Qualy times adjusted for fuel load
Dave Baker
cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth of fuel. Times have
been adjusted to a qualy time based on fueling to pit on lap 21 like Kubica
and Lewis. Where Heikki would have pitted if he hadn't crashed is unknown
but I've assumed lap 22 i.e. the lap after Lewis as he clearly couldn't have
pitted at the same time. Piquet can't be ranked having crashed on lap 6.
This gives us the following number of laps adjustment. Kimi +1, Fred +5,
Massa +2, Heikki -1, Webber +1, Trulli +1, Heidfeld -3.
The table then becomes.
1 Kimi .....1.21.893
2 Kubica..1.22.065
3 Lewis....1.22.096
4 Heikki...1.22.141
5 Massa...1.22.238
6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
7 Alonso..1.22.354
8 Webber.1.22.519
9 Trulli......1.22.619
So pretty good for BMW, it looks like Massa just dropped a couple of tenths
somewhere on his best run and Renault was flattered by nearly half a second
compared to their true pace.
I think the actual race results reflect the above fairly well with Alonso
dropping back to 6th before retiring and Massa getting a good start.
On true pace there's probably less than 3 tenths covering Ferrari, McLaren
and BMW now with that being the current real running order. Kubica appears
to be the outstanding driver compared to his team mate but it's a lot closer
than it first appeared with Heidfeld only a couple of tenths off the pace
rather than the half a second deficit he had in qualy due to being fueled
heavy.
--
Dave Baker
Puma Race Engines
Kimi Fan
I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this, other than
elevating Lewis at the expense of Alonso. The qualifying results were
the qualifying results and your little 'analysis' isn't going to
change it or make it go away.
The only useful thing you could do with the qualifying results is try
to estimate fuel loads before the race runs in order to gain some
insight into each strategy. This adds nothing.
AC
"Kimi Fan" <kimi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
I dont see what you are trying to achieve by posting this, other than to
whine on about bloody Lewis and Alonso.
The only useful thing you could do is fuck off. You add nothing.
AC
AC
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:fv2vls$4uu$1...@news.datemas.de...
How much of the closeness is down to the circuit being no1 testing circuit?
Will the car spread out at the next GP?
Also, I think this kinda proves my hypothisis that Mclaren are screwed
becasue they will spend all year fighting the BMWs.
AC
Dave Baker
"AC" <xx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:3p8Rj.93056$4f4....@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> How much of the closeness is down to the circuit being no1 testing
> circuit?
That's probably a big part of it. It would be a sad admission if anyone
couldn't get their car setup well on a circuit they spend so much time at.
> Will the car spread out at the next GP?
>
> Also, I think this kinda proves my hypothisis that Mclaren are screwed
> becasue they will spend all year fighting the BMWs.
With the engine freeze and single tyre manufacturer things are bound to
gradually get closer together as there is less scope for development work to
create differences between the cars. These first few races are going to be
crucial because I can't see the top three teams suddenly spreading back out
again later in the season. However I don't think McLaren are fighting BMW
any more than they're fighting Ferrari. All three teams look capable of
taking poles and wins as their various strengths and weaknesses manifest at
different circuits. Ferrari just appear to retain a very slight edge at
present. I think they'll hang on to that for a while but the season is
likely to be close.
CatharticF1
I think the race pace is a different story though. Ferrari weren't
properly able to exploit their kindness to the tyres and long run pace
because of the 2 SCs and the last stint being run in conservation mode.
Qualifying pace is as you say a different story though and just as last
season Ferrari run the perpetual risk of qualifying behind a slower car
in race pace. It looks like a half a second to me in race pace, but I'm
not convinced Kimi ever really pushed during the race.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for
that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Kimi Fan
> "AC" <x...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
Excuse me, but how exactly are Mclaren fighting Ferrari any more so
than, say, Team Force India? Mclaren took a win in Australia because
Ferrari had problems but have hardly featured since. Ferrari is in a
class of it's own this year whereas there is not much to choose
between BMW or Mclaren other than a single opportunisitic win. I
expect BMW will pick up an opportunistic win at some stage this year
too.
Dave Baker
"Kimi Fan" <kimi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c4eb6f3-2e84-444a...@j33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> I don't see what you are trying to achieve by posting this
I doubt if that will come as a big surprise to anyone.
Dave Baker
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:fv2vls$4uu$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on when the
> cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth of fuel.
I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09 seconds
per lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each driver in Q1 or
Q2, deducted that from the Q3 time and divided by the number of laps fuel
they each had in the car during Q3. I've also adjusted that number of laps
for the safety car period of 3 laps in which I estimate they'd have only
used 1 lap's worth of fuel so without the SC period they'd have all had to
pit 2 laps earlier than they actually did.
Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just under
0.08s per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially the fastest
ones, would have needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2 to make the top ten
as they possibly could have so this would lead to a slightly low estimate
for the time per lap of fuel. Kimi for example only gained 0.062s per lap
and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at the bottom of the order gained the full
0.090s. On that basis 0.09s wasn't far out but using 0.08 didn't change the
true pace order I came up with first time. My final best estimate is that
0.085s per lap is about the right figure. That would also equate very
closely with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
team was prepared to go along with this.
Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding Fred, the
average intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers was lap 19, or 3
laps earlier than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of the way through the race.
I'll see how this compares in future races.
My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this handy site.
http://www.manipef1.com/results/2008/spain.php
Hello Freddie
>
> - Show quoted text -
Probably why Ron Dennis had the nasty comment about Kubica. Kubica
may be the coming man in F1 with BMW also getting better. Quick (and
consistent as hell) Nick got screwed by FIA for stopping for fuel
under the yellow because Nick was about to run out of fuel.
Ron's snide comment toward Kubica was due to BMW nipping at McLaren's
heels. The suits in Stuttgart can handle being beaten by Ferrari but
when BMW starts to beat them then they get really upset.
Ferrari is in a class on their own as is Kimi. Massa gets a lot of
crap but he is a very good number 2. Kimi is incredibly quick and
Massa stays pretty close to him.
CatharticF1
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much
> in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential
> just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also
> very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with this.
And yet it was _such_ a good idea for Lewis to run 4 laps less fuel than
Alonso at Silverstone last season, huh? Was Lewis ego fragile then?
And how'd that work out for him relative to his competition in that race?
To discuss Alonso further - it succeeded in getting him ahead of his real
competition (everyone behind the top 6 cars) and maybe even Heidfeld.
--
CatharticF1
The thinking man:
"They say Kimi's ice-cool, like he's flat-lined, but I think my
subconscious is pretty much like that"
Gracious:
"I was able to trick him into out-braking himself .. I apologise for that
but .. we got the points, so it doesn't really matter."
And from humble beginnings:
"..avoid getting caught up with all the monkeys at the back."
Lewis Hamilton
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
By employing contextomy you simply weaken your own point of view. That
might be a problem for you if you actually had something interesting
to say. See the problem with so much data being available on the
internet is that idiots like you can come along and try to interpret
it selectively, make a number of bad assumptions, and attempt to state
something as fact.
Dave Baker
You mean like you stating that Alonso had a good amount of fuel and that
you'd based that on a comparison of his qualifying times when it glaringly
apparent to everyone else he was running absurdly light and he even admitted
as much himself before the race?
I'm some some people on here will find my numerical analysis both valid and
of interest and what you think about things is of vanishingly little
consequence.
Kimi Fan
In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
your selective analysis you must have missed that.
16 laps worth was a good amount of fuel, not an absurdly light amount
as you pretend.
Dave Baker
> In 2006 Fernando Alonso won the spanish GP having pitted on lap 17. In
> your selective analysis you must have missed that.
>
> 16 laps worth was a good amount of fuel, not an absurdly light amount
> as you pretend.
And again you choose to ignore that if it hadn't been for the safety car
laps he'd have had to have pitted by lap 14.
Dave Baker
> 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.
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sigh, you really are quite stupid.
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.
Conveniently, for your calculations you do not factor in how much fuel
the drivers had when they each eventually pitted. He may have had
enough for 16 full laps but ended up with less than a complete lap's
worth of fuel due to the interruption of the safety car. In effect the
safety car made no difference because the fuel saved was not enough
for a full and complete lap in normal racing conditions.
Now you're just being petty groveling over one or two laps. The fact
of the matter is he had a good amount of fuel, much more than you or
the rest of the bufoon Alonso-haters were expecting.
He qualified on 16 laps worth of fuel. Deal with it.
Brian Lawrence
> "Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote:
Semi 'official' figures for Catalunya, maybe from 2006, were fuel burned per
lap 2.22 kg, lap time reduction for 10 kg of fuel = 0.42s per lap. Those
do equate to 0.09s.
These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Massa Q2 1'20.584
Kubica Q2 1'20.597
Räikkönen P1 1'20.649
Alonso Q2 1'20.804
Heidfeld Q2 1'20.815
Kovalainen Q2 1'20.817
Piquet Q2 1'20.894
Trulli Q2 1'20.907
Webber Q2 1'20.984
They might be assumed to be the absolute quickest laps possible with 'zero'
fuel.
