Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[aussiegman]

So 5.5.3 states that:

5.5.3 The maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed.
The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or lower than 0Nm.

This is very poorly written and I don't see how you could argue RBR breached this regulation.

How do you define a wholly theoretical "maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed"?? Is this the theoretical maximum the engine can produce under ideal conditions, if so then all engines in use would fail this regulation as none could reproduce this theoretical maximum during on track conditions.

What it relates to given the interaction with the other regulations is the maximum torque allowable under the mapping programs present. So if the engine can produce xNm at 12,000rpm under the current mapping at 100% throttle, then every time you have 100% throttle at 12,000rpm you should get xNm from the engine.

But it is the determination of what is xNm that is open to interpretation and as long as it fulfills the requirements for a monotonically increasing function with variations of +/- 0.03Nm then it passes the regulations.

[raymondu999]

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.

Would that not cost top end torque, power and top speed?

[strad]

Interesting to note how poor their performance was when their maps were under scrutiny

[aussiegman]

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.

Would that not cost top end torque, power and top speed?

Not if you can map the engine to still give a required or predetermined maximum engine torque at maximum RPM's. There is no limitation on the steepness of graph of the function, only that it must me monotonically increasing.

What I would suspect RBR have done is determined what is the maximum torque they require, desire or want at 18,000rpm and worked backwards from there so that they could reduce the maximum torque the engine would produce at a specific RPM point or within a specific RPM range while still meeting the two requirements set them, those being to form a monotonically increasing function and meeting the predetermined maximum torque output figure at maximum RPM's that they desire, require or want.

[raymondu999]

Interesting to note how poor their performance was when their maps were under scrutiny

I don't think it was poor - but considering that the track layout is somewhat similar to Valencia (long-ish straights, slow corners, heavy on traction, then a busy few corners all coming at once) it was indeed poor

[strad]

I think it was poor because they decided that discretion dictated that they plug in non controversial mapping.
And I think aussiegman nails it with this..

What I would suspect RBR have done is determined what is the maximum torque they require, desire or want at 18,000rpm and worked backwards from there so that they could reduce the maximum torque the engine would produce at a specific RPM point or within a specific RPM range while still meeting the two requirements set them

Very clever in some eyes, an attempt at an end run around the spirit of the rule thru regulatory arbitrage,,,,,fancy footwork. Very close to cheating in some views.

[strad]

My Mustang Cobra will break the tires loose at full throttle and full boost in the first three grears as the rpm passes 5500..It would be nice to have the engine know that in those gears at full throttle and full boost I only want 5300 rpm, but that in 5th and 6th it can rev to 6500.

[jz11]

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.

1) in my opinion is false, traction control implies that there is some sort of logic that cuts down torque when wheelspin is detected, but goes to full power once the traction has regained, that is not what 30% flat torque reduction via engine mapping is, RB limited their engine power output at certain rpm range, it somewhat makes it easier for driver to control the traction, since there is a bit less umpf from the engine, but there is no automatic logic cutting the engine down and then bringing it back to full, the engine is just less powerful and that's it

as far as I know from reading the rules, teams are free to do that, they can tune up/down the engine output as they want, but they cannot change the ecu logic, and 5.5.3. has no relation to that whatsoever, 5.5.3. is about the accelerator pedal motion range, that is must correspond with engines CURRENT map, whether it is the normal or downtuned one, at 100% the engine must produce 100% of mapped power

accelerator pedal has no relation to engine theoretical output whatsoever

2) is even muddier, fact is that the effect is midrpm range, and when you floor the accelerator at 14k rpm, you don't instantly get the airflow of 16k rpm, it simply does not work like that with piston internal combustion engines. On top of that, how will you benefit from that extra downforce while having up to 30% less torque? and you cannot use that effect in the braking zone too, because you will overheat the brakes in a heartbeat and put huge stress on the drivetrain itself, remember that sometimes race engineers will ask driver not to overlap brake/accelerator, and there is no time during racing when the driver is off the throttle not on the brakes, they follow each other with no gaps

and, if I was in place of that Jo Bauer, I would first ask for car telemetry, see where RB used that very specific rpm range, draw conclusion and then make the accusation, not just say something in lines of - this looks weird, they must be working around some rule or something, because they did that in the past, lets investigate. You do that BEFORE you release a statement to the press, else it looks like badmouthing just because...

[thearmofbarlow]

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

He was not wrong. He noticed a discrepancy that he believed was a possible violation of a certain rule. Horner and crew were able to weasel out of it because overly pedantic wordings and interpretations lend themselves to abuse easier than basic wordings and going by the spirit of the law rather than the word of the law.

[amc]

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.

Thanks for correcting me. It is nothing to do with the torque demand map, which you are right is not linear. The second bit isn't quite right though (time to re-read the regulation carefully).

They simply set the pedal travel map differently as allowed in 5.5.4 for wet weather, and because it doesn't explicitly say this wet weather map must conform to 5.5.3 they made sure it didn't to gain 'drivability'. When they changed the map for the dry race it wasn't affected.

There's no more to it than that.

[Cam]

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

He was not wrong. He noticed a discrepancy that he believed was a possible violation of a certain rule. Horner and crew were able to weasel out of it because overly pedantic wordings and interpretations lend themselves to abuse easier than basic wordings and going by the spirit of the law rather than the word of the law.

Lets' have a closer look at this as I think it's important. Jo Bauer was wrong. Let me show you why.

The document in question:

"In my opinion this is therefore in breach" Signed - Jo Bauer

He clearly stated 'in his opinion' it was a breach and not a 'possible violation'. He also stated what regulation it breached.

He was wrong. RBR did not breach any regulation. RBR did not receive any penalty.

[Richard]

To be fair to Bauer, he referred the matter to the stewards for their consideration. He did the right thing.

[Cam]

Yes, he did the right thing to refer it and he should do every time. I don't think he did that the best way though. He came off looking a little amateur and I'm sure if he had his time again he would offer a 'suspicion' first for review. When he's in a position of expert, having specific claims like this rebuked will only harm his reputation and place doubt when he makes future calls, when there's no need too, he just needed to take a deep breath and remember RBR (and other teams) are not stupid.

The FIA must understand that when they make these claims the media go nuts and the fanboys follow. Threads in here have already gone berserk with calls of cheating and I'm sure there's a spirit lynch mob forming somewhere. The FIA have a duty of care as well as requirement to publish accurate information and I think they need to handle these situations a bit better.

[amc]

Bauer was also unequivocal in stating that the cars produced 'significantly less torque in the mid RPM range' than previously. So unless the engine's configuration has changed significantly to reduce torque - and performance - at all times, how have they not broken 5.5.3?

I respect the FIA and the due process that they followed, but I think they needed to stamp down on the Red Bull trait of flaunting with the badly worded rules.

[gato azul]

The FIA must understand that when they make these claims the media go nuts and the fanboys follow.

And who says, that they don't understand this?
Maybe it was the whole point of the exercise.
Remember that RRA and Concord Agreement talks and negotiations are in full swing at the moment.
And then consider, the individual positions of the players in the greater game.