It is much easier to explain and understand my point using static numbers. Of course, unless you have an electric motor which reaches peak torque instantly, you will be dealing with a torque curve and a corresponding horspower curve. I am well aware of how rpm and power are related as I own a machine shop and engines that I have been involved with have set NHRA Comp Eliminator national records, NMCA national records, won NHRA, NMCA and SCCA national events, hardly a beginner.

Let me give an example that is as easy to understand as I can possibly make it. Torque is force and horsepower is force per unit time, also called "work". Say you have Arnold Schwartzeneggar and Mini-Me each with a shovel and they each have to dig a ditch 1 foot wide and deep by 20 feet long. Arnold can remove a 1' by 1' by 1' amount with each shovel full, plenty of lifting force, and he can remove that amount every 30 seconds. Mini-Me can only remove .5' by 1' by 1' at a time, not much force, but he can repeat this every 10 seconds. What is Arnolds rate of work and how long will it take him to finish the ditch? 1CuFt/30 sec or 2CuFt/min, and he will finish the ditch in 10 minutes. What about Mini-Me? .5CuFt/10 Sec or 3CuFt/min and he will finish the ditch in 6.67 minutes, QUICKER THAN MR TORQUE ARNIE! Basically what you are seeing is that with limited torque it is possible to produce more work than a higher torque competitior if you have the combination set up right. That is why NA and other engines for that matter try to get to the higher rpm ranges, to produce more work, given the limits on their torque production. Warren Johnson was quoted as saying that the engine that makes the most explosions will win the race. Basically saying that rpm is good if you have an engine designed for it. Is that easy enough to understand?