It again is a stroke of genius from RB.
It will most likely be allowed and all will copy it until next year.
Let them innovate as innovation is the heart an soul of F1 development.
Spankyham wrote:I wonder when we'll see a TD on this, over the break?
TheGkbrk wrote:So the Red Bull system declared legal, will other teams copy it? If so, how much time will it take?
Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?
bhallg2k wrote:OK. I give up. Apparently you haven't been paying attention at all, and I've just been wasting time.
turbof1 wrote:It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.
turbof1 wrote:TheGkbrk wrote:So the Red Bull system declared legal, will other teams copy it? If so, how much time will it take?
Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?
It's not really declared "legal", only that it isn't "illigal". The FIA will be fed up with the fact it goes completely against the spirit of the rules and will push or a TD.
bhallg2k wrote:For any given engine map used during a race weekend, of which two are allowed (dry/wet), 0% accelerator travel must coincide with 0% torque demand as defined by that map, and 100% accelerator travel must coincide with 100% torque demand, again, as defined by that map. Additionally, engine maps must be implemented in such a way that power output is uniformly linked to accelerator travel to within 0.030Nm/RPM. The engine map used during qualifying must be used during the race.
Those rules do not apply when the engine is at idle, which is 5,000 RPM max, and when the engine speed is above 15,000 RPM combined with accelerator travel greater than or equal to 80%. Teams are given some freedom to adjust engine mapping in those ranges for the purpose of increasing engine reliability. I believe Red Bull is taking advantage of those allowances to gain a performance advantage in much the same way engine manufacturers gained power through modifications made for the sake of "reliability."
bhallg2k wrote:Now, because rule 5.6.6 allows engine map settings to deviate from their normal program within the 15,000-18,000 RPM + 80-100% accelerator travel range, torque delivery can be reduced so that a corner ordinarily taken with the accelerator at, say, 50% can instead be taken at 80% without ill effects. That's the traction control part.
Because the accelerator is at 80% rather than 50% in that corner, the engine burns fuel a rate corresponding to 80%, which means the engine outputs exhaust at a rate corresponding to 80%. That's the aerodynamic benefit part.
These adjustments could be made legally with a complete, across-the-board reduction in torque. But, a driver would quickly find himself at the back of the pack with such settings.
bhallg2k wrote:1. No one ever suggested it's limited to corner exits. So, yes, one does have to live with those settings all the time. The part that makes this illegal, however, is that while 80% throttle equates to 50% torque, 100% throttle equates to 100% torque.
[...]
bhallg2k wrote:The curve is well-defined.
5.5.6 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 5,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.030Nm / rpm.
hardingfv32 wrote:TheGkbrk wrote:Also I read that the system provides 30% less power on full throttle to behave like a traction control. So was that the reason that Red Bull was very slow on straights in Germany?
Well stated.
Brian
hardingfv32 wrote:bhallg2k wrote:OK. I give up. Apparently you haven't been paying attention at all, and I've just been wasting time.
I have been paying close attention. As the discussion has gone on and I have asked for more detailed explanations of your statements, your answers just become more vague and ambiguous. This seems to be your normal operating procedure.
Brian
Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot], djos, oT v1, Yandex [Bot] and 18 guests