Vettel and traction control?

[Composite Guru]

A Scotsman said:

Now this would seem to be an admission of something..

http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2013/news/Oct/article_Re...

Is it illegal? If not then carry on.

[A Scotsman]

Composite Guru said:

A Scotsman said:

Now this would seem to be an admission of something..

http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2013/news/Oct/article_Re...

Is it illegal? If not then carry on.

If traction control is illegal then surely mimicking traction control is also illegal.

[BaronVonVaderham]

Composite Guru said:

A Scotsman said:

Now this would seem to be an admission of something..

http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2013/news/Oct/article_Re...

Is it illegal? If not then carry on.

It clearly is because it is traction control no matter what the mechanism is that achieves it.

RBR fanboy much?

[OlberJ]

That's it, ban accelerator pedals too while you are at it.

We'll have an on/off button for the throttle.

[anonymous-user]

There is an interesting article in this months Racecar Engineering that suggests Red Bull are using the Kers system as a form of traction control. Sadly if you want to find out more you'll have to buy the magazine because its too complicated for me to try and explain.

[Degner]

A Scotsman said:

If traction control is illegal then surely mimicking traction control is also illegal.

I don't think so. Diff maps are allowed, and that's all about controlling traction as best as possible.

[Composite Guru]

BaronVonVaderham said:

It clearly is because it is traction control no matter what the mechanism is that achieves it.

RBR fanboy much?

Best team out there!!

Clearly keeping the FIA on their toes!!

[scrwright]

Are they allowed to do KERS harvesting whenever they like? I suppose heavy charging of the batteries when at full throttle in gear 1 or 2 would have a useful torque eating side effects

[MartG]

scrwright said:

Are they allowed to do KERS harvesting whenever they like? I suppose heavy charging of the batteries when at full throttle in gear 1 or 2 would have a useful torque eating side effects

Only allowed under braking

[Bebee]

There's only one way to get to the bottom of this, bend his right index finger until he confesses.

[Henry Fiddleton]

Bebee said:

There's only one way to get to the bottom of this, bend his right index finger until he confesses.

Lol

Vettle "Nein! Anything buy my finger!"

[jbudgie]

vonuber said:

jbudgie said:

You really are a bit of a Red Bull fan aren't you .

Nope, no really. Have always been a bit of Ferrari fan tbh. But that's besides the point; care to refute to what I wrote rather than putting in childish smilies?

Why the 'dig' at Mclaren , is it just Herr Vettel that gets you excited then. ?

[gwm]

Composite Guru said:

Clearly keeping the FIA on their toes!!

Haha, nice!

If what RBR are doing is not illegal then fair play.

[VolvoT5]

They are (most likely?) running some incredibly smart systems thought up by the best designer(s) to produce an effect similar to traction control (probably not as good), but stay within the letter of the rules. The other teams have not caught on to this idea and are now coming up with a load of innuendo about car legality without actually offering any hard evidence. This all seems like sour grapes to me.

If Redbull were doing anything clearly illegal then surely they would have been caught out by now....... and the other teams know it; they are being smashed to bits by an incredibly well funded/managed/disciplined team combined with a highly talented and consistent driver...... and they hate it.

I think what winds people up even more is Vettel is perceived as being heir to Michael Schumacher; German, arrogant and unrelentingly dominant. Then there is Christian Horner who comes across as a complete plonker in most interviews.

I suspect if this was a more likeable team/driver combo dominating none of these rumours would be flying around...... if it were Lewis, Alonso or Kimi people would be praising them to the hilt.

[A Scotsman]

VolvoT5 said:

If Redbull were doing anything clearly illegal then surely they would have been caught out by now....... and the other teams know it; they are being smashed to bits by an incredibly well funded/managed/disciplined team combined with a highly talented and consistent driver...... and they hate it.

One small problem with this. If Vettel is so highly talented then why would he need all these gizmos to help him win?

[Some Gump]

Imo it's the classic conundrum - which rule do you follow.

In my karing career, the rules of cadet were no tuning - but blueprinting was ok (taking to spec). One rule was "exhaust ports must remain as cast". In a club meeting, if you turned up with a tuned exhaust you'd be quite rightly excluded - thats tuned, and not as cast. In super 1 (uk champs), the rule was interpreted differently - exhaust ports must remain. As cast, this will be checked by a circular port radius x.
The ports were oval - so the national boys would square them off, but keep them narrow enough to not have the gauge pass. They were therefore shown to be legal - they pass the test. They also completely,without question contravene the previous 2 rules of as cast and no tuning.

Now, pass to f1. Bodywork must be flexible. Fromt wings cannot deflect more than x. Despite rb clearly, photographically contravening the rule, they pass the static test.F1 say keep at it.
Now,they have some form of TC. tC is banned.however, it's fine by the F1 gaffers, presumably because without RB they don't have a grid (lose 4 RB cars and accept 3 teams are financially struggling, and all of a sudden you have nothing). It smacks of bks.

Now, i expect people will reply saying that innovation / interpretation of the rules is clever and should be applauded. I agree. However, when lotus / renault's brake pressure / ride height system was conceived, they called it out on "active suspension". It was driver controlled. When Beneton / renault came up with the tuned mass damer, it was active aero (really? Compared to elastic front nose structures??).

I don't mind which version F1 choses to follow - letter or spirit. However, it pises me off somewhat that the rules seem to be interpreted to suit bernie's agenda (e.g to keep a german winning). I accept red bull's collective ability to ,create some really clever, unbanned st - but only if e.g the enstone oys can take equal liberties in interpretation.

[mollytherocker]

Nobody's stopping them.

[Jungles]

Some Gump said:

Now, pass to f1. Bodywork must be flexible. Fromt wings cannot deflect more than x. Despite rb clearly, photographically contravening the rule, they pass the static test.F1 say keep at it.

Actually, the rules say (and said) that the front wings cannot deflect more than X under Y parameters. RBR complied with those rules. Team still complained. FIA revised the rules to make it more robust. RBR still complied. Rightfully, it is no longer an issue in the paddock.

Some Gump said:

Now,they have some form of TC.

There is no substantiated evidence that this is true. All we have is a comment from Minardi (whose opinion on this matter isn't really worth a great deal), Hamilton playing mind games (as expected), and an all-too-eager F1 press looking for stories to stir the pot (because you know, they actually make money from this).

Clearly, RBR does have a traction advantage. Whether this is due to TC or a TC-like trick, remains to be seen. There has been nothing but half-assed stabbing in the dark so far.

[bobt]

So what is the definition of traction control according to the F1 rule book?

[Jasandjules]

The car just looks beautifully planted to me.