Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

On 2008-04-30, Bigbird <Bigbird.UsenetREMOVTHS@Gmail . com > wrote:

> Been peeking on facebook? Most people think I'm cute.

I think they said "acute microcephalic"..

> They gave your mother a bone and a pat on the head ;)

Perhaps she'd had one bone too many!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
* youtube . com /user/tarcus69
* w w w .flickr . com /photos/tarcus/sets/

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Dave Baker wrote:

> You can learn something about how power, drag, rolling resistance and speed
> are related from the technical articles on my website if you want.
>
> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm
>
> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
>
> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/simulate.htm

I've just been having a look around the website--very interesting,
and I wish more suppliers had so much useful information on hand
like that. I especially enjoyed this page, though:

* w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/customer.htm

:-) Hope you get lots of Threes soon!

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load


"Clyde Penquin" <penguinking@springmind . com > wrote in message
news:h5-dnWq1Z6KvVIjVnZ2dnUVZ_rzinZ2d@earthlink . com ...
> Dave Baker wrote:
>
>> You can learn something about how power, drag, rolling resistance and
>> speed are related from the technical articles on my website if you want.
>>
>> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm
>>
>> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
>>
>> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/simulate.htm
>
> I've just been having a look around the website--very interesting, and I
> wish more suppliers had so much useful information on hand like that. I
> especially enjoyed this page, though:
>
> * w w w .pumaracing.co.uk/customer.htm
>
> :-) Hope you get lots of Threes soon!
>

Im glad Im not the only one who appreciates the site. Reading through it
ages ago, it was the first site of its type where I felt I was getting no
nonsense, good, advice.

The shis it, Im pretty sure, Im type two.

AC

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Kimi Fan <kimisbest@gmail . com > writes

>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
Are you sure about that calculation?
4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
--
Peter

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

peter <scoular@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>Kimi Fan <kimisbest@gmail . com > writes
>>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>>
>Are you sure about that calculation?
>4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?

Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently "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."
--
Peter

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>
> >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
> >Are you sure about that calculation?
> >4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
>
> Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently "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."
> --
> Peter

I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.

Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of throttle
required to keep up with the safety car under acceleration would be
less than 25%"**

He worked this out because apparently "Power required to achieve a
given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the full
750bhp is required to do 100mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
for 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph."

However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to average speed
vs fuel consumption, and using known points, the amount would be 1kg/
2.2kg = 45% based on consumption rate of 2.2kg per lap while racing.
My estimates were very rough and I rounded heavily in order to give
him the benefit of the doubt as to why his figure might be so insanely
low.

Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be careful,
he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome grasp of fluid
"mechanics" so he might killfile you!)

I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum Quackery
is generally understood and appreciated while Physics is not.

** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because he ran
the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it gave him better
figures, nearly the same as mine.

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Kimi Fan wrote:

> On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
> >
> > >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> > >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
> >
> > > Are you sure about that calculation?
> > > 4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
> >
> > Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently "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."
> > --
> > Peter
>
> I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
>
> Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of throttle
> required to keep up with the safety car under acceleration would be
> less than 25%"**
>
> He worked this out because apparently "Power required to achieve a
> given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the full
> 750bhp is required to do 100mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
> for 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph."
>
> However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to average speed
> vs fuel consumption, and using known points, the amount would be 1kg/
> 2.2kg = 45% based on consumption rate of 2.2kg per lap while racing.
> My estimates were very rough and I rounded heavily in order to give
> him the benefit of the doubt as to why his figure might be so insanely
> low.
>
> Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be careful,
> he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome grasp of fluid
> "mechanics" so he might killfile you!)
>
> I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum Quackery
> is generally understood and appreciated while Physics is not.
>
> ** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because he ran
> the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it gave him better
> figures, nearly the same as mine.

AFAICS you have done no more than Dave to demonstrate why your guess is
anything other than that. Certainly you ignore acceleration and I would
think that most fuel is used in accleration at race speeds and very
much less less in maintaining a consatnt speed.

It does not seem right that any hypothesis based on a constant average
speed is applicable to this situation.

A guess is still a guess, even a lucky one.

