Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[bhall]

The FIA is not going to control the max torque at a given RPM. That would be impossible to administer. Are you going to have the FIA telling the teams that they can do better with their engine performance and that they will be in breach if they do not make the FIA target torque number?

[...]

Actually, the regulations do assert such control in a way.

For any given engine map used during a race weekend, of which two are allowed (dry/wet), 0% accelerator travel must coincide with 0% torque demand as defined by that map, and 100% accelerator travel must coincide with 100% torque demand, again, as defined by that map. Additionally, engine maps must be implemented in such a way that power output is uniformly linked to accelerator travel to within 0.030Nm/RPM. The engine map used during qualifying must be used during the race.

Those rules do not apply when the engine is at idle, which is 5,000 RPM max, and when the engine speed is above 15,000 RPM combined with accelerator travel greater than or equal to 80%. Teams are given some freedom to adjust engine mapping in those ranges for the purpose of increasing engine reliability. I believe Red Bull is taking advantage of those allowances to gain a performance advantage in much the same way engine manufacturers gained power through modifications made for the sake of "reliability."

[hardingfv32]

Those rules do not apply when the engine is at idle, which is 5,000 RPM max, and when the engine speed is above 15,000 RPM combined with accelerator travel greater than or equal to 80%. Teams are given some freedom to adjust engine mapping in those ranges for the purpose of increasing engine reliability. I believe Red Bull is taking advantage of those allowances to gain a performance advantage in much the same way engine manufacturers gained power through modifications made for the sake of "reliability."

I do not understand how this pertains to this situation. The original FIA post stated that the mid range torque was what 'seemed" unusual. Expand on how you think your above theory has relevance.

Brian

[thearmofbarlow]

I guess I haven't been very clear.

I know the two are unrelated. But, Red Bull can claim any breach of rule 5.5.3 is merely an unintended side-effect of the mapping variables allowed from 15,000-18,000 RPM and 80-100% throttle by rule 5.6.6. I think the gap between those two regulations is the source of contention.

There is no gap, as the rules don't in any way contradict each other. Keep in mind we're dealing with fly-by-wire technology. 5.5.3 lays out that at full throttle you must have full power and that off-throttle you have zero power. 5.6.6 deals with ignition timing. Changing the torque through timing would change the limits that 5.5.3 defines. Instead of full throttle being 500 torques (of your chosen unit of measure) it would be 450 you'd have to achieve at full throttle.

The point is that either Red Bull's full throttle engine mapping didn't produce full torque (unlikely) or their off-throttle mapping produced torque (more likely, in my estimation).

'5.6.6 Except when anti-stall or idle speed control are active, ignition base offsets may only be applied above 80% throttle and 15,000rpm and for the sole purpose of reducing cylinder pressure for reliability.'

Expand on this rule. When is it desirable for the teams to 'reducing cylinder pressure for reliability''? Is this some form of anti knock system?

Brian

Reducing cylinder pressure means less wear on the engine over a stretch. It could also improve fuel efficiency.

[hardingfv32]

Reducing cylinder pressure means less wear on the engine over a stretch. It could also improve fuel efficiency.

There is a little more to it than just reducing wear. The engine could clearly be designed with less cylinder pressure if the teams thought that was required. This has to do with reducing cylinder pressure on a non-routine basis. I am not sure that anti knock systems are in use. They should be able to stop knock before it even starts.

Brian

[bhall]

I guess I haven't been very clear.

I know the two are unrelated. But, Red Bull can claim any breach of rule 5.5.3 is merely an unintended side-effect of the mapping variables allowed from 15,000-18,000 RPM and 80-100% throttle by rule 5.6.6. I think the gap between those two regulations is the source of contention.

There is no gap, as the rules don't in any way contradict each other. Keep in mind we're dealing with fly-by-wire technology. 5.5.3 lays out that at full throttle you must have full power and that off-throttle you have zero power. 5.6.6 deals with ignition timing. Changing the torque through timing would change the limits that 5.5.3 defines. Instead of full throttle being 500 torques (of your chosen unit of measure) it would be 450 you'd have to achieve at full throttle.

