428 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

So how come Palmer or Magnussen has no opinion on this?

 

Have either of them made comments on the subject?

[ANF]

I can't wait to see Palmer's analysis video!

[Clatter]

I can't wait to see Palmer's analysis video!

He will claim there is an NDA as his get out.

[Marklar]

Sounds pretty defensive, doesnt it? https://twitter.com/...2601959427?s=19

Edit: and https://twitter.com/...1544931328?s=19

Edited by Marklar, 25 October 2019 - 17:15.

[jimjimjeroo]

Where's the video?

[Marklar]

Where's the video?

I've linked it earlier



Those yellow numbers on the top left

[pup]

Interesting - https://twitter.com/...771351005876224

 

 

 

Otmar Szafnauer tells Sky that Racing Point wrote to the FIA asking if Renault's brake bias system was legal as it wanted to use a similar version. Was told it was not, so then lodged the protest

 

[george1981]

Interesting that FIA are not publishing how the automated system works. The input for the change of bias is not triggered by distance through a lap (as claimed by Racing Point) but something else.

 

Any ideas of what that could be?

 

I think it could be connected to engine map, which has its own harvesting and deployment map for H and K, which in turn is GPS or distance driven

 

 

I think you're onto something there.

Going back to some of the points of the FIA decision:

 

2. This described control system is not pre-set, lap distance-dependent as alleged.

 

3. Renault drivers use buttons mounted on the steering wheel to control brake balance in compliance with Article 8.6.3 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations. These are connected to the FIA Standard ECU.

 

4. Given the above, the Stewards conclude that while Renault used innovative solutions to exploit certain ambiguities in the Technical Regulations and other supporting documents, their system does not breach any current Technical Regulation.

 

 

 

I believe the only two legal ways to alter the brake bias are the driver input or through the automatic brake by wire controller that controls the amount of bias depending on the harvesting from the MGU-K. 

 

If as you point out the MGU-K harvesting controller could be pre-set or GPS based, this could send a signal to the brake by wire controller telling it what setting to use for each corner. Then the driver could turn on this system by a button on the steering wheel. 

 

I think this might just be within the technical regulations and the wording of the stewards decision. The MGU-K controller could request a different amount of bias depending on where it was on track, this request is sent to the brake by wire controller which is the only legal way to alter the brake bias other than a driver input. If the driver has the option to turn the system on or off via a button on the steering wheel then they're still in control. 

 

If so I can see why it's a grey area. The brake by wire system is the only one that is allowed to alter the brake bias but it needs input from the MGU-K system. This is all allowed under the regulations. But the MGU-K controller can be cleverer than the FIA thought and choose how much harvesting and brake bias is required for each corner rather than have a pre-set amount of harvesting based upon the battery charge level say.  

 

There's some useful information here on modern F1 brakes:

https://www.motorspo...044399/3115789/

[PayasYouRace]

Grosjean says they had the system right back in 2015.

 

https://www.autospor...ng-system-in-15

 

I'd forgotten how pretty that Lotus-Mercedes was.

[george1981]

Grosjean says they had the system right back in 2015.

 

https://www.autospor...ng-system-in-15

 

I'd forgotten how pretty that Lotus-Mercedes was.

 

It doesn't surprise me. Given Cyril's comment though there are a lot of allowed driver aids on the current cars that reduce the driver's workload, even though the sporting regulations say the car must be driven by the driver unaided. The semi-automatic paddle shift gear boxes are definitely a driver aid, races would be a lot different if drivers had to change gear by taking a hand off the steering wheel. 

 

I had a good article a few years back about Michael Schumacher's Jordan debut. He was given a few shakedown laps at Silverstone before the GP weekend. According to the article that I remember the Jordan team personal were very concerned by how fast Schumacher went on his first few laps as he was driving what would be his car and engine for the weekend. A comment I recall was about the H shift gear box. If he made one wrong gear change he could over rev the engine and destroy his weekend before it started. Fortunately he didn't and the rest is history. But for Renault to be branded cheats for using this system I think is a step too far. 

[v@sh]

How is it any different to say a rev counter on the dash?

 

Rev counter goes to X rpm, colour leds indicate roughly the RPM or on screen display shows the optimum gearshift, driver to control when to upshift/downshift.

Brake-bias system to show optimal bias for a corner, driver to control the brake bias as required (it may not even suit the drivers style). Say it is 3.0% through a corner, it's might be the optimal but the driver may find his brake bias fine for the lap so there is no need to change it. How many other drivers change their brake bias every single corner???