--
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

On Apr 30, 10:12 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
wrote:
> Kimi Fan wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > > peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>
> > > >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> > > >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
> > > > Are you sure about that calculation?
> > > > 4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
>
> > > Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently "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/youshould take a look it
> > > could really help you."
> > > --
> > > Peter
>
> > I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
>
> > Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of throttle
> > required to keep up with the safety car under acceleration would be
> > less than 25%"**
>
> > He worked this out because apparently "Power required to achieve a
> > given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the full
> > 750bhp is required to do 100mph then less than 100bhp would suffice
> > for 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph."
>
> > However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to average speed
> > vs fuel consumption, and using known points, the amount would be 1kg/
> > 2.2kg = 45% based on consumption rate of 2.2kg per lap while racing.
> > My estimates were very rough and I rounded heavily in order to give
> > him the benefit of the doubt as to why his figure might be so insanely
> > low.
>
> > Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be careful,
> > he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome grasp of fluid
> > "mechanics" so he might killfile you!)
>
> > I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum Quackery
> > is generally understood and appreciated while Physics is not.
>
> > ** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because he ran
> > the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it gave him better
> > figures, nearly the same as mine.
>
> AFAICS you have done no more than Dave to demonstrate why your guess is
> anything other than that. Certainly you ignore acceleration and I would
> think that most fuel is used in accleration at race speeds and very
> much less less in maintaining a consatnt speed.
>
> It does not seem right that any hypothesis based on a constant average
> speed is applicable to this situation.
>
> A guess is still a guess, even a lucky one.
>
> --
> 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


It is perfectly valid in the context in which I originally used it.

Dave Baker made a point that cars only use 25% of race fuel behind the
safety car. He used quackery to arrive at this figure. He was trying
to tell you that cars saved 2x laps worth of fuel because they were
behind the safety car for three laps. This figure was used in an
attempt to discredit Alonso's excellent qualifying result in the very
first post of this rather lengthy and pointless argument.

I challenged his figure of 2 laps worth of fuel saved, and theorised
that the saving was considerably less. I was able to discredit him
just by considering drag and average speed. I was never trying to
figure out the exact percentage, only that Dave Baker's figure, and
therefore all of his other figures, were quackery.

Dave: you obviously have good practical knowledge for cars etc but
your grasp of Physics is non-existent. Throttle position should never
be considered in a detailed examination of fuel consumption. In
working out fuel consumption as a function of speed, drag is the
primary consideration. I would point you to the Laws of Physics,
namely the Laws of Motion and Conservation of Energy. Of note are the
specific manifestations of Conservation of Energy in the Laws of
Thermodynamics.

Personally, I don't have enough data to do this analysis so there is
no point to try.

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Kimi Fan wrote:

> On Apr 30, 10:12 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
> wrote:
> > Kimi Fan wrote:
> > > On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > > peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
> >
> > > > >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> > > > >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
> >
> > > > > Are you sure about that calculation?
> > > > > 4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
> >
> > > > Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently
> > > > "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/youshould take a look
> > > > it could really help you."
> > > > --
> > > > Peter
> >
> > > I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
> >
> > > Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of throttle
> > > required to keep up with the safety car under acceleration would
> > > be less than 25%"**
> >
> > > He worked this out because apparently "Power required to achieve a
> > > given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
> > > full 750bhp is required to do 100mph then less than 100bhp would
> > > suffice for 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph."
> >
> > > However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to average
> > > speed vs fuel consumption, and using known points, the amount
> > > would be 1kg/ 2.2kg = 45% based on consumption rate of 2.2kg per
> > > lap while racing. My estimates were very rough and I rounded
> > > heavily in order to give him the benefit of the doubt as to why
> > > his figure might be so insanely low.
> >
> > > Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be
> > > careful, he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome
> > > grasp of fluid "mechanics" so he might killfile you!)
> >
> > > I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum
> > > Quackery is generally understood and appreciated while Physics is
> > > not.
> >
> > > ** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because he
> > > ran the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it gave
> > > him better figures, nearly the same as mine.
> >
> > AFAICS you have done no more than Dave to demonstrate why your
> > guess is anything other than that. Certainly you ignore
> > acceleration and I would think that most fuel is used in
> > accleration at race speeds and very much less less in maintaining a
> > consatnt speed.
> >
> > It does not seem right that any hypothesis based on a constant
> > average speed is applicable to this situation.
> >
> > A guess is still a guess, even a lucky one.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> It is perfectly valid in the context in which I originally used it.
>

No it is not. It has no validity whatsoever.

FFS either provide some back up or don't if you can't.

Repeating yourself and attacking another poster does nothing to support
a heavily flawed and obviously incorrect hypothesis.

