Jump to content


Photo

How does Standard ECU benefit McLaren?


  • Please log in to reply
272 replies to this topic

#101 Ninja2b

Ninja2b
  • Member

  • 628 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 08 January 2008 - 22:56

Originally posted by jb_128
There actually isn't much of a standard engine control, the teams are still using their own code. I thought maybe the teams would only be allowed to change certain mappings but Lowe's comment implies that they really are still in full control of the code. It's just that the FIA has an easier job of detecting illegal functions in the software now that they all record data in a standardized way.


There definitely is a standard engine control, and teams cannot use their own control code. There is an option to recompile different code for dyno work and testing, but when in an FIA test or race, all the source code must be as provided.

Advertisement

#102 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 01:43

I do suspect that (what is rather legitimate concern) this issue is probably asociated with the processing efficiency of the network. It was written (in synch) with Mclaren approach to controls. Now it is being forced upon others, and some changes to theirs proven systems are therefore inevitable, including need for gazillions hours of additional testing, which Mclaren is ahead of them all in that (restricted) area.

I am not certain how or to what degree specifically different systems are affected, as this is unique to private architecture. What is certain, that all cars are affected, but McLaren, and since this induces uncertainty and new expenses for them, JT is correct; beyond shadow of doubt.

#103 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 07:54

Originally posted by Clatter


Back to carburettor then.


I rather like the idea myself, A total ban on all car electronics. I used to spend hours tuning my weber twin carbs, my mates Dellortos were much easier to setup...


:)

#104 quasi C

quasi C
  • Member

  • 2,012 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 January 2008 - 09:41

Here's what Thiessen had to say about it (from AFCA in the BMW thread) "'The decision to have an ECU has been a mistake. The costs have risen significantly because of it. And the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.''

Seems Todt isn't the only one to have issues with it.

#105 Gilles4Ever

Gilles4Ever
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 19,931 posts
  • Joined: June 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 09:50

Originally posted by quasi C
Here's what Thiessen had to say about it (from AFCA in the BMW thread) "'The decision to have an ECU has been a mistake. The costs have risen significantly because of it. And the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.''

Seems Todt isn't the only one to have issues with it.


Don't forget Renault are none too happy about it either and as we have already seen McLaren have no qualms about making use of another team's data.

#106 ATM_Andy

ATM_Andy
  • Member

  • 1,482 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 09:59

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever


Don't forget Renault are none too happy about it either and as we have already seen McLaren have no qualms about making use of another team's data.


McLaren's Relationship with McLaren Electronic Systems (MES) is similar to that of Fords Relationship with Volvo...
Mclaren own MES however MES operates as it's own independent company.

#107 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 10:21

Originally posted by quasi C
Here's what Thiessen had to say about it (from AFCA in the BMW thread) "'The decision to have an ECU has been a mistake. The costs have risen significantly because of it. And the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.''

Seems Todt isn't the only one to have issues with it.


Dr Mario wasn't complaining about McLaren, though, he was complaining about (a) the idea of having an SECU of any kind, and (b) a competitor involved in its installation. I think Renault and Ferrari engineers' comments have been the same.

It's just Todt, Montezemolo and their more brainless fanboys who are making out that there is something unfair about how McLaren are doing it.

It's the totality of Max's masterplan, with the 10-year engine freeze and aero development restrictions, that is starting to piss all the top teams off. Brawn is quoted on f1-live.com today saying

""From the middle of the season, from a technical point of view, F1 will be essentially a single formula."

and Costa...

""The new rules are so restrictive that there is no longer room for groundbreaking developments."

#108 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 10:27

Originally posted by undersquare


Dr Mario wasn't complaining about McLaren, though, he was complaining about (a) the idea of having an SECU of any kind, and (b) a competitor involved in its installation. I think Renault and Ferrari engineers' comments have been the same.

It's just Todt, Montezemolo and their more brainless fanboys who are making out that there is something unfair about how McLaren are doing it.

It's the totality of Max's masterplan, with the 10-year engine freeze and aero development restrictions, that is starting to piss all the top teams off. Brawn is quoted on f1-live.com today saying

""From the middle of the season, from a technical point of view, F1 will be essentially a single formula."

and Costa...

""The new rules are so restrictive that there is no longer room for groundbreaking developments."


