2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[Tommy Cookers]

The rules look like they specify torque as a function of pedal travel, within a small variance compared to a torque map. This is for the power unit as a whole, not ICE or EM individually.

AFAIK FWIW the (so-called) torque maps are the set relationships between accelerator position (torque demand) and throttle plate position, with rules defining how closely these set relationships must be followed eg under dynamic conditions

if actual torque is involved (not just throttle plate position) then actual ICE torque curves are being tested (and legislated) ?
compared to this it would be quite easy to mandate EM voltage/rpm relationship for torque control that would be 'wheelspin neutral'

if it is as you suggest then the EM significantly acts against wheelspin

[Ferraripilot]

The rules look like they specify torque as a function of pedal travel, within a small variance compared to a torque map. This is for the power unit as a whole, not ICE or EM individually.

AFAIK FWIW the (so-called) torque maps are the set relationships between accelerator position (torque demand) and throttle plate position, with rules defining how closely these set relationships must be followed eg under dynamic conditions

if actual torque is involved (not just throttle plate position) then actual ICE torque curves are being tested (and legislated) ?
compared to this it would be quite easy to mandate EM voltage/rpm relationship for torque control that would be 'wheelspin neutral'

if it is as you suggest then the EM significantly acts against wheelspin

The EM will not legally be able to control wheelspin.

There is no policy regulating what energy harvesting is allowed to do/not do. Ones right foot fully down on the accelerator pedal will always provide maximum power from the power train, but policy does not specify if the harvesting mechanism is allowed to operate at partial efficiency or full efficiency at all times. Thus why traction control in a way could be a by-product to lower energy harvesting by, yes, producing full power, but the definition of 'full' then becomes gray. As of now, 'full power' is designated as having the accelerator pedal buried and no ECU control altering torque. Lower energy harvesting does not alter torque, it simply limits the available amount and will NOT be able to be changed during an event.

This could were in scenarios were engineers decide they only need 'X' amount of torque for sections 1 and 2, but it would be nice to have maximum torque for sector 3. But the benefit will be weighed as to which sectors will yield the greater advantage thus harvesting would be set based on maximum areas less or more torque could benefit.

[Tommy Cookers]

any EM benefits discouraging wheelspin are legal unless it falls within the definition of traction control etc
it would need significant rulemaking effort to make the EM 'wheelspin neutral' anyway
BTW I think we are more or less on the same side of the argument

there seems to be some potential for harvesting by partially driving the ICE on the overrun to generate via the MGUK
as was apparently done somewhat with KERS
any time the driver is not calling for full torque for his driving there is potential free fuel available for this
(and/or for harvesting via the MGUH or otherwise energising it as pgfpro suggested ?)

this seems likely given the great increase in permitted use of 'KE recovery' to 2000 kJ/lap
the corresponding fuel weight penalty seems a small deterrent
unless there is a glut of 'HE recovery' anyway

if/when fuel quantity (race-specifically ?) is significantly limited, this would act against or prevent the above practices
if/when (as is promised) fuel rate is reduced this will tend to encourage the above practices

[Ferraripilot]

I get where you're at. I'm trying to procedurally fit discouraging wheelspin into the powertrain via the rules but I agree it is possible.

[dren]

5.5.3 The minimum and maximum accelerator pedal travel positions must correspond to the minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map.
5.5.4 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.
5.5.5 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.

I was taking the regulation as meaning the power unit (ICE and MGUK) has one torque map over its rev range. The pedal can have different mappings based on tire selection. The more you press the pedal, the more torque has to be demanded. You take your torque % demand from your pedal position and demand that % of torque of the max instantaneous torque at the current rpm (I take "available" as meaning "at the current rpm"). There can be very little variation from the maps to actual as 5.5.6 states.

[Tommy Cookers]

this must be true ? ......
it's quite likely that when wheelspin occurs the accelerator pedal is fully depressed (WOT, at various rpm)
this situation is not covered by any mapping rules such as those you have kindly quoted
the car's behaviour when there has been no change in the torque demanded by the driver does not involve any mapping functionality

FWIW I cannot conceive of a way of driving the EM that does not in part cause the EM torque to fall with wheelspin
even if torque was the controlled variable, negative feedback of rpm or similar would be needed to avoid dangerous instability
anyway the max voltage available is fixed (by design, matched to the finite rpm range)
so the EM current and torque will fall with wheelspin when max voltage is in use (it will be sometimes, it's critical for efficiency)
so this EM response (wheelspin damping, really) cannot entirely be avoided

[dren]

Ahh yes with torque being the driving variable you will have all sorts of issues with rpm relation and wheelspin.

