Jump to content


Photo

EBD ban - turning point in the season?


  • Please log in to reply
55 replies to this topic

#1 BalazsF1

BalazsF1
  • Member

  • 1,019 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 31 May 2011 - 21:48

I have been reading a lot of articles about the possible ban of the special engine mapping. Somebody says Renault has the biggest benefit from it using 95 per cent og the gases, while Red BUll about 45 %.
SOme journalist claim it will destroy Red Bull's superb qualifying pace.
Sometimes I think it will bring a McLaren-era and sometimes I think it won't have any effect, because Newey will come up with a new idea which he will suprise everyone again.


Advertisement

#2 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 May 2011 - 21:57

I think Ferrari and McL will be extremely fortunate if EBDs are banned in the middle of the season. It's basically outrageous that such a major change in the rules could be implemented in the middle of a season (certainly at least when they so obviously could have been implemented before the start of the season rather than in the middle of one). However, I think the very reason it is outrageous is the reason it might be implemented -- implementing it will artificially reverse Red Bull's advantage and reinstate the status-quo (i.e. the teams that are "supposed" to win will be artificially boosted). If the FIA banned it at the end of the season then they would not achieve their objective (of handicapping Red Bull) because Newey would do his usual being better than everyone else at adapting to rule changes. The reason it is different in the middle of the season is that there is only a much more finite amount of adaptation possible where the teams are restricted to working with the chassis the already have.

#3 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 31 May 2011 - 21:59

It could be, just like the mass-dampers from 2006, but I have my doubts. I think the Red Bull will still be the best car.

#4 handel

handel
  • Member

  • 413 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 31 May 2011 - 22:15

Just thinking, Williams looked good at Monaco... and they're one of the few teams without the EBD. By far and away the most competitive of those as well...

Edited by handel, 31 May 2011 - 22:15.


#5 bauss

bauss
  • Member

  • 4,927 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 31 May 2011 - 22:19

the Red Bull high speed grip wont disappear... but yea, it could put teams like Williams into more play for points.

#6 revmeister

revmeister
  • Member

  • 213 posts
  • Joined: December 02

Posted 31 May 2011 - 22:20

It would be bad for business if the championship were to be decided by the end of June, so something must be done to handicap Red Bull. EBD restriction seems like the perfect way to go about it.


#7 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,987 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 31 May 2011 - 22:30

I think Ferrari and McL will be extremely fortunate if EBDs are banned in the middle of the season. It's basically outrageous that such a major change in the rules could be implemented in the middle of a season (certainly at least when they so obviously could have been implemented before the start of the season rather than in the middle of one). However, I think the very reason it is outrageous is the reason it might be implemented -- implementing it will artificially reverse Red Bull's advantage and reinstate the status-quo (i.e. the teams that are "supposed" to win will be artificially boosted). If the FIA banned it at the end of the season then they would not achieve their objective (of handicapping Red Bull) because Newey would do his usual being better than everyone else at adapting to rule changes. The reason it is different in the middle of the season is that there is only a much more finite amount of adaptation possible where the teams are restricted to working with the chassis the already have.


The reason is that it's not a change of the rules.

It's a change in interpretation of the rules by the F1 Technical Department.

#8 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,822 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 31 May 2011 - 22:52

I would be very disappointed if "off throttle downforce" is banned even if it might benefit Ferrari or make the championship closer. Red Bull have built a monster car so let them be. Mid season rule changes or changes in interpretation is not the way a championship should be won or lost.

#9 KoezhVukotic

KoezhVukotic
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:01

I would be very disappointed if "off throttle downforce" is banned even if it might benefit Ferrari or make the championship closer. Red Bull have built a monster car so let them be. Mid season rule changes or changes in interpretation is not the way a championship should be won or lost.

Why not? It worked in 03.

#10 Ferrari2183

Ferrari2183
  • Member

  • 8,822 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:17

Why not? It worked in 03.

Have I missed something? All the regulation changes of '03 happened before the season started. One lap quali, point system, additional friday testing in exchange for less in season testing...

#11 BennyJohnson

BennyJohnson
  • Member

  • 656 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:21

Have I missed something? All the regulation changes of '03 happened before the season started. One lap quali, point system, additional friday testing in exchange for less in season testing...


