We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Need help with calculating.......
Options
Comments
-
[Deleted User] wrote:Hi,
thanks,
but when it comes to a pit stop, the high tech folks will decide how much fuel is needed to finish the race, there have been times when a car has run out of fuel on the last lap.
there has been no refuelling during pit stops since it was banned in 2010, the cars now start the race with sufficient fuel to get them to the finish line0 -
No they start with enough fuel to finish the race
you wont see any overweight formula one drivers, its all about weight saving
They are slim cos theyre fit-and they need to be. F1drivers are not like jockeys although with the new rules regarding weight they may start becoming like them, no more jenson. Etc0 -
[Deleted User] wrote:Hi,
so Formula One cars load up with a full tank at every pit stop?No they start with enough fuel to finish the race
you wont see any overweight formula one drivers, its all about weight saving
Formula one is an entirely different game than public roads. Their aim is to get round a track as fast as possible, which means flat-out acceleration, keeping power on to the last minute then, when they need to lose speed, burning it off with very hard braking. Despite fuel allowances, that is not a fuel efficient way to cover the distance. The "it's all about weight" in F1 is because weight will affect performance - especially acceleration, not because of fuel considerations.
At steady speed (well, technically, at a constant velocity) a car engine only burns enough fuel to cover the following:
Internal friction of the engine, transmission and running gear
The rolling resistance of the tyres
The aerodynamic drag of the bodywork
Any change in altitude because of hills.
The only one of those that extra weight has a significant effect on is the fuel used to climb hills - you'll need to put your foot down further to climb at the same speed. On the other hand, you'll be able to lift your foot further when you go down the other side so you regain a fair bit of the extra used there.
When you accelerate, on the other hand, extra weight means extra fuel burnt for the same gain in speed. But, again (if you drive well) you'll get most of that back by being able to ease up earlier, without losing speed so quickly, when you need to slow down.
What most people do is use the extra fuel when accelerating, then not begin slowiing until the time they normally would. At that point they need to waste more energy in the brakes because of the extra weight rather than using the extra weight to let them roll further. That's where the extra fuel consumption from extra weight comes from - the driver's poor understanding of how to drive economically0 -
Carrying extra weight does increase fuel consumption, I don't think anyone would disagree with this, but the key question is does it make more sense to fill up and make less stop / starts (which burn a lot of fuel), plus the extra mileage to divert to a fuel station (which burns fuel).
Even ignoring the time it takes, I reckon that the extra fuel burnt by diverting and stop / starting more frequently for fuel is greater than the extra fuel burnt by carrying the extra weight of a full tank of fuel.0 -
The difference in average weight of fuel carried between brimming a tank and running it to empty and half filling it twice and running it to empty is a quarter of a tank.
So, if a tank of fuel weighs 50kg then the average weight saving between the two options is 12.5kg. Well under 1% of the weight of the average car.0 -
I know someone who regularly takes his car on a completely unnecessary 50 mile drive up the M11 and back because it "increases my mpg".
He really thinks it saves him money.0 -
it is not rubbish it costs about £96.00 to brim the tank so why would i have near £100.00 worth of fuel sitting in my tank just to save a 200 yard trip to the gas station
I do not use my car as a daily driver so when i go somewhere i put in enough fuel to get me there and back with a little extra as a buffer zone
Well, the £96 is only going to sit doing nothing in your bank account. At least as fuel in your tank it would be knocking ten minutes off most of your journeys.;)0 -
Thanks force ten for your earlier answer, just been on a nearly 500 mile round trip and seem to be filling up more often but it seems the Juke has a smaller tank as well as lower mpg. Good to know the fuel used on the trip cost less than £20 more than the Auris, dear wife says it is worth it to have a smoother drive with the torque converter.0
-
I really wish we wouldn't use this crazy mix of units. Yes, its easy enough to calculate, but how many people bother? mpg means nothing because we don't buy fuel in gallons.
mpl would make sense but is also stupid. About time we changed over to kilometres like the rest of the world.
We're creating generations of people who are illiterate in measurement because they don't fully understand either system. Hugely irresponsible of the governments to allow this to have happened.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards