Describing it as difficult is akin to describing a polyamorous relationship as “complicated”. Neither does the subject justice.

Acceleration is change in velocity over time. It is completely nonsensical to discuss acceleration without a change in velocity.

What, of any of what you just typed, invalidates my point?

NET torque. The summation of torques. That includes friction.

In our case if we have angular acceleration we have linear acceleration, so it’s really both, but outside of this case I just say acceleration anyway, because the concept is the same whether it’s a linear or angular system.

How am I assuming constant torque?

Velocity isn’t constant, therefore the relationship is not linear.

Describing acceleration while maintaining a constant velocity is entirely nonsensical.

To be fair I’ve met engineers with a worse understanding of ICE performance, and non engineers with a better understanding.

Stating a profession which involves the subject makes me arrogant? I didn’t call anyone stupid or ignorant, just pointed out they’re wrong and offered to post a correction if requested.

How so?

If the net torque is non zero you have angular acceleration. Talking about applying torque and not overcoming friction doesn’t change the way the system behaves once you have.

It’s not proportional because velocity is not constant.

It’s like the FA20, but without the big fat torque dip in the middle.

You’re much more generous than I am.

The connection between power and torque and the author’s (I believe the author is female, btw) misunderstanding of power leads to some incorrect conclusions about behavior based on it.

Needing gear ratios to go from torque to lineas acceleration is necessary because you’re going from an angular system to a linear system. If you have a force and a mass you have a linear acceleration. If you have a torque and inertia you have angular acceleration. This doesn’t change the nature of the relationship.

It’s not just being in a fixed gear, as in that gear acceleration with respect to velocity is non-linear, and therefore not proportional.

The equation does not show a proportionality of acceleration and power, as there is a velocity dependance.

The article said power provides the “shove” you feel. That is incorrect. Acceleration is proportional to torque.