Short shifting in gt sport doesn't make sense.

[Strangereal]

@eran0004 thank you for the link. Howeve, the video only shows him short shifting at corners for stability. The argument here is that short shifting at full throttle will not save gas in real life. (In return I'm saying it shouldn't be in gts.(yes, I already received the counter argument for this in which I agree in some aspects)) I still have not seen proof that it does. I can't seem to find where people get the info from :/ that may be blindness on my part so I still need help trying to find out where this is even a thing in real world gt racing.

 

[vvise]

Power is independent of gearing. A gearbox trades speed for torque, but since power is torque x speed it remains the same regardless of gearing. 2 torque x 4 speed is the same power (8) as 4 torque x 2 speed. That means that the power at the wheel is the same as the power at the flywheel.

So for the statement to be correct, all it takes is for the power curve to drop so sharply that shifting up takes you to a higher point on the power curve.

Yes thank you for the correction. I used the wrong words here. I meant torque, under the assumption torque was the biggest factor in acceleration. This is also incorrect but that's a huge internet battle I'd rather not get into.

 

[rex1825]

@eran0004 thank you for the link. Howeve, the video only shows him short shifting at corners for stability. The argument here is that short shifting at full throttle will not save gas in real life. (In return I'm saying it shouldn't be in gts.(yes, I already received the counter argument for this in which I agree in some aspects)) I still have not seen proof that it does. I can't seem to find where people get the info from :/ that may be blindness on my part so I still need help trying to find out where this is even a thing in real world gt racing.

...OK, I'll drive few laps in that 908 around and in one case I'll short shift, in other I'll drive normally and then you will see the difference

 

[eran0004]

@eran0004 thank you for the link. Howeve, the video only shows him short shifting at corners for stability. The argument here is that short shifting at full throttle will not save gas in real life. (In return I'm saying it shouldn't be in gts.(yes, I already received the counter argument for this in which I agree in some aspects)) I still have not seen proof that it does. I can't seem to find where people get the info from :/ that may be blindness on my part so I still need help trying to find out where this is even a thing in real world gt racing.

Short shifting does save fuel. Peak torque is where you get the most bang for the buck. You get more bang at peak power, but it costs a lot more buck.

There’s a good reason why people aren’t commuting to work at 6000 rpm, and that reason is fuel economy.

 

[Strangereal]

OK, I'll drive few laps in that 908 around and in one case I'll short shift, in other I'll drive normally and then you will see the difference

Not an "in-game" example. Real world example please

 

[eran0004]

Not an "in-game" example. Real world example please

First item on the list:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2011/mar/25/hypermiling-tips

And here: http://www.drivingfast.net/improve-fuel-economy/

And here: http://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/fuels-environment/drive-smart

 

[rex1825]

Not an "in-game" example. Real world example please

...if you find it, nice, but as I said, it is really hard to find that data... and yet, most of the drivers (where fuel management is on pace) are doing that...

 

[DesertPenguin]

What about coasting before braking? Say you normally brake hard at the 100m mark. Would you let off at 150 and then brake as needed to scrub off speed before the turn? Or do you let off early and still brake hard but at a different point?

 

[rex1825]

What about coasting before braking? Say you normally brake hard at the 100m mark. Would you let off at 150 and then brake as needed to scrub off speed before the turn? Or do you let off early and still brake hard but at a different point?

I saw something similar on daily races some of the guys that are in the top are doing that, but... it is not something like letting off way before, they basically let of like at same place I start to brake lol.

On real wheel drive cars, there is an option with hand brake to pull engine down so it doesn't use lot... but only rear wheel ones... yet all this is marginal...

 

[DesertPenguin]

I'll stick to my rule of upshifting when the red bar is at halfway. Seems good enough. Maybe on straights shift from 4th to 5th and 5th to 6th as soon as the red bar hows up.

 

[cleanLX]

Power is independent of gearing.

At the engine yes, but the engine uses gearing to accelerate.

A gearbox trades speed for torque

not sure what you mean... a gearbox utilizes TQ to create acceleration/speed.

but since power is torque x speed it remains the same regardless of gearing

TQ x rpm/5252, speed is what the gearbox gives you... and yes, TQ remains the same (at the source) regardless of gearing, but, without gearing acceleration and speed are greatly compromised.

2 torque x 4 speed is the same power (8) as 4 torque x 2 speed.

