Vettel and traction control?
Discussion
mollytherocker said:
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.Unless you want to go to stock engines, chassis and all control systems, it will always happen.
But to be clear, Red Bull are not, based on any inspection to date, cheating. It is not an "option 13" moment
You might also like to ask how Sauber could out perform so many cars given their start of season pace.
And how Ferrari manage such starts.
Or Lotus manage such long run stability.
RemarkLima said:
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.
that's not what he was suggesting, he was saying to fire two cylinders at the same time, ie, changing the firing order...IIRC RB / Renault are allowed to go to 4 cylinders, citing reliability as the reason.
cylinder de-activation has been part of F1 for years, it's one of the ways they stopped the cars overheating whilst standing still by dropping to 4 cyls.
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.
spitfire4v8 said:
ah thats a shame then .. would have been how I would have thought about it .. didn't realise they still used a mechanical lift system. Could it still be done somehow though with a mechanical multiple cam lobe system i wonder? it could explain the 4 cylinder engine note, and give the extended tyre recovery time to give better traction ..
it's possible, but banned.you can run one as 4 cyl just by cutting spark/fuel to the other 4, but unlike road cars, if your still opening/closing the valves, you will have the pumping looses to deal with - which in this context might actually help!
Scuffers said:
it's possible, but banned.
you can run one as 4 cyl just by cutting spark/fuel to the other 4, but unlike road cars, if your still opening/closing the valves, you will have the pumping looses to deal with - which in this context might actually help!
I've always been struck on this forum by your knowledge of all things mechanical... What's your background?you can run one as 4 cyl just by cutting spark/fuel to the other 4, but unlike road cars, if your still opening/closing the valves, you will have the pumping looses to deal with - which in this context might actually help!
epom said:
Cheating ?? perhaps he's just talented?? Though having said that if they can get away with such a system and no one can find it...
The car has been inspected umpteen times. With new systems they will (often) inform the FIA technical delegate and explain how it works. He then deems the car legal or not legal. Some systems get outlawed before they are introduced, but that saves a whole but of dev costs.Advanced systems take 12-18-24 months to perfect.
The other teams probably know exactly what it is, they just haven't got time to play catchup.
valais said:
Semantics are everything when it comes to the rules. Very precise meanings, grey areas are maximised for competitive advantage.
Unless you want to go to stock engines, chassis and all control systems, it will always happen.
But to be clear, Red Bull are not, based on any inspection to date, cheating. It is not an "option 13" moment
You might also like to ask how Sauber could out perform so many cars given their start of season pace.
And how Ferrari manage such starts.
Or Lotus manage such long run stability.
You make some good points. Several, if not all teams are using a form of traction control for various purposes, quite legally as things are. I don't accept it isn't traction control, there is only one purpose of these systems- to control traction. Unless you want to go to stock engines, chassis and all control systems, it will always happen.
But to be clear, Red Bull are not, based on any inspection to date, cheating. It is not an "option 13" moment
You might also like to ask how Sauber could out perform so many cars given their start of season pace.
And how Ferrari manage such starts.
Or Lotus manage such long run stability.
What annoys me is that when TC was banned, it was to make the spectacle better for the punter who could marvel at the ability of the better drivers as they mastered hundreds of horsepower. Now none of that is true, they all have assistance of one form or another.
Coupled with chocolate tyres and overtaking gimmicks, it's hard to know how good any of the drivers are.
That has always been the case with F1 though. It's not the best driver, it's the driver most suited to the team and the car they can build just within the rules.
That is what F1 is and always has been.
It's the whole package.
That's why i always maintain the best driver in the world might not be on an F1 grid, they could be anywhere.
That is what F1 is and always has been.
It's the whole package.
That's why i always maintain the best driver in the world might not be on an F1 grid, they could be anywhere.
REALIST123 said:
I don't accept it isn't traction control, there is only one purpose of these systems- to control traction.
Thats very interesting but your view (or mine) is irrelevant!The FIA deem whatever it is they are doing do not contravene any of the rules.
Edited by mollytherocker on Wednesday 9th October 18:53
:P
mollytherocker said:
REALIST123 said:
I don't accept it isn't traction control, there is only one purpose of these systems- to control traction.
Thats very interesting but your view (or mine) is irrelevant!The FIA deem whatever it is they are doing do not contravene any of the rules.
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 torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.
Then depending on how the system is programmed it may not be illegal.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 torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.
The wording says the car may not have a device or system which compensates for excessive torque demand. If you were to program the system in line with the Racecar Engineering theory of using damper loading, then potentially you could calculate how much torque you could usefully deploy and prevent the driver demanding any more than that by changing throttle pedal mapping. Therefore the driver has not demanded excessive torque and the system is not controlling any wheel spin from that excessive torque.
However, all that said, I think it is much more likely the rear aero of the Red Bull, by ducting the air from the sides of the car through a hole, and giving the exhaust gas a ramp to flow down torwards the diffuser, means they have a *lot* more rear downforce. This theory comes from Sauber's traction advantage, and Lotus's ability to look after its tyres, and both of those teams run a similar rear body work to RB.
Megaflow said:
However, all that said, I think it is much more likely the rear aero of the Red Bull, by ducting the air from the sides of the car through a hole, and giving the exhaust gas a ramp to flow down torwards the diffuser, means they have a *lot* more rear downforce.
somebody want to put a figure on this?just how man N are we talking about?
Scuffers said:
Megaflow said:
However, all that said, I think it is much more likely the rear aero of the Red Bull, by ducting the air from the sides of the car through a hole, and giving the exhaust gas a ramp to flow down torwards the diffuser, means they have a *lot* more rear downforce.
somebody want to put a figure on this?just how man N are we talking about?
The second half of that season, most (especially RBR) had caught up and were passing Brawn. The first half, Button or Barrichello would just disappear off into the distance and win the race pretty much in the same vein as Vettel currently - If I recall correctly, t'was a while back.
So, given "a shed load" more rear downforce it's an easy win, right?
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff