fuel, does it add to the cars total weight?

[~Sp33~]

this could also be the case, except maybe that may already be incorperated into the cars handling, the only thing that doesnt happen is it changing as fuel/wieght drops...

 

[Zardoz]

I did quite a bit of testing with the F1 car, full tank out of the pits versus 35 or 40 "liters".

I recorded nothing, making mental notes only, but the difference was easy to see. In A-Spec I could feel the difference and got slightly better lap times. In B-Spec the lap times were a little better, but the most drastic difference of all was the way Bob carved through traffic.

With light fuel he passed other cars much more easily than with a full load. Yes, all I'm going on is a completely subjective observation, but the difference in the way Bob dealt with traffic was so obvious that I didn't bother to run any other sort of "test". I just watched him in amazement and figured that was all I needed to see. With light fuel he went through the field like you-know-what through a goose.

The game is coded for a weight difference with light fuel loads.

 

[colnago]

Not many road cars have 80L petrol tanks and most racing cars, especially the Le Mans cars have 120L tanks. I think its just 80 units but 1 unit varies from car to car.

....well, again I submit:

I'd say that it's more than likely "liters". Taken from:

http://www.audi.com/audi/com/en1/ex...80/audi_r8.html


Technical data Audi R8 (2005)Engine type FSI-twin-turbomotor
Minimum weight 950 kgs (Le Mans/LMES),
900 kgs (ALMS)
Fuel capacity 80 litres (Le Mans/LMES),
90 litres (ALMS)

LMP cars have had 80 Liter tanks for "at least" the past 2 years. An ATL "85 liter" fuel cell's dimensions are 2ft Wx 2ft. L x 8in. H, I'm sure that would fit in "most", if not all cars in the game.

 

[colnago]

They're already collecting information much more esoteric then MPG figures and tank size. It seems that information would be relatively trivial to find and include.

True....I hazzard a guess that every car in GT4 has an "80 Liter" tank, be it a standard size fuel cell, or what have you. They probably do have the game coded for variances in HP, fuel load, and tuning levels. But ask yourselves this,

"How is fuel delivered in the pits?"

There is (1) guy lifting a tank into the air and filling up your virtual car.

"How big is that tank?" I'm sure it's the same size for ever pit/car, which is "probably" an 80 "Liter" re-fueling tank. As stated during the "American" broadcast of the 24H of LeMans this year, the cars were fitted with 80L (21gal) tanks...I'm sure the "80" figure was to keep in line with current rules and is "probably" a fairly "standard" size.

 

[VVENOM800TT]

That pit guy pretty damn strong, 80kg is 176 pounds.

 

[Sti04]

That pit guy pretty damn strong, 80kg is 176 pounds.

shouldn't be a problem for those men who compete in World Strongest Man

 

[VVENOM800TT]

shouldn't be a problem for those men who compete in World Strongest Man

They could probably lift an F1 car of the ground without breaking a sweat. They're arms are like 22" around, it's sick how strong they are.

 

[colnago]

That pit guy pretty damn strong, 80kg is 176 pounds.

You guys are getting the "units" mixed up. I don't think the cars are pulling into the pits and asking for "kg" of fuel but "liters" of fuel.



The 58kg number originally posted would be like 127lbs...about the weight of a 32-34" tv. I had a 20 gallon fish tank that I could easily get my arms around as it wasn't more than 3-4 ft long and a foot or so high.

Now picking that joker up full of fluid would be a different story, but then the fish tank was made of glass and didn't have handles.

Anybody know how big the "NASCAR" tanks are? They get hoisted all the time by guys that probably "aren't" part of the "World's Strongest Man" contests. Those guys are always from Finland and Sweden.

 

[VVENOM800TT]

You guys are getting the "units" mixed up. I don't think the cars are pulling into the pits and asking for "kg" of fuel but "liters" of fuel.



The 58kg number originally posted would be like 127lbs...about the weight of a 32-34" tv. I had a 20 gallon fish tank that I could easily get my arms around as it wasn't more than 3-4 ft long and a foot or so high.

Now picking that joker up full of fluid would be a different story, but then the fish tank was made of glass and didn't have handles.

Anybody know how big the "NASCAR" tanks are? They get hoisted all the time by guys that probably "aren't" part of the "World's Strongest Man" contests. Those guys are always from Finland and Sweden.

