AR3-GP wrote: ↑17 Aug 2024, 14:59
scuderiabrandon wrote: ↑17 Aug 2024, 09:26
To me that's still sounds like torque vectoring, but maybe that is my lack of understanding showing.
Anyway, sending more braking force to the inside wheel to induce rotation seems really hard to do. The inner wheel will always be completely unloaded, meaning lock-ups become a big problem. For it to work as intended, you'd probably require ABS.
Coulthard pointed out the same thing about the Mclaren from 1997 and you could hear it in onboards like the 1997 Suzuka qualy lap.
“We had to learn how to work with it, because you had to accelerate while you braked, otherwise you just locked the wheel.
https://www.mclaren.com/racing/latest-n ... l-3153421/
There's no evidence of this in the telemetry of the Red Bull.
A car with this kind of system would also need to have larger brakes, more brake cooling, and more fuel to account for all of the losses associated with deliberately dragging brakes and blending throttle and brakes.
I'm finding it difficult to see a clear picture. I'm eager to see the discussion in Zandvoort.
Such a system obviously does not require larger brakes. Neither the 1997 McLaren nor the 1998 McLaren, which were proven to have this system, had larger brakes. And back then, the cars were much closer to the limit as far as brakes were concerned (defective brake disks such as Frentzen's in Australia in 1997, etc.). In the same way, neither the 97 nor the 98 McLaren had ABS. McLarens System back then worked with a switch to select either rear brake according to the direction of the corner, which they were then able to apply to either turn the car in under power (by braking the inner wheel) or prevent inner wheel spin when accelerating out of a corner. Breaking of one rear wheel under power will reduce the torque delivered to the wheel on that side and increase it to the opposite side via the open differential. The net result is a turning moment imparted to the car, which steers it toward the side of the breaked wheel.
But anyway, would it be surprising if Red Bull had a similar system to the McLaren of 1997 and 1998? I don't think so, because ultimately it would only be logical for Adrian Newey to have noticed when reading the 2022 regulations that there was a gray area that a car he designed had already exploited in 1997 and 1998 (even though the McLaren"fiddle-break" system itself was invented by Steve Nichols, not by Newey). Also, in the late 90's Honda invented a system called the "direct yaw control system" which was installed in some of its road cars such as the Prelude R. In this system, the speed ratio between the inner and outer driven wheels was fixed, with the outer wheel turning faster. Two planetary gears determined the ratio, and depending on the direction of rotation, the appropriate set of one clutch was engaged. In a straight line, both clutches were open. A computer controlled the entire system automatically. This was definitely a "double clutch" gearbox, as there were two additional clutches that took over the drive from the engine in addition to the normal clutch. Honda had also developed an four-wheel drive version, in which the ratio between the front and rear wheels was similarly fixed when cornering (the speed of the rear wheels was increased to provide more torque). So Honda has a lot of know-how in this area as well, and if you take this system and allow the clutches to slip, a degree of control over the speed difference is possible. Only one gear shaft is needed now, but it has to be driven at the mean wheel speed and geared identically with both half shafts in a slightly different ratio to provide slip at the clutch....
Ultimately, these are mind games based on technology that is over 25 years old and with which Honda has a lot of experience and when studying the 2022 rules - it would be obvious to come to the conclusion that there is a gray area here, i think. And with today's technology and 25 years of experience in this field... there are enough possibilities, e.g. an additional shaft that is driven by the final drive gear and is geared to the output shafts of the differential in such a way that it tries to drive both shafts at a slightly different speed than the differential. Two clutches decouple the gear from the drive of the output shafts and thus prevent the entire system from seizing up. However, if one of the clutches is partially engaged, torque is transmitted to this output shaft, increasing its speed, with the opposite shaft being proportionally slowed down by the differential. The modulation of the clutches allows the torque distribution to be controlled, and the transmission and clutch controls are designed to increase the speed of the outer wheel while slowing the inner wheel. The lay shaft can either increase the speed or slow down the output shafts, with the clutch strategy designed accordingly. The gear ratio and clutch characteristics must be selected to provide the required degree of control. The result is a dual clutch system that is simpler than Honda's and provides a means of controlling the speed differential of the output shafts.
Such a system requires lateral and longitudinal acceleration inputs to determine the control of the clutches. I don't think these inputs are allowed in an electronically controlled differential in Formula 1. They would therefore have to work purely hydromechanically. The semi-active suspension system from Automot Products Ltd. that Williams initially adapted was a purely hydro-mechanical system before Williams converted it to computer-controlled electro-hydraulics. And that was over 30 years ago! It used pendulums that drove hydraulic valves to signal lateral and longitudinal acceleration. Such a system is perfectly feasible, even if it is not ideal in this age of electronics. Slipping clutches, which transmit a considerable amount of torque over a long period of time, would have to be cooled and therefore operated with oil. Porsche has used such a system in the four-wheel drive Porsche 959 to control torque distribution to the front and rear. Several sintered metal clutch disks running in oil performed this task. So, the entire technology for the complete control of torque distribution on the rear axle of a Formula 1 car has long, been available within the technical regulations (Even if I could be wrong because I don't know all the technical regulations of the last 20 years by heart), i think. By calling the individually actuated rear brakes of such a system "clutches", incorporating them into the gearbox mixed with the differential and actuating them automatically, I think you would have bypassed the regulations on brakes, driver aids and rear axle steering and would have been one way such a system could have looked (and maybe how "this team" actually done it) although with today's technology there would probably be quite different possibilities that I can't even think of for lack of knowledge, but either way - the effect is almost exactly the same. With the current rule change, the FIA is finally closing this possibility and I think for good reason. Because I would be surprised if someone hadn't noticed this gray area. And I think the people who are predestined for this are undoubtedly those who already used such a system in F1 over 25 years ago or who have many years of experience in this regard with their road cars. And Newey (MP4-13) and Honda are at the forefront of this. Ultimately, the technology has been known for just as long, you just have to recognize the grey area and be able to implement it within this grey area.
).