 

The concept is the same and there are other 'driver aids' used in the car IMO. I don't think it's an automated driver aid like it's made out to be and Renault to be cheats as many seem to think they are. Just a good way of providing information to the driver. It's a grey area

 

It would have been better if Charlie was in charge, he would have given Renault a race or two to change the system if he thought that the system contravened any of the regs or let it be known to Renault that RP could protest. Given Renault have used the system for years, I think Charlie had it right.

 

If Renault end up beating RP again in Mexico again, does this 'driver aid' actually make that much of a difference??

Edited by v@sh, 26 October 2019 - 07:29.

[Baddoer]

Grosjean says they had the system right back in 2015.

 

https://www.autospor...ng-system-in-15

 

I'd forgotten how pretty that Lotus-Mercedes was.

Sounds realistic considering how much Grosjean was struggling with the brakes after joining Haas.

[v@sh]

Sounds realistic considering how much Grosjean was struggling with the brakes after joining Haas.

 

If it was soooo good and beneficial for Grosjean, why didn't he bring that information across when he went to Haas????????????

[george1981]

If it was soooo good and beneficial for Grosjean, why didn't he bring that information across when he went to Haas????????????

 

It depends how you interpret this statement:

Speaking about the legality of the device at that time, Romain Grosjean said, “Well let’s say that I asked to replicate it later on and they wouldn’t do it. It was good though.”

 

I didn't see the interview so don't know the context but I assume the 'they' he is referring to are Haas. If so he asked Haas to replicate the system but they wouldn't do it. 

Just because Haas wouldn't do it doesn't necessarily imply they thought it was illegal though. Haas are a customer team of Ferrari and would have had to request Ferrari do this on their behalf as they don't have the flexibility that Renault do as a manufacturer. 

 

Now that the customer teams have parity with the factory teams when it comes to engines, did McLaren get offered this system? Or Redbull last year?

[ANF]

According to the stewards, the illegally automated software is "an integral part of" Renault's rear brake control system.

[gowebber]

Bit of a dog move from RP they way they went about this protest according to Cyril and another unnamed team boss. They could have raised it earlier but were trying to screw over Renault for maximum points it seems. Guess it all depends on if teams have a code of conduct with each other on how they raise issues like this. 

 

"“If they had put their doubts to us and to the FIA, we could have explained it,” he said.

“I have to raise the issue about how they went about it. They had a choice,” Abiteboul added.

“They could have asked the FIA to issue a technical directive, or asked them questions outside of a race weekend. This is the way it is always done.

“But at Racing Point they violated the agreement and instead prepared a 12-page dossier for several weeks, waiting for the right moment to win backs points from us,” he charged.

An unnamed team boss sided with Renault, telling Auto Motor und Sport: “Racing Point clearly went against the unwritten law about first trying to clarify these things internally.”"

 

https://grandpx.news...e-bias-protest/

Edited by gowebber, 26 October 2019 - 09:50.

[v@sh]

It depends how you interpret this statement:

Speaking about the legality of the device at that time, Romain Grosjean said, “Well let’s say that I asked to replicate it later on and they wouldn’t do it. It was good though.”

 

I didn't see the interview so don't know the context but I assume the 'they' he is referring to are Haas. If so he asked Haas to replicate the system but they wouldn't do it. 

Just because Haas wouldn't do it doesn't necessarily imply they thought it was illegal though. Haas are a customer team of Ferrari and would have had to request Ferrari do this on their behalf as they don't have the flexibility that Renault do as a manufacturer. 

 

Now that the customer teams have parity with the factory teams when it comes to engines, did McLaren get offered this system? Or Redbull last year?

 

I have not seen the article in it's entirely either for full context.

 

I also do not see why Hass would need to request Ferrari to do it on their behalf just because they are customer team unless say the software is provided by Ferrari. The way it is setup seems pretty easy enough, map out where you are on the circuit via gps and given what you are setting up the car, display on the info display on the steering what the optimum brake bias is. I don't see why it would be that much of a complex thing to implement compared to what RP was protesting in the first place.

 

I also do not see how it is any different - say the system was not in place and shown on the steering wheel - from the driver memorising what the optimum brake bias for each corner in his own head and applying it as he sees fit. All it does it makes it easier for the driver to remember what the optimum brake bias for a given corner.

 

That's all assuming that the driver actually needs to change the brake bias. Just because it may be considered optimum does not necessarily mean it is right. If Grosjean has requested it and Haas declined, maybe they declined because they did not see the benefit in it because as above, the driver can just memorise if required.

Edited by v@sh, 26 October 2019 - 09:50.

