The 2004 ban on launch control

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
Pingguest
10
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:31 pm

The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Pingguest » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:09 pm

In 2008, the FIA introduced the standard engine control unit. The FIA did so to reduce costs, but it also allowed them to enforce the ban on traction control.
However, without standardizing the engine control unit, launch control was banned in 2004. This made me ask myself the following question. If successfully enforcing the ban on traction control required the standardization of the engine control unit, how did the FIA enforce the ban on launch control without it then?

Could anyone help me finding an answer?

Jolle
154
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Jolle » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:08 pm

Pingguest wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:09 pm
In 2008, the FIA introduced the standard engine control unit. The FIA did so to reduce costs, but it also allowed them to enforce the ban on traction control.
However, without standardizing the engine control unit, launch control was banned in 2004. This made me ask myself the following question. If successfully enforcing the ban on traction control required the standardization of the engine control unit, how did the FIA enforce the ban on launch control without it then?

Could anyone help me finding an answer?
They tried but couldn’t sufficiently. Just like some systems in 1994.

Tim.Wright
435
User avatar
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 5:29 am

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Tim.Wright » Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:28 pm

If I remember correct they allowed TCS and LC again shortly after precisely because it was impossible to police.
Not the engineer at Force India

Just_a_fan
470
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 7:37 pm

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Just_a_fan » Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:44 pm

McLaren had spent a lot of time and money developing a clever rear diff which Ferrari was worried about. They (Ferrari) had been suspected by many in the paddock of running TC but no one could prove it. The FIA decided to allow TC to avoid an arms race of TC-like systems and clever diffs. It was a sensible decision really.
Turbo says "Dumpster sounds so much more classy. It's the diamond of the cesspools." oh, and "The Dutch fans are drunk. Maybe"

graham.reeds
21
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2015 8:16 am

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by graham.reeds » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:21 am

I am surprised no teams have created TC from harvesting energy that would just go into spinning the wheels.

Tommy Cookers
511
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:58 am

they all have and they all do

the K operation cannot be without this effect
the only limiting factor is that the K is much smaller than the ICE ie wheelspin is still possible

any sceptics are hereby invited to explain how the K could be operated to be wheelspin-neutral
ie to produce its mapped + or - torque independent of all rates of change of rpm that the ICE could produce ie wheelspin

sincerely
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
154
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Jolle » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:08 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 11:58 am
they all have and they all do

the K operation cannot be without this effect
the only limiting factor is that the K is much smaller than the ICE ie wheelspin is still possible
What I would do, and guess the teams would do the same, is not direct TC, but use it for a better throttle response and maximise harvest at the same time.
Lets say, output ICE alone is 100% and the K unit is 20%. So max power output is 120%.

If the driver asks for 90% power output, the ICE would give 100% and the K unit -10%. Because the K unit is "shaper" on the throttle, you get a much more responsive car.

For 60% output, the ICE would be on 75% and the K unit on -15%, etc etc etc.

This would give a throttle response almost equal to a electric racing car. If you ever driven one of those, every combustion engine feels slow and you can feel the lag, even with a NA high revving V8.

Tommy Cookers
511
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:58 pm

what electric racing car is that ?

the K exists inside the limits on the 2d mapped relationship between accelerator pedal demand and PU torque output
map rules limit the scope for the PU torque being automatically (without driver input) reduced with rpm rise ie wheelspin

the ICE has inherent limits on rate of torque output change from sudden reduction of load only ie wheelspin before driver input
so does the K

whether the K inherent response limits are quicker than the ICEs is unimportant (though I suggest they aren't)
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
154
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Jolle » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:03 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 12:58 pm
what electric racing car is that ?

the K exists inside the limits on the 2d mapped relationship between accelerator pedal demand and PU torque output
the map rules eg limit the scope for the PU torque being automatically (ie without driver input) reduced with rpm rise
six/seven years ago I did some test laps in a (privately developed) Tesla Roadster racer, never took off because of range, costs, weight, etc. But wow... it was soooooo direct...

Tommy Cookers
511
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 3:55 pm

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Tommy Cookers » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:15 pm

fwiw my take to on that (Tesla) is
have you driven an NA F1 car at 16000 rpm in !st gear and then booted it ?
was (the Tesla) a motor limited to 120 kW (or less below 50% of its speed range) - as the K is


for now my point is that the K will not behave at very high rates of PU rpm change (wheelspin) as the map implies
ie it will resist wheelspin more strongly than the PU map implies/allows
because it will skip poles (by convenient design 'compromise') to cause eg a pseudo-instantaneous collapse in its torque
conceivably even some torque reversal

the cars track performance is dominated by driving in this mode - full motoring torque from the K exiting slow corners
if the K was much bigger there would never be any wheelspin
Last edited by Tommy Cookers on Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Jolle
154
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Jolle » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:32 pm

Tommy Cookers wrote:
Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:15 pm
fwiw my take to on that (Tesla) is - have you driven an NA F1 car at 16000 rpm in !st gear and then booted it ?

for now my point is that the K will not behave at very high rates of PU rpm change (wheelspin) as the map implies
ie it will resist wheelspin more strongly than the PU map implies/allows
because it will skip poles (maybe by design) and so cause eg a pseudo-instantaneous collapse in its torque
conceivably even a torque reversal

the cars track performance is dominated by driving in this mode - full motoring torque from the K exiting slow corners
if the K was much bigger there would never be any wheelspin
I haven't driven F1 cars, no, but I did ride 15.000 rpm racing bikes and cars like radicals with a high revving V8.

As for the K size, even a small K unit can make a ICE much more direct, if you say within a certain window. Just like some traction controls. I remember a Mercedes I had that started off by using the brakes and was very useful and direct (it kept the turbo spinning for instance), but when you really went over the line, it did fuel cutting and you lost the edge.

NL_Fer
54
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2014 8:48 am

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by NL_Fer » Tue Mar 06, 2018 8:02 pm

Pingguest wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:09 pm
In 2008, the FIA introduced the standard engine control unit. The FIA did so to reduce costs, but it also allowed them to enforce the ban on traction control.
However, without standardizing the engine control unit, launch control was banned in 2004. This made me ask myself the following question. If successfully enforcing the ban on traction control required the standardization of the engine control unit, how did the FIA enforce the ban on launch control without it then?

Could anyone help me finding an answer?
Launch/Traction control was banned in 1994, but the years after there were several systems that could help controlling engine torque without using wheel rotation sensors. I believe some used manifold pressure to determine the cars speed. Another way was to limit the rpm increase, an engine that climbed to fast in rpm was probably having wheelspin, so power was cut.

Because there was no way to police this, they allowed traction control during the 2001 season and it was allowed till 2008.

Pingguest
10
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 3:31 pm

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by Pingguest » Tue Mar 06, 2018 9:25 pm

Yes, traction control was allowed until 2008. However, in 2004 a ban on launch control specifically was introduced.

marmer
30
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:48 am

Re: The 2004 ban on launch control

Post by marmer » Wed Mar 07, 2018 11:25 am

In the old kers days it could only be used once a car reached a certain speed to stop it being used to help launch the car