Less torque to reduce tyre wear?

[Stradivarius]

@Stradivarius
5.5.5 does not apply any longer after you reach 100% throttle pedal position, therefore 5.5.3 deals with this condition (and 0% throttle separate).
If you apply 100% accelerator pedal position and hold the pedal there, at let's say 14k rpm, and you only had 5.5.5. you could do what you like, reduce torque demand as you see fit while transitioning through the rpm range from 14-18k rpm,
because you don't increase accelerator pedal position after 14k rpm, so you are not longer governed by 5.5.5. under this condition, ergo you have no obligation to increase torque demand.

I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but if I interpret you correctly, you mean that if you hold the accelerator pedal at 100% starting from 14k rpm, article 5.5.3 won't allow any reduction in torque demand. Is that correct?

I don't think that this is the case. I don't really know at what engine speed the maximum torque is acchieved, but I am quite sure that it is at some engine speed lower than 18k rpm, which is the maximum engine speed allowed. There is nothing in the rules, as far as I can see, that prevents the torque demand to decrease with an increasing engine speed. In fact, article 5.5.6 specifically allows for a reduction of 0.030 Nm / rpm. This means that if you have, let's say 350 Nm at 14k rpm, the rules allow you to have 320 Nm at 15k rpm. This would be the result of a steady gradient of -0.030 Nm / rpm between 14k rpm and 15 k rpm.

But more importantly, article 5.5.5, doesn't say anything about any requirements to how the torque demand should vary when the engine speed changes. It only deals with how the torque demand should depend on the accelerator pedal travel position.

[hardingfv32]

...playing fast and loose with the intent of the rule.

What do you view as the intent of the rules under discussion. What words in the rules do you use to establish this intent. I 'honestly' can not see where it is implied anywhere.

I have assumed that this set of rules was created to control exhaust blowing. Now, I can imply this intent based on when and what was of concern when the rules were formulated. But if, as many say, this is about traction control then I do not see where the intent of these rules is coming from.

I would view RB as supporting the intent of the rules, controlling exhaust blowing, if all they were after was improved drivability...or traction control as many are incorrectly stating.

Brian

[Richard]

I agree with Brian, "intent" is irrelevant in the world of F1. All teams seek to get maximum advantage of the rules as written. All of them.

I wonder how many cars would be illegal if we started to consider "intent"? Front wings that pass the prescribed tests but look a bit floppy? Or how about a DRS that reveals an air duct? Exhaust bodywork that direct the flow downwards? I think that's nearly all cars banned. Perhaps HRT might get the WCC after all.

That's why Whiting issues technical memos to clarify the shades of grey as they are discovered. The fact those memos exist shows no rule can be perfect. That's how F1 is run and always will be run.

[gato azul]

I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but if I interpret you correctly, you mean that if you hold the accelerator pedal at 100% starting from 14k rpm, article 5.5.3 won't allow any reduction in torque demand. Is that correct?

It was in response to your statement that:

It seems to me that article 5.5.3 is not necessary, as it simply states two necessary consequences of article 5.5.5.

5.5.5: At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing
for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

This has to mean that at any engine speed, the maping must satisfy the simple condition that if you increase the accelerator pedal position, the torque demand map must also increase. There is no room for a situation were you obtain more (or equal) torque by lifting the pedal.

which I interpreted, maybe wrongly, in a way, that you say 5.5.3. is redundant, because 5.5.5. covers it already.

All I wanted to do, was show, a condition (max. accl. pedal position) after which 5.5.5. would not longer have any significance, and that therefore 5.5.3. is needed to deal with the two conditions, because 5.5.5. does not govern them.
that's all
The 14k rpm was just an example, you can make this 9, 12, 15k rpm whatever you like, it does not matter in the context.

[amc]

I think the intention of the rules in article 5.5 is mainly to prevent a 'traction control' system. This is because they are firstly only important when on-throttle, so 'off throttle exhaust blowing' is not affected, and secondly because article 5.6, particularly 5.6.6, and technical directive 036-11 are far more important when it comes to limiting the flow of 'hot' exhaust gases.

Here, 'traction control' is taken to mean any system that artificially limits output torque, regardless of its intent or effect.

Regulations In detail:
5.5.3 prevents you from limiting torque at full throttle when more is available. For example, your engine can produce 150Nm at 100% throttle and 16000 RPM. This rule stops you from limiting this to 130Nm to reduce the chance of wheelspin, and to avoid artificial high rev limits.

5.5.4 defines the way in which the relationship between throttle pedal travel and torque can change in different conditions. While the torque demand at 100% throttle must remain the same (5.6.3), you can change the curve so that a small twitch from 30-40% throttle coming out of a slow corner will not cause a slide in the wet, but will cause a noticeable increase in the dry.

5.5.5 means that for an increase in throttle - at any RPM level - there must also be an increase in torque. I think this is probably put in for the sake of it and won't affect much in terms of 'exhaust blowing' or performance.

5.5.6 is the interesting one. It was well explained previously: torque cannot suddenly drop either as a means of either limiting engine speed at high RPM or to become a traction control system.

All of these are new this year but I think their purpose is twofold overall - mainly to stop teams implementing a 'traction control' system (defined as above) - but also to stop teams artificially limiting engine RPM. I don't think they will have caused major changes from last year's engine maps.

A few pages ago I posted a link to an 'engine maps explanation' which shows diagrams of the types of engine maps in question. This might help understanding.

[hardingfv32]

Stradivarius / gato azul

Trying to follow your discussion and viewing 5.5.3 just raises some questions in my mind.

5.5.3: The maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed.....

1) What exactly is 'engine torque demand'? what is the significance of adding the word 'demand'. This is no accident.

