Jump to content


Photo
* * * - - 2 votes

Is it possible legally to emulate traction control in F1


  • Please log in to reply
108 replies to this topic

#1 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 14 October 2013 - 20:51

I had been about to make a post in the thread about Red Bull‘s alleged traction advantage, but that thread was understably closed by the mods owing to off-topic bickering about whether or not Vettel gets the credit he deserves. Grateful if anyone replying to this thread could try to confine their remarks to technical matters and the correct interpretation of the regulations.

A lot of people have been arguing that it is possible legally to create a TC-like effect using some kind of open-loop system that utilises KERS harvesting. Is this possible? If so, why is it not a breach of the technical regulations, specifically the prohibition on systems that compensate for excessive torque demanded by the driver (which appears to prohibit the effect of a TC-like system regardless if it‘s closed loop or not) and the regulation that says KERS must be controlled by the standard ECU?

Advertisement

#2 garagetinkerer

garagetinkerer
  • Member

  • 2,038 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 14 October 2013 - 20:57

I had been about to make a post in the thread about Red Bull‘s alleged traction advantage, but that thread was understably closed by the mods owing to off-topic bickering about whether or not Vettel gets the credit he deserves. Grateful if anyone replying to this thread could try to confine their remarks to technical matters and the correct interpretation of the regulations.

A lot of people have been arguing that it is possible legally to create a TC-like effect using some kind of open-loop system that utilises KERS harvesting. Is this possible? If so, why is it not a breach of the technical regulations, specifically the prohibition on systems that compensate for excessive torque demanded by the driver (which appears to prohibit the effect of a TC-like system regardless if it‘s closed loop or not) and the regulation that says KERS must be controlled by the standard ECU?

My reply was going to bring out mostly what you said in your second paragraph... Last year, there was still some ambiguity about the wording and RBR tried to use it, till regulation got modified and now it is nigh impossible to do so... but that is my humble opinion.



#3 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 October 2013 - 21:53

A lot of people have been arguing that it is possible legally to create a TC-like effect using some kind of open-loop system that utilises KERS harvesting. Is this possible? If so, why is it not a breach of the technical regulations, specifically the prohibition on systems that compensate for excessive torque demanded by the driver (which appears to prohibit the effect of a TC-like system regardless if it‘s closed loop or not) and the regulation that says KERS must be controlled by the standard ECU?

The 'excessive torque demand' is no longer excessive if there's enough grip because the torque delivery is being tuned to the track surface :)   Or if the driver knows how much torque he's demanding. It just must not intervene after he's demanded the torque, in a way that's 'compensating'. That's the first one.

 

The SECU control -  it's more tenuous but it doesn't say "only be controlled".  And can one use the electromotor without 'controlling' it?  I mean, it's spinning already...you induce some resistance by, I dunno, feeding a bit of current into the field winding, is that 'controlling' the electromotor?  After all it doesn't change speed.  You add some power from a supercapacitor, is that 'controlling' it?  

 

It could be arguable enough that the FIA would just tell you not to be naughty any more.

 

Not saying it's being done though.  But I bet there are eyes on it.



#4 harbee

harbee
  • New Member

  • 19 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 14 October 2013 - 22:04

Not being terribly AuFait with electronic gizmology but a bit pragmatic, does controlling the traction by ANY means not constitute Traction Control? :confused:



#5 Mandzipop

Mandzipop
  • RC Forum Host

  • 4,128 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 October 2013 - 22:11

Ok, as the previous topic was closed due to going off topic, this thread is fine as long as it is not about any specific team or driver, but about the technical aspect only of trying to emulate traction control.

 

Please keep it about the technology.



#6 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 14 October 2013 - 22:17

I expect a quality lawyer could make the argument the drivers right foot is an "analog traction control device".  Or limited slip.  Or limited slip used as a directional control. Or gear ratios. 

 

If the key phrase is "excessive torque demanded by the driver"... then we are really in a slippery semantic slope.  I agree with Undersquare... it would have to be passive and completely off the ECU.  Maybe, if you could somehow "tune / time" the allowed cylinder cutting with the point on track when a driver would demand excessive torque, and it was only incidental upon throttle position - things might be pretty good for that team and driver.

