Torque display format

[Flyer]

You might wanna change your 500Nm of torque to ftlbs then

S.

I've started a new thread as this was waaaay off-topic!

What is the correct way to display that? ftlbs? lb ft? I'm working on a motoring-related website at the moment and I've expressed torque as "Torque 320 lb ft".

I've stated other units of measurement* (mph, bhp, cc) in the "GB" format (is that Imperial?) and so I don't think Newton's unit of measurement is appropriate , like this:

Engine Inline-6, 4185cc
Gearbox 5-speed Manual
0-60 mph 4.2 seconds
Top Speed 180 mph
Power 360 bhp
Torque 320 lb ft
Colour • Metallic Silver
Doors 2
Seats 4
Length 4280 mm
Width 1865 mm
Height 1220 mm



* Just realised I've quoted length, width and height using millimetres (can't do feet and inches )

 

[GrahamC230K]

IMO 320 ft/lb torque

 

[Steve_Perry]

You will often see torque units quoted as "foot pound", really it should be written as "foot pound-force" to be correct.

@G.,
it's not ft/lb it's ft x lb just as the SI units are not quoted as N/m but Nm

@F.,
quoting it as lb ft is okay

*EDIT* And just out of interest, if Bri likes his units GB Imperial not SI then 500 Nm = 368.8 ft lbs-force

S.

P.S. I'm a chemical Engineer for my sins We take units and dimensional consistency seriously

 

[Flyer]

quoting it as lb ft is okay

Thank you kind sir, but when you say "okay", do you mean "it'll do and those of us who know will be able to tell that you don't really know what you're talking about", or do you mean "it's correct"?

P.S. I'm a chemical Engineer for my sins We take units and dimensional consistency seriously

Indeed, I'm trying to be consistent, but it's not easy! All these blinkin' interchangeable units ...

 

[Steve_Perry]

Thank you kind sir, but when you say "okay", do you mean "it'll do and those of us who know will be able to tell that you don't really know what you're talking about", or do you mean "it's correct"?

"lbf ft" or "ft lbf" are both equally valid.

I think the yanks prefer the latter term and Brits prefer former (I think??? it was a very long time ago to my undergraduate days but I seem to recall that's the reason for the different styles).

The part about Torque being "lb-force ft" and NOT just "lb ft" is deffo correct as pounds is a unit of mass not force. Therefore the SI unit for Torque is "Nm" and not "Kgm".

*EDIT* Just found this via Google...

http://www.off-road.com/hummer/tech/power.html

Torque is measured by the amout of force applied tangentially at a given distance and is given units of force * distance. In the metric system, we would use Newton*meter (N*m). In the US, we would use pound*feet (lbs*ft). For some strange reason we usually say "foot pound" instead of "pound feet" but use both lbs*ft and ft*lbs. Think of a wrench. We pull on the handle to turn the bolt. The longer the wrench, the more torque exert on the bolt with the same amount of force.

Indeed, I'm trying to be consistent, but it's not easy! All these blinkin' interchangeable units ...

Heh Tell me about it, don't ever get invovled in Chemical Engineering

S.

 

[se97mlm]

i totally agree with Steve, but why not use Nm when you have used mm for the distances?

Or why not inches for the distances to match the torque? Just being picky, but you have two unit systems there now

 

[Flyer]

i totally agree with Steve, but why not use Nm when you have used mm for the distances?

Or why not inches for the distances to match the torque? Just being picky, but you have two unit systems there now

I know, I know. This is the internal struggle I have. For the sake of consistency, everything would be metric. I love consistency.

But this site will be viewed by "everyman", so I'm trying to use real-world units, that would mean something to the average UK person.

Engine capacity: Cubic centimetres or litres (or even cubic inches!)
Acceleration: MPH or KPH
Top Speed: Ditto
Power: bhp or kW
Torque: lb ft or Nm
Dimensions: mm or feet and inches

Now, for me, it would be: cc, mph, bhp, lb ft, mm.

I know about bhp. You tell me that a car has 300bhp and I know it's going to be quick. 300kW? No idea mate!! 500Nm? Sounds a lot ... is it?

Ultimately, it doesn't really matter ... I'm probably the only one concerned about this ...

Steve, you've now brought another way of expressing lb ft:

lbf ft" or "ft lbf" are both equally valid.

Think I might go with Nm

 

[PJH]

lb-ft or maybe lb/ft but either way no space.
Can't you having the values in both formats?
Unit Converter

 

[sportyreptile]

I think in imperial measurements, I can accurately guess yards feet inches etc but have to think about metres and so on.

As torque = force x distance then to write it as lbft follows the equasion, as indeed does the metric unit Nm Newtons ( force ) x Metre ( distance ).

Writing the unit as lb/ft implies the equasion is force devided by distance which is incorrect.

This looks picky but it helps to get your units right when working out your sums.

 

[se97mlm]

depends what age of average UK person... I am 27 and prefer Nm! Then again I use SI units every day in my job!

It was 9 years ago i left school though, and we were taught mainly in SI units

 

[Anders]

Engine Inline-6, 4185cc
Gearbox 5-speed Manual
0-60 mph 4.2 seconds
Top Speed 180 mph
Power 360 bhp
Torque 320 lb ft
Colour • Metallic Silver
Doors 2
Seats 4
Length 4280 mm
Width 1865 mm
Height 1220 mm

What car is this?? TVR Tuscan? Thought they were 3996 cc...? Sorry for taking this off-topic...

 

[Flyer]

What car is this?? TVR Tuscan? Thought they were 3996 cc...? Sorry for taking this off-topic...

I'm on my laptop at the moment and can't access the server, but I think it is a TVR Cerbera 4.2 ... very tasty