Train Vs Ship, Who Would Win?
Started by
Shifty
, Aug 31 2014 09:50 PM
37 replies to this topic
#31
Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:44 PM
The boat is hydrodynamically optimised to go forwards. The rear of a ferry is very draggy when towed aftwards I'd imagine!
#32
Posted 01 September 2014 - 04:46 PM
I have another one for you.
Who would win: Man on a bicycle vs. man on a pedalo? Would be funny to see and easy to do.
#33
Posted 01 September 2014 - 05:09 PM
I think you need to think about the size and power of big ships. They would pull apart concrete jetties, I don't think any known train could come even close. It's no good saying 'but what if the wheels can't slip' because they can and if they couldn't it would be a different question - can a ferry pull a fixed point, then it would be dependant on the strength of the fixed point. Trains have very little grip, they rely on all the other carriages having wheels with little rolling resistance. In WW2 the French resistance used to oil train wheels as it can cause them to slip and damage the engine.
#34
Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:14 AM
With two vehicles of whatever build acting on each other it comes down to tractive effort, how effectively it can move a dead draw bar weight from a standstill without breaking friction. For tractive effort it needs torque AND friction. If it uses wheels or tracks then it's between the wheel and the ground however, in water the friction is between the stationary water and the prop and that is what is measured. The thing is the surface area of the reacting water is many times greater of that of train wheels so the ship has the advantage there although the train is pushing weight down onto it's surface area increasing it's friction tenfold. BUT then there's the fact that only 1 1/100 of the train weight in adding to the friction the rest is causing resistance unless it can achieve AWD (ahahahah) then all the weight would be used although the power source would need to get beefed up to take the extra load of the drive line. We can only guess at which would have the greater draw bar pull in that imaginary situation without attempting to measure it!
So obviously the train has less friction so now it comes down to how the torque is transmitted. Both use fairly straight forward systems in that neither require too many rotating parts unlike a 4wd car. So with that we can say that neither is loosing too much through it's drive line which means we only have to look at flywheel torque figures. Now the ship engine produces an immense amount more grunt than a train engine or what ever style simply down to the shear size of the ship's power plant.
The ship has far more torque at the flywheel, roughly the same proportion is lost through transmitting that power and the ship has far greater friction. Ergo SHIP WINS HANDS DOWN!
I based my initial view on a fully loaded container ship having to have an immense level of pull from stationary to move it at roughly the same pace as an object 1/20 of it's weight.
Hope that makes sense and more on this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep
Glad we're not talking about trucks as then you get into the realms of wasted energy used to hold the suspension down or to hold the chassis twist. Then into tyre compounds, soft for stickiness or hard because it doesn't absorb energy to keep the side walls squashed. Drive train components absorbing precious torque to keep them moving, gearing for obvious (I hope) reasons, turbo for the added torque from better burning or n/a for the lack of lag (that comes down to the gears in the end). It goes on and on....
I'm getting wound up with this :)
So obviously the train has less friction so now it comes down to how the torque is transmitted. Both use fairly straight forward systems in that neither require too many rotating parts unlike a 4wd car. So with that we can say that neither is loosing too much through it's drive line which means we only have to look at flywheel torque figures. Now the ship engine produces an immense amount more grunt than a train engine or what ever style simply down to the shear size of the ship's power plant.
The ship has far more torque at the flywheel, roughly the same proportion is lost through transmitting that power and the ship has far greater friction. Ergo SHIP WINS HANDS DOWN!
I based my initial view on a fully loaded container ship having to have an immense level of pull from stationary to move it at roughly the same pace as an object 1/20 of it's weight.
Hope that makes sense and more on this tomorrow when I'm not half asleep
Glad we're not talking about trucks as then you get into the realms of wasted energy used to hold the suspension down or to hold the chassis twist. Then into tyre compounds, soft for stickiness or hard because it doesn't absorb energy to keep the side walls squashed. Drive train components absorbing precious torque to keep them moving, gearing for obvious (I hope) reasons, turbo for the added torque from better burning or n/a for the lack of lag (that comes down to the gears in the end). It goes on and on....
I'm getting wound up with this :)
Edited by SidneyandNad, 02 September 2014 - 01:55 AM.
#35
Posted 02 September 2014 - 01:17 AM
Should add that they are only evenly matched as I said if they have the same power plant but they don't so they aren't
#36
Posted 14 September 2014 - 07:33 AM
The boat will win because it's bigger!
#37
Posted 28 September 2014 - 02:58 PM
Are babies natural or man-made?
#38
Posted 28 September 2014 - 04:21 PM
Well surely a one night stand surprise is natural, and an I've bundle of joy is man made?
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users