Red Bull RB9 Renault

[wesley123]

Are you a RBR F1 engineer?

Nope, I'm not. And even if I was, then I wouldnt go around saying it is TC

If you aren't then obviously you wouldn't have the answer now would you.

Yeah, cause when you dont work in F1 you obviously dont know anything about f1 tech. Tech used in F1 is all unique to F1 itself so we obviously cannot know anything about it

No but seriously, you and some news site that only goes on views are the only ones to even consider it and actually believe it.

Also, Drive train oscilating has been said multiple times.

RBR seems to have a pretty good handle on what makes a fast car.

Oh god, they have the quickest car, they sure must be running TC!!!!!1!11!!

They seem to be ahead in most area's that make a car fast.

So?

These are complex cars that have been fashioned by a brilliant mind (newey).

So?

Do you think it's possible that he has found another grey area that no one else has thought of. I'm one of those people who thinks he just might have.

Like for example...?

Its like i said before thinking of tc the old way with the tell tale engine sound and connecting to the ecu is way to obvious to be used in present day F1.

Jesus christ, do you even know what TC is? Cause I am actually that nice; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traction_control_system


Let's get over it another time;

Why it isnt TC;
1. The picture show tire marks while accelerating in an uncontinuous pattern. How can there be wheelspin/tire marks when they are running a system that prevents this from happening? If they were running TC, then there would be no tire marks.
2. TC is noticable in the Telemetry. Why, you ask? Because it limits acceleration to prevent wheelspin from happening, so this limited traction would have been noticable.
3. You are stupid to even consider this, you probably believe in 9/11 too. I have put this point in to check if you actually read the posts, which I doubt you do since you cannot see further than "OMG RB IS CHETING WIT TRACTON CONTRL!!!!11!1" If you actually read the whole post, including this line, please state so in the reply.
4. TC causes an rattling sound under acceleration(due to TC limiting wheelspin, and thus force), does the Red Bull make a rattling sound? No it does not.
The Red Bull, without TC. Notice how there is no rattling sound, which would have been present with TC;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofFWHV8rWHc[/youtube]

And a car with TC;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYt9rUbWrtA[/youtube]
Do you hear the rattle when Kimi pushes down the Gas pedal? You know what that is? That is TC limiting the force through the tires and by that preventing wheelspin.
5. Due to TC's way of limiting wheelspin it would be noticable in tire wear, since that would obviously be different. Is that the case? No.

So I have named 4 points on why it isnt TC. you come with some points why it would be TC, but you obviously cannot.

Red Bull engineers might be smart, but they cannot perform miracles, cannot cast spells. Also magic doesnt exist.

So other than the regular "Red Bull is smart, they have the best car" bullrap, come with some good points why it would be TC, else I'm done "discussing"(it is hardly a discussion when you are not even trying to come up with decent points why it is TC) with you

[miguelalvesreis]

Wesley123,


Altough I don't share the believe of a TC system being the answer for those marks, I do not understand why it would be necessary for a TC system to interfere with ignition. It could be impleemented only on the breaks. would be a lot less effective and a lot slower but, nevertheless, possible.

don't know how they could avoid being detected with some simple telemetry analysis and, don't know if the kers harvesting alayout allows some counter effect torque (braking), subtle but deemed as sufficient, that could help.


Anyway, the main point is that the rattling is not a necessary condition in this case.


And I shall stress that I am convinced that the oscillations were main factor in this case.


regards

[WillerZ]

Altough I don't share the believe of a TC system being the answer for those marks, I do not understand why it would be necessary for a TC system to interfere with ignition. It could be impleemented only on the breaks. would be a lot less effective and a lot slower but, nevertheless, possible.

And definitely illegal; the braking regulations are such that there cannot be any actuation of the brakes other than that caused by the drivers foot. The scrutineers check this to make sure no team has fitted an ABS.

And I shall stress that I am convinced that the oscillations were main factor in this case.

I tend to agree.

The possible "TC" system I thought we were talking about here does not work in the way a normal TC system works: it is the idea of programming an electronic diff so that instead of spinning both wheels up in a straight line when the driver requests more torque than the wheels have traction you would send the ideal amount of torque to one wheel and twice the normal excess torque to the other. Then by (rapidly) alternating which wheel has traction you would make progress in a straight line more rapidly than if you had not got the system: functionally it's TC.

