| Author |
Topic: Absurd fuel consumption |
97 replies
|
|
|
|
#1 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:05:48
|
Quote
|
|
Finally getting to Pro I had a very bad surprise to see that during the first race my fuel consumption went to 0.62 / km with level 6 engine. Looking at any fuel chart consumption this means that my car's consumption was worse even than a level 1 car..... I really have no idea why that happened. I got to pits 6 laps earlier than programmed and calculated. Any ideas?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:06:54
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:05:48 ) Finally getting to Pro I had a very bad surprise to see that during the first race my fuel consumption went to 0.62 / km with level 6 engine. Looking at any fuel chart consumption this means that my car's consumption was worse even than a level 1 car..... I really have no idea why that happened. I got to pits 6 laps earlier than programmed and calculated. Any ideas?
your calc is wrong :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:07:47
|
Quote
|
|
Dry vs Wet data you used? maybe conversion is off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:11:31
|
Quote
|
|
Your calculations are wrong mate, check them again ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:11:50
|
Quote
|
|
I used wet data. For lvl 5 / medium track it says 0.54. My car went using 0.62! It's no use making mathematical calculations here since I did them at least 5 times :-)
|
|
|
|
Not all tracks have same consumption, even if they are medium, the consumption in one doesn't fit other, except coincidences...
Edit: And it's not only the engine what affects the fuel consumption ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:14:37
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:11:50 ) I used wet data. For lvl 5 / medium track it says 0.54. My car went using 0.62! It's no use making mathematical calculations here since I did them at least 5 times :-)
your own data or are you just using something you have been given :)
either way you need to do some more work on fuel calculations :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:11:50 ) I used wet data. For lvl 5 / medium track it says 0.54. My car went using 0.62! It's no use making mathematical calculations here since I did them at least 5 times :-)
all tracks are different mate...the consumption level of "medium" or "low" etc just dictates the range they are in. There can be quite a difference still between two of the same consumption levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:16:06
|
Quote
|
Sorry lvl 6 engine.
Frank, I admit that, but the difference was too great between my calculations and what happened.... I usally calculate the fuel at least 2 times before Q2.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:17:14
|
Quote
|
|
Read my edit and the post from Stuart ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:19:12
|
Quote
|
|
Peter, I used my own data too. With the same driver and same car last season I calculated the fuel very precisely (error of 4 liters maximum). I wonder if the TD has any influence in Fuel consumption because otherwise I cant spot what happened.
|
|
|
|
The last race here in the wet was slightly on the high side of what you might normally expect in the wet....but only if there was no previous data for this type of track in the wet. I used that last rain race data for kaunas and it was perfect...1 lap over actually, which was a shame :)
There was nothing wrong with the consumption, it was consistent with what was experienced on this track the last time we had a wet race here.
You should use track specific data for consumption in future and not generalized figures. That is my best advice :)
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:19:12 ) Peter, I used my own data too. With the same driver and same car last season I calculated the fuel very precisely (error of 4 liters maximum). I wonder if the TD has any influence in Fuel consumption because otherwise I cant spot what happened.
it was dry here last season :)
fuel was exactly where expected I finished with 0l in the tank :)
As stuart and fran have said its track specific , if you work in generals mistakes will happen
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:23:30
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:16:06 ) Sorry lvl 6 engine.
Frank, I admit that, but the difference was too great between my calculations and what happened.... I usally calculate the fuel at least 2 times before Q2.
I calculate that the universe will implode in 5 minutes +/- 1 minute.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:24:07
|
Quote
|
|
That's true Stuart, I should use specific data for each race but yet the difference looks absurd!
|
|
|
|
|
|
It really isn't when you check back to S34 data buddy. Conversion rates from dry to wet consumption are variable and shouldn't be trusted so you should always check with at least a full stint of actual consumption data whether it's in the dry or wet.
|
|
|
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:24:07 ) That's true Stuart, I should use specific data for each race but yet the difference looks absurd!
If you do general calcs it can be. Tracks have especific consumptions and wears, being Medium or Low, or whatever just mean they are inside a range. They can be at the top of that range or at the bottom.
Also, you look like obssesed with the engine level, and it´s not the only thing that affects the consumption. If you count on all the things you didn´t include in your calcs, the difference is not absurd ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:33:43
|
Quote
|
|
Michael I understand that you are part of GPRO crew but if you want to play God you should calculate how much misery you have inside first, drain all that black smelly substance from within and maybe come up with some brighter ideas rather than any cheap irony. So let the light of wisdom come upon Michael!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:37:57
|
Quote
|
|
Thanx Stuart and Fran. I kind of understand what happened. And Fran no, it's not just the lvl of engine that I use when calculate my fuel consumption. But lvl is one of the most important factors :-) Thanx again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#20 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:39:27
|
Quote
|
Meh, i was wrong.
First time for everything I guess.
The point is that you shouldn't come whining on the forums that something must be wrong because "you don't make mistakes"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:42:13
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:33:43 ) Michael I understand that you are part of GPRO crew but if you want to play God you should calculate how much misery you have inside first, drain all that black smelly substance from within and maybe come up with some brighter ideas rather than any cheap irony. So let the light of wisdom come upon Michael!
Post of the season!
Anyway, did you think of the possibility of the conversion dry -> wet being different on different tracks?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:42:18
|
Quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:47:25
|
Quote
|
|
Michael I wouldn't have said anything if there had been "an acceptable difference". Yet all I want to do is to see if someone else had this problem and what was wrong. That's why the forums are for... share some experiences...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:55:27
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Remus Dan @ October 19th 2014,22:47:25 ) Michael I wouldn't have said anything if there had been "an acceptable difference". Yet all I want to do is to see if someone else had this problem and what was wrong. That's why the forums are for... share some experiences...
And have any others had this problem?
Stuart and Peter have posted in the thread they had no problem.
Ergo, the fault lies with your data / calculations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#26 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:56:32
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Martin Warnett @ October 19th 2014,22:55:27 ) And have any others had this problem?
I actually had it, but I found the mistake. It was in my calculations :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 posted Oct 19th 2014, 22:58:31
|
Quote
|
Quote ( Constantin Heller @ October 19th 2014,22:56:32 ) Quote ( Martin Warnett @ October 19th 2014,22:55:27 )
And have any others had this problem?
I actually had it, but I found the mistake. It was in my calculations :D
Glad you found the mistake! Always learn more from mistakes I find.
So, it would seem the op's calculations were wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 posted Oct 19th 2014, 23:04:16
|
Quote
|
|
actually I had the same problem, and I noticed in my group at least other two people misfueled. But it canbe that my calculations were wrong. It's just that the mistake were very sensible. don't have datas at hand though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 posted Oct 20th 2014, 21:03:26
|
Quote
|
Quote ( David Galvagni @ October 19th 2014,23:04:16 ) I noticed in my group at least other two people misfueled.
Or they misplanned their strategy, banking on a weather change that didn't occur. Either one wouldn't be uncommon in Amateur.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 posted Oct 21st 2014, 05:16:11
|
Quote
|
Wet weather fuel consumption isn't random, but it might as well be if you have no data since it varies wildly from track to track with no real pattern based on what I have so far.
Just another reason to keep as much data from past races on you as you can...
|
|
Deutsch
Español
Română
Italiano
Português
Português
Français
Polski
Русский
Български
Македонски
Српски
Nederlands
Vlaams
Suomi
Lietuvių
Čeština
Magyar
Eesti keel
Slovenčina
Türkçe
Shqip
Ελληνικά
Hrvatski
Bahasa Melayu
Dansk
Pirate
