Jump to content


Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Racing Point protest against Renault, Japan 2019


  • Please log in to reply
428 replies to this topic

#101 baddog

baddog
  • Member

  • 27,324 posts
  • Joined: June 99

Posted 13 October 2019 - 23:40

Pretty sure this would as described fall foul yes.

 

Could be pretty bad if it went wrong for some reason too.



Advertisement

#102 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 October 2019 - 23:43

The thing is Racing Point has prepared this protest for a while, so it is about something that affected more races than this.

Now whether you can prove it beyond Suzuka is a different question, though.

Though I doubt that much will happen, the FIA isnt really prone to dishing out penalties retrospectively


Teams declaring their own scrutineering for this year might change things

#103 loki

loki
  • Member

  • 5,987 posts
  • Joined: May 02

Posted 14 October 2019 - 00:02

The ghost of Smokey Yunick lives on though it looks like he’s moved “The Best Damn Garage in Town” to Oxfordshire...

 

If true that’s a great cheat.



#104 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 00:10

I really hope that is not the case because if Hulk did pass the info on Renault would have little choice but to summarily terminate him for breach of contract and it would be a sad end to their partnership. 

(Assuming that the device was illegal), if anyone on the team did reveal it to the authorities he would be protected by "whistleblower" law.



#105 richardprice

richardprice
  • Member

  • 70 posts
  • Joined: June 19

Posted 14 October 2019 - 00:32

(Assuming that the device was illegal), if anyone on the team did reveal it to the authorities he would be protected by "whistleblower" law.

 

Given both Racing Point and Renault are based in the UK and this would then probably fall under UK employment law, theres no indication that giving information about a breach in a sporting code would fall under an action which counts as protected under whistleblowing laws.

 

Renault haven't done anything *illegal* as in against criminal or civil law, they have breached a voluntary sporting code enforced by a sporting body.  There may be something in the contracts that the teams sign with Liberty and the FIA in order to take part, but otherwise...



#106 pup

pup
  • Member

  • 1,490 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 October 2019 - 02:52

If Renault indeed breached regulations, i can't see why they would get a heavier penalty than Alfa Romeo for cheating at Hockhenheim.

At worst it will be DSQ, IMHO.

Anything heavier would be a joke.

Maybe, but then if I remember correctly the FIA didn’t really inspect the Alfas to see if there was a software cheat vs an error. Given the reported detail of Racing Point’s documentation, it’s possible that this gets treated more like Honda 2005, even if the advantage that Renault is likely getting from something like this is much smaller.

#107 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 6,161 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 03:08

I mean I dont rate Hulkenberg as a person at all, but to speculate so much that he's been whispering stuff that can end really ugly for the team that paid him handsomely just in an act of revenge because they didnt extent with him seems a bit much, when he personally has nothing to gain from this (yes, Piquet jr. has neither, but Piquet jr was proper race fixing, not secret illegal-y stuff that probably everyone is doing to some extent). I dont say that it is impossible of course, especially if he is not aware of the consequences, but I would rather assume that Racing Point has been carefully studying their opponents, and maybe new staff coming from there told them something.

It's quite disappointing to see people accusing Hulk of this. Just crazy stuff. He doesn't strike me as that kind of guy in the slightest.

#108 WelshSwan

WelshSwan
  • Member

  • 836 posts
  • Joined: June 14

Posted 14 October 2019 - 04:18

I honestly don't think Hulk would be that stupid or that type of guy to be honest. He's likely out of F1 for next year, barring an outside shot at the Williams/Alfa/RB seat, none of which seem likely to me. BUT it's very possible that it's not the end of his career in F1, he could make a come back depending on how people perform next year or if drivers decide to retire. Ratting out Renault would hardly be a good move for him if he does indeed want to try to get back into F1, what team would take him knowing that if they upset him or decided to dump him he'd run off and tell competitors any secrets you may not want shared? Can't imagine many teams would want someone like that.

 

I could understand people thinking this if Hulk was going to RP next year but he's not.



#109 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,986 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 14 October 2019 - 05:17

I don't understand what the benefit would be. It's not too hard for the driver to set bias manually before every braking point?

