Why are cars measured in "Horse" power?

Answer 1

Those are some amusing answers. Here is the lowdown on horsepower. Horsepower is a unit of work related to time.Yes, it actually comes from horses, but not a "horse vs. vehicle" tug of war. Power is the rate of doing work, joules per second, and one horsepower is 746 joules per second (watts), or 550 foot pounds per second. The "horsepower" standard unit was derived because it took an "average" horse 1 second to raise 550 lbs up one foot, using a pully so that the load would raise straight up. So when you hear someone say 300 hp, think of that engine (or power source) pulling a 550lb crate straight up against gravity 300 ft in one second. thats a lot of horses!

Answer 2

Well, what else would you rate an engines power as?

Somehow, the worked out a way of measuring the what weight a single horse could pull, and then rated 'engines' as the number of horses it would take to do the same amount of work a car engine is doing.

there's a need to measure it against something, so what would you suggest in it's place! - given that horses had previously done all the work. Seems like a reasonable reason to me. No!

Sash.

Answer 3

in the early 1900's horsepower was a term used on the new technology of the gasoline engine. it was meant to be 1 hp= 1 team of horses, but the equation did not come out right. it became standard in 1926 i believe when Henry ford found that 1 hp had the equivalent 1.25 horses and torque was the amount of force it took to pull a load 1 ft. so a 1 hp engine could not pull what a horse could. farmers at this time were into using gas powered equipment if they could afford it. if they needed a loan the banks would not give it to them because horsepower was not a proven thing yet, but a loan on a team of horses was automatically approved. horsepower just stuck through the years

Answer 4

Its to do with years ago when cars were first made they used to test the horse power by having the car in a tug of war scenario with a number of horses and depending on the pulling power of the car against the number of horses was deemed to be the vehicles "horse power"

Answer 5

I assume after the nations got to grips with the speed of the horse, the only way early on, before some bright spark came up with alternative slogans, horse power just stuck, for the speed of the new invention...the car.

Answer 6

Because it was originally gauged by the pulling power of a horse, it's not the same now as various changes in engine design has rendered it obsolete although it is still quoted as such. Torque is now a better way of describing engine power.

A two horse power meant the vehicle has the same pulling power as two horses.

Answer 7

To be slightly more accurate, i'm pretty sure horse power was equivalent to the energy exerted by a horse pulling a cart up a hill.

But what's been previously said about torque is accurate.

Answer 8

Factories use that term to inform buyers what kind of power that engine provides...A 200 hp engine is compareable to the power of 200 horses

Answer 9

Would you prefer it in joules, cubic capacity efficiency ratio, miles per gallon or what.
HP is used for no reason other than that the advertisers think that it is something that the person in the street thinks can relate to.
But if I were you I'd leave it otherwise they'll start quoting it in quallalumps per gigabalther and then they will try to convince you that you REALLY DO UNDERSTAND what they're talking about.

Answer 10

if we've been born equivalent, we would all be the captain of the soccer team. 'equivalent' is an progressed term whilst utilized to people, because of the fact there isn't any thank you to qualify it, and maximum of the folk look to make the errors that it potential we are each and all the comparable and that's a perfect worth striving for. i've got easily seen people argue that there isn't any user-friendly distinction between men and girls as though we in basic terms have interchangeable physique areas. that's in basic terms incorrect in this manner of excellent form of ranges. i think the founding fathers observed 'equivalent' as meaning the two deserving of human rights and get right of entry to to the possibility of accomplishing happiness, not that we are all equivalent in skill. the language in basic terms does not have the possibility of expressing that concept concisely. attempting to degree worth is pointless because of the fact there isn't any threat of ever growing to be a scale to degree against, and the very act of attempting is demeaning. we are all equivalent in religious dignity, and all of us deserve the possibility to make something out of our lives. we would desire to consistently be happy with that and supply up obsessing over no be counted if somebody else is extra helpful or worse. they don't seem to be, they are in basic terms diverse.