--
Brian
Brian Lawrence
> These were the 10 quickest times over the whole weekend:
>
> Hamilton Q2 1'20.285
Sorry that one is a typo :-)
1'20.825
--
Brian
ric zito
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the fragile
> Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very much in evidence
> if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race potential just to qualify
> higher than the car merited at his home GP. I'm also very surprised that the
> team was prepared to go along with this.
Dave, we all know you detest Alonso - you go to great lengths to find
sticks to beat him with, but now you're just being a blinkered plonker.
There's more to Renault's choices than mere statistics. Note the
emphasis here on the word "Renault". Not Alonso.
Pat Symonds repeatedly went on record this weekend saying how pleased he
was with himself and the team, in that Renault were regaining their
reputation for creative strategic thinking. Once again : Renault. There
was no "the team going along with Fred's ego". It was the *team's* idea,
and they knew that Fred was a good enough driver to be able to make it
work.
Here's a clue for you, copypasted from another post of mine :
On French TV, the commentators were saying that Carlos Ghosn recently
warned Renault F1 in no uncertain terms that Renault must be "part of
the show" i.e. not trundling around unseen in the midfield. Or else.
For me, the strategy employed by the team this weekend was a win-win. As
far as I can see there were no real disadvantages. It boosted team
morale, it put the wind up the opposition to some extent, it boosted
Alonso in Spain, and it got plenty of "Renault are back!" press and TV.
On top of that, he was headed for a very respectable result on the track
till the engine blew.
What's not to like?
--
ric at pixelligence dot com
jjbo...@googlemail.com
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote innews:fv3bra$hfd$1...@news.datemas.de:
This Baker fella is plainly obsessed with Fred. He is being hysterical
since Fred got a front row possition saturday.
JJBoulas
jjbo...@googlemail.com
Alonso I guess
JJBoulas
AC
Hmm, not sure I agree. I think the gap between Mclaren and Ferrari is bigger
than the Mclaren BMW gap. But, like you say, different circuits will suit
different teams better. Whatever the case, the season will tell. Obviously I
hope Im wrong......
I do see your point about the engine freeze helping bunch up the field. I'd
forgotten all about that!!!
AC
peter
>I'm some some people on here will find my numerical analysis both valid and
>of interest
Always worth a read.
>and what you think about things is of vanishingly little
>consequence.
Indeed.
--
Peter
AC
Thats just silly.
>Mclaren took a win in Australia because
> Ferrari had problems but have hardly featured since. Ferrari is in a
> class of it's own this year whereas there is not much to choose
> between BMW or Mclaren other than a single opportunisitic win. I
> expect BMW will pick up an opportunistic win at some stage this year
> too.
Yes I agree that Ferrari are ahead, but not necessarily in their own class.
If MS was driving, then maybe. I think Mclaren will see more that an
opportunistic win. But I'm not sure about BMW. I think that if they continue
to develop they might get more. Perhaps a win in their own right.
AC
AC
"Hello Freddie" <Ark...@juno.com> wrote in message
news:db7b3168-35f3-43d5...@c19g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Shame you have to be so vicious about it, because I happen to agree with
your point.
>
>Ferrari is in a class on their own as is Kimi. Massa gets a lot of
>crap but he is a very good number 2. Kimi is incredibly quick and
>Massa stays pretty close to him.
Kimi is not in a class of his own. Well he may be, but its not the top
class. He's no Schumacher and no better than several drivers in F1. Alonso
included. If Kimi was this super pilot, he would have done much better in
Mclaren. Very good driver, yes. Great guy, yes. Great driver, in the Fangio
sense of the word, no way.
Sorry, but there is NO stand out driver in F1 at the moment. Brits thought
it might be Lewis, but that seems untrue now as well.
AC
AC
What's you well considered analysis then? Kimi is God? Ferrari are Allah?
What?
AC
Brian Lawrence
> 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.
Last year his first lap was 1'30s, while Massa (leading) did 1'27s,
and Hamilton (second) did 1'29s. Therefore the first lap was about
13-15s slower than a 'normal' first lap, ~15% slower. The second
and third laps were about 61%/59% slower than Alonso's later 'normal'
laps. The Safety Car indicators were on screen about 55 seconds after
the race started and within one or two seconds we saw Räikkönen going
very slowly, meaning that they were at 'SC pace' for about 30s of the
first lap. 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.
So they probably saved about 2 to 2.5 laps worth. They always carry a
little bit more than necessary to avoid the risk of running dry, so
it would be easy enough to stretch 2.5 to 3 laps, meaning Alonso
MIGHT have been scheduled to pit after 13 instead of 16.