 

I expect, looking at the on-board and watch the handling the driver does before and in corner could make a suggestion.

 

Edit: later Marklar's quotes RP that that is indeed their saying.


Edited by Maxioos, 14 October 2019 - 05:46.


#110 Maxioos

Maxioos
  • Member

  • 3,986 posts
  • Joined: October 17

Posted 14 October 2019 - 05:38

If the system is as distance-based as it is, I wonder how it will react if driver shortcuts a chicane or runs much wide, so the lap distance will be different compared to what it is supposed to be.

 

I was thinking about that also, one time passing one, or even just defending a place changes distance. But, is suspect with one push it can be reset towards start lap or something like that. Or there are detection points, steering angle "reset" options, or something else those smart engineers figured out. 

 

I think it's far more about harvesting energy then corner approach/speed/etc. I can imagine that (automatically)  breaking small % harder can harvest big % more energy.



#111 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 14 October 2019 - 06:18

I doubt skipping a corner or two is going to make a difference. This sounds like a simple system that slowly adjust the brake bias as the fuel goes down. It would only be doing something that the driver does themselves from time to time over the race.

For example, say a driver starts with a 55:45 front brake bias. By the end of the race the driver may want 57:43. Around Suzuka this would mean moving the brake forward about .04 per lap. Now I’m assuming their system is nowhere near that accurate, so it may only move in .5 increments. This would therefore look something like this;

Lap 1 - 55:45
Lap 11 - 55.5:44.5
Lap 22 - 56:44
Lap 33 - 56.5:43.5
Lap 44 - 57:43 (Which they would keep to lap 53 or 52 depending on when the officials decide to end the race.)

These slight adjustments would be something the driver does anyway, but this is something that would be preprogrammed to happen automatically. But such a system would not be affected by cutting a few meters of the track. Brake bias settings are nowhere near that accurate to make any impact on performance that a driver would care about. It would be like adjusting the ratio to .0001. Not even F1 would or even could care about that level of accuracy.

Edited by Jazza, 14 October 2019 - 06:27.


#112 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,837 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 October 2019 - 06:33

I doubt skipping a corner or two is going to make a difference. This sounds like a simple system that slowly adjust the brake bias as the fuel goes down. It would only be doing something that the driver does themselves from time to time over the race.

For example, say a driver starts with a 55:45 front brake bias. By the end of the race the driver may want 57:43. Around Suzuka this would mean moving the brake forward about .04 per lap. Now I’m assuming their system is nowhere near that accurate, so it may only move in .5 increments. This would therefore look something like this;

Lap 1 - 55:45
Lap 11 - 55.5:44.5
Lap 22 - 56:44
Lap 33 - 56.5:43.5
Lap 44 - 57:43 (Which they would keep to lap 53 or 52 depending on when the officials decide to end the race.)

These slight adjustments would be something the driver does anyway, but this is something that would be preprogrammed to happen automatically. But such a system would not be affected by cutting a few meters of the track. Brake bias settings are nowhere near that accurate to make any impact on performance that a driver would care about. It would be like adjusting the ratio to .0001. Not even F1 would or even could care about that level of accuracy.

Accuracy doesn’t matter - as that system is still a driver aid - and those are against the rules - a driver aid is a driver aid so if Renault have this system it is a violation of the rules.

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 14 October 2019 - 06:34.


#113 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 14 October 2019 - 06:38

Accuracy doesn’t matter - as that system is still a driver aid - and those are against the rules - a driver aid is a driver aid so if Renault have this system it is a violation of the rules.


Never argued it wasn’t. It’s obviously a driver aid. But I doubt such a system is going to get confused because the driver cut a corner. That was my only point.

#114 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,467 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 07:22

I'd have to say an 'automatic' brake bias system would have so many variables that it would badly mismanage itself with any sort of change. A VSC, pit stop, off track excursion, held up in traffic, you name it. Basically for it to perform flawlessly it would have to know the exact weight of fuel at all times, any variation of fuel consumption and you may as well turn it off. Besides that, no system like that would weigh so little as to offset it's use. The amount of sensors and motors to move itself would be too many to not be easily detected.
Interesting however.


