- Login or Register
No account yet? Sign up
No need for TC on the front wheels WB only torque bias control left to right.WhiteBlue wrote:So let us assume a system where the front wheels which are only electrically driven have traction control. Why should traction control to the front be allowed and not be allowed to the rear wheels?
AG, I quit the discussion at this point. You are not answering my question. I asked for the justification why electric traction control to the front wheels should be treated any different to ICE rear wheel traction control by the governing body. You evaded that question and I do not know how to continue a discussion from here. My understanding is that the FiA must treat all competitors equal. If they find traction control with electric torque at one competitor they must treat this exactly in the same way as if they find traction control to the rear wheels. It cannot be allowed in my view in a fair set of rules.autogyro wrote:No need for TC on the front wheels WB only torque bias control left to right.WhiteBlue wrote:So let us assume a system where the front wheels which are only electrically driven have traction control. Why should traction control to the front be allowed and not be allowed to the rear wheels?
There would need to be control from the ECU to balance the torque front to rear relative to throttle position though. It should be easy to prevent any attempts to get around the regs through tight control over the ECU technology as now.
OK, now it starts to make sense again to me. We established the principle that driver aids like TC should not be allowed. The driver must have control over the accelerating and breaking torque simply by means of his pedal signal.autogyro wrote:I am unsure what you are asking WB.
I am not trying to justify traction control or launch control using either electric torque or ic torque, both should be allowed to break traction if the driver uses to much throttle.
The program must allow facility for the team and Kers developers to experement with the balance of torque recovery and apply and its distribution between the four wheels. However the rule you suggest WB should police any use of this work to produce TC ABS or LC. I see no other way to ensure ongoing development without artificial restriction of the core technology.WhiteBlue wrote:OK, now it starts to make sense again to me. We established the principle that driver aids like TC should not be allowed. The driver must have control over the accelerating and breaking torque simply by means of his pedal signal.autogyro wrote:I am unsure what you are asking WB.
I am not trying to justify traction control or launch control using either electric torque or ic torque, both should be allowed to break traction if the driver uses to much throttle.
After we established that principle we now have to define what kind of rules are acceptable for the split between the two torques. If the driver is supposed to control the torque by his pedal he needs a predictable system that reacts consistently to his input. It means that the ECU controlling the dual torque must have a programmed rule how to split the torque from the two sources.
Yes, I conclude that there must be a fixed algorithms which determine for each of the two pedals how the split is done dependent of the pedal position and other additional input variables. The input variables must include a map which will be the way teams can adapt the torque split function to their needs. But basically the algorithm and the input variables - which means the program structure - are common to all teams.autogyro wrote:The program must allow facility for the team and Kers developers to experement with the balance of torque recovery and apply and its distribution between the four wheels. However the rule you suggest WB should police any use of this work to produce TC ABS or LC. I see no other way to ensure ongoing development without artificial restriction of the core technology.
My point exactly. WB apparently believes all fine and dandy in that respect.autogyro wrote:I am a little worried that to produce a common program structure with a defined and fixed set of input variables will place an artificial block on a largely unexplored area of technological advance.
One way could be placing torque and wheel speed sensors with logged output for FIA to check.Although I am well aware of the need for fair regulation, in principle I have always been against the use of convenient 'computer freezes' to achieve level playing fields. It is in a way a cop out. I would increase the technical base at the FIA to ensure proper policing of the regulations.
Why is that a given? Can't the torque to/from the front wheels be provided by one MGU and a differential? Is that necessarily a heavier alternative?autogyro wrote:The number of motor/generators is fixed at three if AWKERS is allowed.
Using four with one on each rear axle would IMO stretch the TC rule to far by virtue of providing an electronic torque biasing differential. On the front axle such biasing is essential if AWKERS is to be used at all.