Vettel and traction control?

[Fonz]

MartG said:

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

If SB is riding his foot on the brakes whilst coming out of the corner would that activate the KERS ECU into thinking it was allowed to harvest? Surly if the driver is pressing the brake pedal at the same time as giving it some gas coming away from the corner then the car is "breaking", even if the data shows the speed to be climbing.

[mollytherocker]

bobt said:

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

This is the right question.

[Ennoch]

Remember back to '00 or '01 when TC was originally re-introduced to F1. It was done mid season but every team knew this was going to happen. All teams just left it for that time whereas Ferrari chose to develop a crude form of TC (and spent a lot of money doing so too) that bypassed the no-TC rule. It was crude, and they swapped to proper TC once the rules allowed, but the crucial factor is that it wasn't TC as far as the rulebook was concerned, and therefore it was legal. It's easy to imagine that RBR are doing something similar this year. Also, two points to note - if the rule is that something has to pass a test, and it does pass, then it's legal. End of. F1 is all about following the letter of the rule, not the spirit. It's a multi-million dollar sport, it has to be that. Sentimentality for gentlemanliness goes out of the window when money gets involved and, quite frankly, I've seen some more blatant rule breaking far lower down the ranks of motorsport than someone complaining about aero etc not being to the spirit of the rule. Ferrari in the past have done some brilliant outside the box thinking that has in effect allowed them to bypass rules, and in most recent instances where they've been vocal about other teams pushing the boundaries I can guarantee it's only because they're pissed that they didn't think of it first. Same for any team that complains. Remember that Charlie Whiting and the FIA sign off on the cars. He's the technical delegate and there are many documented instances over the years where he's been consulted about a planned aspect of a car over whether or not it is deemed to be legal. Plenty of instances too where originally legal items have been later deemed illegal. Where you're pushing the boundaries things aren't always black or white, there's an awful lot of interpretation involved too.

In this case people seem to miss the point that a) Vettel's a great driver even in non championship winning machinery (Imola for STR anyone?) and b) he's in a great car when perhaps some other great drivers are in cars that aren't necessarily the equal of their talents. Is he ultimately the most talented behind the wheel? Who knows, as without throwing every driver in the same car it's a difficult call to make. Also, various drivers will suit various cars (remember the Schumacher/Barrichelo years where the MS dominance varied depending on how RB's driving suited that year's car) so even in the same car it's a difficult call to make. Anyway, I digress. The ultimate talent of the driver is only showcased if he's in a car that's capable, to a greater or lesser extent, and therefore a hugely critical factor is a driver's ability to aid development of their car by conversing meaningfully with the engineers, and also bringing the team together. Schumacher was always great at this, and so to it seems is Vettel.

[anonymous-user]

mollytherocker said:

bobt said:

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

This is the right question.

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.

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 5th October 20:10

[mollytherocker]

jsf said:

mollytherocker said:

bobt said:

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

This is the right question.

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.

Imagine an 8 hour meeting with the best engineers and best legal minds present going through every word of that statement, defining the correct definition of every word and phrase. Even I can see that there are numerous holes in that definition.

And then taking actions away and meeting multiple times to design a system or systems to be legal that are not traction control.

This is what we are talking about.

[Jungles]

Fonz said:

If SB is riding his foot on the brakes whilst coming out of the corner would that activate the KERS ECU into thinking it was allowed to harvest? Surly if the driver is pressing the brake pedal at the same time as giving it some gas coming away from the corner then the car is "breaking", even if the data shows the speed to be climbing.

Three problems with this:

1. Applying the brakes, even slightly, while exiting a corner will compromise exit speed and therefore lap time. This is counter-productive to what the aim of what the driver is trying to do - minimise lap time!

2. The cost/benefit ratio doesn't make sense. KERS only contributes to around 0.1 to 0.4 seconds reduction in lap time. Riding your brakes out of a corner would surely cost a lot more lap time than the benefit.

3. This is the kicker: KERS doesn't work when the vehicle is accelerating. KERS energy is harvested by the brake rotors slowing down, not speeding up.

[Scuffers]

Jungles said:

Three problems with this:

1. Applying the brakes, even slightly, while exiting a corner will compromise exit speed and therefore lap time. This is counter-productive to what the aim of what the driver is trying to do - minimise lap time!

nope, remember the mclaren 3rd brake pedal?

Jungles said:

2. The cost/benefit ratio doesn't make sense. KERS only contributes to around 0.1 to 0.4 seconds reduction in lap time. Riding your brakes out of a corner would surely cost a lot more lap time than the benefit.

it's not about it's contribution, it's about using it as a brake to quell wheelspin (in much the same way DSP works on road cars)

Jungles said:

3. This is the kicker: KERS doesn't work when the vehicle is accelerating. KERS energy is harvested by the brake rotors slowing down, not speeding up.

but that's the point, your asking it to provide braking.