Of course, the same fuel saving applies to all of the others as well,
so we can speculate that
Massa 16
Räikkönen 17, Webber 17, Trulli 17
Hamilton 18, Kubica 18
> Conveniently, for your calculations you do not factor in how much fuel
> the drivers had when they each eventually pitted. He may have had
> enough for 16 full laps but ended up with less than a complete lap's
> worth of fuel due to the interruption of the safety car. In effect the
> safety car made no difference because the fuel saved was not enough
> for a full and complete lap in normal racing conditions.
Indeed, people tend to assume that drivers HAD to pit when they actually
did, but sometimes they pit earlier than expected.
> Now you're just being petty groveling over one or two laps. The fact
> of the matter is he had a good amount of fuel, much more than you or
> the rest of the bufoon Alonso-haters were expecting.
How is a 'good amount' less than everyone else?
> He qualified on 16 laps worth of fuel. Deal with it.
Well no he didn't. He stopped after 16 laps, but he did the installation
lap and he did an in lap after his final qualifying run - at least two
laps at reduced pace, possibly equivalent to one racing lap.
--
Brian
Dave Baker
"Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Law...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:67lk0aF...@mid.individual.net...
> 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.
Kimi Fan
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?
Kimi Fan
> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn.com> wrote in message
>
> news:67lk0aF...@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.
Brian Lawrence
>> 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.
Safety Car pace uses ~25% of normal race pace fuel. Seems about right to
me.
Brian Lawrence
> 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
<Brian_W_LawrenceREMT...@msn.com> wrote:
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 http://geton.direct.gov.uk/ you should take a look it
could really help you.
Dave Baker
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
Stokes drag applies to very small particles moving through viscous fluid at
low Reynold's numbers. It isn't even vaguely appropriate for cars. If you
want try and baffle people with terms you've heard once and misunderstood at
least try and use applicable ones for the argument in question.
>To shave 3 laps for being behind the safety car shows what a troll
>Dave really is.
I deducted 2 laps for fuel saved not 3 if you'd bother to actually read
posts properly.
Dave Baker
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
I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I get
told. I doubt if my estimates are far out though. Basic physics suffices for
most of these questions.
Brian Lawrence
> 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.
> 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 http://geton.direct.gov.uk/ you should take a look it
> could really help you.
Apologies, you are almost correct on those. I fed the numbers into something
which calculates speeds based on the seconds only - assuming that all lap
times are 1 minute plus the seconds. IOW it always adds 60s to the seconds
before doing the calculation. The lap length is 4.655 km, so the correct
average speeds are slightly higher than those you posted.
I'm signing off from this thread now, I have to take my wife to hospital
this afternoon (outpatients only).
--
Brian
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Stoke's drag is used in the derivation of the formula for drag at high
velocity, but it's rusty for me so I really don't want to try to get
into it.
> It isn't even vaguely appropriate for cars.
You're having a laugh. Actually no, I think I read another one of your
posts where you mentioned something equally dim-witted about drag or
speed ......
Dave Baker
>
> Stoke's drag is used in the derivation of the formula for drag at high
> velocity, but it's rusty for me so I really don't want to try to get
> into it.
Why doesn't that surprise me? One of my areas of expertise is fluid
mechanics and flow bench testing so by all means get into it if you want to
actually try and support any of the gobbledygook you post.
>> It isn't even vaguely appropriate for cars.
>
> You're having a laugh. Actually no, I think I read another one of your
> posts where you mentioned something equally dim-witted about drag or
> speed ......
You can learn something about how power, drag, rolling resistance and speed
are related from the technical articles on my website if you want.
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/simulate.htm
Try not to get a headache. I'm sure it'll be a struggle understanding it
all.
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
I provided you with calculations that fully discredit your particular
brand of pseudo-mathematics
Bigbird
>
> "Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
> news:fv2vls$4uu$1...@news.datemas.de...
> > Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on
> > when the cars pitted. I've estimated 0.09 seconds per lap's worth
> > of fuel.
>
> I've just run another little exercise to verify my estimate of 0.09
> seconds per lap's worth of fuel. I've taken the best time for each
> driver in Q1 or Q2, deducted that from the Q3 time and divided by the
> number of laps fuel they each had in the car during Q3. I've also
> adjusted that number of laps for the safety car period of 3 laps in
> which I estimate they'd have only used 1 lap's worth of fuel so
> without the SC period they'd have all had to pit 2 laps earlier than
> they actually did.
>
> Calculating that out for all 9 drivers and averaging it came to just
> under 0.08s per lap not 0.09. However not every driver, especially
> the fastest ones, would have needed to have gone as fast in Q1 or Q2
> to make the top ten as they possibly could have so this would lead to
> a slightly low estimate for the time per lap of fuel. Kimi for
> example only gained 0.062s per lap and Lewis 0.067 whereas Trulli at
> the bottom of the order gained the full 0.090s. On that basis 0.09s
> wasn't far out but using 0.08 didn't change the true pace order I
> came up with first time. My final best estimate is that 0.085s per
> lap is about the right figure. That would also equate very closely
> with Brundle's estimate of 3 tenths per 10kg of fuel.
