Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[mx_tifoso]

Torque maps explained by Renault Sport

[jz11]

pretty much what I suspected them doing

shame FIA outlawed it all

[Dragonfly]

And that's where the real rub starts here. Despite everything else in the regulations, they explicitly allow a reduction of cylinder pressure, for "reliability," when the engine is between 15,000 - 18,000 RPM and accelerator travel is between 80 - 100%.

Is this a logical AND?

[rjsa]

"Why would would you want to generate less torque in the mid revs range?
"The trade-offs concern driveability (the response of the engine to the driver requested torque), acceleration (less torque = less acceleration, except if grip limited) and fuel consumption. In general, reducing the torque is achieved by igniting the fuel later in the cycle by means of the ignition map. This may improve driveability smoothing out the torque curve which may help the driver manage his tyres. This is not in any way a forbidden driver aid or an attempt to mimic the behaviour of a forbidden system (eg closed loop traction control)

Reducing the maximum torque curve increases the amount of exhaust gas produced at lower torque levels very, very slightly, but does not change the exhaust gas flow at full throttle. Furthermore the scope to use the engine to generate exhaust gas is extremely limited by the specific mapping restrictions introduced for the 2012 season also by the performance trade-offs mentioned above."

Emphasis mine...

[strad]

OK,,During practice they were discussing this and where the problem arose was that the teams discussed this map thing at the end of last year and agreed not to use this kind of mapping, but then Red Bull double crossed everyone and proceeded to use it.

[bhall]

"Why would would you want to generate less torque in the mid revs range?
"The trade-offs concern driveability (the response of the engine to the driver requested torque), acceleration (less torque = less acceleration, except if grip limited) and fuel consumption. In general, reducing the torque is achieved by igniting the fuel later in the cycle by means of the ignition map. This may improve driveability smoothing out the torque curve which may help the driver manage his tyres. This is not in any way a forbidden driver aid or an attempt to mimic the behaviour of a forbidden system (eg closed loop traction control)

Reducing the maximum torque curve increases the amount of exhaust gas produced at lower torque levels very, very slightly, but does not change the exhaust gas flow at full throttle. Furthermore the scope to use the engine to generate exhaust gas is extremely limited by the specific mapping restrictions introduced for the 2012 season also by the performance trade-offs mentioned above."

Emphasis mine...

You have to take that with a grain or 12 of salt. A representative from Renault Sport is not going to give away too much information one way or the other, and he's also not going to spell out the obvious conclusion from such changes: if there was no clear benefit to making them, they would not have gone through the hassle.

That said, whatever changes they made in Germany, and however one wants to define those changes, were all perfectly legal according to the letter of the law at that time. Call it "traction control," "enhanced driveability," "custard pie," or whatever; it was legal.

[red300zx99]

The rules expect that any given time, let's say 50% throttle position will deliver close to 50% of the maximum torque possible at that given RPM.

No, that's not what the rules say. You can have 50% throttle and only 20% max torque and you'd be fine. The issue was at WOT(100% throttle) torque was reduced by a good margin.

[thearmofbarlow]

OK,,During practice they were discussing this and where the problem arose was that the teams discussed this map thing at the end of last year and agreed not to use this kind of mapping, but then Red Bull double crossed everyone and proceeded to use it.

I guarantee you every team uses/used this kind of system. It's due to the combination of a large change from one race to the next and the current "whipping boy" status of Red Bull.

[hardingfv32]

Altering the torque is fairly simple with a pneumatic valve train. simply drop the exhaust valve for a microsecond and bleed off cyclinder pressure.

Please expand.... I thought the pneumatic system dealt with valve closing.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

And that's where the real rub starts here. Despite everything else in the regulations, they explicitly allow a reduction of cylinder pressure, for "reliability," when the engine is between 15,000 - 18,000 RPM and accelerator travel is between 80 - 100%.

But isn't this just the traditional anti knock system? I would say that you would have to demonstrate 'abnormal' cylinder pressures to use this feature. Failing that you would be in violation.

Brian

[Pierce89]

Altering the torque is fairly simple with a pneumatic valve train. simply drop the exhaust valve for a microsecond and bleed off cyclinder pressure.

