Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"peter" <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
> Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > writes
>>"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote:
>>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to
>>> 2.6kg
>>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>
>>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel credit
>>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
>>teams.
>>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
>>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>>
> I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising behind
> the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared to
> blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple points
> on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more likely
> be equal to 3 race laps.
I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it
back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with a
figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close to
60% doesn't make much sense yet.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
"peter" <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
> Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > writes
>>"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote:
>>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to
>>> 2.6kg
>>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>
>>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel credit
>>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
>>teams.
>>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
>>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>>
> I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising behind
> the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared to
> blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple points
> on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more likely
> be equal to 3 race laps.
I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it
back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with a
figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close to
60% doesn't make much sense yet.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 29, 1:00 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> "peter" <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brian Lawrence <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > writes
> >>"Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> >>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to=
> >>> 2.6kg
> >>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>
> >>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel cred=
it
> >>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
> >>teams.
> >>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
> >>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>
> > I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising behi=
nd
> > the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared to
> > blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple points=
> > on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more likely=
> > be equal to 3 race laps.
>
> I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it=
> back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with=
a
> figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close to
> 60% doesn't make much sense yet.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IIRC 50% is the figure that ITV use.
It is certainly the one that sprang to mind for me (and being
blissfully unencumbered with any technical knowledge of such matters I
don't have any pseudo-science to cloud my thinking)
On Apr 29, 1:00 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> "peter" <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Brian Lawrence <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > writes
> >>"Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> >>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to=
> >>> 2.6kg
> >>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>
> >>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel cred=
it
> >>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
> >>teams.
> >>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
> >>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>
> > I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising behi=
nd
> > the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared to
> > blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple points=
> > on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more likely=
> > be equal to 3 race laps.
>
> I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it=
> back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with=
a
> figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close to
> 60% doesn't make much sense yet.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
IIRC 50% is the figure that ITV use.
It is certainly the one that sprang to mind for me (and being
blissfully unencumbered with any technical knowledge of such matters I
don't have any pseudo-science to cloud my thinking)
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv72j9$l03$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "peter" <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
>> Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > writes
>>>"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote:
>>>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to
>>>> 2.6kg
>>>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>>
>>>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel
>>>credit
>>>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
>>>teams.
>>>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
>>>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>>>
>> I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising
>> behind the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared
>> to blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple
>> points on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more
>> likely be equal to 3 race laps.
>
> I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it
> back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with
> a figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close
> to 60% doesn't make much sense yet.
OK no need to take it back up again, I've spotted the problem. It lies in
the way we think about fuel consumption as being dependent on throttle
position, or the percentage of an engine's power that's being used, and how
that translates into fuel use per unit time and fuel use per unit distance.
In terms of fuel use per unit time there is indeed a direct relationship
between power output and consumption. In fact a test engine's consumption is
usually rated as lbs per horsepower per hour. However we tend to think about
cars in terms of mpg, or litres per 100km if you're one of those funny
foreign chaps. When you drive fast you burn more fuel per unit time but you
also cover more distance in that time so the effect on mpg is not as direct
as the effect on lbs per hour. To go twice as fast takes eight times as much
power, therefore eight times as much fuel per hour but you cover twice the
miles in that hour so the relationship between power usage and mpg is a
square law not a cube one.
Back to the F1 cars. The safety car accelerates at about 1/3 the rate of the
F1 cars off the line and my calculations indicate they'd need about 40%
throttle to keep up at higher speeds. Call that an average of somewhere
between the two, say 37%. So you'd expect the SC fuel consumption per hour
to be a similar percentage of the race speed fuel usage per hour but when
you turn that into consumption per lap you need to allow for how much longer
it's actually taking to do that lap. In this case the SC laps were at about
131 to 134 seconds and the race laps about 82 to 84. So you need to multiply
37% by about 133/83 to get a final figure of 59% of the race speed
consumption.
