Fuel Usage Between Those In The Draft And Those Not

What's the fuel usage difference between those in the draft and those that aren't? I ran a race earlier where the fuel was above 1X, and I was shocked that the 5 drivers in the pack were able to cross the line with a running motor. Running by myself, I was able to get about 19 laps in before having to pit. I was under the assumption that cars in the draft burn more fuel because of the higher RPMs. I finished with a predicted 2 laps left in fuel. Can anyone explain this?

Cars in the draft will should burn less as they are out of the air/drag. They should also be turning less RPMs as they don't need to push as much air to maintain speed. "William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> What's the fuel usage difference between those in the draft and those > that aren't? I ran a race earlier where the fuel was above 1X, and I was > shocked that the 5 drivers in the pack were able to cross the line with > a running motor. > > Running by myself, I was able to get about 19 laps in before having to > pit. I was under the assumption that cars in the draft burn more fuel > because of the higher RPMs. > > I finished with a predicted 2 laps left in fuel. > > Can anyone explain this?

AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption, neither from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft, not even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers. Your mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:oqhQb.3059$[email hidden]... > Cars in the draft will should burn less as they are out of the air/drag. > They should also be turning less RPMs as they don't need to push as muchair

Quoted text (18 lines)

> to maintain speed. > > "William Bradshaw" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > What's the fuel usage difference between those in the draft and those > > that aren't? I ran a race earlier where the fuel was above 1X, and I was > > shocked that the 5 drivers in the pack were able to cross the line with > > a running motor. > > > > Running by myself, I was able to get about 19 laps in before having to > > pit. I was under the assumption that cars in the draft burn more fuel > > because of the higher RPMs. > > > > I finished with a predicted 2 laps left in fuel. > > > > Can anyone explain this? > >

Steve Smith wrote: > AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption, > neither from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from > catching a draft, not even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI > cars nor human drivers. Your mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... >I can say from experience that NR2k3 does account for yellow flag laps on fuel consumption. I was in a race that would have required a pit stop and because of yellows was able to make the checkers without it. Sean

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption, neither >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft, not >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers. Your >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... N2k3 definitely takes RPM into account when it comes to fuel consumption. How it does its calculations I dunno, but I do know you get better gas mileage at Pocono, for instance, if you stay in 4th gear instead of downshifting to 3rd. Jason

Then I be utterly and totally wrong. Whip me, beat me, tell me I'm a Democrat! P.S. Thx for clueing me in; I'll use this strategy in my next race. "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption,neither > >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft,not > >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers.Your

Quoted text (8 lines)

> >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... > > N2k3 definitely takes RPM into account when it comes to fuel > consumption. How it does its calculations I dunno, but I do know you > get better gas mileage at Pocono, for instance, if you stay in 4th > gear instead of downshifting to 3rd. > > Jason

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption, neither >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft, not >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers. Your >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... I don't know about that. In Nascar Thunder 2004 the AI cars can run a lap or two longer than me without pitting for fuel and I'm wondering if it's because they are drafting more than me.

In N2003, you can modify the AI's overall fuel consumption by editing the value in the "ai_fuel_use" line in the [ ai_track ] stanza in the track.ini file. I seem to remember something similar in NT2004, but, hey, I'm batting zip in this thread so far. "McCrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption,neither > >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft,not > >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers.Your > >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... > > I don't know about that. In Nascar Thunder 2004 the AI cars can run a > lap or two longer than me without pitting for fuel and I'm wondering > if it's because they are drafting more than me.

[email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted text (14 lines)

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption, neither > >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching a draft, not > >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers. Your > >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... > > N2k3 definitely takes RPM into account when it comes to fuel > consumption. How it does its calculations I dunno, but I do know you > get better gas mileage at Pocono, for instance, if you stay in 4th > gear instead of downshifting to 3rd. > > Jason

RPM matters quite a bit, but I think "throttle usage" is very important. The reason cars in the draft made it longer with fuel was because they were lifting off of the throttle more than cars that weren't, even though they may have been carrying more RPM's overall...

Yes, I know how the RW draft works. I used it once myself on a trip to Pittsburgh in a NSU Prinz on the Pennsy Turnpike. One of the NSU's precious few cylinders went out, so I took to tucking in behind 18-wheelers (which drove them crazy) to maintain a respectable average. I was the featured speaker at a Porsche club dinner and didn't want to be late. It worked, too. "John Prather" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote in messagenews:<[email hidden]>... > > On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:48:57 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >AFAIK, no racing game models the finer points of fuel consumption,neither > > >from longer gearing, nor from short-shifting, nor from catching adraft, not > > >even from yellow-flag laps, and neither for AI cars nor human drivers.Your

Quoted text (15 lines)

> > >mileage, IOW, prolly DOESN'T vary.... > > > > N2k3 definitely takes RPM into account when it comes to fuel > > consumption. How it does its calculations I dunno, but I do know you > > get better gas mileage at Pocono, for instance, if you stay in 4th > > gear instead of downshifting to 3rd. > > > > Jason > > RPM matters quite a bit, but I think "throttle usage" is very > important. > > The reason cars in the draft made it longer with fuel was because they > were lifting off of the throttle more than cars that weren't, even > though they may have been carrying more RPM's overall...