[Marklar]

Bit of a dog move from RP they way they went about this protest according to Cyril and another unnamed team boss. They could have raised it earlier but were trying to screw over Renault for maximum points it seems. Guess it all depends on if teams have a code of conduct with each other on how they raise issues like this.

"“If they had put their doubts to us and to the FIA, we could have explained it,” he said.
“I have to raise the issue about how they went about it. They had a choice,” Abiteboul added.
“They could have asked the FIA to issue a technical directive, or asked them questions outside of a race weekend. This is the way it is always done.
“But at Racing Point they violated the agreement and instead prepared a 12-page dossier for several weeks, waiting for the right moment to win backs points from us,” he charged.
An unnamed team boss sided with Renault, telling Auto Motor und Sport: “Racing Point clearly went against the unwritten law about first trying to clarify these things internally.”"

https://grandpx.news...e-bias-protest/

Based on the stories last week the FIA under Masi prefers protests over clarifications, though.

[v@sh]

According to the stewards, the illegally automated software is "an integral part of" Renault's rear brake control system.

 

The problem I have with this statement is that you yourself declare it as 'illegally automated software' even though it has been deemed entirely legal by the FIA.

 

The only issue that Renault is falling foul of is the sporting regulations in regards to 'driver aids'. Stop pretending to declare it illegal when it is not.

[pacificquay]

Stop pretending to declare it illegal when it is not.

if it’s not possible to use it without breaking the sporting regulations then it is illegal

[FPV GTHO]

I think you're onto something there.
Going back to some of the points of the FIA decision:

2. This described control system is not pre-set, lap distance-dependent as alleged.

3. Renault drivers use buttons mounted on the steering wheel to control brake balance in compliance with Article 8.6.3 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations. These are connected to the FIA Standard ECU.

4. Given the above, the Stewards conclude that while Renault used innovative solutions to exploit certain ambiguities in the Technical Regulations and other supporting documents, their system does not breach any current Technical Regulation.



I believe the only two legal ways to alter the brake bias are the driver input or through the automatic brake by wire controller that controls the amount of bias depending on the harvesting from the MGU-K.

If as you point out the MGU-K harvesting controller could be pre-set or GPS based, this could send a signal to the brake by wire controller telling it what setting to use for each corner. Then the driver could turn on this system by a button on the steering wheel.

I think this might just be within the technical regulations and the wording of the stewards decision. The MGU-K controller could request a different amount of bias depending on where it was on track, this request is sent to the brake by wire controller which is the only legal way to alter the brake bias other than a driver input. If the driver has the option to turn the system on or off via a button on the steering wheel then they're still in control.

If so I can see why it's a grey area. The brake by wire system is the only one that is allowed to alter the brake bias but it needs input from the MGU-K system. This is all allowed under the regulations. But the MGU-K controller can be cleverer than the FIA thought and choose how much harvesting and brake bias is required for each corner rather than have a pre-set amount of harvesting based upon the battery charge level say.

There's some useful information here on modern F1 brakes:
https://www.motorspo...044399/3115789/

The BBW can't legally alter the brake bias though. Only the rear bias between the conventional brakes and the MGUK.

[ANF]

The problem I have with this statement is that you yourself declare it as 'illegally automated software' even though it has been deemed entirely legal by the FIA.
 
The only issue that Renault is falling foul of is the sporting regulations in regards to 'driver aids'. Stop pretending to declare it illegal when it is not.

All I can say to that is:

if it’s not possible to use it without breaking the sporting regulations then it is illegal

[george1981]

The BBW can't legally alter the brake bias though. Only the rear bias between the conventional brakes and the MGUK.

 

I think the wording of the technical regulations isn't that clear even if that was the intention, there might have been a clarification sent to the teams stating what the BBW controller could do and couldn't do but I've not seen it published anywhere. I remember when the BBW system was brought in, it was because selecting the amount of bias between the MGU-K and the rear brakes and to me it seemed clear that the system could only do what you've said, but it appears Renault might have had a different interpretation and now I've read the technical regulations the requirement seems less clear. 

 

 

 

11.1.3 Any powered device, other than the system referred to in Article 11.9, which is capable of altering the configuration or affecting the performance of any part of the brake system is forbidden.

11.1.4 Any change to, or modulation of, the brake system, other than any movement of the minimal flexible parts described in Article 11.4 to 11.6, whilst the car is on the track must be made by the driver's direct physical input or by the system referred to in Article 11.9, and may not be pre‐set.

 

11.9 Rear brake control system : The pressure in the rear braking circuit may be provided by a powered control system provided that : a) The driver brake pedal is connected to a hydraulic master cylinder that generates a pressure source that can be applied to the rear braking circuit if the powered system is disabled. b) The powered system is controlled by the control electronics described in Article 8.2.

