RB Traction Control yin yang

[gandharva]

Much better video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGgvHflXgc

Awesome! But completely different to the sound in the vettel video.

Imho the slightly different sound on vettels engine comes from engine setting. Rocky told him during the SC phase that he is allowed to use his tires and all fuel. Mark Webber maybe used a different setting because he was using too much fuel during the first stint and therefore was not allowed to go full out.

[Cold Fussion]

Hi guys! Vettel's sound! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DwXOPN7ZIM Webber's sound is "normal" ... why?

Webbers car sounds exactly the same to me, it's just harder to hear because its drowned out by all the other engine sounds.

[Joie de vivre]

There is just no way Vettel can pull 2,5sec advantage over Webber in allegedly same car. There is obvious indication Vettel's engine is mapped in such way that produces extreme downforce.

Why do you think, Vettel is not that superior in Qualy compared to Race? My bet is they don't map it so much on purpose, because then it would be evidently that something is wrong with his car.

And other thing is, Vettel won't be that quick in Korea as he was in Singapore. They are aware everyone will be watching them closely and they know for fact the this year's title is theirs.

[tim|away]

Wow, talk about a story being blown way out of proportion. Minardi did NOT suggest that Vettel was using traction control. He was comparing the sound (and only the sound) of Vettels car to the sound cars made when traction control was allowed and the media was reading a lot into it. Let's take a look at the original quote.

"Besides speeding up 50 m before any other driver, the Renault engine of the German's car grinded like no other French engines on track, neither like Mark's. That sound was similar to the sound made by the engine when the traction control system got into action in the past seasons."
full article

Again, he makes an assessment about the sound that he heard - nothing else. So far, I have seen video evidence of redbull's typical loud off-throttle engine noise which is not consistent with traction control (which clearly would have to be on-throttle). It really is getting a bit silly how much hype this misunderstanding has created. You can be sure that if there was even the slightest indicator to believe Red Bull was using traction control, the other teams would be over it like hyenas and report it to Charlie Whiting. None of that has happened.

[Lycoming]

I suppose Senna was cheating too when he lapped monaco 1.8 seconds faster than his teammate in the '80s. Note that since monaco is such a short circuit, 1.8 seconds there would mean a bigger gap on a longer track.

[Joie de vivre]

Back then they didn't map engines, used ebd or flexible nosecones or frontwings.

[SectorOne]

I suppose Senna was cheating too when he lapped monaco 1.8 seconds faster than his teammate in the '80s. Note that since monaco is such a short circuit, 1.8 seconds there would mean a bigger gap on a longer track.

With Prost being in the other car who knew he had the best car on the grid and that chasing Senna around Monaco is impossible.

So what would an intelligent chap like Prost do in that situation? Bank second place and look to the next race.

[Traction]

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/

Probably the most intelligent post in this entire thread...it's a pity the logic and explanation given in the link will largely be ignored or brushed aside. People will rather focus on trying to discredit RB without looking at the facts. =D> +1

[Traction]

For another intelligent explanation try this..

http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2013/09/a ... e-to-stay/

[FoxHound]

Probably the most intelligent post in this entire thread...it's a pity the logic and explanation given in the link will largely be ignored or brushed aside. People will rather focus on trying to discredit RB without looking at the facts. =D> +1

Hold on a minute, who is trying to discredit Red Bull?
If they have found a method to get traction control that is not controlled within the rules, then that is not to discredit them. It's Formula One, not a charity after all. This happens when any team comes up with innovative ideas.
People will always get upset, but should in fact applaud Red Bull for their masterful innovation.
We also know Red Bull to be master's of concealment, and master's of rule interpretation.

Instead of looking at this as people discrediting a team, maybe it is better to view at as a thread for people to a)ascertain whether there is anything going on
b)how it is done
c)whether it is legal should a) and b) be conclusive.

In the James Allen piece you have just put it up it does say this:

While there does seem to be some work being undertaken in engine mapping to work around the ban on exhaust blowing, which may have contributed to the strange sound, the issue of traction control is broadly taken care of by the common Electronic Control Unit, which is manufactured for the FIA by McLaren Electronics. Because the unit is specified and the same for every team, it is hard to conceal a traction control command in what is essentially a spec part. Rather than traction control, some kind of mapping to blow into the exhaust within the rules is more likely and this all fits with the corner exit work that Red Bull has been carrying out.

However, the problem I have with this assessment is that the ECU may be spec, but it is programmable.
It's like having 10 identical laptops with different programme requirements.
For example, you cannot have the Red Bull programmed ECU in the Mercedes powered McLaren. Each ECU will be tailored to each driver and team.

In addition there is alot of guess work from Mark Gillian.

We have this:

The key to this is that Red Bull has done a lot of work on traction out of low speed corners

Which can imply many things including that which we are discussing in this very thread.

However, this next line is very general and cannot be pointed to any real tangible outside improvement.

Red Bull chassis have always had very high amounts of downforce, but here they’ve worked to ensure that it isn’t just about high load, it’s about the stability of the load, which is a big focus. Red Bull has always been able to push the diffuser hard in the high speed corners, the key to their speed now is that they have tuned it to work at low speed.

Nothing can physically be pointed out here. The diffuser works better, apparently. Why does it work better?
Because Red Bull worked hard on it? That's the reason given...

Also pointed out was there thermal management work, yet Mercedes and others have also done similar work.
r
Right down to the heat dissipating rims.

