Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[jz11]

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.

the car was not illegal, if it was, it would have been excluded from the race or the team would have been ordered to change to normal maps and allowed to start from pits, the wording of the rule 5.5.3. was so loose, that it allowed their (RB) interpretation even though some thought of it as a traction control measure, which it clearly wasn't, it was a driver aid, and these two are not the same

quite sad IMO that things like these are outlawed, I bet other teams just panicked about this and tried to shut it down asap, just so RB doesn't perfect it and become unreachable again, this discipline becomes more and more boring from technical point of view, next thing we know - it will turn into cart racing, different colors, different stickers, same car for everyone

edit: changed wording, FIA style

[hardingfv32]

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.

1) 'Reluctantly' ? I say decisively over ruled! That fact that all arguments were not accepted implies nothing. You throw everything at the wall, you never know what is going to work with a group of stewards. This becomes a political process as soon as you get in front of the stewards.

2) The fact that Bauer's actions were unusual also implies nothing negative about RB's design or position. Just because an official forwards something to the stewards does not imply that this official's opinion is valid.

These are all just attempts to bias opinion against RB, the clear winners of this protest/inquiry.

Brian

[strad]

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.

Teams will be allowed to make specific requests for changes when races take place in 'exceptional atmospheric conditions' however.

[bhall]

1) 'Reluctantly' ? I say decisively over ruled! That fact that all arguments were not accepted implies nothing. You thought everything at the wall, you never know what is going to work with a group of stewards. This becomes a political process as soon as you get in front of the stewards.

2) That fact that Bauer's actions were unusual also implies nothing negative about RB's design or position. Just because an official forwards something to the stewards does not imply that this official's opinion is valid.

These are all just attempts to bias opinion against RB, the clear winners of this protest/inquiry.

Brian

We'll just agree to disagree unless you disagree with that, too. In which case....

[hardingfv32]

quite sad IMO that things like these are outlawed, I bet other teams just panicked about this and tried to shut it down asap, just so RB doesn't perfect it and become unreachable again, this discipline becomes more and more boring from technical point of view, next thing we know - it will turn into cart racing, different colors, different stickers, same car for everyone

This is a business, you have to take a cost effective approach. I can see where the other teams would view an effort to copy in this situation as a waste of money. Why copy something that seems to be contrary to the FIA goals and likely to be banned in short order.

This is F1. RB might well have expected to have this design banned at some point. A few races with an advantage is what this level of competition is all about.

Brian

[jz11]

quite sad IMO that things like these are outlawed, I bet other teams just panicked about this and tried to shut it down asap, just so RB doesn't perfect it and become unreachable again, this discipline becomes more and more boring from technical point of view, next thing we know - it will turn into cart racing, different colors, different stickers, same car for everyone

This is a business, you have to take a cost effective approach. I can see where the other teams would view an effort to copy in this situation as a waste of money. Why copy something that seems to be contrary to the FIA goals and likely to be banned in short order.

This is F1. RB might well have expected to have this design banned at some point. A few races with an advantage is what this level of competition is all about.

Brian

I wonder how this would have unfolded if, for instance, McLaren would have come up with it, or Ferrari, or even Lotus...

[strad]

If Ferrari had come up with it ,,,it would be legal.

[hardingfv32]

This is from a MotoGP article:

"It is the “computer-driven movements of the throttle plates” that then accelerate the engine. If the engine flat spots, or the torque spikes, the computer opens and closes the throttle as necessary to provide smooth power, as demanded by the rider. Similar technology is used in Formula1, and has been for quite some time to great success.
This would be all well and good, Cameron explains, but for the fact that F1 engines use hydraulic actuators on the throttle and easily keep up with the torque demands, even if the engine’s torque curve is choppy."

Is smoothing torque spikes still possible under the rules we have been discussing?

Brian

[rjsa]

This is from a MotoGP article:

"It is the “computer-driven movements of the throttle plates” that then accelerate the engine. If the engine flat spots, or the torque spikes, the computer opens and closes the throttle as necessary to provide smooth power, as demanded by the rider. Similar technology is used in Formula1, and has been for quite some time to great success.
This would be all well and good, Cameron explains, but for the fact that F1 engines use hydraulic actuators on the throttle and easily keep up with the torque demands, even if the engine’s torque curve is choppy."

Is smoothing torque spikes still possible under the rules we have been discussing?

Brian

In my understanding smoothing torque spikes would be fine. Despite the fact that I can't figure out how torque would spike.

Smoothing RPM spikes on the other hand would be a no no. And that's what happens when the wheel breaks traction.

[jz11]

if by torque spiking they mean some sort of resonant rpm ranges during engine acceleration, then that normally should have been taken care of even before the engine is attached to the chassis, on the dyno, because all of that will upset the car balance under hard acceleration

I wouldn't think that it would be relevant to this matter

edit: I think FIA will shoot itself in the leg with this reg, if they do this, it basically means there is 0 development on the engine, no exhausts no nothing, because all of that has a chance of affecting the torque curve by more than suggested 2%, basically it ties up hands for engineers big time, but if they will put a reg, that a team can get some new torque curve approved as baseline, than that creates a whole new gray area, who and why will be allowed to change the curve, and who won't...

[bhall]

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.

Teams will be allowed to make specific requests for changes when races take place in 'exceptional atmospheric conditions' however.

Teams are allowed two engine maps at a time, one for dry tires and one for wet tires. But, given the constraints placed upon them by the requirement that maximum torque be demanded from the engine at 0-100% accelerator travel between 5,000 and 14,999 RPM and at 0-79% accelerator travel between 15,000-18,000 RPM, what can be done to make a wet tire map more appropriate for wet conditions?

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

If Ferrari had come up with it ,,,it would be legal.

Ferrari could yet still be affected by the ruling. Only the teams themselves will know how the 2% tolerance will affect them.

[hardingfv32]

if by torque spiking they mean some sort of resonant rpm ranges during engine acceleration, then that normally should have been taken care of even before the engine is attached to the chassis, on the dyno, because all of that will upset the car balance under hard acceleration

It is taken care of on the dyno, but often using the various maps in the ECU. This ECU programing would travel along with the engine on to the car. That is why I asked the question. Just wondering what engine 'drivability' adjustments are still available under the current rules.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

It looks like a baseline torque demand map is going to have to be submitted.

How many of the rules we have been discussing would restrict the design of this 'baseline torque demand map'? Maybe a lot of drivability adjustment can be programmed into the 'baseline torque demand map'.

Brian

[jz11]

according to that BBC article teams are asked to chose one map from first four events, engine map, not the torque demand map, so basically engine output has to be inside 2% margin from the torque curve (plus the additional limit on the spark map), and seems all that's left is the accelerator sensivity map, that is the only thing they can tailor to their chassis/driver, seems pretty harsh

edit: changed wording