Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[Cam]

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

I think he does, to a point. He is 'interpreting' the regs as he and the rest of the FIA understand them to be. This was proved by RBR not being penalised, however the FIA 'did not agree with the RBR interpretation' - ergo - loophole.

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?

Me thinks that's exactly what they'll tighten up.

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

"Spirit" is pointless arguing. It's only about legal terms with clear definitions. If someone successfully argues a term or clause may mean something else, well, they are right, until a TD 'clarifies' it otherwise.

This is actually one of the joys of F1 that I simply love. RBR do it better than any other team - for all we know. It's just as likely the other teams have dubious bit's and pieces too, however they have not come to light yet.

[Gatecrasher]

I might have missed this in all the pages and links but how did the FIA find out ?

[Cam]

It has been suggested the McLaren has blown the whistle. Seeing as they make the ECU (I think) they would have a great understanding and be in a position to do something about it.

Edit: I do no know for sure. I am guessing based on other news reports.

[thearmofbarlow]

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

This "Bauer guy" has been doing this job for fifteen years. He took it over from Whiting in 1997. I'm pretty sure he has a bit more of an idea how to interpret the rules than any fifty combined people on this forum.

[thearmofbarlow]

The ECU is examined at each race. That's how the FIA found out. It's called scrutineering.

[Cam]

This "Bauer guy" has been doing this job for fifteen years. He took it over from Whiting in 1997. I'm pretty sure he has a bit more of an idea how to interpret the rules than any fifty combined people on this forum.

But obviously not better than RBR.

[Cam]

The ECU is examined at each race. That's how the FIA found out. It's called scrutineering.

8.4.1 To assist scrutineering, the FIA requires unlimited access to the following ECU information before, during and after any track session.
I don't think when the ECU was 'scrutinised' was questioned. I think it has been reported that the FIA was 'tipped off' on what to look for. Just as RBR was running the 'holes' in the floor for a few races without question from scrutineering. It took a tip off for them to investigate, so obviously the FIA guys are not as god like as some would hope. They obviously make mistakes and oversights and rely on others to pinpoint possible problems.

[thearmofbarlow]

This "Bauer guy" has been doing this job for fifteen years. He took it over from Whiting in 1997. I'm pretty sure he has a bit more of an idea how to interpret the rules than any fifty combined people on this forum.

But obviously not better than RBR.

His job is to do what the regulations say, not what Christian Horner's lawyer's PR rep says that Horner should say. If the FIA want to be uber-pedants and Horner can out-pedant them I say good on him.

[Hail22]

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/moto ... 66209.html


Oh its not over by far...

[Cam]

This "Bauer guy" has been doing this job for fifteen years. He took it over from Whiting in 1997. I'm pretty sure he has a bit more of an idea how to interpret the rules than any fifty combined people on this forum.

But obviously not better than RBR.

His job is to do what the regulations say, not what Christian Horner's lawyer's PR rep says that Horner should say. If the FIA want to be uber-pedants and Horner can out-pedant them I say good on him.

Bauer called out loud and strong that RBR was outside of the regulations (see - big stink in media). He was wrong. Otherwise RBR would have been penalised. Horner: "The regulations are straightforward. It can't be a little bit in or a little bit out. The stewards looked at all of the evidence and deemed that the car was in full compliance."

Bauer's job is indeed to do what the regulations say, and he was wrong on this occasion, there's no to be done here. If the rules get 'clarified', then so be it and changes will be made. Until then RBR is in the right and with the rules.

FIA 0 - RBR 1

[beelsebob]

So, the BBC's article on this has clarified why Jo Bauer considered it a rule breach...

The circumstances being talked about were not mid throttle position – they were full throttle, but with the engine still working up to max RPM. In these circumstances, the engine was producing less torque than it could, the idea being that the driver was able to stick his boot down, and the engine would produce a torque curve that (roughly) matched the amount of grip that would be available at any given speed. Essentially giving 1) traction control (or similar) 2) higher RPM compared to torque providing more gasses to blow the rear end under traction.

I actually now wonder how red bull were able to argue their way out of it.

[amc]

The idea that 5.5.5 requires the map to be linear cannot be correct in my mind. This would make 5.5.6 superfluous.

However, Red Bull may have argued that it does require a linear relationship in the dry, so that when the pedal shaping map was changed for the wet, the max throttle map cannot be the same. So 5.5.3 is broken. They can argue a different definition of monotonic, meaning uniformly increasing. This is what I think they are doing.

Let's go back to facts: Red Bull have broken at least 5.5.3 and are trying to justify it by saying they are having to do so to meet other regulations. If there is no clarification this will descend into utter chaos.

[aussiegman]

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

IMHO, RBR benefited in three (3) ways:

1: Increase tyre life through decreased mid range torque that may cause excess tyre slip during cornering. Tyre degradation of the Pirelli's has been a constant theme of this season. This may have been used as an available engine map accessable via the steering wheel controls that could be utilised if wear on the rear tyres was exceeding what was deemed acceptable;

2: A new method of providing a partial equivalent to hot blowing for the newly developed side pods shaping;

3: Either the individual or combined benefits of more traditional aspects such as mid corner / corner exit traction control, fuel efficiency, engine reliability/longevity etc etc

I think given that the tyres have been the major theme this year and this had seemingly not previously been used (or detected) them there is likely a tyre wear aspect to it. Removal of the Exhaust Blown Diffuser ("EBD") which was a huge part of the RB package is also a likely candidate.

Personally, I think it is a mixture of both aimed at providing more rear end grip to control rear tyre wear.

Do I think RBR cheated?? No, I definitely do not.

I think they correctly defined a creative but definitively legal interpretation the regulations as they were written and they worked within said valid interpretation. This is technical innovation and evolution driven by a singular need to find solutions.

[strad]

What Red Bull are doing is breaking 5.5.3 but getting away with it on a technicality:

More regulatory arbitrage

[aussiegman]

The idea that 5.5.5 requires the map to be linear cannot be correct in my mind. This would make 5.5.6 superfluous.

The map does not and cannot be linear (a straight line), but it can and must be monotonically increasing with allowable variations of +/- 0.03Nm.

As such, if the engine is at less than maximum RPM's and 100% throttle is applied, the torque output must conform to a monotonically increasing function with variations of 0.03Nm.

What RBR has done is reduce the maximum torque the engine can produce under ideal circumstances to a maximum that it will produce with the given engine mapping. As long as the function is monotonically increasing when graphed with allowable variation, it is legal under the current rules.

What the current rules are trying to remove is de-facto traction control through variable engine mapping, not torque limitation under an engines theoretical maximum that still conforms to the required monotonically increasing function.

However, Red Bull may have argued that it does require a linear relationship in the dry, so that when the pedal shaping map was changed for the wet, the max throttle map cannot be the same. So 5.5.3 is broken. They can argue a different definition of monotonic, meaning uniformly increasing. This is what I think they are doing.

The function is not linear so why does linear even enter in to the equation??

Let's go back to facts: Red Bull have broken at least 5.5.3 and are trying to justify it by saying they are having to do so to meet other regulations. If there is no clarification this will descend into utter chaos.

No they haven't in my opinion. At worst RBR has discovered an unintended loophole which the FIA will now attempt to close. That's as much as RBR could currently be charged with IMHO...