The online racing simulator
Quote from theycallmeebryan :Finally a post that doesn't hurt my brain...

Too overwhelmed to say more than what you said, but I would note that the VE doesn't actually change. I do know why you said that however, and I'm just playing semantics IMO. Tristan could probably explain why better than I, as I recall it was his prof that brought it up.

The main reason turbo cars get better mileage MOST of the time is simply due to the fact that there is far less pumping loss. Even when the engine is operating in relative vacuum, there is still generally less vacuum at part throttle than with an NA engine simply because (as Bryan said) the compressor is always pumping some air. "Boost" doesn't have to bring the manifold pressure to positive to have an effect, although people usually use the term only in that context.

@shot: It doesn't make much of a difference for the same reasons as above, at least in a reasonable application like a street car where the turbo can get into it's efficiency range without ludicrous amounts of throttle and rpm.
Quote from wheel4hummer :I am pretty sure shifting at 6000rpm would not nessasarily change the fuel economy. If you are WOT, then shifting at 6000rpm will give you better fuel economy then if you shift at 4000. You should constantly be in a gear which is within the power band. If you are driving down the highway, you shouldn't nessasarily be in the highest gear. The whole purpose of a transmission is to keep the engine in it's powerband, anyway.

The problem is, "the powerband" often quoted is the WOT powerband. It changes with throttle, with the torque peak lowering below idle rpm when you lift off completely.

So, an ordinary road car cruising on the highway generally prefers the highest gear/lowest rpm due to the small amount of throttle.
Quote from wheel4hummer :If you are WOT, then shifting at 6000rpm will give you better fuel economy then if you shift at 4000.

Are you sure? Better efficiency, granted, but better economy? I doubt?
Well...

On economy runs (those light, tiny engined things that get around 6000mpg), they accelerate at full throttle, then coast. Presumably because it's more efficient that way.

BUT...

When saving fuel, race car drivers short shift to keep the peak revs down.

I have no idea which, in the real world, is best. Personally, I use the 'full throttle to crusing' speed idea, and my mpg is no worse that anyone elses in similar cars.
I tend to have a heavy foot... If I make an effort to drive like a normal person, I do get marginally better mileage around town, but it annoys me, so I don't do that much unless I am purposely testing or trying to save a few bucks...
#56 - JTbo
2/3rd throttle to full throttle is most economic way to accelerate, also you need to rev it a bit and shift from 2nd to 4th for example, then avoid stopping and any need for big speed changes, when trying to get good economy.

I'm getting at the moment around 6.5l/100km to work and 7.5l/100km to home, reason is simple, when I'm returning to home it is rather late and I use roads equivalent of b-roads, so from some odd reason fuel consumption is lot higher, also when returning to home beginning of trip is going to be times when roads are quite busy and here at south there is lot more traffic (moving chicanes I need to overtake).

Let's see how fuel consumption is at sunday, that is one tank of fuel to go to work then and same when returning and next three weeks going to be that kind of travelling
I am going to introduce some more test variables into the experiment. Alot of discussion that has been going on in this thread has been bugging me and i would like to open up the experiment a bit more.

Things I am going to consider.

1. Everyday City driving conditions using SC Long Reverse as a test track. Accelerating normally (I would say accelerating no more than 0.2g's [or no more than 40%TPS] is a normal, easy acceleration in daily driving situations [i will use whichever is lower]). This will include making periodic stops (to simulate stop signs and traffic lights). I will make these stops and accelerations uniform for each car in order to eliminate any differences.

2. Spirited city driving conditions using SC Long Reverse as a test track. Accelerating with no more than .5g's or 75% tps, whichever is smaller.

3. 1 and 2 should be done shifting at pre-designated rpm points.... lets say 3000rpm as a good general normal rpm shift point.

4. 1 and 2 should also be done with realistic situations in mind. For average city driving, you'll be shifting at a lower rpm. In spirited driving, you will shift at a higher rpm. Lets set the low at 2000rpm, and the high at 4000rpm.

5. I would like to introduce weight into the cars as a variable to the experiment. I will do the highway conditions experiment over again, but this time with a full fuel tank and 1 passenger in the car. I will also to the city driving experiment also with full fuel and 1 passenger.

6. Tire pressure. Does lower tire pressures effect gas miledge in LFS? Does higher tire pressure effect fuel economy in LFS? I would just do two different tests in the highway scenario to show this. The two tests will involve (a) the lowest possible tire pressure for that car and (b) the highest possible tire pressure for that car. I could even go into testing out different types of tires. Do dirt tires allow the car to get better fuel economy? However, i think thats looking too much into it.

Quote from theycallmeebryan :6. Tire pressure. Does lower tire pressures effect gas miledge in LFS? Does higher tire pressure effect fuel economy in LFS? I would just do two different tests in the highway scenario to show this. The two tests will involve (a) the lowest possible tire pressure for that car and (b) the highest possible tire pressure for that car.

There was big thread on this a while back, and indeed pressures to affect mileage because of rolling resistance (just like IRL).