I got the 80 from the R8 specs above. And don''t forget Norway has worlds stronges people too. (Don't diss my country)

 

[amp88]

It's probably also worth remembering that the weights shown in the garage are without a driver...so that's going to make a big difference to the total weight of light cars like the F1 and LMPs. Without the driver, the F1 car weighs 550kg and has 904bhp (in the PAL version anyway), giving a power to weight ratio of about 1650 bhp/tonne. Add in a driver (call the average F1 driver about 70kg) and the power to weight ratio drops to about 1450 bhp/tonne. A significant reduction, certainly more costly than the weight of a full fuel tank (if we're to take the fuel units as litres anyway). Of course, the driver's weight is going to be fairly consistent throughout the race (he won't be sweating so much since the races are pretty easy in the F1 car).

 

[colnago]

I got the 80 from the R8 specs above...

I was noting the "weight" measurement vs. the "volume" measurement.

... And don''t forget Norway has worlds stronges people too. (Don't diss my country)

Yeah, my bad. I was just trying to remember where Magnus Larson, and Johan Andreasonsensonsen, and others, were from. To me, they are all big Vikings that I wouldn't want to get in a fight with.

 

[VVENOM800TT]

I was noting the "weight" measurement vs. the "volume" measurement.



Yeah, my bad. I was just trying to remember where Magnus Larson, and Johan Andreasonsensonsen, and others, were from. To me, they are all big Vikings that I wouldn't want to get in a fight with.

Ok I get it now, I misunderstood.

That's true, they are all like huge vikings that could probably crack your skull in a heart beat. Scary to think about.

 

[ferrari_chris]

In NASCAR don't they fill the tanks by hand, just like what you guys are talking about? How big are those containers and how heavy would they be? Those guys seems to have no problems hurling them around.

 

[Mooman117]

In F1 the fuel rigs are handled by two guys at a time. Last year they used three (an extra guy to help yank the nozzle off). They seem to be easier to handle this year as the cars aren't hoisted up for tyre changes. I don't know about other racing series but I think F1 fuel rigs pump the fuel in under pressure, so all the fuel isn't in the guys hands its supported in the pipe.

In terms of how much fuel compared to how long they run for, here is some info from F1.com and the TV.

Driver/Pit Stop time/Est Fuel/Est No. of Laps/Track + Length

Button \ 9.6s \ 85L \ 23 \ Imola 4.93km
R Schum \ 10.0s \ 90L \ 25 \ Barcelona 4.63km
Montoya \ 9.2s \ 80L \ 20 \ Nurburgring 5.15km
Barichello \ 8.9s \ 77L \ 23 \ Canada 4.36km
Friesacher \ 11.1s \ 103L \ 32 \ Inidanapolis 4.19km

If you work out the km per litre figure its around 1.28-1.34 km/l. From what I remeber a lap around le Sarthe used about 10 units. Le Sarthe is about 13km long. 13/10 = 1.3 km/l. So I think looking at these figures the fuel economy (if you can call it economy) is about right for the F1 car if the units are litres. I will run a few laps round Suzuka and see how much fuel is used latter.

I think I got the maths right on this but its no means a conclusive test as I chose a selection of tracks and drivers to get a range of data.

With references to VVENOM800TT post using the same as above his CLK does 1.44 km/l (if the units are litres) and colnago's 880hp Pescarolo (stage 3 turbo) did 1.33 km/l.

As you can see from the data above modern F1 cars have tanks larger than 80 litres so it seems likely that if PD chose not to implent accurate tank sizes in an F1 car than they probably wouldn't do it in the other cars. Although I believe F1 cars had smaller tanks last year. They had to pit for tyre changes to be competitive whereas this year without tyre changes they can get more benefit from stopping less often for fuel.

To test this further i'd have to now the fuel economy of some of the standard cars and I can't be bothered right now. Also you would need to know the fuel economy when they were being thrashed round a track not the inaccurate data given for pottering around town. But in terms of the F1 car at least it appears the units are supposed to be litres or as near as possible (assuming PD got the fuel consumption rate accurate).

Let me know what you think

 

[amp88]

Using Le Mans as a basis for calculation of fuel efficiency might not be a good idea for a general fuel efficiency guide, as much of the lap is spent at very high speed on long straights and long full-throttle sections. Taking a few different tracks which present a range of circuit characteristics might give a more realistic general fuel efficiency guide

 

[Mooman117]

Yeah I know that but its the only track I could remeber my approx fuel usage on at the time. Besides it fits quite well. The only F1 track that stands any real comparison is Suzuka but I can't find any pit stop data from the last GP there. Monaco again is unsuitable as it is a very specific type of track and the fuel usage would be much higher there than the other tracks so I left it out of the info.

