Half-Time report : TC Ban

[timbo]

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

They probably didn't need it as they had TC anyway. Actually, TC worked in conjunction with gearbox, that's for sure.

[myurr]

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.

Same goes for being able to adjust brake bias, differential settings, rev limit, etc. It doesn't do any of those things.

Time will tell, but I think that even KERS would fall foul of those tests.

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.

Of course it has non-linear action on the pedal - if the idle and full throttle positions are currently fixed at either end of the throttle pedal travel, then by definition the only way the engine mapping can change throttle response is for it to be non-linear. So all teams already have that non-linear response.

So your only real problem is that McLaren have allegedly found a way to link the throttles response curve to gear changes?

[timbo]

Of course it has non-linear action on the pedal - if the idle and full throttle positions are currently fixed at either end of the throttle pedal travel, then by definition the only way the engine mapping can change throttle response is for it to be non-linear. So all teams already have that non-linear response.

Well, not quite so. It is throttle-by-wire system. It better be read "full throttle availble to the driver". There's no definition of what "maximum open" means. If you think more about it engine mappings should involve ignition timing as well.
So differnet curves may mean actual performance of engine over same rpm.
But yeah, what I said was mostly about benefit from having different throttles at the same pedal position at different gears.

So your only real problem is that McLaren have allegedly found a way to link the throttles response curve to gear changes?

Yes. Because that may improve driveability dramatically.

[myurr]

Of course it has non-linear action on the pedal - if the idle and full throttle positions are currently fixed at either end of the throttle pedal travel, then by definition the only way the engine mapping can change throttle response is for it to be non-linear. So all teams already have that non-linear response.

Well, not quite so. It is throttle-by-wire system. It better be read "full throttle availble to the driver". There's no definition of what "maximum open" means. If you think more about it engine mappings should involve ignition timing as well.
So differnet curves may mean actual performance of engine over same rpm.
But yeah, what I said was mostly about benefit from having different throttles at the same pedal position at different gears.

So your only real problem is that McLaren have allegedly found a way to link the throttles response curve to gear changes?

Yes. Because that may improve driveability dramatically.

Okay, so the issue is that McLaren have found a way to potentially make the throttle pedal less sensitive around the balance point where the driver needs to modulate the pedal to minimise wheelspin, but maximise acceleration? Ie. for the same pedal movement, on a McLaren the throttle itself will be affected slightly less.

[Ogami musashi]

I'm not for driving aids but i think a distinction is to be made.

When a device that ease the pilot on a specific operation, i think it is good to see if it doesn't bring another challenge.

I will take the example of semi automatic gearboxes and the paddles shift.

Both ease the gear change of the pilot.

But then it allows the driver to be far more aggressive and changing of gears in corners became part of the driving style.

I mean no one now shifts like another.

The fastness and easiness of shifting has allowed drivers to play with the balance of the car (which is changed each time you change your gears) to find additional grip in the corners.

So here, while the challenge of shifting was made far easier, another challenge appeared: finding grip through corner managing the gear shift.

Some drivers "take down" gears all of a sudden, "bam bam bam bam bam", some are more progressive and change while braking, some of them change their gear while in mid corners etc..

If this is arguable for some of you i think one has to ask himself about the very essence of racing.

Rally car drivers never exploit their grip, they always fight the balance to keep their car on track, F1 drivers have less to find balance (they complain of over and understeer that is barely noticeable to the newbie eye) but they have to be aggressive to find the best grip possible.

So by definition, a F1 car is a car easier to control than a rally car (on their respective surfaces), so you could consider an F1 car being easier to race, but it is simply not cause the control "easiness" opens the door to the challenge of finding the best grip out of a corner.

If we really want to push far the "gadget" thing, ban the differentials!

Hell in kart we don't have them!

But that would means you imply than since the 20's the drivers are cheating because since that period cars have differentials.


So in my view, an aid, not desirable for racing is an aid to strictly make something for you and don't bring another challenge.

TC ban to me is good because it brings back a bit of control of car skill, but i regret it as it allowed drivers to take very innovative and aggressive corner exit curves.

So to me, the Mclaren system is just the best of both world. It is not a driver aid as you have to learn to use it wisely (requires skill) but at the same time allows drivers to be more aggressive.

[timbo]

Okay, so the issue is that McLaren have found a way to potentially make the throttle pedal less sensitive around the balance point where the driver needs to modulate the pedal to minimise wheelspin, but maximise acceleration? Ie. for the same pedal movement, on a McLaren the throttle itself will be affected slightly less.

Yes! That is the issue to me.
2Ogami - solid point. However I don't see how that imposes any new challenge. I think that it just makes using throttles easier.
For example I think that double-brake pedal on McLaren 1997 was something interesting that probably let drivers be more creative. However I don't understand quite how it worked - it was probably engaging computer and therefore was aid.

[Ogami musashi]

The brake pedal was very interesting. The FIA chose to ban it, but like you i think it would have been a new tool.

About the Mclaren paddles, you basically can play with engine mappings along the lap which allows you to use new technics.

Basically it is like all differentials settings and brake bias you find on the steering wheels.

It requires additional skills from the driver because the driver has now to take it into account.

I mean before that the driver was left with no possibility to optimally take the corner so nobody didn't bother with it. but now they can and because it is competitive every driver has to do so.

Let me make another analogy with grip. Let's say you car just don't have the grip to take a corner at a given speed without sliding because mid corners it suffers from understeer.

You're left with two possibilities: either you take the corner slower, either you enter the corner with oversteer which will allows you to take the first half of the corner at that speed and then the slide will slow you down and position yourself to exit without going off.

So, you just don't care (because you can't help) about all the lost grip in the second half, all you do is throw you car and wait for the slide to end and make you reclaw the grip.


No if i give you a tool that correct the undertseer into the turn (which can be a differential, an adaptive wing, an additional brake pedal etc..) you now have to care about finding the optimum grip, in two ways:

Using the tools at their best and then push your car in the limits so that you find that grip.

So to me the mclaren system is just an extension of differentials, engine mappings, mixture, brake bias etc.. they are tools that ease some parts (the balance) but allows you to go farther and require you to care about what you'll do there.


As a contrary example, i think EBS was not that tool because basically i didn't changed a lot for the driver.

I think all is a matter of pondering what the new tool will bring versus what it eases.

ABS is imho not a good thing because it doesn't change a lot of things braking wise and definitely makes you going on/off.

[WhiteBlue]

The McLaren brake/steer was an additional brake pedal that allowed the driver to brake one side of the car - whaich had to be pre selected - while accelerating through corners. It was not consistent with the philosophy that two circuits with symmetrical left and right sides are allowed. It was basically a manual torque banlancing device. If such things were desirable more sophisticated torque balance would be allowed. Perhaps such things will comew back when they go to all wheel drive and all wheel KERS. An argument can be made that such performance enhancement would lead to shorter lap times with less energy and power. In the past the FIA had too much to worry about performance curbing that they wanted to bother with such options. If you supply power and braking selectively to the sides of a car you can gain considerable performance with less power. That would be in line with the request to cut energy and keep performance. The problem would be driver control of that mechanism with minimum automatic assist.

[timbo]

I think all is a matter of pondering what the new tool will bring versus what it eases.

Agreed. I'm agains paddle-shifting because supposedly it is used together with gear-shifting and only makes life of the driver easier. Having different engine-maps for specific conditions is to me different it is indeed new point of control for the driver and make reveal another skill of the driver - ability to tune the car to his needs. And i bet that if I'm right about gear-specific maps there must still be rotary switch on the wheel that would select "general" maps, while specific maps would be chosen via paddles.
I think it is logical to limit number of maps to say 5-6. That way teams may make choices like - having gear-specific maps or having maps that let driver adopt to different race conditions.

[zac510]

Timbo, no offence, but you really should learn a bit more about vehicle engineering before you spout off about what the rules should be. You demonstrated twice in this thread you don't understand either the concepts (ECU maps) or the history (McLaren fiddle brakes).

It is completely illogical to limit an ECU to 5-6 maps. A road car might have hundreds, even thousands of maps for different rpm/manifold pressure/throttle position. Then there are air temp correction maps, coolant temperature correction maps, battery voltage correction maps.. In F1 where they say they are switching maps is almost slang, it refers to a setup rather than a single set of values. Before you criticise me, I have wired an aftermarket ECU into my carby car from scratch and setup all the sensors, however a professional did the tune for me .

And by your logic, the 1997 McLaren fiddle brakes should be a good thing - it was merely a mechanical brake on the inside wheel (it was only used on the wheel for the dominant corner, ie for Brazil, on the LHS) with which the driver needed to accurately balance the braking, certainly not making their life easier. There was no electronic trickery involved at the time, although by 2008 electronic trickery would have evolved to aid it. It wasn't even new technology, either. The only problem with it was that McLaren had it and nobody else did.

[Conceptual]

The McLaren brake/steer was an additional brake pedal that allowed the driver to brake one side of the car - whaich had to be pre selected - while accelerating through corners. It was not consistent with the philosophy that two circuits with symmetrical left and right sides are allowed. It was basically a manual torque banlancing device. If such things were desirable more sophisticated torque balance would be allowed. Perhaps such things will comew back when they go to all wheel drive and all wheel KERS. An argument can be made that such performance enhancement would lead to shorter lap times with less energy and power. In the past the FIA had too much to worry about performance curbing that they wanted to bother with such options. If you supply power and braking selectively to the sides of a car you can gain considerable performance with less power. That would be in line with the request to cut energy and keep performance. The problem would be driver control of that mechanism with minimum automatic assist.

My trigger idea gets the almost the same result as the fiddle brake, but as someone said earlier, it is a gimmick, and doesnt require driver skill, even though it is under their control 100% of the time..

Chris

[timbo]

In F1 where they say they are switching maps is almost slang, it refers to a setup rather than a single set of values. Before you criticise me, I have wired an aftermarket ECU into my carby car from scratch and setup all the sensors, however a professional did the tune for me .

I was following the "slang" that seemed to be accepted in press and here in forums. Let's call it setups, then. So the driver may choose only few setups for his engine. In the end if you understood me, you're making arguement about terminology, not about the subject.

And by your logic, the 1997 McLaren fiddle brakes should be a good thing - it was merely a mechanical brake on the inside wheel (it was only used on the wheel for the dominant corner, ie for Brazil, on the LHS) with which the driver needed to accurately balance the braking, certainly not making their life easier. There was no electronic trickery involved at the time.

Thanks for the info. I never found detailed description of the system. I previously stated that I found the system interesting but didn't quite understood it's operation. That is because I didn't know that it is limited only to one side. I thought that it somehow applied differenial braking but not knowing that it's limitation I thought that it is controlled by computer. However since electronics in brake-system is forbidden I was confused. And knowing that it is mechanical I agree that it is system that may have it's place in current F1.

[zac510]

I was following the "slang" that seemed to be accepted in press and here in forums. Let's call it setups, then. So the driver may choose only few setups for his engine. In the end if you understood me, you're making arguement about terminology, not about the subject.

Yeah I see you now. As long as they have a control ECU, they can control anything to do with the engine ( ). Where you have an aversion to 'driver aids' I have an aversion to ever-tightening rules.