Which it is. The driver presses the pedal 70%, the PU delivers 70%. The driver presses the pedal 100% the PU delivers 100% torque. Why should it be importent how the PU achieves this as long as the driver demand and the torque output correspond with each other? A traction control for instance would divert away from the driver demand which would clearly violate the rules.
My understanding is there is a lot more trickery that could be incorporated if the rules were dictated as throttle position vs power output, one of those being traction control.Dr. Acula wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 9:15 pmWhich it is. The driver presses the pedal 70%, the PU delivers 70%. The driver presses the pedal 100% the PU delivers 100% torque. Why should it be importent how the PU achieves this as long as the driver demand and the torque output correspond with each other? A traction control for instance would divert away from the driver demand which would clearly violate the rules.
Also i posted a set of old rules a few dozens posts back. The FIA even changed the wording from throttle to torque somewhere between 2009 and 2013 because controlling the throttle is utter nonesense. It wouldn't prevent anything when it comes to a traction control.
What, in your opinion, is the ICE throttle?saviour stivala wrote: ↑Sat Apr 27, 2019 8:27 pm“are you still trying to prove that the ICE throttle/s must be directly related to the accelerator pedal?”. Yes in formula one racing it must be. As otherwise how can it be said that the driver is driving the car unaided?. This here driver we talking about is driving a formula one car in competition and not a modern road car with the help of all its gizmos.
(The power unit must achieve the torque demand by the FIA standard software).
Without any regulated control F1 engines would probably not have throttle/s anymore. As far back as 2011 when teams were abusing the system left right and centre, teams were using maps to power off-throttle blown floors, throttles were left open more or less the entire lap to maintain exhaust flow, and torque and ignition maps alone were left to control the torque produced, if the rules back then had not been clarified, the air intake would have been left fully opened and torque would have been controlled by ignition.
In my opinion PU torque must be controlled by the driver, except for the exceptions of, downshifts, pit-lane speed limiter, anti-stall and end of straight limiter strategy. The driver controls the torque by means of accelerator pedal. At zero per cent pedal the torque demand must be less than or equal to zero. At 100% pedal the torque must match or exceed the maximum torque output of the engine/PU in its current state. There are limits on the shape of torque demand as a function of pedal position and so engine speed (rpm) to prevent engine/PU characteristics that could be driver aids. Respecting these restrictions, the torque demand is shaped against throttle/s position and engine/PU speed to deliver the desired response for driver and car.
Indeed. Just one very simple example.
The compressor power at that boost (4.3 Bar abs) would be 110+ kW.godlameroso wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 9:37 pmMore interesting is that I have it on good info that the turbos in this formula produce up to ~46psi of boost. Which means that the TERS has to be able to cover whatever energy it takes to make that from the compressor minus any blowdown energy the turbine receives with wide open wastegates.
Actually up to 2/6 PU output range from MGUK full motoring to full braking.
isn't the 46 psi 'boost' really 46 psi abs ? (surely ?)
46 psi MAP.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 11:20 amisn't the 46 psi 'boost' really 46 psi abs ? (surely ?)
only we Brits ever meant boost when we said boost - everyone else used abs
eg the FIA meant 2.5 bar abs when limiting turbo F1 to that - but everyone called it and still calls it 2.5 bar boost
earlier I suggested the mapping rules with the given limit on torque fall/rpm gradient amounted to a constant power PU
(eg at constant accelerator position when rpm rises suddenly due to wheelspin mapped torque will proportionately fall)
yes this gradient could be seen at partial powers as allowing a disproportionate torque fall - but is this practically useable ?
The ICE/engine is one of the two elements out of the six that makes-up the power unit, the other being the MGU-K by which power and torque is delivered to the wheels.