RB Traction Control yin yang

[shelly]

As I wrote before, I think that the starting point of Minardi interview is wrong - the gap was not 2.5sec, but closer to 1s, which is an advantage achievable with in-season development.
Strange noise is given by maps which are frozen and legal, even if tha noise is similar, ther is no sensor, closed-loop as in a tc.

Probably what is not considered in Minardi analysis is the exponential effect of an effective blown diffuser at low car speeds -maybe rbr ebd is so dvevoped that it produces a scavengin effect on the Whole floor aero, plus the helicity effect on the edge vortices.

It is normal in my opinion that the latest development are present only on vettel's car, given webber's situation

[SectorOne]

As I wrote before, I think that the starting point of Minardi interview is wrong - the gap was not 2.5sec, but closer to 1s, which is an advantage achievable with in-season development.

The first two laps was 1.9 seconds and 2.1 seconds.
And first stint average (14 laps) was 6 tenths per lap which is misleading since Vettel took it easy a couple of laps where Rosberg beat him by a little bit over a tenth or under a tenth.
The last two laps before Rosberg pitting was 7 tenths and 5 tenths so there was life in the tires.

Then second to last stint after Safety Car it was a different league. Time Rosberg lost,

0.2
2.1
2.3
2.7
1.6
2.0
2.3
2.2
2.2
1.6
1.6
Rosberg pits, fresh tires, still one tenth slower then Vettel on the same tires he had before Rosberg pitted.

26 laps old tires and faster then the Merc on completely fresh tires.

[vall]

Here is what I read today and then looked if there is a post related to it. There was but noetheless I post the link:

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/4655 ... periority/

I also wondred how was it possible to Vetel to go CONSTANTLY 2.5sec faster than anyone else after the SC! Just didn't seem right. If the cat was capable of doing that, Webber shoudl have been at least 1.5s fater than the cars ahread of him. Should have been easy to overtake them, but he could not. I think Minardi is right to ask those questions. After all we have seen that Vetel is fatser by Webber, butagain the gap was far too big.

[JimClarkFan]

Here is what I read today and then looked if there is a post related to it. There was but noetheless I post the link:

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/4655 ... periority/

I also wondred how was it possible to Vetel to go CONSTANTLY 2.5sec faster than anyone else after the SC! Just didn't seem right. If the cat was capable of doing that, Webber shoudl have been at least 1.5s fater than the cars ahread of him. Should have been easy to overtake them, but he could not. I think Minardi is right to ask those questions. After all we have seen that Vetel is fatser by Webber, butagain the gap was far too big.

That is interesting.

I guess the question is, what is the FIAs definition of traction control?

Given that there is more than one way to control power to the rear wheels I guess there could be a technical work around depending on the FIAs wording.