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:16:46 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Then I be utterly and totally wrong. Whip me, beat me, tell me I'm a >Democrat! > >P.S. Thx for clueing me in; I'll use this strategy in my next race. NP. This situation actually came up in a RASCAR race awhile ago, whenever we did Pocono with no cautions. A few of us had to pit for fuel, while someone (Mitch I think) ran the whole race in 4th and won. Jason

Hi, In article <[email hidden]>, jason moyer <[email hidden]> wrote: > N2k3 definitely takes RPM into account when it comes to fuel > consumption. How it does its calculations I dunno, but I do know you > get better gas mileage at Pocono, for instance, if you stay in 4th > gear instead of downshifting to 3rd. IMHO this was already the case with NASCAR 1 (!) Herwig

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:24:32 +0100, Herwig Henseler <[email hidden]> wrote: >IMHO this was already the case with NASCAR 1 (!) Yeah, there were variables affecting fuel usage in Indycar 1/2 and Nascar 1. I'm trying to go easy on Steve here. =) I'm honestly not 100% certain if drafting to save fuel works tho, as I don't have any ovals installed anymore. Jason

I think what we need to know is exactly how NR2003 calculates fuel usage, and what factors are monitored. Without this info, it's all a guessing game... -Larry "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:24:32 +0100, Herwig Henseler > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >IMHO this was already the case with NASCAR 1 (!) > > Yeah, there were variables affecting fuel usage in Indycar 1/2 and > Nascar 1. I'm trying to go easy on Steve here. =) > > I'm honestly not 100% certain if drafting to save fuel works tho, as I > don't have any ovals installed anymore. > > Jason

"Larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:vwJQb.8724$_H5.6246@lakeread06... > I think what we need to know is exactly how NR2003 calculates fuel usage, > and what factors are monitored. > > Without this info, it's all a guessing game... And it wasn't before??

Well, I've been trying that strategy for years (both in GPL and N2003, and both online and off) and it only worked for me once, which I attributed to a fluke. And while the DTE (distance to empty) in GPL's setup menu screen was usually accurate, N2003's was not only wildly off-the-mark but also jumping all over the place (altho the in-car F3 screen seemed trustworthy). I just assumed the feature was broken, like so many other promising might-have-been in the games (like GPL's adaptive AI and N2003's brake wear). I'm glad it works as it gives me one more arrow in my quiver (when yer as old & slo as I am, you need a lot of canny gotchas to win races). "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:16:46 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Then I be utterly and totally wrong. Whip me, beat me, tell me I'm a > >Democrat! > > > >P.S. Thx for clueing me in; I'll use this strategy in my next race. > > NP. This situation actually came up in a RASCAR race awhile ago, > whenever we did Pocono with no cautions. A few of us had to pit for > fuel, while someone (Mitch I think) ran the whole race in 4th and won. > > Jason

The last time I remember it working was in Indy 500, Papy's first sim. When I complained to Dave Kaemmer that the game was getting too easy (you couldn't adjust the AI), he recommended that I turn down the boost, which went from 1 to 9. I finally got to where I could win races with it set at 1 by a clever combination of rpm-preserving line and aggressive blocking. I did notice that you could save one fuel stop in the 500 (5 instead of 6), but by itself that wasn't enuf to win (saving 30-40 seconds--there was no pit-lane speed limit--over a 3-hour race wasn't sufficient to recoup the lost speed), which might have worked in the RW but not in "Indianapolis 500: The Simulation." My best lap in that game was a 242. Anybody beat that? (Without altering the wing angle during the lap, that is.) I saved the screenie somewhere.... "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 22:24:32 +0100, Herwig Henseler > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >IMHO this was already the case with NASCAR 1 (!) > > Yeah, there were variables affecting fuel usage in Indycar 1/2 and > Nascar 1. I'm trying to go easy on Steve here. =) > > I'm honestly not 100% certain if drafting to save fuel works tho, as I > don't have any ovals installed anymore. > > Jason

