Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[hardingfv32]

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

Go for it if you find it fun.

Brian

[turbof1]

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.

Yes I was thinking the same; they could have had a very complex map. Easy to test and perfect in a simulator for each circuit.

[hardingfv32]

I assumed that track tailored 'drivability' maps have been in use for many years.

There is talk that the 'new limit could allow as little tolerance in torque as two per cent'. Does this limit the options available for modifying 'drivability'? Are there traits of 'drivability' not related to torque output?

Brian

[JMN]

Was the contents of the TD 036-11 Jo Bauer referred to in his protest ever clarified?
Curiously, Bauer explicitly mentioned the breach of TD 036-11 in addition to the breach of regulation 5.3.3, but the stewards' announcement only addressed the elaborated breach of the regulations regarding the throttle to torque relationship with no mentioning of the artificial altering of aerodynamic characteristics.
For reference:
https://twitter.com/F1Kate/status/22695 ... to/1/large
http://i.imgur.com/H3tFC.png

Of course, it is possible the breach of TD 036-11 may be a secondary issue and hence irrelevant when regulation 5.3.3 was deemed to not be conflicting with the RBR engine map. Even so, it would be nice to know what the contents of the TD is and why it wasn't mentioned.

[red300zx99]

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

Go for it if you find it fun.

Brian

Traction control is not always active. It may not fit your definition of traction control, but an engine map for each corner to me would be considered traction control. Same goes with launch control, it's still there it's just not the automated systems from years ago.

[Stradivarius]

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.

5.5.5 specifies how the torque demand should depend on the accelerator pedal position. More specifically, it specifies that this dependence should be monotonically increasing. It is correct that there is no mention of any absolute position, but I never implied that either. However, a logical consequence of the rule is that the maximum accelerator position must correspond to the maximum torque demand. The only way to avoid having the highest torque demand at the maximum accelerator pedal position, is to have a non-monotonic dependency between the torque demand and 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

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.

In this example of yours, can you explain how to acchieve 100% torque demand with such a setup? It strikes me that with such a setup as you describe, it would be impossible to ever obtain more than 50% torque demand. Hence, it would be meaningless to call this 50% torque demand. 100% torque demand is a term that means the maximum torque demand you can have. In your example that would be the same as what you call 50% torque demand. This would be the maximum and hence, in the rules this would be defined as 100% torque demand, not 50%.

Let me use an example similar to yours to explain my reasoning: Let us say you have a torque demand which is linearily dependant of the accelerator pedal position, so that 1% accelerator pedal position corresponds to 1% torque demand, 35% accelerator pedal position corresponds to 35% torque demand, and so on. Said in another way, x% accelerator pedal position would correspond to x% torque demand for any x between 0 and 100. With this setup, the only way to acchieve 100% torque demand would be to apply 100% accelerator pedal position. It would therefore not be necessary to make the additional requirement that 100% accelerator pedal position must correspond to 100% torque demand. And the same would be true for any monotonically increasing function, linear or non-linear.

[gato azul]

then we will agree to disagree - no problem

torque demand does not only depend on throttle pedal position, it depends on rpm as well.
So if you have 100% throttle at 14k rpm this will have a certain torque demand as an result for 100% torque at 14k rpm.
What would force me, according to only the wording of 5.5.5., to alter the parameters for 15 16 17 .... k rpm?
If there was no increase in pedal position, while would I need to maintain max. torque after 14k rpm?
I did increase it (up to 14k rpm) as long as the throttle pedal position increased, now that I have max. torque at 14 k rpm,
why do I need to keep increasing the torque request for the rest of the rpm band.
By doing so, I have fulfilled my obligation in terms of 5.5.5., not sure, that the engine will keep producing max torque with the same setting for the rest of the rpm band.

[Cam]

Sources suggest that the FIA will lay down specific limits on the variations of torque that can be used throughout the rev range

Yep, just another step closer to a spec series.

[turbof1]

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

Go for it if you find it fun.

Brian

Traction control is not always active. It may not fit your definition of traction control, but an engine map for each corner to me would be considered traction control. Same goes with launch control, it's still there it's just not the automated systems from years ago.

There are other factors that contribute to traction and wheelspin then just the corners. One must not forget a track evolving throughout the weekend, getting rubbered in and giving more grip. How are you going to calculate that in. Or how about a wet track which continually gets dryer. Think about a driver seriously flat spotting his tyre, which has an impact on the grip and stability, or a difference in traction between the prime and option tyre. There are numerous factors which makes to very difficult to calculate the perfect amount of torque for each corner. Real traction control will always be much more accurate, as it calculates it right after all those factors work in on the tyre and respond to that. An engine map will always stay a rough estimate of much torque you can use and can't react on changing factors. IMO "torque mapping" is for this reason too much off from traction control.

[red300zx99]

Sure you can add elements to make traction control better, but not having those elements doesn't mean it's not real traction control. Single variable(rpm) active TC is more prevalent then you think.

[rjsa]

Traction control has to be a closed loop system. An integrative/derivative system. If it's open loop you can call it good traction, sensible traction, whatever you like best. But it's not traction control. It's like saying brake bias adjustment is ABS.

And the SECU can't do traction control. It won't factor crankshaft acceleration, so it won't factor wheel acceleration. It's by design and it's not something you can fix with mapping. Not to mention all the other feedback needed to make TC work, like independent wheel speed reading, body acceleration and the what not.

Whatever RBR is achieving is aerodynamic gain.

[red300zx99]

Not to mention all the other feedback needed to make TC work, like independent wheel speed reading, body acceleration and the what not.

You don't need any feedback other then rpm to make TC work

[rjsa]

Not to mention all the other feedback needed to make TC work, like independent wheel speed reading, body acceleration and the what not.

You don't need any feedback other then rpm to make TC work

You need to be able to derive crankshaft acceleration from the RPM data.

The SECU won't perform that math.

That's the reason behind the SECU, that's why McLaren provides the standard engine computer for everyone - so that TC is impossible.

[red300zx99]

Sigh, I'm not arguing if such a system is possible with the SECU.

Again TC has many faces, and they are not all active

[red300zx99]

It's like saying brake bias adjustment is ABS.

No, but if you had called brake bias a stability control system I would have agreed.