I'm not sure I follow your math on the 3 changes per tenth, if it can help though, here another pic of the same throttle trace I already posted, for Vettel's Singapore pole lap, with widened time scale:
Incidentally, this talk about TC and throttle reminded me of a plot I have that might be interesting, published in mid 2008 on an Italian magazine (SportAutoMoto, not published anymore), a comparison of DAQ from Trulli's Toyota to show the changes between 2007 with TC (red) to 2008 without (black):
From the top the data are speed, accelerator pedal %, engine throttle %, steering angle, % rear slippage.
Differences are evident, in particular in how with TC Trulli went directly full pedal in the first corners while in 2008 he played with it lot more. The interesting bit though is that the throttle traces look actually rather similar so the driver was doing not bad job in "mimicking TC"...
Also worth noticing the automatic "blipping" in downshifts.
The above plot was accompanied by an interview with Marmorini:
It's interesting to work with these rules, some people were expecting new norms to expose big differences between drivers, those were disappointed. At the end of the day there isn't big difference between two teammates, both try to put down on ground as much power as possible. I would have liked to work with our ECU from last year coupled with a system without TC. We would have had lot more possibilities, the SECU is IMO too limited.
Q: Telemetry shows Trulli is using throttle in pretty much same way as electronics did…
Till last year, mid corner the driver would go full throttle and then it was electronics' job to adjust the power. Today that's back to driver, so his sensitivity is fundamental as going full throttle too early he would spin. With electronic management the 100% of the pedal wouldn't correspond to full throttle, but ECU would modulate the power delivery based on grip.
Our TC wasn't cutting ignition only, as that system, called "reactive", causes an increment of fuel consumption. If electronics was reading there wasn't enough grip to apply full power it would reduce engine throttle so to save fuel. It was working smartly via sensors on wheels recording the slippage, coupled with data recorded in maps. If the driver was going full throttle, the system would act based on the expected grip. That was a predictive system. If the system was measuring excessive slip in spite of the predictive control, then the reactive would act cutting ignition.
Q: But track conditions change during the race...
In fact the predictive system was continuously updated. If the reactive system was stepping in too often, it meant parameters of predictive had to be adjusted. Everything would happen under guidance of engineers in the pits that would tell via radio to the driver how to operate on steering wheel knobs. What the system wouldn't do autonomously we would do manually.
Q: Some electronic aids were removed, but some are maintained with the engine
Yes, we tame a bit the V8. When driver presses the pedal, the map helps him by smoothing the power delivery. That way the driver can be more aggressive without risking losing the car.
Throttle opening is way smoother so he can trust going on throttle without fear. Driveability is important and if engine's reaction was too brutal, Jarno and Timo couldn't lift off fast enough, they would just lose the car, period. Based on track's characteristics we define the maps to help driving. We can work on engine map or with the relationship pedal -> throttle.
Q: meaning that a given pedal % doesn't necessarily mean identical throttle %: you can set a wavy map, so that large pedal % corresponds to smaller % of throttle, while at higher speed maybe opposite happens?
Main thing is that 100% pedal corresponds to 100% throttle, that's imposed by rules. Today we have at max 5 maps to work with, one is for wet conditions.