--
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

On Apr 30, 11:27 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
wrote:
> Kimi Fan wrote:
> > On Apr 30, 10:12 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
> > wrote:
> > > Kimi Fan wrote:
> > > > On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>
> > > > > >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> > > > > >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>
> > > > > > Are you sure about that calculation?
> > > > > > 4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
>
> > > > > Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently
> > > > > "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/youshouldtake a look
> > > > > it could really help you."
> > > > > --
> > > > > Peter
>
> > > > I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
>
> > > > Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of throttle
> > > > required to keep up with the safety car under acceleration would
> > > > be less than 25%"**
>
> > > > He worked this out because apparently "Power required to achieve a
> > > > given speed is proportional to the cube of that speed so if the
> > > > full 750bhp is required to do 100mph then less than 100bhp would
> > > > suffice for 100mph and about 300bhp for 150 mph."
>
> > > > However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to average
> > > > speed vs fuel consumption, and using known points, the amount
> > > > would be 1kg/ 2.2kg = 45% based on consumption rate of 2.2kg per
> > > > lap while racing. My estimates were very rough and I rounded
> > > > heavily in order to give him the benefit of the doubt as to why
> > > > his figure might be so insanely low.
>
> > > > Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be
> > > > careful, he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome
> > > > grasp of fluid "mechanics" so he might killfile you!)
>
> > > > I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum
> > > > Quackery is generally understood and appreciated while Physics is
> > > > not.
>
> > > > ** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because he
> > > > ran the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it gave
> > > > him better figures, nearly the same as mine.
>
> > > AFAICS you have done no more than Dave to demonstrate why your
> > > guess is anything other than that. Certainly you ignore
> > > acceleration and I would think that most fuel is used in
> > > accleration at race speeds and very much less less in maintaining a
> > > consatnt speed.
>
> > > It does not seem right that any hypothesis based on a constant
> > > average speed is applicable to this situation.
>
> > > A guess is still a guess, even a lucky one.
>
> > > --
> > > 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
>
> > It is perfectly valid in the context in which I originally used it.
>
> No it is not. It has no validity whatsoever.
>
> FFS either provide some back up or don't if you can't.
>
> Repeating yourself and attacking another poster does nothing to support
> a heavily flawed and obviously incorrect hypothesis.
>
> --
> 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


Assuming constant speed will understate fuel consumption as it does
not take into account;

1. Energy loss due to braking
2. That any time spent traveling at speeds higher than average will
burn more fuel than time spend traveling slower over the course of the
lap

In other words, yes, it is perfectly valid in this context because all
I needed to do was disprove his ridiculously low figures.

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Kimi Fan wrote:

> On Apr 30, 11:27 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
> wrote:
> > Kimi Fan wrote:
> > > On Apr 30, 10:12 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail . com >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Kimi Fan wrote:
> > > > > On Apr 30, 8:04 pm, peter
> > > > > <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote:
> > > > > > peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
> >
> > > > > > >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
> > > > > > >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
> >
> > > > > > > Are you sure about that calculation?
> > > > > > > 4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
> >
> > > > > > Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently
> > > > > > "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/youshouldtake a
> > > > > > look it could really help you."
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Peter
> >
> > > > > I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
> >
> > > > > Dave Baker made the following statement "The amount of
> > > > > throttle required to keep up with the safety car under
> > > > > acceleration would be less than 25%"**
> >
> > > > > He worked this out because apparently "Power required to
> > > > > achieve a given speed is proportional to the cube of that
> > > > > speed so if the full 750bhp is required to do 100mph then
> > > > > less than 100bhp would suffice for 100mph and about 300bhp
> > > > > for 150 mph."
> >
> > > > > However I showed that by fitting an exponential curve to
> > > > > average speed vs fuel consumption, and using known points,
> > > > > the amount would be 1kg/ 2.2kg = 45% based on consumption
> > > > > rate of 2.2kg per lap while racing. My estimates were very
> > > > > rough and I rounded heavily in order to give him the benefit
> > > > > of the doubt as to why his figure might be so insanely low.
> >
> > > > > Try getting Dave to substantiate his second statement (but be
> > > > > careful, he doesn't like it when anyone questions his awesome
> > > > > grasp of fluid "mechanics" so he might killfile you!)
> >
> > > > > I like Physics, he likes Quackery. Apparently on this forum
> > > > > Quackery is generally understood and appreciated while
> > > > > Physics is not.
> >
> > > > > ** Hilariously, Dave Baker later changed his estimate because
> > > > > he ran the Mercedes safety car through his "Simulator" and it
> > > > > gave him better figures, nearly the same as mine.
> >
> > > > AFAICS you have done no more than Dave to demonstrate why your
> > > > guess is anything other than that. Certainly you ignore
> > > > acceleration and I would think that most fuel is used in
> > > > accleration at race speeds and very much less less in
> > > > maintaining a consatnt speed.
> >
> > > > It does not seem right that any hypothesis based on a constant
> > > > average speed is applicable to this situation.
> >
> > > > A guess is still a guess, even a lucky one.
> >
> > > > --
> > > > 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
> >
> > > It is perfectly valid in the context in which I originally used
> > > it.
> >
> > No it is not. It has no validity whatsoever.
> >
> > FFS either provide some back up or don't if you can't.
> >
> > Repeating yourself and attacking another poster does nothing to
> > support a heavily flawed and obviously incorrect hypothesis.
> >
> > --
> > 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
>
>
> Assuming constant speed will understate fuel consumption as it does
> not take into account;
>
> 1. Energy loss due to braking
> 2. That any time spent traveling at speeds higher than average will
> burn more fuel than time spend traveling slower over the course of the
> lap
>
> In other words, yes, it is perfectly valid in this context because all
> I needed to do was disprove his ridiculously low figures.

