Compare gear change launch using sloped pavement

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
13,175
Location
By Detroit
There must be a slope that is equal to a gear reduction that could be used to evaluate launches with deeper ratios before making the actual gear change, so one can get a seat-of-the-pants feel for it. I tried launching on the down ramp at the parking structure, which is a 15%+ slope, if not 20%, and whoa yeah, she really launched nicely, just jumped out and went like all get out for about 20 feet and then of course I had to cool it because the ramp/flat/ramp.flat sequence is a bit rough at speed.

So the key then to using sloped pavement to evaluate a gear change (deeper or higher numerically final drive) is to figure out what pavement down slope equals a particular gear ratio change for testing purposes. I'll be launching with a manual transmission too. Ratio change will be achieved by smaller tires in the order of about 6% smaller total diameter.

So using various websites to find equations I cobbled together an analysis and post it here so it can be fixed because surely I got it wrong, but it looks interesting:

Bottom line is that I get a 1 percent slope (2 inch drop in 10 feet) being roughly equal to approximately 6% deeper gear. That is not much of a slope unless you are hand push starting a car, then you will appreciate it. Here is the "math":

Tractive Effort (TE) = torque * gear ratio * final drive ratio / tire radius

Torque estimated for 1400 rpm, first gear 3.72, final drive 3.73, tire diameter 27.3"

TE = 80 * 3.72 * 3.72 / 1.14' = 974 pounds on launch (never mind the vehicle weight as we only need to know the effort here presumably). Yes, that is right, only 80 pound feet around 1400 rpm, got it from a Ford brochure torque curve for my 2.3L Duratec DOHC 16-valve engine in a 2001 Ranger. Remember this is a stick shift so no torque multiplying slush box.

Increase in TE due to slope = Weight of vehicle * sine of the angle.

Vehicle weight is 3300 pounds with me in it (estimated from dry weight listing).

For a 1 degree angle the increase in TE is 58 pounds. Then 58 / 974 gives about 6% increase which is what my tires would give me. The slope (rise/run) is the tangent of the angle or about 0.0175.

0.0175 * 10 foot run = 0.175 feet or a little over 2 inches.

But somehow I must be missing a piece of the puzzle. A 1 percent slope is very common on roads even in flat country like Detroit is in. You would think I'd notice these great power surges every time I take off on a slight down-slope, but I don't. There must be a missing factor in the above calculations.
 
I don't mean to threadjack, but could someone please explain to me (perhaps quietly through PM) the the slope of the ground would somehow be related to gear ratio? My more limited understanding of things has me thinking you'd get something more akin to a constant thrust type thingy from being on a downslope.
 
For any given gear ratio reduction, you will have an increase in tractive force put to the ground. For any given down slope you will have an increase in tractive force. Therefore, it seems you should be able to pick a gear ratio reduction and a down slope that are equal in increase to tractive force.
 
Ok. I get what you're saying. This could be interesting. I see how you mean for this to work. Presumably your engine has a pretty flat torque curve.

Back to the 58 lbs. you worked out though: that's not 58 ft. lbs. of torque; that's 58 lbs of thrust isn't it? To feel that much extra acceleration when you're already accelerating under engine power you would have to be very sensitive. Imagine, for example, someone trying to drag a 200 lbs. man wearing a harness across a frozen lake using 3.5 lbs. of force. If you are that man (not the laughing spectator) you will be bored.
 
Last edited:
I think tractive force is the torque multiplied through the all the gear ratios and the wheel size, i did not include resistance (friction etc) so I am overestimating. Since I am not actually increasing engine torque, tractive force increase by down slope serves the same final end as more engine torque or a deeper gear.

The 1% slope does not seem significant like the man trying to drag someone across the lake. It may not produce much real world effect.
 
Originally Posted By: TallPaul

The 1% slope does not seem significant like the man trying to drag someone across the lake. It may not produce much real world effect.


Of course not. He isn't trying with all his might. He's pulling with 3.5 lbs. Pick something up that weighs 3.5 lbs. A half-gallon of water weight less than this.

Okay, so let's say you have 225/70R15 tires (adjust based on reality) for a moment. That brings you down to 74.45 ft. lbs. at the axle. The axle ratio means this is equivalent to 20 ft. lbs. at the driveshaft and 5.36 ft. lbs at the flywheel.
 
Well at 1400 rpm the engine should be 80 ft-lb at the flywheel, so it would multiply through the drive train. I do have 225/70/15s now. Was looking to go 205/65/15 to get 6%, or can go 205/70/15 for about 4%. But maybe it's not worth it, the 65s will look kind of ghetto on the Ranger with their low profile.

Yea, the man pulling someone over ice, at 3.5 pounds of pull the load better be in ice runners but even then not sure it will start to move.
 
Your method seems sound.

Probably you aren't full throttle launching most of the time, and don't notice the 1%...but it's there. e.g. my Nissan ute, doesn't take much of a down slope to need no throttle at all to move off.

32.gif
, we've a hill outside my place. I had a load of junk to go to the dump, on a trailer, and parked outside facing downhill to avoid a cold clutch burn the next day...it was bleedingly obvious what I was doing and why.

I got a ticket for being "parked too far from the kerb"...the kerb on the other side of the road, correct for the direction of travel, as there wasn't really anything for parking on wrong side of road...
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Probably you aren't full throttle launching most of the time,

Well, what I am trying to improve is mainly what happens once the clutch is fully engaged and she's turning say 1400 rpm or whatever (note below), I want it to have some giddyup, but it has a kind of weak spot until you get the rpms up higher. I miss the F150 4.9L inline six with its nearly 2000 pound feet right off idle.

So this discussion has brought me more to the point I need to address, so I'll have to observe what RPM I am actually at when the clutch is pretty much engaged and work from there.
 
Once again, this is only applicable to my main ride, but my Nissan dumped huge EGR into the engine at 1,200 RPM, and closed in an inlet port per cylinder to the choked high swirl port...this create a massive flat spot just as you started to move off, and Mrs often would dip the clutch to get the revs back.

That's not an issue anymore, as neither the port closes, or the EGR dump occurs.

Might be something strange like that in the make-up of the beast.
 
I know my engine has an intake swirl valve so maybe there is something going on there. It also has a huge (probably bigger in volume than a gallon jug) plastic intake resonator that I took off and it seemed okay until warmer weather and then it was really weak at low RPM until I replaced the resonator. There were some improvements after 2003 that improved performance, so maybe I should have got a 2004 or newer version.

2001-2003 Ranger 2.3L Duratec
135 HP @ 5050 RPM
153 lb-ft @ 3750 RPM
intake manifold runner control / swirl control
MAF housing a separate piece from the air box lid (with older style MAF sensor)
electrically heated thermostat
aluminum valve cover
rated 24 city 28 hwy (old EPA calcs) for the manual trans

2004+ Ranger 2.3L Duratec
143 HP @ 5250 RPM
154 lb-ft @ 3750 RPM
no IMRC / swirl control
MAF housing integrated into the air box lid (with newer style slot MAF sensor)
regular t-stat
plastic valve cover
different exhaust manifold
rated 24 city 29 hwy (old EPA calcs) for the manual trans
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom