j.yank wrote: ↑
Tue May 21, 2019 10:23 pm
Well, I will greatly appreciate if you point the rules where this is defined - I really want to sort out this for myself but cannot spent much time for investigation of regulations. Saying this, may I speculate that ICE+K output could be always positive but actually the K output is slightly negative, and in this way suppressing the ICE excessive positive (in correlation to pedal) output? Maybe I don't know the rules but it seems to me that this is an option that seems contra intuitive (to use K as stop when the car needs full throttle), and in the same time maybe useful. Maybe the contra loads from ICE and K could explain the Red Bul troubles with the driveshaft?
Well, its not completely defined in the regulations. The minimum ramp rate and pedal to torque ratio is defined in the regulations. I agree with you though, as long as the torque demanded by the pedal position is achieved, its up to the strategy how much comes from ICE and/or +/- MGU-K.
5.5 Power unit torque demand :
5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via
a single foot (accelerator) pedal mounted inside the survival cell.
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted.
5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.
5.5.4 At any given accelerator pedal position and above 4,000rpm, the driver torque demand map must not have a gradient of less than – (minus) 0.045Nm/rpm.
The part about how the ICE & K total power bit is an interpretation from a research paper done at the Zurich ZTH (link: https://www.research-collection.ethz.ch ... sAllowed=y
). While it is a research paper, the author acknowledges help from Ferrari and has interpretations of the rules as he knows them (again, he had help from Ferrari so I weight his interpretations on the informed side). Look up the second co-examiners name on LinkedIn and you will see something interesting (link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/carlo-bussi ... bdomain=it
) - somehow he is only twice removed from me
If you don't have a lot of time, read the introduction of the research paper starting on page 1.