The 2004 ban on launch control

[Pingguest]

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]

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]

If I remember correct they allowed TCS and LC again shortly after precisely because it was impossible to police.

[Just_a_fan]

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.

[graham.reeds]

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

[Tommy Cookers]

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

[Jolle]

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]

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)

[Jolle]

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]

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

[Jolle]

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]

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]

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

[marmer]

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