Lower fuel use with current car without dropping performance

[tommylommykins]

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.

Do you mean that they're doing the trick that Bridgestone did with its tyres? ie. f1 cars had tyres called 'Potenza', but you could also get tyres called 'Potenza' for your road car?

Is the same thing going to happen with engines? Starting in 2014, you can buy your Renault Clio with a "F1-engine" in it?

[PlatinumZealot]

All this Ideas is saying is that we should move to variable aerodynamics.. right? right?

OR.. we can make the races 5% to 8% shorter.

[machin]

All this Ideas is saying is that we should move to variable aerodynamics.. right? right?

Fully active aero in my opinion is a must for future regulations if the fuel consumed is to be reduced to an absolute minimum for a given level of performance....

As grid walker says; this is an interim solution. It requires zero changes to the current cars. Seems like a no-brainer to me?

[alelanza]

Interesting idea, it would be cool to have an aural indicative when an overtaking move is about to take place instead of trying to visually figure out if the flap opened or not. That may give a nicer sound structure/rythm to the races. Also better engine life.
Question, on your sim how much overall power loss are you estimating at 16k and how much drag loss from the open DRS?

As for active aero, no thanks, keep it in the driver's control I say.

[HampusA]

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.

True, but it won´t get F1 anywhere or make any headlines.

F1 is politics at the highest level, it´s also a gatekeeper sort of to the high tech stuff.

Reducing the rev-limiter and add some electronics into it is a very good way to reduce fuel for sure.
But from the standpoint FIA stands from it´s rather silly.
I personally could not care less about how much fuel an F1 car uses when we have oil-tankers crossing the sea everyday but just from a political point of view it makes absolutely no sense at all.
More then to say, "hey, we can make our engines more green!"

It doesn´t really help the rest of the world so to speak. (As it should in my opinion)

[Jersey Tom]

Want to use less fuel? Drive slower. Want to race? Burn as much fuel as you can, as quickly as you can.

[machin]

I personally could not care less about how much fuel an F1 car uses

That may be true, and I know there's a split on this forum as to whether its important or not, but the FIA, the participants and the chief sponsors DO care about this subject. Remember the Bridgestone Green stripe?!

Bridgestone will highlight the aims of the "MAKE CARS GREEN" campaign. The Formula One cars will be equipped with special "MAKE CARS GREEN TYRES" which have been marked in the grooves with the campaign colour: green.

This solution is free and isn't a joke like the green stripe... for the same performance level you can either burn X amount of fuel or burn 95% of X amount of fuel... Even if you don't care, why choose the option that unecessarily burns extra fuel?

[HampusA]

I personally could not care less about how much fuel an F1 car uses

That may be true, and I know there's a split on this forum as to whether its important or not, but the FIA, the participants and the chief sponsors DO care about this subject. Remember the Bridgestone Green stripe?!

Yes of course but you have to recognize what is pure politics and what´s not.
F1 has NOTHING to do with reducing the amount of fuel an F1 car dispose off.

F1 has no reason to cut emissions or pollution´s. (from their point of view)

From a street car of view, F1 makes perfect sense,

[machin]

F1 has no reason to cut emissions or pollution´s. (from their point of view)

Sorry, I'm lost... if that's the case why are they changing the engine rules in 2014 to smaller engines? Why did Honda paint their car with the "Earth-car" colour scheme a few years back? Why did bridgestone join the "Make cars green campaign"? Why did the FIA introduce KERS?

-Because the companies involved DO want to be seen to be saving fuel wherever they can.

OK. So maybe you don't care about all that... Maybe you'll like this reason for implementing my idea; lower fuel consumption means the cars need less fuel at the beginning of the race. That means lower weight and smaller fuel tanks, and that means better aerodynamics... that means higher downforce for an equal drag level and all of that means that the cars will actually be (slightly) faster!!!

(Whilst also burning less fuel )

[747heavy]

nice thought exercise Machin (well done, as usual),
in your estimation (I know, we don´t have acually data),
how much power would that cost?

Do you assume constant torque or falling torque in your simulation?
Would it affect different engines in a different way, in regards to
there power/torque characteristic, perhaps handicapping some more then others.

Do you think, it would alter the use of KERS?

[HampusA]

F1 has no reason to cut emissions or pollution´s. (from their point of view)

Sorry, I'm lost... if that's the case why are they changing the engine rules in 2014 to smaller engines? Why did Honda paint their car with the "Earth-car" colour scheme a few years back? Why did bridgestone join the "Make cars green campaign"? Why did the FIA introduce KERS?

-Because the companies involved DO want to be seen to be saving fuel wherever they can.

OK. So maybe you don't care about all that... Maybe you'll like this reason for implementing my idea; lower fuel consumption means the cars need less fuel at the beginning of the race. That means lower weight and smaller fuel tanks, and that means better aerodynamics... that means higher downforce for an equal drag level and all of that means that the cars will actually be (slightly) faster!!!

(Whilst also burning less fuel )

The reason is 100% politics.

If you actually found out the amount of the fuel burnt by F1 cars compared to obvious sources as Planes or Boats you would realise that F1 is not even 1% in the equation.

What is in the equation though is speeding up the development of smaller capacity engines.

So in a sense its completely pointless for F1 to anyhing for the sport.
But in the bigger picture (politics) it makes alot of sense.

I like your idea though without a doubtm just not viable for the state we are living in.

[747heavy]

@Machin

I just keep looking at your graphs/data and have a question.

Why does the DRS car brakes so much earlier at the first braking
point (~12s), but brakes equally late at ~63s, when braking from higher
speeds.

Sure the car is faster then the other at the first braking point, but
it´s also faster at the others.
The same goes for the last braking point at ~87s where both cars have the
same velocity, but the DRS car brakes earlier.

If I understand your thesis correct, the DRS car has free use of the DRS, so
it can close the flap for the same braking performance?
Or does I have understood this wrong?

[HampusA]

If you reach higher speeds, then longer braking distances will be inevitable.

[747heavy]

If you reach higher speeds, then longer braking distances will be inevitable.

sure, but this would allways/everywhere be the case, and not just in one corner/braking point.
And thats my question.

[machin]

If you actually found out the amount of the fuel burnt by F1 cars compared to obvious sources as Planes or Boats you would realise that F1 is not even 1% in the equation.

I see your point... in the grand scheme of things it makes zero differene. However that's not the point... its a bit like the reason why you or I might run a marathon for charity... or turn our lights off at night... on our own we're not going to change the world, but its simply "setting a good example". The participants in F1 want to "set a good example" in the very public sport that is F1, and this is one simple way they can set a good example.

Why does the DRS car brakes so much earlier at the first braking
point (~12s), but brakes equally late at ~63s, when braking from higher
speeds.

The graphs could be a bit confusing because they're based on time, Its not really possible to deduce from the graphs at what place on the track (in terms of distance along the straight for example) each car is braking because the time depends on how fast they were relatively up to that point in time. Taking the first braking point as an example -the DRS car is sufficiently far ahead at that point that it appears like he is braking a lot earlier (he will be braking a bit earlier by virtue of the higher speed), whereas in fact its just that the car has reached that point on the track first... Taking another point (at about 63 seconds) the two cars appear to brake at the same point despite the higher speed of the DRS car... in reality the DRS car is slightly behind the other car at that time and that means they brake at the same time although not the same point on the track...

Hope that's clear-ish?!

To confirm; Yes I assume that the DRS is only active on the straights when accelerating.

Do you assume constant torque or falling torque in your simulation?
Would it affect different engines in a different way, in regards to
there power/torque characteristic, perhaps handicapping some more then others.

I assume flat-ish torque from 16000rpm to 17500rpm, dropping off after that. Yeah, different output curves will make a difference. Different tracks will also make a difference to the DRS vs RPM balance... but I assume that as long as we're within 1 second of the current lap times people would be happy (after all, that's far smaller than the current field spread)?

Do you think, it would alter the use of KERS?

Maybe a bit -with DRS active you'd have less grip, so you might have to hold back on using KERS until a bit further down the straight until you've built up a bit more speed. This could make things exciting as drivers try to activate the DRS and the KERS as early as possible... possibly some corner exit over-steer?!