All that could very easily be done with a simple electronic controller weighing but a few grams. This isn’t the 1950s any more. From what I understand is it just follows a sequence of brake bias settings based on the distance travelled, and it would make sense if it could be turned off or reset by the driver should some unexpected variable turn up.

#115 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 October 2019 - 07:30

I mean how is ERS management working? I assume it works in a similar way?

#116 Quickshifter

Quickshifter
  • Member

  • 4,361 posts
  • Joined: April 15

Posted 14 October 2019 - 07:31

If such a system is present which automatically changes brake bias without driver input its illegal. Does not matter how much Renault gain with it. Does not matter if the system operates based on distance or fuel. We can discuss till cows come home as to such a system should be allowed in future but as things stand it is forbidden according to the rule book. I don't think Racing Point would arbitrarily protest against their competitor if they did not have some sort of a case. Rule book is clear.

Teams actually have some preset switches on steering wheel which perform multiple functions like brake bias, differential settings etc but these switches have to operated by the driver.

Edited by Quickshifter, 14 October 2019 - 07:35.


#117 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,346 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:09

I doubt skipping a corner or two is going to make a difference. This sounds like a simple system that slowly adjust the brake bias as the fuel goes down. It would only be doing something that the driver does themselves from time to time over the race.

For example, say a driver starts with a 55:45 front brake bias. By the end of the race the driver may want 57:43. Around Suzuka this would mean moving the brake forward about .04 per lap. Now I’m assuming their system is nowhere near that accurate, so it may only move in .5 increments. This would therefore look something like this;

Lap 1 - 55:45
Lap 11 - 55.5:44.5
Lap 22 - 56:44
Lap 33 - 56.5:43.5
Lap 44 - 57:43 (Which they would keep to lap 53 or 52 depending on when the officials decide to end the race.)

These slight adjustments would be something the driver does anyway, but this is something that would be preprogrammed to happen automatically. But such a system would not be affected by cutting a few meters of the track. Brake bias settings are nowhere near that accurate to make any impact on performance that a driver would care about. It would be like adjusting the ratio to .0001. Not even F1 would or even could care about that level of accuracy.


I think the words of the protest suggest they're doing something distance based over the lap, not the race. Adjusting the bias to fuel load would be a single adjustment per lap, or every couple of laps depending on the adjustment increments. A place like Suzuka you would be turning the bias rearward through the esses and then turning it back to the front for the big stops

#118 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:13

If such a system is present which automatically changes brake bias without driver input its illegal. Does not matter how much Renault gain with it. Does not matter if the system operates based on distance or fuel. We can discuss till cows come home as to such a system should be allowed in future but as things stand it is forbidden according to the rule book. I don't think Racing Point would arbitrarily protest against their competitor if they did not have some sort of a case. Rule book is clear.

Teams actually have some preset switches on steering wheel which perform multiple functions like brake bias, differential settings etc but these switches have to operated by the driver.


Just playing devil’s advocate... is it still illegal if the driver selects the brake bias on a time delay?

As I posted a few posts ago, I imagine that brake bias shifting for fuel weight would only require several adjustments per race. If that’s the case then a brake bias change from 55:45 to 55-5:44.5 would make little difference if it happened 50km into the race or at 60km. This because Brake bias settings are nowhere near as precise as other setting on the car and are not changed as often.

Is their a stipulated time limit from when a driver makes a car setting selection to when it is has to be activated? Could the driver select a brake setting on the grid or formation lap that is activated at a later time?

As I said, only devils advocate. But there has been so many black and white rules in F1 that get magically interpreted away when they appear to be blatant violations to the fans.

#119 Jazza

Jazza
  • Member

  • 1,641 posts
  • Joined: November 99

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:16

I think the words of the protest suggest they're doing something distance based over the lap, not the race. Adjusting the bias to fuel load would be a single adjustment per lap, or every couple of laps depending on the adjustment increments. A place like Suzuka you would be turning the bias rearward through the esses and then turning it back to the front for the big stops


Rightio. If it’s over a lap that would be a huge advantage for a driver. I was reading it as race distance, but what you said makes more sense.

