Altering ECU + Restrictor to find Fuel Map Equivalents

[BobDx123]

This is a multi part question and I’m asking regarding various cars.

Has anyone figured out is there is a setting (percentage?) for ECU and/or the Restrictor that creates an equivalent fuel map setting?

For example:

Car a has 800hp and 600lb-ft with ECU and Restrictor at 100%, and can complete 8 laps using FM3. Is there a setting to de-tune that offers equal performance and fuel usage using FM1? Also, do we know how much weight + ballast plays a role in this? The benefit being that if power can be reduced and use FM1, a ton of PP becomes available for aero, tire upgrades, weight reduction etc… while hopefully maintain performance in speed and fuel usage.

The are many different examples we could create with this. Of course the variables are different with each car.

What do we know concretely about this? Any idea what the actual differences to performance and fuel saving are through all FM settings?

Love to hear others thoughts, experiences and suggestions

Thanks in advance for all of help and input

-Bob

 

[ROCKET JOE]

Ingenious questions and logic, mate.

P.S. Seriously ...

 

[hyperspeed980]

I heard from somewhere that FM6 reduces a car's power to 80% of its maximum. I don't know if that's true, but it can probably be tested using the Veyron or Chiron's power graphs.

 

[Meythia]

I have not yet looked at FM vs power, mainly because I already drive low weight (low power) cars that are at or near their maximum PP with the power tuning and then I only resort to shortshifting and adjusting the gear ratios.

You can do tests on SSRX with custom race and maximum fuel consumption for a pretty fast way to get some pairs of data to compare against each other.

 

[BobDx123]

@hyperspeed980
Interesting.

Sorry if I’m not fully grasping. Can you clear up a little about checking with the Veyron/Chiron and their respective graphs?

@Meythia

sorry, disregard. A quick search revealed it was the the track



EDIT: Was just thinking it would be nice if the fuel usage and tank size was a stat was included some way in the tuning section

 

[Meythia]

EDIT:...

You corrected on my reply
Special Stage Route X.

Your thread lead me to look for this:

 

[BobDx123]

You corrected on my reply
Special Stage Route X.

Your thread lead me to look for this:

Sorry man, I should have looked up the term first before prodding for more info.

Thank you for providing the video, I’m gonna check that out right now.

Really appreciate your help

 

[hyperspeed980]

@hyperspeed980
Interesting.

Sorry if I’m not fully grasping. Can you clear up a little about checking with the Veyron/Chiron and their respective graphs?

No worries.

The Veyron (road version, not Gr. 4) and Chiron have power meters on their dashboards, presumably to show off the fact that they have over a thousand horsepower . However, this also comes in handy as a telemetry tool - since the meter works perfectly fine in-game, it reacts to things such as changing fuel maps and using nitrous, in addition to whatever changes in power it has had through tuning.

Therefore, one could take a Veyron (which has pretty much exactly 1000 horsepower stock), use it in a race with fuel consumption, then apply FM6 and read the power meter to see the difference.

 

[pedrocor]

What you are asking isn't much straight forward.

Of course, if you reduce power on ECU and restrictor, you will have a PP margin to work with aero, weight or stickier tires. And yes, I totally agree that if will sacrifice power through the race, is better to do it on settings and gain something on PP doing it, instead of nerffing through fuel map, specially now (post 1.31) that mediums can be a serious consideration on endurance races. No point on having your PP calculated to a 700hp and after that

It isn't as straight forward because even ECU and restrictor don't mess with the power peak and curve the same way and isn't really clear how fuel map reduces power along the range. Also different engines (and tunes) have power delivered different ways, so what works some way on a NA engine, doesn't translate to a turbo or supercharged engine the same way.

So, NO, I believe it isn't possible to establish a "formula" to translate FM1-6 to a ECU%/Restrictor%.

 

[BobDx123]

What you are asking isn't much straight forward.

Of course, if you reduce power on ECU and restrictor, you will have a PP margin to work with aero, weight or stickier tires. And yes, I totally agree that if will sacrifice power through the race, is better to do it on settings and gain something on PP doing it, instead of nerffing through fuel map, specially now (post 1.31) that mediums can be a serious consideration on endurance races. No point on having your PP calculated to a 700hp and after that

It isn't as straight forward because even ECU and restrictor don't mess with the power peak and curve the same way and isn't really clear how fuel map reduces power along the range. Also different engines (and tunes) have power delivered different ways, so what works some way on a NA engine, doesn't translate to a turbo or supercharged engine the same way.

So, NO, I believe it isn't possible to establish a "formula" to translate FM1-6 to a ECU%/Restrictor%.

I understand the power curve as well as the RPM at peak power are influenced by the ECU & Restrictor. Definitely not familiar with how the fuel map works in-game specifically and whether it’s similar in to adjusting other power factors of the tune “on-the-fly”. Likewise, I wasn’t sure if there’s a way to mimick an FM setting that while maybe not identical could be a viable substitute to achieve the same performance without starting from scratch checking each car individually, making changes little bit by bit

 

[eran0004]

Just tested with one car (Jaguar F-Type road car), but it seems like the fuel maps are more fuel efficient than reducing the power via the power restrictor and the ECU. I tested by making a couple of runs on Route X, from standing start up to the 5 km mark. I noted the top speed for each run, as well as the remaining fuel.

On fuel map (FM) 6 I got similar top speed as with the ECU set to 85 or the power restrictor (PR) set to 80, but had 79% fuel remaining compared to 68% for the ECU/power limiter.

Likewise, with ECU 80 or PR 75 I had a similar amount of fuel left as with FM 4, but with a top speed of 290 km/h for the ECU/PR compared to 311 km/h for the FM.

 

[BobDx123]

EDIJust tested with one car (Jaguar F-Type road car), but it seems like the fuel maps are more fuel efficient than reducing the power via the power restrictor and the ECU. I tested by making a couple of runs on Route X, from standing start up to the 5 km mark. I noted the top speed for each run, as well as the remaining fuel.

On fuel map (FM) 6 I got similar top speed as with the ECU set to 85 or the power restrictor (PR) set to 80, but had 79% fuel remaining compared to 68% for the ECU/power limiter.

Likewise, with ECU 80 or PR 75 I had a similar amount of fuel left as with FM 4, but with a top speed of 290 km/h for the ECU/PR compared to 311 km/h for the FM.

View attachment 1248877

Wow, lot of work. Thanks for sharing. I understand the top speeds were limited, by chance did you notice differences in acceleration during your tests?

I’m not sure if you watched the video Meythia posted (very interesting) but they were testing the difference between using fuel maps vs shifting at various intervals to 1500m, to evaluate the remaining fuel and the time it took with each setup.

Edit: the combined info between the video and what you posted is very useful

 

[eran0004]

Wow, lot of work. Thanks for sharing. I understand the top speeds were limited, by chance did you notice differences in acceleration during your tests?

I’m not sure if you watched the video Meythia posted (very interesting) but they were testing the difference between using fuel maps vs shifting at various intervals to 1500m, to evaluate the remaining fuel and the time it took with each setup.

Edit: the combined info between the video and what you posted is very useful

You’re welcome

The top speed basically translates to acceleration as well, since both are determined by the power of the car (if everything else stays equal).

I didn’t watch the video yet, but it sounds interesting.

 

[Pizzapants]

Just tested with one car (Jaguar F-Type road car), but it seems like the fuel maps are more fuel efficient than reducing the power via the power restrictor and the ECU. I tested by making a couple of runs on Route X, from standing start up to the 5 km mark. I noted the top speed for each run, as well as the remaining fuel.

On fuel map (FM) 6 I got similar top speed as with the ECU set to 85 or the power restrictor (PR) set to 80, but had 79% fuel remaining compared to 68% for the ECU/power limiter.

Likewise, with ECU 80 or PR 75 I had a similar amount of fuel left as with FM 4, but with a top speed of 290 km/h for the ECU/PR compared to 311 km/h for the FM.

View attachment 1248877

Great chart! Thanks! It MIGHT depend on the car, but my experiments with the 787B and Escudo corroborate your findings -- turning up the power and then using a leaner fuel map was far more efficient than de-tuning the car.

For what it's worth, I also tested the fuel efficiency of reducing the ECU vs reducing the Power Restrictor, because I'd heard that reducing the ECU was more fuel-efficient, but I could not find a measurable difference between the two in terms of fuel consumption. (maybe I should try again)

Bottom line: if fuel is your limiting factor in a race, then using a leaner fuel map will solve your problem much, much better than de-tuning the car will. You'll go both faster and farther.

I’m not sure if you watched the video Meythia posted (very interesting) but they were testing the difference between using fuel maps vs shifting at various intervals to 1500m, to evaluate the remaining fuel and the time it took with each setup.

That's also a good question, but it almost certainly depends on the car (naturally aspirated vs turbo vs supercharger, plus different cars have major differences in power curve) as well as being heavily dependent on the gearing.

 

[SnakeEyes427]

This is a multi part question and I’m asking regarding various cars.

Has anyone figured out is there is a setting (percentage?) for ECU and/or the Restrictor that creates an equivalent fuel map setting?

For example:

Car a has 800hp and 600lb-ft with ECU and Restrictor at 100%, and can complete 8 laps using FM3. Is there a setting to de-tune that offers equal performance and fuel usage using FM1? Also, do we know how much weight + ballast plays a role in this? The benefit being that if power can be reduced and use FM1, a ton of PP becomes available for aero, tire upgrades, weight reduction etc… while hopefully maintain performance in speed and fuel usage.

The are many different examples we could create with this. Of course the variables are different with each car.

What do we know concretely about this? Any idea what the actual differences to performance and fuel saving are through all FM settings?

Love to hear others thoughts, experiences and suggestions

Thanks in advance for all of help and input

-Bob

I think we all will be playing with that on now to answer the question. What I have noticed is that the fuel burn rate set for the race seems to match up with the fuel map. So if your car can do X laps at x1 but the race is set for x3, a Fuel map of x3 will normally get you the same amount of laps as the x1 would. Just slower lap times.
If that makes sense.

 

[snowgt]

I think we all will be playing with that on now to answer the question. What I have noticed is that the fuel burn rate set for the race seems to match up with the fuel map. So if your car can do X laps at x1 but the race is set for x3, a Fuel map of x3 will normally get you the same amount of laps as the x1 would. Just slower lap times.
If that makes sense.

If you're setting fuel consumption to 3x, that means you consume 3 times as much fuel as normal. That would mean that in your theory FM3 would only use 33% of FM1. That's most certainly not true.

 

[SnakeEyes427]

If you're setting fuel consumption to 3x, that means you consume 3 times as much fuel as normal. That would mean that in your theory FM3 would only use 33% of FM1. That's most certainly not true.

Like I said, my experiences. I mostly run the Gr.4 and Gr.3 Viper. Maybe it's just that car. 🤷‍♀️
🙉🙈🙊