That's near as dammit is to swearing what 1.4 kg/lap / 2.4 kg/lap comes to -
58%
So the F1 cars are indeed only using about 1/3 or a tad more of their
potential to keep up with the SC but the mistake in initially assuming that
also meant 1/3 the fuel use per lap was mine, and a very silly one. The 60%
increase in lap times is one of the biggest factors in the whole equation.
Irritating as I've covered this sort of thing often enough in the past and
there's even a chart of how power requirement and mpg varies at different
speeds for an average car on my website in the Topspeed article.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote in message
news:fv72j9$l03$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> "peter" <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
> news:8LsG8RBErvFIFwkc@ntlworld . com ...
>> Brian Lawrence <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > writes
>>>"Dave Baker" <Null@null . com > wrote:
>>>> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to
>>>> 2.6kg
>>>per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half.
>>
>>>The 2.2 kg per lap figure is I believe the FIA figure used for fuel
>>>credit
>>>last year (or possibly 2006). It was agreed pre-race by the FIA and all
>>>teams.
>>>It's probably an average/compromise figure - some engines may be more
>>>fuelefficient while others may be less.
>>>
>> I have to say that it doesn't seem much of a fuel saving...cruising
>> behind the safety car at half race speed with a fuel saving map, compared
>> to blatting round at full throttle and then full braking at multiple
>> points on the track. I would have thought 1 safety car lap would be more
>> likely be equal to 3 race laps.
>
> I agree and it doesn't quite square with my own calculations. I'll take it
> back up again and see if I can get a better explanation. I could live with
> a figure of about 40% after seeing how quick the safety car is but close
> to 60% doesn't make much sense yet.
OK no need to take it back up again, I've spotted the problem. It lies in
the way we think about fuel consumption as being dependent on throttle
position, or the percentage of an engine's power that's being used, and how
that translates into fuel use per unit time and fuel use per unit distance.
In terms of fuel use per unit time there is indeed a direct relationship
between power output and consumption. In fact a test engine's consumption is
usually rated as lbs per horsepower per hour. However we tend to think about
cars in terms of mpg, or litres per 100km if you're one of those funny
foreign chaps. When you drive fast you burn more fuel per unit time but you
also cover more distance in that time so the effect on mpg is not as direct
as the effect on lbs per hour. To go twice as fast takes eight times as much
power, therefore eight times as much fuel per hour but you cover twice the
miles in that hour so the relationship between power usage and mpg is a
square law not a cube one.
Back to the F1 cars. The safety car accelerates at about 1/3 the rate of the
F1 cars off the line and my calculations indicate they'd need about 40%
throttle to keep up at higher speeds. Call that an average of somewhere
between the two, say 37%. So you'd expect the SC fuel consumption per hour
to be a similar percentage of the race speed fuel usage per hour but when
you turn that into consumption per lap you need to allow for how much longer
it's actually taking to do that lap. In this case the SC laps were at about
131 to 134 seconds and the race laps about 82 to 84. So you need to multiply
37% by about 133/83 to get a final figure of 59% of the race speed
consumption.
That's near as dammit is to swearing what 1.4 kg/lap / 2.4 kg/lap comes to -
58%
So the F1 cars are indeed only using about 1/3 or a tad more of their
potential to keep up with the SC but the mistake in initially assuming that
also meant 1/3 the fuel use per lap was mine, and a very silly one. The 60%
increase in lap times is one of the biggest factors in the whole equation.
Irritating as I've covered this sort of thing often enough in the past and
there's even a chart of how power requirement and mpg varies at different
speeds for an average car on my website in the Topspeed article.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
>> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>>
>> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>
>> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>>
>> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required
>> to
>> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
>> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
>> for
>> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to
>> keep
>> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
>> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
>> race
>> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
> just look really stupid saying something like that.
I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out who
is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure that
when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
something new.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
>> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>>
>> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>
>> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>>
>> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required
>> to
>> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
>> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
>> for
>> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to
>> keep
>> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
>> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
>> race
>> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
> just look really stupid saying something like that.
I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out who
is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure that
when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
something new.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 28, 11:37 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> >> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>
> >>news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
> >> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>
> >> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>
> >> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
> >> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>
> >> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required
> >> to
> >> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
> >> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
> >> for
> >> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to
> >> keep
> >> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
> >> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
> >> race
> >> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
> >> --
> >> Dave Baker
> >> Puma Race Engines
>
> > Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
> > just look really stupid saying something like that.
>
> I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out who
> is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure that
> when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
> logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
> taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
> something new.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
I provided you with calculations that fully discredit your particular
brand of pseudo-mathematics
On Apr 28, 11:37 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
>
>
>
> > On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> >> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>
> >>news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
> >> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>
> >> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>
> >> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
> >> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per lap.
>
> >> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power required
> >> to
> >> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
> >> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
> >> for
> >> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required to
> >> keep
> >> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%. Overall
> >> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
> >> race
> >> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
> >> --
> >> Dave Baker
> >> Puma Race Engines
>
> > Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
> > just look really stupid saying something like that.
>
> I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out who
> is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure that
> when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
> logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
> taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
> something new.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
I provided you with calculations that fully discredit your particular
brand of pseudo-mathematics
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:deba7b29-da07-4c40-8ffd-d10ee9090997@q1g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 28, 11:37 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> >> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
>> >> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>>
>> >> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>
>> >> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>> >> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per
>> >> > lap.
>>
>> >> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power
>> >> required
>> >> to
>> >> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if
>> >> the
>> >> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would
>> >> suffice
>> >> for
>> >> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required
>> >> to
>> >> keep
>> >> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%.
>> >> Overall
>> >> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
>> >> race
>> >> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>> >> --
>> >> Dave Baker
>> >> Puma Race Engines
>>
>> > Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
>> > just look really stupid saying something like that.
>>
>> I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out
>> who
>> is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure
>> that
>> when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
>> logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
>> taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
>> something new.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> I provided you with calculations that fully discredit your particular
> brand of pseudo-mathematics
Unfortunately you assumed that average lap speed can be related to fuel
consumption by a simple equation. Steady speed is related to power by a cube
law but lap time or average speed has a further exponential factor related
to the amount of time the car needs to be under throttle to gain that speed
back after slowing for each corner. That depends on the average corner
speed. The more slow speed bends there are the harder a driver has to work
to raise his average speed. Even a small drop in lap time means a very large
reduction in the time the engine needs to be at full throttle to gain that
speed back.
However you also failed to equate how average engine power output relates to
fuel consumption. That also isn't linear because higher average speeds mean
more bhp per unit time but also more distance covered per unit time. You're
so far out of your depth in all this I'm surprised a Great White hasn't
taken you yet.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:deba7b29-da07-4c40-8ffd-d10ee9090997@q1g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> On Apr 28, 11:37 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>>
>> news:23e32dd9-02a5-45dd-9ff5-dc8676049938@w5g2000prd.googlegroups . com ...
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Apr 28, 10:18 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
>> >> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...> "Kimi Fan"
>> >> <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
>>
>> >> All in all they ran at 'SC pace' for about five minutes.
>>
>> >> > I don't know how much fuel is consumed at that pace but I'm sure it
>> >> > must be less than half the 'normal' Catalunya figure of 2.2kg per
>> >> > lap.
>>
>> >> It would be massively less than consumption at race pace. Power
>> >> required
>> >> to
>> >> achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if
>> >> the
>> >> full 750bhp is required to do 200mph then less than 100bhp would
>> >> suffice
>> >> for
>> >> 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph. The amount of throttle required
>> >> to
>> >> keep
>> >> up with the safety car under acceleration would be less than 25%.
>> >> Overall
>> >> I'm sure that they'd do 4 or so laps at SC speed for every one at full
>> >> race
>> >> speed. I took a conservative estimate of 3 laps in my calculations.
>> >> --
>> >> Dave Baker
>> >> Puma Race Engines
>>
>> > Mate I hope none of your customers ever read any of your comments. You
>> > just look really stupid saying something like that.