Trouble is, TQ is always x1, you cannot just add a multiplier to the source power... it is the gearing that changes, and the gearing is what drives the wheels. So your example should be 1TQ x4speed = 4, 1TQ x2speed = 2.
TQ x RPM/5252... speed is a resultant after gearing is utilized.

That means that the power at the wheel is the same as the power at the flywheel.

Only if you have a single speed gearbox with a 1:1 ratio... (and no frictional losses). That is why rear wheel dyno's are ran in a transmission gear with a 1:1 ratio... giving the result where gearing is zero'd... another method (traditional) is the engine is dynoed on a "stand" with no transmission attached, again, taking gearing out of the equation.

So for the statement to be correct, all it takes is for the power curve to drop so sharply that shifting up takes you to a higher point on the power curve.

Actually, you will shift after peak TQ, at a point that drops you back to the same TQ on the rising side of the graph, that way you are using maximum available TQ "under the "curve".
But... the game for some reason will give you an absolute flat TQ "curve", so, in the game, on a power decreased car, this becomes less critical, especially with a close ratio gearbox that never drops you out of the "flat".

Edit 2: A funny anecdote. I was testing a car in GT6 for a series by @Sick Cylinder, and this particular car was so heavily restricted that the power curve was completely flat for about 2/3rds of the rpm range. I was experimenting with gear ratios to try and find the most optimal setup, and to my surprise I found that the performance was identical regardless of what I did with the gearbox! That’s when I decided to look up what power and torque actually is

Right, that is where the game and the real world do not align... absolutely flat power curves with internal combustion engines is virtually non-existent.
I've seen manufacturers claim to have flat "curves", but when you look up real world rear wheel dyno results, they have a curve, and, often times the manufacturers that claim a flat "curve" often actually have a dip, or a dead zone, prior ramping back up again... aka most pedestrian grade variable cam timing systems.
PD's power decreasing "map" needs revised... instead of remapping the entire engine dynamics, they simply put a max. value on power... in the real world this comes from air flow, fuel delivery, boost restrictions etc. and will effect the engine over it's entire range, revising the entire curve... it will not simply provide a "X" power at all engine rpm. Turbo cars can control this with electronically controled blow off valves... but then BoP would step in and regulate not only the BOV but the turbo size/rpm as well.

The whole point of the short shifting thing is not that it's a cheat, it's that PD refuses to BoP either power, fuel capacity, or both to level these cars to the rest of the field.
Some view this as a racing advantage... others see it as a defective BoP... no one will argue that is creates meta cars.

In no racing series where BoP is regulated would a manufacture be permitted to cruise around at part throttle and short shift to gain 40% more laps than the competition, while keeping pace with the field, without going through a BoP revision.
That is called sandbagging.

 

[rex1825]

...this one is not bad, although it is from iRacing

 

[rex1825]

...
The whole point of the short shifting thing is not that it's a cheat, it's that PD refuses to BoP either power, fuel capacity, or both to level these cars to the rest of the field.
...

Most of the real world cars are screwed with BoP and tank capacity.

GT3 cars prior 2016 had 120l fuel tank, ones after 2016 had 90l of fuel tank, PD just switched all to 100l, and then they screwed consumption. Upon on that they screwed it with BoP.

GT1 are even worse... Modern LMP petrol cars should have 62.3l of fuel if ERS is presented and 75l if not. And diesels should have 50.1l with ERS... and where are we? At 100l equally on all... a bit too much of a mess...

And all this is thanks to the imaginary VGT and GT3/4 (or better to say Gr3/4) that don't exist.

 

[Pubs16]

Happens a lot in V8 Supercars endurance races, sometimes even normal rounds. Short shifting and lifting at end of straights .

This was a memorable year.

 

[Strangereal]

@cleanLX bloody thank you

 

[FlyinHawaiian77]

What about coasting before braking? Say you normally brake hard at the 100m mark. Would you let off at 150 and then brake as needed to scrub off speed before the turn? Or do you let off early and still brake hard but at a different point?

Can't say I'm 100% sure on this, but the Toyota's at this years Le Mans seemed to be doing what you are describing.

I kind of want to try it. But I am just so used to going pedal to the metal until you get to your braking points.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

What about coasting before braking? Say you normally brake hard at the 100m mark. Would you let off at 150 and then brake as needed to scrub off speed before the turn? Or do you let off early and still brake hard but at a different point?

Anywhere you can save a bit of fuel adds up over the course of a full run. Another thing about backing off a bit earlier and easing through the corners a bit is as you are saving fuel to turn more laps the smoother driving style also helps the longevity of the tires grip.

Even if you still have to stop for a splash of gas to make it to the end if you can avoid taking on new tires you save a bunch of time on pit road.

Fuel mileage and pit strategy is all a numbers game as to how much time you are losing on track each lap from driving easier versus how much time you can save on not pitting or doing a shorter stop as compared to those not trying to employ the strategy.

You see this used a lot at some Nascar tracks and races. The teams know they are off a few tenths per lap in pace to the fast guys so the only chance they have at a win or sometimes even a top 10 finish is fuel mileage o maybe even 1 less pit stop across the race distance.

Real life teams have the data they need to run the scenario for fuel down to fractions of laps at what fuel usage they are employing at the time.

In game not stopping or a much shorter stop can work depending on the time it takes on pit road, the amount of time you are losing per lap and the length of the race. Every different car in class will very possibly change the outcome of any given strategy you want to employ as will each different track.

All I can say is testing, testing testing and timing, timing timing.

 

[05XR8]

Yeah, but press a button for real cars to use fuel and tyres 7-8x faster than normal. Short shifting is giving players a virtual option to the longer races in Sport Mode.

When I set up the same races in Arcade, the fuel usage is more frugal. So, even bigger discrepancies there.
I don't mind it. How else are some players going to compete against a top speed king like the "OyVey"ron or the superior handling of the Trophy?

Just have fun with the sharing of " strategy" info.

 

[cleanLX]

Yeah, but press a button for real cars to use fuel and tyres 7-8x faster than normal. Short shifting is giving players a virtual option to the longer races in Sport Mode.

Of course you are right, and I agree with the general "idea"...
But, "I" find it very unrealistic... Pick a car that requires a pit stop... ... or a car that does not require a pit stop, yet somehow maintains contact... is very different than pit 4 times while loosing contact, vs pit 5 times running in the thick of it...
I still view it "in game" as a major BoP discrepancy which creates meta cars...
If the game had it BoP'd to the point of... there is no way any car can maintain contact/pace without refueling, but some cars could go to within a lap or 2 of the end, then it would be realistic... then it would be strategy... stay out, run on a clean track, and try and preserve your tires, knowing you eventually have to come in... vs pick the meta car and cruise it out.
As it sits now it's a built in meta system.

 

[fastone371]

Can anyone link me a video example of this real world short shifting. If you all seem to have seen it I'm sure someone can point me in the direction of being a believer.

All you need to do is watch a Formula 1 race, Austrian Grand Prix will be on this Sunday. If you are in the US look for it Sunday morning around 7-8 AM on ESPN

 

[05XR8]

Of course you are right, and I agree with the general "idea"...
But, "I" find it very unrealistic... Pick a car that requires a pit stop... ... or a car that does not require a pit stop, yet somehow maintains contact... is very different than pit 4 times while loosing contact, vs pit 5 times running in the thick of it...
I still view it "in game" as a major BoP discrepancy which creates meta cars...
If the game had it BoP'd to the point of... there is no way any car can maintain contact/pace without refueling, but some cars could go to within a lap or 2 of the end, then it would be realistic... then it would be strategy... stay out, run on a clean track, and try and preserve your tires, knowing you eventually have to come in... vs pick the meta car and cruise it out.
As it sits now it's a built in meta system.

PD have to test it with the masses. I'm late or right on time, to buying the game a couple months ago. I believe the M4 was the car to use back around March/April. Now, some complain, it's less competitive. I don't know how long it takes for PD to sort the cars out, but it'll happen eventually.

I think the Supra was also the same. Now, it's just another car to pick.

 

[Lord Protector]

is this correct? I think it still makes less power at the wheels because of gearing.

Take a look at how the car gains speed. And take a look at the power graph.

 

[eran0004]

At the engine yes, but the engine uses gearing to accelerate.

The gearbox trades speed for torque, reducing the speed to give you more torque. 100 Nm @ 5000 rpm and a gear ratio of 10 (including final drive) gives you 1000 Nm and 500 rpm at the wheels.

100*5000 is the same as 1000*500. Power did not change.

not sure what you mean... a gearbox utilizes TQ to create acceleration/speed.

No, it uses torque and speed to rebalance the torque and speed. Acceleration comes from torque, it’s not something you need a gearbox to create. Why you do need a gearbox is primarily because the engine needs to operate above a certain minimum speed, and secondly because acceleration and/or top speed would be too low with a fixed gear.