Finally, there is another grey area.

Because the unit is specified and the same for every team, it is hard to conceal a traction control command in what is essentially a spec part.

It may be hard to conceal...but is impossible?
We just don't know yet. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it, but we know Red Bull ran some pretty aggressive maps, which led to spark plugs capitulating...recall that?
This in 2010...so they have a very good and long working knowledge of it.

I'm not saying it isn't true. But we have nothing concrete from Gillian. It is as speculative as any on this thread.
If he brought something tangible to the table, this story would be dispelled in a heart beat.

Let's focus on the positives.

[GitanesBlondes]

I don't believe the RB9 has traction control for one second.

Creative engine mapping that can simulate certain aspects of traction control would be more plausible assuming there is anything underhanded going on. Not to mention Renault has already rode the fine line of legality with the Red Bull engine maps. Using Mark Webber for a comparison is pointless as he is on his way out, and who really knows what his level of motivation is any longer as far as F1 goes. His car might be just as capable of performing the way Vettel's is, but short of Vettel going out and driving it to give us times, we will never know.

If this is all down to aero and thermal work, good for them as it is clear no other team has any idea what to do in order to increase their competitiveness relative to Red Bull.

[Traction]

Probably the most intelligent post in this entire thread...it's a pity the logic and explanation given in the link will largely be ignored or brushed aside. People will rather focus on trying to discredit RB without looking at the facts. =D> +1

Hold on a minute, who is trying to discredit Red Bull?
If they have found a method to get traction control that is not controlled within the rules, then that is not to discredit them. It's Formula One, not a charity after all. This happens when any team comes up with innovative ideas.
People will always get upset, but should in fact applaud Red Bull for their masterful innovation.
We also know Red Bull to be master's of concealment, and master's of rule interpretation.

Instead of looking at this as people discrediting a team, maybe it is better to view at as a thread for people to a)ascertain whether there is anything going on
b)how it is done
c)whether it is legal should a) and b) be conclusive.

In the James Allen piece you have just put it up it does say this:

While there does seem to be some work being undertaken in engine mapping to work around the ban on exhaust blowing, which may have contributed to the strange sound, the issue of traction control is broadly taken care of by the common Electronic Control Unit, which is manufactured for the FIA by McLaren Electronics. Because the unit is specified and the same for every team, it is hard to conceal a traction control command in what is essentially a spec part. Rather than traction control, some kind of mapping to blow into the exhaust within the rules is more likely and this all fits with the corner exit work that Red Bull has been carrying out.

However, the problem I have with this assessment is that the ECU may be spec, but it is programmable.
It's like having 10 identical laptops with different programme requirements.
For example, you cannot have the Red Bull programmed ECU in the Mercedes powered McLaren. Each ECU will be tailored to each driver and team.

In addition there is alot of guess work from Mark Gillian.

We have this:

The key to this is that Red Bull has done a lot of work on traction out of low speed corners

Which can imply many things including that which we are discussing in this very thread.

However, this next line is very general and cannot be pointed to any real tangible outside improvement.

Red Bull chassis have always had very high amounts of downforce, but here they’ve worked to ensure that it isn’t just about high load, it’s about the stability of the load, which is a big focus. Red Bull has always been able to push the diffuser hard in the high speed corners, the key to their speed now is that they have tuned it to work at low speed.

Nothing can physically be pointed out here. The diffuser works better, apparently. Why does it work better?
Because Red Bull worked hard on it? That's the reason given...

Also pointed out was there thermal management work, yet Mercedes and others have also done similar work.
r
Right down to the heat dissipating rims.

Finally, there is another grey area.

Because the unit is specified and the same for every team, it is hard to conceal a traction control command in what is essentially a spec part.

It may be hard to conceal...but is impossible?
We just don't know yet. I wouldn't be quick to dismiss it, but we know Red Bull ran some pretty aggressive maps, which led to spark plugs capitulating...recall that?
This in 2010...so they have a very good and long working knowledge of it.

I'm not saying it isn't true. But we have nothing concrete from Gillian. It is as speculative as any on this thread.
If he brought something tangible to the table, this story would be dispelled in a heart beat.

Let's focus on the positives.

While Gillian might not give much in the way of concrete evidence either way the info and speculation he does offer up is by far more realistic than what has been spewed up by various folk in this thread.

[Tim.Wright]

Hi guys! Vettel's sound! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DwXOPN7ZIM Webber's sound is "normal" ... why?

Every Renault car sounds like that. I noticed on the Williams and also a bit on the Caterham's at the first chicane at Monza.

[Hobbs04]

Red bull does have traction control. They have controlled the traction by aero, mechanical grip, and engineered grip.... Nothing illegal.

[krisfx]

Hi guys! Vettel's sound! -> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DwXOPN7ZIM Webber's sound is "normal" ... why?

For comparison, 2011 blown diffusors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNyPTRWHCJ8

Much better video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmGgvHflXgc

What you're hearing on vettel's car is simply cylinder cutting. It's been around since the start of 2013.

Afaik, Cylinder cutting has been around longer than that, it's also useful to note the helmholtz effect chambers on the exhaust banks, I've read two theories about these, but one of them is that they hold gas in, once the driver lifts off, this excess gas is blown over the bodywork, I could be wrong, but a combination of the two is probably what makes this sound. As someone said, the Renault engine sounds like that in real life on most the cars.