But the results seem to be very clear for both tracks!
Monaco: drag coefficient set to 1,2, downforce variable
Monza: drag coefficient set to 1, downforce variable
- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
I'd guess though, that because drag is related to the square of the speed and the laptime is only proportional to the avg speed that the extra power required due to the drag would require more energy than is saved by running for a shorter time.andylaurence wrote:Whilst a higher average speed results in a higher average power, it also results in a lower time spent at that average power. I would expect that there is a point where increasing downforce increases fuel economy as well as where increasing downforce decreases fuel economy.
Yes, that was the way i approached this question. During the recent years it wasn't possible for the driver to push as hard as the car would have allowed, but next year will look totally different. Pirelli will provide very a durable tyre and we'll see the drivers racing at the engine and aero limit, not the tyre limit.Jersey Tom wrote:A huge assumption in this thread so far is that the drivers will be driving at max pace throughout the race in either case (high or low downforce). That is an assumption I don't agree with. The recent Pirelli years have been a good example of driving way under the absolute limit of the car to preserve another finite quantity - the tires.
That's another interesting way to think about this problem. But with the recent Pirelli tyres the problem was that highspeed turns and highspeed braking hurt them the most, as high speed causes higher power (=force*speed). So if you want to take care of the Pirellis, you should avoid high corner and braking speeds, the opposite of the strategy you proposed. But i'll have a look at this strategy later on and will try to simulate different setups (downforce vs. maximum engine power/final gear ratio) with OptimumLap.Jersey Tom wrote:Now for two cars to drive the same lap time and average speed, I would suspect the high downforce car will be more fuel efficient - able to carry momentum through corners rather than decelerating (wasting car kinetic energy to heat) and then needing to put it back in the car being at full throttle off the corner.
IF that were true Tim we would see the Monaco wings at Monza.Tim.Wright wrote:I have done some simulations on this a few years ago. I can say that in F1 L/D ratio is not important. You always want as much downforce as possible. The increase in performance from downforce is always more than what you lose from drag. For that reason F1 cars are very draggy.flynfrog wrote:L/D drag ratios have always been important over sheer DF. Every time they save some drag that is more DF they can crank on the car. The ratio might shift to a different target but the goal has always been to maximize L/D ratio for a given target lap time.
Therefore, back on topic, the teams seem to accept the fact that the downforce comes with an extra fuel consumption penalty because of the extra drag.
Even if Pirelli magically start producing tires that aren't crap... or if they ran Bridgestones or Michelins or whatever.. my assessment would still be the same - take the downforce, no question. The principle is the same - driver can back off their pace to hit a fuel consumption target rather than a "tire consumption" target.Blanchimont wrote:Yes, that was the way i approached this question. During the recent years it wasn't possible for the driver to push as hard as the car would have allowed, but next year will look totally different. Pirelli will provide very a durable tyre and we'll see the drivers racing at the engine and aero limit, not the tyre limit.Jersey Tom wrote:A huge assumption in this thread so far is that the drivers will be driving at max pace throughout the race in either case (high or low downforce). That is an assumption I don't agree with. The recent Pirelli years have been a good example of driving way under the absolute limit of the car to preserve another finite quantity - the tires.
That's another interesting way to think about this problem. But with the recent Pirelli tyres the problem was that highspeed turns and highspeed braking hurt them the most, as high speed causes higher power (=force*speed). So if you want to take care of the Pirellis, you should avoid high corner and braking speeds, the opposite of the strategy you proposed. But i'll have a look at this strategy later on and will try to simulate different setups (downforce vs. maximum engine power/final gear ratio) with OptimumLap.Jersey Tom wrote:Now for two cars to drive the same lap time and average speed, I would suspect the high downforce car will be more fuel efficient - able to carry momentum through corners rather than decelerating (wasting car kinetic energy to heat) and then needing to put it back in the car being at full throttle off the corner.
Code: Select all
Monza
Lap Time cd cl Energy Spent Power Energy Difference
Car 1 1:24.75 0,7 2,1 30940 kJ 100%
Car 2 1:23.64 0,7 2,31 31306 kJ 100% +1,2%
Car 3 1:24.71 0,7 2,31 29792 kJ 92% -3,7%
Car 4 1:25.90 0,7 1,89 30541 kJ 100% -1,3%
Car 5 1:24.73 0,7 1,89 32587 kJ 112% +5,3%Exactly. In 2014 the fuel cap at 10.500 rpm has the same function that the rev limit at 18.000 had in this season. It is a power limiting formula. This year everybody revs up to 18.000 and you can expect everybody to inject 27.8 g/s next year. Fuel use differences will only apply off throttle and to overrun programs.flynfrog wrote:L/D drag ratios have always been important over sheer DF. Every time they save some drag that is more DF they can crank on the car. The ratio might shift to a different target but the goal has always been to maximize L/D ratio for a given target lap time.