As a reminder, this is what Todt exactly said:

"We would have preferred that the single control unit for all Formula One teams was built by another company. We must accept the fact that McLaren with Microsoft put forward the most economic proposal," Todt told reporters.

"It is clear it is a situation to monitor. But it is obvious that, at least at the start, McLaren will have an advantage in the championship," added the Frenchman, who has handed the reins of the racing team to Stefano Domenicali while he remains boss of the company.



I don't see it as more harsh criticism as what Theissen said.

#109 Sébastien

Sébastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 10:36

Originally posted by undersquare
It's just Todt, Montezemolo and their more brainless fanboys who are making out that there is something unfair about how McLaren are doing it.


DR T: the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.

Now would you consider Dr. Mario a "brainless fanboy" too, because to me he's saying that McLaren could have access to competitor data and very well could analyse it.
That would certainly be unfair now would it?

#110 peroa

peroa
  • Member

  • 8,805 posts
  • Joined: March 05

Posted 09 January 2008 - 10:53

Well, but that is not Macca`s problem.

Mr. T should ring Oswa..., errr Max.

#111 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:02

Originally posted by Galko877


As a reminder, this is what Todt exactly said:



I don't see it as more harsh criticism as what Theissen said.


What Todt says and Dr Mario doesn't, is (a) McLaren have an advantage in the championship, and (b) it is a situation "to monitor".

Todt's is spun. He is preparing to explain away McLaren's performance on the ECU, and to keep bitching about it.

Mario is just saying that the situation created by the FIA SECU decision is unsatisfactory.

#112 Sébastien

Sébastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:14

Originally posted by peroa
Well, but that is not Macca`s problem.

Mr. T should ring Oswa..., errr Max.

Indeed it isn't and frankly I think that Ferrari, Renault and BMW should have been more vocal about the MES ecu before if they think that it's such a problem, now is a bit too late imo.

However the McLaren behaviour in the spy matters last year could of course now have triggered their competitor's worries about McLaren supplying this system and the use/flow of data obtained through the system.

#113 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:15

Originally posted by Sébastien


DR T: the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.

Now would you consider Dr. Mario a "brainless fanboy" too, because to me he's saying that McLaren could have access to competitor data and very well could analyse it.
That would certainly be unfair now would it?


Well this is exactly what I mean. You are interpreting what he said as a criticism of McLaren. But it is not.
He is saying that the principle of having a competitor looking at their procedures is uinsatisfactory. It would have been exactly the same with Marelli.

#114 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:41

Originally posted by undersquare


What Todt says and Dr Mario doesn't, is (a) McLaren have an advantage in the championship, and (b) it is a situation "to monitor".

Todt's is spun. He is preparing to explain away McLaren's performance on the ECU, and to keep bitching about it.

Mario is just saying that the situation created by the FIA SECU decision is unsatisfactory.


Originally posted by Homer.J
I get the impression that some people don't understand how journalism sometimes works. JT is criticized here for "moaning" about the ECU. However, what I think happened is, that probably at some press conference some journalist asked JT if he thought whether the standard ECU would be an advantage to McLaren. And he just answered the question, giving his opinion. And I think he's right. I think it's pretty obvious that it will be an advantage to McLaren, just like the Bridgestone tires were an advantage for Ferrari. You can argue how big the advantage really is.
But it's not like JT picked up the phone by himself to call some newspapers to complain about it, or compain to the FIA.


Todt was probably asked if he thought it was an advantage for McLaren and he gave his opinion that it should be at the beginning of the season. You simply don't like Todt and because of that you bash him for saying the same things what others say too.

Here is Renault's Denis Chevrier saying it will give an advantage to McLaren:

Frage: "Werden einige Teams einen Vorteil gegenüber anderen haben?"
Chevrier: "Es ist klar, dass diesen Winter ein Team weniger hart arbeiten muss als zehn andere. Dieses Team hat die Sprache der neuen ECU bereits komplett verstanden und verinnerlicht. Das bedeutet, dass es sich auf andere Bereiche konzentrieren kann, während die Konkurrenten sich mit dem Feintuning der neuen ECU beschäftigen müssen."

"Dieses Team hatte außerdem einen Vorteil, da die Mehrheit der Top-Teams schon während des Sommers nach zusätzlichen Funktionen und Programmen gefragt hat, die in die ECU aufgenommen werden sollten. Das könnte ein paar Hinweise auf einige Dinge gegeben haben: Zum Beispiel auf die Philosophie, die Bedienung von bestimmten Steuerungen oder wie Daten erfasst, gespeichert und ausgelesen werden können.



http://www.motorspor...l_07112207.html

(The interview was made in November, I'm sure it's available in English too. But I don't know where.)

