Lower fuel use with current car without dropping performance

[machin]

Question, on your sim how much overall power loss are you estimating at 16k and how much drag loss from the open DRS?

The way I calculated the effect of DRS was to take a simulation of a 2011 F1 car (complete with 18,000rpm rev limit), and set it accelerating from 100mph along a typical f1 circuit main straight. I then use the widely touted observation that DRS is worth 15kph at the end of the straight to manually drop the drag coefficient until that 15kph differential is achieved. Its an "educated guess" at the end of the day -no cfd or anything... but I think this method is more accurate than cfd because I've made the simulation match the real world observation. It points to DRS being worth a 10 to 15% reduction in total car drag....

At 16k the power curve that I am using (remember its an educated guess!) is down to about 715bp (I've assumed peak of 750bhp).. Its not a straight line though since I've assumed a falling torque curve.

The thing to remember is that the DRS doesn't balance the performance at all road speeds -it doesn't add much performance at the lower speeds but adds a lot at the higher speeds... the result over a whole lap is the same lap time compared to a 16000rpm limited car (on the track I've used), but over one straight the advantage could be in favour of one or other configuration depending on the length of the straight and the start/end speeds....

[747heavy]

thanks Machin,
yes the explaination of the "time scale effect" makes sense - all good.

[HampusA]

[quote="machin"]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.

And i see your point, which in a sense makes ALOT of sense.
But it´s just from a political point of view it simply wont work.

the V8´s are old, there´s nothin new about them and what better then speeding up the development in turbo technology, V6´s etc.

For me, i would just get the V10´s in and wish Bernie would point the middle finger to anyone squeezing out a a word regarding the fuel efficiency.

The world has gone mad, and it´s up to the elite to follow it.

[beelsebob]

HampusA I'm really struggling to understand your position on this. What possible drawback does going as fast, but not using as many resources have? Personally, I see it as some clever engineers solving a complex problem in an even better way than before.

[HampusA]

Yes i´m not bashing the idea at all. I think it´s great stuff.

But in reality it wont be a viable option because the goal for the new engine regs is not to really to cut the fuel used by F1 engines.
It´s to speed up the development and innovations so that it can be applied to street cars.
Which politics has pointed it´s finger at and claims it´s the main source of pollution.
Instead of maybe taking a look at how much fuel oil-tankers and airplanes use up every single day.

Not sure if this was understandable or not

[machin]

But in reality it wont be a viable option

The beauty of this idea is that IS viable.. it could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.. I have very little doubt about that. It just needs a little bit of code in the ECU to be re-written...

because the goal for the new engine regs is not to really to cut the fuel used by F1 engines.

I don't think it really matters what the intention for the new small engines is - whether they're a PR exercise or a way of helping Automotive developement (and there's a lot of people on here who think that the notion that F1 is going to improve road cars is a joke, but please lets not continue the engine discussion thread here!!!). In my opinion the Bridgestone green stripe/Honda Earth car examples show that the people involved ARE keen to be perceived to be helping the environment, even if the reality is somewhat different (what did the green stripe actually do to directly help the environment?). Well, here's an idea that's in the same vein. An almost zero cost change that is good for PR and results in no reduction in performance.

What sets this idea out above those two examples is that it does actually save fuel. OK, so 20-odd f1 cars each saving 10 or 20 litres of fuel once a fortnight is a drop in the ocean in the grand scheme of things, but that's not the point... I think the FIA would be mad to mis out on this opportunity.

Maybe you don't agree that the people involved care about their perception to the general public.. or maybe you just don't think that they should care. That's fine, I think we just need to agree to disagree!

[747heavy]

Hi Machin,
just a question out of curiosity, does the DRS car brakes with DRS open at the first braking point?
Please don´t get me wrong, I´m not trying to argue with you, or devalue you sim, I like it !!!
I just try to undertsand it a bit better, and make up my mind about your proposal.
I understand and accept your "time scale" explaination, as why the DRS car starts braking before the non DRS car, because it is "futher down the track at this point", clear. But if you see the gradient (slop) with which the speed drops, you can see that deceleration is less.
I would expect a parallel offset if we assume the same drag (DRS closed), braking ability and mass.
At the other braking points you see, that the gradient is more or less the same, which makes sense IMHO.
At the braking point at ~77s, it looks (to me) like the DRS car is "coasting" into the corner, seeing the rounded of edge, what happens there?
(Edit: O.K. looking at this again, in as much detail, as your graphic and my monitor permitts , I think it´s an "optical illusion" based on the step width of your sim.
I think the "rounded off" edge, is the result of interpolation between two data points. Still curious about the first braking)

What is the activation criteria for the DRS in your sim? Position on the straight or is the a "grip component" to it?
Maybe you acn mark (even just manualy) the DRS open parts in the graph, it perhaps helps to get a better picture.

Sorry for bothering you with my question, again it´s not mean in any negative may, it´s pure interest and curiosity.

Thanks

[gridwalker]

Instead of maybe taking a look at how much fuel oil-tankers and airplanes use up every single day.

Seeing as you mentioned this, freighters are already using "slow steaming" as a means of saving fuel, which means that non-perishable goods are being shipped by sea at slower speeds than they did during the days of sail : http://bit.ly/PxTRz

Speaking of sailing, auxiliary sails for freight shipping are now becoming cost effective :
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_YyHmXqthc[/youtube]

Almost every industry is looking for efficiency savings and enviro-cred wherever they can; F1 can't afford to be seen as becoming increasingly out of date whilst they dither over how to implement this growing trend towards corporate environmentalism (even if this commitment is paper thin).

