Vettel Red Bull Traction system?

[autogyro]

I believe the advantage Vettel gets at corner exit has a lot to do with the way their Kers system is applied and balanced to the exhaust 'live fueled exhaust mass gas flow system'.
The Kers M/G might even be being used with reversed polarity in motor mode.
It might also have something to do with the Kers failures during the season.
Discus?

[aussiegman]

This is already being discussed in the "RB Traction Control Yin Yang" thread here...http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =1&t=15474

My previous thoughts are included there which are below:

......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.

.....Engage the KERS generator at increasing resistances to limit engine torque seen at the wheels. We settled on a system that we termed an eletromagnetic torque management system.

The engine torque demand requirement is seemingly being observed (engine is producing the torque requested by the driver), it is simply the torque is being split between the KERS and the drivetrain. As long as the KERS unit observes the required limitations it should remain legal. Excess energy could be "bleed" off as heat and then heat is the main issue which may have led to the failures of the RBR KERS systems seen previously.

The kinetic energy recovery creates a resistance in the drivetrain which can be used to limit torque to the rear wheels. The upshot is increase exhaust energy as the engine is under greater loads on corner exit. Good for an EBD....

We were absolutely not certain, however we thought that there is nothing in the regs that would/could prevent the charging of the KERS system under acceleration. It is simply a kinetic energy recovery system. The how and when seemed indeterminate.

If you could cycle the charging on and off fast enough and at the correct frequencies and timing to alter the torque split between the drivetrain and the KERS system, you could possibly alter the torque seen at the wheels to your advantage.

Is it possible and would it work?? I have no idea!!! I'm not an electrical engineer and don't know for certain but it seems somewhat plausible if difficult. Maybe those more in tune to these systems may have a better idea.

Tommy Cookers also added:

as I said, the inherent characteristic of the KERS machine amounts to substantial opposition to wheelspin or locking
so it does some of what TC and ABS would do
eg for KERS motor action eg between 9000 and 18000 rpm the applied voltage would be swept proportional to rpm at all times
eg (say) 95 Volts at 9000 and 185 V at 18000 rpm, and have rather constant EM torque (or torque proportional to ICE torque)
the EM torque being proportional for all rpm to the 5 V margin of applied voltage over the back emf that is proportional to rpm
if there was wheelspin eg suddenly raising rpm to 9500 the EM torque would fall to zero
wheelspin to 10000rpm would automatically cause negative EM torque (ie generating and storing electrical energy)

a totally standard feature of any motor drive is inbuilt adjustable limiting of the sweep rate ('slew rate'), for many practical reasons
our slew rate would be set around maximum acceleration without wheelspin, this would be mapped
the KERS machine 'knows' its own rpm and even rotational position anyway
so no wheel speed sensor is involved, so it's not TC

this basic characteristic in 'generating mode', tends to oppose rear wheel locking, lowering KERS torque as wheels suddenly slow

internally to the motor and drive, other advantageous behaviour could be arranged without breaching any rules
a few races ago didn't we see footage of Mr Webber's car and Caterhams ? leaving tyre chatter marks ?
it has been said that RB use less KERS power (peak) than allowed, isn't this consistent with low-level KERSing in corners ?

The latest edition of Racecar Engineering also has some speculation on it here:
http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news ... -revealed/

The article says:
"However the latest issue of Racecar Engineering raises an alternative, legal and highly innovative solution for the RB9′s mid corner performance, which could also explain many of Red Bull’s reliability issues.
It is theoretically easy to modulate the output torque and charging input torque to an electric motor/generator using capacitors, batteries, inductors and a feedback signal. Torque changes are instant and control is easy and legal.

If torque were to be modulated in response to the normal force of the tires against the track (in response to shock pressure for example) significant unused traction potential could be recovered during high pressure phases (upside of bumps) and initiation of full wheel spin during low pressure phases (downside of bumps) could be delayed. Yielding better turn exit acceleration, higher cornering speeds and stability. Especially on bumpy tracks like Singapore."


