Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[jz11]

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.

you do realize that what you're saying will eliminate any team control over the engine mapping? no dry/wet engine settings, no fuel consumption or engine saving modes, no control over car balance during race when the fuel is burnt off, because all that is done by adjusting the engine power output parameters

[gato azul]

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.
.

well, I hardly ever side with Brian on many things, but I would say, that he and RBR are not alone in their definition of "monotonically increasing".


A monotonically increasing function. It is strictly increasing on the left and right while just non-decreasing in the middle.

according to this

If they (FIA) wanted a linear relationship or constant gradient (not necessary linear), they could/should have better defined it.

But I don't think, that "max. theoretical torque" or what ever terms are used here, come into this at all.
I think, the rules just states, that in case the driver puts the pedal to 100%, you have to "request" >>equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed<<, meaning , you have to ask for more (or at least the same) then you currently have at this engine speed (rpm).

and as the rule mentioned by the FIA deals either with 100% throttle or o% throttle, the whole "monotonically" argument is a bit mood, as the pedal is at 100% already, therefore I still think that bhallg2k original thought, about the 15-18k rpm range "trickery" (for want of a better word) holds some water, and sounds plausible/likely to me.

I don't think anyone will ever made a big fuss about a competitor, who just decides to bring a less powerful engine to an race. That doesn't makes any sense.

maybe someone, can have a look, what the engine rpm range is (maybe onboard lap from Vettel or whatever), which the car uses in the individual gears. What is the lowest rpm used on the track (after an upshift)?

[bhall]

1. Winning requires an engine to output maximum possible power.

2. Here are three interpretations of 5.5.5 based upon three valid definitions of monotonic. You tell me which one makes the most sense. Actually, don't. I'm just going to throw them out there anyway.

At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be [never increasing] increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be [never decreasing] increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be [uniformly*] increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

* 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.

[red300zx99]

1. Winning requires an engine to output maximum possible power.

Really?

[thearmofbarlow]

Gato Azul wins this thread, BTW, and nobody even noticed. Torque isn't just a line. It's a three dimensional object when you take the pedal position into account.

What the rules say is that at any given RPM, if you're holding the pedal in one position, the torque must increase at a steady pace. You can't jimmy with the ignition timing or anything else to bog the engine down in a certain RPM range at a certain level of throttle input.

THERE! I solved it. Now everyone can quit being pedantic and quoting article section verse chapters.

[jz11]

1. Winning requires an engine to output maximum possible power.

Really?

I stopped reading his post right there, there is no point discussing the issue this way any longer, I really wish people would brainstorm about how and where RB benefited from this special map not if they cheated or not

[hardingfv32]

What the rules say is that at any given RPM, if you're holding the pedal in one position, the torque must increase at a steady pace. You can't jimmy with the ignition timing or anything else to bog the engine down in a certain RPM range at a certain level of throttle input.

Why don't you point out what rules support this position. I say you are completely wrong.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

Here are three interpretations ........ unchanging pitch or tone.

You are just repeating the same nonsense without making a point. Have you nothing to add to the conversation?

Brian

[hardingfv32]

I really wish people would brainstorm about how and where RB benefited from this special map not if they cheated or not

OK, make a choice between improved 'drivability' or exhaust blowing.

Still not clear how improved exhaust blowing would be developed.

Brian

[jz11]

maybe they tried to gain some advantage for the later part of the race, on low fuel, when the car is light, some slow corner exit maybe, give drivers a bit more control over the acceleration (edit: not in terms of aero advantage, but more about balance of the car), or something like that

or, maybe, they were just investigating in general how this reduction in power affects cars balance in certain situations, since at first they tuned down the engine a little bit in the UK, and now even more in Germany

but without telemetry from RB and something to compare it to, this is just speculation

[bhall]

1. Winning requires an engine to output maximum possible power.

Really?

I stopped reading his post right there, there is no point discussing the issue this way any longer, I really wish people would brainstorm about how and where RB benefited from this special map not if they cheated or not

You may not get the answers you seek if you stop reading as soon as you reach something that's not to your liking. In this case, the advantages have been discussed at the beginning of this thread and elsewhere.

[hardingfv32]

There was this idea....

"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."

I challenge it for the following reasons:

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

[Cam]

Interesting read. I think relevant anyway. It explained further about % throttle and how it relates to % torque and the benefits it has.

http://www.optimumg.com/technical/throt ... tire-wear/



Edit: added pic to show relevance.

[Cam]

There was this idea....

"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."

I challenge it for the following reasons:

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

From James Allen website:

The idea was to use engine mapping to cut the torque at medium revs, which would certainly have helped with driveability in the wet conditions of practice and qualifying in Germany and would also have an aerodynamic benefit in slow corners; some of the fuel/air mixture finds its way into the exhausts to create post combustion – which blows hot exhaust gas under pressure down through the diffuser to create rear end downforce.

It’s very clever and shows the lengths teams will go to to find extra downforce. Bauer felt it was illegal because the rules say the connection between the opening of the throttle and the torque demand on the engine should be linear and in his view Red Bull was introducing a deviation in that process. Bauer had observed that the torque demand was less than at other recent races.

The rule that he felt Red Bull and Renault were trying to get around is new for this year and is designed to outlaw the practice of engines blowing exhaust gas into the diffuser even when the driver’s foot is off the throttle in a corner.

Interesting he said for 'wet conditions' as I think there's greater scope for map changes in that instance. Perhaps RBR did not use the suspect map for the dry and in fact, never intended too?

[hardingfv32]

Bauer felt it was illegal because the rules say the connection between the opening of the throttle and the torque demand on the engine should be linear and in his view Red Bull was introducing a deviation in that process.

This Bauer guy clearly does not have a good understanding of the F1 engine rules.

1) There is absolutely nothing in the rules that mentions 'linearity' in regard to the engine management issues we are discussing.

2) The fact is there is a minimum of 3 sections pertaining to this subject. Why three or more sections when the rules could simply state the relationship between throttle and torque demand must be linear?

I state the clear 'spirit' of these complex rules is to allow a non-linear relationship.

I will also state that it is very unusual for a mechanical leakage on a normal race car to be linear. It would take some effort to achieve. So, non-linearity has actually been the norm for may decades and certainly within the 'spirit' of normal motor racing.

Brian