#115 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 12:51

Originally posted by Galko877




Todt was probably asked if he thought it was an advantage for McLaren and he gave his opinion that it should be at the beginning of the season. You simply don't like Todt and because of that you bash him for saying the same things what others say too.

Here is Renault's Denis Chevrier saying it will give an advantage to McLaren:


http://www.motorspor...l_07112207.html

(The interview was made in November, I'm sure it's available in English too. But I don't know where.)


Well if you want to give us a translation I'll gladly comment on it. But there's no dispute that it's an advantage to McLaren.

And there's a difference between criticism, which is for something, and bashing. It's not that I dislike Todt and therefore criticise him, it's the other way round. He looks for political and PR ways to denigrate his competitors, won't even say the word McLaren, and so I dislike him for being unsporting.

#116 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,222 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:03

Originally posted by undersquare
He looks for political and PR ways to denigrate his competitors, won't even say the word McLaren, and so I dislike him for being unsporting.

He says 'McLaren' twice in the quote Galko posted at #108 above. Is this criticism generally justified or just an 'internet fact'?

#117 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:05

Originally posted by undersquare


Well if you want to give us a translation I'll gladly comment on it. But there's no dispute that it's an advantage to McLaren.


I have found the interview in English:

Will some teams have a bigger advantage than others?
"It’s obvious that one team won’t have to make the same effort as the other ten this winter. For the team in question, the common ECU and its language have been fully understood and assimilated. This means that it can concentrate its efforts in other areas while its rivals fine-tune the way the common ECU works. This team has also been given an advantage, as during the summer the majority of the top teams asked for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. That could have given a few clues as to how to operate certain controls, the data acquisition philosophy, stocking, data processing etc."



http://www.f1technical.net/news/7680


If you agree there's no dispute it's an advantage to McLaren why exactly do you criticize Todt for saying so?

And there's a difference between criticism, which is for something, and bashing. It's not that I dislike Todt and therefore criticise him, it's the other way round. He looks for political and PR ways to denigrate his competitors, won't even say the word McLaren, and so I dislike him for being unsporting.



Well, Todt DID say the word McLaren - and not only once - in his comment. Chevrier on the other hand in the above comment... But sure, Todt is sooooo unsporting! :rolleyes:

#118 Homer.J

Homer.J
  • New Member

  • 4 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:07

Originally posted by Galko877
Todt was probably asked if he thought it was an advantage for McLaren and he gave his opinion that it should be at the beginning of the season. You simply don't like Todt and because of that you bash him for saying the same things what others say too.

Exactly! I think that we have already established that McLaren indeed have at least a temporary advantage. You can argue about if that advantage is bigger than Ferrari's advantage with the Bridgestone tyres, or if it is unfair at all is not. However, that's not what we are discussing here. I think that everybody agrees that there is at least some (temporary) advantage for McLaren. McLaren admits it, and Ferrari is not the only team who would have rather seen a different supplier.
The only thing Todt did was giving his opinion when he was asked about it. And it seems that he is not the only one having that opinion. He is NOT saying that if McLaren will win, it will be an unfair victory. He doesn't say anything like that at all. You just want him to say that, so you can enjoy yourselves in portraying Ferrari as the complaining team again, looking for a political victory.

In general: you can count on it that at least half of the quotes that are being reported as news articles on any F1 news website, are made during some kind of interview in which the person simply answers a question, after which it is taken out of context. Although the exact meaning of someone's quote doesn't change, the impression it leaves can make a big difference. Writing a single article that says that Todt said "..." , suggests that he took the initiative to bring something to the attention. And that's very different than just giving your opinion about something when being asked about it.

Really, if you manage to understand that, you will have a lot less reasons to get annoyed by articles you read on F1.

#119 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:23

Originally posted by undersquare


And there's a difference between criticism, which is for something, and bashing. It's not that I dislike Todt and therefore criticise him, it's the other way round. He looks for political and PR ways to denigrate his competitors, won't even say the word McLaren, and so I dislike him for being unsporting.


All teambosses think and say the same about the situation:
- Mclaren [or a 'certain team'] has advantage from this situation [don't need to adapt to the ECU -> resources needed to adapt can be transferred to other developments]
- other teams are unhappy, that Mclaren [or a 'certain team'] can read their data.

But if I correctly understand, whatever Todt says [about mclaren providing the ECU] is bashing, and whatever the other teambosses say it's criticism. Wonderful. :up:

Advertisement

#120 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:29

Originally posted by Johny Bravo



- that Mclaren [or a 'certain team'] can read their data.


How are they going to do that, or did you just make it up for effect?? yes, you did.

From what i've read, the team bosses are more concerned about the amount of work and - in theissens words - expense the move to a (any) standard ECU has necessitated.

#121 Sébastien

Sébastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:34

Originally posted by Lifew12


How are they going to do that, or did you just make it up for effect?? yes, you did.


DR Mario: the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working) , doesn't make things better either.

Maybe Johny actually read the interview :rolleyes:

#122 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:35

Originally posted by Lifew12


How are they going to do that, or did you just make it up for effect?? yes, you did.


I think he was referring what Mario Theissen said:

"'The decision to have an ECU has been a mistake. The costs have risen significantly because of it. And the fact that the unit is made by a competitor, who receives our data and can analyse our praxis (of working), doesn't make things better either.''



#123 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:37

Originally posted by Lifew12


How are they going to do that, or did you just make it up for effect?? yes, you did.

From what i've read, the team bosses are more concerned about the amount of work and - in theissens words - expense the move to a (any) standard ECU has necessitated.


You might try to read this: http://www.f1complet.../view/7200/900/

And then hide in shame.

#124 FizzyJerk

FizzyJerk
  • Member

  • 332 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:51

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


The only question You raised in your thread opener was this:



Sure You were interested in how the SECU benefits Mclaren...

Seems You have trouble understanding your own thread title.

Hipocrisy at its best. :wave:


:clap: :wave:

#125 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:52

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


You might try to read this: http://www.f1complet.../view/7200/900/

And then hide in shame.


Hang on, all you who replied believe that McLaren will have a direct line to the comings and goings of their rivals cars via the standard ECU??

It's an electronic management system, not a satellite communications network!

It passes you by, also, that MES have been supplying these to a number of teams for some time now.

#126 Lifew12

Lifew12
  • Member

  • 4,551 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:53

Originally posted by Sébastien



Maybe Johny actually read the interview :rolleyes:


Maybe he should try and understand it, then.

#127 Chiara

Chiara
  • Member

  • 1,847 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 09 January 2008 - 13:55

Some more reasonable comments from the Ferrari camp....

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/64578

Domenicali also echoed Jean Todt's remarks that rivals McLaren will have an early advantage when the season begins thanks to having built the new electronics system which all teams must use.

"Jean Todt has already cleared this position from our point of view," he added. "This should not become an excuse for us, it will mean we have to work more intensely, more precisely because this is a fact. Full stop.

"It is there, it is in the car so this new parameter must be used as best as possible. If they eventually should have an advantage, because they know the basic structure, this should not become an excuse. We must work, work and work. Full stop."



#128 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:07

Originally posted by Buttoneer

He says 'McLaren' twice in the quote Galko posted at #108 above. Is this criticism generally justified or just an 'internet fact'?


Well if he's changed his policy from last year when it was always "our main competitor" then great. I'll wait to see, though, if he still names McLaren when he's not pointing the finger of suspicion at them.

#129 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:08

Originally posted by Lifew12


Maybe he should try and understand it, then.


What about following your own advice?

BMW-Sauber team principal Dr Mario Theissen voiced his qualms to the German newspaper Bild on Wednesday.

"The move to standard electronics was a mistake," he said. "We have incurred substantial additional costs.

"And the fact that (the ECU) is dispensed by a competitor, which receives and looks at our procedures , does not make things any better," the German added.



Which part You don't understand???

#130 Mika Mika

Mika Mika
  • Member

  • 6,738 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:09

Guys,

Of course the Other team bosses are upset by this rule, in the same way as they would be upset if the FIA mandated that they had to use a standard Front and Rear Wing built by say Renault...

Dr Theissen and Mr Todt are entilted to their opinion, They are not as you say "bitching" they are just expressing their point of view and that of their respective teams. They are fully aware that the FIA have made this rule for a reason and will just work around it.