I was just trying to present some info that appears to support the fuel unit being litres. However, it does rely on PD being given accurate info on fuel usage which I don't think any F1 team just would give out. Therefore, PDs implimentation of fuel usage will more than likely just be a considered guess. With this in mind there doesn't seem to be to much point in trying to be to accurate with the entire GT4 realism thing but it would be better to get some info from Suzuka.

If anyone wants to time fuel input in the game and compare it to the race refueling times (its about 9 litres per second). That also might give us some idea about units. Although again I think the fuel goes in at the same rate for all cars and I know different race series use different refuling rigs. Imagine filling up at a petrol station that quick.

Update with any info you got.

 

[colnago]

...As you can see from the data above modern F1 cars have tanks larger than 80 litres so it seems likely that if PD chose not to implent accurate tank sizes in an F1 car than they probably wouldn't do it in the other cars. Although I believe F1 cars had smaller tanks last year...

Good info. It looks like the fuel rate consumption theory, is holding up. But not all the F1 teams have the same size fuel cell. I still say that the units are "liters" and the # is "80" for every car because in GT4 there is only (1) guy holding a "container", which is going to have a "maximum capacity", vs. (2) guys and a "fuel delivery rig" as in F1.

The developers would also have to change the "gas gauge" for every car. So if a car had say 100L "fuel cell", then the pit guy would have to have a larger "container".

It looks like in "NASCAR" anyway, they have 22 gallon, about 81-82 "liter" fuel cells and the refueling cans are 11 Gallons:

http://www.nascargoracing.com/nascar_101.htm

What is the maximum number of crew members allowed over the wall in a pit stop during a Winston Cup Race?.... Gas men pour two 11-gallon dump cans of fuel into the 22-gallon fuel cell of the car. Catch can men hold the can to collect overflow from the fuel cell...

11-Gallon NASCAR Can

 

[colnago]

I was just trying to present some info that appears to support the fuel unit being litres. However, it does rely on PD being given accurate info on fuel usage which I don't think any F1 team just would give out. ....

Well, at least we know that lap times were "VERY CLOSE" to being accurate for this years LeMans race.

Real Life 2005 LeMans lap times vs. My replicated times

If anyone wants to time fuel input in the game and compare it to the race refueling times (its about 9 litres per second). That also might give us some idea about units. Although again I think the fuel goes in at the same rate for all cars and I know different race series use different refuling rigs. Imagine filling up at a petrol station that quick.

Update with any info you got.[/QUOTE]

Dump cans put out about 2gal. per second...so that's about par with your 9 liter/sec. rates

 

[Mooman117]

I still say that the units are "liters" and the # is "80" for every car

Yeah it seems the evidence looks like that to me as well.

 

[Mooman117]

Just had a thought about the weight of fuel and F1 cars. When doing the Suzuka F1 race if I tried to take 130R flat with a full fuel load (and warm tyres) I would always end up off the track. However, with a low fuel load (and warm tyres) I could do it flat in 7th gear. My exit out of spoon was good both times.

Another instance of this was at the F1 R246 race, the fast chicane at the top of the track. Full fuel had to lift. Low fuel flat out.

It feels great to take both these corners with your foot fully down. Anyone else find this.

 

[VVENOM800TT]

I remember during the spanish grand prix that the commentator said the F1 cars get about 4 or 5 miles per gallon. That's some valuable info right there.

 

[colnago]

Just had a thought about the weight of fuel and F1 cars. When doing the Suzuka F1 race if I tried to take 130R flat with a full fuel load (and warm tyres) I would always end up off the track. However, with a low fuel load (and warm tyres) I could do it flat in 7th gear. My exit out of spoon was good both times.

Another instance of this was at the F1 R246 race, the fast chicane at the top of the track. Full fuel had to lift. Low fuel flat out.

It feels great to take both these corners with your foot fully down. Anyone else find this.

The 130R, and the fast chicane on R246, can be taken flat out with full fuel load in a Formula car.

 

[Fade to Black]

Still on the topic, but kind of sideways...

On one particular endurance race which kept glitching in B-spec (la sarthe 2... la crunch into wall every time) I was forced to turn off the AI... as my own le mans cars kept burying themselves in a wall in B-spec, I was forced to choose something slow.

I chose a Subaru 360. Untuned.

Now, with that vastly reduced top speed, what would it do to fuel economy?

Well 20-odd hours later... my subaru pitted in for the first time...

seems top speed/power output play a HUGE part in fuel economy... also, the car was running hard road tyres... never wore THOSE out either... took them 6 hours to get into green!