 

 

Control electronics :

8.2.1 All components of the power unit, gearbox, clutch and differential, 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. The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA. Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

8.2.2 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 the Technical Regulations. Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle. These components and units may not be disassembled or modified in any way and seals and identifiers must remain intact and legible.

8.2.3 The control system wiring loom connectivity must be approved by the FIA. All wiring looms must be built to ensure that each control sensor and each control actuator connected to the ECU is electrically isolated from logging‐only sensors connected to either the ECU or a team data acquisition unit. In general, there must be no active or passive electronic component in the control loom. Exceptions (e.g. termination resistors) must be approved by the FIA before use. Additional wiring guidelines may be found in the Appendix to the Technical Regulations.

8.2.4 If sensor faults or errors are detected by the driver or by the on‐board software, back‐up sensors may be used and different settings may be manually or automatically selected. However, any back‐up sensor or new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car. Any driver default turned on during the start lockout period may not be turned off before the end of that period. 2019 F1 Technical Regulations 52/111 12 March 2019 © 2019 Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile   

8.2.5 Pneumatic valve pressure may only be controlled via a passive mechanical regulator or from the ECU and its operation will be monitored by the ECU.

 

8.6.3 Any alteration of the driver’s controls may only be commanded by direct, deliberate and primary driver actions. The logged raw signals from the ECU inputs must provide a true representation of the driver’s actions.

[RA2]

BBW can only alter the bias between the electrical and mechanical brake

[boomn]

It looks like the appropriate tech reg for the rear brake system is 11.7, and it doesn't appear to be related to what Renault did. This is basically a spec system that makes sure the driver always gets the same predictable braking force regardless of ERS harvesting mode. It controls a valve that reduces the hydraulic brake pressure by the amount of current ERS braking force

[ANF]

I think it was 11.7 before it became 11.9 in the 2019 regulations.

[Gambelli]

How is it any different to say a rev counter on the dash?

 

Rev counter goes to X rpm, colour leds indicate roughly the RPM or on screen display shows the optimum gearshift, driver to control when to upshift/downshift.

Brake-bias system to show optimal bias for a corner, driver to control the brake bias as required (it may not even suit the drivers style). Say it is 3.0% through a corner, it's might be the optimal but the driver may find his brake bias fine for the lap so there is no need to change it. How many other drivers change their brake bias every single corner???

 

The concept is the same and there are other 'driver aids' used in the car IMO. I don't think it's an automated driver aid like it's made out to be and Renault to be cheats as many seem to think they are. Just a good way of providing information to the driver. It's a grey area

 

It would have been better if Charlie was in charge, he would have given Renault a race or two to change the system if he thought that the system contravened any of the regs or let it be known to Renault that RP could protest. Given Renault have used the system for years, I think Charlie had it right.

 

If Renault end up beating RP again in Mexico again, does this 'driver aid' actually make that much of a difference??

 

I agree with this, how is this different from them getting a beep in their ear or a light that tells them when DRS is available so they don't have to look and judge for themselves? Or power steering? Or as you correctly point out a rev counter, or fuel maps..... or automated ERS use thats mapped for different parts of the circuit....

[FLB]

Bit of a dog move from RP they way they went about this protest according to Cyril and another unnamed team boss. They could have raised it earlier but were trying to screw over Renault for maximum points it seems. Guess it all depends on if teams have a code of conduct with each other on how they raise issues like this. 
 
"“If they had put their doubts to us and to the FIA, we could have explained it,” he said.[/size]
“I have to raise the issue about how they went about it. They had a choice,” Abiteboul added.
“They could have asked the FIA to issue a technical directive, or asked them questions outside of a race weekend. This is the way it is always done.
“But at Racing Point they violated the agreement and instead prepared a 12-page dossier for several weeks, waiting for the right moment to win backs points from us,” he charged.
An unnamed team boss sided with Renault, telling Auto Motor und Sport: “Racing Point clearly went against the unwritten law about first trying to clarify these things internally.”"
 
https://grandpx.news...e-bias-protest/

Sounds like Cyril was caught with his pantalons down.

That type of reaction goes along with how he was reacting to Horner’s criticisms as shown in the Netflix documentary last season. A bit weak, IMHO.

[Fatgadget]

Sounds like Cyril was caught with his pantalons down.

That type of reaction goes along with how he was reacting to Horner’s criticisms as shown in the Netflix documentary last season. A bit weak, IMHO.

Not sure attacking the messenger reinforces ones argument TBH.