Vettel and traction control?

[longshot]

John D. said:

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.

Who knows what other teams are doing that you could consider to be not in the spirit of the rules too.

Put lots of clever people together and they will come up with ingenuis solutions to complex problems.
You're never going to stop that.
I don't think I'd want to either.

[valais]

longshot said:

Who knows what other teams are doing that you could consider to be not in the spirit of the rules too.

Put lots of clever people together and they will come up with ingenuis solutions to complex problems.
You're never going to stop that.
I don't think I'd want to either.

Well worth a read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24422038

[Agent Orange]

valais said:

Well worth a read:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24422038

Yep was very evident in Korea.

Quite clearly Sauber now have this "traction control" as Lewis found out when trying to get past Hukenberg in the last 10 or so laps of the race.

I like this article too. Red Bull clearly taking the piss and winding everyone up.
http://www.newsonf1.co.uk/2013/news/Oct/article_Re...

[heebeegeetee]

Where on earth is MGJohn? He's long overdue on here to tell how *all* of RB's success, all of it, is down to his man Vettel.

I mean, I know John is old 'cos he drives a Rover. Not ill, is he?

[MG CHRIS]

heebeegeetee said:

Where on earth is MGJohn? He's long overdue on here to tell how *all* of RB's success, all of it, is down to his man Vettel.

I mean, I know John is old 'cos he drives a Rover. Not ill, is he?

According to his post history hasn't posted anything since the beginning of September.

[mollytherocker]

MG CHRIS said:

According to his post history hasn't posted anything since the beginning of September.

Yeh, the 9th. Maybe hes on holiday?

[MG CHRIS]

mollytherocker said:

MG CHRIS said:

According to his post history hasn't posted anything since the beginning of September.

Yeh, the 9th. Maybe hes on holiday?

Would be nice to have a holiday for 1 month will see if he has posted on the mg forums he is on.

He is active on the mg forums today mayby he has enough of this place and cant be arsed to deal with the idiots on here.

Edited by MG CHRIS on Tuesday 8th October 22:21

[Some Gump]

Stalkers much? People are entitled to their opinion either way and I'm not sure why there is what looks like a personal attack going on.

For the record, i don't know which "side" of the arguement MGJohn is on. Personally, i'm on the "sceptic but if true I don't like it" side of the fence...

[fatbutt]

Assuming its an electric KERS surely one way to limit/ reduce torque at the wheels is to set the electric motor at a slower speed than the wheels and raise the torque in the electric motor? The motor will act as a brake - we do this kind of thing all the time on drive systems for big masses like carousels. If you set an electric motor to zero rotation, max torque the motor will act like a brake throwing all its power into not moving.

[wildman0609]

fatbutt said:

Assuming its an electric KERS surely one way to limit/ reduce torque at the wheels is to set the electric motor at a slower speed than the wheels and raise the torque in the electric motor? The motor will act as a brake - we do this kind of thing all the time on drive systems for big masses like carousels. If you set an electric motor to zero rotation, max torque the motor will act like a brake throwing all its power into not moving.

with the added benefit of harvesting more energy to top up the KERS system

[McClure]

If true, whilst I applaud the creativity and technology, this kind of thing annoys me about F1. No TC should mean no TC, not some overly-technical [adenoids] oh yes but this is an open loop system, it is closed-loop systems that are banned [/adenoids] rubbish. IMO this is no better than Benneton.

[valais]

McClure said:

If true, whilst I applaud the creativity and technology, this kind of thing annoys me about F1. No TC should mean no TC, not some overly-technical [adenoids] oh yes but this is an open loop system, it is closed-loop systems that are banned [/adenoids] rubbish. IMO this is no better than Benneton.

It's very different, because it is legal.

[mollytherocker]

valais said:

McClure said:

If true, whilst I applaud the creativity and technology, this kind of thing annoys me about F1. No TC should mean no TC, not some overly-technical [adenoids] oh yes but this is an open loop system, it is closed-loop systems that are banned [/adenoids] rubbish. IMO this is no better than Benneton.

It's very different, because it is legal.

And its not TC.

[valais]

mollytherocker said:

And its not TC.

And I would guess that Saubers is as good, if not better - they just don't have the rest of the car to match. Look at their ability to manage long stints, and the pickup from slow corners in the last race.

Anyhow, it's all legal. Next year someone will find a bunch of other clever stuff within the new regs. Some will be made illegal, others with be allowed and teams will play catch up.

And so the cycle begins again...

[mollytherocker]

valais said:

And I would guess that Saubers is as good, if not better - they just don't have the rest of the car to match. Look at their ability to manage long stints, and the pickup from slow corners in the last race.

Anyhow, it's all legal. Next year someone will find a bunch of other clever stuff within the new regs. Some will be made illegal, others with be allowed and teams will play catch up.

And so the cycle begins again...

Indeed, and its pretty much the core of F1. If you are not being creative, you are nowhere.

[McClure]

mollytherocker said:

valais said:

McClure said:

If true, whilst I applaud the creativity and technology, this kind of thing annoys me about F1. No TC should mean no TC, not some overly-technical [adenoids] oh yes but this is an open loop system, it is closed-loop systems that are banned [/adenoids] rubbish. IMO this is no better than Benneton.

It's very different, because it is legal.

And its not TC.

Semantics. Is the net effect not the reduction in the loss of traction when accelerating?

[mollytherocker]

McClure said:

Semantics. Is the net effect not the reduction in the loss of traction when accelerating?

The FIA dont class it as TC and that is the only thing that matters.

[spitfire4v8]

With all this talk about kers .. how does that make the engine sound like a four cylinder engine? Is it not just the case that the engine is effectively 2 four cylinder engines? With pneumatically operated valves it would be very easy to have a valve event phase change so each bank is 2 big bang four cylinder engines thus giving extended tyre recovery time between firing intervals, it's still an 8 cylinder engine just with 2 cylinders firing at any one time per bank?

[Scuffers]

spitfire4v8 said:

With all this talk about kers .. how does that make the engine sound like a four cylinder engine? Is it not just the case that the engine is effectively 2 four cylinder engines? With pneumatically operated valves it would be very easy to have a valve event phase change so each bank is 2 big bang four cylinder engines thus giving extended tyre recovery time between firing intervals, it's still an 8 cylinder engine just with 2 cylinders firing at any one time per bank?

think your under the miss-apprehension that pneumatically valves are opened with air, they are not.

the air part is just to shut the vales, ie. they replace valve springs, the engines still use a cam to open the valves, and as variable valve timing/lift is banned, you can't suddenly turn the engines firing sequence around.

[RemarkLima]

Scuffers said:

spitfire4v8 said:

With all this talk about kers .. how does that make the engine sound like a four cylinder engine? Is it not just the case that the engine is effectively 2 four cylinder engines? With pneumatically operated valves it would be very easy to have a valve event phase change so each bank is 2 big bang four cylinder engines thus giving extended tyre recovery time between firing intervals, it's still an 8 cylinder engine just with 2 cylinders firing at any one time per bank?

think your under the miss-apprehension that pneumatically valves are opened with air, they are not.

the air part is just to shut the vales, ie. they replace valve springs, the engines still use a cam to open the valves, and as variable valve timing/lift is banned, you can't suddenly turn the engines firing sequence around.

However, you can just not inject fuel and / or fire a spark into 4 of the 8 cylinders during a revolution.

IIRC RB / Renault are allowed to go to 4 cylinders, citing reliability as the reason.