I think there is a common misconception that the off-throttle blown diffuser is going to hinder Red Bull more than other teams, and from everything I've seen, I don't see it happening.

I saw an article about Red Bull relying 40% on off-throttle gases to help their diffuser generate downforce, McLaren and Ferrari are somewhere around 70% and Renault are around 95%.

If that's true, Red Bull will be aided by the ban.

Also, CH doesn't seem to bothered about it, he seems to just say "if they ban it, we'll accept that and move on", he's not protesting like Renault and other teams seem to be.

#12 karlth

karlth
  • Member

  • 16,231 posts
  • Joined: August 99

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:26

Have I missed something? All the regulation changes of '03 happened before the season started. One lap quali, point system, additional friday testing in exchange for less in season testing...


http://indiaabroad.c...3/sep/03fer.htm




#13 KoezhVukotic

KoezhVukotic
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:27

Have I missed something? All the regulation changes of '03 happened before the season started. One lap quali, point system, additional friday testing in exchange for less in season testing...

Michelin's tyres were protested by Bridgestone part way through 03, having been in use since 01 and they had to change them to a less effective tyre, making it easier for MSC to get championship number 6

http://www.f1fanatic...ichelin-denied/

paragraphs 8-9

#14 2ms

2ms
  • Member

  • 2,212 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:30

Just thinking, Williams looked good at Monaco... and they're one of the few teams without the EBD. By far and away the most competitive of those as well...


This is something I hadn't thought of and actually makes me more sympathetic to the "change in interpretation". I'm sympathetic to Williams and Cosworth if they are only not able to do EBD because of their more limited resources. I don't like the idea of a team being handicapped by the fact that they don't have the engine of a wealthy engine manufacturer who has the resources to do things that Cosworth does not. This, in effect, is like the engines not being frozen.

But I still thinks it'd be very regretable for all the other teams (most obviously Renault) to have invested in EBD tech only to suddenly have it yanked out from under them 6 races into the season. It was so obvious that this tech has been being used by the teams going back all the way to around Hungary last year (e.g. the dramatic new sound the McLs were making suddenly). It should have been sorted BEFORE the season, not after everyone has designed their cars.

#15 CaptainJackSparrow

CaptainJackSparrow
  • Member

  • 2,368 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:31

The powers that be want to change the playing field. Blame Red Bull running away with the title.

Still, it's downright unfair, and it almost puts me off F1 tbh.

Edited by CaptainJackSparrow, 31 May 2011 - 23:32.


#16 Sevach

Sevach
  • Member

  • 966 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 31 May 2011 - 23:32

Ferrari and Mclaren have the same type of EBD that RBR has.
There might be some changes in the balance of power between those teams, but i believe RBR will still be ahead.

I think Renault will suffer (the car is pretty much based on the diffuser concept), Mercedes and Williams might profit from it.


All this is just hunches however, no evidence whatsoever, i might be horribly wrong.

Edited by Sevach, 31 May 2011 - 23:34.


#17 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 June 2011 - 00:09

I don't think changes to the rules that deal only with the off-throttle overrun, in themselves, will hurt RBR much more than the other leading teams.

Their biggest advantage has been in the faster corners and this was most visible in Turkey T8 and Barcelona T3 and T9. These corners are, of course, very much on-throttle. With that said balancing a car with massive on-throttle downforce with a newly imposed restriction on the overrun would not be easy but that goes for everyone.

I wholeheartedly disagree with 'changing' rules (or their interpretation) mid-season and hope the TWG say that it is not feasible to do so.

#18 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 3,556 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 00:38

Just like banning Mclarens second brake pedal

Like banning Michelins tyre

Like banning the mass damper

It happens.

#19 Morbus

Morbus
  • Member

  • 438 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 00:48

Of course it happens. They killed off Lotus with such a move after all. It's in the blood of the sport.

Then again, drivers dying is also in the blood of the sport. And cheating. Let's not embrace that.

Advertisement

#20 Spa One

Spa One
  • Member

  • 344 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 00:52


I don't think it would take much to get the McLaren ahead of the Redbulls. In my opinion the McLaren is now the faster race car, with Redbull having the single lap quali advantage. So take 2-3 tenths of Redbull and it's possible that McLaren may be the new team to beat.