Edited by Jazza, 14 October 2019 - 08:16.


Advertisement

#120 teejay

teejay
  • Member

  • 5,737 posts
  • Joined: May 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:20

I was thinking about that also, one time passing one, or even just defending a place changes distance. But, is suspect with one push it can be reset towards start lap or something like that. Or there are detection points, steering angle "reset" options, or something else those smart engineers figured out. 

 

I think it's far more about harvesting energy then corner approach/speed/etc. I can imagine that (automatically)  breaking small % harder can harvest big % more energy.

 

Given how bad they are with their harvesting could make some sense. 



#121 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 08:35

Given both Racing Point and Renault are based in the UK and this would then probably fall under UK employment law, theres no indication that giving information about a breach in a sporting code would fall under an action which counts as protected under whistleblowing laws.

 

Renault haven't done anything *illegal* as in against criminal or civil law, they have breached a voluntary sporting code enforced by a sporting body.  There may be something in the contracts that the teams sign with Liberty and the FIA in order to take part, but otherwise...

Perhaps, although as I understand it under UK whistleblower law there is a "public interest" test that takes priority over any terms of employment.



#122 restless

restless
  • Member

  • 565 posts
  • Joined: August 15

Posted 14 October 2019 - 10:33

The thing is Racing Point has prepared this protest for a while, so it is about something that affected more races than this.

Now whether you can prove it beyond Suzuka is a different question, though.

Though I doubt that much will happen, the FIA isnt really prone to dishing out penalties retrospectively 

big IF:

If its inside the ECU, FIA knows when the code went in (iirc all ECU changes sgould be approved by FIA), so ...



#123 NixxxoN

NixxxoN
  • Member

  • 2,278 posts
  • Joined: June 17

Posted 14 October 2019 - 11:03

If the system is as distance-based as it is, I wonder how it will react if driver shortcuts a chicane or runs much wide, so the lap distance will be different compared to what it is supposed to be.

 

They most likely thought about that. The system can possibly be manually turned off and reset on the start of every lap if things got messed up



#124 Tomecek

Tomecek
  • Member

  • 6,129 posts
  • Joined: June 02

Posted 14 October 2019 - 11:19

Only if they can prove it - in the previous races - as do they still have the data from previous races?

In Formula One, Teams must prove they are not guilty, not that FIA must prove they are doing something wrong on the car.



#125 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 16,756 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 October 2019 - 11:19

12 pages sounds like nothing in F1 terms :p

I understand that 9 of the pages are Chandhok's analysis.



#126 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,427 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 13:58

Perhaps, although as I understand it under UK whistleblower law there is a "public interest" test that takes priority over any terms of employment.

IANAL, but the F1 Sporting Code is probably not a public interest. Wikipedia says, (edit:) 'the disclosure must be one which the whistleblower "reasonably believes" shows a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions'.

https://en.m.wikiped...losure_Act_1998

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 October 2019 - 14:01.


#127 whitewaterMkII

whitewaterMkII
  • Member

  • 6,775 posts
  • Joined: November 05

Posted 14 October 2019 - 14:57

I recently watched some of Rosberg's podcasts and in the one with Ricciardo he was giving him his pointers on tight passes. He said he would set up his passes a lap or so ahead and adjust his brake bias for the particular corner he wanted to pass in. Sounds to me as if an 'automatic' system would negate that, so why would Ricciardo or any other driver that uses different brake bias for different corners or different scenarios even want that on his car?



#128 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 15:22

IANAL, but the F1 Sporting Code is probably not a public interest. Wikipedia says, (edit:) 'the disclosure must be one which the whistleblower "reasonably believes" shows a criminal offence, a failure to comply with legal obligations, a miscarriage of justice, danger to the health and safety of employees, damage to the environment, or the hiding of information which would show any of the above actions'.

https://en.m.wikiped...losure_Act_1998

I understand, and I too am not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see how an employment tribunal would rule. I believe that the examples cited in Wiki and on UK Govt sites are specifically protected categories but are not exclusive in regard to wrongful dismissal under whistleblowing-related claims. Notwithstanding the amount of money and pretention floating around in it, in any sport with the breadth of interest (and economic size within the British economy) of Formula One, I would think it in the public interest that cheating be exposed and penalised.



