Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[Raptor22]

From the equation P=2.pi.N.T/60 T is proportional to N. this is shaft power and torque. F1 cars have gearboxes with ratio options that changes that.
A true engine won't obey the proportionality 100% either since losses are variable at different rpm and load requirements.

If you view torque as the outcome of average cylinder pressure, then essentialy what is occuring is they are varying cyclinder pressure through the rev range via valve timing, spark timing and fuel flow metering.
So if we consider that buy depressing the throttle a given amount of fuel is demanded. Now the intention of the ruleis to ensure that the throttle position actually delivers a proportional amount of fuel. What ReD Bull are allegedly doing is what Ferrari have been ding, i.e. adding velocity, inclination, G loading, throttle position and current rpm all into a model todetermine what the engine needs t deliver to meet acceleration X. If the G loading is factoredin they can assume tyre behaviour and therefore load and use that to feedback to the ecu to deliver enough fuel to only meet 95% of the demand due to the parameters showing that slip is likely.

I suspect the Lotus is also running this system but am wondering why only RedBUll was targeted

[Hangaku]

Enforced ruling from the next race onwards:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/18986375

[Dragonfly]

Another question I have no answer for is engine wear out and life. To ensure minimum engine life I suppose they have to place some limits (even if small) to an older engine.
Now I read they are going to use a reference map from earlier this season to determine deviations and their compliance with the imposed limit.

However I still don't see the necessity of so stringent measures when there are already too little possibilities to innovate or apply a flexible approach.

[thearmofbarlow]

So in other words the technical delegate was NOT wrong and it was only through Horner and Company's politicking that they were allowed to race.

Also, it WAS considered traction control.

For the TL;DR crowd.

[Stradivarius]

What 5.5.3 does is prevent teams from using the ECU and mapping from arbitrarily altering either the torque delivery function OR the maximum engine torque for benefit.

If on examination a team’s ECU was found to have provided variable maximum torque at 100% throttle and maximum RPM during an event, then there is a clear violation of 5.5.3 in my opinion and as such it cannot simply be disregarded.

I think it is useful to point out that the maximum torque may and will vary throughout the event, since it depends on several parameters which are not within the control of the driver or his team. Increasing ambient temperatures will cause a reduction of the maximum torque without it being a violation of the rules. The rules refer to the torque demand, which is not allowed to change for a given engine speed and accelerator pedal position.

Maybe there is something I am missing here, but I still feel that the violation you are describing here will be caught by the other paragraphs. Paragraph 5.5.4 states that you can only have one map for dry-weather tyres and one map for wet-weather tyres. So as long as you are on dry-weather tyres, there is no way that 100% accelerator pedal position at maximum engine speed could yield different torque demands throughout the race without violating 5.5.4.

Likewise, if 100% acceleraor pedal position does not correspond to the maximum torque demand at the measured engine speed, it would be a violation of 5.5.5, because the torque demand would not be monotonically increasing with an increase in the accelerator pedal position. Let me illustrate this with an example. Consider the a map with the following properties at 15k rpm: Assume that the engine's maximum troque at 15k rpm is 360 Nm.

50% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 250 Nm.
60% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 280 Nm.
70% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 330 Nm.
80% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 350 Nm.
90% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 360 Nm.
100% accelerator pedal position corresponds to a torque demand of 350 Nm.

Assume that the points I define abowe are connected with straight lines, so that (for example) the torque demand at 85% accelerator pedal position is 355 Nm. The maximum engine torque at 15k rpm would in this case is 360 Nm, since this is the highest torque we find in the map, and we already know that the engine is capable of achieving 360 Nm at 15k rpm. The torque demand at 100% accelerator pedal position is 350 Nm, which is lower than the maximum engine torque, so this map would be illegal according to 5.5.3, which I think we all can agree upon. 5.5.3 states that the torque demand at 100% accelerator pedal position has to be at least 360 Nm in this case, since this is the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed.

But this map is also illegal according to 5.5.5 because the torque demand is not monotonically increasing for an increase of the accelerator pedal position. When you increase the accelerator position from 90%, you will decrease the torque demand. So you don't need 5.5.3 to deem this map illegal.

