Vettel Red Bull Traction system?

[autogyro]

Why dont the FIA do away with the reams of regulations they have generated from arguing with the teams for decades and just say,

"We will decide what is legal or not legal solely based on how we manipulate the racing and decide who is going to win".

Makes it much simpler to understand.

The differential on the redbull does the same job as any other differential.
It takes a torque input and 'vectors' that torque between two rear tyres.
It is a torque vectoring device.
A differential's purpose is to transfer torque to the tyres so as to maintain traction.

ANYTHING that 'actively' controls the input torque to an F1 differential is a traction control device.
The FIA cannot conveniently split the powertrain up to suit their regulations it makes NO engineering or scientific sense.

Kers does have a varying effect on the input torque to the differential but it is uncontrolled by default.
However, any 'active' and 'designed' method of using the Kers M/G to prevent or reduce the tyres breaking traction IS a form of traction control.
I realise the teams have problems preventing wheel lock up under braking which requires active control over Kers harvesting to balance rear end control on deceleration and gearshifting.
However this is because of the ' seamless' semi automatic layshaft gearboxes used and the lack of powertrain control they allow the driver.
It is almost impossible to balance the unloading of torque during the 'gap' when the trick shift mechanism in the gearbox actuates and at the same time harvest energy from the Kers M/G.
This forced the FIA to open up the programming in the ECU to control the problem.
The FIA established its own 'illegal' traction control by doing so.
Adrian Newey has simply exploited these regulations which have no real meaning or scientific base but leave a huge gap.

There are no ifs or buts about it, using the Kers M/G to prevent wheel spin is traction control.
Spirit of the regulations? Oh right!
I have known about this manipulation of Kers technology ever since it was first used.
I have waited to see just how far the technology would be exploited against that 'spirit'.

[olefud]

It’s a bit ironic that the FIA is desperately trying to green wash an activity that is inherently energy wasteful but –from the comments here- has unsuccessfully tried to restrict the use of KERS in a manner that conceivably could synergistically improve the operation of real-life hybrids. Traction control, engine compounding (not KERS) and regenerative braking would be an interesting package on a road hybrid.

[autogyro]

It’s a bit ironic that the FIA is desperately trying to green wash an activity that is inherently energy wasteful but –from the comments here- has unsuccessfully tried to restrict the use of KERS in a manner that conceivably could synergistically improve the operation of real-life hybrids. Traction control, engine compounding (not KERS) and regenerative braking would be an interesting package on a road hybrid.

I have just the powertrain concept to achieve this and it includes a gearset that shifts without gaps in the torque transfer and therefore does not need an FIA illegal (by their own regulations) traction control program to operate to prevent rear wheel lock up on deceleration and braking, therebye opening the door to the same 'illegal' traction control on corner exit.
A proper geartrain would not let the Adrian Neweys in F1 exploit loopholes created by bad regulation, unclear principle and unworkable thinking at the FIA.
This lack of innovation in engineering development forced by bad regulation has stagnated F1 for decades.
Far from leading vehicle technology today F1 and the manufacturers that supply the powertrains are actively holding back the future at the expense of all of us.

[WhiteBlue]

I see some systematic in the FIA policy of preventing the blowing of aero devices with the engine. Particularly next year it will be very difficult to make the exhaust reach any aero device. On top the change to fuel controlled formula should make it difficult to waste fuel for downforce generation. Once you remove the artificial downforce from blown devices there is a lot less incentive to have the ICE and the electric motor work in opposite direction. Or am I missing something?

[autogyro]

I see some systematic in the FIA policy of preventing the blowing of aero devices with the engine. Particularly next year it will be very difficult to make the exhaust reach any aero device. On top the change to fuel controlled formula should make it difficult to waste fuel for downforce generation. Once you remove the artificial downforce from blown devices there is a lot less incentive to have the ICE and the electric motor work in opposite direction. Or am I missing something?

The fact remains that F1 has allowed technical advantage to be gained for certain teams by allowing the use of Kers totaly against the 'spirit' of the regulations and in contravention of the principles introduced for the use of Kers.
This commercial and politicaly motivated covert application of the regulations has given unfair advantage to certain teams from the initial introduction of Kers.
It has also prevented the investment and development of potentialy more efficient and effective methods for the use of Kers and other energy saving concepts.