 

I still think this whole thing is more connected to the ongoing gearbox and alternator problems than we suspect.



#7 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 14 October 2013 - 22:28

Imagine if the throttle positions output signal to the ecu could be manipulated based on parameters provided by accelerometers, lateral and horizontal G sensors etc.

The factory ecu would be unmodified but the signal provided would be 'filtered' based on the available grip as determined by a set of algorithims. It would probably even feel quite natural to drive.

Under certain circumstances a 100% wot input given by the driver at the pedal might give a filtered result of 60% throttle at the ecu for example, with a gradual ramp up to 100% as lateral g returned to 0.

If all sensors were integrated into the throttle position sensor, the only way to test it would be to subject the sensor to varying g forces and monitor the output. Not something the scrutineers can really do.

Edited by mistareno, 14 October 2013 - 22:32.


#8 MP422

MP422
  • Member

  • 1,720 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 14 October 2013 - 23:27

Imagine if the throttle positions output signal to the ecu could be manipulated based on parameters provided by accelerometers, lateral and horizontal G sensors etc.

The factory ecu would be unmodified but the signal provided would be 'filtered' based on the available grip as determined by a set of algorithims. It would probably even feel quite natural to drive.

Under certain circumstances a 100% wot input given by the driver at the pedal might give a filtered result of 60% throttle at the ecu for example, with a gradual ramp up to 100% as lateral g returned to 0.

If all sensors were integrated into the throttle position sensor, the only way to test it would be to subject the sensor to varying g forces and monitor the output. Not something the scrutineers can really do.

I actually understood what you were talking about, That is a nice hypothesis. :up:



#9 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 14 October 2013 - 23:28

Yeah, but all the drivers input data is "live" through the ECU.  And the program on the ECU is regulated.  So, it wouldn't matter how you screw around with the input before it got to the ECU.  A race engineer and programmer will be able to see through that. By that I mean the sensors are sending live info separate from the ECU.  So they'd have different data feeds to compare - as in "he's going through this corner at this speed with these G's, and at this time while the ECU is doing this?!?!? - that doesn't match".  And then you'd have an investigation.  Besides, you'd need to sense (via sensors) tire slip while it happens if you're using throttle position - then you've designed a classic responsive TC system.  That would definitely be illegal. 


Edited by JSDSKI, 14 October 2013 - 23:29.


#10 Seano

Seano
  • Member

  • 254 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 October 2013 - 23:51

Piggy back ECU's could be used to frig the behaviour of the standard ECU by manipulating the input signals, but it would be very crass and if found, would be bound to attract a massive punishment. I honestly doubt RBR would be so stupid.

 

In my opinion, its just a collection of independent effects carefully managed and engineered to collaborate as a pseudo 'TC system'.

 

Its the FIA's fault really - they should have mandated the exhausts much more strictly and made them extend much further to the rear (preferably beyond the start of the rear wing, with no bodywork element in the way of the gas flow plume) and completely remove any benefit in EGB once and for all.

 

Seano 



#11 toofast

toofast
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 00:39

The 'excessive torque demand' is no longer excessive if there's enough grip because the torque delivery is being tuned to the track surface :)   Or if the driver knows how much torque he's demanding. It just must not intervene after he's demanded the torque, in a way that's 'compensating'. That's the first one.

 

The SECU control -  it's more tenuous but it doesn't say "only be controlled".  And can one use the electromotor without 'controlling' it?  I mean, it's spinning already...you induce some resistance by, I dunno, feeding a bit of current into the field winding, is that 'controlling' the electromotor?  After all it doesn't change speed.  You add some power from a supercapacitor, is that 'controlling' it?  

 

It could be arguable enough that the FIA would just tell you not to be naughty any more.

 

Not saying it's being done though.  But I bet there are eyes on it.