>
> I think the biggest thing that strikes me about this is that the
> fragile Alonso ego we saw last year at McLaren must be still very
> much in evidence if he was prepared to sacrifice so much race
> potential just to qualify higher than the car merited at his home GP.
> I'm also very surprised that the team was prepared to go along with
> this.
>
> Finally, after adjusting for the safety car period and excluding
> Fred, the average intended first pitstop for the other eight drivers
> was lap 19, or 3 laps earlier than the theoretical ideal of 1/3 of
> the way through the race. I'll see how this compares in future races.
>
> My data if anyone wants to try their own analysis came from this
> handy site.
>
> http://www.manipef1.com/results/2008/spain.php
While I do find your OP of interest in as much as I find normalised Q3
figures of interest (please do continue to produce them) it is a shame
you undermine them with rather poor and clearly prejudice opinion of
Alonso.
I am not convinced that Alonso strategy was a poor one and Renault
obviously did a damn good job of making the wekend more interesting
whatever the driving motivation.
It is one thing to take the piss out of the Brendas for their devoted
prejudice, another to join them.
--
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!
http://tinyurl.com/5y6ls3
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:54e1699a-bcc2-4856...@y22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Stoke's drag is used in the derivation of the formula for drag at high
> > velocity, but it's rusty for me so I really don't want to try to get
> > into it.
>
> Why doesn't that surprise me? One of my areas of expertise is fluid
> mechanics and flow bench testing so by all means get into it if you want to
> actually try and support any of the gobbledygook you post.
Is "fluid mechanics and flow bench testing" the fancy name for a three
day course on how to use a flow bench? I would accept fluid mechanics
as being an area in which someone could have expertise but the chances
that you've never studied that are almost nil.
>
> >> It isn't even vaguely appropriate for cars.
>
> > You're having a laugh. Actually no, I think I read another one of your
> > posts where you mentioned something equally dim-witted about drag or
> > speed ......
>
> You can learn something about how power, drag, rolling resistance and speed
> are related from the technical articles on my website if you want.
>
> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm
>
> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
>
> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/simulate.htm
>
> Try not to get a headache. I'm sure it'll be a struggle understanding it
> all.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
How's the view from up there? Up on your high horse looking down onll
a the little people. Look at me! I have a website!
You're pathetic.
Dave Baker
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.
Kimi Fan
> 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.
Jon
>
> Sorry, but there is NO stand out driver in F1 at the moment. Brits thought
> it might be Lewis, but that seems untrue now as well.
>
All the time races are won by the polesitter and there's fuck all
overtaking, there's no point in looking for an outstanding driver.
If they don't soon address the overtaking problem, there's gonna be no
point in attending/watching F1. They've show it's possible to race
without some of the technology, so there is no reason not to take
further steps (backwards!) get some racing. There are several obvious
and simple changes they could make for next season. Dump all the joking
aero bits which have only been added to stop overtaking, return to fully
manual gearboxes, ban carbon fibre break discs and use narrower
wheels/tyres. Oh and fit decent mirrors - I wonder how much that is
affecting overtaking - I'd not want to overtake Chin the Jock at the
next GP.
Clyde Penquin
> You can learn something about how power, drag, rolling resistance and speed
> are related from the technical articles on my website if you want.
>
> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm
>
> http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm
>
> http://www.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:
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/customer.htm
:-) Hope you get lots of Threes soon!
Paul Ian Harman
> 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
<chatter...@doctorwhowebguide.net> wrote:
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
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.
Dave Baker
> I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I get
> told.
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. I wonder if
a chunk of that was continual braking and then accelerating to try and keep
tyre temperatures up rather than just plod round behind the SC.
Bigbird
Utter tosh. Prove it.
Paul-B
>
> 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
AC
"Clyde Penquin" <pengu...@springmind.com> wrote in message
news:h5-dnWq1Z6KvVIjV...@earthlink.com...
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
AC
Best of luck to you both.
AC
AC
"Jon" <m...@privvy.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.227fd8f83...@66.250.146.159...
Just been watching GP2 and I had an insane thought: Just call it F1.
AC
Bigbird
First rate motorsports entertainment...
vigi
wrote:
>Where Heikki would have pitted if he hadn't crashed is unknown
>but I've assumed lap 22 i.e. the lap after Lewis as he clearly couldn't have
>pitted at the same time.