>>
>> I'm sure if any of my customers are reading they'll be able to work out
>> who
>> is right and who isn't quite easily. In any case most people can figure
>> that
>> when one person in a discussion starts resorting to insults rather than
>> logic or calculation he's long since lost the argument. By all means keep
>> taking rope - you're only hanging yourself steadily every time you type
>> something new.
>> --
>> Dave Baker
>> Puma Race Engines
>
>
> I provided you with calculations that fully discredit your particular
> brand of pseudo-mathematics
Unfortunately you assumed that average lap speed can be related to fuel
consumption by a simple equation. Steady speed is related to power by a cube
law but lap time or average speed has a further exponential factor related
to the amount of time the car needs to be under throttle to gain that speed
back after slowing for each corner. That depends on the average corner
speed. The more slow speed bends there are the harder a driver has to work
to raise his average speed. Even a small drop in lap time means a very large
reduction in the time the engine needs to be at full throttle to gain that
speed back.
However you also failed to equate how average engine power output relates to
fuel consumption. That also isn't linear because higher average speeds mean
more bhp per unit time but also more distance covered per unit time. You're
so far out of your depth in all this I'm surprised a Great White hasn't
taken you yet.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 29, 12:29 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> Unfortunately you assumed that average lap speed can be related to fuel
> consumption by a simple equation.
It's not an assumption. Speed is proportional to Force, Force is
related to fuel consumption. No assumption necessary.
The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
fair assumption.
> Steady speed is related to power by a cube
> law
Call if cube law if that helps you understand.
> but lap time or average speed has a further exponential factor related
> to the amount of time the car needs to be under throttle to gain that speed
> back after slowing for each corner.
It's not relevant because I am working from average lap times.
>That depends on the average corner
> speed. The more slow speed bends there are the harder a driver has to work
> to raise his average speed.
I agree but it's not relevant because the data is not accurate enough
for me to calculate the speed through each corner or on each state. If
I had that information the calculations would be far more accurate.
> However you also failed to equate how average engine power output relates to
> fuel consumption.
Not relevant. I am assuming the efficiency of the engine is constant.
> That also isn't linear because higher average speeds mean
> more bhp per unit time but also more distance covered per unit time.
You're dribbling. Here, have a napkin.
On Apr 29, 12:29 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null . com > wrote:
> Unfortunately you assumed that average lap speed can be related to fuel
> consumption by a simple equation.
It's not an assumption. Speed is proportional to Force, Force is
related to fuel consumption. No assumption necessary.
The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
fair assumption.
> Steady speed is related to power by a cube
> law
Call if cube law if that helps you understand.
> but lap time or average speed has a further exponential factor related
> to the amount of time the car needs to be under throttle to gain that speed
> back after slowing for each corner.
It's not relevant because I am working from average lap times.
>That depends on the average corner
> speed. The more slow speed bends there are the harder a driver has to work
> to raise his average speed.
I agree but it's not relevant because the data is not accurate enough
for me to calculate the speed through each corner or on each state. If
I had that information the calculations would be far more accurate.
> However you also failed to equate how average engine power output relates to
> fuel consumption.
Not relevant. I am assuming the efficiency of the engine is constant.
> That also isn't linear because higher average speeds mean
> more bhp per unit time but also more distance covered per unit time.
You're dribbling. Here, have a napkin.
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups . com ...
> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> fair assumption.
That is an absurd assumption.
Paul
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups . com ...
> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> fair assumption.
That is an absurd assumption.
Paul
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Paul Ian Harman"
<chatter...@doctorwhowebguide . net > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> > traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> > fair assumption.
>
> That is an absurd assumption.
>
> Paul
The calculation works out the absolute minimum amount of fuel possibly
used during the safety car period. If you want to factor in braking
feel free but that will only increase the amount of fuel consumed.
On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Paul Ian Harman"
<chatter...@doctorwhowebguide . net > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
>
> news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups . com ...
>
> > The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> > traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> > fair assumption.
>
> That is an absurd assumption.
>
> Paul
The calculation works out the absolute minimum amount of fuel possibly
used during the safety car period. If you want to factor in braking
feel free but that will only increase the amount of fuel consumed.