Incentive for teams to use the powertrain control sysyems to gain unfair advantage from illegal use of Kers and through the exhaust blowing of downforce generating structures should have been prevented right from the initial introduction of Kers.
From 2014 the regulations remain inconclusive and fully open to misinterpretation.
The 2014 regulations will form the next comfortable cushion for the powertrain manufacturers so that they can dictate a stagnant development base which will only allow their market investigated concepts and nobody elses.
There is little doubt that the commercial pressure so defined will again hamstring the FIA and prevent any form of proper regulation enforcement in 2014.
In 2014 F1 cars will still have the 19th century concept layshaft stepped ratio gearboxes.
This fact alone will force the continued use of 'illegal' traction control application of the M/G on the crankshaft nose.
Without it driver control over deceleration and braking would be seriously compromised and tyre wear would be totaly uncontrolled.

[olefud]

I see some systematic in the FIA policy of preventing the blowing of aero devices with the engine. Particularly next year it will be very difficult to make the exhaust reach any aero device. On top the change to fuel controlled formula should make it difficult to waste fuel for downforce generation. Once you remove the artificial downforce from blown devices there is a lot less incentive to have the ICE and the electric motor work in opposite direction. Or am I missing something?

The new rules may –we’ll see- succeed in curtailing traction enhancement. But with diminished traction the advantage of traction control is at best an open question.

[Tommy Cookers]

...... Once you remove the artificial downforce from blown devices there is a lot less incentive to have the ICE and the electric motor work in opposite direction. Or am I missing something?

the ICE is then generating electricity for storage and re-use
so there is apparently little or nothing to lose by running the MGUK for wheelspin deterrence
the MGUK is much more capable in this regard than is the KERS
relatively its torque fall with rpm (for wheelspin's sudden/steep rpm increase) will be double or more
(as will any 'torque ripple' effect engineered)
always under the control of the ECU of course
the response to that control being essentially undefined and unmandated

[strad]

using the Kers M/G to prevent or reduce the tyres breaking traction IS a form of traction control.

Like that would stop them...I'm not saying they are, but we have a long history of ignoring such technicalities.
And thinking about it,,,With their Infinity connections it is entirely possible

[Gixxer750]

While it should be possible in principle to construct some sort of TC system using KERS in the fashion described above, it would also be illegal under the current technical regulations. The rule banning traction control states that : "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". A KERS/TC system would very clearly be in violation of that rule.

Also, the regulations on KERS states that its purpose is "to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking". Doing so at any other time would be in violation of the rules. Since the FIA have examined the RB9 and found it to be in compliance with the regulations, it is safe to conclude that it is not using the KERS/TC as suggested.

[autogyro]

Hmmm, strange problem again with Vettel's Kers in qualy today
Cost him pole.
Weber did OK though without the extra 6 tenths.
I wonder in what set up Vettels car was in when it was checked for illegal TL pre-race?
Red Bull seem to be having a lot of trouble with Kers over the last few days.
Their problems always seem to happen when the FIA do certain checks.

I bet the racing gets closer now towards the end of the season, I wonder why?

[Just_a_fan]

Sure Red Bull has a traction system. It's called having better downforce than anyone. It's quite simple.

[Neno]

Sure Red Bull has a traction system. It's called having better downforce than anyone. It's quite simple.

yeah right

[wesley123]

Sure Red Bull has a traction system. It's called having better downforce than anyone. It's quite simple.

yeah right

Because a illegal TC device is far more logical right than something that has been the case since 2010?

[Neno]

Sure Red Bull has a traction system. It's called having better downforce than anyone. It's quite simple.

yeah right

Because a illegal TC device is far more logical right than something that has been the case since 2010?

Yeah i believe they have it, it has nothing with downforce. their car works better in slow speed-mid corners then in highspeed corners. If they would have it they could run higher gears and make even bigger advantage but for some reason they not using higher revs.

In fact i dont believe they could have much bigger amount downforce then rest of f1 teams with this tight regulations. This "downforce" of their didnt get them win of neither aerodynamic tracks (spa is exception) . Their car operate much better in street gp races or i would say tracks where you break hard and go into 90 degrees corners (better say chikanes), tracks like Singapore, Monza. Two very different tracks, neither of them has anything similar with amount of downforce, yet Red Bull win both of them. On those tracks you can see their traction in work.

Downforce will do --- for you in low speed corner, traction will in other hand do everything for you on similar tracks. They dont say for nothing that in street races, smaller teams gets chance to get closer to top, close the gap. Instead of that, Red Bull increase their advantage.

So i will say again. Yeah right, it must be downforce

[fasterthanyou]

They have the best aero efficiency. Monza or Singapore, it won't make any difference.