#129 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 8,361 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 15:39

I really hope that is not the case because if Hulk did pass the info on Renault would have little choice but to summarily terminate him for breach of contract and it would be a sad end to their partnership.  It would also lead his next team to be a little cautious when sharing information with him in future as they wouldn't be able to trust him.  All in all it wouldn't be good for Hulk at all if he was the leak

 

They'd have to be able to prove that the information came from him otherwise they'd be the ones in breach of contract.



#130 Talisman

Talisman
  • Member

  • 6,042 posts
  • Joined: January 05

Posted 14 October 2019 - 15:44

Perhaps, although as I understand it under UK whistleblower law there is a "public interest" test that takes priority over any terms of employment.

 

If (and its a big if) this is a whistleblowing case then surely the correct authority to complain to wouldn't be a rival team but the sporting authority, the FIA.

 

I suspect this is a case of an employee taking their secrets to a rival team which then builds a case before complaining to the FIA.  I'd be astonished if this is a case of a current Renault employee leaking team secrets.  The Honda fuel issue came to the FIA's attention the same way, through a team asking the FIA to clarify whether their ex-Honda employee's interpretation of the fuel regulations was correct.



#131 New Britain

New Britain
  • Member

  • 2,329 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 15:59

If (and its a big if) this is a whistleblowing case then surely the correct authority to complain to wouldn't be a rival team but the sporting authority, the FIA.

 

I suspect this is a case of an employee taking their secrets to a rival team which then builds a case before complaining to the FIA.  I'd be astonished if this is a case of a current Renault employee leaking team secrets.  The Honda fuel issue came to the FIA's attention the same way, through a team asking the FIA to clarify whether their ex-Honda employee's interpretation of the fuel regulations was correct.

I didn't say that this is a whistleblowing case; I just said that (I thought that) if the person who passed on the information was a Renault insider and if as a result of his revelation that person were sacked (as another poster said he might be), he would have a claim under the whistleblower protection laws. Other posters have said maybe he would but maybe he wouldn't, and I think that is where we're at.

 

Re precedent and to whom the alleged violation should be reported, I think a more egregious example was in 2007 with Ferrari's flexible floor. Nigel Stepney claimed, and IIRC it was never denied, that prior to the start of the season he twice approached the FIA technical team to reveal how the floor was illegal, and both times his revelations were ignored. It was only then, he claimed, that he decided to go to McLaren, who then instead of protesting the device asked formally if such a thing would be allowed on their car. We know what happened next.

 

Today's FIA administration, one is confident, is nowhere near as corrupt as in the days of Mosley's Reign of Terror, but it is still conceivable that someone tried to report this allegedly illegal device to the FIA but that report was ignored.



#132 Gareth

Gareth
  • RC Forum Host

  • 16,756 posts
  • Joined: March 01

Posted 14 October 2019 - 16:00

I understand, and I too am not a lawyer, but it would be interesting to see how an employment tribunal would rule. I believe that the examples cited in Wiki and on UK Govt sites are specifically protected categories but are not exclusive in regard to wrongful dismissal under whistleblowing-related claims. Notwithstanding the amount of money and pretention floating around in it, in any sport with the breadth of interest (and economic size within the British economy) of Formula One, I would think it in the public interest that cheating be exposed and penalised.

If it has come from a current Renault employee (big if), I think they would be in bother.

 

If they'd handed info to the FIA and said "bit worried my employer might be cheating", maybe they would get away with it. But handing it to a rival? Don't think so.

 

EDIT: sorry, got distracted part way through writing the above and see I'm just repeating discussion already covered. Apologies.



#133 RA2

RA2
  • Member

  • 1,254 posts
  • Joined: October 12

Posted 14 October 2019 - 17:19

I recently watched some of Rosberg's podcasts and in the one with Ricciardo he was giving him his pointers on tight passes. He said he would set up his passes a lap or so ahead and adjust his brake bias for the particular corner he wanted to pass in. Sounds to me as if an 'automatic' system would negate that, so why would Ricciardo or any other driver that uses different brake bias for different corners or different scenarios even want that on his car?


Drivers change bias a few times in a hot lap or on specific laps where they are making a pass. There will be a huge advantage if the cars computer does the bias adjustment for ever corner of every lap.

In the mid 2000s the Ferrari had a system where in the bias moved from front to back during the braking phase, and the drivers could select how much this movement in bias was for various corners by moving a string loaded lever on the left side of the cockpit.

So a bias being changed by the computer is a endless opportunity

#134 ArrowsLivery

ArrowsLivery
  • Member

  • 3,193 posts
  • Joined: March 17

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:07

I doubt skipping a corner or two is going to make a difference. This sounds like a simple system that slowly adjust the brake bias as the fuel goes down. It would only be doing something that the driver does themselves from time to time over the race.

For example, say a driver starts with a 55:45 front brake bias. By the end of the race the driver may want 57:43. Around Suzuka this would mean moving the brake forward about .04 per lap. Now I’m assuming their system is nowhere near that accurate, so it may only move in .5 increments. This would therefore look something like this;

Lap 1 - 55:45
Lap 11 - 55.5:44.5
Lap 22 - 56:44
Lap 33 - 56.5:43.5
Lap 44 - 57:43 (Which they would keep to lap 53 or 52 depending on when the officials decide to end the race.)

These slight adjustments would be something the driver does anyway, but this is something that would be preprogrammed to happen automatically. But such a system would not be affected by cutting a few meters of the track. Brake bias settings are nowhere near that accurate to make any impact on performance that a driver would care about. It would be like adjusting the ratio to .0001. Not even F1 would or even could care about that level of accuracy.


I believe brake bias is changed much more often than that. I know Michael would have a lever on his left side that would change the brake bias. I was under the impression that a cycle of pre-set brake bias adjustments was allowed.

#135 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 16,036 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:10

Tbh why the **** are we asking drivers to change brake bias through a lap when this can be automated, or at least pre-recorded and then changed by the driver manually if he sees an advantage to do so.

Genuine question, this isn't some sort of driving skill, it's forcing them to juggle buttons before every corner of every lap.

#136 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 20,467 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:12

I believe brake bias is changed much more often than that. I know Michael would have a lever on his left side that would change the brake bias. I was under the impression that a cycle of pre-set brake bias adjustments was allowed.

 

That is the traditional place for it.

 

The brake bias adjustment was originally just a machanical linkage that changed the angle of the lever between the two brake master cylinders, changing the bias from the front to the back. Drivers would simply slide it back and forth to taste.

 

Since electronic control has been added, the control has moved to the steering wheel, along with pre-set values.



#137 GrumpyYoungMan

GrumpyYoungMan
  • Member

  • 5,837 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:45

Just playing devil’s advocate... is it still illegal if the driver selects the brake bias on a time delay?


That’s a grey area I think

#138 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:48

Tbh why the **** are we asking drivers to change brake bias through a lap when this can be automated, or at least pre-recorded and then changed by the driver manually if he sees an advantage to do so.

Genuine question, this isn't some sort of driving skill, it's forcing them to juggle buttons before every corner of every lap.

Indeed, especially as the same is done for ERS already.

#139 Kalmake

Kalmake
  • Member

  • 3,499 posts
  • Joined: November 07

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:52

I would make them cope with same setting for the whole lap.



Advertisement

#140 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,427 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 18:54

Tbh why the **** are we asking drivers to change brake bias through a lap when this can be automated, or at least pre-recorded and then changed by the driver manually if he sees an advantage to do so.

Genuine question, this isn't some sort of driving skill, it's forcing them to juggle buttons before every corner of every lap.

 

IMO adjusting the brake bias IS a driver skill. You can drive fast without, but being able to do it may make you drive a little faster. It was certainly part of Schumacher's skill taht he had the capacity for such things.

And if we go down that road, what would be the fundamental difference to automate not locking up?



#141 vee10

vee10
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 19

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:00

:rotfl:


Edited by vee10, 15 October 2019 - 08:58.


