After the German GP we were left with the issue of the torque maps being investigated on the Red Bull cars, which have now been policed by the FIA. But Renault Sport F1 deputy managing director, Rob White, sums up engine mapping and the latest developments, in an effort to bring some more clarity.
Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
amc wrote: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.
We can't blame RB for constructing a car in accordance with the rules and regulations. This is a technical forum so we admire their ingenuity. Nor can we single out RB, all teams explore the meaning of the rules.
One could say it would help if the FIA had more clarity in their wording, but changing the wording would merely open up opportunities elsewhere as we saw with the DDD a few years ago.
amc wrote: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?
1) The teams are free to set what power levels they want using the engine map. Max torque is determined by the engine map in use, not the map used the previous event.
2) Bauer's interpretation of 5.5.3 can not be administered. What if the exhaust system breaks, the max torque point to moved do to a change in the exhaust pulse location. The car would be illegal under this interpretation of 5.5.3.
Lets' have a closer look at this as I think it's important. Jo Bauer was wrong. Let me show you why.
*snip image*
"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.
Bauer's job is completely based on his professional opinion. What he might find to be a breach of the rules may not be in the eyes of the FIA. This is why he issues an opinion and forwards it to the FIA for clarification.
He was not wrong. The FIA was vague and hopeless, as usual. There is a difference.
hardingfv32 wrote:
1) The teams are free to set what power levels they want using the engine map. Max torque is determined by the engine map in use, not the map used the previous event.
2) Bauer's interpretation of 5.5.3 can not be administered. What if the exhaust system breaks, the max torque point to moved do to a change in the exhaust pulse location. The car would be illegal under this interpretation of 5.5.3.
Brian
1) But they are not free to use a combination of throttle input and ignition timing to change the way the car behaves under acceleration. That is what this is about.
2) It can be administered just fine. If the exhaust system breaks the exhaust system breaks and that's an end of it. The engine map is in the car and if something explodes chances are it's not going to improve performance.
thearmofbarlow wrote:1) But they are not free to use a combination of throttle input and ignition timing to change the way the car behaves under acceleration. That is what this is about.
2) It can be administered just fine. If the exhaust system breaks the exhaust system breaks and that's an end of it. The engine map is in the car and if something explodes chances are it's not going to improve performance.
1) Where where in the rules does it say you "throttle input and ignition timing to change the way the car behaves under acceleration"? Even if you wish to invoke the 'spirit' clause. what attributes of the rules would lead you to claim it is against the 'spirit' of the rules'?
2) 'If the exhaust system breaks the exhaust system breaks and that's an end of it', you are being a little casual about the situation that I have described. The car could still limp into a points finishing position. You might even make it to the podium if the exhaust tune only changes a few rpm.
jz11 wrote:
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
While I agree with the rest of your points I do not agree to this. Traction control has many many forms and many ways to implement it. And from a lawayers perspective not all TC cuts down torque when wheelspin is detected, some predict wheelspin and cuts down torque before it happens.
Honestly I find RBR to be on the legal side of TC in this case even though such a map implies that they are trying to manage their traction.
hardingfv32 wrote:
1) Where where in the rules does it say you "throttle input and ignition timing to change the way the car behaves under acceleration"? Even if you wish to invoke the 'spirit' clause. what attributes of the rules would lead you to claim it is against the 'spirit' of the rules'?
2) 'If the exhaust system breaks the exhaust system breaks and that's an end of it', you are being a little casual about the situation that I have described. The car could still limp into a points finishing position. You might even make it to the podium if the exhaust tune only changes a few rpm.
No, this interpretation can not be administered.
Brian
1) I'm not understanding your question.
2) Yes, I'm being casual because you're being ridiculous. Your car has to comply with the regulations at the beginning of the race. If it still complies except that something is now broken... well, the broken part doesn't change the fact that it complied at the beginning of the race. You have to have seven forward gears but if one of them shatters you can still continue. Broken parts are not considered during scrutineering either pre or post race.
Hi, this is the first time I write anything here, although I have spent some time reading all the interesting points of view posted on this forum.
It seems to me that article 5.5.3 is not necessary, as it simply states two necessary consequences of article 5.5.5.
5.5.5: At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing
for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
This has to mean that at any engine speed, the maping must satisfy the simple condition that if you increase the accelerator pedal position, the torque demand map must also increase. There is no room for a situation were you obtain more (or equal) torque by lifting the pedal.
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.
Since the torque demand map must be monotonically increasing, maximum accelerator pedal travel position will correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed. If you violate this rule, the torque demand map can't possibly be monotonically increasing, thus 5.5.3 doesn't change anything and could be removed without any concequences. I then make the assumption, that the minimum accelerator pedal travel position would would correspond to an engine torque demand of 0 or lower anyway, since all the teames make use of engine braking.
I would also like to try to clearify something which I believe has been misunderstood by a number of people in the earlier discussions here, regarding 5.5.6:
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.
As far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with the monotonically increasing curve mentioned in 5.5.5. Article 5.5.5 deals with the torque demand as a function of accelerator pedal travel positon at any given engine speed. Article 5.5.6 deals with the torque demand as a function of engine speed at any given accelerator pedal travel position. We are talking about 3 different variables here; torque demand, accelerator pedal (travel) position, and engine speed. The engine maping defines the torque demand based on (among others) the engine speed and the accelerator pedal position. When talking about a given accelerator pedal position, the rules are defining requirements to the varying torque demand as a function of (varying) engine speed. When talking about a given engine speed, the rules are defining requirements to the varying torque demand as a function of (varying) accelerator pedal position.
I believe that 5.5.6 is included in order to avoid some sort of traction control. Not real dynamic traction control, but nevertheless a mechanism aimed at automatically reducing wheel-spin. If the driver holds the accelerator pedal at a fixed position, he requests a given amount of torque. If he then experiences wheel-spinn, the engine speed will go up. The torque demand map could then be designed so that the torque would drop off rapidly when the engine speed goes up. In this way, the driver wouldn't need to lift off in order to stop the wheels from spinning. If carefully tuned, this could be optimized to function as a form of traction control. However, such a mechanism requires a low gradient, which is why the limit of -0.030 Nm / rpm is introduced. This means that in order to stop wheelspinn, the driver will need to lift the accelerator pedal to reduce the torque. He can't rely on the torque dropping off due to the resulting increased engine speed.
thearmofbarlow wrote:
1) I'm not understanding your question.
2) Yes, I'm being casual because you're being ridiculous. Your car has to comply with the regulations at the beginning of the race. If it still complies except that something is now broken... well, the broken part doesn't change the fact that it complied at the beginning of the race. You have to have seven forward gears but if one of them shatters you can still continue. Broken parts are not considered during scrutineering either pre or post race.
1) Your statement: "But they are not free to use a combination of throttle input and ignition timing to change the way the car behaves under acceleration."
What section of the rules supports this statement?
2) I propose a very plausible situation. If Bauer examines the ECU and finds that the max torque has changed during the race, then you would be in violation of the proposed 5.5.3 interpretation. There is no stated exception for failed parts in the rules.
As an example: some aero and suspension parts could be designed to fail so as to create a performance benefit.
Brian
Last edited by hardingfv32 on 24 Jul 2012, 20:30, edited 1 time in total.
jz11 wrote:
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
While I agree with the rest of your points I do not agree to this. Traction control has many many forms and many ways to implement it. And from a lawayers perspective not all TC cuts down torque when wheelspin is detected, some predict wheelspin and cuts down torque before it happens.
Honestly I find RBR to be on the legal side of TC in this case even though such a map implies that they are trying to manage their traction.
in my opinion for something to be called a traction control system, it has to have ability to act by itself, meaning it is an active system, but low torque engine map is basically the same thing as nonlinear accelerator pedal map (which is perfectly legal), and they both help the driver have better control over the torque applied to the car, same thing as the wet weather engine map
btw there is another effect of retarding spark (which I believe was how they downtuned the torque output) in that (still unspecified) midrpm range, if every other variable stays the same and you just retard the spark, the combustion still happens well inside the cylinder (still no similarity to the off-throttle blowing), but some of the energy gets carried as extra heat in exhaust gases, which means that when they leave the exhaust, they will have larger volume, maybe this was what Jo Bauer had in mind by a breach of that directive
but looking at split times in quali and the race itself, they didn't seem to have any edge in any part of the track, so I would guess that this was just an experiment, maybe to see how well some experimental setup from the simulator compares to the real world or something like that
@Stradivarius
5.5.5 does not apply any longer after you reach 100% throttle pedal position, therefore 5.5.3 deals with this condition (and 0% throttle separate).
If you apply 100% accelerator pedal position and hold the pedal there, at let's say 14k rpm, and you only had 5.5.5. you could do what you like, reduce torque demand as you see fit while transitioning through the rpm range from 14-18k rpm,
because you don't increase accelerator pedal position after 14k rpm, so you are not longer governed by 5.5.5. under this condition, ergo you have no obligation to increase torque demand.
The Mapping Trick was Legal as they were within the rules ..
Yes but only thru regulatory arbitrage...playing fast and loose with the intent of the rule.
You can't sit around dreaming up ways to do an end run around the rules..That's not being creative,,,It's cheating.
To achieve anything, you must be prepared to dabble on the boundary of disaster.”
Sir Stirling Moss
gato azul wrote:.....because you don't increase accelerator pedal position after 14k rpm, so you are not longer governed by 5.5.5. under this condition, ergo you have no obligation to increase torque demand.
Very good observation. Can you expand on what this combination of rules is trying to control. A little more than just traction control or exhaust blowing. How would you see the teams operating if the rules were not in place?
I assumed these new rules were all about restricting exhaust blowing, but we have never discussed why each rule is necessary for controlling exhaust blowing. How they must work together.
