Bluey Circles:
Saddam made a bit of a mistake when he kept boosting about (or at least heavily implying) the possible existence of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam, who kept banging on about WMDs, that’s this guy right?
Once more geniuses,You got an engine producing say a 100 N/mtr of torque at the flywheel but somehow at the wheels you got 200 N/mtr of torque.Where from?
Torque is a measure of Force multiplied by distance.
If you use any form of gear reduction.
To get more newtons you got to increase the rotations traveled by the crank
So instead of the crank turning once to rotate the wheels once you now have to turn the crank 3 times to turn the wheels once.
No net gain in torque
All manufacturers state max torque produced at the crankshaft and you are not going to get anymore no matter what gear reduction you use.It may pull harder with hub reduction but the engine is turning more to move the vehicle the same distance.
Called conservation of energy.If the engine has 500 horse power you are going to get less at the wheels due to friction and other losses(heat,noise,electrical loading) you get nothing for free in physics.
Unless your carryfast with his perpetual motion machine of course.
Never mind the nuclear s***e, where’s bking gone ? He’s much more dangerous if he ever was let near any sort of vehicle.
… ‘’ geniuses ‘’. genii… it’s Latin. 
Bking:
Once more geniuses,You got an engine producing say a 100 N/mtr of torque at the flywheel but somehow at the wheels you got 200 N/mtr of torque.Where from?
Torque is a measure of Force multiplied by distance.
If you use any form of gear reduction.
To get more newtons you got to increase the rotations traveled by the crank
So instead of the crank turning once to rotate the wheels once you now have to turn the crank 3 times to turn the wheels once.No net gain in torque
All manufacturers state max torque produced at the crankshaft and you are not going to get anymore no matter what gear reduction you use.It may pull harder with hub reduction but the engine is turning more to move the vehicle the same distance.
Called conservation of energy.If the engine has 500 horse power you are going to get less at the wheels due to friction and other losses(heat,noise,electrical loading) you get nothing for free in physics.Unless your carryfast with his perpetual motion machine of course.
Oh dear…fixing a truck isn’t rocket science yet we’ve strayed into Physics now. 
Bking:
Once more geniuses,You got an engine producing say a 100 N/mtr of torque at the flywheel but somehow at the wheels you got 200 N/mtr of torque.Where from?
Torque is a measure of Force multiplied by distance.
If you use any form of gear reduction.
To get more newtons you got to increase the rotations traveled by the crank
So instead of the crank turning once to rotate the wheels once you now have to turn the crank 3 times to turn the wheels once.No net gain in torque
All manufacturers state max torque produced at the crankshaft and you are not going to get anymore no matter what gear reduction you use.It may pull harder with hub reduction but the engine is turning more to move the vehicle the same distance.
Called conservation of energy.If the engine has 500 horse power you are going to get less at the wheels due to friction and other losses(heat,noise,electrical loading) you get nothing for free in physics.Unless your carryfast with his perpetual motion machine of course.
You’re avin a larf.If you’ve got 2:1 gear reduction you have increased the distance travelled by the crank by twice the amount.Hence twice the torque output.You’ve traded engine speed for more torque at the wheels so the horsepower figure hasn’t changed other than transmission losses.
If you don’t believe it feel free to explain why you need a gearbox and final drive reduction at all.By your logic the thing could take off from rest or climb a hill in direct drive from crank to wheels and no need for any gear reduction.
Own Account Driver:
Oh dear…fixing a truck isn’t rocket science yet we’ve strayed into Physics now.
A real physicist would be able to tell Bking how much torque it will need to move 44 tonnes from rest to 56 mph.Or over a decent gradient.Let alone shift a bogged down 32 tonne tipper across a muddy site. 
Think we all know this stuff from basic physics in school. ( here I go… ) Velocity ratio is inversely proportional to mechanical advantage…
And Newton’s laws of motion. Well, I can just about quote the first two, but school was some 45 years ago.
simon1958:
Think we all know this stuff from basic physics in school. ( here I go… ) Velocity ratio is inversely proportional to mechanical advantage…And Newton’s laws of motion. Well, I can just about quote the first two, but school was some 45 years ago.
Blimey was that Eton. 
Although even with my mis spent school days I know that even 2,000 lb/ft let alone 1,000 isn’t enough to move a truck without some serious gear reduction to multiply that by a large factor.
For Bking’s benefit. 
Here’s a clue the wheels don’t ever turn at engine speed even in top/direct or even over drive gear let alone anything lower.
Carryfast:
simon1958:
Think we all know this stuff from basic physics in school. ( here I go… ) Velocity ratio is inversely proportional to mechanical advantage…And Newton’s laws of motion. Well, I can just about quote the first two, but school was some 45 years ago.
Blimey was that Eton.
For Bking’s benefit.
Here’s a clue the wheels don’t ever turn at engine speed even in top/direct or even over drive gear let alone anything lower.
EATON■■?.. No. I’m as 'down to earth ’ as the next guy from high school days. "just do a lot of reading. Science, Technology, Architecture…
My avoidances are :- politics, politicians,religion & sport. All money orientated & corrupt.