 

Here you are again with the "only" word. Based on your interpretation, all engine, gearbox components may be controlled something other than the SECU (there are covered by the same part of the rules), which I must say again completely wrong. 

 

How do you suppose you do all you just said ( induce resistance, add power from capacitor, whatever these mean) wiithout using a control unit? Hire machine elves or something?



#12 JSDSKI

JSDSKI
  • Member

  • 1,439 posts
  • Joined: August 06

Posted 15 October 2013 - 01:09

I quite agree.

 

Reg 667.3a states:  "Machine elves are allowed when deployed by skyhook only.  Otherwise they are subject to standard parc ferme regulations and processes".

 

That leaves machine elves out since skyhooks are not permitted in parc ferme by a previous ruling.  Quoting FIA, "skyhooks are neither man (pit crew) nor machine (race car) nor FIA scrutineer, (not genetically elves) and therefore not permitted in parc."  This as a result of the the famous "Tyrell Elf Machine" donnybrooke of '76 when people couldn't understand how the pit crew could actually work on the front suspension(s) of the P34. 

 

You couldn't even use machine elves if Renault (ancestral home of Elf) had rustled them up using their pre-approved engine mapping circumvention "special algorithm" of engine equality at the start of the 2013 season.  There are rumors from less respected websites that this may change if Todt wins additional terms.  Supposedly, Todt and B. Ecclestone see eye-to-eye on this.

 

So, currently you couldn't legally deploy machine elves in the race, even if FIA doesn't actually ban them from participating in F1 in fear of the legal consequences from the EU.



#13 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,791 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 02:50

Imagine if the throttle positions output signal to the ecu could be manipulated based on parameters provided by accelerometers, lateral and horizontal G sensors etc.

The factory ecu would be unmodified but the signal provided would be 'filtered' based on the available grip as determined by a set of algorithims. It would probably even feel quite natural to drive.

Under certain circumstances a 100% wot input given by the driver at the pedal might give a filtered result of 60% throttle at the ecu for example, with a gradual ramp up to 100% as lateral g returned to 0.

If all sensors were integrated into the throttle position sensor, the only way to test it would be to subject the sensor to varying g forces and monitor the output. Not something the scrutineers can really do.

 

It won't work because Article 8.2.2 of FIA Technical Regulation states :-

 

All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
 
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
 
I would assume the FIA is smart enough that control and monitoring sensors beside being homologated would be calibrated as well to ensure their accuracies.


#14 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,637 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 03:21

theres probably stuff going on with the start systems tbh, *very* rarely do we get someone badly spinning the tyres like we did in years before, or you get in other catagories



#15 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:38

 

It won't work because Article 8.2.2 of FIA Technical Regulation states :-

 

All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
 
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
 
I would assume the FIA is smart enough that control and monitoring sensors beside being homologated would be calibrated as well to ensure their accuracies.

 

Thanks for that. FWIW I personally  don't think Red Bull has a traction control system of any sort other than the data connection between the brain and foot of it's no.1 driver....



#16 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 06:56

Could you hide it - no way, as the SECU would have to detect unusal charges cycles for the batteries. And as power outpust must only be controlled by the throttle or the KERS Button, the system would surely see a clarification of the rules quite quickly.

 

But then such a sytem would need some kind of information to be effective. Either throttle position, or suspension load or gear used and this means a breahc of the rules.



#17 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 455 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:03

Regs define what TC means within the rules and then disallow it. So that's a no.

 

Any system that could reasobably called "TC-like" would still need sensors to detect wheelspin or reducing grip and control the torque.You would need control electronics and all of that is banned outside ECU.

 

"All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA."



#18 mistareno

mistareno
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: March 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:09

Another scenario.

 

KERS is designed to recover kinetic energy when the brakes are applied - it does this by providing a charge load to slow the wheels.

 

I am under the impression (perhap erroneously) that the KERS unit is one of the few systems still controlled by the individual manufacturers.

 

What if the driver left their foot slightly on the brake during hard acceleration? Could the KERS unit then be designed to ABSORB/LIMIT the kinetic energy being passed from the engine through to the tyres under acceleration (again, based on G Senor/Accelerometer algorithims to control the charge load)?

