Can you explain precisely what this word means to you? And more importantly, what it doesn't mean?gato azul wrote:what is "some kind of"?Stradivarius wrote: 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 you describe has nothing to do with Traction Control, the important word being CONTROL.
I probably have the same definition of the word "OR" as you have. It seems that I falsely assumed that you were refering to the second part, but based on your reaction I now assume that you were refering to the first part, namely: "No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power."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.
Now, since there is no system or device present which is not present on any legal car, we are not talking about a system or device capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power. Thus, I don't think that 9.3 would apply.
Now, I am a bit curious to know your definition of the word CONTROL. It occurs to me that the you can use the word control in both cases, regardless of whether the engineers have programmed a computer to detect an respond to wheel spin in order to prevent excessive wheel spin, or if they have studied the track carefully and tuned the torque demand at the predicted engine speed in order to prevent excessive wheel spin at specific parts of the track. Both approaches is a way to control the torque in order to avoid excessive wheel spin. Of course, I would agree that the former is a more advanced for om traction control, but I can assure you that even with this type of traction control, you may face situations where wheelspinn will occur. A traction control system is set up to be stable in a certain domain. You can tune several different parameters in order to achieve stabilty under certain condition, but not under all conditions.
It seems that you didn't understand the point quite. 100% torque demand is an ambiguous expression which, as it seems, has been interpreted differently by Joe Bauer and the race stewards at Hockenheim. In the end, the race stewards had the final say in which interpretation was the valid one. Their interpretation is as follows: They defined 100% torque demand to be the highest torque demand avilable using the current engine torque demand map. Joe Bauer, on the other hand, refered to the previous race at Silverstone and argued that since the engine was capable of delivering more torque at Silverstone, than it did at 100% accelerator pedal position at Hockenheim, it didn't meet the requirements of 5.5.3. The point where Bauer was mistaken was that 100% torque demand refers to the current engine including it's maping, and not to some theoretical value which would be achievable if the engine maping was different.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?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
Did I understand you wrong or did you changed your mind in the meantime? Nothing wrong with that, just wanted to know.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.