Looks like Heikki would have gone a few laps longer than LH:
http://en.f1-live.com/f1/en/headlines/news/detail/080428144308.shtml
"He had still to pit for fuel at the time of the accident and wasn't
due to come in for a few more laps yet. That gives you some idea of
the fuel load he was carrying during qualifying, when he did an
absolutely fantastic lap."
Has LH been lighter in every qual session so far than HK?
AC
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.Use...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fph3c...@news.individual.net...
> AC wrote:
>
>>
>> "Jon" <m...@privvy.net> wrote in message
>> news:MPG.227fd8f83...@66.250.146.159...
>> > AC wrote...
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Sorry, but there is NO stand out driver in F1 at the moment.
>> > > Brits thought it might be Lewis, but that seems untrue now as
>> > > well.
>> > >
>> >
>> > All the time races are won by the polesitter and there's fuck all
>> > overtaking, there's no point in looking for an outstanding driver.
>> >
>> > If they don't soon address the overtaking problem, there's gonna be
>> > no point in attending/watching F1. They've show it's possible to
>> > race without some of the technology, so there is no reason not to
>> > take further steps (backwards!) get some racing. There are several
>> > obvious and simple changes they could make for next season. Dump
>> > all the joking aero bits which have only been added to stop
>> > overtaking, return to fully manual gearboxes, ban carbon fibre
>> > break discs and use narrower wheels/tyres. Oh and fit decent
>> > mirrors - I wonder how much that is affecting overtaking - I'd not
>> > want to overtake Chin the Jock at the next GP.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Just been watching GP2 and I had an insane thought: Just call it F1.
>>
>
> First rate motorsports entertainment...
>
> --
Hope you not being sarcastic, because I've just started watching it and its
great fun. And if you sort of squint a bit it even looks like F1 !!!! Plus,
you get the name Senna being commentated on, and I'm still finding that cool
!!!
I don't know squat about it just yet, no idea who's who (currently liking
Grosjean till I know better), but it most entertaining.
And to think that some of those drivers will have their careers wrecked by
getting in to F1..........
AC
Paul-B
Careers, maybe, but certainly not their bank-balances.
--
Paul-B
Mikko Vuori
>
> So pretty good for BMW, it looks like Massa just dropped a couple of
> tenths somewhere on his best run and Renault was flattered by nearly half
> a second compared to their true pace.
Massa did his best time on his first run, so he carried something like
three laps more fuel on that lap. If you take that away his time would have
been around 21.970, which seems more in line.
The Renault flatteration factor depends on how you are comparing Alonso
time. But yeah, BMW and McLaren are the most obvious ones and .450 is still
quite a lot. Might be realisticly even more, since that last lap by Alonso
seemed to be rather good, he was half a tenth slower than Hamilton on the
first runs.
--
mikko
mvu...@iki.fi
AC
"Paul-B" <pa...@rasf1.net> wrote in message
news:67m9dvF...@mid.individual.net...
Kinda says it all. Sort of.
AC
AC
"vigi" <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:a4qb141ha7sp5a9md...@4ax.com...
He might have, but you can't conclude that from what was said.
AC
Mikko Vuori
"Mikko Vuori" <mvu...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:QsmRj.156$781...@read4.inet.fi...
> Massa did his best time on his first run, so he carried something like
> three laps more fuel on that lap. If you take that away his time would
> have been around 21.970, which seems more in line.
So you actually had already taken that into account and had that final run
there. Good job ;)
--
mikko
mvu...@iki.fi
Bigbird
Far from it. Barcelona was tame compared to a good many of the races
last year. GP2Asia was also great fun.
It is quite something to watch these cars (or at least the 2005 -2007
car) fight side by side through several consecutive corners.
I just hope they haven't taken the wrong direction with the new car. It
does appear it may be a handful, which is good.
> And if you sort of squint a bit it even looks like
> F1 !!!! Plus, you get the name Senna being commentated on, and I'm
> still finding that cool !!!
>
> I don't know squat about it just yet, no idea who's who (currently
> liking Grosjean till I know better), but it most entertaining.
>
GP2Asia used detuned versions of last years cars. Grosjean ran away
with it with 4 poles and 4 wins over the 5 rounds (10 races)...made a
pigs ear of the last though.
Turkey should give us a good idea of what the season will be like.
You really get to see the character of the drivers in GP2 expressed in
their driving. Many styles and a cross section of ability.
I think I'm going to miss the Eurosport commentators though.
Bigbird
It looks like a question not a conclusion.
The answer is probably yes.
Phil Carmody
How much of a lap does it take to get them back up to racing
temperature? Continually pumping the temperature in advance
is inefficient; they should just let the exponential curve
drop them down to a steady state while trundling round, and
then rely on one final exponential curve to get them back up
again in time for the in of the SC.