2) How do you request 'greater than the maximum engine torque'? why would you expect to get 'greater than the maximum engine torque'. Again this wording is no accident.

Can you please expand?

Brian

[red300zx99]

1) in my opinion is false, traction control implies that there is some sort of logic that cuts down torque when wheelspin is detected, but goes to full power once the traction has regained

While I agree with the rest of your points I do not agree to this. Traction control has many many forms and many ways to implement it. And from a lawayers perspective not all TC cuts down torque when wheelspin is detected, some predict wheelspin and cuts down torque before it happens.

Honestly I find RBR to be on the legal side of TC in this case even though such a map implies that they are trying to manage their traction.

in my opinion for something to be called a traction control system, it has to have ability to act by itself, meaning it is an active system

Active is somewhat a fuzzy concept here too. All you need to do is add another variable such as speed and you'd still be 'passive' by just spitting out number from a lookup table.

So many different ways to implement a form of traction control

[hardingfv32]

I think the intention of the rules in article 5.5 is mainly to prevent a 'traction control' system. This is because they are firstly only important when on-throttle, so 'off throttle exhaust blowing' is not affected, and secondly because article 5.6, particularly 5.6.6, and technical directive 036-11 are far more important when it comes to limiting the flow of 'hot' exhaust gases.

Here, 'traction control' is taken to mean any system that artificially limits output torque, regardless of its intent or effect.

Regulations In detail:
5.5.3 prevents you from limiting torque at full throttle when more is available. For example, your engine can produce 150Nm at 100% throttle and 16000 RPM. This rule stops you from limiting this to 130Nm to reduce the chance of wheelspin, and to avoid artificial high rev limits.

But what clues lead you to claim 'traction control' intent when these rules were developed to control exhaust blowing at the end of last season. They clearly have successfully dealt with exhaust blowing. There was never any concern with 'traction control' last season.

Your are not being precise with your 5.5.3 statement. 5.5.3 says"maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand"... engine torque demand NOT engine torque.

Explanations of the difference in wording are welcome.

Brian

[Stradivarius]

I am not sure if I understand what you mean, but if I interpret you correctly, you mean that if you hold the accelerator pedal at 100% starting from 14k rpm, article 5.5.3 won't allow any reduction in torque demand. Is that correct?

It was in response to your statement that:

It seems to me that article 5.5.3 is not necessary, as it simply states two necessary consequences of article 5.5.5.

5.5.5: At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing
for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

This has to mean that at any engine speed, the maping must satisfy the simple condition that if you increase the accelerator pedal position, the torque demand map must also increase. There is no room for a situation were you obtain more (or equal) torque by lifting the pedal.

which I interpreted, maybe wrongly, in a way, that you say 5.5.3. is redundant, because 5.5.5. covers it already.

All I wanted to do, was show, a condition (max. accl. pedal position) after which 5.5.5. would not longer have any significance, and that therefore 5.5.3. is needed to deal with the two conditions, because 5.5.5. does not govern them.
that's all
The 14k rpm was just an example, you can make this 9, 12, 15k rpm whatever you like, it does not matter in the context.

I understand that 14k rpm was an arbitrarily chosen example. But I fail to see why you think that maximum pedal position isn't covered by 5.5.5. At any given engine speed, the torque demand will depend on the accelerator pedal position. This dependence has to be monotonically increasing, which means that the maximum accelerator pedal position must correspond to maximum torque demand. This must be the case for each and every engine speed. The fact that the engine torque demand will vary with a change in the engine speed is a totally different matter, which is not affected by either 5.5.3 or 5.5.5.

[hardingfv32]

So many different ways to implement a form of traction control

As stated earlier by someone else: The driver can blow through any of the torque reductions schemes being discussed here. The driver can not blow through an active traction control system.

We are discussing 'drivability' issues that have never been questioned before.

Brian

[red300zx99]

But what clues lead you to claim 'traction control' intent when these rules were developed to control exhaust blowing at the end of last season.

Simple really, the fact that at WOT torque has been reduced

[red300zx99]

So many different ways to implement a form of traction control

As stated earlier by someone else: The driver can blow through any of the torque reductions schemes being discussed here. The driver can not blow through an active traction control system.

We are discussing 'drivability' issues that have never been questioned before.

Brian

Blow through? Huh?

[turbof1]

So as predicted, FIA will tighten up the regulations:

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/101476

My question is: how much tenths a round roughly did the engine map gave at Hockenheim? Just to get a picture of how much they are about to loose.

[amc]

But what clues lead you to claim 'traction control' intent when these rules were developed to control exhaust blowing at the end of last season. They clearly have successfully dealt with exhaust blowing. There was never any concern with 'traction control' last season.

Your are not being precise with your 5.5.3 statement. 5.5.3 says"maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand"... engine torque demand NOT engine torque.

Explanations of the difference in wording are welcome.

Brian

OK:
Engine Torque: Measured twisting force on the output shaft of the engine. A real, measurable parameter.
Engine Torque Demand: Level of engine torque output when air becomes the limiting factor in the combustion in the cylinders. So basically it is maximum engine torque available at this throttle position.

Article 5.5 prevents traction control in the way that I defined it. Find your own definition of traction control and driveability and we will see what the regulations say in respect to these definitions.

EDIT: Here's another definition.
Maximum Output Torque: Level of engine torque output when the engine air intake is open 100%.

[hardingfv32]

Simple really, the fact that at WOT torque has been reduced

No, you are basing your rule 'intent' on what you think RB is trying to do. You must view the rules without reference to the RB issue. If you do that, then what do you use to establish 'intent' for the rules being discussed?

Brian