Electric engines does not have a minimum speed, and they produce a lot of torque at the low end, so they can run just fine with fixed gearing.

TQ x rpm/5252, speed is what the gearbox gives you... and yes, TQ remains the same (at the source) regardless of gearing, but, without gearing acceleration and speed are greatly compromised.

RPM is a speed. 5252 is a magic number to convert from Lb*ft*rpm to BHP. With SI units there is no need for a magic number. W = N*(m/s), or W = Nm*(rad/s).

Of course the torque output remains the same at the source. What changes is the torque at the other end of the gearbox.

Trouble is, TQ is always x1, you cannot just add a multiplier to the source power... it is the gearing that changes, and the gearing is what drives the wheels. So your example should be 1TQ x4speed = 4, 1TQ x2speed = 2.
TQ x RPM/5252... speed is a resultant after gearing is utilized.

If that was correct, a car would accelerate just as fast in 5th gear as in 1st, and it would be enough with a 100 bhp engine to reach speeds of 500 km/h and above. So no, it’s not correct.

Speed is a product of acceleration over time.

Acceleration is a product of net force divided by mass.

Net force is torque*gear ratio*final drive ratio/wheel radius-frictional, gravitational and aerodynamic losses.

Ever used a lever? It multiplies the force you’re using by dividing the distance travelled. A gearbox is essentially a set of levers.

Only if you have a single speed gearbox with a 1:1 ratio... (and no frictional losses). That is why rear wheel dyno's are ran in a transmission gear with a 1:1 ratio... giving the result where gearing is zero'd... another method (traditional) is the engine is dynoed on a "stand" with no transmission attached, again, taking gearing out of the equation.

That’s wrong. Any friction from the gearbox applies to flywheel torque as well, since it’s connected via the clutch.

Actually, you will shift after peak TQ, at a point that drops you back to the same TQ on the rising side of the graph, that way you are using maximum available TQ "under the "curve".
But... the game for some reason will give you an absolute flat TQ "curve", so, in the game, on a power decreased car, this becomes less critical, especially with a close ratio gearbox that never drops you out of the "flat".

That’s not relevant to the bit you quoted. And for racing you don’t want maximum torque, you want maximum power. For fuel economy you want maximum torque (for the given throttle you apply).

Right, that is where the game and the real world do not align... absolutely flat power curves with internal combustion engines is virtually non-existent.

Which is true but also completely irrelevant to this discussion

In no racing series where BoP is regulated would a manufacture be permitted to cruise around at part throttle and short shift to gain 40% more laps than the competition, while keeping pace with the field, without going through a BoP revision.
That is called sandbagging.

Slipstreaming behind another car to save fuel is allowed in all racing series. How do you save fuel by slipstreaming? You can stay in higher gear and/or part throttle, since you don’t need as much force to cut through the air.

Are you saying that throttle and gear has no impact on your race pace in GT Sport? Then please provide evidence on this.

And all this is thanks to the imaginary VGT and GT3/4 (or better to say Gr3/4) that don't exist.

What makes you think that? Or are you just blaming it on those cars because you don’t like them?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Are you saying that throttle and gear has no impact on your race pace in GT Sport? Then please provide evidence on this.

A prime example of this is I was playing around with a custom race on de la Sarthe and was using a GR3 911 with BoP activated.

I normally always use BoP and employ RH tires as to sort of use my offline sessions as practice for Sport Mode races as well.

With the 911 I was finding the car really struggled to maintain contact with the other cars on the straights even struggling to stay maintain contact to remain in a draft.

Got to looking and found the 911 down the straights just did not have the torque required to pull the engine revs down the longest straight to continue to accelerate at the rate of the other cars.

The BoP final drive gearing was 3.80, I only changed the rear drive ratio a slight bit to a 3.87 and although the ratio was a bit short and would top out and hit the rev limiter before reaching the end of the longest straight the car would now pull through the gears and although not faster per say could now stay with the other cars within class accelerating and speed wise on the straights.

This was the only change made to the car period.

My explanation is that although the BoP gearing from a mathematical equation was correct for the tracks longest straight that the torque produced by the engine was not of ample amount to overcome the aero drag and weight of the car to allow the car to pull to full revs in high gear to utilize the gearing.

Slightly shorter gearing though cured the problem and the car became much more competitive on that track amongst its rivals. A prime example of gear and torque affecting race pace or a lap time.

This is why I think that when in daily races that a car is only competing in one race on one track that the BoP needs to be done for each car at each circuit independently. Would make for fewer one make races because of an OP condition as a result of a cars base tune on a particular circuit.

 

[Vegard]

It's a side effect of the fuel depletion multiplier which fudges the 'time lost - range gained' ratio.

 

[MrCooper]

I think a big part of the confusion here is that there are (at least ) two possible definitions of "short shifting":

1. Shifting up before the red line
2. Shifting up before the acceleration optimized RPM shift-point

As @eran0004 explained nicely, the acceleration optimized RPM shift-point is where power output in the lower gear drops below that in the higher gear (taking into account the engine RPM drop when shifting). In some cars, such as the Corvette, this can be significantly below the red line, so shifting up at the red line results in worse acceleration at higher fuel consumption. Thus, "short shifting" according to the first definition in such cars can save fuel without losing any speed, or even gaining some.

In contrast, while short shifting according to the second definition saves fuel, by definition it also has some impact on acceleration. It's a trade-off between fuel saving and pace.

Personally, I think it only makes sense to use the term "short shifting" according to the second definition.

 

[cleanLX]

The gearbox trades speed for torque, reducing the speed to give you more torque. 100 Nm @ 5000 rpm and a gear ratio of 10 (including final drive) gives you 1000 Nm and 500 rpm at the wheels.

Correct.

100*5000 is the same as 1000*500. Power did not change.

I have no idea what you are trying to illustrate, but, if you cannot see that you have changed 100Nm to 1000Nm (which is indeed changing the power) to somehow support your math, there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand this.

Acceleration comes from torque, it’s not something you need a gearbox to create.

agreed.

Why you do need a gearbox is primarily because the engine needs to operate above a certain minimum speed, and secondly because acceleration and/or top speed would be too low with a fixed gear.

agreed.

Electric engines does not have a minimum speed, and they produce a lot of torque at the low end, so they can run just fine with fixed gearing.

Electric motors produce a nearly flat TQ curve from 1rpm on, and is why they do not need a gearbox. It's not that they produce low end or high end, rather virtually unchanged power continuous across it's operating range/rpm.

RPM is a speed. 5252 is a magic number to convert from Lb*ft*rpm to BHP. With SI units there is no need for a magic number. W = N*(m/s), or W = Nm*(rad/s).

agreed, the 5252 does nothing other than provide a resultant number that is relevant to the measured TQ.

Of course the torque output remains the same at the source. What changes is the torque at the other end of the gearbox.

That's what i have been saying all along.

If that was correct, a car would accelerate just as fast in 5th gear as in 1st, and it would be enough with a 100 bhp engine to reach speeds of 500 km/h and above. So no, it’s not correct.

What? the example I quoted, was where you were adding multipliers to the TQ, then changing the gear ratio to solve some math issue.
All I was illustrating is that you cannot add a multiplier to the source power... it is simply TQxgear ratio, not "#"xTQ x gear ratio.
here, I will re-quote...

2 torque x 4 speed is the same power (8) as 4 torque x 2 speed

that makes for a great math equation, but you cannot add a multiplier to the source power... I have no idea what that is trying to prove other than simple arithmetic.

Speed is a product of acceleration over time.
Acceleration is a product of net force divided by mass. - pretty sure time squared factors in there somewhere
Net force is torque*gear ratio*final drive ratio/wheel radius-frictional, gravitational and aerodynamic losses.
Ever used a lever? It multiplies the force you’re using by dividing the distance travelled. A gearbox is essentially a set of levers.

Agreed. You are on the right track now.

That’s wrong. Any friction from the gearbox applies to flywheel torque as well, since it’s connected via the clutch.

TQ at the flywheel is unchanged, the frictional losses will be measured at the wheels. No gearbox/clutch on the planet will change the source power... it will effect the driven wheels.

That’s not relevant to the bit you quoted. And for racing you don’t want maximum torque, you want maximum power. For fuel economy you want maximum torque (for the given throttle you apply).

If by maximum you mean greatest average across the usable range of the chosen gear then we agree.

I think it's important to note that this all started because of the following statements...

Power is independent of gearing.
A gearbox trades speed for torque
but since power is torque x speed it remains the same regardless of gearing
2 torque x 4 speed is the same power (8) as 4 torque x 2 speed.
That means that the power at the wheel is the same as the power at the flywheel.

