Fuel weight

[Shrek]

I was rcing F1 2009 on the Wii and i remember that with a full fuel load i could only go on the longest straight at silverstone 202 mph, but then i tried it with about 3 laps of fuel and i got to 212 mph so that got me thinking, how much speed and lap time lost can you gain with a fuel fuel load like this next years at the start of a race full fuel load, to the end of the race, with very low fuel with all other variables being the same

[ackzsel]

If I recall correctly 10kg of fuel can cost you 3 or 4 tenths of a second (depending on the circuit and conditions). Top speed isn't affected much, though. Those 10 Mph you lose on the straight is probably related to the lower cornering speed out of becketts. 10 Mph sounds alot, though.

I don't expect the 2010 cars to be much slower on the straights.

P.S: Regarding this thread's title. I think you mean fuel MASS, because the weight isn't really important.

[Giblet]

I was rcing F1 2009 on the Wii and i remember that with a full fuel load i could only go on the longest straight at silverstone 202 mph, but then i tried it with about 3 laps of fuel and i got to 212 mph so that got me thinking, how much speed and lap time lost can you gain with a fuel fuel load like this next years at the start of a race full fuel load, to the end of the race, with very low fuel with all other variables being the same

I have to agree that the weight will be a larger factor from a standing start, but the amount of weight or downforce that the wings produce is many orders of magnitude higher than the few extra kilos of fuel.

I fear that the physics engine and capability of the Wii are not a good one to base anything on. The Wii and PSP versions of the game are very dumbed down and the formulas simplified.

When that game comes out for PC and the more powerful consoles like the PS3 and 360, the physics will be much stronger, but 10mph is far too much difference for extra fuel.

[marcush.]

The effect of the fuel load is hugely dependant on a lot of factors and it is far from any linearity as the physical effects are not linear as well :

First ,the car has a CG height of around 135mm lets assume.The fuel tank has a plane area 0f 500x800mm and is 500mm high .
So what happens if you fill up the fuel cell? As you put in fuel the first 54litres -up to 135mm you will have actually NOT changed the CG Height at all and possibly the CG position in x very ,very minimal.So all your effects up to this point are solely to be counted towards :increase of mass and therfore worsened braking and acceleration capabilities ,also cornering .In fact ,for very small fuelloads say 20l the CG height actually is lowered compared to the empty situation so we have increased cornering capabilty due to low CG but at the expense of mass increase.

Everything more than 54l dramatically changes everything:increased Mass and increased CG height are now working hand in hand to lower the cars potential due to more weight transfer and more weight to be transferred...and with the twohundretsomething litres starting fuelload we will see in 2010 the effects on
ultimate laptime will be drastic as there is no ways in the regs to accomodate the all the fuel low in the car.So you will have 170kilos of fuel with a CG height of
230or whatever ....in a car weighing in at 600kg and a cg height of 135 ....so the CG height will change a massive amount over the race distance ,
Teams are fighting for years now to lower the CG heights down to the current 135 somethings but the new rule will move this not in areas of the odd 2or three mm but a couple of cm now..goodbye car setup for Qualy is what springs to my mind,you need to work on average race pace more than ever.

[Shrek]

I fear that the physics engine and capability of the Wii are not a good one to base anything on. The Wii and PSP versions of the game are very dumbed down and the formulas simplified.

When that game comes out for PC and the more powerful consoles like the PS3 and 360, the physics will be much stronger, but 10mph is far too much difference for extra fuel.

dumbed down would be an understatement 10 seconds faster per lap at Spa and i was racing the BMW, it was on easy though

[PlatinumZealot]

I don't think the code would dumbed down between systems. The wii is strong enough to run those kinds of programs. Look on Gran turismo 3 and 4 on the lowly Ps2.

No matter how inaccurate the games are though, I think it does make sense. With more mass you would have a lower corner exit speed, and more rolling drag to the tyres. If the cars were on a high speed salt flat the ultimate top speed might be slightly lower in the car with more fuel. In comparison, racetrack main straights are not usually long enough for the cars to reach their ultimate top speed so the value of speed we see is the speed of the car while it's ACCELERATING. And the more massive one accelerates slower. That how i see it; more rolling drag, and lower exit speed.

[marcush.]

I don't think the code would dumbed down between systems. The wii is strong enough to run those kinds of programs. Look on Gran turismo 3 and 4 on the lowly Ps2.

No matter how inaccurate the games are though, I think it does make sense. With more mass you would have a lower corner exit speed, and more rolling drag to the tyres. If the cars were on a high speed salt flat the ultimate top speed might be slightly lower in the car with more fuel. In comparison, racetrack main straights are not usually long enough for the cars to reach their ultimate top speed so the value of speed we see is the speed of the car while it's ACCELERATING. And the more massive one accelerates slower. That how i see it; more rolling drag, and lower exit speed.

motorsports is not only forward acceleration and late braking though ..don´t forget the acceleration is limited by available grip and not necessarily by the mass of the car at least at lower speeds.Of course grip will be also affected by mass as the tyres experience a higher normal load .

[Giblet]

I don't think the code would dumbed down between systems. The wii is strong enough to run those kinds of programs. Look on Gran turismo 3 and 4 on the lowly Ps2.

No matter how inaccurate the games are though, I think it does make sense. With more mass you would have a lower corner exit speed, and more rolling drag to the tyres. If the cars were on a high speed salt flat the ultimate top speed might be slightly lower in the car with more fuel. In comparison, racetrack main straights are not usually long enough for the cars to reach their ultimate top speed so the value of speed we see is the speed of the car while it's ACCELERATING. And the more massive one accelerates slower. That how i see it; more rolling drag, and lower exit speed.

motorsports is not only forward acceleration and late braking though ..don´t forget the acceleration is limited by available grip and not necessarily by the mass of the car at least at lower speeds.Of course grip will be also affected by mass as the tyres experience a higher normal load .

Read an article about the game. This is fact, and widely known.

It was released for the weaker systems such as the Wii and the PSP, and this is why it was out quicker for them. The Wii is a huge step down in power over the 360, which is a smaller step down on the PS3 for raw power.

Gran Turismo 3 and 4 ran on the PS2, but it is not the same code. The PS2 needs to only render 480 little lines.

What would be the point of realeasing a game for the Wii and PSP first if they could make one program and sell it all at once on the other two big consoles?

Just an FYI -



The Wii has a high fun factor, and the PSP a high portability/fun factor, but my iPhone has a CPU and gfx capabilities almost on par with the Wii.

Regardless of performance, 10 mph is too much difference.

[PlatinumZealot]

Not the graphics I'm talking about, the physics engine. The graphics and visual effects are definitely down, but I was doubting if the physics engine had to be dumbed down too.
We don't know if the CPU of the wii was the limiting factor for the physics. Remember games like half life 2? Killer physics (gravity gun, rag doll physics) engine that could run on very slow computers. I think the actual underlying physical calculations might* not be a problem.

[Giblet]

I can type the whole article and post it for you if you would like

I am not going to, but I can. There are two engines for this game. One for the game (Wii and PSP), one for the sim (PC, PS3, XBOX 360).

The physics in Half Life involve gravity, and polygon collision. There is very little else. This is why slow old computers can competently run Valve Source games like HL and Counter Strike.

I wasn't speaking of graphics either, I was just demonstrating that the wii CPU being a single core that is running at 729mhz, is roughly 1/4th of the porocessing power of just one of the three 3200mhz CPUs in the 360.

The GFX are not needed to be compared since the underlying physics are what matter, and the fact the wii only has to render about 1/4 the pixels per frame makes GFX comparisons moot. The PSP is also a good mobile platform, but it still has some pretty weak sauce when it comes to CPU power.

I really think you should google some articles about the difference between the two games.

Modelling 4 contact patches, slip, varying grip, downforce, gravity, collison (car and polygon), suspension, rebound, bump, AI cars, body roll, lateral and accelleration G forces, damage etc, the list gets longer and longer.

These are easy formulas to fake and make the physics linear and somewhat sensible on a weaker system, but it's not simuated physics in the same way, it's simulating the results of the physics the beefier platforms can calculate on the fly to changing conditions.

[WhiteBlue]

I think the thread is gone off topic. Isn't it about the loss of performance of real cars next year with higher fuel weights?

I would think that the main effect would be coming from reduced cornering capabilities and not from lower acceleration with the higher mass.

One thing people have not discussed is change of ride height. An interesting factor will be tyre pressure. Teams will probably run lower pressures in the same tyre at the end of the race compared with the race start.

The new front tyres btw will be much stiffer than the old design.

[marcush.]

I think the thread is gone off topic. Isn't it about the loss of performance of real cars next year with higher fuel weights?

I would think that the main effect would be coming from reduced cornering capabilities and not from lower acceleration with the higher mass.

One thing people have not discussed is change of ride height. An interesting factor will be tyre pressure. Teams will probably run lower pressures in the same tyre at the end of the race compared with the race start.

The new front tyres btw will be much stiffer than the old design.

reflects my view of the thing.
There will be great issues with setup for racetype fuelloads -as i already mentioned in the parcferme thread.

[Giblet]

With low fuel qualify the teams should have no trouble finding the optimum setup for late in the race, and adjust accordingly for 1st and 2 nd stints.

The topic was based on crazy numbers from a relatively weak sim, therefore entirely on topic. The next topic should be "Can Vettel win the WDC with such pixellated hands?!"

[marcush.]

With low fuel qualify the teams should have no trouble finding the optimum setup for late in the race, and adjust accordingly for 1st and 2 nd stints.

The topic was based on crazy numbers from a relatively weak sim, therefore entirely on topic. The next topic should be "Can Vettel win the WDC with such pixellated hands?!"

Hm ...is it a good compromise to setup the car at optimum for the last tird of the race in favour of best grid position?

I think this is a very short sighted approach .I guess setup wise it would be a much better choice to setup the car for optimum tyre usage at full to half full tankage as this way around you will make the rubber last a lot longer at better speed .The last stint with low fuel is the easiest to handle and loosing the 1or 2 tenths in absolute potential due to suboptimum rideheight will not make a big difference in raceposition as usually at this time things have settled more or less anyways....
you need to be at optimum pace at decision time not when it does not count.

This ,in my view is after the opening laps in the race when the field is spreading out a bit .
In the first two laps normally track position is not due to car performance but guts, luck and ability to view ahead, then things develop more car performance orientated .the last part of the race usually is more a thing of holding position
and more preserving the car,right?
Very rarely the guy with the ultra quick car storms thru the field in the dying moments to grab the silverware,at least in the racing I watched in all those years.

[Giblet]

I guess people miss my points, as I simply don't state them very well.

I was just alluding to the fact that teams doing low fuel qualifying will have real numbers to go off of for the end of the race, and know what one end of the extreme of the setup range would be.

Since no session will be race fuel, there will be speculative numbers from testing and all that about how the cars will behave with all the gas.