on my YouTube channel & Subscribe.


Back
Top