[Jungles]

Scuffers said:

nope, remember the mclaren 3rd brake pedal?

Fair enough, except the context is very different. Fonz was talking about applying the brake pedal in the conventional sense, not a second brake pedal designed only to act on the rear.

Scuffers said:

it's not about it's contribution, it's about using it as a brake to quell wheelspin (in much the same way DSP works on road cars)

All racing cars have brakes biased heavily toward the front. If you apply the brake on the exit of the corner, you're not just quelling excess wheelspin at the rear, you're much more severely applying the braking effect on the fronts.

With McLaren's second brake pedal, it was designed to brake only the rear wheels. And there is absolutely not a single whiff of evidence that Vettel (or any other driver) is using something like it, despite the fact that evidence should be extremely easy to obtain (eg. television overlays, FIA's unlimited telemetry access, photographs of cars, etc).

Scuffers said:

but that's the point, your asking it to provide braking.

Your reply makes no sense in the context of my reply to Fonz. He was talking about harvesting energy from applying brakes while accelerating out of corners. I'm pointing out that it is a scientifically unsound idea.

It appears to me that this talk about TC or TC-like tricks is founded on pure speculation to the point of nonsense. It's a serious accusation, which should only be levelled when backed up by equally substantial evidence. There are none so far. There is no distinctive TC-like noises on the exit of corners, no inexplicable pause in RPM acceleration uncorroborated by throttle manipulation, and no detection by the FIA who have unlimited access to real-time engine telemetry.

Edited by Jungles on Sunday 6th October 06:58

[Allyc85]

I think Sauber are running TC, its the only way the Hulk could get corner exits like that..

[Scuffers]

Jungles said:

All racing cars have brakes biased heavily toward the front.

rubbish.

most mid-engined race cars are pretty close to 50/50 static balance, would not surprise me if F1 were over that..

Look, I am not suggesting that RB are doing this, just that technically it's very possible to use KERS harvesting to achieve a form of TC.

[anonymous-user]

Jungles said:

All racing cars have brakes biased heavily toward the front. If you apply the brake on the exit of the corner, you're not just quelling excess wheelspin at the rear, you're much more severely applying the braking effect on the fronts.

They don't, most formula race cars have almost 50/50 brake bias, because there is more tyre grip at the back than the front, it's not unusual to run more brake bias to the rear than the front in the wet.

Jungles said:

With McLaren's second brake pedal, it was designed to brake only the rear wheels. And there is absolutely not a single whiff of evidence that Vettel (or any other driver) is using something like it, despite the fact that evidence should be extremely easy to obtain (eg. television overlays, FIA's unlimited telemetry access, photographs of cars, etc).

The McLaren 2nd brake pedal was used to aid turning the car, it worked in conjunction with a selector that chose either the left or right wheel to apply the brake effect to.

[defblade]

jsf said:

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

Rev counters and ears are banned then

[TonyToniTone]

Scuffers said:

most mid-engined race cars are pretty close to 50/50 static balance, would not surprise me if F1 were over that..

jsf said:

They don't, most formula race cars have almost 50/50 brake bias, because there is more tyre grip at the back than the front, it's not unusual to run more brake bias to the rear than the front in the wet.

I have heard Hill and Brundle on different occasions say the bias is towards the front under normal conditions.

f1 said:

Under normal operation about 60 percent of braking power goes to the front wheels which
http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/understanding_th...

[anonymous-user]

It varies from formula to formula, but its usually closer to 50/50 than 60/40 with a mid engine, larger rear tyred racecar.

[airbrakes]

Not sure if a repost, but it does appear RB have a very clever tc system via KERS:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/red-bulls-...

sneaky bds

[nsa]

jsf said:

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.

Edited by jsf on Saturday 5th October 20:10

Brakes are "capable of preventing the driven wheels..." I'd like to see brakes banned.

[Scuffers]

so, basically they are suggesting the same as I and others on this tread have already pointed out in this thread.

no evidence they are actually doing this though...

[Munter]

nsa said:

jsf said:

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.

Edited by jsf on Saturday 5th October 20:10

Brakes are "capable of preventing the driven wheels..." I'd like to see brakes banned.

Under power though? Which would win. The engine on full throttle or the brakes...

[Scuffers]

Munter said:

Under power though? Which would win. The engine on full throttle or the brakes...

depends on how long for...

I am sure the brakes are capable of stalling the engine, however, I doubt they could hold it back for more than a few seconds before being toast.

[John D.]

airbrakes said:

Not sure if a repost, but it does appear RB have a very clever tc system via KERS:

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/red-bulls-...

sneaky bds

TC or not it sounds like something that should be banned. Not in the spirit of the rules etc.

Please note I am not suggesting Red Bull have necessarily broken any rules here.