 

If done, the benefit would be two fold. Most of the charging could be done under acceleration instead of braking which would reduce/eliminate the changes in braking balance. This would allow better braking feel/balance and provide a psuedo traction control without the system interfering with any FIA homolagated parts.



#19 fastwriter

fastwriter
  • Member

  • 173 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:32

No. Brakes are already critical in an F1 race without using them as a means of regulating traction. No F1-Car would make it to the end of the race, if it were to use its brakes like that.



Advertisement

#20 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:40

 

It won't work because Article 8.2.2 of FIA Technical Regulation states :-

 

All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
 
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
 
I would assume the FIA is smart enough that control and monitoring sensors beside being homologated would be calibrated as well to ensure their accuracies.

 

This is quite a severe limitation.



#21 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:46

Another scenario.

 

KERS is designed to recover kinetic energy when the brakes are applied - it does this by providing a charge load to slow the wheels.

 

I am under the impression (perhap erroneously) that the KERS unit is one of the few systems still controlled by the individual manufacturers.

 

What if the driver left their foot slightly on the brake during hard acceleration? Could the KERS unit then be designed to ABSORB/LIMIT the kinetic energy being passed from the engine through to the tyres under acceleration (again, based on G Senor/Accelerometer algorithims to control the charge load)?

 

If done, the benefit would be two fold. Most of the charging could be done under acceleration instead of braking which would reduce/eliminate the changes in braking balance. This would allow better braking feel/balance and provide a psuedo traction control without the system interfering with any FIA homolagated parts.

Nice idea but 8.2.2. as Kelateboy posted requires all sensors to be FIA specified, so an accelerometer doesn't look possible.

 

The System would have to respond to something traction-related that is not 'a sensor'.  I feel that means analogue.



#22 RosannaG

RosannaG
  • Member

  • 682 posts
  • Joined: December 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 07:51

 

It won't work because Article 8.2.2 of FIA Technical Regulation states :-

 

All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
 
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
 
I would assume the FIA is smart enough that control and monitoring sensors beside being homologated would be calibrated as well to ensure their accuracies.

 

 

Very usuful information. Thanks for posting it!  :up:



#23 Bloggsworth

Bloggsworth
  • Member

  • 7,438 posts
  • Joined: April 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 08:24

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the rules allow for "Approved" software to be used by the teams, which instantly informs us that the rules are not absolute, are open to interpretation, to exploitation by those cleverer than the rule makers, and relatively speaking, though clever, the rule makers aren't as clever as those who wish to lean on them. So any discussion here is moot.



#24 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:08

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the rules allow for "Approved" software to be used by the teams, which instantly informs us that the rules are not absolute, are open to interpretation, to exploitation by those cleverer than the rule makers, and relatively speaking, though clever, the rule makers aren't as clever as those who wish to lean on them. So any discussion here is moot.

Yeah, this reminds me that Benetton's TC was not found in the code, only in the menus afaik.   I don't see how we can use the rules to completely decide if there's anything going on; what happens on the track is king, as it was in 1994 when Senna and DC started saying things.



#25 skinnylizard

skinnylizard
  • Member

  • 9,636 posts
  • Joined: October 02

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:09

reminds me of the rear brake pedal in the McLaren in 1997-1998 i believe which worked as a sort of traction control, giving better entry-exit to mika & dc. 



#26 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:14

1994 was a completely different era where the FIA didn't know what a computer was or what a line of code looked like so they had to ship the Benetton ecu to a third party consultant to actually tell them what it does.

 

they have since acquired the skills (and the technical partner in McLaren Electronics)



#27 toofast

toofast
  • Member

  • 460 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:16

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the rules allow for "Approved" software to be used by the teams, which instantly informs us that the rules are not absolute, are open to interpretation, to exploitation by those cleverer than the rule makers, and relatively speaking, though clever, the rule makers aren't as clever as those who wish to lean on them. So any discussion here is moot.