Edit - this is the FIA wording on the transmission

RTICLE 9: TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
9.1 Transmission types:
No transmission system may permit more than two wheels to be driven.
9.2 Clutch control:
The following applies only to the main drivetrain clutch or clutches, any clutch used exclusively as part of a KERS is exempt.
9.2.1 If multiple clutch operating devices are used, they must all have the same mechanical travel characteristics and be mapped identically.
9.2.2 Designs which allow specific points along the travel range of the clutch operating device to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
9.2.3 The minimum and maximum travel positions of the clutch operating device must correspond to the clutch fully engaged normal rest position and fully disengaged (incapable of transmitting any useable torque) positions respectively.
9.2.4 Designs or systems which in addition to typical inherent hydraulic and mechanical properties are designed to, or have the effect of, adjusting or otherwise influencing the amount, or rate, of engagement being demanded by the FIA ECU, are not permitted.
9.2.5 The amount by which the clutch is engaged must be controlled solely and directly by the driver with the exception of :
- Stall prevention.
- Gearshifts.
- Bite point finder where brake pressure, wheel speed and driver clutch demand safeguards are used.
- De]clutch protections.
- Drivetrain protection on the track outside of any start lockout period or immediately following stall prevention activation only.
- Test signals enabled only when the car is connected to the garage system.
The relationship between the clutch operating device in the cockpit and the amount of clutch engagement may be non]linear but must remain fixed.
9.2.6 When the clutch operating device is released from its maximum travel position it must return to its resting position within 50ms.
The maximum delay allowed, computed from the respective positions as recorded by the ADR or ECU, between the clutch driver control input signal and the corresponding output demand being achieved is 50ms.
9.2.7 Any device or system which notifies the driver of the amount of clutch slip or engagement is not permitted.
9.3 Traction control
No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.
9.4 Clutch disengagement :
All cars must be fitted with a means of disengaging the clutch for a minimum of fifteen minutes in the event of the car coming to rest with the engine stopped. This system must be in working order throughout the Event even if the main hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical systems on the car have failed. This system must also disconnect any KERS system fitted to the car.
In order that the driver or a marshal may activate the system in less than five seconds, the switch or button which operates it must :
- face upwards and be recessed into the top of the survival cell no more than 150mm from the car centre line ;
- be designed in order that a marshal is unable to accidentally re-engage the clutch ;
- be less than 150mm from the front of the cockpit opening ;
- be marked with a letter "N" in red at least 40mm tall, with a line thickness of at least 4mm, inside a white circle of at least 50mm diameter with a red edge with a line thickness of at least 2mm.
9.5 Gearboxes
9.5.1 A gearbox is defined as all the parts in the drive line which transfer torque from the engine crankshaft to the drive shafts (the drive shafts being defined as those components which transfer drive torque from the sprung mass to the un-sprung mass). It includes all components whose primary purpose is for the transmission of power or mechanical selection of gears, bearings associated with these components and the casing in which they are housed.
9.5.2 In this context the following parts are not considered part of the gearbox and may be changed without incurring a penalty under the F1 Sporting Regulations. If changing any of these parts involves breaking an FIA applied seal this may be done but must be carried out under FIA supervision :
- the clutch assembly and any shaft connecting the clutch to the crankshaft or first motion shaft of the gearbox, provided this is located prior to any mechanical speed reduction from the engine ;
- the clutch actuator and clutch release bearing(s) ;
- inboard driveshaft joints and seals but not their housing if that housing is integral with the gearbox output shaft and therefore part of the sprung mass ;
- the hydraulic system prior to the point at which it produces direct mechanical movement of the gear selection mechanism by means of hydraulic actuator(s) ;
- oil, oil pumps, oil filters, oil seals, oil coolers and any associated hoses or pipes ;
- electrical sensors, actuators, servo valves and wiring ;
- any parts associated with the suspension or functioning of the sprung suspension that are attached to the gearbox casing ;
- the rear impact structure provided it can be separated from any gearbox casing ;
- any other component mounted to the casing whose primary purpose is unconnected with the transmission of power or selection of gears.
9.6 Gear ratios :
9.6.1 The maximum number of forward gear ratios is 7.
9.6.2 The maximum number of numerical change gear ratio pairs a competitor has available to him during a Championship season is 30. All such gear ratio pairs must be declared to the FIA technical delegate at or before the first Event of the Championship.
9.6.3 No forward gear ratio pair may be :
- less than 12mm wide when measured across the gear tooth at the root diameter or any point 1mm above or below the root diameter. Above this area each side of the gear teeth may be chamfered by a maximum of 10‹. In addition, a chamfer or radius not exceeding 2.0mm may be applied to the sides and the tip of the teeth ;
- less than 85mm between centres ;
- less than 600g in weight (excluding any integral shaft or collar). If an integral shaft or collar is to be excluded the mass of this may be shown by calculation assuming the gear to be 12mm wide and the shaft geometry to be the same as that where slide on gears are used.
9.6.4 Gear ratios must be made from steel.
9.6.5 Continuously variable transmission systems are not permitted to transmit the power of the engine defined in Article 5.1.
9.7 Reverse gear :
All cars must have a reverse gear operable any time during the Event by the driver when the engine is running.
9.8 Gear changing :
9.8.1 Automatic gear changes are considered a driver aid and are therefore not permitted.
For the purposes of gear changing, the clutch and throttle need not be under the control of the driver.
9.8.2 Gear changing is restricted during the following periods:
- Race start: one gear change is permitted after the race has started and before the car speed has reached 100kph, provided every gear fitted to the car is capable of achieving at least 100km/h at 18,000rpm.
- Pit stops: No gear change is permitted after a pit stop and until the car speed gets within 10km/h of the pit lane speed limit when leaving the pits.
9.8.3 The minimum possible gear the driver is able to select must remain fixed whilst the car is moving.
Each individual gear change must be separately initiated by the driver and, within the mechanical constraints of the gearbox; the requested gear must be engaged immediately
unless over-rev protection is used to reject the gear shift request. Once a gear change request has been accepted no further requests may be accepted until the first gear change has been completed.
Multiple gear changes may only be made under Article 5.19 or when a shift to gearbox neutral is made following a request from the driver.
If an over-rev protection strategy is used this may only prevent engagement of the target gear, it must not induce a delay greater than 50ms. If a gear change is refused in this way, engagement may only follow a new and separate request made by the driver.
Any de-bounce time used to condition driver gear change requests must be fixed.
9.8.4 The maximum permitted duration for down changes and up changes is 300ms and 200ms respectively. The maximum permitted delay for the latter is 80ms from the time of the driver request to the original gear being disengaged.
The duration of a gear change is defined as the time from the request being made to the point at which all gear change processes are terminated. If for any reason the gear change cannot be completed in that time the car must be left in neutral or the original gear.
9.8.5 Distance channel or track position is not considered an acceptable input to gearbox control.
9.9 Torque transfer systems :
9.9.1 Any system or device the design of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a slower to a faster rotating wheel is not permitted.
9.9.2 Any device which is capable of transferring torque between the principal axes of rotation of the two front wheels is prohibited.
9.10 Kinetic Energy Recovery System :
9.10.1 The KERS must connect at any point in the rear wheel drivetrain before the differential.
9.10.2 The system will be considered shut down when all energy is contained within the KERS modules and no
high voltage is present on any external or accessible part of any KERS module.
The shutdown process must take no longer than two seconds from activation.
9.10.3 It must be possible to shut down the KERS via the following means :
- the switch required by Article 14.2.1 ;
- the switches required by Article 14.2.2 ;
- the switch or button required by Article 9.4.
9.10.4 The KERS must shut down when the ECU required by Article 8.2 initiates an anti-stall engine shut off.
9.10.5 All cars fitted with a KERS must be fitted with a KERS status light which :
- is in working order throughout the Event even if the main hydraulic, pneumatic or electrical systems on the car have failed ;
- is located in the same general location as the light required by Article 8.10 ;
- is green only when the system is shut down and no electrical insulation fault has been detected ;
- remains powered for at least 15 minutes if the car comes to rest with its engine stopped ;
- is marked with a HIGH VOLTAGE symbol according to ISO3864 of at least 30mm along the triangle side.

[Blackout]

Here is what I read today and then looked if there is a post related to it. There was but noetheless I post the link:

http://gptoday.com/full_story/view/4655 ... periority/

I also wondred how was it possible to Vetel to go CONSTANTLY 2.5sec faster than anyone else after the SC! Just didn't seem right. If the cat was capable of doing that, Webber shoudl have been at least 1.5s fater than the cars ahread of him. Should have been easy to overtake them, but he could not. I think Minardi is right to ask those questions. After all we have seen that Vetel is fatser by Webber, butagain the gap was far too big.

You should read the precedent posts and this http://intelligentf1.wordpress.com/

[spiritone]

This controversy over tc (or whatever we want to call it) reminds me of the piquet jr incident. Nobody wanted to believe it, but when it was confirmed everyone jumped on board. I don't think that RBR wanted vettel to win by as much as he did. They have had this system for awhile and always made sure they kept it under wraps. The radio transmissions were always for him to not set fast lap and win by a comfortable margin. What happened in this race was vettel's ego got the better of him. The constant booing and criticism that he has recieved i'm sure has effected him. Knowing what the potential of the car was, maybe he wanted to show by how much he could really win by if he used it. Newey has been very quiet and i'm guessing he is not happy about vettel letting the cat out of the bag.

Will the fia look into this, i doubt it, its to close to the end of the season.

[SectorOne]

Red Bull has ruled out a repeat of the kind of domination it produced in the Singapore Grand Prix, insisting it was a one-off
Autosport

If that turns out to be true that´s even more suspicious

[Juzh]

This controversy over tc (or whatever we want to call it) reminds me of the piquet jr incident. Nobody wanted to believe it, but when it was confirmed everyone jumped on board. I don't think that RBR wanted vettel to win by as much as he did. They have had this system for awhile and always made sure they kept it under wraps. The radio transmissions were always for him to not set fast lap and win by a comfortable margin. What happened in this race was vettel's ego got the better of him. The constant booing and criticism that he has recieved i'm sure has effected him. Knowing what the potential of the car was, maybe he wanted to show by how much he could really win by if he used it. Newey has been very quiet and i'm guessing he is not happy about vettel letting the cat out of the bag.

Will the fia look into this, i doubt it, its to close to the end of the season.

hahahahahahahahahaha you funny guy

[H2H]

Here we have the most interesting parts in the orginal:

"Non voglio togliere nulla a Sebastian Vettel che interpreta la sua Red Bull al meglio e non voglio puntare il dito contro nessuno, ma sono giorni che mi domando come abbia fatto il tedesco a girare 2"5 al giro più veloce di tutti gli altri nei primi giri e alla ripartenza della safety car, visto che il divario da Grosjean (in FP3) e Rosberg (in qualifica) era solamente di pochi decimi. Il sabato il tedesco avrà anche giocato al “gatto e al topo” ma qualcosa non torna comunque...".


"Sebastian era in grado di aprire il gas cinquanta metri prima di tutti gli altri, Webber compreso. Mentre tutti i piloti acceleravano nel medesimo punto, Vettel riusciva ad anticiparli di molto. E in quei frangenti mi ha colpito il “rumore” del motore Renault che “rattava” in modo completamente diverso da tutti gli altri propulsori francesi. Mi ha ricordato il taglio dei cilindri del Traction Control che oggi è vietato".

It is interesting to note what Rob Wilson states in the Singapore GP Debrief. Huge praise for the fantastic pedal work by Sebastian Vettel. Mark Webber also conceded quite clearly that his teammate had the edge on him in the slow stuff, especially in last sector.

Overall there is no indication for any TCS, no hint of any suspicion by other teams, far more oversight by the control organs over the critical components. We know that the engines 'rattles' as the teams have long learned to manipulate it's maps to smooth the behaviour of the exhaust plume. Obviously it does so mostly on the turn-in as the driver modulates the throttle close to the off. When accelerating the sound becomes pretty regular as the driver tends towards full-throttle. So far no longer on-board I have seen this season does contradict that basic logic.

It is a bit of a shame that Mr. Minardi did not precisely describe the phase in which the Red Bull supposedly did so more the the other, while the other Red Bull - mostly behind another car and often told to keep a distance - supposedly did not.

[wesley123]

To anyone who honestly think they cheat with using Traction control;

Please explain to me, how are they able to hide such an obvious system? Seems pretty much impossible with the scrutineering, parc ferme and standardised ECU. Also, with the teams complaining so much, I am very sure some other team would have questioned it somehow and asked to look into it.

[Shrieker]

It doesn't necessarily have to be electronically controlled, and doesn't necessarily have to be illegal for that matter. Remember, 15 years or so ago McLaren used a third pedal (2nd brake pedal) just for rear brakes for the purposes of limiting torque to the rear wheels. Newey was at McLaren at the time, and I'm sure there are other possible mechanical solutions intended to be used as traction control.

It should be kept in mind that best form of traction control is rear downforce/grip. I'm sure it would surprise no one to say Red Bull has the best EBD, that coupled with the possibility Vettel getting the latest updates (and not Webber who is on his way) could easily explain Vettel's speed. I see no harm in discussing possibilities though.

[H2H]

It should be kept in mind that best form of traction control is rear downforce/grip. I'm sure it would surprise no one to say Red Bull has the best EBD, that coupled with the possibility Vettel getting the latest updates (and not Webber who is on his way) could easily explain Vettel's speed. I see no harm in discussing possibilities though.

The better traction control is indeed more grip which in F1 often means more downforce. It is important to note that, apart from the mapping as discussed before the specific areo design approach shapes the quantity and quality of the performance gain.

The rear of the RB9 is clearly more dominated then any other big team by focus on the EBD, even forcing those famous side ducts with which Adrian&Co clearly struggled so much in early 2012. That this design approach now works pretty well is obviously a big element of the great acceleration out of the corners we have seen in the last year or so.

Marks biggest problems in the race was the rarity of clean air to run in.