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
gs
themself to have no knowledge of anything - F1 included.
gs
The last resort of someone who has lost an argument - abuse....
Bigbird
> > You're pathetic.
>
> The last resort of someone who has lost an argument - abuse....
Rubbish, it's barely even an argument until the abuse flies, fuckwit! ;)
Kimi Fan
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote in message
Thanks for confirming my figures.
Agent 86
> Just for fun I've adjusted the qualy times for fuel load based on when the
> cars pitted. > The table then becomes.
>
> 1 Kimi .....1.21.893
> 2 Kubica..1.22.065
> 3 Lewis....1.22.096
> 4 Heikki...1.22.141
> 5 Massa...1.22.238
> 6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
> 7 Alonso..1.22.354
> 8 Webber.1.22.519
> 9 Trulli......1.22.619
>
The real measure of speed is Q2, and Alonso was 4th fastest behind the two
Ferraris and Kubica in this round and Heiki was faster than Lewis.
Jon
IIRC Fred was using the option tyres and the others were on the hard
tyre.
Dave Baker
To resolve this I've looked up the specs of the SL63 safety car and
programmed them into my simulator. I hadn't realised quite how quick this
thing is. 525 bhp as standard and with the sports exhaust perhaps a bit
more. I've estimated 540 bhp. Weight has been pared down by 220kg over the
showroom version. 0-100 would be about 8.5 seconds which is seriously quick
by road car standards. I'd previously guessed maybe 12 seconds which is
about 1/4 that of an F1 car whereas it's actually about one third. Unlimited
top speed would be just over 200 mph.
Looking at the amount of power an F1 car would need to apply to keep up
between 70 mph and 150 mph which is what I calculate the Merc would be
pulling down the straights it's more like 40% to 50% throttle than 25%.
Given that the F1 car would also be running outside its most efficient rpm
and throttle settings 50% of the race pace fuel consumption looks more
reasonable. Also the Merc will be going much more slowly in the corners
leading to the need to do more acceleration than normal for the F1 cars to
gain speed again. Add in a bit of messing about to keep tyre temps up and it
starts to make more sense now.
Kimi Fan
> To resolve this I've looked up the specs of the SL63 safety car and
> programmed them into my simulator.
Hahahahahaha
At least you have a sense of humor
Dave Baker
"Kimi Fan" <kimi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1709a468-f9ce-4a65...@w5g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Time for you to go into the killfile. Your input has no value. Cheerio.
Bigbird
Learnt your lesson? Next time, get the answer first then come up with a
theory. ;)
Kimi Fan
> "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
None of your theories stand up to any sort of investigation. You
practise quackery with numbers, and when challenged or shown up
respond like this. I don't mind other than that you spread
disinformation that the Mclaren minions soak up.
Bigbird
>
> "Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
> news:fv2vls$4uu$1...@news.datemas.de... >Just for fun I've adjusted the
> qualy times for fuel load based on when the cars pitted. > The table
> then becomes.
> >
> > 1 Kimi .....1.21.893
> > 2 Kubica..1.22.065
> > 3 Lewis....1.22.096
> > 4 Heikki...1.22.141
> > 5 Massa...1.22.238
> > 6 Heidfeld 1.22.272
> > 7 Alonso..1.22.354
> > 8 Webber.1.22.519
> > 9 Trulli......1.22.619
> >
>
> The real measure of speed is Q2,
A reasonable hypothesis wrt those closest to the cut.
> and Alonso was 4th fastest behind
> the two Ferraris and Kubica in this round and Heiki was faster than
> Lewis.
Of course you have to be pretty ignorant or have missed what happened
to believe this is the whole story.
Some guys needed two bites of the cherry to promote to Q3. Does this
mean that the guys who settled only for their banker lap could not have
gone faster?
100 times..."must pay better attention" ;)
Bigbird
Talking of quackery, still waiting for those proofs...soon as you like.
Kimi Fan
wrote:
The only data available was average fuel consumption per lap. By that
reckoning it is perfectly acceptable to use average speed per lap in
any calculations as "per lap" is the highest degree of accuracy for
the data recorded.
What proofs do you want?
Frank Adam
<Bigbird.Use...@Gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>> Looking at the amount of power an F1 car would need to apply to keep
>> up between 70 mph and 150 mph which is what I calculate the Merc
>> would be pulling down the straights it's more like 40% to 50%
>> throttle than 25%. Given that the F1 car would also be running
>> outside its most efficient rpm and throttle settings 50% of the race
>> pace fuel consumption looks more reasonable. Also the Merc will be
>> going much more slowly in the corners leading to the need to do more
>> acceleration than normal for the F1 cars to gain speed again. Add in
>> a bit of messing about to keep tyre temps up and it starts to make
>> more sense now.