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
Kimi Fan wrote:
> On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Paul Ian Harman"
> <chatter...@doctorwhowebguide . net > wrote:
> > "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
> >
> > news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.co
> > m...
> >
> > > The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the
> > > car was traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the
> > > lap. This is a fair assumption.
> >
> > That is an absurd assumption.
> >
> > Paul
>
>
> The calculation works out the absolute minimum amount of fuel possibly
> used during the safety car period. If you want to factor in braking
> feel free but that will only increase the amount of fuel consumed.
Utter tosh. Prove it.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Kimi Fan wrote:
> On Apr 29, 12:57 am, "Paul Ian Harman"
> <chatter...@doctorwhowebguide . net > wrote:
> > "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote in message
> >
> > news:d9de65b2-c4f0-40f5-aa71-d0ebe6ca242f@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.co
> > m...
> >
> > > The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the
> > > car was traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the
> > > lap. This is a fair assumption.
> >
> > That is an absurd assumption.
> >
> > Paul
>
>
> The calculation works out the absolute minimum amount of fuel possibly
> used during the safety car period. If you want to factor in braking
> feel free but that will only increase the amount of fuel consumed.
Utter tosh. Prove it.
--
Pitwall is an online F1 manager game where you receive a team and need
to develop the team to get on the top podium position! Pitwall is
entirely free! No sh*t!
* tinyurl . com /5y6ls3
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
Kimi Fan wrote:
>
> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> fair assumption.
What a stupid assumption.
Do you actually understand anything about Formula 1 cars and tyres? Did
you actually watch the race?
--
Paul-B
Kimi Fan wrote:
>
> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
> fair assumption.
What a stupid assumption.
Do you actually understand anything about Formula 1 cars and tyres? Did
you actually watch the race?
--
Paul-B
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in message
news:67m3n6F2ogq62U1@mid.individual . net ...
> Kimi Fan wrote:
>
>>
>> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
>> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
>> fair assumption.
>
> What a stupid assumption.
>
> Do you actually understand anything about Formula 1 cars and tyres? Did
> you actually watch the race?
>
> --
From the number of Kimi Fan posts I've read lately he/she is proving
themself to have no knowledge of anything - F1 included.
"Paul-B" <paul@rasf1 . net > wrote in message
news:67m3n6F2ogq62U1@mid.individual . net ...
> Kimi Fan wrote:
>
>>
>> The assumption, and I stated it was an assumption, is that the car was
>> traveling at a constant speed for the duration of the lap. This is a
>> fair assumption.
>
> What a stupid assumption.
>
> Do you actually understand anything about Formula 1 cars and tyres? Did
> you actually watch the race?
>
> --
From the number of Kimi Fan posts I've read lately he/she is proving
themself to have no knowledge of anything - F1 included.
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 28, 9:34 pm, "Brian Lawrence" <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com >
wrote:
> 1 1'42.487
> 2 2'14.526
> 3 2'11.966
> 4 1'24.044
Useful info, unfortunately it proves you wrong. It's so obvious just
by looking at these figures.
> So they probably saved about 2 to 2.5 laps worth.
No.
Without getting too heavily into Stoke's drag let me just say there is
a quadratic relation between power and speed. At high speeds if you
double the speed then the power required to fight drag increases 8x.
Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
Lap 1: 157km/h
Lap 2: 125km/h
Lap 3: 125km/h
Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
Assuming the figure of 2.2kg per lap at an average speed of 185km/h,
then fuel used per lap roughly equates to:
Lap 1: 1.5kg
Lap 2: 1kg
Lap 3: 1kg
Lap 4: 2.2 kg
Or in other words, Alonso and the others 'saved' 0.7 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 3.1
kg of fuel. Enough for only 1 lap, not anywhere near the 6kg you
guessed.
Now I know cars speed up and slow down so the accuracy could be
improved by using average sector times instead of average lap times,
but I don't have that information.
To shave 3 laps for being behind the safety car shows what a troll
Dave really is.
> Massa 16
> Räikkönen 17, Webber 17, Trulli 17
> Hamilton 18, Kubica 18
Sorry but no. Come on, would you honestly think Ferrari would send
their drivers out on such fuel loads?