[Ferraripilot]

if the rules required EM torque to be a fixed proportion of ICE torque at all times the supply voltage would necessarily be continuously varied according to ICE torque and the above effects would be cancelled
the rules only seem to require that the EM torque is accessed only by use of the accelerator pedal in controlling the ICE ?
the rules don't seem to require EM torque to be a fixed proportion to ICE torque at all times ?

That's precisely how I see it. 9.3 must be reworded to include something about energy harvesting and the controlling of current to be relevant with new powertrains potential gains.

[Ferraripilot]

Ahh yes with torque being the driving variable you will have all sorts of issues with rpm relation and wheelspin.

I think it will be more grip related. Those with strong mechanical grip for the non-aero heavy turns will have an advantage. I'm actually viewing Mercedes as the team with best mechanical grip as their rather brilliant interconnected suspension system was the only reason they were so quick in Monaco.

[rjsa]

Is someone aware of how the SECU will interact with the new gizmos? Because if it will be in control of everything we might see some rule bending in the beginning, mostly I believe with the energy harvesting hardware kicking in at odd times. But all of that will be very easily dealt with.

Assuming they want to.

Not like they dealt with overrun fuel injection, I mean.

But most important, people must remember that the SECU just isn't wired for closed loop control, so it won't sense wheel spin and traction break. Every gray area strategy has to be exclusively predictive, behaving aways the same despite wheel spin happening or not.

[langwadt]

5.5.3 The minimum and maximum accelerator pedal travel positions must correspond to the minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map.
5.5.4 The accelerator pedal shaping map in the ECU may only be linked to the type of the tyres fitted to the car : one map for use with dry-weather tyres and one map for use with intermediate or wet-weather tyres.
5.5.5 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.

I was taking the regulation as meaning the power unit (ICE and MGUK) has one torque map over its rev range. The pedal can have different mappings based on tire selection. The more you press the pedal, the more torque has to be demanded. You take your torque % demand from your pedal position and demand that % of torque of the max instantaneous torque at the current rpm (I take "available" as meaning "at the current rpm"). There can be very little variation from the maps to actual as 5.5.6 states.

I'm not sure I see how the "constant power" torque maps described here: http://www.f1technical.net/features/17820
would fit with in those rules if 0-100% pedal must map to 0-100% torque at any given rpm

[dren]

I don't think it has to be linear, but it has to monotonically increase, within a small margin.

[stefan_]

Hope you find this useful. Taken from the January issue of F1 Racing magazine. Use Right click - View image for the last image to see the text better.

[Tommy Cookers]

5.5.5 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.

I'm not sure I see how the "constant power" torque maps described here: http://www.f1technical.net/features/17820
would fit with in those rules if 0-100% pedal must map to 0-100% torque at any given rpm

rule 5.5.5 etc prevents the (now banned) 'push to pass' effect being generated by mapping

the above link shows that ......
rule 5.5.6 continues the legitimisation of wheelspin control by a method that escapes definition as traction control
(wheelspin automatically and immediately causes the engine torque to reduce even without the driver lifting his foot)

and continues to allow the MGUK to be artificially driven by the ICE on the over-run, producing fake waste energy to harvest
the 2014 rules greatly increase the scope for this fakery

rule 5.5.6 relates to what happens automatically when the rpm changes regardless of accelerator position
it does not conflict with the other rules, those relate to what happens when the accelerator is moved, regardless of rpm
these functionalities are active simultaneously
ie 5.5.6 means that the torque will with varying rpm will be favourably modified relative to the driver-demanded torque
5.5.6 was necessary to accomodate the inherent characteristics of practical electric drive (that I highlighted)

[WhiteBlue]

That is a highly adventurous interpretation in my view. If we read the letter of the rule it basically says that the throttle action must control both torque sources. The myth of traction control through the back door is totally unproven. I have not heard a single word from any industry expert about the likelihood of traction control cheating.