...but you failed.

Come back when you understand the difference between a hypothesis and
proof.

--
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

> Personally, I don't have enough data to do this analysis so there is
> no point to try.

From your comments here you don't have a good grasp of physics so the amount
of data you have is irrelevant. Try not arguing a subject you obviously have
no knowledge of, you just end up looking like an idiot.

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

Kimi Fan <kimisbest@gmail . com > writes
>> peter <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> writes
>> >Kimi Fan <kimisb...@gmail . com > writes
>> >>> 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 4: 185km/h + each subseqent lap
>>
>> >Are you sure about that calculation?
>> >4.6 km in 84 secs = 185 km/hr?
>> Anyway, if you need some help with your maths, apparently "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.
>
>I made a typing mistake. The value I used was 195km/h -sue me.
>
Your juvenile smartarse comment that I quoted back to you was the one
you used on Brian who also made a mistake...if you want to act like a
twat when someone makes a mistake, best be sure not to make one
yourself.
--
Peter

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load

"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn . com > wrote in message
news:67lk0aF2pmaqlU1@mid.individual . net ...
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote:
>
>> The safety car was deployed for three laps, but it spent nearly a lap
>> waiting to pick up the leaders during which time Alonso and most
>> others were still driving under almost normal conditions (waved
>> yellows). So there were only two full laps behind the safety car
>> although it was out for three.
>
> Alonso's first four laps were:
>
> 1 1'42.487
> 2 2'14.526
> 3 2'11.966
> 4 1'24.044
>
> He then lapped in the 1'23s until lap 12 when he was in the 1'22s.

Final words on the topic just to explain why you can't take the average lap
speeds and a cube law to calculate fuel consumption as per the ideas of a
certain person in this thread.

Assuming average SC lap time 133 seconds, full pace lap time 83 seconds,
circuit length 4.655 km.

This gives us 126 kph and 201.9 kph as the speeds for the respective laps.
Taking fuel consumption per hour as being proportional to the cube of speed
this gives us a ratio of fuel consumption of (126/201.9)^3 = 0.243.
Correcting back for lap times gives us 0.243 x 133/83 = 39% of race speed
consumption per lap which is clearly miles out.

The correct approach was indeed to simulate the performance of the SC and
calculate how hard the F1 cars were needing to work to keep up with it. The
average speed approach would only work if they were constant speeds whereas
in fact it's the amount of acceleration required that's the dominant factor
in the fuel usage.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines

Re: Qualy times adjusted for fuel load


"Kimi Fan" <kimisbest@gmail . com > wrote in message
news:507bcd42-f901-4905-8911-40ff87aa8395@z24g2000prf.googlegroups . com ...
> In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
> your selective analysis you must have missed that.

Just looking back at what happened in 2006 it was a completely different
situation to this year. The only competition Renault had back then was
Ferrari and their only chance of beating MS was to get both Alonso and Fisi
in front of him and for Fisi to hold MS up while Alonso pulled out a margin.
So Both Renaults fueled light, 5 or 6 laps lighter than MS, and Fisi did
indeed manage to hold MS up while Alonso pulled out 13 seconds lead before
his first stop. In the event Fisi sacrificed himself for that Alonso win
because MS got past Fisi after they'd both completed pitstops.

Nothing wrong with any of that of course. It was the required strategy to
win and involved using both cars to achieve it. It was actually done
extremely well. This year none of that applied. Three teams were faster than
Renault, Alonso didn't have a tail gunner to protect him even if he had
taken pole and he lost his artificial second place as soon as he'd completed
his first pitstop. It was an entirely pointless sop to his fans to qualify
so light and had no chance of success.

Anyway, enough of logic and analysis. It's wasted on you but might be of
interest to others.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines