2018 Aston Martin Red Bull Racing - Tag Heuer (Renault)

[jz11]

p.s. I remember hearing this sort of conversations with other drivers, and none of them ever said - you need to adjust, the way it went down was pit crew asking driver to make changes, he does it and asks for confirmation if everything is fine, that is why this conversation sounded so odd, and Brundle immediately picked it up and was wondering about the same thing, and then there was odd moment of silence him expecting someone to clear the subject up, but noone ever did, and they didn't talk about it later too, and they usually do, when there is something to clear up

[jz11]

interesting, so first the previos post got downvoted by someone accusing me of using "aluminum hats", which I consider an insult to my tin foil hat, then, probably the same guy sais there is no " two way telemetry, non issue", where I have to ask, why 2way telemetry? or you think that Max, Dan ir the cars might be interested in Horners current heart rate for instance? while telemetry is a data transfer typr, it is not the one someone would call or use here, if it were the case

even more so, if you're convinced and you KNOW it is not the case, why not just write it in a post?

[zac510]

I didn't think the standard ECU was even capable of it?

[jz11]

some data is being uploaded wirelessly to the car, like virtual safety times for example, or flag status of the current sector, thus I figured something may have changed in the rule book regarding the ECU, or, perhaps, some other electronic control systems, clutch is one example, that is controlled digitally, I'm saying they definitely are doing, I'm saying - those radio messages are definitely implying that they have the capability, if this suggestion deserves downvoting, then perhaps the forum has indeed got way off being technical, but more of a fan boy sand box

[Jolle]

Tin foil hats off please... Teams don't have the capability to do stuff like that (at the moment) and the yellow/red flags and VSC etc comes from the FIA feed, not the teams feed.

The "we" VER is talking about is his technical team in the pits on what they can advise or instruct for him to change in the car. Lets go back to Baku a few years back, when pit crew weren't allowed to instruct the drivers. Hamilton had to find the right instruction and activate that, what the team wasn't allowed to guid him trough.

In this case, the tech tactic team, after VER's question would for instance instruct him to: switch to 140B and activate. there are hundreds of setting that would bridge faulty sensors for instance or lower the stress on certain parts. They have them all programmed in the ECU already but there are just too many for the driver to know them all.

[NL_Fer]

Max: Save the engine
Engineer: Mode 6 setting 11 dial 4 etc

Max turns prescribed settings.
Engineer checks telemetry on powerunit behaviour, sees temps/knocking/pressure ease off.

Engineer: Engine is turned down

The engineers answer is a response that telemetry shows that Max dialed the correct settings.

[djos]

Changing the car from the pits via computer commands has been explicitly outlawed for a very very long time.

Is the primary reason the steering wheels in F1 look like they could control a nuclear power plant.

The only rational explanation is that Max was previously given settings to change on his wheel and not long after he was given the "we" have made changes to the car in response to his query.

[Laserguru]

listen to the Maxes radio starting from around 20min, I think there is little doubt that pit crew can update some engine parameters from their end:
rzBVvboescs

Never considered it as a team sport? His racing engineer frequently uses ‘we’ when referring to the car and driver. Max was asked to change his engine settings before his engineer confirmed ‘we’ turned the engine down. ‘Fuel 4 position 2’ 21:36.

But I agree it is more fun to take things literally.

I petty the crew when they told Max “we are staying out” 20:15. I think there is little doubt nobody was allowed to get in. All rb team members standing in the pitlane in front of their pitbox had to stay there. This is how they influenced Mercedes tire strategy.

https://m.soundcloud.com/matt-betros/ma ... an-gp-2018

I'm not a native English speaker, but I've learned the language some 30 years ago and been using it to communicate since then on a regular basis, I have zero problem picking up accents, subtle messages and so on, like you being a *ick in your comment, you added absolutely nothing to the subject at all, in fact, you subjectively intentionally interpreted the meaning of what was said in a wrong (grammatically speaking) way to suit your narrative

if Max was using the "we" for team+him, he would have said something along the lines of - do I need to adjust X to save the engine, or - do we need to adjust X to turn the engine down, to which his race engineer would say - no, we're fine etc.
Max saying - YOU need to do X to save the engine, implies a completely different thing, where "we" as you explained, doesn't fit at all, I've communicated with a number of Dutch people, and people from neighboring NL, and they never confused we with I or you, like you would suggest,because Max might be so young, he is under pressure, racing etc, which is nonsense IMO, at that point in the race they are cruising, now, I haven't raced in F1, nor have I raced open wheel cars, but when I raced rally cars some 20 years ago, which is somewhat more stressful than driving around circuit to pre calculated lap time, I never ever made an error addressing someone, or more people with the wrong noun

I haven't red F1 rule book for past couple years, but I vaguely remember that communication with the car (except radio messages) was supposed to be one way, meaning - the car only sends data to pits, pit crew cannot send any commands and parameters back, and I was looking for someone more knowledgeable, who has been following technical rules more closely to say - this is still the case, the radio message was a blunder, or - they have changed X and Y in the rule book allowing certain data to be sent to the car

because, if it indeed is the case that they can send something, then that radio conversation makes perfect sense the way you hear it, without putting your own meaning into what has been said, now which was is true?

The English sounding guy saying "we" is perfectly fine the way you interpret it by him meaning team+max, but then again, if Max eventually fiddled with the controls and set them certain way, the conversation would sound something like - I did what you asked, is everything ok now, to what engineer would say something like - yes, we have adjusted the engine, but that isn't really like it sounded there in that radio conversation

3:52 “mate we are really struggling” by Max.
4.45 “assume we are going to the end” by his engineer.
And many more examples where either uses “we”.

Listening to the radiocommunication Max hardly if ever acknowledges directives. He does report issues, asks for options, other drivers, etc. Communication is mostly towards him otherwise. Not sure about other drivers.

It is forbidden to change engine settings remotely: “8.5.3 Pit to car telemetry is prohibited.” It would also be way to obvious to brake this rule. https://www.fia.com/file/64927/download ... n=XN2hTEj2

Not saying it did not or could not have happened, but it sounds very unlikely to me.

[Sieper]

Changing the car from the pits via computer commands has been explicitly outlawed for a very very long time.

Is the primary reason the steering wheels in F1 look like they could control a nuclear power plant.

The only rational explanation is that Max was previously given settings to change on his wheel and not long after he was given the "we" have made changes to the car in response to his query.

Exactly, and now we also come to an interesting point, in 2016 the pitwall crew (your race engineer) wasn’t even allowed to give Any instructions that could increase the performance of the car. So when Lewis ran into a problem in Baku that could be dealth with /worked around via making an adjustment, Lewis was not able to make the needed setting by himselve and sufferd time loss. In that season we heared several drivers run into similar problems.

Over the winter coming into 2017 it was agreed that teams could give instructions again, under the reasoning that a potential dangerous situation ( brake problems for example) could be prevented. I guess it was as much about the teams and drivers looking slightly silly as these situations were aired.

So now we can give these kind of instructions again. But the driver still has to make them. I think it should stay that way (and it is utter nonsense to think Any team currently has that 2 way ability) otherwise we will have teams making telemetry changes, braking balance, earlier of the gas mapping based on tire temps every second of the race. This will only further diminish the effect the driver actually has on driving the car and further increase team spendings (and give more advantage to top teams).

[jz11]

I remember that Baku moment quite well, that is why this caught my attention, because I was very surprised when I heard this conversation, then I figured, since they now do allow pit instructions due to complexity of the PU, it isn't that much of a stretch to think that maybe some of the engine management has indeed been allowed to be done from the pits, on the grounds that it might be too complex for driver to do while focusing on driving the actual car - again, I'm not saying it is so, but read the transcript from the radio message recording I posted earlier:

20:28 Max: check my engine, if you need to turn it down, turn it down
20:30 Max: again, if you need to turn it down, please do it
pit: understood
[there are no instructions for changes to be done to the steering wheel in during this time
(at least not made available to public), except something regarding "reverse off" when VSC period is about to end,
might be related to battery charging, but not sure]
22:08 pit: we have now turned the engine down, for reference

the very same recording does contain few instructions regarding changes to the engine settings from the steering wheel, but during those 2 minutes, where Max asked pits to turn it down, there was nothing, and the ending of message from 22:08 "for reference" - that indicates that something was done, and pits are informing driver, because if driver would have received instructions to switch some fuel/ignition maps etc, then why does the message sound like they have done it from the pits

p.s. and saying "utter nonsense" about this is just stupid (I can't think of another "lighter" word), because you immediately go from one ditch of not being allowed to even give instructions over the radio to the driver to full wireless control of electronics - this is the "stupid" part, there is a lot middle area here, that for one reason or another, might allow some data to be sent to the control systems of the car, besides of what we already know that can be - like I said - flag status, VSC info etc.

I can think of some safety reasons why some commands should be (and might be already) allowed to be sent remotely, especially considering the high voltage stuff in case of an accident for instance, driver being unable to do it himself, it isn't unreasonable to think they don't have or are not allowed to have that option, I know usually we see guys with rubber gloves and laptops hooked up to a car, but anyway, 2way coms are there in the car, and if you can wirelessly turn something off instantly after a crash to make the car safer to handle, then it just makes sense to have that ability

[Sieper]

There is nothing in the middle. It is not allowed. Thinking anything else is nonsensical.

[PhillipM]

It's easy, they knew it wasn't engine side on Ric's car, and/or that Max's was already turned down anyway as he wasn't battling, so the message was just for reassurance to stop Max worrying.

[Big Tea]

placebo effect?
If Max felt better about it he may relax a little more?

[nzjrs]

20:28 Max: check my engine, if you need to turn it down, turn it down
20:30 Max: again, if you need to turn it down, please do it
pit: understood
[there are no instructions for changes to be done to the steering wheel in during this time
(at least not made available to public), except something regarding "reverse off" when VSC period is about to end,
might be related to battery charging, but not sure]
22:08 pit: we have now turned the engine down, for reference

the very same recording does contain few instructions regarding changes to the engine settings from the steering wheel, but during those 2 minutes, where Max asked pits to turn it down, there was nothing, and the ending of message from 22:08 "for reference" - that indicates that something was done, and pits are informing driver, because if driver would have received instructions to switch some fuel/ignition maps etc, then why does the message sound like they have done it from the pits

It's grammatically plausible that 'for reference' could be to reassure Max that settings changes *max made*, prior to 20:28, had already turned the engine down.

[PhillipM]

placebo effect?
If Max felt better about it he may relax a little more?

Exactly, you don't want the guy comfortably leading the race to start stressing about his engine and changing his driving style. A pitwall engineer is as much a job of managing the driver as the tyres, that's why they end up forming such close relationships with the drivers and often move teams with them.