 

If you intend to restrict the teams with the same version of software, then you have to standardise all components it controls. Different KERS system, Diff system may require different method of connection and operation. Teams are basically free to design their own solution for most of the sensors and actuators as long as they submit the required specs for approval. It is obviously very loose but if you take that away I think the regulation will be too tight but easier to enforce and probably cost-saving too.


Edited by toofast, 15 October 2013 - 09:19.


#28 EthanM

EthanM
  • Member

  • 2,104 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:24

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the rules allow for "Approved" software to be used by the teams, which instantly informs us that the rules are not absolute, are open to interpretation, to exploitation by those cleverer than the rule makers, and relatively speaking, though clever, the rule makers aren't as clever as those who wish to lean on them. So any discussion here is moot.

 

no it doesn't. It means the FIA specifies the SECU must run windows, the parameters of the engine maps, sensor data blah blah must reside in an MSSQL database etc. So you can't take McLaren's SECU and ninja run it in a linux clone which would then require the FIA to go hire consultants again to see what each line of code does. They use approved code instead



#29 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,377 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:27

As I understand it, this suspected technique is nothing at all to do with computers. It is all passive electronics, with inputs such as pressure from suspension dampers feeding-back to the KERS harvesting.

 

I think the big leap in the idea is just the counter-intuitive thing of harvesting at a time other than braking.



#30 fastwriter

fastwriter
  • Member

  • 173 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:39

Passive electronics? Doesn't exist. You have to control the input and the resulting output in some way. You need sensors for that, and they all are monitored by the FIA. There is no TC in any car on the grid. The engine sound on the RB cars comes from the overrun on 4 cylinders, which provide exhaust gas to the diffusor. Together with their rear axle setup and the ride height, this gives them brilliant traction. Not Torque Control or other stuff - this has to be electronically controlled. And that's illegal and easily detectable.



#31 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,377 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:00

Passive electronics? Doesn't exist. You have to control the input and the resulting output in some way. You need sensors for that, and they all are monitored by the FIA. There is no TC in any car on the grid. The engine sound on the RB cars comes from the overrun on 4 cylinders, which provide exhaust gas to the diffusor. Together with their rear axle setup and the ride height, this gives them brilliant traction. Not Torque Control or other stuff - this has to be electronically controlled. And that's illegal and easily detectable.

I don't know the correct terminology, that's all. What I mean is; there aren't sensors sending a computer readings for the computer to then dispense instructions to another component. Rather, it is supposedly achieved with electronic components such as capacitors (as you can tell, I know nothing of electronics). So - not computer controlled but using electronic components to smooth the charging in response to loadings seen in the suspension. Does that make any sense?



#32 Oho

Oho
  • Member

  • 7,510 posts
  • Joined: November 98

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:07

reminds me of the rear brake pedal in the McLaren in 1997-1998 i believe which worked as a sort of traction control, giving better entry-exit to mika & dc. 

 

No it didn't, the odds are it worked as inverse of a slip limited differential. Which is why banning it on four wheel steering rule was such a crock (they should have banned slip limited diffs on the trot). It was actually specifically allowed in the rules at the time, but apparently went against the commercial interests of the sport, which probably is why McLaren let it go. It was not four wheel steering in the sense stipulated by the rules.



#33 Kelateboy

Kelateboy
  • Member

  • 5,791 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:09

Regs define what TC means within the rules and then disallow it. So that's a no.

 

Any system that could reasobably called "TC-like" would still need sensors to detect wheelspin or reducing grip and control the torque.You would need control electronics and all of that is banned outside ECU.

 

"All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA."

 

Once you use sensors, it becomes a closed-loop system and therefore illegal. There is no ambiguity because sensors would pickup wheelspin and send a signal to ECU to reduce torque. ECU will then have to request for the power from the engine. The FIA could easily pick up the reduction in torque requested from the ECU when the driver's foot is still firmly planted on the accelerator pedal. Everything is recorded in the ECU data logger and the FIA has unlimited access to this information.