So driving more conservatively, or reducing the power of your car, would seem to suggest your fuel will last longer...

Would be interesting to see if a car running on race/sports/road tyres varied any in fuel economy too...

Random thoughts, don't mind me - FTB.

 

[~Sp33~]

you have patience, ill give you that much..hehe

 

[Mooman117]

With references to VVENOM800TT post using the same as above his CLK does 1.44 km/l (if the units are litres) and colnago's 880hp Pescarolo (stage 3 turbo) did 1.33 km/l.

This is supported as the CLK has better fuel economy than the pescarolo with the stage 3 turbo (1.44 v 1.33 km/l). I know there not the same cars but it shows that a highly tuned car is more likely to use more fuel.

 

[Epinionator89]

I'm going to do the following:

I'll go to the Test Track through the Photo Drive mode (which uses fuel and throws out the possibility of tire wear) and use a light car like the Mitsubishi Colt. It has a CVT which is proven on the Las Vegas test track to consistently get the same times (right down to the thousanths of a second when hitting the gas before the countdown reaches zero).

When I cross the finish line to start timing, I'll stop the car and hit the gas when the timer reaches about 0'10'000

Once the car reaches 60, I'll pause the game to record time (so if the timer shows 0'19'xxx, the car did 0-60 miles per hour in about 9 seconds).

Then I'l keep driving till the car is almost out of gas and then test the zero to sixty time again. If weight is reduced by using gas, then the car should get a generally better 0-60 MPH time.

Overall, it should prove if weight is reduced or not. Wish me luck

 

[colnago]

...Then I'l keep driving till the car is almost out of gas and then test the zero to sixty time again. If weight is reduced by using gas, then the car should get a generally better 0-60 MPH time...

You must like watching paint dry as well.



God speed! 👍

 

[Epinionator89]

You must like watching paint dry as well.



God speed! 👍

Dangit, I should have driven the Tank Car if I new it took 30 laps of the Test track to use half a tank. OK, here's the info I have so far:

I bought a pink Mitsubishi Colt brand new and skipped the oil change. With a full tank, I got a 0-60 MPH time of 11.75 seconds. After doing two laps (with the gauge still showing full), I got a time of 3'19'304.

21 laps later, four bars were gone (so I used 40% of my gas--about). I tried the 0-60 test again, and it improved to 11.55, .2 seconds quicker (hey, it's faster at least). A full lap also improved to 3'19'027, about .3 seconds quicker since the car was doing about 117 miles per hour around the whole lap as opposed to 116 miles per hour with a full tank.

So far, it seems as though gas does matter, but much more testing needs to be done. I'll update with a near-empty tank soon. If things go my way, times should be faster and I'll have proved our theories. 👍

Oh yeah, time does fly when you watch paint dry! This is off topic, but you might remember when I tried seeing how long it took to drive a Prius around the Nurburgring with just having it creep forward on its own. I only got halfway around the track (four hours) before I got impatient.

 

[Epinionator89]

Finally, I have completed the test. I drove 354.5 miles before the test car, a 2002 Mitsubishi Colt (stock) ran out of gas. Here are the results:

Tank Amt.---0-60MPH-----Lap Time
Full-----------11.75 sec.---3'19'304
Half-----------11.55 sec.---3'19'027
Emply (1 bar)--11.24 sec.---3'18'590


Conclusion: It might be due to break-in, but there's definitely something behind the gas weight theory. I shaved .51 seconds off my 0-60 time, and nearly one second on my lap time. The entire test took 3 hours, 6 minutes and 46.423 seconds.

Most driving was done by the B-Spec driver on the #5 setting since he/she was only used to burn fuel during the times I didn't need testing.

Zero-to-sixty times were done by me when the clock timer reached ten seconds (0'10'000), and recorded once the car reached sixty miles per hour and the screen was paused.

Lap times were done immediately after the zero-to-sixty test by finishing the lap done for it and doing one more. The latter lap was recorded since starting and finishing speed were the same. If recording the former lap (the one used to help record 0-60 times), the times would obviously be skewed.

Things to work on next: Try a car already broken in, with no modifications except for an oil change beforehand. This might be best done with a used car, but a refresh would be neccesary as well. I feel there should be more testing before coming to a fully, unquestionably accurate conclusion.

 

[Mooman117]

Good Work Epinionator89

It looks we can definately say that, at least to some extent, that the fuel weight effects the performance of the cars, it is likely that the unit is intended to be litres (or as near as) and it is probably the same size fuel tank in each car. Either that or GT4 limits you to putting 80l into a car.