Ferrari F2012

[bhall]

I don't know that genius is the right word. Red Bull looked at the regulations and put two and two together and decided it should be five. I expect the regulations to be clarified, specifically 5.6.6, to explicitly state that no regulation can be breached even if another regulation appears to grant such an allowance.

Pushing the limits is indeed the heart and soul of F1. But, in this case, I expect the limits to be pushed back.

[Spankyham]

I wonder when we'll see a TD on this, over the break?

[turbof1]

I wonder when we'll see a TD on this, over the break?

Engine maps are quite easy to change, thus don't require alot of time and I don't see a reason to wait for the break. Today the TWG comes together and from that I think we will get a TD which will get initiated for the next GP.

[hardingfv32]

If you can't see how such adjustments can be advantageous, then I simply don't know what to tell you.

What adjustments are advantageous? How are they advantageous? Are you capable of providing specifics?

Brian

[bhall]

OK. I give up. Apparently you haven't been paying attention at all, and I've just been wasting time.

[TheGkbrk]

So the Red Bull system declared legal, will other teams copy it? If so, how much time will it take?
Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?

[turbof1]

So the Red Bull system declared legal, will other teams copy it? If so, how much time will it take?
Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?

It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.

[hardingfv32]

OK. I give up. Apparently you haven't been paying attention at all, and I've just been wasting time.

I have been paying close attention. As the discussion has gone on and I have asked for more detailed explanations of your statements, your answers just become more vague and ambiguous. This seems to be your normal operating procedure.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.

I say that the FIA and teams looks on this with admiration. 'Completely against the spirit', spirit of wanting to win? Where can I get an explanation of the correct FIA 'spirit' philosophy? I say 'spirit' can not be administrated unless it is written done somewhere in black and white.

Brian

[Nando]

So the Red Bull system declared legal, will other teams copy it? If so, how much time will it take?
Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?

It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.

And even when they do legalize something and declare it legal they can change their mind later....

The Circus of FIA..

[hardingfv32]

Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?

Well stated.

Brian

[bhall]

Vague?

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."

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.

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.

[...]

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.

[bhall]

Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?

Well stated.

Brian

How is this well stated if you emphatically claim that such a system is not traction control?

And since when does a low top speed automatically equate to slower lap times?

[khizerk]

OK. I give up. Apparently you haven't been paying attention at all, and I've just been wasting time.

I have been paying close attention. As the discussion has gone on and I have asked for more detailed explanations of your statements, your answers just become more vague and ambiguous. This seems to be your normal operating procedure.

Brian

Responding to your posts on the previous pages...well yes, a driver does control the amount of output to the wheels and hence controls the traction. However, the exhaust blowing effect is used to seal off the diffuser (only partially in this season due to new regulations) and hence generate traction. Now, as bhallg2k stated, with RB's engine mapping you can take a corner worth 50% of revs with 80% instead. This means more exhaust gases than there should be while coming out of the corners and hence better traction. The driver still controls the output to the rear wheels. Just that he's now playing at a higher rev range.

[hardingfv32]

How is this well stated if you emphatically claim that such a system is not traction control

I read it as sarcasm, was that an incorrect interpretation?

Brian