Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[hollus]

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

Is this true? That the engine map does not "know" in which gear it is? Can anybody confirm the rule?
I just don't know it, performance wise one would wish that feature, but the rules could be written either way.

Still, let's assume that the engine map has to be the same for all gears. One could still tailor this thing for one specific corner. How often is the car between 10000 and 14000RPM in Hockenheim? Maybe only at the start and at the hairpin. In that case you could tune the map just for that situation, stay in a higher gear that you would otherwise, and have it happening only there. The rest of the lap is spent above 14000RPM, and thus one doesn't have to accept much fuel weight penalty.

Just a possibility, I have no info to say this is so.

[raymondu999]

Good thinking hollus. That's very possible. I remember they used to tune active suspension corner by corner too, Patrick Head said in Motor Sport magazine a while back it was based on the rotations the rear wheel went through to know the distance from a fixed point.

[strad]

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.

I think that is the bottom line along with appearently at least semi blowing the diffuser.

[CHT]

F1 will be a boring place if teams doesnt push the boundary of technical regulations.

[bhall]

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

1. No one ever suggested it's limited to corner exits. So, yes, one does have to live with those settings all the time. The part that makes this illegal, however, is that while 80% throttle equates to 50% torque, 100% throttle equates to 100% torque.

2. You answered this yourself in your next post.

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

Anything else, Capt. Incredulous?

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.

[...]

That's incorrect. The curve is well-defined.

5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 5,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.

[...]

Perhaps the torque map was not the SUBJECT of the investigation - but rather the catalyst for the investigation?

Yes. I've mentioned that.

[...]

In that case you could tune the map just for that situation, stay in a higher gear that you would otherwise, and have it happening only there. The rest of the lap is spent above 14000RPM, and thus one doesn't have to accept much fuel weight penalty.

Just a possibility, I have no info to say this is so.

That's pretty much what I've described. But, thank you for making it clearer.

EDIT: grammar and syntax and I hate my OCD.

[Hangaku]

So yesterday, there was some video of Derrick Warwick having a conversation with Christian Horner, and Warwick was saying something along the lines of "you're just pushing the envelope" (for the non-native English speakers, this is like saying "stretching the rules"). Warwick when quizzed, stated that he was happy with the decision made, but also agreed that this will not be the end of the matter.

So, funny noises from people employed by the FIA - happy with the decision, implying that the decision was correct, but coming from this, perhaps a rule change or (as Horner likes to say a lot this year) "clarification" of the rule.

How would this clarification be made to the rule in question (5.5.5? 5.5.6? which one?) so that this particular thing can't happen again (other teams are going to be all over this now).

Also, I wonder how many more of these rules Red Bull are going to get "clarification" on this year, before they are deemed to being unsporting, or quite simply taking the piss. I feel they are benefiting quite enough this year from these weak rules, and it's making a mockery of the sport.

[thearmofbarlow]

So yesterday, there was some video of Derrick Warwick having a conversation with Christian Horner, and Warwick was saying something along the lines of "you're just pushing the envelope" (for the non-native English speakers, this is like saying "stretching the rules"). Warwick when quizzed, stated that he was happy with the decision made, but also agreed that this will not be the end of the matter.

So, funny noises from people employed by the FIA - happy with the decision, implying that the decision was correct, but coming from this, perhaps a rule change or (as Horner likes to say a lot this year) "clarification" of the rule.

How would this clarification be made to the rule in question (5.5.5? 5.5.6? which one?) so that this particular thing can't happen again (other teams are going to be all over this now).

Also, I wonder how many more of these rules Red Bull are going to get "clarification" on this year, before they are deemed to being unsporting, or quite simply taking the piss. I feel they are benefiting quite enough this year from these weak rules, and it's making a mockery of the sport.

Yeah, Red Bull interpreting the rules differently is making a mockery of a sport where someone crashed on purpose to throw a race and the former president was in a Nazi spank party.

But no, it's TOTALLY Red Bull's cheekiness that's doing this sport in.

