Stradivarius wrote: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.
What 5.5.5 does (in my opinion) is set down that at any particular RPM, for a given throttle %, where that % is increased then the torque demand (engine torque output requested by the driver by increasing the throttle %) must increase as a monotonic function.
Stradivarius wrote:However, a logical consequence of the rule is that the maximum accelerator position must correspond to the maximum torque demand.
Agreed,
BUT (and this is the important part) it does not specify what is the maximum torque value or output of the engine must be under maximum torque demand which leaves that maximum torque value is variable and indeterminate from the engines theoretical maximum torque value.
As such, where any teams engine
could make 400Nm, than currently they are able to reduce that maximum value to as an example 375Nm which in turn allows them to fulfill other mapping requirements within the mid range torque profile.
If the required maximum mid range torque exceeded that allowable within the provided variation and did not form a monotonically increasing function with a maximum value greater than 375Nm, then it would be possible for the engines maximum torque output to be less then its possible theoretical maximum such that even though it could produce 400Nm, it is allowable to reduce this to 375Nm for the benefit of mid range torque delivery . (These are arbitrary numbers).
I still hold that this is likely what RBR did, in so much as they determined a maximum torque value required and worked backwards so they could fulfill the mid range torque requirements while still forming a monotonically increasing function.
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.
They are absolutely free to use the ignition and throttle input to change the way the car behaves under acceleration, however there is a proviso, that being that they do so in a consistent manner for the
duration of the race.
What the FIA are disputing is that RBR was not consistent in their mapping as to the maximum torque output of the engine from
event to event, not
during the race.
Under the current non-clarified regulations, as long as the mapping provides that every time the driver inputs
x% of throttle at
yRPM they receive
zNm from the engine, then the map passes regulation provided the delivery forms a monotonically increasing function.
hardingfv32 wrote:1) What exactly is 'engine torque demand'? what is the significance of adding the word 'demand'. This is no accident.
No it is not.
hardingfv32 wrote: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"?
Firstly, who are you to deem what is or is not acceptable?! Manners, some social etiquette and a little common courtesy would go a long way Brian!! A simple I do not agree would suffice rather than trying to lord it over people by attempting to determine what is or is not acceptable. Some might think your attitude is unacceptable, however so far no one has ordered you “pull your head in!” Please play nice…
As to your desire to understand why “
demand” is used, to my reading the word “demand” refers to the % of throttle
manually input by the driver in requesting engine torque delivery, in so much as the driver has made a demand from the engine for an increase or decrease in torque delivery by altering the throttle % conveyed to the engine management system for a given set of conditions. It is present to stop teams from allowing the ECU to arbitrarily alter throttle %
independently of driver input for the benefit of manipulating engine torque output vs. engine torque demand.
hardingfv32 wrote: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.
This insertion of “greater than maximum” is a safety clause that were for unforeseen circumstances the engine produces in excess of what the FIA has deemed as an engines maximum torque value by any percentage then that car would not be excluded. Variations could come from altitude, temperature, atmospheric pressure changes or other variables. In defining “greater than” they are allowing for any increase over the expected maximum, no matter how infinitesimally small. If this was not inserted should an engine be expected to produce 400Nm and logging should that at one point of the race for 0.0001s it provided 400.000005Nm of torque, then the car would be required to be excluded.
Never approach a Bull from the front, a Horse from the back, or an Idiot from any direction