Still curious to see though. I presume you will use proper ratios not racing ones, IE overdrive for top gear, 1:1 for 4th (5th on the six speeds).
Quote from Ball Bearing Turbo :I presume you will use proper ratios not racing ones, IE overdrive for top gear, 1:1 for 4th (5th on the six speeds).

Would that make any difference, given that all values are multiplied by the final drive ratio anyway?
Quote from theycallmeebryan :l

Wheel4hummer is correct. More load=more exhaust. In a turbo application, you want to load the car in order to build boost more quickly.

However, more rpm with load= more exhaust overall. So say you are seeing 50% load at 1000rpms, then compare it to 50% load at 3000rpms.... More exhaust will be created at the 3000rpm mark. And you can test it yourself. Another way to look at it... at 3000rpms, apply 50% tps and see how fast the turbo spools. Then do the same thing but apply 100%TPS. vwahla.

Still, revs itself doesnt mean boost really builds up. Like you have the car in neutral, then rev it to lets say 4000 rpm, then load that engine (to be simple, be in gear and just step on the brake). In neutral, since its not under load, less A/F needed to get the revs, which equals in less exhaust. Then in the next case, when loading the engine, it does more work to maintain the same rev, which means more A/F, more exhaust -> the turbo effectively builds up boost.
Its not just about how fast it builds up the boost (because at 4000rpm in neutral you will not have boost effectively), but how much boost it builds up if it does any.

Like I have a supercharged 3.8 in my car. Since its a 'forced-fed' engine, we can talk about boost. During daily driving, I can simply drive without making any boost. No boost either when revving it in neutral. Boost only builds up when the engine is loaded.

Im not saying you are wrong, I just say revs itself doesnt mean theres built up boost in the cylinder head. Also, cruisin at 60 km/h at 3000 revs wont make boost building up, not even slowly. Load is what you ned when you want to build up boost.

PS: ah, sorry, seems like I totally misread the facts, and wanted to prove the opposite. You have to excuse me, its 5:15 am
I just checked some fuel maps comparing NA cars to turbo cars. and the Fuel injected for NA cars @ cruising speed was always more for the NA cars.

Makes sence Turbo cars your not driving on boost. the turbo even though its spinning, has to be thats the only way the air would get in, at that points all it is a restriction plus.

Can't say the OP results surprised me. were your guys really expecting LFS Engine sim to spit out results that were veracious?

It looks like lfs calculates Fuel consumption based on how much torque the engine is producing, In real life thats not how it works.
Quote from Bob Smith :Would that make any difference, given that all values are multiplied by the final drive ratio anyway?

I meant the diff too, just assumed that would be included in "ratios". But even then the spacings should be life life in the trans, also with a realistic differential ratio. Yes, ultimate torque multiplication through the drivetrain is of course what matters.
From Scawen's earlier(2004, old forum) post:

Quote from Scawen :- I didn't "invent" the fuel consumption figures, the fuel being used in any physics update comes from the current power output of the engine and the amount of energy in a litre of petrol, modified by an efficiency value (30% - most of the energy is wasted as heat).

At least that was the case long before the BF1 patch. Then it came out in April 2006 and suddenly fuel consumptions of all cars had dropped by more than half if you remember. I suppose it was because of some empirical values, like we know for example that a modern V8 F1 car consumes around 75l/100km during a race according to some F1 teams. I've found the current fuel consumption of the cars a bit low, but it's not that far off, so it doesn't make much sense really, if we consider the different circumstances, measuring errors as well.
Quote :- I didn't "invent" the fuel consumption figures, the fuel being used in any physics update comes from the current power output of the engine and the amount of energy in a litre of petrol, modified by an efficiency value (30% - most of the energy is wasted as heat).

well that explains the results shown. thats clearly not how it works in real life.
Quote from lalathegreat :well that explains the results shown. thats clearly not how it works in real life.

Sure it does. In reality the efficiency value there varies a bit with throttle and rpm, but fundamentally this approach is good enough for its purpose. To get nitpicky you'd want to use BSFC curves, but what difference would it really make to game play in LFS, and then how would one argue for or against the accuracy of the BSFC curves when the engines are completely fictitious, anyway?

If the mileage is too high or low on some cars, a quick tweak to the fuel efficiency value for each car is all that'd be needed. 30% is rather high for fuel conversion efficiency, in general, iirc.

There was a debate in rec.autos.driving about fuel efficiency versus fuel economy a couple years ago, where someone was insisting that the best fuel economy came at 40% of redline. That's not specifically what people here are arguing about, of course, but some of you might find it interesting as it gets into some calculations using real world engine data that is both throttle position and rpm dependent, and considers both in variation with a car's speed. The posting was pretty off the cuff by this point in the thread as the guy we were talking too was exceptionally dense (high volumetric efficiency? ), so my language and attitude is a bit flame-like.

The specific post is here:

http://groups.google.com/group ... ving/msg/4349618c20e0f5b4?

The rest of the thread is here for context:

http://groups.google.com/group ... p;rnum=1#44a65441d60ee4dc
Quote from jtw62074 :Sure it does. In reality the efficiency value there varies a bit with throttle and rpm, but fundamentally this approach is good enough for its purpose. To get nitpicky you'd want to use BSFC curves, but what difference would it really make to game play in LFS, and then how would one argue for or against the accuracy of the BSFC curves when the engines are completely fictitious, anyway?

If the mileage is too high or low on some cars, a quick tweak to the fuel efficiency value for each car is all that'd be needed. 30% is rather high for fuel conversion efficiency, in general, iirc.

There was a debate in rec.autos.driving about fuel efficiency versus fuel economy a couple years ago, where someone was insisting that the best fuel economy came at 40% of redline. That's not specifically what people here are arguing about, of course, but some of you might find it interesting as it gets into some calculations using real world engine data that is both throttle position and rpm dependent, and considers both in variation with a car's speed. The posting was pretty off the cuff by this point in the thread as the guy we were talking too was exceptionally dense (high volumetric efficiency? ), so my language and attitude is a bit flame-like.

The specific post is here:

http://groups.google.com/group ... ving/msg/4349618c20e0f5b4?

The rest of the thread is here for context:

http://groups.google.com/group ... p;rnum=1#44a65441d60ee4dc

I suppose it does work in an ideal situation.
from what experienced in real life its not as simple as the explanation the developer gave.

In real life when you tune an ECU Fuel map(S) its usually done based Manifold pressure vs RPM. an Na Engine tends to make more power running slightly rich around 13.5 AFR. But thats at WOT in the cruising area were fuel economy is concern you can pull the AFR back till its lean how lean depends, Exhaust Gas temps.

the algoritm in the game to me is fine for NA engines but Turbo charged car you have to run the AFR richer at WOT (around 11~12 ish depends on how much boost). you would actually make more power running a leaner mixture but your can't because the EGT would be too high. So at WOT you would actually be injecting more fuel than necessary and making less power for the amount you injected. so i think were the algorithm is going to break is when you have a NA car vs Turbocharged one the turbocharged one should consume more fuel.

So for me i really don't see power generated as the best way to judge fuel consumption. it would be interesting to see what MPG the GTR versions of the car get.
Quote from lalathegreat :
the algoritm in the game to me is fine for NA engines but Turbo charged car you have to run the AFR richer at WOT (around 11~12 ish depends on how much boost).

What algorithm?
Oh shut up Wheel. You know perfectly well what he meant. And if you didn't then please, just go away.
Quote from lalathegreat :I suppose it does work in an ideal situation.
from what experienced in real life its not as simple as the explanation the developer gave.

In real life when you tune an ECU Fuel map(S) its usually done based Manifold pressure vs RPM. an Na Engine tends to make more power running slightly rich around 13.5 AFR. But thats at WOT in the cruising area were fuel economy is concern you can pull the AFR back till its lean how lean depends, Exhaust Gas temps.

the algoritm in the game to me is fine for NA engines but Turbo charged car you have to run the AFR richer at WOT (around 11~12 ish depends on how much boost). you would actually make more power running a leaner mixture but your can't because the EGT would be too high. So at WOT you would actually be injecting more fuel than necessary and making less power for the amount you injected. so i think were the algorithm is going to break is when you have a NA car vs Turbocharged one the turbocharged one should consume more fuel.

So for me i really don't see power generated as the best way to judge fuel consumption. it would be interesting to see what MPG the GTR versions of the car get.

great post, i would only argue that turbo cars run rich on boost because of knock (preignition) prevention, but would cirtainly have higher egt, but is that a problem for sports cats/water cooled turbos these days? (most dont work tillvery hot anyway)

Simon
Quote from tristancliffe :Oh shut up Wheel. You know perfectly well what he meant. And if you didn't then please, just go away.

I didn't think the devs had said much about the way turbochargers work in LFS.
Quote from lalathegreat :I suppose it does work in an ideal situation.
from what experienced in real life its not as simple as the explanation the developer gave.

nobody argued it was that simple in real life
ultimatle an engine is just a device to convert energy stored in fuel into mechanic energy so guesstimating its fuel consumption via its power and efficiency is perfectly reasonable
all youd have to do to take your points into account is different efficiencies for different cars and youre done with it
Quote from Shotglass :nobody argued it was that simple in real life
ultimatle an engine is just a device to convert energy stored in fuel into mechanic energy so guesstimating its fuel consumption via its power and efficiency is perfectly reasonable
all youd have to do to take your points into account is different efficiencies for different cars and youre done with it

but the point i was making is that high powered Turbo cars use more fuel than they need in order to keep their EGT down.
Quote from lalathegreat :but the point i was making is that high powered Turbo cars use more fuel than they need in order to keep their EGT down.

so in other words their efficiency is rubbish => turn it down a little => problem solved ... exactly what i said
-
(tristancliffe) DELETED by tristancliffe : Moving my post down :)
Just to be pedantic, you'd need to bring the output back up as well

edit: crazy post mover people... (how the....)
Quote from wheel4hummer :I didn't think the devs had said much about the way turbochargers work in LFS.

No, they haven't. But it's reasonable to assume it based on an algorithm or equation. Stop trying to be smart about it

Moved it down for you Jeff

FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG