Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[LionKing]

It sounds as if band-aid after band-aid kind of approach for regulations without thinking it through. I really don't like the way FIA is handling these kind of things.

[gato azul]

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.

what is "some kind of"?
what you describe has nothing to do with Traction Control, the important word being CONTROL.
Yes RBR engineers, could look at a corner, the gear ratio used, the downfor.ce level, and some other parameters, then try to anticipate the grip level at that corner in question, and produce a map, which would allow the driver to put the pedal down, and hope that the engineers have got it right, and if the did, he would be able, under a specific set of conditions to drive out of the corner with optimum traction ( in theory).
Fair enough, nothing wrong with that, I'm pretty sure, that this is 90% of the daily work of the control and application engineers. But it has nothing to do with CONTROL.
If the same driver, with the same car, drives through the same corner, but there is an oil spill, and therefore grip level has reduces, this torque curve would do nothing, to prevent wheel spin, and the car would "skid 7 ways to hell" as someone put it.
So where is the CONTROL element in this setting? Just that the wheels don't spin under some conditions, does not makes it an CONTROL.

well the last time I read rule 9.3. it said OR, which would not require both conditions to be met at the same time. If it does one of the things mentioned, it would be enough to breach 9.3.
But I'm sure you have a different understanding of OR, which is fair enough, and you are entitled to.

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

Now, it becomes interesting. How would they do that? Did you not argued with me, that under you interpretation of 5.5.5. 100% accelerator pedal position would have to correspondent with 100% torque demand at any as long as 100% accelerator pedal position is maintained?

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 achieve 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.

Did I understand you wrong or did you changed your mind in the meantime? Nothing wrong with that, just wanted to know.

[red300zx99]

So where is the CONTROL element in this setting? Just that the wheels don't spin under some conditions, does not makes it an CONTROL.

Throw one of the TC era cars on a track that is half ice and let me know how it works. My guess is that it wouldnt control wheelspin all that well. Does that mean the car doesn't have TC?

[hardingfv32]

So where is the CONTROL element in this setting? Just that the wheels don't spin under some conditions, does not makes it an CONTROL.

Throw one of the TC era cars on a track that is half ice and let me know how it works. My guess is that it wouldnt control wheelspin all that well. Does that mean the car doesn't have TC?

Please expand... I assume you understand TC is controlling drive and braking forces, not cornering forces. TC can not stop you from entering a turn to faster than the given conditions allow for.

Brian

[ESPImperium]

Theres only one area this will lead to, and that is a standardised accelerator pedal actuator that can only be controled via a specific piece of software in the ECU. It will also prevent the cars from cutting from 8 cylinders to 4 for fuel saving as well.

Give drivers full control of the power and sort the men from the boys.

Thats my personal view.

[gato azul]

Throw one of the TC era cars on a track that is half ice and let me know how it works. My guess is that it wouldnt control wheelspin all that well. Does that mean the car doesn't have TC?

what make you think that it would not (attempt) to control wheel spin?
Define half ice?
Do I take it you mean in longitudinal direction (left wheel vs. right wheel), a typical "split mue/CoF" condition?
Or half the track, as in 50% of track length are dry 50% are ice?
If the former, it would depend on your controller setting
- can be "select high" for stopping the with the higher CoF from spinning or
- "select low" aiming to stop the wheel with the lower CoF from spinning

My guess would be, to use "select high" for maximum forward traction, and let the adjustable diff (100 locking rate in this case) take care of the other wheel

Were is the problem?

[bhall]

So where is the CONTROL element in this setting? Just that the wheels don't spin under some conditions, does not makes it an CONTROL.

Throw one of the TC era cars on a track that is half ice and let me know how it works. My guess is that it wouldnt control wheelspin all that well. Does that mean the car doesn't have TC?

Please expand... I assume you understand TC is controlling drive and braking forces, not cornering forces. TC can not stop you from entering a turn to faster than the given conditions allow for.

Brian

Ice + torque = excessive wheelspin
Ice + torque + traction control = excessive wheelspin

Simplified, yes. But, that was his point, and it was easy to see.

[thearmofbarlow]

All this thread does is show how few people actually know what the hell traction control is and does.

[Cam]

And that's a good thing. This is where we can all learn and listen and express individual thoughts, guesses and assumptions. I think it's quite clear, both from the general discussion and the literal definitions, that TC is ambiguous. Smart teams in F1 feed of this. It's the grease in regulation wheel. If the world was black and white, sure we wouldn't have any arguments but hell it'll boring.

[Fat_T0ny]

If I turn down the gain control on my turbocharged car, I can mash the throttle and get no wheelspin. Less boost in midrange, less power.

If I turn it up and mash the throttle I get wheelspin as soon as boost kicks in.

I'm reducing power in my midrange, similar to Red Bulls reduced midrange torque map.

100% not traction control.

TC needs to be actively changing engine characteristics against real-time parameters to maintain a certain level of wheel slip. Be it 0% of 10%, or whatever the optimum slip is for max acceleration.

[thearmofbarlow]

If I turn down the gain control on my turbocharged car, I can mash the throttle and get no wheelspin. Less boost in midrange, less power.

If I turn it up and mash the throttle I get wheelspin as soon as boost kicks in.

I'm reducing power in my midrange, similar to Red Bulls reduced midrange torque map.

100% not traction control.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.

[Fat_T0ny]

If I turn down the gain control on my turbocharged car, I can mash the throttle and get no wheelspin. Less boost in midrange, less power.

If I turn it up and mash the throttle I get wheelspin as soon as boost kicks in.

I'm reducing power in my midrange, similar to Red Bulls reduced midrange torque map.

100% not traction control.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever read on this forum.

Thanks for giving some reasoning. You must be real smart.

[Fat_T0ny]

All this thread does is show how few people actually know what the hell traction control is and does.

Isn't traction control a system that ACTIVELY reduces power/torque, relative to wheel slip?

Is the Red Bull system just a different torque map?

Or is it constantly changing torque as it senses wheel slip?

[red300zx99]

Please expand... I assume you understand TC is controlling drive and braking forces, not cornering forces. TC can not stop you from entering a turn to faster than the given conditions allow for.

Brian

Ice + torque = excessive wheelspin
Ice + torque + traction control = excessive wheelspin

Simplified, yes. But, that was his point, and it was easy to see.

What this guy said.

hardingfv32, what in the world are you talking about?

[red300zx99]

what make you think that it would not (attempt) to control wheel spin?
Define half ice?
Do I take it you mean in longitudinal direction (left wheel vs. right wheel), a typical "split mue/CoF" condition?
Or half the track, as in 50% of track length are dry 50% are ice?
If the former, it would depend on your controller setting
- can be "select high" for stopping the with the higher CoF from spinning or
- "select low" aiming to stop the wheel with the lower CoF from spinning

My guess would be, to use "select high" for maximum forward traction, and let the adjustable diff (100 locking rate in this case) take care of the other wheel

Were is the problem?

Split mu condition or the car being on nothing but ice. Either way F1 TC would ATTEMPT to control wheelspin, but I highly doubt it would work very well. Select low, high, or play with whatever setting you want on the steering wheel and it's not going to do what you want it to. F1 has no need for a TC ice setting, but just because it didn't prevent or control wheelspin in the ICE doesn't mean it's not TC.