autogyro wrote:It does not work well though does it.
seeing as the launch of an F1 car is a very small part of the race most teams do not see the need to add a more complex and heavier system. Id say that it works better than most other racing series as far as repeatable launches.
The launch of an F1 car at the start is a very major part of the race IMO.
The race can be won or lost on that silly biting point dual system working right.
It certainly is no longer the drivers skill that makes the difference.
All he has to do is pre set the thing.
A mechanic could do that, or my late Mother.
autogyro wrote:The launch of an F1 car at the start is a very major part of the race IMO.
The race can be won or lost on that silly biting point dual system working right.
It certainly is no longer the drivers skill that makes the difference.
All he has to do is pre set the thing.
A mechanic could do that, or my late Mother.
so what is your point then it doesn't work well because it eliminates the driver error. Or it doesn't work well because it would allow your mother to drive and you don't believe women should be allowed to drive?
autogyro wrote:The launch of an F1 car at the start is a very major part of the race IMO.
The race can be won or lost on that silly biting point dual system working right.
It certainly is no longer the drivers skill that makes the difference.
All he has to do is pre set the thing.
A mechanic could do that, or my late Mother.
sorry autogyro, automatic launch systems are banned since a while, but while allowed they helped clutch manufacturers to make decent money, because F1 teams would just burn up clutches to calibrate and optimise their systems on dynos.
Now, it´s pretty much driver dependent, and their is still a bit of skill involved, as it should be - IMHO.
You have a very talented mother if your claim is true - respect !!!
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
With the appropriate clutch lever maps I agree with AG that the thing is mostly out of the hand of the driver. The window for constant pre set launch torque must be huge. If you have a working lever angle of 45° you can ramp down from full torque to launch torque within the first 10° and keep it constant for further 25°. The final 10° you use for ramping down to separation.
It must be easy to hit the central 25° for launch torque.
Last edited by WhiteBlue on 13 Sep 2010, 05:29, edited 1 time in total.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
WhiteBlue wrote:I believe that different clutch lever maps are not legal according to § 9.2.1
WhiteBlue wrote:With the appropriate clutch lever maps I agree with AG that the thing is mostly out of the hand of the driver.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
I could see why there would be a two position setting for a carbon clutch for starting. Putting a little bit of heat into the carbon clutch discs by slipping them would eliminate any performance lag due to a change in Mu from temperature. Putting a little bit of load on the engine would also help it respond quicker at launch because it is operating closer to its torque curve peak. Both of these would make a stall due to rapid load changes on the (very low inertia) engine less likely.
Also preloading the drivetrain components with some strain energy, by slightly engaging the clutch while braking, would provide a more energetic launch when that strain energy is released. In effect, it's like a big spring launching the car forward in addition to the engine's power.
That's my theory anyway.
Regards.
riff_raff
"Q: How do you make a small fortune in racing?
A: Start with a large one!"
WhiteBlue wrote:I believe that different clutch lever maps are not legal according to § 9.2.1
WhiteBlue wrote:With the appropriate clutch lever maps I agree with AG that the thing is mostly out of the hand of the driver.
I have edited the post with a graph to show the map. I hope is is now visible why drivers can hold the second lever easily at launch torque between 10 and 35°. Both levers would have the same map. The first lever would be fully released for the clutch to adjust to launch torque. If the driver wants a bit of pre launch torque with brakes he can release the first lever to say 43°.
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
autogyro wrote:The launch of an F1 car at the start is a very major part of the race IMO.
The race can be won or lost on that silly biting point dual system working right.
It certainly is no longer the drivers skill that makes the difference.
All he has to do is pre set the thing.
A mechanic could do that, or my late Mother.
sorry autogyro, automatic launch systems are banned since a while, but while allowed they helped clutch manufacturers to make decent money, because F1 teams would just burn up clutches to calibrate and optimise their systems on dynos.
Now, it´s pretty much driver dependent, and their is still a bit of skill involved, as it should be - IMHO.
You have a very talented mother if your claim is true - respect !!!
The present system is only manualy operated when the second paddle is operated.
The first paddle is used to set the biting point.
It gets around the regulations in this way.
IMO it is a crude automatic apply system, required because of the engine needs, nothing else. Not at all high tech even if the materials are.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
not that I think, it matters much to the opinion of some esteemed members of this forum, but a quick look into the FIA F1 regs reveals:
9.2 Clutch control :
The following applies only to the main drivetrain clutch or clutches, any clutch used exclusively as part of a
KERS is exempt.
9.2.1 If multiple clutch operating devices are used, they must all have the same mechanical travel characteristics
and be mapped identically.
9.2.2 Designs which allow specific points along the travel range of the clutch operating device to be identified by
the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
9.2.3 The minimum and maximum travel positions of the clutch operating device must correspond to the clutch
fully engaged normal rest position and fully disengaged (incapable of transmitting any useable torque)
positions respectively.
9.2.4 Designs or systems which in addition to typical inherent hydraulic and mechanical properties are designed
to, or have the effect of, adjusting or otherwise influencing the amount, or rate, of engagement being
demanded by the FIA ECU, are not permitted.
But sure enough, they are all cheating as we know, and nothing is impossible in the world of motor racing.
Have a nice day autogyro and enjoy your conspiracy theories.
I´m sure you have some meaningful contributions to make to this forum, therefor it´s sad to see, that you chose to undermine your credibility with your constant unfounded rants against current technology.
"Make the suspension adjustable and they will adjust it wrong ......
look what they can do to a carburetor in just a few moments of stupidity with a screwdriver." - Colin Chapman
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.” - Leonardo da Vinci
There is plenty of ambiguity in §9.2.4 alone to keep engineers thinking and give the FiA cause for issuing "clarifications".
Formula One's fundamental ethos is about success coming to those with the most ingenious engineering and best ..............................organization, not to those with the biggest budget. (Dave Richards)
The truth is that with a very small diameter clutch on an F1 engine with no flywheel, there is no other way to engage the clutch and achieve vehicle motion, the clutch has is in some way to be controlled automaticaly.
The regulations are designed to keep the issue clouded so as to prevent criticism.
An automatic F1 car!!!!!! Not acceptable, so conceal it.