 

Even Jo Bauer could detect the different torque maps used by RBR in Germany (Hockenheim) vs Silverstone last year, which prompted the FIA to issue clarifications that all torque maps shall use the baseline/reference from any of the first 4 races of the season, from which the torque map could only vary by +- 2% of the reference map.



#34 Rinehart

Rinehart
  • Member

  • 8,868 posts
  • Joined: February 07

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:10

A lot of people have been arguing that it is possible legally to create a TC-like effect

Is this possible? If so, why is it not a breach of the technical regulations

 

In my opinion, most definitely YES. That is a TC like-effect. Not pure TC.

 

Could be achieved via mapping, blowing, kers, ignition, clutch, brakes, ratios, diff, suspension, ecu or a combination of all - I don't know, that's why they're F1 engineers and I'm not. 

But my view is very clear. The benefits of TC are known and significant. Take away TC in the traditional sense (via electronics) and you've still got over 2000 engineers across all the teams in the pit lane who have surely been working hard to create TC like-effects ever since. Surely. Some of the top teams simply MUST have made some quite impressive progress. 



#35 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,377 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:22

Once you use sensors, it becomes a closed-loop system and therefore illegal. There is no ambiguity because sensors would pickup wheelspin and send a signal to ECU to reduce torque. ECU will then have to request for the power from the engine. The FIA could easily pick up the reduction in torque requested from the ECU when the driver's foot is still firmly planted on the accelerator pedal. Everything is recorded in the ECU data logger and the FIA has unlimited access to this information.

 

Even Jo Bauer could detect the different torque maps used by RBR in Germany (Hockenheim) vs Silverstone last year, which prompted the FIA to issue clarifications that all torque maps shall use the baseline/reference from any of the first 4 races of the season, from which the torque map could only vary by +- 2% of the reference map.

I don't think sensors detect wheelspin, and I definitely don't think any system tells the ecu to reduce output in any way. I think KERS engages to charge mode and robs the engine of drive to the wheels in response to pressure valves in the suspension.



#36 stanga

stanga
  • Member

  • 1,124 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:53

I think this composite TC effect is being actively used and some have made more strides with it than others.



#37 sv401

sv401
  • Member

  • 740 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 10:54

I think KERS engages to charge mode and robs the engine of drive to the wheels in response to pressure valves in the suspension.

 

That would still be illegal. It seems people are too fixated on this "TC" nonsense, and ignore the obvious explanation that the car has simply more traction than the rivals, mainly because of more effective exhaust blowing. Any "tricks" are there only to optimize the EBD effect. Basically, the team has now recovered much of what the RB7 was capable of, that is why the car can be run with low downforce rear wing, high rake, etc. again. With a powerful EBD, being on the throttle as early as possible is the optimal driving style because it maximizes the amount of exhaust gas for sealing the diffuser. Also, if the "KERS harvesting under acceleration" theory is true, it again serves the purpose of getting more exhaust power with the same torque, and has nothing to do with TC.


Edited by sv401, 15 October 2013 - 10:56.


#38 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,377 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:15

I'm not saying the red Bull or any other car has it - I am not fixated on it at all.

 

The thread title is Is it possible…? Not Does anyone have it?

 

The manner in which it has been speculated that it could be done is as I described.



#39 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 11:36

So it looks like the major problem with the kind of system described in last week‘s Racecar Engineering, for example, is that you can‘t have a "control sensor" on the rear shocks unless it is specified and homologated by the FIA, and in any event you can‘t feed that data into a system that can activate and deactivate KERS harvesting as KERS must be controlled by the SECU.

I must say I think the rules as written appear to me to rule out anything that would be effective in systematically improving traction and rear tyre life. In order to be effective the system would need to give the driver a reasonable margin for error within which his throttle inputs, whatever they are, will produce behaviour from one or more of the components that are meant to be controlled by the SECU (engine, clutch, diff and KERS) that will deliver the same net torque through the rear axle (e.g. the more throttle the driver uses, the more resistance the system creates at the rear axle by engaging KERS harvesting). The only way to do that is to make the system either reactive to or predictive of wheelspin, otherwise the system wouldn‘t be able to regulate net torque to match need, and in either case that in my view is still compensating for excessive torque demanded by the driver. It would also need to include a way of using the data that allows wheelslin to be detected or predicted to control KERS or to control the engine, which doesn‘t appear to be allowed.

