Half-Time report : TC Ban

[jwielage]

I see both points that are being made here.

From a technical perspective TC and fuel mapping are quite different. TC is controlled completely by the ECU and requires no driver input in order to be effective. The other is a manual adjustment that is only as effective as the driver's appropriate aplication of the solution.

The flip side of the arguement is that in essence both mechanisms can be used in the attempt to achieve a similar goal. Those who suggest similarities between TC and mapping adjustment devices are not implying that the means by which this goal is acheived are simliare, only the ends.

[myurr]

I see both points that are being made here.

From a technical perspective TC and fuel mapping are quite different. TC is controlled completely by the ECU and requires no driver input in order to be effective. The other is a manual adjustment that is only as effective as the driver's appropriate aplication of the solution.

The flip side of the arguement is that in essence both mechanisms can be used in the attempt to achieve a similar goal. Those who suggest similarities between TC and mapping adjustment devices are not implying that the means by which this goal is acheived are simliare, only the ends.

I know where you're coming from, but it's like saying that adjusting the brake balance equates to ABS because the end goal is the same. Neither system does anything to take away responsibility from the driver, it merely makes a slight adjustment to the sensitivity with which his controls respond.

[WhiteBlue]

..It's not traction control. It's nothing like traction control. There is no computer involvement, there is no system in place which limits or stops wheelspin. The throttle is not modulated on the drivers behalf. There is no artificial intelligence in the system. There are no sensors allowing any automated processes to take place. It really has nothing to do with traction control!

There is certainly computer involvement. How do you think multi dimensional parameter fields are activated (this is what engine mapping really is)? It is done by the electronic control unit which is just a fancy name for a computer. And of course the throttle control is modulated by a different mapping set. And by the paddle design that allows to link engine maps to gears you create feedback to a certain speed range. it is a crude system but nonetheless it is a driver aid. I have never said that it is illegal. I just think that F1 would be better if such systems were not used from next year.

[Conceptual]

I think I would rather have TC back than gimmicky individual dirven front wheels on triggers/paddles etc?

You would rather a computer controlled racecar instead of a system that gives even MORE control to the driver?

The largest roadblock to passing it the cars themselves. Why would you not want to see a trigger system that can allow for an almost infinite number of fast ways through a corner? Being able to rotate the car more than would be available under current systems allows for the driver to have a larger selection of lines, thus being able to overcome a blocking driver that is hogging the ONLY line through, even at 1.5s/lap slower pace. BUT it would specifically HAVE to be a trigger, and not linked in any way to the steering system or sensors. 100% driver controlled.

It's not a gimick, and it will be possible with AWD KERS systems.

ON TOPIC:

With the paddles, as long as all of the teams can do this, I see it as a good thing actually, since it gives the teams another setup paramater that can allow them to work the tyres better. If Ferrari are having trouble getting heat into the tyres, they can have a scrub mapping that specifically abuses the tyres, for outlaps and such. Maybe even combining it for the launch, since the tyres are relative cool then as well.

The TC ban has had some effect on this years racing, but not as much as the Tyre War ban. I think the teams have adapted well. Look at Monaco this year. I thought at the end of last year that if there was rain in Monaco this year, that we would see massive carnage, and I was absolutely wrong. Alot of nicks, and bangs, but nothing serious.

I think the map paddle is genius, and will be quickly adopted by every team on the grid, and that makes it fair, because in the long run, as long as everyone is in the same boat, it is still honest and honorable competition, and what more could you ask for?

Chris

[myurr]

There is certainly computer involvement. How do you think multi dimensional parameter fields are activated (this is what engine mapping really is)? It is done by the electronic control unit which is just a fancy name for a computer. And of course the throttle control is modulated by a different mapping set. And by the paddle design that allows to link engine maps to gears you create feedback to a certain speed range. it is a crude system but nonetheless it is a driver aid. I have never said that it is illegal. I just think that F1 would be better if such systems were not used from next year.

Is there more computer involvement than with the rotary switch for changing engine mapping?

Do you think that drivers should be banned next year from taking their hand off the steering wheel whilst changing gear so that they cannot use the rotary switch to change engine map at the same time?

It's just plain silly to call this a driving aid - really misrepresentative. Likewise to claim that there is computer involvement. The paddles adjust parameters that the ECU is operating under, this is vastly different to having a computer decide upon those parameters based upon sensoral feedback about the current dynamical state of the car.

And again the carefully chosen language that the throttle control is modulated by a different mapping set is designed to lend weight to your point that this is a driver aid. There is no automatic modulation of the throttle as in how the traction control would override the throttle input provided by the driver. Yes changing the engine map via the paddles or the rotary switch changes the way the throttle responds, but this is a static change that does not
involve any kind of driver aid.

If a team set up the rotary switch so that the driver simply clicked clockwise once before every corner sequence and once after, so that they would have a throttle map through the corner and for any straight after it, would that be a driver aid?

Do you consider changing the brake bias to be ABS?

Do you think power steering is a driver aid?

Should the rotary switch also be banned?

Should all drivers right feet be removed as they are a form of traction control?

[Conceptual]

I am just waiting for the teams to do some kind of sly stuff like if you click and HOLD the paddle, it does something else, like an automatic slope down of the torque curve, or an overlap of 2 settings that by themselves are inert, but combine for some other effect. Then I would say that the driver could learn to use as TC.

But until something like that is proven, I think it is the cats ass.

Chris

[timbo]

If a team set up the rotary switch so that the driver simply clicked clockwise once before every corner sequence and once after, so that they would have a throttle map through the corner and for any straight after it, would that be a driver aid?

Do you consider changing the brake bias to be ABS?

Do you think power steering is a driver aid?

Should the rotary switch also be banned?

You reduce it to absurd, while somehow unwilling to see (I'm not asking to accept) the point.
As me (in another thread) and as WhiteBlue pointed the differnce of McLaren system is NOT that they employed it by paddles. It is that it supposedly changes maps WITH the gears. In other words is that they have gear-specific engine mappings. Before that (in my understanding and I may be wrong) maps were used for sertain race conditions - starts, rain, safety car, in-out laps, qualification and so on.
Having it gear specific may greatly reduce the pressure on the driver - current rules are against it generally:
- Designs which allow specific points along the pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
- The minimum and maximum throttle pedal travel positions must correspond to the engine throttle minimum (nominal idle) and maximum open positions.
So the spirit of the rules is that nothing but driver's foot may control throttle.
Now, I'm not argueing about the word of the rules - mcLaren's system is legal.

[Scotracer]

*sigh* In every other thread about future regulations everyone is complaining about the spirit of F1 (innovation) is being killed yet in this thread all I can see are people against a very innovative system that is beneficial. It's not like its a secret feature (they openly said they had it) so the other teams can use it if they want. I think it's very good and is only part of engine development.

[Conceptual]

*sigh* In every other thread about future regulations everyone is complaining about the spirit of F1 (innovation) is being killed yet in this thread all I can see are people against a very innovative system that is beneficial. It's not like its a secret feature (they openly said they had it) so the other teams can use it if they want. I think it's very good and is only part of engine development.

McLaren paddles : CatAss #1

Ferrari nosehole : CatAss #2

FIF1 WingMirrors : CatAss #3

Sweetness!

Chris

[timbo]

*sigh* In every other thread about future regulations everyone is complaining about the spirit of F1 (innovation) is being killed yet in this thread all I can see are people against a very innovative system that is beneficial. It's not like its a secret feature (they openly said they had it) so the other teams can use it if they want. I think it's very good and is only part of engine development.

Well, in general people want fast, technically advanced and good looking car that is controlled by best drivers on the planet without driver's aids. Of course technical innovation in general automotive industry deals with driver aids extencively (e.g. new BMW paradigm), however I believe most of people don't want that in F1. McLaren's system is something that may be viewed as a driver aid.
What I don't like in this system is that is a gadget - I want cars to have an edge because of something more "material" - aero or engine, not a paddle.
However I agree that it is smart and probably it won't take much time for others to come up with something similar.

[Conceptual]

*sigh* In every other thread about future regulations everyone is complaining about the spirit of F1 (innovation) is being killed yet in this thread all I can see are people against a very innovative system that is beneficial. It's not like its a secret feature (they openly said they had it) so the other teams can use it if they want. I think it's very good and is only part of engine development.

Well, in general people want fast, technically advanced and good looking car that is controlled by best drivers on the planet without driver's aids. Of course technical innovation in general automotive industry deals with driver aids extencively (e.g. new BMW paradigm), however I believe most of people don't want that in F1. McLaren's system is something that may be viewed as a driver aid.
What I don't like in this system is that is a gadget - I want cars to have an edge because of something more "material" - aero or engine, not a paddle.
However I agree that it is smart and probably it won't take much time for others to come up with something similar.

It is no more a gadget than the paddle that activates the quick-shift, seamless gearbox...

Chris

[Scotracer]

*sigh* In every other thread about future regulations everyone is complaining about the spirit of F1 (innovation) is being killed yet in this thread all I can see are people against a very innovative system that is beneficial. It's not like its a secret feature (they openly said they had it) so the other teams can use it if they want. I think it's very good and is only part of engine development.

Well, in general people want fast, technically advanced and good looking car that is controlled by best drivers on the planet without driver's aids. Of course technical innovation in general automotive industry deals with driver aids extencively (e.g. new BMW paradigm), however I believe most of people don't want that in F1. McLaren's system is something that may be viewed as a driver aid.
What I don't like in this system is that is a gadget - I want cars to have an edge because of something more "material" - aero or engine, not a paddle.
However I agree that it is smart and probably it won't take much time for others to come up with something similar.

How is changing the engine mapping a gadget to aid the driver? ICE engines are very inefficient and run over a very narrow rev range. Couple this with a limited number of gears the teams are allowed to use (7), it only makes sense to change it any other way. So, if you claim this is a driver aid -- so is a gearbox

If we're going down this road, we may aswell ban:

-Brake bias adjustment
-Differential adjustment
-Engine rev limit adjustment
-Pit-lane speed limiter
-...and just about everything else in the cockpit

They are all "gadgets to help the driver"...so, should we ban them?

[timbo]

If we're going down this road, we may aswell ban:

-Brake bias adjustment
-Differential adjustment
-Engine rev limit adjustment
-Pit-lane speed limiter
-...and just about everything else in the cockpit

They are all "gadgets to help the driver"...so, should we ban them?

I will repeat myself. The NEW thing is gear specific mappings. Previously mappings were (well, supposedly were) race condition specific - well, like dry or wet tyres. That is the difference that makes difference for me.
Out of the systems you listed only brake adjustments are made with the comparable frequency, also brake bias change is very symple non-computer aided system. It also doesn't mess with actual brake pedal activity, while with engine mapping you may imagine that it is possible to have non-linear action on the pedal.

[MattF1]

If we're going down this road, we may aswell ban:

-Brake bias adjustment
-Differential adjustment
-Engine rev limit adjustment
-Pit-lane speed limiter
-...and just about everything else in the cockpit

They are all "gadgets to help the driver"...so, should we ban them?

I will repeat myself. The NEW thing is gear specific mappings. Previously mappings were (well, supposedly were) race condition specific - well, like dry or wet tyres. That is the difference that makes difference for me.
Out of the systems you listed only brake adjustments are made with the comparable frequency, also brake bias change is very symple non-computer aided system. It also doesn't mess with actual brake pedal activity, while with engine mapping you may imagine that it is possible to have non-linear action on the pedal.

I bet last year everyone had specific engine maps for different gears, just that they were software controlled.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't understand why people find systems desirable if the just make the car go faster. There are many ways in potential regulations to go fast. The desirability of a new technology as the gear synchronous mappings should be judged on totally different grounds. The questions that should be asked:

1. Does it improve the spectacle, asuming all teams have it?

2. Is it emphasising driver skill or just making car systems more complex?

3. Does it make a difference to safety?

I see all questions negative and so I would not like to keep it for 2009.