Torque vs HP.
Torque is the actual kinetic energy an engine can produce. Power is that energy over time.
A torque curve can be shifted in the rpm range. So when one says “torque is lost” they are generally referring to peak torque loss and not necessarily the area under the torque curve (which is what really counts).
Torque has to be present at a given rpm as well for intended engine use. Having more torque at 14000 rpm than 10000 rpm will not allow the end user to utilize the power efficiently because a saw loaded down with a chain in wood will be cutting closer to that 10000 rpm mark.
A good example would be a Buick 455 Stage 1 vs a Chevy 454 LS7 (the real LS7). The Buick made more peak torque at much lower rpm because of its smaller valves and ports. On the street, a Stage 1 would generally beat an LS7 because the torque curve wasn’t in the right place for the LS7 (the street rear end gearing wasn’t optimal either). If you added another 1/8th mile of drag strip, the LS7 would crush the Stage 1. The LS7 made much more power because of the rpm range the torque was present at. Add TA heads and a big cam to the Buick and the bottom end of the motor goes away. I’ve actual done this with a Stage 1 and it’s a real loss of torque where it’s needed.
With saws, big ports and huge durations do the same thing. When one lugs a saw down in wood, a big port will lose velocity faster and in increased amounts over a smaller tighter port. The port needs to be an optimal size and duration for intended use. If anyone remembers JMS saws, he would have huge ports that made brutal peak power, but if you leaned on them a bit too much they would feel like dogs. Jason believed that making every port and tunnel as big as humanly possible, sometimes grinding right through the walls of the jug. One some saws it worked, because the factory ports were pathetic. On most other saws it didn’t really work.
Sorry for the long winded response. The torque vs HP argument is akin to an Oil Thread. It’s never ending.
