Time gained thanks to traction control?

[outer_bongolia]

I will add a few more things that I can think of right this second to the equation (tires and tire wear, weather, proactive/reactive has all been discussed):
o Riding the kerbs,
o Controlled oversteer,
o Tire temperature control.
I am sure with all these factors that need to be dialed in, one can find conditions where a dumb TC will fail the driver terribly. Of course, these can all be programmed into the TC software. Coupled with GPS and driver controlled switch off, it can be adjusted to any driver's whims.
The question then becomes are we going to consider time gained with a dumb TC or a smart one? Over a single lap under ideal conditions, or in half-wet Malaysia with cold soft tires warming up really fast and another driver on your tail?

[Nando]

I think over a lap a properly good driver will beat a TCS system but over a race distance it´s faster because the likelihood of making mistakes increases.

[autogyro]

Just because a car uses a TC system does not mean the driver cannot improve lap times using driver skill.
In fact a good TC sytem will allow a higher cornering speed, which the driver has to deal with.

IMO the regulations that ban TC are active simply to keep lap times low enough to save the expense of further safety in circuit design and to maintain a close as possible lap time for all the cars.

The result is decades of technological stagnation for the benefit of car manufacturers oil companies and banks.

[netoperek]

I'll give my few cents, as an automatic control man Regarding what kind of control loop TCS might be, I see no reason why it wouldn't be feedback - feedforward - or, in terms used in discussion, both reactive and preventive. Actually, depending on what kind of control strategy and goal (i.e. what kind of cost factor we are optimising) and how much independence control algorithm will be allowed, You may get closer or further to the optimal solution. I must disagree with an argument about changing conditions - at F1 level it would be an insult to assume that the engineers doesn't know how to implement adaptive control... The GPS example, was a typical gain scheduling (simplest ;p) adaptation technique.
Let's for example theoretically say they use MV controller in the ACS algorithm. If it's implemented properly, assuming the object is observable and steerable, and the structure of the indentified model is rather more than less proper, it will produce a grip utilisation as close to 100 percent as it is mathematically possible, given the sample rate. And that would mean a lot faster than even the fastest driver.
Obviously, TCS can be made to achieve very different goals and time benefit (or loss) is only a matter of a proper system desing and implementation.
Ultimately, really good software/hardware combination simply have to be faster than even the fastest driver. Especially, if the software could autonomously control with all that is available to the driver (pedals, steering wheel, even body mass transfer).

However, that is thankfully not the case
And my conclusion is - TCS suited to a driver and properly made to aid when human body limitations are causing the gap from the optimal speed, and used as a tool in hands of a driver with good understanding of it, just HAVE to produce better results.

[Agenda_Is_Incorrect]

Just because a car uses a TC system does not mean the driver cannot improve lap times using driver skill.
In fact a good TC sytem will allow a higher cornering speed, which the driver has to deal with.

IMO the regulations that ban TC are active simply to keep lap times low enough to save the expense of further safety in circuit design and to maintain a close as possible lap time for all the cars.

The result is decades of technological stagnation for the benefit of car manufacturers oil companies and banks.

You are spot on! F1 is restricted to keep cars close with the minimum cost without really improving on speed, safety and technology. All to the benefit of "cost savings" and "sustentability" and "green" and all things that people who ramdomly rant on internet forums about oil, banks and cars like to see because "its the proper thing to do". It seems they like to be schizophrenic as well

[Greg Locock]

One way to estimate the speed advanatage, if you have a lap time simulator, would be to increase the maximum mu of the rear tires in the longitudinal direction by a factor of 2 or so. Admittedly this will also improve braking, perhaps a careful study of the individial sectors of the circuit would allow you to work around that. Or you could alter the brake bias.

[gixxer_drew]

I dont think you will nail this down well because the question is the problem.

I can say a typical slip event is a time loss 1-3 tenths in a race condition for a GT car (not accounting for lost grip from heating the tires or other second order stuff) and yet thats a big range. But thats not counting something like a spin with a potentially massive timeloss. So is it an accumulated average over a race distance? Or just on that one perfect lap (where it is likely to be nothing). How many times to you see a slip event? How do they drive? Its not something you can just stick a number on...My $.02