When Mr Todt says "he'd prefer the ECU be made by another team," I wouldn't read that as an attack on McLaren, far from it, he'd simpily prefer the ECU be built by Marelli because then Ferrari could enjoy the advantage that McLaren now have...

#131 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,222 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:10

Originally posted by undersquare

I'll wait to see, though, if he still names McLaren when he's not pointing the finger of suspicion at them.

Good point!

#132 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:25

Originally posted by Chiara
Some more reasonable comments from the Ferrari camp....

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Domenicali also echoed Jean Todt's remarks that rivals McLaren will have an early advantage when the season begins thanks to having built the new electronics system which all teams must use.

"Jean Todt has already cleared this position from our point of view," he added. "This should not become an excuse for us, it will mean we have to work more intensely, more precisely because this is a fact. Full stop.

"It is there, it is in the car so this new parameter must be used as best as possible. If they eventually should have an advantage, because they know the basic structure, this should not become an excuse. We must work, work and work. Full stop."

http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/64578


Stefano seems a good guy. Note that while saying that he's repeating Todt, he is actually distancing the team from the inference that "it's an excuse", i.e. something unfair. Brawn was the same - it's more work, a temporary advantage, but given an SECU rule then something that has to be accepted. Brawn IIRC also specifically mentioned the Bridgestone advantage as being similar for Ferrari in 07.

#133 Galko877

Galko877
  • Member

  • 4,164 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:37

Originally posted by undersquare


Stefano seems a good guy. Note that while saying that he's repeating Todt, he is actually distancing the team from the inference that "it's an excuse", i.e. something unfair. Brawn was the same - it's more work, a temporary advantage, but given an SECU rule then something that has to be accepted. Brawn IIRC also specifically mentioned the Bridgestone advantage as being similar for Ferrari in 07.


I stand by it: you are bashing Todt because you don't like him. You can't really point out anything in his comments that hasn't been echoed by others. Then you said you dislike him because he doesn't name McLaren - when he does in these recent comment. (Yet, you say nothing about Chevrier who indeed did not name McLaren only called them "one team".)

And now you are suggesting Domenicali is "actually distancing" himself from Todt - when in reality he says the same, even stating "Jean Todt has already cleared this position from our point of view" - which means he agrees with Todt, don't you think so?

#134 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:49

Originally posted by Galko877


I stand by it: you are bashing Todt because you don't like him. You can't really point out anything in his comments that hasn't been echoed by others. Then you said you dislike him because he doesn't name McLaren - when he does in these recent comment. (Yet, you say nothing about Chevrier who indeed did not name McLaren only called them "one team".)

And now you are suggesting Domenicali is "actually distancing" himself from Todt - when in reality he says the same, even stating "Jean Todt has already cleared this position from our point of view" - which means he agrees with Todt, don't you think so?


I guess it's pointless to try to change the mind of those who entered [or opened] this thread with the sole purpose of bashing Todt and/or Ferrari. Logic is defied by hatred.

#135 Orin

Orin
  • Member

  • 8,444 posts
  • Joined: October 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:55

Originally posted by undersquare


Stefano seems a good guy. Note that while saying that he's repeating Todt, he is actually distancing the team from the inference that "it's an excuse", i.e. something unfair. Brawn was the same - it's more work, a temporary advantage, but given an SECU rule then something that has to be accepted. Brawn IIRC also specifically mentioned the Bridgestone advantage as being similar for Ferrari in 07.


I agree, he's almost apologising for Todt's words. As I understand it, McLaren have been given a very small advantage because the ECU is of the same dimensions as that which they'd previously used, meaning that they didn't need to divert resources to design it into the car. From the software point of view - where the major changes are - they are no better off than any other team.

#136 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:55

Originally posted by Galko877


I stand by it: you are bashing Todt because you don't like him. You can't really point out anything in his comments that hasn't been echoed by others. Then you said you dislike him because he doesn't name McLaren - when he does in these recent comment. (Yet, you say nothing about Chevrier who indeed did not name McLaren only called them "one team".)

And now you are suggesting Domenicali is "actually distancing" himself from Todt - when in reality he says the same, even stating "Jean Todt has already cleared this position from our point of view" - which means he agrees with Todt, don't you think so?


The essence of spin is to say something that is true, but with an inference.

Chevier is not a McLaren fan, judging by his wife's go at Hammy in Brazil, but he says...

