They say that the only stupid question is the one you don't ask...
Keeping that in mind...
Is the correlation as I would expect?
Does 12 inch pounds = 1 foot-pound? 5 foot-pounds = 60 inch-pounds, etc.?

Thanks!

------------------
Raydar
88 4.9 Formula IMSA Fasback..........................88 3.4 coupe................................................

Read Nealz Nuze! Praise the Lowered!

Correct.

I Think it works that way. The term foot-pound can be thought of as a 1 pound weight applied to the wrench (When perfectly horizontal) at a distance of 1 foot from the bolt it's turning. So an inch-pound sounds like a weight of 1 pound at a distance of 1 inch.

Cool!
Thanks guys.

A foot pound is the energy it takes to lift a weight of one pound, one foot, working against gravity. An inch pound is the energy it takes to move that same weight one inch. Just about the opposite of what Jax184 said. But, yes, 12 inch pounds equal 1 foot pound.

[This message has been edited by triker (edited 12-30-2006).]

Is it? Odd...
The wikipedia entry isn't especially helpful on the subject.

Here is a nice conversion site if you need one. As mentioned, you are correct.

http://www.srtorque.com/torqcon/tcip.html

quote Originally posted by triker: A foot pound is the energy it takes to lift a weight of one pound, one foot, working against gravity. An inch pound is the energy it takes to move that same weight one inch. Just about the opposite of what Jax184 said. But, yes, 12 inch pounds equal 1 foot pound.

No, that's not true. Energy is not expressed in foot-pounds or inch-pounds. The English units of energy are called "foot-pounds force" and "inch-pounds force". Well, the latter would be but nobody actually uses that unit. ANYWAY, foot-pounds and inch-pounds refer to torque.
Jax184 is absolutely correct. 1 foot-pound (abbreviated ft-lb) is a force of one pound applied to a lever one foot from the pivot. 1 inch-pound (in-lb) is a force of one pound applied to a lever one inch from the pivot.

[This message has been edited by Steven Snyder (edited 12-30-2006).]

^ Exactly what I thought. I knew energy had no relation to torque (in this case)... I also didn't know exactly why it was called inch-pounds and foot-pounds and why they were so easily converted, but Jax's explanation made perfect sense.

The guy at Pep Boys said we'd have to get both a small inch-pound measuring wrench and a huge foot-pound measuring wrench if the book had both. LOL! We promptly returned the foot-pound one (as it was damn expensive). I ended up torquing my head bolts with the inch-pound wrench too =)

So yeah, 1 foot-pound = 12 inch-pounds, just like feet and inches!

------------------

'87 Fiero GT, Automatic, 153k miles, stock everything, just trying to make it all work again.
Shameless self promotion: PIP giving you problems? Check out http://hostfile.org!

quote Originally posted by Steven Snyder: 1 inch-pound (in-lb) is a force of one pound applied to a lever one foot from the pivot.

Umm, maybe you meant to say ... 1 inch-pound (in-lb) is a force of one pound applied to a lever one "inch" from the pivot.??

quote Originally posted by Falcon4: The guy at Pep Boys said we'd have to get both a small inch-pound measuring wrench and a huge foot-pound measuring wrench if the book had both. LOL! We promptly returned the foot-pound one (as it was damn expensive). I ended up torquing my head bolts with the inch-pound wrench too =) So yeah, 1 foot-pound = 12 inch-pounds, just like feet and inches!

Inch-pound unit wrenches are generally 3/8" drive and accurate in small inch-pound increments. Foot-pound torque wrenches are generally 1/2" drive and should be used only with torques over 20 ft-lbs (the clicking or breakaway mechanism often isn't audible or doesnt work right at low torques). For Fieros though, there are so few low-torque bolts that you would need to actually use a torque wrench on that its pretty pointless to have the inch-pound one..

-Steven

So, we were strapped for cash.

Hey, it works, don't it? I got the bolts torqued right... even if I did need to use a "cheat" bar on the wrench... =)

quote Originally posted by LordBoOsT: Umm, maybe you meant to say ... 1 inch-pound (in-lb) is a force of one pound applied to a lever one "inch" from the pivot.??

Yeah, typo, thanks. I fixed it.

To help avoid ambiguity, modern terminology in English units refers to energy (a.k.a. work) using the term "foot-pound" and refers to torque using the preferred terms "pound-foot" and "pound-inches." Unfortunately, torque is still more commonly expressed in "foot-pounds" rather than "pound-feet." Both are technically correct as long as you don't confuse torque vs. energy (as occurred in the above discussion).

But to further muddle things, torque and energy are in fact related: One pound-foot of torque applied through one radian (about 57.3 degrees) of rotation requires one foot-pound of energy.

This is just another example of the ambiguity and occasional insanity inherent in the English system of measurement units. Aren't you glad you asked?

And yes, 1 pound-foot = 12 pound-inches = 192 ounce-inches.

[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 12-31-2006).]

quote This is just another example of the ambiguity and occasional insanity inherent in the English system of measurement units.

If only more people would realize this so we can switch to the metric system in the US....

quote Originally posted by Falcon4: So, we were strapped for cash. Hey, it works, don't it? I got the bolts torqued right... even if I did need to use a "cheat" bar on the wrench... =)

You could try this trick next year for x-mas or birthday, etc. If you have relatives who give you tighty-whiteys or ties or something similar, ask for a torque wrench instead. Find one you want, get the price, model, where to buy, everything. Worked for me and the best thing is no more tighty-whiteys! lol

I apologize to Jax, his correlation was correct. One pound at 1 inch, one pound at 2 inches, etc, until reaching one pound at 12 inches for one foot pound. As for my definition, it was right out of a book, just a different way to describe "work".

[This message has been edited by triker (edited 12-31-2006).]

Why are we having this discussion? I would think that as native speakers of English (at least people who type like they are) we'd be used to context sensitive definitions. I thought it was fairly obvious the quesiton was about torque and not work/energy. The answer to the question asked is the same in both cases.

[This message has been edited by Will (edited 12-31-2006).]

quote Originally posted by Falcon4: Hey, it works, don't it? I got the bolts torqued right... even if I did need to use a "cheat" bar on the wrench... =)

umm, I hoped you did the math to include the length of the cheat bar into the equation or you may have just under torqued your bolts. If you increase the distance from the pivot point your torque will not be accurate. Or at least that is what I was taught in the Army. Not sure if that applied to cheater bars, but it definitely applies to when using a crows foot, in which I would think that would be the same principle. The torque wrenches are calibrated to the length of the torque wrench if you make the wrench longer it changes the calibration of it and causes it to be inaccurate. If I'm wrong someone please correct me. But I'm pretty sure about this.

Well the torque measuring system will still read the same if you put a lot of force directly to it, or a little force 3 feet away on a cheater bar. The gauge has no idea where you're pushing on it, just what the end result is.

Then again, the types that just have a second bar coming off the head and pointing to a scale near the handle depend on the flexing of the handle to be acurate. Those would be made inacurate if you covered a length of the handle with a pipe, as the pipe would change the ammount the covered part flexed.

- This type is made inacurate by a cheater bar, but is also almost impossible to use with one. The kind that clicks at a certain point should be fine.
I think...

[This message has been edited by Jax184 (edited 12-31-2006).]

(edit: n/m, I guess you're right, that does make sense... wow. I can be wrong!) but at any rate, yeah, I was using a "click" wrench

[This message has been edited by Falcon4 (edited 12-31-2006).]