Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[thearmofbarlow]

What does "excessive torque demand" mean if available torque for demand is limited?

It means whatever they decide it means. At this point I think you're asking patently stupid questions just to stir --- up.

If I could -1 that comment, I would. Really? Bhallg2k has offered many great posts - hence his high number. The question is valid.

He's also offered up an equal amount of annoying tripe, splitting hairs so thin a lawyer would tell him to chill out.

[rjsa]

DELTED, not woth the fight...

[Pierce89]

What does "excessive torque demand" mean if available torque for demand is limited?

C'mon Ben. "Excessive torque demand" clearly means more than the tires can take.

[bhall]

What does "excessive torque demand" mean if available torque for demand is limited?

It means whatever they decide it means. At this point I think you're asking patently stupid questions just to stir --- up.

Stir --- up? Guilty as charged. The whole point of this entire forum is to stimulate productive conversation.

In this case, an engine map which reduces torque across the board is in no way a system to "[compensate] for excessive torque demand by the driver." Such an engine map is, in fact, a system to reduce all torque demand.

You may not agree with my interpretation of the intent of the rule. But, frankly, objectivity demands that such a view be acknowledged as valid because of the way the regulations are written. This is why the stewards in Germany had no choice but to allow Red Bull to compete with their altered engine map, despite admittedly not accepting all the arguments from the team. It took an official clarification of the intent of the rule by the FIA to change the legality of Red Bull's system.

This is what regulations are all about. You cannot ban System X by saying "System X is prohibited." You have to ban the parameters that would form System X, else you end up with an endless argument over the definition of System X - we've proven that here.

[thearmofbarlow]

In this case, an engine map which reduces torque across the board is in no way a system to "[compensate] for excessive torque demand by the driver." Such an engine map is, in fact, a system to reduce all torque demand.

Let's say you know you can put X amount of torque to the tires at X speed before they break loose. If you create your engine map so that you never put more torque than that to the ground, you are creating a form of traction control.

[rjsa]

In this case, an engine map which reduces torque across the board is in no way a system to "[compensate] for excessive torque demand by the driver." Such an engine map is, in fact, a system to reduce all torque demand.

Let's say you know you can put X amount of torque to the tires at X speed before they break loose. If you create your engine map so that you never put more torque than that to the ground, you are creating a form of traction control.

By your definition, a iece of wood wedged under the gas pedal would be considered traction control.

It's really simple, it's only traction control if the computer feels, real time, that the wheels are starting to spin more than they should and after noticing that starts disregarding the driver input on the pedal and taking it easy to avoid the wheelspin.

See, the key concept is the computer reacts to the wheel speed increase and stops respecting the driver input.

[bhall]

In this case, an engine map which reduces torque across the board is in no way a system to "[compensate] for excessive torque demand by the driver." Such an engine map is, in fact, a system to reduce all torque demand.

Let's say you know you can put X amount of torque to the tires at X speed before they break loose. If you create your engine map so that you never put more torque than that to the ground, you are creating a form of traction control.

Yes, indeed. And until the recent rule clarification, it was perfectly legit. I think the only reason why teams didn't avail themselves of this option before is because - in my opinion - it's actually quite mad to reduce all torque in favor of better drivability. A good driver is supposed to create his own drivability. However, a certain Red Bull driver has routinely displayed an inability to cope with a less-than-rock-solid rear-end. Thus, Newey and the boys gave him a bit of traction control.

EDIT: Definitions mean nothing. Specification means everything.

[Cam]

Spot on. Good old Vettel and his "smash the throttle at the apex' style. That's why his EBD allowed him to drive off into the distance, it actually need to be driven like that to work correctly (as I understand it). You can see why RBR are trying to move back into this zone.

[thearmofbarlow]

By your definition, a iece of wood wedged under the gas pedal would be considered traction control.

It's really simple, it's only traction control if the computer feels, real time, that the wheels are starting to spin more than they should and after noticing that starts disregarding the driver input on the pedal and taking it easy to avoid the wheelspin.

See, the key concept is the computer reacts to the wheel speed increase and stops respecting the driver input.

*ahem*

5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.

Yes, a block of wood is traction control. Anything that prevents the rear wheels from spinning uncontrollably via artificial means is traction control. Accept this. Your life will be happier.

[red300zx99]

Yes, a block of wood is traction control. Anything that prevents the rear wheels from spinning uncontrollably via artificial means is traction control. Accept this. Your life will be happier.

+1

[red300zx99]

See, the key concept is the computer reacts to the wheel speed increase and stops respecting the driver input.

That's exactly what they did, only the computer was back at the factory over by their simulator.

Your definition doesn't fit very well with predictive TC systems btw.

[jz11]

In this case, an engine map which reduces torque across the board is in no way a system to "[compensate] for excessive torque demand by the driver." Such an engine map is, in fact, a system to reduce all torque demand.

Let's say you know you can put X amount of torque to the tires at X speed before they break loose. If you create your engine map so that you never put more torque than that to the ground, you are creating a form of traction control.

how many times does this has to be talked over and over again

you CAN NOT do that, it makes no sense, the car isn't static during the race, so is not the track itself, they both are changing, so it makes very little to no sense to tailor the torque to one specific window when the variables are just right

the car gets lighter during the race, the track rubbers up, the tires are not consistent during their life, and even the car position in the pack will have great effect on how much grip you actually have in a corner, so when you map the engine certain way, you will be ready only for that X amount of grip, but if the variables change enough, and there is more grip available, then you CAN NOT take advantage of it simply because you have no more torque, and that is the main difference between the traction control system and driveability aid, the traction control will actively work to cut down the power to control the wheelspin, but the driver aid is just a static zone on the engine where it produces less power, so it is easier for the driver to control the wheelspin with his right foot

and regarding that FIA statement calling it sort of traction control, there is a thing with bosses being always right when they say something, even when they aren't right, they are still right, if you understand what I'm saying

edit:
P.S. all traction control systems fall into driver aid category, but not everything in that category is a traction control system

[red300zx99]

how many times does this has to be talked over and over again

We can go over this as many times as you need to understand

but if the variables change enough, and there is more grip available, then you CAN NOT take advantage of it simply because you have no more torque

Predict the max grip that will occur and work on your map from there. Simple

[rjsa]

By your definition, a iece of wood wedged under the gas pedal would be considered traction control.

It's really simple, it's only traction control if the computer feels, real time, that the wheels are starting to spin more than they should and after noticing that starts disregarding the driver input on the pedal and taking it easy to avoid the wheelspin.

See, the key concept is the computer reacts to the wheel speed increase and stops respecting the driver input.

*ahem*

5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.

Yes, a block of wood is traction control. Anything that prevents the rear wheels from spinning uncontrollably via artificial means is traction control. Accept this. Your life will be happier.

That's indenting the gas pedal, not traction control. It's not just because it's forbidden by the rules that it is traction control.

Yes, RBR where using a rule loophole to gain track advantage. By providing genter traction and a blown diffuser.
No, RBR wasn't using tration control. The SECU can't do it. It misses the logic needed.

[rjsa]

P.S. all traction control systems fall into driver aid category, but not everything in that category is a traction control system

This! [-o<