#142 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 36,052 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:08

Tbh why the **** are we asking drivers to change brake bias through a lap when this can be automated, or at least pre-recorded and then changed by the driver manually if he sees an advantage to do so.

Genuine question, this isn't some sort of driving skill, it's forcing them to juggle buttons before every corner of every lap.

Why not just automate everything then? Personally I think as much as possible should be left for the driver to do.

#143 Oakstreet

Oakstreet
  • New Member

  • 17 posts
  • Joined: September 16

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:14

What if the perfect corner setting would be pre-loaded before the corner by the software based on track position (mini sectors?), and the driver just presses a single button to activate that setting? Is this then manually or automated?

Edited by Oakstreet, 14 October 2019 - 19:16.


#144 KnucklesAgain

KnucklesAgain
  • Member

  • 10,427 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:20

Indeed, especially as the same is done for ERS already.

 

But I believe the ERS might have that because, by my understanding, the intention is for the whole engine assembly to be presented to the driver as "the PU" to make it similar to an ICE engine. Which is also why there is no deployment button like the old KERS had it and why harvesting under braking is also not exposed to the driver. For good or bad, if this is the thinking as I believe, making the ERS harvest automatically based on GPS kind of makes sense (and may also help against unexpected slowdown on straights). It would be different with the brake bias


Edited by KnucklesAgain, 14 October 2019 - 19:22.


#145 SophieB

SophieB
  • RC Forum Host

  • 12,106 posts
  • Joined: July 12

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:23

I understand that 9 of the pages are Chandhok's analysis.

 

 

I recently watched some of Rosberg's podcasts and....

 

oh no what if...



#146 derstatic

derstatic
  • Member

  • 526 posts
  • Joined: November 03

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:33

What is the paddle Danny presses before most braking zones?

 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=JUe6CSJl6II

 

That's likely to be the DRS activate/deactivate paddle.



#147 ANF

ANF
  • Member

  • 10,458 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:38

I believe brake bias is changed much more often than that. I know Michael would have a lever on his left side that would change the brake bias. I was under the impression that a cycle of pre-set brake bias adjustments was allowed.

Is the brake bias changed very often in a lap though?

On the Mercedes drivers' pole laps this year I can only spot...
one adjustment at Hockenheim https://youtu.be/Gh2pzFreJ9k
two at Shanghai https://youtu.be/S00mlx6l7b8
three at Paul Ricard https://youtu.be/DiylFg4Xl_0 (two of them on the Mistral Straight)
and only one in Baku https://youtu.be/ik5i5Y8Wqgw (from 55.0 to 55.5)

Maybe the hybrid cars' rear axle energy recovery whatever-it's-called has decreased the need for brake bias adjustments? I honestly don't know.

#148 Augurk

Augurk
  • Member

  • 3,014 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:42

Perhaps the Renault system is better in that it's more accurate and can control to within a much greater detail (0.001% or something) and therefore give a much better result. At such levels of control driver inputs would have to be way too precise to do whilst driving at 250+kph. 



#149 Marklar

Marklar
  • Member

  • 34,204 posts
  • Joined: May 15

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:52

Is the brake bias changed very often in a lap though?

On the Mercedes drivers' pole laps this year I can only spot...
one adjustment at Hockenheim https://youtu.be/Gh2pzFreJ9k
two at Shanghai https://youtu.be/S00mlx6l7b8
three at Paul Ricard https://youtu.be/DiylFg4Xl_0 (two of them on the Mistral Straight)
and only one in Baku https://youtu.be/ik5i5Y8Wqgw (from 55.0 to 55.5)

Maybe the hybrid cars' rear axle energy recovery whatever-it's-called has decreased the need for brake bias adjustments? I honestly don't know.

Even in pre-2014 pole laps they dont adjust much

Rosberg once mentioned that it's of little benefit in qualifying because it's better to just focus, hence why there are only 1-2 adjustments per lap.



#150 w1Y

w1Y
  • Member

  • 4,591 posts
  • Joined: March 16

Posted 14 October 2019 - 19:56

I dont understand it. Surely optimum setting would constantly change dependent on track and tyre conditions