Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[hardingfv32]

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.

I assume this is with exhaust blowing in mind? Being in a higher gear, lower rpms, is certainly going to reduce air pumping. This does not sound like a useful technique.

I would think that you would want to do the hairpin at max rpms to get max airflow.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

That's incorrect.

Feel free to demonstrate how the above curve does not meet those requirements.

Brian

[bhall]

No, thanks. I've had enough.

EDIT: So you don't walk away unsatisfied, here's how the curve (in red) would have to appear to be legal

[gato azul]

Driver torque demand curves of this nature have been around since the 80's.
They can even be done with mechanical linkage.

would you be so kind to provide and example for this, as this would really interest me.
and pls, the keyword is "torque demand curves", before you go and provide some throttle (pedal to engine throttle) maps.

[thearmofbarlow]

Driver torque demand curves of this nature have been around since the 80's.
They can even be done with mechanical linkage.

would you be so kind to provide and example for this, as this would really interest me.
and pls, the keyword is "torque demand curves", before you go and provide some throttle (pedal to engine throttle) maps.

You can easily create a mechanical linkage that operates in a non-linear manner. I think that's what he's referring to.

[Gatecrasher]

No, thanks. I've had enough.

EDIT: So you don't walk away unsatisfied, here's how the curve (in red) would have to appear to be legal

The red line assumes that you have to have a linear increase to reach maximum 100% Torque. The regulations as you quoted state 0.03Nm/rpm. Thus from 5,000 to 18,000 rpm that is a difference of only 390Nm. Assuming torque output is very low around 5k, then the curve will not be a straight line at the minimum specs, this would give us a car slower than an HRT

[gato azul]

You can easily create a mechanical linkage that operates in a non-linear manner. I think that's what he's referring to.

I know, but this is not the same as an torque request/demand curve, as he stated.

[bhall]

The red line assumes that you have to have a linear increase to reach maximum 100% Torque. The regulations as you quoted state 0.03Nm/rpm. Thus from 5,000 to 18,000 rpm that is a difference of only 390Nm. Assuming torque output is very low around 5k, then the curve will not be a straight line at the minimum specs, this would give us a car slower than an HRT

I'm afraid you've misinterpreted the regulations. A team is not required to advance torque demand in 0.03Nm increments according to corresponding accelerator travel. The requirement is that torque must be output monotonically on a gradient that doesn't deviate more than 0.03Nm one way or the other.

Beyond that, just exactly how much torque do you think an F1 engine produces? 390Nm of torque would be a huge figure for an F1 engine.

[hardingfv32]

would you be so kind to provide and example for this, as this would really interest me.
and pls, the keyword is "torque demand curves", before you go and provide some throttle (pedal to engine throttle) maps.

Ayrton Senna's development of a system for use with the turbo Honda is what comes to mind as an example of a mechanical system.

Can't say I have ever seen a "torque demand curve", but then I have never looked. How do you define a "torque demand curve"? What are its variables/inputs?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

The requirement is that torque must be output monotonically on a gradient that doesn't deviate more than 0.03Nm one way or the other.

To be precise: 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.

With that stated I do not under stand why you feel the above graph, black line, is not legal? It is monotonic and does not have a gradient less than 0.030Nm/rpm.

Brian

[bhall]

Deviate, deviate, deviate, deviate. That's an important word you're strategically ignoring here.

[hardingfv32]

Deviate, deviate, deviate, deviate. That's an important word you're strategically ignoring here.

Please expand? Where is the word deviate found in 5.5.6?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"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 is a half baked statement.

1) The accelerator setting does not correlate directly with engine rpms. You can be at 100% accelerator at 5k rpms, launching, or 100% accelerator at 18k rpm, on the straight. Air volume through the engine is related to rpm and throttle setting.

2) The fuel delivery setting does not correlate directly with the accelerator setting. The engine map controls the fuel delivery using throttle setting, rpm, temp, etc. You are not going to get 'engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%'.

Brian

[bhall]

From the F2012 thread.

Now, as bhallg2k stated.....

"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 is a half baked statement.

1) The accelerator setting does not correlate directly with engine rpms. You can be at 100% accelerator at 5k rpms, launching, or 100% accelerator at 18k rpm, on the straight. Air volume through the engine is related to rpm and throttle setting.

2) The fuel delivery setting does not correlate directly with the accelerator setting. The engine map controls the fuel delivery using throttle setting, rpm, temp, etc. You are not going to get 'engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%'.

Brian

Casting aside the idea that I think you're just being difficult...

1. No one has said that accelerator settings correlate directly with engine RPM. Accelerator travel is required to correlate with torque demand. 5.5.6 just specifies an area where deviations from the normal map may occur, and it defines this area as a specific RPM + accelerator travel range.

2. No sh*t. That's what this entire conversation has been about.

EDIT:

Deviate, deviate, deviate, deviate. That's an important word you're strategically ignoring here.

Please expand? Where is the word deviate found in 5.5.6?

Brian

It's found in my explanation and is crucial to it.

[gato azul]

Can't say I have ever seen a "torque demand curve",
Brian

o.k. - fair enough- no problem, but if this is the case. How can you say:

Driver torque demand curves of this nature have been around since the 80's.
They can even be done with mechanical linkage.

How do you know, that they can be done with a mechanical linkage, if you don't even know what it is/ have ever seen one?