I now think that this is pretty-much what is going to happen naturally with an open diff and an oscillating car; and because you're allowed to use an e-diff to model an open diff on corner exit, and many do, and the cars do oscillate it is probably just that.

I think also that taken as a whole it would be a bad idea to use this system: because although it might be faster to do this it will knacker the tyres. Much better in current F1 to let both wheels spin up so the driver knows not to do that than to use this system to save old lead-foot some lap time.

[miguelalvesreis]

And definitely illegal; the braking regulations are such that there cannot be any actuation of the brakes other than that caused by the drivers foot. The scrutineers check this to make sure no team has fitted an ABS.

Agree! I was only trying to expose that the rattling isn't a necessary condition!

I tend to agree.

The possible "TC" system I thought we were talking about here does not work in the way a normal TC system works: it is the idea of programming an electronic diff so that instead of spinning both wheels up in a straight line when the driver requests more torque than the wheels have traction you would send the ideal amount of torque to one wheel and twice the normal excess torque to the other. Then by (rapidly) alternating which wheel has traction you would make progress in a straight line more rapidly than if you had not got the system: functionally it's TC.

I now think that this is pretty-much what is going to happen naturally with an open diff and an oscillating car; and because you're allowed to use an e-diff to model an open diff on corner exit, and many do, and the cars do oscillate it is probably just that.

I think also that taken as a whole it would be a bad idea to use this system: because although it might be faster to do this it will knacker the tyres. Much better in current F1 to let both wheels spin up so the driver knows not to do that than to use this system to save old lead-foot some lap time.

Yes, that would pretty much stress the tyres a little too much. And you don't want that with these Pirelli.

I don't know why but keep constantly reminding that trucks have electric brakes on the shaft

[Saribro]

Are you a RBR F1 engineer? If you aren't then obviously you wouldn't have the answer now would you. RBR seems to have a pretty good handle on what makes a fast car. They seem to be ahead in most area's that make a car fast. These are complex cars that have been fashioned by a brilliant mind (newey). Do you think it's possible that he has found another grey area that no one else has thought of. I'm one of those people who thinks he just might have.

Its like i said before thinking of tc the old way with the tell tale engine sound and connecting to the ecu is way to obvious to be used in present day F1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- I don't know what it is. "You can't prove"* what it is, therefor it's traction control/aliens/communist consipiracy/... .

* "You can't prove" often also means: I reject any sane explanation out of hand because I want my own conclusion to be true.

[beelsebob]

Are you a RBR F1 engineer? If you aren't then obviously you wouldn't have the answer now would you. RBR seems to have a pretty good handle on what makes a fast car. They seem to be ahead in most area's that make a car fast. These are complex cars that have been fashioned by a brilliant mind (newey). Do you think it's possible that he has found another grey area that no one else has thought of. I'm one of those people who thinks he just might have.

Its like i said before thinking of tc the old way with the tell tale engine sound and connecting to the ecu is way to obvious to be used in present day F1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
- I don't know what it is. "You can't prove"* what it is, therefor it's traction control/aliens/communist consipiracy/... .

* "You can't prove" often also means: I reject any sane explanation out of hand because I want my own conclusion to be true.

The problem is, you're both making arguments from ignorance. Now stop throwing handbags at each other, and find some actual evidence.

[Tim.Wright]

Are you a RBR F1 engineer? If you aren't then obviously you wouldn't have the answer now would you. RBR seems to have a pretty good handle on what makes a fast car. They seem to be ahead in most area's that make a car fast. These are complex cars that have been fashioned by a brilliant mind (newey). Do you think it's possible that he has found another grey area that no one else has thought of. I'm one of those people who thinks he just might have.

Its like i said before thinking of tc the old way with the tell tale engine sound and connecting to the ecu is way to obvious to be used in present day F1.

F1 is really such a mystical thing to so many people here. Contrary to what you think, the cars are not complicated due to the resrictive rules. They are designed by intelligent people sure but not gods. They are just engineers like a lot of people onhere are as well.

I have put forward a pretty solid reasoning behind whats happening. There is still the fact that if there is something skipping or oscillating at the tyres, you are losing grip not improving it. Its the laws of physics in which there are no grey areas.

If your only reason behind thinking there is a TC system on the car is "ZOMG Newey!!!111" then its not even worth discussing here. Go to the autosport or planetF1 forums otherwise try to at least keep the discussion grounded in the laws of physics.

[Saribro]

The problem is, you're both making arguments from ignorance. Now stop throwing handbags at each other, and find some actual evidence.

I never made any arguments. Learn to read poster names.

[marcush.]

just an idea ...what happens when you hit the limiter on acceleration from standstill and sort of forget to upshift early enough?
it will surely start an oscillation ..








?

[spiritone]

Seems i have stirred up quite a hornets nest, especially wesley 123. Just because i don't agree with what you think is the logical explanation, no need to get your knickers in a knot. Everything on here is opinion. Can you prove yours, NO. Is there some way of having a form of tc on a F1 car,MAYBE. Did i say that i could prove they are cheating, NO. Did anyone think that you could make front wings flex they way RBR did,NO. I think the other teams were caught by suprise and Ferrari's floppy copy was good for a laugh and showed just how far ahead RBR was. Innovation happens in F1 all the time and teams keep coming up with ideas that rulemakers and forum members didn't think of. Forget about the pictures and think about how much better RBR is off slow corners. Nobody seems to have the answer for that. Lets have a discussion about that.
When people say that that the engineers in F1 are just engineers i don't think newey, rory byrne colin chapman and gordon murray are just ordinary engineers. These guys came up with idea's that were simply ahead of their time.

I thought this forum was for opinions on different tech on F1 cars? Was i wrong? I'm not an F1 engineer and i don't build F1 cars but for 30 yrs my bussiness was building racecars. I'm retired now and racing with my grandsons. Does that make me and expert on F1, NO. Does my opinion carry any more weight than anybody else,NO. Its like i said, just my opinion.

[wesley123]

If you want to discuss at least read other peoples posts and come with points why it would be the case.

[estormell]

Gearbox oscilation(pretty much confirmed by multiple sources) doesnt make sense? Explain why it doesnt.

I find it hard to believe that any driveline component would allow an oscillation of such an amplitude without breaking, even for the halve axles or the tyre belt. I think the crankshaft itself must be oscillating as it accelerates.

just an idea ...what happens when you hit the limiter on acceleration from standstill and sort of forget to upshift early enough?
it will surely start an oscillation ..

That's quite a normal situation when accelerating in first, specially when the rear slip ratios are very high and upshifting would kill the revs. Doesn't it make sense?

[Emerson.F]

Here's my take.

I find it hard to believe that a red bull employee, if he knew they had some kind of traction control, would come out and say "Yeah sure we have tc, we've been running it for 3 yrs, you caught us". So steve asking him that question is a waste of time.
If they do not have tc then someone explain how they get their cars to hookup out of slow corners with hardly a wisp of wheelspin? They then must have a much superior suspension system or a much better engine map then any team, and nobody has been able to find out what gives. There are some smart people on this forum but we're talking about a team that has assembled some of the smartest people on the planet to work on their cars. How long did it take for people to twig on to rbr flexy wing? It took pictures on a forum before the fia did anything. Even when the pictures appeared many fans argued that they were'nt flexing it was just the angle of the picture.
Do the stewards that check the cars before each event even have the expertise to find it? How long did it take for the fia to find out that the benneton was running tc. Even when they did find it the fia did nothing.
Am i saying that they are definitely cheating, no. What i am saying is there is a suspicion somethings going on and so far nobody has been able to come up with an answer that makes sense to me. There was illegal tc in nhra drag racing for a few years that the nhra couldn't find. Clever people will always find ways around rules. just my opinion.

This.

I for one wouldn't be surprised they do have some kind of system working wich enables some kind of traction control effect. its just that we have visual confirmation of something many people have been suspecting for a long while.

[wesley123]

Wait, where is the visual confirmation of TC? You mean the one with tire marks, which is something Tcprevents? Kinda proves it isnt TC right?

[spiritone]

Its seems wesley 123 is the resident expert on this forum. I shall bow to you superior intellect and go back to working on my race cars.