Bking:
Once more geniuses,You got an engine producing say a 100 N/mtr of torque at the flywheel but somehow at the wheels you got 200 N/mtr of torque.Where from?
Torque is a measure of Force multiplied by distance.
If you use any form of gear reduction.
To get more newtons you got to increase the rotations traveled by the crank
So instead of the crank turning once to rotate the wheels once you now have to turn the crank 3 times to turn the wheels once.No net gain in torque
All manufacturers state max torque produced at the crankshaft and you are not going to get anymore no matter what gear reduction you use.It may pull harder with hub reduction but the engine is turning more to move the vehicle the same distance.
Called conservation of energy.If the engine has 500 horse power you are going to get less at the wheels due to friction and other losses(heat,noise,electrical loading) you get nothing for free in physics.Unless your carryfast with his perpetual motion machine of course.
your getting torque (turning force) confused with work (horsepower).
you can apply huge amounts of torque without doing any work, but once that turning force creates movement then work is done. and the faster you turn it the more energy is used.
So basically you can never increase work (horsepower) through gearing, but you can increase or decrease torque through gearing.
have you ever put an extension bar on a socket set to increase the turning force on a nut ? it does not make turning the nut easier because it has made you stronger!
Bluey Circles:
Bking:
Once more geniuses,You got an engine producing say a 100 N/mtr of torque at the flywheel but somehow at the wheels you got 200 N/mtr of torque.Where from?
Torque is a measure of Force multiplied by distance.
If you use any form of gear reduction.
To get more newtons you got to increase the rotations traveled by the crank
So instead of the crank turning once to rotate the wheels once you now have to turn the crank 3 times to turn the wheels once.No net gain in torque
All manufacturers state max torque produced at the crankshaft and you are not going to get anymore no matter what gear reduction you use.It may pull harder with hub reduction but the engine is turning more to move the vehicle the same distance.
Called conservation of energy.If the engine has 500 horse power you are going to get less at the wheels due to friction and other losses(heat,noise,electrical loading) you get nothing for free in physics.Unless your carryfast with his perpetual motion machine of course.
your getting torque (turning force) confused with work (horsepower).
you can apply huge amounts of torque without doing any work, but once that turning force creates movement then work is done. and the faster you turn it the more energy is used.
So basically you can never increase work (horsepower) through gearing, but you can increase or decrease torque through gearing.have you ever put an extension bar on a socket set to increase the turning force on a nut ? it does not make turning the nut easier because it has made you stronger!
In his 40 years man and boy as a truck mechanic you would have thought he might have come across a tool called a torque multiplier.
Carryfast:
Here’s a clue the wheels don’t ever turn at engine speed even in top/direct or even over drive gear let alone anything lower.
Although in top gear the ratio is no where near as great as I expected.
56mph in top gear 1050 rpm ?
at 56mph road wheels will be about 450rpm
2.33:1
How I feel when reading the maths bits.
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Here’s a clue the wheels don’t ever turn at engine speed even in top/direct or even over drive gear let alone anything lower.Although in top gear the ratio is no where near as great as I expected.
56mph in top gear 1050 rpm ?
at 56mph road wheels will be about 450rpm
2.33:1
… 56mph @1050 rpm… ■■ what sort of motor you driving■■? Must be interesting when the limiter’s gone whopsie
Radar19:
How I feel when reading the maths bits.
Thought you’d been to uni, yar?
Contraflow:
Radar19:
How I feel when reading the maths bits.Thought you’d been to uni, yar?
Correct but I ■■■■ at maths.
simon1958:
… 56mph @1050 rpm… ■■ what sort of motor you driving■■? Must be interesting when the limiter’s gone whopsie
is that a bit low ? its a while but I’m sure the last one was just under 1100 but that might have been limited to 52 … can’t really remember, and couldn’t of cared less at the time. LOL
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
Here’s a clue the wheels don’t ever turn at engine speed even in top/direct or even over drive gear let alone anything lower.Although in top gear the ratio is no where near as great as I expected.
56mph in top gear 1050 rpm ?
at 56mph road wheels will be about 450rpm
2.33:1
There are numerous different final drive ratio options available to customer choice.But the inconvenient point for Bking is that they all reduce the gearing from the gearbox output to the wheels.The main advantage of hub reduction being that it provides a significant gear reduction between the diff output side and the wheels.Thereby reducing torque loadings accordingly in that component chain to provide equivalent torque at the wheels.
Carryfast:
There are numerous different final drive ratio options available to customer choice.But the inconvenient point for Bking is that they all reduce the gearing from the gearbox output to the wheels.The main advantage of hub reduction being that it provides a significant gear reduction between the diff output side and the wheels.Thereby reducing torque loadings accordingly in that component chain to provide equivalent torque at the wheels.
is this not heavy haul stuff ? I don’t think I have ever even seen one let alone work on one. Can imagine them being pretty uneffficiet fuel wise and very noisey, just more stuff to bugger up … and if it is like some sort of sun and planet set up? would that not make it run backwards, or is it clvererer than that?, if not, so where do they reverse the direction of drive … in the diff ? maybe a rear facing crown, or is that a stupid idea.