I still believe that it is entirely possible RBR are using some form of KERS intervention and it seems supported by what I heard and saw in Singapore as well as the circumstantial evidence of Vettel's dominate performance and the numerous KERS failures they have experienced. It is also well documented that RBR KERS system is substantially different to most of the field.

[autogyro]

The traction limiting potential of the M/G part of the Kers system has been obvious since Kers was first used.

I believe doing so is and always has been against the regulations.

Just because the 'active control' (electrical) is not contained within the differential, it does not follow that the differential is not actively controlled. (the FIA should study up on how a differential works and why)

Using the Kers M/G simply means that the whole powertrain is being used to control the differentials traction limiting capability.
If the M/G electrical control system is also linked to the engine management control over exhaust gas mass blowing enhancing any coander effect, this is additional active traction limiting through increased downforce over the rear tyres.

This 'illegal' use of Kers (as part of a traction control system) is also making the wrong use of the Kers concept.
Like it or hate it, Kers was introduced to show F1's standing as being seen as an energy conscious formula.
Using Kers for a purpose that wastes fuel as a result is totaly against the interests of F1s future and is very damaging.
I dont blame Adrian Newey, he is a brilliant innovator limited from being in a now totaly spec formula.
I blame the FIA and its lack of expertise in enforcing the regulations.

[fasterthanyou]

The traction limiting potential of the M/G part of the Kers system has been obvious since Kers was first used.

I believe doing so is and always has been against the regulations.

Just because the 'active control' (electrical) is not contained within the differential, it does not follow that the differential is not actively controlled. (the FIA should study up on how a differential works and why)

Using the Kers M/G simply means that the whole powertrain is being used to control the differentials traction limiting capability.
If the M/G electrical control system is also linked to the engine management control over exhaust gas mass blowing enhancing any coander effect, this is additional active traction limiting through increased downforce over the rear tyres.

This 'illegal' use of Kers (as part of a traction control system) is also making the wrong use of the Kers concept.
Like it or hate it, Kers was introduced to show F1's standing as being seen as an energy conscious formula.
Using Kers for a purpose that wastes fuel as a result is totaly against the interests of F1s future and is very damaging.
I dont blame Adrian Newey, he is a brilliant innovator limited from being in a now totaly spec formula.
I blame the FIA and its lack of expertise in enforcing the regulations.

Why is this illegal?

Does it reacting to wheelspin?

How does it adapts to different level of grip?

I don't believe any system that does not reacts to wheelspin should be considered traction control.

[Robbobnob]

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 throttle torque demand
by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all
associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been
manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the
control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the
Appendix to these regulations.

I think it's pretty clear cut, that even by modulating the torque output between KERS regeneration and the output shaft on the drive train would be considered traction control and would therefore be illegal.

Also any control of that system would have to be via the standardised ECU.

A lot is being made or Red Bulls superior traction for some reason even though they have been consistently fast at singapore, Monaco, Baharain and Valencia; all tracks which demand good traction off slow - medium speed corners.

[fasterthanyou]

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 throttle torque demand
by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all
associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been
manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the
control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the
Appendix to these regulations.

I think it's pretty clear cut, that even by modulating the torque output between KERS regeneration and the output shaft on the drive train would be considered traction control and would therefore be illegal.

Also any control of that system would have to be via the standardised ECU.

A lot is being made or Red Bulls superior traction for some reason even though they have been consistently fast at singapore, Monaco, Baharain and Valencia; all tracks which demand good traction off slow - medium speed corners.

Pardon my ignorance but how is it clear cut? I cannot relate those lines from the regulation with KERS system you described.

The way I see it, this KERS system is no way capable of preventing wheel spin but instead make it less likely but if you give it a very slick surface I doubt it can handle the wheel spin like the real TC does. As for compensating excessive throttle torque demand, how does this KERS system determined whether the torque demand is excessive or not without detecting wheel spin?