While some of these have merit on their own (and others are simply untrue), when looking at them as a system in which to accelerate a vehicle (power at the wheels) things change, because now we are manipulating the source power through gearing to accelerate the vehicle.

Slipstreaming behind another car to save fuel is allowed in all racing series. How do you save fuel by slipstreaming? You can stay in higher gear and/or part throttle, since you don’t need as much force to cut through the air.

You are now adding slipstreaming to the equation... fine, agreed, but I was not talking about slipstreaming... ever... simply TQ, gearing as a system, and how acceleration is effected.

Are you saying that throttle and gear has no impact on your race pace in GT Sport? Then please provide evidence on this.

Quite the contrary... I'm saying that a car that is able to keep pace with the field while sandbagging (running at 9/10ths, or less) needs a BoP revision.
No, short shifting is no sandbagging (nor is slip streaming), but in the spirit of BoP a car that is able to run at 9/10ths and remain in contact with the field, and run 40% greater distance on the allowed fuel load... vs the remainder of the field... need either a BoP in power to remove the short shifting (increasing fuel consumption), or a BoP in fuel load... and likely really needs a BoP in both.

 

[fastone371]

• I dont know how realistic GTS really is as far as power curve and shift RPM goes. In real life to get the best acceleration out of a car you must run the engine pretty far past peak power RPM for quickest acceleration. Many years ago I was looking at the dyno on our engine and thinking about shift RPM and RPM thru the timing traps and concluded that we would go quicker with a 4.30 gear vs the 4.56 we had in the car because I was shifting 1000 RPM past peak power and going thru traps at almost 2000 RPM past peak power. After changing the rear gear to the 4.30 I promptly lost a .15 in ET. Lesson learned. Everyone or almost all the fast guys already knew this because you can hear the motors lay down at about 1100 feet, I would guess they are running somewhere around 2500 RPM above peak power which would put some small block Chevy's at or above 10,000-11,000 RPM. 500 inch naturally aspirated Pro-Stock engines have been running at at least 10K RPMs for 15-20 years.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I dont know how realistic GTS really is as far as power curve and shift RPM goes. In real life to get the best acceleration out of a car you must run the engine pretty far past peak power RPM for quickest acceleration. Many years ago I was looking at the dyno on our engine and thinking about shift RPM and RPM thru the timing traps and concluded that we would go quicker with a 4.30 gear vs the 4.56 we had in the car because I was shifting 1000 RPM past peak power and going thru traps at almost 2000 RPM past peak power. After changing the rear gear to the 4.30 I promptly lost a .15 in ET. Lesson learned. Everyone or almost all the fast guys already knew this because you can hear the motors lay down at about 1100 feet, I would guess they are running somewhere around 2500 RPM above peak power which would put some small block Chevy's at or above 10,000-11,000 RPM. 500 inch naturally aspirated Pro-Stock engines have been running at at least 10K RPMs for 15-20 years.

Too many variables come into play to to use one rule of thumb as far as what RPM an engine will give the best performance in relation to dyno horsepower and torque numbers.

Displacement, bore, stroke all greatly affect where and how an engine makes power. Camshift lift and valve timing as far as whether the camshaft is advanced or retarded when installed will affect the power curve as well. Then we get into ignition timing, like I said so many different things control or can alter how an engine makes or delivers its power.

This is the reason that you can have two engines from the same manufacturer with the same cubic inch displacement and one will excel at under 5000 RPMS pulling the trailer to the track and the others strong point will be at 8500 RPM motivating a much lighter race car down the track.

Switch those two motors between the two vehicles and neither will perform adequately of the different task they would then be expected to perform.

Everything in the drivetrain and the vehicle it is installed in must be matched to all perform the same goal of the maximum performance of the task they were built to do.

Back when I use to drag race I preferred the big block torque and pull that I got out of the higher gears on the top end that I could not get out of the small blocks. The small blocks relied more on quick high revving rpms to make their power and if you tried to twist a big block that high you were just going to turn your engine into a grenade!

Again two different methods of trying to obtain the same goal which in this case was covering a 1/4 mile from a standing start in as short a time as possible.

 

[Vegard]

I have no idea what you are trying to illustrate, but, if you cannot see that you have changed 100Nm to 1000Nm (which is indeed changing the power) to somehow support your math, there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand this.

(Torque x Rotational Speed x C) = (10 x Torque x 1/10 Rotational Speed x C) = Power

If you can't make sense of that then there is nothing anyone can do to help you understand this.