My question is then: Can you define a map which complies with 5.5.5 and not with 5.5.3? I don't see how this would be possible.

[bhall]

You have to consider torque demand differently than torque itself. Torque demand is the request, so to speak, and, similarly, torque is the answer. Apparently, the rules require a request for 100% of available torque from 5,000 RPM to 15,000 RPM. The "answer" may differ, but the "request" cannot change.*

Think of it as a woman: "Give me all you got. I don't care how much it is just as long as it's all of it." (EDIT: That's just my experience with women. Your mileage may vary.)

* There are exceptions within the regulations that deal with idle speeds, less than 5,000 RPM, and ignition base offsets from 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel.

[bruceafc]

Im not on this forum much but here me out.


So if there having to make a change to the regs on the red bull surley that means there car must have be illegal to race at Germany, why is there a sudden need to change a regulation if nothing was found to be illegal on the red bull at the Germany Gp.

[Stradivarius]

You have to consider torque demand differently than torque itself. Torque demand is the request, so to speak, and, similarly, torque is the answer. Apparently, the rules require a request for 100% of available torque from 5,000 RPM to 15,000 RPM. The "answer" may differ, but the "request" cannot change.*

Think of it as a woman: "Give me all you got. I don't care how much it is just as long as it's all of it." (EDIT: That's just my experience with women. Your mileage may vary.)

* There are exceptions within the regulations that deal with idle speeds, less than 5,000 RPM, and ignition base offsets from 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel.

I guess that this boils right down to how you define "maximum engine torque". Is it the maximum torque you will obtain using a given engine map, or is it the maximum torque you would have obtained if you requested the theoretical maximum torque the engine is capable of deliver (at the measured engine speed).

If I have understood this matter correctly, what Red Bull have done, which caught the attention of Joe Bauer, is to lower the torque demand at certain engine speeds, so that they didn't exploit the engine's theoretical torque delivery at those engine speeds. Joe Bauer argued that since Red Bull's actual torque at those engine speeds where higher at Silverstone than their torque demand at those engine speeds where at Hockenheim, they were violating article 5.5.3. Joe Bauer was, however, overruled by the stewards who deemed Red Bull's engine map to be legal. Obviously, the stewards argued that the maximum engine torque could also be limited by the map itself, while the theoretical engine torque output is irrelevant. According to the reasoning of the stewards, the requirement to maximum accelerator position in article 5.5.3 is redundant.

Let's consider the following data for 100% accelerator pedal position:

Code: Select all

Engine speed     Theoretical engine torque     Torque demand     Actual torque
    (rpm)                     (Nm)                  (Nm)              (Nm)

    12 000                     365                   350               350
    13 000                     370                   350               350
    14 000                     375                   350               350
    15 000                     360                   350               350
    16 000                     345                   350               345
    17 000                     325                   350               325
    18 000                     310                   350               310

As is evident above, the actual torque is always the lowest value of the theoretical engine torque and the torque demand. The maximum engine torque will always be equal to the actula torque above, according to the race stewards' definition. But according to Joe Bauer's definition, if I have understood the matter correctly, the maximum engine torque is equal to the theoretical engine torque above. So for example at 14k rpm, Joe Bauer would say that the map is illegal because the torque demand is lower than the theoretical torque. The race stewards would say that the map above is legal, provided that the requirements of article 5.5.5 are satisfied (which cannot be determined from the data above).

Since Joe Bauer was overruled, and there is now a change in the rules in order to get rid of Red Bull's engine map, I am strengthened in my belief that article 5.5.3 is not necessary, and doesn't achieve anything the way it is formulated.

[gato azul]

the same car as in Germany would be deemed illegal, if they raced it in the same form in Hungary, but that does not make the car illegal in Germany.
Is like saying that because you where doing 50km/h near a school on Monday, and they did not like to see it, and therefore put a 30 km/h sign in addition to the school sign on Tuesday, you where breaking the law on Monday.
No, you did not, you just did something, which some people did not like to see, and had hoped you would not do,but they can't punish you for what you did, because it was not against the law.
Now, if you do 50 km/h in this area on Friday, they can punish you, because now, it's clear that 30 km/h is the limit, and what they wanted to see in the first place. But initially they thought, just putting up a school/kids on the street sign would be enough to do it.

[Dragonfly]

Requiring always the maximum factory torque of an engine at any time for the sake of some ill conceived fairness, especially in wet conditions, is borderline with criminal offense since you deprive the team of the ability to adjust driveability of a particular car.

[gato azul]

well, to but a different view, and perhaps an end to the TC debate, or we may spin it off into a "how does TC work, and what does it mean thread", because it has little relevance to this thread.

If the FIA would have thought, that it was TC, then they most likely would have claimed a breach of rule:

9.3 Traction control :
No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive throttle torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.

As, they have not, It's fair to assume, that they are well aware of the fact, that this is not TC, and that they see no legalization to punish on grounds of illegal use of TC.

Simple - no

[bhall]

I guess that this boils right down to how you define "maximum engine torque". Is it the maximum torque you will obtain using a given engine map, or is it the maximum torque you would have obtained if you requested the theoretical maximum torque the engine is capable of deliver (at the measured engine speed).

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.

EDIT: My initial understanding, which was apparently false, was that 5.5.3 dealt with maximum torque demand relative to the map in use. From everything I've read since, however, it seems 5.5.3 deals with absolute maximum torque demand, which seems senseless to me.

If I have understood this matter correctly, what Red Bull have done, which caught the attention of Joe Bauer, is to lower the torque demand at certain engine speeds, so that they didn't exploit the engine's theoretical torque delivery at those engine speeds. Joe Bauer argued that since Red Bull's actual torque at those engine speeds where higher at Silverstone than their torque demand at those engine speeds where at Hockenheim, they were violating article 5.5.3. Joe Bauer was, however, overruled by the stewards who deemed Red Bull's engine map to be legal. Obviously, the stewards argued that the maximum engine torque could also be limited by the map itself, while the theoretical engine torque output is irrelevant. According to the reasoning of the stewards, the requirement to maximum accelerator position in article 5.5.3 is redundant.

Bauer was reluctantly overruled, I think is a better way to put it.

While the stewards do not accept all the arguments of the team, they however conclude that as the regulation is written, the map presented does not breach the text of Art 5.5.3 of the Formula 1 Technical Regulations and therefore decided to take no action.

Given the following...

None of us really know what it is that antagonised the FIA so much to provoke Jo Bauer into issuing the note he did on Sunday morning. It was quite unusual step - I don't think the FIA would have referred to the stewards unless they had very serious concerns.

...I think it's obvious we still don't have a full picture.

[hardingfv32]

So if there having to make a change to the regs on the red bull surley that means there car must have be illegal to race at Germany, why is there a sudden need to change a regulation if nothing was found to be illegal on the red bull at the Germany Gp.

Because the design or type of performance 'legally' accomplished by RB is not what is desired by the rule makers or the FIA. They are changing the rules to 'hopefully' assure compliance with their objectives.

Brian

[Stradivarius]

well, to but a different view, and perhaps an end to the TC debate, or we may spin it off into a "how does TC work, and what does it mean thread", because it has little relevance to this thread.

If the FIA would have thought, that it was TC, then they most likely would have claimed a breach of rule:

9.3 Traction control :
No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive throttle torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.

As, they have not, It's fair to assume, that they are well aware of the fact, that this is not TC, and that they see no legalization to punish on grounds of illegal use of TC.

Simple - no

Not necessarily, I would say. If the Red Bull has tailored the torque demand at certain engine speeds to suit specific corners at a specific track, one could call it some kind of TC, but 9.3 wouldn't apply, since there wouldn't be any compensation for excessive throttle demand. For example, the team could observe that at a specific high speed corner, the driver can go flat out if they reduce the torque demand around 15k rpm. This would aid the driver in a way, because he wouldn't have to control the torque demand himself, he would just let the engine maping give him the optimal torque. This could be understood as a form of traction control, although it isn't the same as a system responding to wheel-spin.

I am actually not sure if this would be illegal, but I can understand if FIA don't want this to happen.

[bhall]

[...]

I am actually not sure if this would be illegal, but I can understand if FIA don't want this to happen.

I believe this sums up everything here quite nicely.