Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[red300zx99]

So as predicted, FIA will tighten up the regulations:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

My question is: how much tenths a round roughly did the engine map gave at Hockenheim? Just to get a picture of how much they are about to loose.

Over a single lap they probably won't lose any time. Over a race distance they'll probably lose out due to more rear tire wear.

[red300zx99]

Simple really, the fact that at WOT torque has been reduced

No, you are basing your rule 'intent' on what you think RB is trying to do. You must view the rules without reference to the RB issue. If you do that, then what do you use to establish 'intent' for the rules being discussed?

Brian

I haven't said squat about the 'intent' of the rules, only the intent of the map.

[gato azul]

But I fail to see why you think that maximum pedal position isn't covered by 5.5.5. At any given engine speed, the torque demand will depend on the accelerator pedal position. This dependence has to be monotonically increasing, which means that the maximum accelerator pedal position must correspond to maximum torque demand. This must be the case for each and every engine speed. The fact that the engine torque demand will vary with a change in the engine speed is a totally different matter, which is not affected by either 5.5.3 or 5.5.5.

because the way I see it (which can be wrong of course) 5.5.5. relates on a "rate of change" not on any absolute position.
if the driver at any engine rpm increases the position of the accelerator pedal, the torque demand has to increase as well.
If he does not increase the pedal position (because it is already at max. for example), there does not need to be an increase after he reached a steady (max. in my example) position. The torque demand only need to increase during the transient from one pedal position to the other according the 5.5.5.
.

This dependence has to be monotonically increasing, which means that the maximum accelerator pedal position must correspond to maximum torque demand

with apologizes, I don't agree with that statement.
If we take a very simple example and assume for the sake of this argument that 0% throttle pedal position equals 0% torque demand, and that to satisfy the "monotonically increasing" condition in 5.5.5., I chose a rate of 0.5 (in a linear function, which is not required), then I will have a torque demand of 50% for 100% pedal position, which would be perfectly legal. Therefore I fail to see, how you can state that, only based on 5.5.5., 100% pedal position must correspondent with 100% torque demand.

[turbof1]

I don't really know much about this subject, but I don't think it is traction control; traction control actively works when one of the wheels is set to loose grip; this engine map only makes sure that the torque is within such a range it doesn't create wheel spin, but unlike traction control it does not apply the maximum torque in each given situation. It is only an estimate in which range wheelspin is the most likely to occur and set a standard amount of torque for that range.

So as predicted, FIA will tighten up the regulations:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

My question is: how much tenths a round roughly did the engine map gave at Hockenheim? Just to get a picture of how much they are about to loose.

Over a single lap they probably won't lose any time. Over a race distance they'll probably lose out due to more rear tire wear.

Is it also possible for them to have a higher risk for bad starts?

[jz11]

So as predicted, FIA will tighten up the regulations:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

My question is: how much tenths a round roughly did the engine map gave at Hockenheim? Just to get a picture of how much they are about to loose.

I don't think anyone can really prove that they actually benefited from it at all in terms of lap times in general, I already said it earlier, but I would bet my money on that they were doing it to save tires, not so much that it would let them have less pit stops, but maybe to be able to bang in couple fast laps on the old set when others go in for the change, or for the finishing laps of the race in case they needed it

[red300zx99]

I don't really know much about this subject, but I don't think it is traction control; traction control actively works when one of the wheels is set to loose grip; this engine map only makes sure that the torque is within such a range it doesn't create wheel spin, but unlike traction control it does not apply the maximum torque in each given situation. It is only an estimate in which range wheelspin is the most likely to occur and set a standard amount of torque for that range.

I won't agree with you on your definition of TC as it's not always 'active', but everything else you said sounds spot on.

[hardingfv32]

Engine Torque Demand: Maximum level of engine torque output when air becomes the limiting factor in the combustion in the cylinders. So basically it is maximum engine torque available at this throttle position.

This is not acceptable. I do not see the noun 'demand' have any measurable value. Secondly, why add the statement "or greater than the maximum engine torque" if you are talking about "basically...maximum engine torque"?

No we are missing something here.

Brian

[Joie de vivre]

did Red Bull run mapped engine also on sunday gp or only on qualy?

[Stradivarius]

Stradivarius / gato azul

Trying to follow your discussion and viewing 5.5.3 just raises some questions in my mind.

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.....

1) What exactly is 'engine torque demand'? what is the significance of adding the word 'demand'. This is no accident.

2) How do you request 'greater than the maximum engine torque'? why would you expect to get 'greater than the maximum engine torque'. Again this wording is no accident.

Can you please expand?

Brian

I must admit that I have yet to see any firm confirmation on this, but it is my understanding that the engine torque demand is the torque requested from the engine. Ideally, there wouldn't be any difference between engine torque demand and engine torque, but there is a difference due to changes that affects the engine performance. For example, the engine looses performance during it's life, so at the beginning of a race, the torque output might be higher at a given torque demand than at the end of a race, without that being a breach of the rules. Therefore, the rules refer to the torque demand and not the actual torque. Other factors that affects the engine torque at a given torque demand would be air temperature, ambient pressure and humidity. A combustion engine will perform better at lower temperatures and higher ambient pressure, since it will allow it to take in more oxygen per cycle. So if the temperature rises during a race and the engine torque drops, there won't be any breach of the rules as long as the engine maping remains unchanged.

In the old days the torque demand would be equivalent to the valve position of the intake. On old cars the accelerator pedal was directly connected (mechanically) to the throtle valve. Today, the torque demand is electronically maped to the accelerator pedal and also takes parameters such as engine speed into account. This allows for a more intuitive response to the accelerator pedal, for which the rules in discussion specifies the boundarys.

[turbof1]

I don't really know much about this subject, but I don't think it is traction control; traction control actively works when one of the wheels is set to loose grip; this engine map only makes sure that the torque is within such a range it doesn't create wheel spin, but unlike traction control it does not apply the maximum torque in each given situation. It is only an estimate in which range wheelspin is the most likely to occur and set a standard amount of torque for that range.

I won't agree with you on your definition of TC as it's not always 'active', but everything else you said sounds spot on.

Well, it might not always be like that, but quoting from an articel published on this site:

Various traction control systems have been developed for either racing or road car purposes, some of them more efficient then others. Such a system always monitors car variables and intercepts if too much power is being applied to the wheels. Usually this is realised by sensors that measure rotational speed of the powered wheels and compare that to the speed of the car, measured with either sensors at the unpowered - front, in the case of Formula One - wheels or with a sensor (e.g. a pitot tube) that measures the speed of the car itself. In a few miliseconds after the system detect wheelspin in the rear wheels, power is cut to nullify that spin. The different systems mainly differ in the way of reducing that power output to the wheels:

I can assume it applied for F1; of course "active" might have been a bit ambigious. Reactive is the better term.

[hardingfv32]

I won't agree with you on your definition of TC as it's not always 'active', but everything else you said sounds spot on.

Of coarse traction control is always active. Everything else that is being described/discussed is a guessing game about what conditions your are trying to solve for. Pure chance if you get it perfect. With traction control, the conditions are evaluated and the solution made perfect.

Brian

[amc]

did Red Bull run mapped engine also on sunday gp or only on qualy?

The map in question was I think only run on wet tyres, as per 5.5.4, so would never have affected dry-weather race performance. Had it rained in the race this map would still have been used as it cannot be changed in parc ferme. As soon as dry weather tyres were put on though, it would have reverted to a much less questionable map.

I don't know this for certain, but then none of us do, so you will have to make your own mind up on the truth.

[strad]

In no particular order..


=D>



These discussions/arguments get downright funny and always follow the same course.

[gato azul]

I think, a lot of the current wording in the 2012 regs, has always been there, but buried somewhere in "technical Bulletins" or clarifications or whatever you want to call it.
The 2012 wording deals (tries to deal) with the reality of "state of the art" engine control systems, then their implications for the rule makers.
Read the 2010 regs as reference, there is nor mentioning of "driver torque demand" or whatsoever.
The just state that min/max throttle pedal position has to equal min/max throttle position at the engine, and that TC is banned.
Well, that was maybe a good reg, back in the days of throttle cables and linkages, but has little relevance with today's engine control strategies (even for road cars).
The 2012 rules are an attempt to cover all bases, traction control, stability under braking, compensation for KERS activity, exhaust blowing etc., it's more then just one or two single things.
The media makes a big fuss about the possible aero benefit, mainly based on last year, but I would like to think, that this at best is a secondary consideration, and I would agree with posters here, saying that one of the main advantages could be tyre management and improved driveability under low grip conditions, where the cars are traction limited (slow corner, wet etc.). Sure, a little extra downforce will help, it always does, in these conditions.
I think, to fully understand, what RBR was up to, we would need to know in which rpm range this was supposed to happen.
Because based on this information, we could access, if it is "low speed/gear" trick only, or if it affects the all gears.

[red300zx99]

I won't agree with you on your definition of TC as it's not always 'active', but everything else you said sounds spot on.

Of coarse traction control is always active. Everything else that is being described/discussed is a guessing game about what conditions your are trying to solve for. Pure chance if you get it perfect. With traction control, the conditions are evaluated and the solution made perfect.

Brian

Oh my. I don't even know where to start.