I mentioned a rocket engine as an extreme example of an engine that has measurable horsepower (expressed as thrust) and no torque at all.
Wrong.Torque is the effectiveness to turn an axis, or twisting force. It has NOTHING to do with acceleration.
I think the clue might be in the name horsePOWER and that the units are Watts which is a measure of power not Ws^-1 as you suggest.Torque is a measure of power. Horsepower is a measure of power/time.
Even tho what i say isnt entirely accurate, i like to simply as such:Here's the simplest explanation: Horsepower makes you go fast. Torque makes you feel like you are going fast; it gives you that kick in the back when you push the gas.
I found an interesting bike test (bare with me) between a Sook GSX-R 750 and a Honda CBR 900, despite having almost 20% less torque the sook was always faster than the Honda, and they posted similar hp, weight and top speed.it's true that F1 engines have relatively little torque, only 200 lb/ft or something, and even then, their torque band is very narrow (something like 16.000-18.000 rpm). The rest of the time those things just will.not.rev. Heck, they idle at 4,500 rpm, which is kinda high
however, because they make an insane amount of revs, they can make 700-800 hp, while having only little torque. So torque isn't what wins races, otherwise my car would be able to keep up with an F1 car, which it obviously doesn't...
Probably (apart from gearbox's magic) is because, while having less torque as a peak, it has a better distribution of torque, a better torque curve.I found an interesting bike test (bare with me) between a Sook GSX-R 750 and a Honda CBR 900, despite having almost 20% less torque the sook was always faster than the Honda, and they posted similar hp, weight and top speed.