>
>Learnt your lesson? Next time, get the answer first then come up with a
>theory. ;)
>
Um..in Dave's defence, Coughlan is kinda slow on servicing emails
lately.. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
Bigbird
> On Apr 29, 12:19 pm, "Bigbird" <Bigbird.UsenetREMOV...@Gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Kimi Fan wrote:
> > > On Apr 29, 11:17 am, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> > > > "Kimi Fan" <kimisb...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > > news:1709a468-f9ce-4a65...@w5g2000prd.googlegroup
> > > > s.co m...
That your figures are anything other than drawn from thin air...which
in itself is a good approximation of what is between your ears.
Tommo
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fv4dea$rf9$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> > I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I get
> > told.
>
> A bit of a surprise. Full race speed consumption in Spain was 2.4kg to 2.6kg
> per lap. Behind the safety car it was 1.4kg/lap. Just over half. I wonder if
> a chunk of that was continual braking and then accelerating to try and keep
> tyre temperatures up rather than just plod round behind the SC.
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
Dave,
I'm interested by your statement that you "sent an email asking for
actual data". To whom did you send that, and is this information that
they would released to anyone? Is it reliable?
BTW, I thought your analysis that started this thread was both
interesting and valid. I would be interested to see more in the
future, perhaps when there hasn't been a safety car though :)
Dave Baker
"Tommo" <sxt...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1d634b3a-36f4-4a38...@t54g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 28, 2:57 pm, "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote:
> "Dave Baker" <N...@null.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fv4dea$rf9$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> > I've sent an email asking for actual data. I'll report back on what I
> > get
> > told.
>
> 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. I wonder
> if
> a chunk of that was continual braking and then accelerating to try and
> keep
> tyre temperatures up rather than just plod round behind the SC.
> --
> Dave Baker
> Puma Race Engines
Dave,
>I'm interested by your statement that you "sent an email asking for
>actual data". To whom did you send that,
A friend who works in F1. Obviously I can't say much more about that.
> and is this information that
they would release to anyone?
No, and much of it I can't mention on here.
> Is it reliable?
Yes
>BTW, I thought your analysis that started this thread was both
>interesting and valid. I would be interested to see more in the
>future, perhaps when there hasn't been a safety car though :)
AC
The ones that backup anything of your arguement.
AC
AC
"Frank Adam" <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:6vuc145rvkr0rtduv...@4ax.com...
Yeah, all those bcc's. Must kill the email servers.
AC
Brian Lawrence
> 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. I wonder if a chunk of
> that was continual braking and then accelerating to try and keep tyre temperatures
> up rather than just plod round behind the SC.
I suppose it's fairly obvious, but I'll just observe that these figures might
not be true for the Renault engine (or any others apart from the Merc).
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 fuel
efficient while others may be less.
--
Brian
Brian Lawrence
> "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_Law...@msn.com> wrote in message
>> I'm signing off from this thread now, I have to take my wife to hospital
>> this afternoon (outpatients only).
> Best of luck to you both.
Thanks. It went quite well - for a change. After about 3 years they seem to
have decided the problem is something they originally dismissed as not
possible.
--
Brian
peter
>"Dave Baker" <Nu...@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.
--
Peter
Dave Baker
"peter" <sco...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
news:8LsG8RBE...@ntlworld.com...
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.
Tommo
> "peter" <scou...@blackhole.do-not-spam.me.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:8LsG8RBE...@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 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
>
> - 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)
Dave Baker
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.
peter
>> 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
AC
Hmm, sounds like my experience. Still, finally getting a good diagnosis is a
good thing. It makes a great difference when you are able to actually get on
with some sort of treatment, therapy or what ever applies.
AC
AC
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.Use...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fphcc...@news.individual.net...
> gs wrote:
>
>> > You're pathetic.
>>
>> The last resort of someone who has lost an argument - abuse....
>
> Rubbish, it's barely even an argument until the abuse flies, fuckwit! ;)
>
> --
I thought you were meant to mention Hitler to finish an argument.
AC
Ian Rawlings
> I thought you were meant to mention Hitler to finish an argument.
That doesn't work any more since the Max saga, it just starts off a
round of double-entendre gags until one party submits.
--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!
http://youtube.com/user/tarcus69
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tarcus/sets/
peter
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 http://geton.direct.gov.uk/ you should take a look it
could really help you."
--
Peter
Kimi Fan
> 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.
> 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.
Dave Baker
> "Kimi Fan" <kimi...@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.
Bigbird
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.