Engine speed, torque, power and... nitrous?!

I have been thinking a lot lately about the simple relationship between torque, speed and power. To clarify:

• Torgue = turning moment = "twisting" force
• Speed = the angular velocity of the crankshaft = the "rpm" your car displays (not its actual moving speed)
• Power = rate at which work is performed = how fast your car goes = all that men care about

There is a constant battle between speed and torque in the design of engines. They both together produce power, but are inversely related. Increase speed and you decrease torque. Increase torque and you descrease speed. Increase both and you increase power. In Layman's terms they are annoying.

I have a vested interested in nitrous oxide injection, what man doesn't you might say. When I was 17 I designed a progressive nitrous controller for my A level technology project, and became obsessed for about a year until my insurance company eventually convinced me my dreams could not become reality. Why am I talking about nitrous injection? Float around on forums and websites that discuss the use of N2O injection and you will find claims that the systems actually REDUCE engine fatigue (wear and tear). Madness you might say, or is it?

N2O injection massively increases an engines torque, and supposedly more so at lower engine RPMs. The proponents of N2O injection argue that running the engine at lower RPMs with nitrous does not cause as much damage as running the engine at higher RPMs without nitrous. Paradoxically most users would inject their N2O throughout the rev range, unless they are smart and have a controller...

Now I am not about to debate nitrous, no no no. Let us revisit the relationship between speed, torque and power... except lets throw in engine fatigue into the mix. Given all other conditions being equal, does an engine fatigue more at lower RPM and higher torque? Or is more fatigue experienced by a higher speed with less torque?

Is gently tapping something with a hammer lots of times better than beating the hell out of it a few times?

A few questions spring to mind.

• Does the greater revving engine actually produce more friction?
• Is a greater force experienced less frequently more potent than a weak force experienced often?
• Are the nitrous people bullshitting us?

I think this would be a very interesting research project, and is obviously an area not entirely understood by engineers. In fact is there anything fully understood by engineers?

Where are the disk brakes on road bikes?

Every single bike for sale in every single shop will either come with v-brakes, or no brakes. You already know this. I am here to ask the question why.
Racing cyclists are an interesting breed. They are like machines, seeking mechanical effeciency, top fuel consumption and a mechanically optimised set of wheels. It is simple why racers have v-brakes over disk brakes on their road bike, they are better because...

• They are lighter.
• They stop the bike as well as the thin tires will allow.
• They place less strain on the front fork.
• They are normal.

So why am I even bothering to write this when I already know that all designers already know that disk brakes are an inferior product for road bike use?

Well for starters, they might not be as inferior a product as one might think. Cross country mountain bikers have been using disk brakes for years over their old Vs. They identified that disk brakes work well under all weather conditions and are more predictable than their V friends.
The road needs a lightweight disk be designed. The advantage of extra stopping power is clearly negated by the limited grip which road tyres provide (there is only so much stopping force that can go through to the road - and Vs can apply all that force). Therefore, a reduced power disk brake, which equals the stopping power of top range V brakes needs to be designed. Perhaps one half the weight of a mountain bike disk brake.

How I can hear you screaming "BUT IT IS STILL HEAVIER THAN THE V BRAKES!!! I WILL LOSE EFFECIENCY!!!!". I propose to you that Mr Average, who cycles to work every day, doesn't care. Here lies the basis for my argument. Mr Average would much rather a predictable brake, that works as well in the wet, cold and mud as in the dry. He doesn't care about losing 2% effeciency. He just wants to get to work safe and sound, and look cool while doing so. Disk brakes on a road bike would be pretty bling indeed.

If the big companies put a mini disk brakes for road bikes on the market, they would sell. The technology would be further developed, they would sell more. The enevitable outcome is that disk brakes would out perform V-brakes as new materials are developed. Perhaps I will work on this myself. Hell one day we might even see electromagnetic brakes appear on bikes - that will be the day, and then I will think it is all wrong.