Lower fuel use with current car without dropping performance

[machin]

OK, so here's an idea for saving a bit of fuel (i.e. good PR) using the current cars, without making any mechanical changes and without dropping performance....

If the FIA were to make DRS available all the time during the race BUT decrease the normal rev limit to 16,000 rpm, and only allow the full 18,000rpm to be available when a car is within 1 second of the car infront (i.e. to aid overtaking) I reckon the car's lap time would be the same, but since they would have less power available they'd burn a bit less fuel...

The technology is already there, its just the software needs a little bit of code to be re-written to make it happen....

The graph below shows two simulated laps of a typical F1 circuit... one lap with DRS available at all points but limited to 16,000rpm, the other not having DRS available but having 18,000rpm (i.e. a "normal" race lap with this year's cars), notice how both laps end at 91 seconds.

[gridwalker]

You know, that sounds like a rather good idea (better than other unorthodox proposals that I have seen around here), though simulations can often be deceiving ... does anyone know any reason why this wouldn't work?

[vis]

I think FIA doesn't want DRS to be used "freely" during the race for safety concerns. With the rear wing open and flat you loose a lot of stability and that would likely to cause accidents during high-risk overtaking manouvers.

[raymondu999]

Wouldn't the rev limiter start bouncing a LOT at the limiter set to 16000 with DRS open?

[beelsebob]

Wouldn't the rev limiter start bouncing a LOT at the limiter set to 16000 with DRS open?

Depends how the gear ratios are set up.

[dren]

I think FIA doesn't want DRS to be used "freely" during the race for safety concerns. With the rear wing open and flat you loose a lot of stability and that would likely to cause accidents during high-risk overtaking manouvers.

That is kind of what high risk means right? Teams would certainly make any active suspension components work efficiently and safely. Both are beneficial to the outright pace of the car and the relaibility of the car, thus finishing races and getting points. Cars are already capable of using the DRS whenever they want in qualifying. I don't see full time use of the DRS as a safety concern. You could call late braking a safety concern too. The driver has a simple choice of doing it or not.

[machin]

With the rear wing open and flat you loose a lot of stability and that would likely to cause accidents during high-risk overtaking manouvers.

In the "overtaking case" there would be no difference between todays set up and what I am proposing -DRS active and 18,000rpm, so no issues there.

Wouldn't the rev limiter start bouncing a LOT at the limiter set to 16000 with DRS open?

As Beelsebob says: -only if the teams select the wrong gear ratios. As DRS and the high rev limit would be freely availasble in qualifying (as is currently the case) the teams are best advised to optimise gear ratios for the "DRS-open, high rev limit" case. Essentially since my suggestion makes no difference to current qualifying configuration then I can't think of any reason that the gear ratios used by the teams this year would not be suitable for use with my suggestion.

[beelsebob]

As Beelsebob says: -only if the teams select the wrong gear ratios. As DRS and the high rev limit would be freely availasble in qualifying (as is currently the case) the teams are best advised to optimise gear ratios for the "DRS-open, high rev limit" case. Essentially since my suggestion makes no difference to current qualifying configuration then I can't think of any reason that the gear ratios used by the teams this year would not be suitable for use with my suggestion.

It even actually makes setting your gear ratios up easier, because you no longer have to target two gearing scenarios – one where you can't use the DRS and one where you can, hence wanting to achieve 2 different speeds with the same engine rev limit and the same ratios.

Instead, the engine simply revs higher using the same gear ratios, and off you go faster!

[Tim.Wright]

Not a bad idea in principle, though I would change one thing. The DRS should not be driver activated, it should be fully automatic and integrated properly into the vehicle dynamics controller (same with KERS). That way it will not be a mickey mouse add-on, but rather an integrated part of the vehicle.

That takes care of the safey concerns coming from overloading the drivers focus. He no longer has to worry about it.

Tim

[gridwalker]

Tim : this is a very good point, however I would also include an override button that allows the driver to close the wing when they think they need more downforce. This would help balance conflicting safety issues.

[machin]

I could go either way on that one... The counter argument would be that it could make racing "exciting" if DRS is user controlled i.e. allowing the drivers to "take risks" opening up the DRS early if they want (as we see in qualifying some times!).... the down-side there is we might see more safety cars

As I say.. I can see merit in either way....

[PlatinumZealot]

How much percent less fuel are we talking about?

[machin]

I conservatively estimate somewhere in the order of 5-8% fuel saving... of course it'll vary between tracks, and I don't know an exact power curve for a current engine (although I don't think my assumed curve can be too far wrong).

Even if its only 1% isn't it worth doing? There's no change to the cars (no expenditure), only the way in which they're used, and best of all; no change to the performance either!

Win-win-win, no???

[HampusA]

Sounds good but from a political point of view it´s rubbish.

The reason F1 is down-sizing isn´t really to make F1 cars more efficent or pollute the world less.
New engines are mainly done for street cars and F1 is a perfect place to speed things up.

[gridwalker]

That may be the case, but this does appear to be a nice interim step if the FIA want to show off green-cred before the new 2014 engine formula. Their commitment to their own rhetoric is dubious at the best of times, but this latest about-face on the small-capacity engine formula is another blow to their already crumbling credibility.

Implementing this as an interim efficiency strategy could pay dividends in PR terms for very little initial outlay.

Personally, I think it is an idea that should be explored.