[aussiegman]

I was in Singapore at the GP and the difference in the handling of the two RBR cars was VERY noticeable even from where I was sitting. That's the 3rd GP I have been to this year (I might just have to go along to Korea and check it out again) and it has been the same all season just at Singapore the difference was literally night and day!!

Webber's car sounded off as soon as the safety car went in and it obviously expired so there after but Vettel's car did sound "different" but not like the old TC controlled cars used to. It might have simply been a new exhaust or mapping, a new vs old engine or something totally innocuous. Then again.......

The RBR cars are aero dominant and do not like running in dirty air. That's another reason Vettel works his butt off to stay out in front on the start even against another RBR car as they do not like to run in traffic and once behind another car it looses a lot of efficiency (maybe more than other cars) and it is that much harder to get back in front.

As for RBR having a form of TC on Vettel's car (even as a RBR supporter) I think it is entirely possible. Vettel is a great driver but the performance and balance of the car at Singapore was just leagues ahead of everyone even Webber and a lot of people were talking about where I was sitting.

Someone said earlier a TC-like system linked to KERS and a mature EBD would explain the advantage.

I actually had heard this mentioned earlier this year from friends and we have since speculated that RBR maybe using KERS to "drag" on the engine which may help explain the numerous KERS failures RBR have had as well as help save the rear tyres from excess energy (heating) being put into them on corner exit thanks to a much "softer" torque application and limited wheel spin as well as saving fronts from heating due to push understeer on corner exit. All pure speculation but as tyres became the focus for 2012-13, saving them from any excess energy inputs would be an advantage and couple it with the best aero package in the field and you get a result like Singapore.

More downforce was vaunted as the best form or TC, however increasing downforce alone can result in overheating the tyres and the 2013 Pirelli's are still VERY temperature sensitive. Using any method to balance degredation, heating and downforce could be a huge advantage and might explain why Vettel on 25+ lap old rubber was still quicker than Rosberg on fresh tyres. I know we were all amazed when he just kept pulling away as Button, Alonso, Hamilton, Rosberg, Webber and Kimi all struggled with old tyres that fell of the performance cliff.

As to Vettels car sound "different" as Minardi speculated, that too was noticed by some in Singapore....

All told, a few things about the whole situation sound "off" but none of it is substantive.
RBR saying it was a "one off", the erstwhile silence from them since, Webber's lack of pace vs the rest of the field, Vettel's ability to pull away from the field on much older tyres and Vettel's ability to get on the power so much earlier through turn 10 as well as other sections of the track are all simple speculation and possible circumstantial evidence.

Vettel might just be that good and in the best car with updates his team mate didn't have.

If RBR have something, it is likely a combination of various elements and not one thing (EBD, floor. KERS etc) that are within the "grey" area's of the regs.

Newey (March - CART/ Leyton House, Williams, McLaren, RBR) and Horner (an ex-racers in F3, F2, F3000) are very experienced and have been around to see all the tricks.

I'd certainly wouldn't put it past them that's for sure.....But from where we are sitting and even from the grandstand its nothing but interesting speculation.

What I would dearly love to see was a proper analysis of a sound trace of Vettel v Webber v other Renault engines from Singapore....

[Cold Fussion]

I would like to see someone purpose how a closed loop traction control system would work that sits within a grey area of the rules. I very much doubt such a thing is possible.

[Tommy Cookers]

Mr Aussie, that's all interesting stuff !
it parallels another recent non yin-yang thread where a simple mechanism to achieve a tailored torque ripple was presented

whenever the KERS machine is on-line it can inherently contribute behaviour that is like both TC and ABS
without breaking any F1 rules
(if the starter 'Bendix' mechanism jams in our road cars the same characteristic will develop, followed by total failure)
such oscillatory behaviour has conventionally always been a prime candidate for elimination by design and/or development

why is anyone surprised that RB are ahead of others in using this to advantage ?

the fuel on which rock music runs is designed-in oscillatory amplifier characteristics (aka 'sustain')
when established practice was to eliminate such in the cause of fidelity of reproduction

@CF everything is internally (many times over) closed loop anyway, including Max Mosley's watch
the KERS 'drive is such, and the KERS machine cannot function otherwise
its motor action is built around inherent internal 'knowlege' of voltage that is related to rpm
the FIA viewpoint sees no TC or ABS dedicated/related sensing devices that are the basis of the FIA definition of TC and ABS
and no closed loops related to these