Exhaust blown diffusers and FIA restrictions/ban

[enkidu]

Only reason the weight penalty isn't a big issue at the moment is the mandatory weight distribution, but from my understanding, that was only ever temporary.

EDIT: Yes, 2011 only.

http://www.formula1.com/news/technical/2011/0/828.html

Sure but does it say that the minimum weight of an F1 car will change for next year?

No I would assume that will stay as it is now 640kg including driver?

[hardingfv32]

"I'm confused... I just reread the rules here..."

Could it be the rules have not formally changed yet?

Brian

[horse]

It is being implied that the engine map cannot be changed until the first pit stop and maybe not by the driver.

Brian

I disagree

Furthermore, when the driver lifts fully off the throttle, the ECU maps must be configured to cut off the fuel supply to the engine – this is intended to prevent so called “hot blowing” where the energy of the exhaust gas is increased by combustion.

The fact that he said they must reconfigure the maps (plural) implies there are still a set of maps to choose from.

[beelsebob]

"I'm confused... I just reread the rules here..."

Could it be the rules have not formally changed yet?

This rule isn't from the changed/ammended version – this is the original, 2011 (and earlier) technical regs.

[horse]

It's likely that the throttle must be slightly depressed for the ignition retardation to work. Not a system for right foot braking.

[beelsebob]

It's likely that the throttle must be slightly depressed for the ignition retardation to work. Not a system for right foot braking.

Would that not make the new regulation limiting engine throttle to 10% while the throttle pedal is not depressed rather toothless?

[i70q7m7ghw]

KERS... "but the weight distribution will be opened up again."

Could this be because next year the KERS is much more powerful and would then become a must have item?

Brian

No? It means that KERS could once again hinder the balance of the car. It all depends on if there is a better weight distribution for the Pirelli tyres. KERS has to be in a specific place in the car, and it weights a fair amount, so it plays a big part in dictating the weight distribution of the car.

[LionKing]

We'll see if Webber starts getting the upper hand on Vettel with these changes, as he had in early 2010.

I seriously doubt it... Vettel would have won the first three races very comfortably last year if it weren't for the engine problems. He also beat Webber in the fourth race as well.

[BreezyRacer]

We'll see if Webber starts getting the upper hand on Vettel with these changes, as he had in early 2010.

I seriously doubt it... Vettel would have won the first three races very comfortably last year if it weren't for the engine problems. He also beat Webber in the fourth race as well.

Valid points .. we shall see.

[hardingfv32]

So weight distribution is going to trump a KERS with say twice the energy? The KERS weighs about 30 kg.

Why wouldn't the Pirelli's not be developed with KERS in mind if the vast majority of the teams and FIA wish it so? Is it in Pirelli's best interest to do otherwise?

We also do not know if KERS usage will be made mandatory.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"It is being implied that the engine map cannot be changed until the first pit stop and maybe not by the driver."

I'm talking about the letter from FIA to the teams in the last day or so. Maybe it is just a one race deal.

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"I'm confused... I just reread the rules here...

5.5.3 The minimum and maximum throttle pedal travel positions must correspond to the engine throttle minimal (nominal idle) and maximum open positions.

Doesn't this rule already ban hot blowing?"

This is speaking about the pedal to throttle setting relationship. Why couldn't different engine maps have different idle positions. We know that the throttles can have different actuating movement ratios (pedal to engine throttle). These throttle maps must mimic a mechanical system.

Brian

[horse]

Why couldn't different engine maps have different idle positions.

Quite. I was doing some reading around and I think you are on the money here. Say you could design an engine map that idled the engine but had 90% throttle (by closing cylinders, for instance) then you still comply with the law.

I'm talking about the letter from FIA to the teams in the last day or so. Maybe it is just a one race deal.

I think if you read the whole James Allison piece you will see that they are talking about stopping reprogramming of the ECU rather than banning changing engine maps completely.

[hardingfv32]

5.5.3 The minimum and maximum throttle pedal travel positions must correspond to the engine throttle minimal (nominal idle) and maximum open positions.

This is speaking about the pedal to throttle setting relationship as provided by one engine map. Why couldn't different engine maps have different idle positions. We know that the throttles can have different actuating movement ratios (pedal to engine throttle).

Brian

[hardingfv32]

"I think if you read the whole James Allison piece you will see that they are talking about stopping reprogramming of the ECU rather than banning changing engine maps completely."

I disagree:

1) I doubt you are allowed to reprogram the ECU while in parc ferme.

2) They can have all the maps they want in the ECU now.

3) This is simple way for the FIA to get some kind of reduction in off throttle mapping at the next race.

It is just not clear how and when the teams will be able to change maps.

Brian