[autogyro]

Driver selected maps would be a good way.
All the M/G needs to change from working as a motor to energy harvesting is for it to know through the software what the cars speed is, or what gear the car is in.
Perhaps that is why red bull have so many gearbox problems with the M/G changing from charge to apply at the same time as the 'quickshift' trick gearbox is trying to time the gearshift (gap).
Perhaps Weber shifts at the wrong time or the system is designed for Vettel's driving techniques which gives Weber the bums rush on reliability for the sake of golden balls.

Corner exit is also the time when it makes sense to increase downforce, so why not include in the 'map' a throttle on mass gas flow increase at the same time as the engine is being held back by the M/G in harvest mode.
This only has to be mapped for gear selected and car speed again.
To the FIA there would be no direct connection to measuring rear tyre traction.
It is still traction control however.

Clever that Adrian Newey he must have been doing this almost since Kers came in.
Probably developed it during the period they did not run a Kers system.
I shouldnt have suggested a combination of batteries and capacitors, it made the system inevitable because of the rapid charge discharge capability, didnt help Kers reliability though.

[Tommy Cookers]

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 throttle torque demand
by the driver.

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all
associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been
manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the
control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.

I think it's pretty clear cut, that even by modulating the torque output between KERS regeneration and the output shaft on the drive train would be considered traction control and would therefore be illegal.
Also any control of that system would have to be via the standardised ECU.

the ECU only generates demands, the response to those demands is mostly unmandated
eg the rules are satisfied with ECU demanding KERS motor activity states on/off ie equivalent to full excitation voltage or zero
this inherently gives falling torque with rpm, and helps against wheelspin, but does not prevent wheelspin ie make it impossible
presumably if the wheelspin is not stopped this is not compensation for excessive torque demand by the driver so the car is legal
(otherwise the cars are all illegal simply for mapping)

other more electrically efficient ways of KERS motoring could have different effects against wheelspin
varying the excitation voltage could give little or no fall in torque with rpm, this is in principle wheelspin-neutral or nearly so
this would be done by making current (equivalent to torque) the controlled variable
if the rate of change of excitation voltage is limited to less than the rate of change of motor back emf/rpm with wheelspin
the anti-wheelspin effect (the rate of fall of torque with rpm) will be usefully large
this ('slew rate limiting') is a normal facility in motor drives
better effects are possible using simple analogue networks eg with passive components, this again is an established facility
(to modify voltages when wheelspin causes rapid rpm/back emf changes)

the rules were intentionally written to allow anything that is not against the rules
particularly, they do not call for the KERS to be wheelspin-neutral
they allow KERS (and its 2014 big brother) to be anti-wheelspin (and anti-locking) but not fully so
they just call for it not to be a TC system as defined by the rules banning TC as defined by the rules banning TC as defined etc ...
IMO the rules say it's only TC if it stops wheelspin (entirely)
the above approach only resists wheelspin when there is wheelspin, ie there is no effect when spin has stopped, so it's legal
this potential will be greater in 2014, this has been recognised via the liberalisation of rear brake management and recovery

[autogyro]

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 throttle torque demand
by the driver.

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all
associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been
manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the
control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.

I think it's pretty clear cut, that even by modulating the torque output between KERS regeneration and the output shaft on the drive train would be considered traction control and would therefore be illegal.
Also any control of that system would have to be via the standardised ECU.

these rules have little meaning to the designers, they are so easy to meet
the ECU is only generating demands, the response to those is shaped by real engineering factors
eg the rules are satisfied with ECU demanding KERS motor activity states on/off ie equivalent to full supply voltage or zero
this inherently gives falling torque with rpm, and so acts against wheelspin, enough to help but does not stop the wheelspin
presumably if the wheelspin is not stopped this is not compensation for excessive torque demand by the driver
(otherwise the cars are all illegal simply for mapping)
this inherent falling of torque with rpm is the same as in a model train (for a fixed voltage), for the same reasons

other more likely ways of KERS motoring would have (accidently) a greater action against wheelspin
the drive will have a much higher gain than that used in a model railway
it's possible to further increase this wheelspin-damping effect, and to enhance traction in other ways, without breaking any rules

the rules were (deliberately) written to allow anything that is not against the rules
they do not call for the KERS to be wheelspin-neutral
they just call for it not to be a TC system as defined by the rules banning TC as defined by the rules

Sorry Tommy but you are doing an FIA on us.
To understand the rules you need to define what a differential does and how and why it does it.