Edited by Spa One, 01 June 2011 - 11:52.


#21 Sardukar

Sardukar
  • Member

  • 432 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 00:59

sam michael did an interview with onehd which was shown before the race, and he said williams are running it

#22 ClubmanGT

ClubmanGT
  • Member

  • 1,191 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 01 June 2011 - 01:27

And to think they could have just cracked down on the visibly flexing wings like they did with Toyota...

#23 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 5,944 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:11

I don't think it would take much to get the McLaren ahead of the Redbulls. In my opinion the McLaren is now the faster race car, with Redbull having the single lap quali advantage. So take 2-3 tenths of Redbull and it's possible that McLaren may be the new team to beat.

I also think it's a bit ridiculous banning EBDs mid year.


Yes but you can't discount strategy in the year of the banana peel tyres. RBR remains the team to beat not only because of its qually advantage (and that advantage is further augmented by the drivers RBR happens to have) that sets it in front at race start, but also due to their in race RB7 package combined with their strategy (again, augmented by drivers that make it work).

RB did not win either of the last two Sundays because it was the fastest car. It got into the lead on strategy and held it on sheer sweat and guts (even if you only count Monaco to lap 70)


#24 Totza

Totza
  • Member

  • 453 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:16

Yes but you can't discount strategy in the year of the banana peel tyres. RBR remains the team to beat not only because of its qually advantage (and that advantage is further augmented by the drivers RBR happens to have) that sets it in front at race start, but also due to their in race RB7 package combined with their strategy (again, augmented by drivers that make it work).

RB did not win either of the last two Sundays because it was the fastest car. It got into the lead on strategy and held it on sheer sweat and guts (even if you only count Monaco to lap 70)

And massive amounts of luck rofl, pitstop wrong tyres put on Vettels car, but turns out that was the best strategy.

#25 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 1,397 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:29

Killing off EBD is FIA making certain that the RB/Vettel win the WDC again

#26 Starish

Starish
  • Member

  • 985 posts
  • Joined: January 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 03:50

Just thinking, Williams looked good at Monaco... and they're one of the few teams without the EBD. By far and away the most competitive of those as well...


Williams has an EBD just that its shit and they can't get it to work like the top teams or even Team Lotus standards. Mercedes run and EBF and Renault an FEE.

#27 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 06:27

Wow, what a pretty bag of misconceptions and misinformation this thread is :love:

Last time I checked they were about to limit off-throttle usage of exhaust gases, not ban EBDs .... and these are two completely different things, yet everyone here seems to be convinced that EBD will be banned altogether. Secondly, we can't say who benefits the most (and therefore will suffer most) from off-throttle gases simply by looking at some numbers (pulled out of thin air) from some article. It's not that simple. Finally, some people seem to think that Williams will benefit the most from banning EBDs, because they don't have one ..... wtf??!! Of course they have, just like pretty much everyone except Hispania (even Virgin tested their not so long ago, I don't know if they're racing it or not). Tip of the day: Read, then post, not the other way round.

#28 CaptnMark

CaptnMark
  • Member

  • 1,011 posts
  • Joined: March 99

Posted 01 June 2011 - 06:44

Anything that cracks down on aero is a good thing.

#29 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,987 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 01 June 2011 - 07:54

Anything that cracks down on aero is a good thing.


But the EBD gives the cars downforce which doesn't fall off in turbulence. Getting rid of it is surely a bad thing in this instance ?

#30 Ali_G

Ali_G
  • Member

  • 17,987 posts
  • Joined: August 00

Posted 01 June 2011 - 07:55

Killing off EBD is FIA making certain that the RB/Vettel win the WDC again


You haven't been reading a single thing in this thread have you.

#31 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,415 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 07:56

turning point in the season???

seasons over!!

#32 ZuTiMa

ZuTiMa
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 08:08

Wow, what a pretty bag of misconceptions and misinformation this thread is :love:

Last time I checked they were about to limit off-throttle usage of exhaust gases, not ban EBDs .... and these are two completely different things, yet everyone here seems to be convinced that EBD will be banned altogether. Secondly, we can't say who benefits the most (and therefore will suffer most) from off-throttle gases simply by looking at some numbers (pulled out of thin air) from some article. It's not that simple. Finally, some people seem to think that Williams will benefit the most from banning EBDs, because they don't have one ..... wtf??!! Of course they have, just like pretty much everyone except Hispania (even Virgin tested their not so long ago, I don't know if they're racing it or not). Tip of the day: Read, then post, not the other way round.


TURU ........... agree 100% .... people getting the issue wrong..... like you said its about the engine mapping in off throttle corners where fuel are being burned in the exhaust resulting in exhaust gas flow over the EBD creating extra down-force in corners when off throttle.. you can hear the difference in engine sound when the cars are in a off throttle situation... its makes a deep growling sound

#33 DILLIGAF

DILLIGAF
  • Member

  • 3,107 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:14

TURU ........... agree 100% .... people getting the issue wrong..... like you said its about the engine mapping in off throttle corners where fuel are being burned in the exhaust resulting in exhaust gas flow over the EBD creating extra down-force in corners when off throttle.. you can hear the difference in engine sound when the cars are in a off throttle situation... its makes a deep growling sound


Yep. Thread title should be changed.

#34 Nobody

Nobody
  • Member

  • 1,397 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:21

You haven't been reading a single thing in this thread have you.


No, what for?

#35 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:40

Michelin's tyres were protested by Bridgestone part way through 03, having been in use since 01 and they had to change them to a less effective tyre, making it easier for MSC to get championship number 6

http://www.f1fanatic...ichelin-denied/

paragraphs 8-9

Did you follow the championship live back then or have just read some internet crap in the following years?

#36 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:48

I can't remember if the RB5 ever had an exhaust blown diffuser or not, it certainly didn't have the crazy off throttle mapping. I also can't remember if the RB6 had the off throttle mapping until later on, I think it had it from the start. But if it didn't, it was dominant without it and with it in qualifying.

I think I'm just gonna have to wait and see what the effects are...cos I don't really know. :stoned:



#37 TURU

TURU
  • Member

  • 2,786 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 09:54

I also can't remember if the RB6 had the off throttle mapping until later on, I think it had it from the start. But if it didn't, it was dominant without it and with it in qualifying.


It didn't. They had to play with the throttle. Webber was very good at it and this helped him beat Vettel a few times in the first half of the season. They introduced these mapps in Valencia or Silverstone (or somewhere around these) and since then Vettel had the edge.

#38 KoezhVukotic

KoezhVukotic
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:20

Did you follow the championship live back then or have just read some internet crap in the following years?


Actually I did. I simply provided an internet source to back up what I was saying
:rolleyes:

#39 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,767 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:31

@KoezhVukotic
Then look for a source not further than Autosport. There must be in the archives an interview with Pierre Dupaquier by Bira. By his own words they changed absolutely nothing on the tires, just added white strips on both sides of the protector area.

Advertisement

#40 Andy865

Andy865
  • Member

  • 2,447 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:39

Clarification, as the thread title is misleading.

What is being limited to 10% flow, Hot-blown or cold blown? Or both?

#41 alframsey

alframsey
  • Member

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:43

I am very worried this will hinder McLaren and Ferrari more than Red Bull :( Lets just leave it as it is and let McLaren do the catching :p

#42 sv401

sv401
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 01 June 2011 - 10:59

I am very worried this will hinder McLaren and Ferrari more than Red Bull :( Lets just leave it as it is and let McLaren do the catching :p


I think the most realistic way the ban could possibly help Red Bull (but I do not think this is necessarily the case, it is just an idea) is that they will have better race pace relatively to the rival teams, at the expense of sacrificing some - but not all - of the qualifying advantage. That is, maybe the reason of the large discrepancy between Q3 and race performance is not necessarily just that RB are using more overrun in Q3, but perhaps also less in the race. This could be the result of e.g. the McLaren having better cooling, so that they can run it more over a race distance, while Red Bull have overheating problems (KERS usually does not last the whole race), and they have to turn it down a lot.

Edited by sv401, 01 June 2011 - 11:01.


#43 KoezhVukotic

KoezhVukotic
  • Member

  • 235 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:02

@KoezhVukotic
Then look for a source not further than Autosport. There must be in the archives an interview with Pierre Dupaquier by Bira. By his own words they changed absolutely nothing on the tires, just added white strips on both sides of the protector area.

I don't have access to Autosport plus so can't read any autosport interviews from 03.

#44 ZuTiMa

ZuTiMa
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:46

Clarification, as the thread title is misleading.

What is being limited to 10% flow, Hot-blown or cold blown? Or both?


If I remember correctly they suggested it being limited to 10%

The problem here is that the mapping uses more fuel up to 10% more according to Renault and creates excessive heat in the exhaust system.
RBR is using it in Q3 by turning it up hence their jump in performance from Q2 to Q3 but in the race they don't use it or only limited (extra fuel usage and heat issue) resulting in the Ferraris and Maccas being "closer" to the RBR during the race.

Edited by ZuTiMa, 01 June 2011 - 12:55.


#45 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:55

If I remember correctly they suggested it being limited to 10%


That was the FIAs initial position, yes.

Where it will go from here is anyones guess though. Newey has already stated that ,for RBR, the throttle and exhaust valves being opened on the overrun is a reliability feature incorporated by Renault.

There will be a lot of differing interests at the TWG and a common position, won't be easy to find.

#46 ZuTiMa

ZuTiMa
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 12:59

That was the FIAs initial position, yes.

Where it will go from here is anyones guess though. Newey has already stated that ,for RBR, the throttle and exhaust valves being opened on the overrun is a reliability feature incorporated by Renault.

There will be a lot of differing interests at the TWG and a common position, won't be easy to find.


I have a lot of respect for Newey but in all honesty I believe he is just playing the "reliability" card to put pressure on the FIA not to ban the engine mapping.... the way I understand it is that they basically changes the timing electronically resulting in the ignition taking place a little bit later when the gasses have exited the chamber ... so I cant see that it will cause reliability issues... as it is the RBR does not use the engine mapping "retarded ignition" system in the race or to the same extend they do in Q3... so it should not be a problem for them to stop using it BUT it will impact on their performance come Q3

Edited by ZuTiMa, 01 June 2011 - 13:00.


#47 ZuTiMa

ZuTiMa
  • Member

  • 335 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 13:06

If anyone wants a bit more info on the EBD / Engine mapping issue and why RBR is less"competive" in the race read this article.. (sorry if the link has been posted before..

RBR race performance

Fundamentally, Red Bull Racing’s qualifying advantage lies in the optimisation of the use of “retarded ignition”
RB7 is able to maintain 95-100% of its exhaust gas output when the drivers are off-throttle. This towers above much of the opposition, who at the best of times are believed to be able to exert 70-80% of normal exhaust gas output when off-throttle.
Red Bull’s qualifying runs rely largely on the “blown diffuser” and off-throttle exhaust-gas release.


#48 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 June 2011 - 13:22

I have a lot of respect for Newey but in all honesty I believe he is just playing the "reliability" card to put pressure on the FIA not to ban the engine mapping.... the way I understand it is that they basically changes the timing electronically resulting in the ignition taking place a little bit later when the gasses have exited the chamber ... so I cant see that it will cause reliability issues... as it is the RBR does not use the engine mapping "retarded ignition" system in the race or to the same extend they do in Q3... so it should not be a problem for them to stop using it BUT it will impact on their performance come Q3


I think all of the teams are retarding the ignition in the race just much less aggressively than in qualifying.

Newey wanted to give the impression that the open throttle was only acting as an 'air pump' whereas by injecting fuel and combustion happening in the exhaust manifold it is essentially acting as an 'afterburner'.

If the FIAs proposal was to be implemented, all the leading teams would have issues (the same sort of issues that lead to EBD development being abandoned for more than a decade) and the cars would be much more unstable at corner entry (and under braking) but even if they have to pull back on the degree of EBD aggression when on-throttle (to reduce the change in balance which causes that instability), Red Bull would appear to still have the car with more downforce than anyone else.


#49 Andy865

Andy865
  • Member

  • 2,447 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 01 June 2011 - 14:07

So, is this hot blown or cold blown systems? i seem to think its both.

#50 Dunder

Dunder
  • Member

  • 6,784 posts
  • Joined: April 01

Posted 01 June 2011 - 14:14

So, is this hot blown or cold blown systems? i seem to think its both.


Indeed.
The FIA's directive would have treated both the same however as it only dealt with the extent to which the throttle is open, not whether fuel is being burned outside the cylinders.