Fuel gauge is suppose to flutter in N2003 as it models real life. There is no fuel telemetry in NASCAR, only a fuel press gauge and crew calculations done manually. Been more than one race lost in NASCAR due to "hoping" you had enough fuel. Basically when the fuel gauge starts to fluctuate your on the verge of running out but not clear exactly when it might happen. "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:ziPQb.46906$[email hidden]... > Well, I've been trying that strategy for years (both in GPL and N2003, and > both online and off) and it only worked for me once, which I attributed toa > fluke. And while the DTE (distance to empty) in GPL's setup menu screenwas > usually accurate, N2003's was not only wildly off-the-mark but alsojumping > all over the place (altho the in-car F3 screen seemed trustworthy). Ijust > assumed the feature was broken, like so many other promisingmight-have-been > in the games (like GPL's adaptive AI and N2003's brake wear). I'm glad it > works as it gives me one more arrow in my quiver (when yer as old & slo asI

Quoted text (19 lines)

> am, you need a lot of canny gotchas to win races). > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:[email hidden]... > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:16:46 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > >Then I be utterly and totally wrong. Whip me, beat me, tell me I'm a > > >Democrat! > > > > > >P.S. Thx for clueing me in; I'll use this strategy in my next race. > > > > NP. This situation actually came up in a RASCAR race awhile ago, > > whenever we did Pocono with no cautions. A few of us had to pit for > > fuel, while someone (Mitch I think) ran the whole race in 4th and won. > > > > Jason > >

Re-read, please. I was referring to the "Fuel Level: x gallons to x laps" value in the setup menu in the garage, which doesn't flutter. The fuel PRESSURE gauge in the cockpit isn't supposed to flutter, either...until yer almost outta gas, that is. (If you see it start to drop on a road course after you've passed the pit entrance, you can stick a fork in yerself - yer done.) "Schooner" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:xwPQb.3529$[email hidden]... > Fuel gauge is suppose to flutter in N2003 as it models real life. Thereis > no fuel telemetry in NASCAR, only a fuel press gauge and crew calculations > done manually. Been more than one race lost in NASCAR due to "hoping" you > had enough fuel. Basically when the fuel gauge starts to fluctuate youron > the verge of running out but not clear exactly when it might happen. > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:ziPQb.46906$[email hidden]... > > Well, I've been trying that strategy for years (both in GPL and N2003,and > > both online and off) and it only worked for me once, which I attributedto

Quoted text (10 lines)

> a > > fluke. And while the DTE (distance to empty) in GPL's setup menu screen > was > > usually accurate, N2003's was not only wildly off-the-mark but also > jumping > > all over the place (altho the in-car F3 screen seemed trustworthy). I > just > > assumed the feature was broken, like so many other promising > might-have-been > > in the games (like GPL's adaptive AI and N2003's brake wear). I'm glad

it > > works as it gives me one more arrow in my quiver (when yer as old & sloas

Quoted text (22 lines)

> I > > am, you need a lot of canny gotchas to win races). > > > > "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > > news:[email hidden]... > > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 01:16:46 GMT, "Steve Smith" > > > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > > > > >Then I be utterly and totally wrong. Whip me, beat me, tell me I'm a > > > >Democrat! > > > > > > > >P.S. Thx for clueing me in; I'll use this strategy in my next race. > > > > > > NP. This situation actually came up in a RASCAR race awhile ago, > > > whenever we did Pocono with no cautions. A few of us had to pit for > > > fuel, while someone (Mitch I think) ran the whole race in 4th and won. > > > > > > Jason > > > > > >

Steve, I can remember a Charlotte race on Ten where I loaded a Tally setup instead by mistake. I had a really low numerical final gear ratio 3.05 or 3.10. It was a 50% race. Even though I had the slowest car I ended up winning the race because I did one less fuel stop than everyone else. That was Nascar 2 I can't say I ever tried it with any other version but it did alter the fuel rate fairly significantly. I also recall running 242's in Indy 500 with the Buick. Pete "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:VrPQb.46962$[email hidden]... > The last time I remember it working was in Indy 500, Papy's first sim.When > I complained to Dave Kaemmer that the game was getting too easy (you > couldn't adjust the AI), he recommended that I turn down the boost, which > went from 1 to 9. I finally got to where I could win races with it set at1 > by a clever combination of rpm-preserving line and aggressive blocking. > > I did notice that you could save one fuel stop in the 500 (5 instead of6), > but by itself that wasn't enuf to win (saving 30-40 seconds--there was no > pit-lane speed limit--over a 3-hour race wasn't sufficient to recoup the > lost speed), which might have worked in the RW but not in "Indianapolis500: > The Simulation." > > My best lap in that game was a 242. Anybody beat that? (Without altering > the wing angle during the lap, that is.) I saved the screeniesomewhere....