[dren]

I posted this in the other thread, but maybe this is the better place to ask.

What, if any, benefit would there be to allow the EM to slip poles?

[autogyro]

I posted this in the other thread, but maybe this is the better place to ask.

What, if any, benefit would there be to allow the EM to slip poles?

Slip poles?

The EM is already a generator, it simply has to power up in generator mode at the right place and in the right gear.
Harvesting and power apply can be used where ever the driver chooses.

[dren]

I was thinking the motor could slip rather than the tire. It's hard on the motor, but it was a thought.

[autogyro]

I was thinking the motor could slip rather than the tire. It's hard on the motor, but it was a thought.

Using the Kers M/G in generator mode working against the engine is hard on the M/G.
It is why red bull have so much trouble with Kers reliability.

The engine being held back in this way also allows the extra fuel at that throttle position to be used to blow the diffuser.
The ignition has to be retarded of course, which is why the cars make a strange noise on some corner exits.
At other times the engine can just be mapped for less fuel (fuel saving mode?), then there is no funny noise and no extra downforce.
Depends on the circuit, corner speed, gear, etc

[Tommy Cookers]

IIRC ignition retard was banned, then a loophole was created allowed it , but only over 15000rpm or something ??

[aussiegman]

The traction limiting potential of the M/G part of the Kers system has been obvious since Kers was first used.

Yes it has, however the difficulty was always in the implementation and reliability of the system. IMHO RBR sustained failures with their KERS system while perfecting their implementation and reliability to get a system that is legal under the regualtions.

I believe doing so is and always has been against the regulations.

I think you are arguing a breach of the "spirit" of the regulations rather than this being actually illegal under the regulations.

My read is that the KERS system could be used in a legal and innovative way, however it is not (as you rightly pointed out) really why KERS was implemented for F1. I think your latter comment is correct, the FIA sometimes does not fully understand the regulations and technical systems they implement and try to regulate.

Just because the 'active control' (electrical) is not contained within the differential, it does not follow that the differential is not actively controlled. (the FIA should study up on how a differential works and why)

The KERS system and the differential, including its electronic control systems are specifically separated from each other under the regulations, specifically 8.2.1 which reads:

"All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA."

Further, the description of KERS under 9.10.1 states that "The KERS must connect at any point in the rear wheel drivetrain before the differential." separating the two (2) systems.

Another interesting point is that under "9.2 Clutch control:" it allows for:

"The following applies only to the main drivetrain clutch or clutches, any clutch used exclusively
as part of a KERS is exempt."

Perhaps by simply manipulating the way the KERS clutches are actuated to create a torque load may be enough to gain the effect desired and KERS clutch actuation is specifically separated from the drive clutches.

It seems it could follow that where legally operating the KERS systems (including the clutches) as provided for under the regulations may have other impacts, be they beneficial or adverse, which are secondary and unregulated without express regulations prohibiting its operation to provide those effect(s).

Using the Kers M/G simply means that the whole powertrain is being used to control the differentials traction limiting capability.

Using the KERS systems legally may have the supplemental effect of splitting torque between the drivetrain and the KERS system, however the regulations allow for this in its location and its use.

As such, its subsequent effect is inconsequential under the regulations. The KERS systems must be located as per 9.10.1 so any time it is in effect it will have an impact on torque, it is simply a consequence of its normal functioning.

Again, I think what you are arguing is more that gaining an advantage is against the "spirit" of why KERS was introduced rather than the letter of the regulations governing its use.