[bhall]

The rules are so restrictive that teams absolutely must be liberal with their interpretations else they'd go nowhere in a hurry. And consider this: for every "clarification" requested by a team's rivals, there are probably five other liberal interpretations of the rules reflected in their design that no one knows about.

The flip-side of that coin is that the rules are so restrictive that even liberal interpretations of them don't give much of an advantage. That's why you're not hearing a massive outcry from other teams in regard to Red Bull's engine maps. They could mean an advantage of less than 0.1 seconds per lap given the current limited scope for interpretation.

[Hangaku]

Yeah, Red Bull interpreting the rules differently is making a mockery of a sport where someone crashed on purpose to throw a race and the former president was in a Nazi spank party.

But no, it's TOTALLY Red Bull's cheekiness that's doing this sport in.

a) these are all things in the past
b) those things in question have been dealt with (i.e. Flavio no longer around, Moseley no longer around

I don't see how these points are relevant this year. My point is that this season, Red Bull appear to have got away with quite a few "clarifications" - even retaining their race points after their car was found to be effectively illegal

[thearmofbarlow]

Yeah, Red Bull interpreting the rules differently is making a mockery of a sport where someone crashed on purpose to throw a race and the former president was in a Nazi spank party.

But no, it's TOTALLY Red Bull's cheekiness that's doing this sport in.

a) these are all things in the past
b) those things in question have been dealt with (i.e. Flavio no longer around, Moseley no longer around

I don't see how these points are relevant this year. My point is that this season, Red Bull appear to have got away with quite a few "clarifications" - even retaining their race points after their car was found to be effectively illegal

Effectively, but not TECHNICALLY. It's a sport run by pedants.

Ever watch Futurama? "You're technically correct.... the best kind of correct!"

[Hangaku]

Effectively, but not TECHNICALLY. It's a sport run by pedants.

Ever watch Futurama? "You're technically correct.... the best kind of correct!"

Sadly, you are indeed correct

I think I'm just getting tired of the accepted inconsistencies and irregularities that are seemingly the foundation of F1.

I watched some recent DTM and BTCC highlights over the weekend, and found that the racing was infinitely more enjoyable due to the fact that it's just racing. Perhaps I should follow that instead

[Raptor22]

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

they don't have a knock problem. the fuels burns too fast and the engine rpm is high enough for thefuel to be burned completely before knock occurs.

How can 0% throttle = 0%power. thats implying the engine cannot be rotating at idle...huh?

[pgfpro]

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

1. No one ever suggested it's limited to corner exits. So, yes, one does have to live with those settings all the time. The part that makes this illegal, however, is that while 80% throttle equates to 50% torque, 100% throttle equates to 100% torque.

2. You answered this yourself in your next post.

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

Anything else, Capt. Incredulous?

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.

[...]

That's incorrect. The curve is well-defined.

5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 5,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.

[...]

Perhaps the torque map was not the SUBJECT of the investigation - but rather the catalyst for the investigation?

Yes. I've mentioned that.

[...]

In that case you could tune the map just for that situation, stay in a higher gear that you would otherwise, and have it happening only there. The rest of the lap is spent above 14000RPM, and thus one doesn't have to accept much fuel weight penalty.

Just a possibility, I have no info to say this is so.

That's pretty much what I've described. But, thank you for making it clearer.

EDIT: grammar and syntax and I hate my OCD.

I think this is exactly whats going with the RBR situation and the rules. I do this on mapping out my turbo road car. It makes driving thru a corner a lot easier and keeps the the turbo spooled up for exiting the corner. In their case the ignition retard with added fuel will produce residual exhaust gases to help aid in the down-force?

[hardingfv32]

Driver torque demand curves of this nature have been around since the 80's. They can even be done with mechanical linkage. Nothing in the current rules prevent the use of curves like this.

Brian

[quote="Cam"[/quote]

[bhall]

That's incorrect.

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

5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 5,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.