Please expand.... I thought the pneumatic system dealt with valve closing.

Brian

The pneumatic system does deal with closing. I think Raptor22 meant you could reduce the pressure to let the valve open and bleed off some compression. Emphasis "I think"

[bhall]

And that's where the real rub starts here. Despite everything else in the regulations, they explicitly allow a reduction of cylinder pressure, for "reliability," when the engine is between 15,000 - 18,000 RPM and accelerator travel is between 80 - 100%.

Is this a logical AND?

It's a conditional and. RPM and accelerator travel must each be within a specified range concurrently in order to legally reduce cylinder pressure.

5.6.6 Except when anti-stall or idle speed control are active, ignition base offsets may only be applied above 80% throttle and 15,000rpm and for the sole purpose of reducing cylinder pressure for reliability.

EDIT:

And that's where the real rub starts here. Despite everything else in the regulations, they explicitly allow a reduction of cylinder pressure, for "reliability," when the engine is between 15,000 - 18,000 RPM and accelerator travel is between 80 - 100%.

But isn't this just the traditional anti knock system? I would say that you would have to demonstrate 'abnormal' cylinder pressures to use this feature. Failing that you would be in violation.

Brian

I dunno. You tell me.

Reducing cylinder pressure means less wear on the engine over a stretch. It could also improve fuel efficiency.

There is a little more to it than just reducing wear. The engine could clearly be designed with less cylinder pressure if the teams thought that was required. This has to do with reducing cylinder pressure on a non-routine basis. I am not sure that anti knock systems are in use. They should be able to stop knock before it even starts.

Brian

[amc]

And that's where the real rub starts here. Despite everything else in the regulations, they explicitly allow a reduction of cylinder pressure, for "reliability," when the engine is between 15,000 - 18,000 RPM and accelerator travel is between 80 - 100%.

I'm sure you weren't referring explicitly to Red Bull with this. Their map, it was revealed by Rob White today, had lower than normal torque between 10,000 and 14,000RPM, at 100% throttle. The 100% throttle part is what it governed by the regulations, so is where the problem was. This rev range is what is normally used for accelerating out of low-ish speed corners in the wet, as can be seen from the recently uploaded video on the F1 website (Vettel's onboard from Hockenheim).

Judging by the FIA clarification, the way their system worked was by retarding the ignition in the aforementioned rev range, so that the engine had a lower maximum torque output in this range. Their maximum torque demand was still above the maximum torque output, so it was legal, albeit that both figures were lower than, for example, the Silverstone maximum output torque.

Whether it was 'traction control' or not, well, make up your own definition and decide. Traction control will never be defined in the context of F1 so you can't be wrong. TBH I don't know why we're arguing about the definition of it because this is totally irrelevant. There is no regulation that says 'Traction control is illegal'. And there will never be.

It is clear that the Red Bull system was against the intention, and therefore the spirit, of the regulations, as the FIA took steps to reduce its effectiveness. It was clearly not illegal, as the stewards defined it as such, albeit from a slightly skewed definition of maximum output torque. It appeared to contravene article 5.5.3, and Mr Bauer had every reason to raise a concern because he did not know how Red Bull were defining 'maximum output torque'. 5.5.3 is the only regulation in question, as nothing else can be used to prove a loophole or exception to this rule, and nothing else can be used to define the system as explicitly legal or illegal.

What else is there to say?

[red300zx99]

The only time they were really in that lower rev range was coming out of the slow corners, which happens to be when you need the most traction. They sacrificed the torque output there as it would only spin the tires.

Watch just about any high strung engined car. The first few gears use a wide power range, then once youre at speed and you shift up you never see those low rpms again. You can watch just about any youtube F1 lap and see this. Im pretty sure that's what the graph presented shows, I won't try to translate it though. I'm more use to seeing a tractive effort curve, which would show the same thing.

[Dragonfly]

The problem is we don't know what RB interpretation of the rules is. It was accepted, but we here are just trying to guess. Besides, except the published rules, we have no solid information about the other technical documentation and inner agreements.