Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[hardingfv32]

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.

1) Traction control.... how exactly? The driver controls the throttle. He has no idea where he is on the torque curve or even what the next section of track is going to being in terms of grip. He has no method of predicting imminent loss of traction like a traction control system. If he thinks he can use more throttle then he is going to apply more pedal.

So how is traction control developed in this current issue?

2) How does 5.6.6 come into play?

3) We do not know what the stewards were getting at in the initial bulletin. Sound more like a off throttle blowing complaint. Note the sentence: "..... the torque map will artificially alter the aerodynamic characteristics..."

4) Cheating was the majority post subject in the RB car section.

Brian

[bhall]

[...]

He has no idea where he is on the torque curve or even what the next section of track is going to being in terms of grip.

[...]

First off, a driver for whom those are true would quickly find himself out of a job, don't you think?

Now, because rule 5.6.6 allows engine map settings to deviate from their normal program within the 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel range, torque delivery can be reduced so that a corner ordinarily taken with the accelerator at, say, 50% can instead be taken at 80% without ill effects. That's the traction control part.

Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part.

These adjustments could be made legally with a complete, across-the-board reduction in torque. But, a driver would quickly find himself at the back of the pack with such settings.

Are we kosher now?

[SeijaKessen]

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.

1) Traction control.... how exactly? The driver controls the throttle. He has no idea where he is on the torque curve or even what the next section of track is going to being in terms of grip. He has no method of predicting imminent loss of traction like a traction control system. If he thinks he can use more throttle then he is going to apply more pedal.

So how is traction control developed in this current issue?

2) How does 5.6.6 come into play?

3) We do not know what the stewards were getting at in the initial bulletin. Sound more like a off throttle blowing complaint. Note the sentence: "..... the torque map will artificially alter the aerodynamic characteristics..."

4) Cheating was the majority post subject in the RB car section.

Brian

But, if you limit the available amount of torque output in certain RPM ranges, you can make it easier for a driver to get out of corners where the engine will be in that power range, without wheel spin. It's not true traction control in the method we think of it, but it acts as a type of traction control.

[rjsa]

[...]

He has no idea where he is on the torque curve or even what the next section of track is going to being in terms of grip.

[...]

First off, a driver for whom those are true would quickly find himself out of a job, don't you think?

Now, because rule 5.6.6 allows engine map settings to deviate from their normal program within the 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel range, torque delivery can be reduced so that a corner ordinarily taken with the accelerator at, say, 50% can instead be taken at 80% without ill effects. That's the traction control part.

Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part.

Are we kosher now?

So far I didn't figure out how is it that you get 50% torque with 80% fuel. Are they skipping sparks and going afterburner in mid range?

[bhall]

That's above my pay grade. But, I do know that this stuff was commonplace amongst all teams before the crackdown on engine maps.

[dan]

[...]

He has no idea where he is on the torque curve or even what the next section of track is going to being in terms of grip.

[...]

First off, a driver for whom those are true would quickly find himself out of a job, don't you think?

Now, because rule 5.6.6 allows engine map settings to deviate from their normal program within the 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel range, torque delivery can be reduced so that a corner ordinarily taken with the accelerator at, say, 50% can instead be taken at 80% without ill effects. That's the traction control part.

Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part.

These adjustments could be made legally with a complete, across-the-board reduction in torque. But, a driver would quickly find himself at the back of the pack with such settings.

Are we kosher now?

so could it work with a map for the lowest gear to blow the exhaust in that gear only?

so say slowest corners are 2nd gear corners - set the gearing so your entry to apex is 80% throttle at 15k+ rpms in 2nd. The engine map for 2nd gear is such the engines blowing the exhaust like crazy but putting out 50% power.
Then from 80/100% throttle position the power goes from 50% to 100% then blam up thru the higher gears that have normal linear throttle maps?

[hardingfv32]

Now, because rule 5.6.6 allows engine map settings to deviate from their normal program within the 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel range, torque delivery can be reduced so that a corner ordinarily taken with the accelerator at, say, 50% can instead be taken at 80% without ill effects. That's the traction control part.

Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part.

This makes no sense....

1) You have no way to restrict these settings to corner exit. You will have to live with these settings as you go through the gears on the straights for example. 80% throttle providing 50% torque?

2) The engine is not going to burn excess fuel in the combustion chamber and also maintain a low torque output. That means the raw fuel must burn in the exhaust pipes. We have no science indicating this is a net benefit when balanced against the extra fuel load. Fact: a fuel a rate corresponding to 80% does not equate to an engine exhaust output rate corresponding to 80% when at a reduced 50% torque application.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

So far I didn't figure out how is it that you get 50% torque with 80% fuel. Are they skipping sparks and going afterburner in mid range?

Ignition timing or fuel mixture changes should get the job down if that is your desire.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

so could it work with a map for the lowest gear to blow the exhaust in that gear only?

The engine and throttle maps do not include the selected gear information.

Brian

[Cam]

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.

Could it not be a little simpler. 5.5.3 is what was quoted as being the problem. This specifies the Min and Max positions. The entire gamut in-between goes un-defined.

5.5.5 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

This is where I see a lawyer being clever. 5.5.5 says to go in steps as you increase/decrease, but is does not say, for example, 10% throttle = 10% torque. So that range can be tweaked (mapped) to anything as long as it's 'monotonic'.

Just a thought.

[hardingfv32]

What is the 'driver torque demand map'? Is there any mention of it anywhere else in the rules? Is this a more precise name for the throttle map?

Brian

[raymondu999]

From my understanding it's a graph of how much you press the throttle pedal, compared to how much torque the engine is giving out, no?

[Cam]

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

This guy was making a point suggesting that the curve would linear, like this:

I think, RBR interpret the rules to have a curve like this:

Now, these curves are just examples and do not mean anything, but it does meet the Max and Min requirements and it does seem legal, albeit, not really what the FIA was meaning.

This would make more sense as to why they got away with it and why it's ambiguous. Maybe, I'm completely wrong. This is just my guess.

[Fat_T0ny]

Forgive my ignorance on the details off this particular saga. But, isn't traction control a system that ACTIVELY reduces power/torque, relative to wheel slip?

Is the Red Bull system just a different torque map?

Or is it constantly changing torque as it senses wheel slip?

[raymondu999]

Forgive my ignorance on the details off this particular saga. But, isn't traction control a system that ACTIVELY reduces power/torque, relative to wheel slip?

TC is actually preventive, but yes, it's "dynamic" in that it responds to a stimuli, rather than being a fixed parameter.

Is the Red Bull system just a different torque map?

Appears so

Or is it constantly changing torque as it senses wheel slip?

Don't think so.


Here's a crazy thought. I don't think that the primary point is actually the torque map - but rather they saw the torque map was slightly different to what they had seen earlier in the year - even taking into account intermediate/wet weather engine maps - and so they thought something must have changed. Perhaps the torque map was not the SUBJECT of the investigation - but rather the catalyst for the investigation?