Thx, Pete! "Pete" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:TLQQb.64$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (17 lines)

> Steve, I can remember a Charlotte race on Ten where I loaded a > Tally setup instead by mistake. I had a really low numerical final gear > ratio 3.05 or 3.10. It was a 50% race. Even though I had the slowest > car I ended up winning the race because I did one less fuel stop than > everyone else. > That was Nascar 2 I can't say I ever tried it with any other version > but it did alter the fuel rate fairly significantly. > I also recall running 242's in Indy 500 with the Buick. > > Pete > > "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:VrPQb.46962$[email hidden]... > > The last time I remember it working was in Indy 500, Papy's first sim. > When > > I complained to Dave Kaemmer that the game was getting too easy (you > > couldn't adjust the AI), he recommended that I turn down the boost,

which > > went from 1 to 9. I finally got to where I could win races with it setat > 1 > > by a clever combination of rpm-preserving line and aggressive blocking. > > > > I did notice that you could save one fuel stop in the 500 (5 instead of > 6), > > but by itself that wasn't enuf to win (saving 30-40 seconds--there wasno > > pit-lane speed limit--over a 3-hour race wasn't sufficient to recoup the > > lost speed), which might have worked in the RW but not in "Indianapolis > 500: > > The Simulation." > > > > My best lap in that game was a 242. Anybody beat that? (Withoutaltering > > the wing angle during the lap, that is.) I saved the screenie > somewhere.... > >

On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:40:53 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

>Re-read, please. I was referring to the "Fuel Level: x gallons to x laps" >value in the setup menu in the garage, which doesn't flutter. The fuel >PRESSURE gauge in the cockpit isn't supposed to flutter, either...until yer >almost outta gas, that is. (If you see it start to drop on a road course >after you've passed the pit entrance, you can stick a fork in yerself - yer >done.) >

Experience has shown that, from the instant the spotter gives his low fuel warning (the first one), which is usually followed by the needle starting to drop a few seconds after the message, you will be able to drive about 7 miles before the engine starts to sputter, and one more mile after the sputtering commences. John DiFool

On Sat, 24 Jan 2004 03:00:39 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >In N2003, you can modify the AI's overall fuel consumption by editing the >value in the "ai_fuel_use" line in the [ ai_track ] stanza in the track.ini >file. I seem to remember something similar in NT2004, but, hey, I'm batting >zip in this thread so far. OK thx, I'll look into it. I didn't think it was right that they could do more laps than me on the same fuel load but then I thought maybe it's my poor driving style or becauase they are drafting. I could be right still.

I must be driving a lot harder than you. "John DiFool" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > On Sun, 25 Jan 2004 13:40:53 GMT, "Steve Smith" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >Re-read, please. I was referring to the "Fuel Level: x gallons to xlaps" > >value in the setup menu in the garage, which doesn't flutter. The fuel > >PRESSURE gauge in the cockpit isn't supposed to flutter, either...untilyer > >almost outta gas, that is. (If you see it start to drop on a road course > >after you've passed the pit entrance, you can stick a fork in yerself -yer

Quoted text (11 lines)

> >done.) > > > > Experience has shown that, from the instant the spotter gives his > low fuel warning (the first one), which is usually followed by the > needle starting to drop a few seconds after the message, you > will be able to drive about 7 miles before the engine starts to > sputter, and one more mile after the sputtering commences. > > John DiFool >

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 13:12:45 GMT, "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote: >I must be driving a lot harder than you. > <shrug> I got the warning the other day right as I was going into Dunlop at Le Mans. I was sputtering but managed to get it into the pits before she conked out. That's about 8 miles right there, on a track where you're running flat out most of the time. John DiFool

William Bradshaw wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> What's the fuel usage difference between those in the draft and those > that aren't? I ran a race earlier where the fuel was above 1X, and I > was shocked that the 5 drivers in the pack were able to cross the > line with a running motor. > > Running by myself, I was able to get about 19 laps in before having to > pit. I was under the assumption that cars in the draft burn more fuel > because of the higher RPMs.

If you're just following someone at the same speed as them, your rpms will be more or less the same. You also won't be using full throttle, as if you were, you'd be catching up with them. This is why you will use less fuel than the guy infront, his car is doing all the hard work punching the hole in the air.

I think that's the key question. Does NR2003 actually monitor the true throttle position, or are all fuel calculations done on a rpm vs. gear vs. distance vs. ?? equation? I know this. I've tried running pace laps in 4th gear to keep rpms down, and it didn't make a bit of difference in the fuel usage. That's why I'd love to know what the exact parameters are Papy is monitoring for fuel usage calculations. -Larry "scott" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bv61f6$1sda$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> William Bradshaw wrote: > > What's the fuel usage difference between those in the draft and those > > that aren't? I ran a race earlier where the fuel was above 1X, and I > > was shocked that the 5 drivers in the pack were able to cross the > > line with a running motor. > > > > Running by myself, I was able to get about 19 laps in before having to > > pit. I was under the assumption that cars in the draft burn more fuel > > because of the higher RPMs. > > If you're just following someone at the same speed as them, your rpms will > be more or less the same. You also won't be using full throttle, as if

you > were, you'd be catching up with them. This is why you will use less fuel > than the guy infront, his car is doing all the hard work punching the hole > in the air. > >