KERS and "green" tyres were both implemented as publicity stunts to greenwash the sport a little : KERS was regulated to the point of utter irrelevance and green stripes actually made the tyres slightly worse for the environment (think about the chemicals used to make the paint). Still, these initiatives generated extra publicity for the sport, which was good for the sponsors' bottom line.

As the PR value of these actions has diminished, the marketing men have hyped up the current hot topic (drag reduction to spice up racing) whilst planning the next big efficiency drive.

Because the teams have bickered and procrastinated over finalising the drivetrain regulations, the date for the engine change has been pushed back by a year. This is bad PR for all involved, which comes at a time when many teams are only just regaining financial stability. There will be some kind of interim measure before the 2014 engines come in, as F1 is a PR machine and it can't afford to miss out on another year of "green" publicity.

Why can't they afford it? Because F1 teams are funded as advertising tools. Advertising requires a positive impression of the medium being used. If F1 becomes an outmoded and irrelevant medium, sponsors will become increasingly difficult to find (and the costs of F1 mean that financiers aren't exactly a dime a dozen today).

The drive to smaller capacity engines isn't just a political move on the part of engine manufacturers; it is a necessary move in order to attract the financing to support the sport's business model. The FIA's marketing men will be sure implement some kind of interim "green" measure, so why shouldn't Machin's idea be considered on it's merits alone?

By comparison to the "green" tyres, at least Machin's idea appears to DO something : surely that alone makes it worthy of consideration?

The sad thing is that the sport's business model would be much more stable (and efficient) if the teams received all of the cash generated by the media rights, rather than seeing such a large cut being siphoned off by CVC. However Bernie loves playing parties off against one another to secure a better deal for himself, so it'll be a long time before we see a fair and equitable cut for all direct stakeholders.

[HampusA]

The beauty of this idea is that IS viable.. it could be done tomorrow if they wanted to.. I have very little doubt about that. It just needs a little bit of code in the ECU to be re-written...

This confirms that you are not understanding what i´m saying when i say viable option.

Of course it will work, of course it will be fuel saved. But it´s just not a viable option for F1.

All that does is postponing the inevitable (downsizing) which is the only way to go in the end. the V8´s are 5 years old already. And they will be 8 years old when the new regulations kick in.

[machin]

I think the "rounded off" edge, is the result of interpolation between two data points. Still curious about the first braking

I see what you mean.. the braking sections on the graph have been composed of only a few different points with Excel doing its best to fit a smooth curve between them... it appears its done a good job in some places, and not so good in others... I'll have a look at this when I'm back home and add a few more points in to give a better curve... The acceleration sections have a data point for every mph gained so shouldn't fall foul of the same issue! Now I look at it there's a little "hump" in both curves just before the braking event at about 63 seconds. I think that's due to the same "smoothing" problem. The bottom line is that this is display issue and nothing to do with the calculations or the final lap time.

The DRS activation modelling is a bit simple; The DRS is active if:-

The car isn't turning
The car isn't braking
The car is above 100mph*

*Its difficult to predict without proper information at what point in low speed acceleration the DRS is a benefit and when its a hindrence (due to reduce grip to transmit the power) I'm fairly confident that at 100mph, in a straight line, opening the DRS won't cause a grip issue. Taking the extreme case -if the car's downforce weren't affected by DRS but the drag was reduced then the 0-100mph time would only be improved by less than 1%, so I'm not too worried about taking such a simplistic approach to the activation point...

[machin]

This confirms that you are not understanding what i´m saying when i say viable option.

You're definitely not wrong here!

Since the new engines won't come in until 2014 don't you think this interim solution is worth doing in the mean time? I'm not saying do this instead of the new engines.....

In fact even when the new engines do come in why not implement the same strategy then? Every little helps.... (like turning your living room light off at night)!

[HampusA]

I see, i thought you wanted to keep the V8´s and forget about the engine regs because of the fix you have which does decrease fuel usage.

Yes, it´s a great idea no doubt. Sorry for the miss understanding. and unnecessary gibberish this caused. I´ll see if i can clean it up some.

[WhiteBlue]

16.000 is not a good rev range for the V8 to run in. It is too close to the resonance speed of the engines.

[machin]

Sorry for bothering you with my question, again it´s not meant in any negative may, it´s pure interest and curiosity.

Its a good thing you did; I've just had a look through and the smoothing was really srewing things up... I've done a quick change to remove the smoothing and sort out a little glitch... its still not perfect because the brake events are still displayed using just two points (on the graph -in the calcs they're done every mph change, like acceleration)... I'll try and find the time to put a few more points in so you can see how acceleration changes with speed (i.e. as downforce reduces)... rest assured the calcs are OK, so the final lap time hasn't changed!

But you can see my suggested explanation for braking event 1 was a bit of BS.. they're now very similar... in fact braking event two appears exactly the same!

[machin]

I see, i thought you wanted to keep the V8´s and forget about the engine regs because of the fix you have which does decrease fuel usage.

Ah, cool, no worries! (I'm all for the smaller, turbocharged, engines by the way).

16.000 is not a good rev range for the V8 to run in. It is too close to the resonance speed of the engines.

Off the top of your head what is the resonant speed (I can't be bothered to get out my books!)? I've only guessed the gear ratios of course but I reckon that with an 18000rpm rev limit the cars go down to just over 14500rpm when they grab a new gear.... with a 16000rpm rev limit they need to go down to 13,000rpm...