On Apr 28, 9:34 pm, "Brian Lawrence" <Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com >
wrote:
> 1 1'42.487
> 2 2'14.526
> 3 2'11.966
> 4 1'24.044
Useful info, unfortunately it proves you wrong. It's so obvious just
by looking at these figures.
> So they probably saved about 2 to 2.5 laps worth.
No.
Without getting too heavily into Stoke's drag let me just say there is
a quadratic relation between power and speed. At high speeds if you
double the speed then the power required to fight drag increases 8x.
Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
Lap 1: 157km/h
Lap 2: 125km/h
Lap 3: 125km/h
Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
Assuming the figure of 2.2kg per lap at an average speed of 185km/h,
then fuel used per lap roughly equates to:
Lap 1: 1.5kg
Lap 2: 1kg
Lap 3: 1kg
Lap 4: 2.2 kg
Or in other words, Alonso and the others 'saved' 0.7 + 1.2 + 1.2 = 3.1
kg of fuel. Enough for only 1 lap, not anywhere near the 6kg you
guessed.
Now I know cars speed up and slow down so the accuracy could be
improved by using average sector times instead of average lap times,
but I don't have that information.
To shave 3 laps for being behind the safety car shows what a troll
Dave really is.
> Massa 16
> Räikkönen 17, Webber 17, Trulli 17
> Hamilton 18, Kubica 18
Sorry but no. Come on, would you honestly think Ferrari would send
their drivers out on such fuel loads?
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote:
> 1 1'42.487
> 2 2'14.526
> 3 2'11.966
> 4 1'24.044
> Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
> 4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
>
> Lap 1: 157km/h
> Lap 2: 125km/h
> Lap 3: 125km/h
> Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
Those lap times give average speeds of:
1 103.134 km/hr
2 86.148 km/hr
3 87.297 km/hr
4 116.339 km/hr
Somewhat less than your figures.
--
Brian
"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote:
> 1 1'42.487
> 2 2'14.526
> 3 2'11.966
> 4 1'24.044
> Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
> 4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
>
> Lap 1: 157km/h
> Lap 2: 125km/h
> Lap 3: 125km/h
> Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
Those lap times give average speeds of:
1 103.134 km/hr
2 86.148 km/hr
3 87.297 km/hr
4 116.339 km/hr
Somewhat less than your figures.
--
Brian
Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
On Apr 28, 11:06 pm, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
> > 1 1'42.487
> > 2 2'14.526
> > 3 2'11.966
> > 4 1'24.044
> > Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
> > 4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
>
> > Lap 1: 157km/h
> > Lap 2: 125km/h
> > Lap 3: 125km/h
> > Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
> Those lap times give average speeds of:
>
> 1 103.134 km/hr
> 2 86.148 km/hr
> 3 87.297 km/hr
> 4 116.339 km/hr
>
> Somewhat less than your figures.
>
> --
>
> Brian
Are you in England? There's a government run program called Get On
that they run where you can learn basic maths. You pickup from where
you started to get confused in primary school.
The website is * geton.direct.gov.uk/ you should take a look it
could really help you.
On Apr 28, 11:06 pm, "Brian Lawrence"
<Brian W LawrenceREMT...@msn . com > wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail . com > wrote:
> > 1 1'42.487
> > 2 2'14.526
> > 3 2'11.966
> > 4 1'24.044
> > Therefore using the lap times you provided, and since the circuit is
> > 4.6km then the approximate average speeds are:
>
> > Lap 1: 157km/h
> > Lap 2: 125km/h
> > Lap 3: 125km/h
> > Lap 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
> Those lap times give average speeds of:
>
> 1 103.134 km/hr
> 2 86.148 km/hr
> 3 87.297 km/hr
> 4 116.339 km/hr
>
> Somewhat less than your figures.
>
> --
>
> Brian
Are you in England? There's a government run program called Get On
that they run where you can learn basic maths. You pickup from where
you started to get confused in primary school.
The website is * geton.direct.gov.uk/ you should take a look it
could really help you.
