Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[strad]

With all the arguing you make a simple thing complex...

The FIA's concern is that Red Bull and engine manufacturer Renault are using reduced torque settings for a given engine speed. These act as a form of traction control, limiting wheelspin out of corners.

Governing body the FIA found that Red Bull's engine was delivering less torque at full throttle in the mid-range of the engine's rev band in Germany than it had at the preceding British Grand Prix.

They said this was a breach of article 5.5.3 of the technical regulations, which states that the "maximum accelerator travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed".

The verdict on Sunday said: "While the stewards do not accept all the arguments of the team, they however conclude that as the regulation is written the map presented does not breach article 5.5.3 of the technical regulations."

The idea of the rule is to prevent the engine delivering less power to the wheels than it can do, as doing so is a form of traction control, which is banned.

However, teams are allowed to change their engine maps from race to race - and Red Bull were cleared because there was no definition of how big these changes could be before they were not allowed.

The FIA is aiming to close that loophole.

[hardingfv32]

...and?

What kind of answer is that. How can the conversation progress with answers like that?

Brian

[bhall]

No, the rule says any given point, which effectively means every possible point.

This is not correct. The slope can vary at any point along the line, just not 'less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.' This means the slope could be vertical at some point if it was desired.

Brian

You're ignoring at least half of this conversation if you think that's correct.

0% accelerator travel is defined and linked to 0Nm torque demand in rule 5.5.3. 100% accelerator travel is defined and linked to maximum torque demand in the same rule. This establishes the boundaries of the line.

Accelerator travel is linked to torque demand by rule 5.5.5. This establishes the correlation between accelerator travel and the line.

5.5.6 and 5.5.5 establish the slope of the line as one that does not have a gradient of less than 0.03Nm/RPM and advances monotonically (no deviation).

Add those up and you get the whole picture.

[gato azul]

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?

I have asked on many occasions what a 'driver torque demand map' is and how it differs form a 'throttle map' that we often speak of. You will find the term 'accelerator pedal shaping map' also used in the rules. Can not say I have found 'throttle map' used. We are clearly not all on the same page when using these terms.

The Honda mechanical throttle system system was a cam following system. The slot the cam travelled in looked similar to the black line in the graph we have been discussing. With the turbo it was all about adding better 'feel' in that zone when the turbo really kicks in.

Brian

And that is exactly the point while this discussion and others "snowball" in terms of pages, because without a understanding of how a "torque controller" works, and what the relationship between throttle position (at the engine) to torque produced by the engine is, we will go nowhere fast.

So before we (you) spend another 20 pages arguing around in circles and in parallel about different terminology, it may helps to define some things beforehand, so that everyone is on the same page, and uses the same terms to describe the same things. If we can agree on some terms, we may go somewhere with this discussion.

Throttle map or accelerator pedal shaping map refers to the relationship of throttle pedal position, set by the driver, and the position of the throttle bodies, (butterflies whatever) at the engine - IMHO

but it is important to know/understand that throttle position at the engine does not equal torque demand nor does it equal torque produced by the engine.

As for the Honda system, yes it's possible, other systems (perhaps more common) us a so called "quadrant" (mainly used with throttle cables) to define the relation of "throttle pedal position" to "throttle at the engine position".

[hardingfv32]

With all the arguing you make a simple thing complex...

The FIA's concern is that Red Bull and engine manufacturer Renault are using reduced torque settings for a given engine speed. These act as a form of traction control, limiting wheelspin out of corners.

Governing body the FIA found that Red Bull's engine was delivering less torque at full throttle in the mid-range of the engine's rev band in Germany than it had at the preceding British Grand Prix.

They said this was a breach of article 5.5.3 of the technical regulations, which states that the "maximum accelerator travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed".

The teams are free to specify any max torque level they wish at a given accelerator position for a given engine speed. No wonder the protest was thrown-out.

Brian

[bhall]

Not if they link 100% accelerator travel to the maximum possible torque demand of the engine. The only way to decrease torque output via engine mapping is to link 100% accelerator travel to a torque demand less than the engine's capability, and such a setting would likely never win a race, because, you know, F1 is sort of a speed and power thing.

[gato azul]

I have asked on many occasions what a 'driver torque demand map' is.

something like this (is for a road car)

[hardingfv32]

[quote="bhallg2k"5.5.6 and 5.5.5 establish the slope of the line as one that does not have a gradient of less than 0.03Nm/RPM and advances monotonically (no deviation).[/quote]

1) 5.5.6 establishes the slope "At any given accelerator pedal position" NOT the slope of the whole map. Those there could be a section of the curve that is vertical.

2) Monotonic means 'always increasing', has nothing to do with deviation.

Brian

[amc]

I'm conscious of stepping in where I'm very much unwelcome, however, I think this might help:
Engine Maps Explanation

Three maps are mentioned in the regulations:
1) Accelerator Pedal Shaping Map: a graph of torque against throttle percentage, which can be defined at any point along the rev range.

2) Driver Torque Demand Map: a graph of torque against engine revs, which can be defined for any throttle pedal position.

3) Maximum throttle target map: the torque demand map when throttle position = 100% open.

I give examples of the first two (the third is really only an excerpt from the second) and at the end show a driver torque demand map with various different throttle positions and a maximum possible engine torque output. This last graph complies with all regulations and could well be similar to what is actually implemented, although I honestly have no idea of actual figures.

What Red Bull are doing is breaking 5.5.3 but getting away with it on a technicality: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18957915. They are changing the pedal shaping map in the mid-rpm range to limit torque demand at 100% throttle. They can change the pedal shaping map for the dry so there is no impact to the car in the dry. In my mind this is totally illegal.

[bhall]

5.5.6 and 5.5.5 establish the slope of the line as one that does not have a gradient of less than 0.03Nm/RPM and advances monotonically (no deviation).

1) 5.5.6 establishes the slope "At any given accelerator pedal position" NOT the slope of the whole map. Those there could be a section of the curve that is vertical.

2) Monotonic means 'always increasing', has nothing to do with deviation.

Brian

So you think the regulation says, "At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be [always increasing] increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position"?

Or do you think they meant monotonically as follows?

mon·o·ton·ic/ˌmänəˈtänik/
Adjective:

• (of a function or quantity) Varying in such a way that it either never decreases or never increases.
• Speaking or uttered with an unchanging pitch or tone.

EDIT: At the very least, I think we've probably re-enacted the meeting between the FIA, Red Bull and Renault with amazing accuracy, even if it did take forever and a day for us to accomplish the nothing we've accomplished.

[hardingfv32]

Not if they link 100% accelerator travel to the maximum possible torque demand of the engine. The only way to decrease torque output via engine mapping is to link 100% accelerator travel to a torque demand less than the engine's capability, and such a setting would likely never win a race, because, you know, F1 is sort of a speed and power thing.

And the teams have every right to have a "torque demand less than the engine's capability". You are trying to link a request for maximum torque with with a 'possible' theoretical max power output of an engine. The engine can be mapped to any maximum torque level desired. This tuned max torque setting is what must be reached in 5.5.3. it is the "maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed" for a given engine map.

This is why RB is correct in their actions.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

So you think the regulation says, "At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be [always increasing] increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position"?

To be precise, in this application "never decreases".

Brian

[bhall]

Not if they link 100% accelerator travel to the maximum possible torque demand of the engine. The only way to decrease torque output via engine mapping is to link 100% accelerator travel to a torque demand less than the engine's capability, and such a setting would likely never win a race, because, you know, F1 is sort of a speed and power thing.

And the teams have every right to have a "torque demand less than the engine's capability". You are trying to link a request for maximum torque with with a 'possible' theoretical max power output of an engine. The engine can be mapped to any maximum torque level desired. This tuned max torque setting is what must be reached in 5.5.3. it is the "maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed" for a given engine map.

This is why RB is correct in their actions.

Brian

That's true if they didn't link 100% accelerator travel to maximum possible torque demand. But, I think they did.

I think they made said link, which complies with regulation 5.5.3, and then they made adjustments to the engine map between the 15,000-18,000 RPM/80-100% accelerator travel range as allowed by 5.6.6. To assert overall compliance, they likely defined "monotonically" as "always increasing," just as you and others have, despite the "spirit of the rules" defining "monotonically" as the requirement for the rate of increase. Because both definitions are valid, the stewards had no choice but to allow it, even though they openly acknowledged that Red Bull's logic was improper.

This will be clarified. You can bank on that.

[hardingfv32]

They are changing the pedal shaping map in the mid-rpm range to limit torque demand at 100% throttle. They can change the pedal shaping map for the dry so there is no impact to the car in the dry. In my mind this is totally illegal.

No, they have an engine map that provides less the 'theoretical' max torque at a give point on the map. A 100% throttle request is getting 100% of what this engine map is providing. Nothing in the rules says OR EVEN CAN demand that the engine always operate at 100% theoretical performance levels. You could not administer such a rule.

This is the flaw in the original FIA complaint.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

That's true if they didn't link 100% accelerator travel to maximum possible torque demand. But, I think they did.

I think they made said link, which complies with regulation 5.5.3, and then they made adjustments to the engine map between the 15,000-18,000 RPM/80-100% accelerator travel range as allowed by 5.6.6. To assert overall compliance, they likely defined "monotonically" as "always increasing," just as you and others have, despite the "spirit of the rules" defining "monotonically" as the requirement for the rate of increase. Because both definitions are valid, the stewards had no choice but to allow it, even though they openly acknowledged that Red Bull's logic was improper.

1) It is true even if they did link it to "100% accelerator travel to maximum possible torque demand" because the engine is providing the max that it has been mapped to. Nothing in the rules requires anything more.

2) They likely defined "monotonically" as never decreasing. 5.5.5 makes no mention of the word 'rate'. How in the world do you come up with 'rate' being relevant to this rule? What would possibly lead me to view this through my 'spirit' glasses. A clear example where 'spirit' = BS.

Brian