Advertisement

#40 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:01

An system without any regulative sensor feedback is not a TC. Blowing, Mapping or ramp exhaust improve traction and therefore are not a TC, as they do not re-act to wheelspin in an active fashion.

 

1994 was unique in the way that the TC was allowed the previous season and Benetton´s argument was, that they are still using the same software but with a disabled TC. It would be impossible to explain to the FIA why your 2013 software should have the code for a TC in it, when it has been forbidden since 1994.



#41 maverick69

maverick69
  • Member

  • 4,415 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:14

How do teams locate their cars on the track? GPS or a local system?

#42 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • Member

  • 32 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:16

 

1.20 Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) :
A system that is designed to recover kinetic energy from the car during braking, store that energy and make it available to propel the car.

Recover kinetic energy from the car during aceleration its not prohibited.. Nor is make it avaliable to braking the car..

 

 

5.2 Other means of propulsion :
 

5.2.1 The use of any device, other than the 2.4 litre, four stroke engine described in 5.1 above and one KERS, to power the car, is not permitted

 

5.2.4Release of power from any such system must remain under the complete control of the driver at all times the car is on the track

 
5.2.5 Cars must be fitted with homologated sensors which provide all necessary signals to the SDR in order to verify the requirements above are being respected.

 

If you ask about SDR..

"The Surveillance Data Recorder (SDR) was developed by EM Motorsport for use in the FIA F1 World Championship. The SDR was fitted to all cars to monitor numerous on car parameters which were later used for conformity and scrutineering checks. The unit also contained internal accelerometers that (along with two external accelerometers) could gather data in the event of a accident and alert medical teams to the fact that a potentially serious accident has occurred, indicated via the FIA medical LED. This product was successfully used in F1 since 2003 with a technically enhanced version being released in 2009"

 

http://www.emmotorsp...e-data-recorder

 

 

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.

 

If a team use the KERS to compesate for excesive torque demand..
or use sensors and a system "capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning" controlling the Kers output.. then, the KERS
don't "remain under the complete control of the driver at all times "

 

If a driver ask 200NM or torque, and under track conditions that means that driven wheels will spins.. any system (a Kers used in thay way) that reduce that torque, reacting to sensors,  is a TC.
 

I think use the kers, in any way, to control the torque, was ilegal.

 

 


Edited by ElAbuelo, 15 October 2013 - 12:20.


#43 ElAbuelo

ElAbuelo
  • Member

  • 32 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:25

I think KERS engages to charge mode and robs the engine of drive to the wheels in response to pressure valves in the suspension.

 

 I think that is exactly  "compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver" and "a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning"
 A TC
.
 



#44 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:44

An system without any regulative sensor feedback is not a TC [...]

Knowing the approx. grip level (i.e. wet, dry, ...), the gear which is inserted and monitoring the engine speed, you could model a sort of (not too accurate) TC. 

The feedback in this case would be the engine speed monitored by ECU, the gear monitored by ECU and the grip level, set with a switch from driver or embedded in the mapping.

The gradient of engine speed rising (i.e. the first derivative of engine speed) then should not exceed a certain value based on those parameters.

 

Of course, I believe such a system should not be possible with the given ECU, but who knows.


Edited by FirstWatt, 15 October 2013 - 12:45.


#45 Module

Module
  • Member

  • 589 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:49

I don't think sensors detect wheelspin, and I definitely don't think any system tells the ecu to reduce output in any way. I think KERS engages to charge mode and robs the engine of drive to the wheels in response to pressure valves in the suspension.

 

I think you focus too much on the exit.

 

Let's look at another system, PDRS, that Sauber and Lotus have tried to optimize. It's veri simple in the end, at certain speed the airflow is diverted. Even after excessive time neither have been able to optimize this.