The point is that either Red Bull's full throttle engine mapping didn't produce full torque (unlikely) or their off-throttle mapping produced torque (more likely, in my estimation).

I know there's no gap. But, it seems Red Bull claims otherwise.

That said, off-throttle does not mean zero power. Off-throttle means no torque demand or idle engine, which still has power and is covered by other regulations.

I do not understand how this pertains to this situation. The original FIA post stated that the mid range torque was what 'seemed" unusual. Expand on how you think your above theory has relevance.

Mid-range relative to what? The full range of RPM or the optimum power band?

[hardingfv32]

To be precise the initial official bulletin said: "maximum torque output..... in the mid rpm ranges". That is why I do not understand your mention of 5.6.6. It does not 'seem' to pertain to 'mid rpm ranges'. Mid being say 7k to 13k?

Please expand.

[gato azul]

That said, off-throttle does not mean zero power.
Off-throttle means no torque demand or idle engine, which still has power and is covered by other regulations.

well not trying to nitpick here, but if you have "Zero" torque you will have also "Zero" power.
so while you are "allowed" to compensate for engine braking/KERS charging &/or internal friction etc., you are not allowed to "drive" the car with any positive (net) torque flow from the engine to the car - IMHO

[bhall]

[...]

Bauer's statement, released by the FIA, drew two conclusions, the first is that "the maximum torque output of both engines is significantly less in the mid rpm range than previously seen for these engines at other Events.

"In my opinion this it is therefore in breach of Article 5.5.3 of the 2012 Formula One Technical Regulations as the engines are able to deliver more torque at a given engine speed in the mid rpm range."

This suggests that the maximum torque demand seen in the middle of the rev range is lower than the FIA knows the engine to be capable of from previous races. This would mean that the relationship between throttle pedal position and torque demand is therefore not linear, creating a traction control-style effect.

The second conclusion was that "this new torque map will artificially alter the aerodynamic characteristics of both cars". This alludes to off-throttle exhaust blowing, a system which the 2012 regulations were designed to outlaw.

[...]

That first bit is meaningless, because torque demonstrated at other races has no bearing. If Red Bull wanted their engine to output 5 Nm of torque, they could have that as long as the engine map is legal.

As to the mid RPM range, I've got to believe it refers to the mid-range of the usable power band, because cars don't generally dip below 14,000 after the start of the race. So, anything that happens below that is quite meaningless.

Or am I missing something?

well not trying to nitpick here, but if you have "Zero" torque you will have also "Zero" power.
so while you are "allowed" to compensate for engine braking/KERS charging &/or internal friction etc., you are not allowed to "drive" the car with any positive (net) torque flow from the engine to the car - IMHO

The keyword here, though, is demand. Zero torque demand doesn't necessarily mean zero torque output.

Think like a lawyer, and you can see how teams justify the liberties they take with the regulations.

[gato azul]

The keyword here, though, is demand. Zero torque demand doesn't necessarily mean zero torque output.

Yes, I agree with this PoV.
Nevertheless, as long as the driver has 100% throttle at the pedal, (pedal to the floor so to speak), you (via the ECU mapping) have to "ask" the engine to provide the max. torque (and thereby power) for any given rpm.
Any attempt to "alter" the "demand" at an specific rpm/in an specific rpm range, would be against the rules.
As an example, if the driver puts 100% throttle at 14 000 rpm (just as an example) and keep the foot down, all the way to the limit 18 000 rpm (or the upshift rpm etc.), the ECU has to "request" max torque/power from the engine for the complete transient from 14-18 000 rpm.
Any attempt, to "flatten" the torque curve in a specific rpm range, would be against the rules.
It would be interesting to see, how the engine would change the output all by itself, for constant request (100% throttle by the driver) without any change in the mapping.

[bhall]

Yes, I agree with this PoV.
Nevertheless, as long as the driver has 100% throttle at the pedal, (pedal to the floor so to speak), you (via the ECU mapping) have to "ask" the engine to provide the max. torque (and thereby power) for any given rpm.
Any attempt to "alter" the "demand" at an specific rpm/in an specific rpm range, would be against the rules.

[...]

While that's true, 5.6.6 gives teams an allowance to make deviations for the sake of reliability. (Except when anti-stall or idle speed control are active, ignition base offsets may only be applied above 80% throttle and 15,000rpm and for the sole purpose of reducing cylinder pressure for reliability.).

We all know what it means to make "reliability" adjustments.

I'm not saying I think Red Bull's engine map is legal; I'm just pointing to the likely rationale behind Red Bull's assertion that it is.

[krisfx]

On TV they said that this was a clever way of mimicking a rudimentary traction control system, which is a driver aid and isn't legal. That's the reasoning I can gather from what we've been told.

[gato azul]

yes, it's a good & valid PoV - IMO
now the discrepancy in opinion from the different camps could be about the "sole purpose of reducing cylinder pressure for reliability" term.
RBR/Renault could argue " we can do something, for reliability reasons", and this is what we do
and the other camp will/could argue "well, how come you could race before without such settings, and don't suffer reliability issues - if you now say " we need to do that for ......"

all pure speculation off course, let's see what comes out off it
5.6.3 could be a bit "greyish" as well

nevertheless, and not wanting to argue the legal or fairness aspect, from a pure engineering point of view, one should ( I do for sure) admire the level of attention to detail(s) RBR puts into thei engineering approach & operations.
They really keep turning every stone, in search of even the smallest advantage to be had. =D>
As long as the manage to walk the tight rope, without crossing the line - respect - everyone else will have to raise their game a bit, in this respect.

[hardingfv32]

That first bit is meaningless, because torque demonstrated at other races has no bearing. If Red Bull wanted their engine to output 5 Nm of torque, they could have that as long as the engine map is legal.

As to the mid RPM range, I've got to believe it refers to the mid-range of the usable power band, because cars don't generally dip below 14,000 after the start of the race. So, anything that happens below that is quite meaningless.

The first part is not meaningless to the officials who wrote the statement. It provides us with what little info we have to go on when discussing this subject.

Yes, the meaning of mid range is not well defined.

[hardingfv32]

While that's true, 5.6.6 gives teams an allowance to make deviations for the sake of reliability. (Except when anti-stall or idle speed control are active, ignition base offsets may only be applied above 80% throttle and 15,000rpm and for the sole purpose of reducing cylinder pressure for reliability.).

We all know what it means to make "reliability" adjustments.

I'm not saying I think Red Bull's engine map is legal; I'm just pointing to the likely rationale behind Red Bull's assertion that it is.

1) You still have not advanced the possible benefit of manipulating 5.6.6. How does it help the car's performance?

2) If you propose that there is some benefit to off throttle blowing this would be easy to protest. I would first point out in my protest that that 5.6.6 is only being used during off throttle time periods and question why we find it only being applied in those sections of a lap IF it is only for reliability reasons. Second, why do we need reduced cylinder pressure during off throttle or near off throttle time periods.

This is not going to fly with the stewards.

Frankly, I find this whole subject populated by people who can see no farther than the word 'cheating'. Very little connecting the dots to develop a plausible explanation.

Brian

[bhall]

The first part is not meaningless to the officials who wrote the statement. It provides us with what little info we have to go on when discussing this subject.

[...]

It's meaningless insofar as it's perfectly legal to have different engine maps with different torque demands from race to race. I think the difference was mentioned to explain why the stewards were compelled to delve deeper into the issue.

1) You still have not advanced the possible benefit of manipulating 5.6.6. How does it help the car's performance?

2) If you propose that there is some benefit to off throttle blowing this would be easy to protest. I would first point out in my protest that that 5.6.6 is only being used during off throttle time periods and question why we find it only being applied in those sections of a lap IF it is only for reliability reasons. Second, why do we need reduced cylinder pressure during off throttle or near off throttle time periods.

This is not going to fly with the stewards.

Frankly, I find this whole subject populated by people who can see no farther than the word 'cheating'. Very little connecting the dots to develop a plausible explanation.

Brian

1. Traction control. I didn't think I needed to spell that out for you. The tires are a bitch, and any reduction in unnecessary wheel spin would benefit their durability.

2. That it obviously didn't fly with the stewards is why we're here.

Funny you mentioned "cheating," though. It was first time anyone used the word.