"It’s obvious that one team won’t have to make the same effort as the other ten this winter. For the team in question, the common ECU and its language have been fully understood and assimilated. This means that it can concentrate its efforts in other areas while its rivals fine-tune the way the common ECU works. This team has also been given an advantage, as during the summer the majority of the top teams asked for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. That could have given a few clues as to how to operate certain controls, the data acquisition philosophy, stocking, data processing etc."

This would apply to any SECU supplier unless they had come from outside F1.

Todt says;
"McLaren will have an advantage in the championship". Same thing, and yet different.

He also says it will need "monitoring". A vague doubt about something ...

These are subtle differences, but real. Political skill, not racing.

#137 Dragonfly

Dragonfly
  • Member

  • 4,496 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 14:56

Originally posted by Johny Bravo


You might try to read this: http://www.f1complet.../view/7200/900/

And then hide in shame.


He does not know what shame is :)
Besides he's a broad expert - from court and juridical procedures to engine management and car electronics.
:rotfl:

#138 Sébastien

Sébastien
  • Member

  • 1,267 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:11

Originally posted by undersquare
These are subtle differences, but real. Political skill, not racing.

No it's not, it's nitpicking and trying to defend the indefensible when you were exposed, by several posters, for having a good oldfashioned bash of Mr Todt here.

Nothing wrong with that imo but please don't try to weasel yourself out of this by resorting to the "subtle differences" that only you seem to grasp.

#139 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:14

Originally posted by undersquare


Todt says;
"McLaren will have an advantage in the championship". Same thing, and yet different.


WHY is it different? Will Mclaren have an advantage, YES or NO?

Originally posted by undersquare

He also says it will need "monitoring". A vague doubt about something ...


We're talking about a $100M proven cheater team who used an active mole within Ferrari half a year long and spread stolen knowledge accross their team, just read my sig.

You're right, the doubt is anything but vague.

Advertisement

#140 F1 Engineer

F1 Engineer
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:25

I think its already been "agreed" that McLaren are getting some kind of (albeit, I believe, very small) benefit from this ruling, as Ferrari would have done had Magnetti Marelli (the other tendor) been awarded the contract.

However, nobody has considered that other teams may also be benefiting from a more advanced ECU, though Ferrari will need to work on packaging for example, to fit the new unit, its actually far more efficent in terms of volume and dimensions, so perhaps they're actually coming out with an overall benefit in the whole affair.

Just my ramblings. :p

#141 undersquare

undersquare
  • Member

  • 18,929 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:36

Originally posted by Sébastien

No it's not, it's nitpicking and trying to defend the indefensible when you were exposed, by several posters, for having a good oldfashioned bash of Mr Todt here.

Nothing wrong with that imo but please don't try to weasel yourself out of this by resorting to the "subtle differences" that only you seem to grasp.


Well first of all lay off the weasel insults. If you have a good case you don't need them.

The difference is that Theissen, Chevrier & Co are complaining about the workload and the unavoidable advantage that the SECU supplier has had, while Todt is complaining specifically that McLaren have an advantage in the championship. That is a real difference in emphasis. The FIA imposed the SECU and chose the supplier, so it's the FIA the others are complaining about.

Reasoned criticism is not bashing, even if it's about someone at Ferrari and you disagree. Introducing "$100M proven cheater team" into a thread about the SECU is an example of bashing.

#142 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:39

Originally posted by F1 Engineer
I think its already been "agreed" that McLaren are getting some kind of (albeit, I believe, very small) benefit from this ruling, as Ferrari would have done had Magnetti Marelli (the other tendor) been awarded the contract.

However, nobody has considered that other teams may also be benefiting from a more advanced ECU, though Ferrari will need to work on packaging for example, to fit the new unit, its actually far more efficent in terms of volume and dimensions, so perhaps they're actually coming out with an overall benefit in the whole affair.

Just my ramblings. :p


I was thinking the same thing today. Surely the back of the grid teams would be loving this? They are getting an ECU system, as good as, and as well packaged as any other team out there?

Also, i liked Domenicalli's words today. He is doing a good job of being the public face of the team. Also very cool to see Kimi on a board instead of ski's. I bet he is the first Ferrari driver to do that at the ski weekend! :up:

#143 F1 Engineer

F1 Engineer
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 15:41

Originally posted by Mat


I was thinking the same thing today. Surely the back of the grid teams would be loving this? They are getting an ECU system, as good as, and as well packaged as any other team out there?

