Cam wrote:Yep, I realise that, but you have to look at it from a legal perspective to see what you can argue to get away with. Every definition of TC states 'prevents wheelspin', so anything that improves traction but doesn't go so far as to prevent it, would be fair game. Until the definition gets changed and industry start using terms like 'minimises traction lose through wheelspin' then it's game on.
That's what I'm saying - I'm agreeing with you mate!
gato azul wrote:well, not really wanting to get too much involved in this p.... match, but if we see, that optimum forward traction of an tyre seems to be achieved with slipratio's > 0% (somewhere between 10-20%), having a system which "prevents wheelspin" seems counterproductive, or at least would require a definiton of what "wheelspin" is.
A true/good TCS/ASR would "control" wheel slip in a way, that it stays in his "optimum range", which changes with things like load and the tyre and slip angle (lateral loading of the tyre).
Preventing "any" wheelspin/slip would mean no acceleration at all, so a true TC would control "degrees of it" in your words.
[img]
http://www.racer.nl/images/pac_f12002.jpg[img]
All well and true. But a TC system would receive outside input other than the driver and react automatically to said input to maintain "optimum" traction. If it was tuned to max out at 14% slip, then when 14.1% (or whatever accuracy you have your tcs set on) shows up, it cuts torque on its own volition and programming.
The torque map is, in comparison - a "dead" thing. Let's say then that for next race Red Bull goes to a 100% legal engine map. Next year Renault introduces "reliability upgrades" (as Ferrari and Mercedes do - not sure about Cosworth) that happen to alter the characteristics of the engine output just so beautifully identical to the "traction map," as it were, of the car - even without funky engine mapping. (I know my scenario is very utopian, but work with me here) The driver in said scenario never even has to worry about managing his right foot. He can plonk it down whenever he wants and he can be on the optimum traction range out of any slow corners. What then?
Conversely - if you had an engine so weak, or tyres so good - that meant you were never traction limited, even in a slow corner - what then? Would that be "traction control? That's how I see this situation - Red Bull have managed to weaken the engine so that it is much less traction-limited.
Do I agree it's against the spirit of the TC ban? Yes. Do I agree that it's against the rules? No. It's within the WORD of the rules. Much like the 2008 McLaren was, with their torque control paddles.
