I think what might be effected is wheelspin minimisation rather than traction control. The objective would be to reduce wear rather than to maximise traction.Tommy Cookers wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 8:24 pmmaybe I was wrongj.yank wrote: ↑Tue May 21, 2019 4:51 pmCan you elaborate more on why there would be anti-TC while K-generating? If the pedal is fully pressed out of the corner K-generating will act as a contra-torque supposedly preventing overspinning. Or maybe I have overlooked the thechnical regulations where this is not allowed?
there will be inner control (feedback) loops between the K and its controller
this must include what's effectively rpm feedback - ie the K is primarily velocity-controlled
an excessive rate of change of rpm ('slew limit') will cause the K to go from full + torque to full - torque (or vice-versa)
in a few millisec
eg wheelspin is one possible cause of this triggering of limit slew rate
accelerating with K assisting ICE - on wheelspin the K would go from +120 kW to -120 kW in in a few millisec (TC emulation)
accelerating with ICE driving K generation - on wheelspin the K would remain at -120 kW (no TC effect)
these are what could be regarded as control-implemented torque 'collapses'
there can in the absence of such control be other torque collapses related to MG design factors
I did a quick calculation and the slew rates in the low speed, traction limited, region are high. Perhaps 3,000rpm/s for the ICE and 10,000 for the MGU-K. So for the few milliseconds you mention that’s tens of revs. change.
Do you think they might monitor slew rate change in the MGU-K control trying to manage “jerk” which would be the onset of wheelspin?