Also, i liked Domenicalli's words today. He is doing a good job of being the public face of the team. Also very cool to see Kimi on a board instead of ski's. I bet he is the first Ferrari driver to do that at the ski weekend! :up:

Well some teams were already getting MES ECUs, but from what I know of the matter, they're now getting them even cheaper too.

#144 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,210 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 January 2008 - 19:28

Originally posted by Mat


I was thinking the same thing today. Surely the back of the grid teams would be loving this? They are getting an ECU system, as good as, and as well packaged as any other team out there?

Also, i liked Domenicalli's words today. He is doing a good job of being the public face of the team. Also very cool to see Kimi on a board instead of ski's. I bet he is the first Ferrari driver to do that at the ski weekend! :up:


Other than possibly cost, are the smaller teams getting anything they didnt have before? This is still just the electronics, not software, so the smaller teams will be at an increased disadvantage in adapting their systems.

#145 Mat

Mat
  • Member

  • 7,674 posts
  • Joined: January 99

Posted 09 January 2008 - 21:27

Originally posted by F1 Engineer

Well some teams were already getting MES ECUs, but from what I know of the matter, they're now getting them even cheaper too.


Thanks for the info.

With regard Chevier's comments, "this team has also been given an advantage, as during the summer the majority of the top teams asked for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. That could have given a few clues as to how to operate certain controls, the data acquisition philosophy, stocking, data processing etc."

If any teams did ask for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. Would this information be updated on every teams ECU?

#146 Josta

Josta
  • Member

  • 2,237 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 21:29

Originally posted by Clatter


Other than possibly cost, are the smaller teams getting anything they didnt have before? This is still just the electronics, not software, so the smaller teams will be at an increased disadvantage in adapting their systems.


The tender was won by Microsoft MES. The whole point of the standardised ecu is the fact that the FIA can control the software. Microsoft provide the software.

#147 Ninja2b

Ninja2b
  • Member

  • 628 posts
  • Joined: April 04

Posted 09 January 2008 - 22:07

Microsoft are merely a sponsor, they do not supply the software. The software is supplied by TAG, as is the ECU. I can't see where Microsoft come in to the equation, other than in sticking their name on the manual. But then I might be missing something obvious.

When teams request software then it has to go into all of the ECU's. So everyone will have access to everyone elses stuff. However, I am not sure if the documentation describes all the functionality.... the simulink files do, but I am not sure if the manual does.

#148 Johny Bravo

Johny Bravo
  • Member

  • 2,599 posts
  • Joined: April 03

Posted 09 January 2008 - 22:31

Originally posted by Mat


With regard Chevier's comments, "this team has also been given an advantage, as during the summer the majority of the top teams asked for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. That could have given a few clues as to how to operate certain controls, the data acquisition philosophy, stocking, data processing etc."


Where's lifew12 when You need him?...

#149 F1 Engineer

F1 Engineer
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 22:49

Originally posted by Mat


Thanks for the info.

With regard Chevier's comments, "this team has also been given an advantage, as during the summer the majority of the top teams asked for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. That could have given a few clues as to how to operate certain controls, the data acquisition philosophy, stocking, data processing etc."

If any teams did ask for functions to be added to the ECU and its programme. Would this information be updated on every teams ECU?

The ECU's must be of the same specification, so yes, and I think there's a limit on how many updates can be made to the units throughout the year also - I'd imagine because the smaller teams would not want to have to constantly purchase a new ECU when the old one works fine.

#150 F1 Engineer

F1 Engineer
  • Member

  • 311 posts
  • Joined: December 07

Posted 09 January 2008 - 22:51

Originally posted by Ninja2b
Microsoft are merely a sponsor, they do not supply the software. The software is supplied by TAG, as is the ECU. I can't see where Microsoft come in to the equation, other than in sticking their name on the manual. But then I might be missing something obvious.

When teams request software then it has to go into all of the ECU's. So everyone will have access to everyone elses stuff. However, I am not sure if the documentation describes all the functionality.... the simulink files do, but I am not sure if the manual does.

I may be wrong, as this isn't my area (ATM_Andy know more I think), but I think that there's very little software inside the ECU, most of the analysis, etc. is done outside and that doesn't need FIA approval (though it may just be easier for some teams to use the ATLAS system that McLaren/MES also sells).