 

Now let's look at pressure valves... Any motion here would occur in several different situation, not only braking or accelerating but on bumpy tracks, going of track and such. If you don't have any connection to the engine and pass the ECU you effectively have a brake that will brake uncontrollably in any situation there is changes in the suspensions pressure valves. That would be insanely dangerous and impossible to optimize. There is a huge amount of different corners and for example in singapore to differentiate all different bumps and crests from pressure of accelerating sounds nearly impossible. Not to mention that the rules state clearly that KERS loads on braking so it would still be an illegal system.



#46 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 2,263 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:52

Knowing the approx. grip level (i.e. wet, dry, ...), the gear which is inserted and monitoring the engine speed, you could model a sort of (not too accurate) TC. 

The feedback in this case would be the engine speed monitored by ECU, the gear monitored by ECU and the grip level, set with a switch from driver or embedded in the mapping.

The gradient of engine speed rising (i.e. the first derivative of engine speed) then should not exceed a certain value based on those parameters.

 

Of course, I believe such a system should not be possible with the given ECU, but who knows.

 

But the danger then is you design a system that is less good at regulating wheelspin than the driver's right foot.



#47 Module

Module
  • Member

  • 589 posts
  • Joined: May 13

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:53

Knowing the approx. grip level (i.e. wet, dry, ...), the gear which is inserted and monitoring the engine speed, you could model a sort of (not too accurate) TC. 

The feedback in this case would be the engine speed monitored by ECU, the gear monitored by ECU and the grip level, set with a switch from driver or embedded in the mapping.

The gradient of engine speed rising (i.e. the first derivative of engine speed) then should not exceed a certain value based on those parameters.

 

Of course, I believe such a system should not be possible with the given ECU, but who knows.

 

That sort of actualy is TC, add speed and thats it.

 

The griplevel switch on Ferrari could be called....let's say Manettino? It could for example be red?


Edited by Module, 15 October 2013 - 12:58.


#48 GlenP

GlenP
  • Member

  • 3,377 posts
  • Joined: November 01

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:55

The rules state that the KERS is a system designed to harvest energy under braking. They do not say that any other harvesting is prohibited.



#49 FirstWatt

FirstWatt
  • Member

  • 357 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 15 October 2013 - 12:59

That sort of actualy is TC, add speed and thats it.

Depends how speed is measured during race? If its measured by front wheel sensors, then its a full blown TC, if it's measured by engine speed and gear ratio, rather not.

Pitot tube might be a possibility, but sudden windswept will be upsetting the system.



#50 OneAndOnly

OneAndOnly
  • Member

  • 351 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 15 October 2013 - 13:03

Another scenario.

 

KERS is designed to recover kinetic energy when the brakes are applied - it does this by providing a charge load to slow the wheels.

 

I am under the impression (perhap erroneously) that the KERS unit is one of the few systems still controlled by the individual manufacturers.

 

What if the driver left their foot slightly on the brake during hard acceleration? Could the KERS unit then be designed to ABSORB/LIMIT the kinetic energy being passed from the engine through to the tyres under acceleration (again, based on G Senor/Accelerometer algorithims to control the charge load)?

 

If done, the benefit would be two fold. Most of the charging could be done under acceleration instead of braking which would reduce/eliminate the changes in braking balance. This would allow better braking feel/balance and provide a psuedo traction control without the system interfering with any FIA homolagated parts.

This is actually good idea, but only if KERS harvesting is activated by brake pedal, not actual brake system. In that scenario you can make braking pedal not to activate brakes for first let's say 1 cm, but it would activate KERS harvesting by some percentage (let's say 50% of the usual harvesting). Driver would have to only slightly touch braking pedal together with throttle pedal and magic would happen. If driver presses braking pedal harder then brakes are activated normally and KERS harvesting is done at 100% if needed. It would only require good training for driver, but with today's simulators it would be piece of cake to manage. Especially today when drivers are trained to press these buttons on steering wheel at rate of typist :) .