F1technical.net

timbo wrote:With the electronic control of the rear brakes allowed, would it be also controlled thru SECU?


Checked the regs and it is indeed so. I wonder if something like brake-operated TC can be emloyed. This should involve biasing brakes only towards the rear though. What if driver has another bias position for rear-brakes only and engages that at the corner exit, than just brushes the pedal lightly so electronically controlled rear-brakes only prevent wheel spin?

Yes, there was some talk on this a few months ago. I'm guessing they'll control the MGUK regen in a way that works like TC.

dren wrote:

timbo wrote:With the electronic control of the rear brakes allowed, would it be also controlled thru SECU?


Checked the regs and it is indeed so. I wonder if something like brake-operated TC can be emloyed. This should involve biasing brakes only towards the rear though. What if driver has another bias position for rear-brakes only and engages that at the corner exit, than just brushes the pedal lightly so electronically controlled rear-brakes only prevent wheel spin?

Yes, there was some talk on this a few months ago. I'm guessing they'll control the MGUK regen in a way that works like TC.

It should be possible. I can't find anywhere in the regulations that says that the MGU-K is only allowed to regenerate during braking. So it should be possible to use the MGU-K as TC. If the wheels spin you use the MGU-K as a generator stealing engine power.

edit:

The question is just how to detect wheelspin. You cant just add sensors where you want to. As every sensor has to go through the SECU.

dren wrote:

timbo wrote:With the electronic control of the rear brakes allowed, would it be also controlled thru SECU?


Checked the regs and it is indeed so. I wonder if something like brake-operated TC can be emloyed. This should involve biasing brakes only towards the rear though. What if driver has another bias position for rear-brakes only and engages that at the corner exit, than just brushes the pedal lightly so electronically controlled rear-brakes only prevent wheel spin?

Yes, there was some talk on this a few months ago. I'm guessing they'll control the MGUK regen in a way that works like TC.

Would regen have enough reaction time to prevent wheelspin? The system has to be able to operate at quite a high frequency to be effective.

timbo wrote:

dren wrote:

timbo wrote:With the electronic control of the rear brakes allowed, would it be also controlled thru SECU?


Checked the regs and it is indeed so. I wonder if something like brake-operated TC can be emloyed. This should involve biasing brakes only towards the rear though. What if driver has another bias position for rear-brakes only and engages that at the corner exit, than just brushes the pedal lightly so electronically controlled rear-brakes only prevent wheel spin?

Yes, there was some talk on this a few months ago. I'm guessing they'll control the MGUK regen in a way that works like TC.

Would regen have enough reaction time to prevent wheelspin? The system has to be able to operate at quite a high frequency to be effective.

That I am not sure of. I would think so, but I'm not very good with electric drive/motors.

Perhaps the bias can act as the TC. When it senses slip through the motor generation, the bias would change. Maybe you can get some sort of temporary brief pressure relief by quickly changing the bias back and forth?

at every moment the drive for the MGUK will anyway in effect know the MGUK rpm etc in order to function
and will typically smoothly raise the drive voltage as rpm rises so as to produce the torque required at all rpm
smoothly raising the drive voltage means that any sudden and significant increase in rpm inherently makes torque fall
(eg anything from a broken driveshaft to wheelspin, the same effect makes a starter motor torque fall as the engine starts)
in trivial applications this reduction would be a fixed effect (loosely we might call it a slew rate limit)
in our case the drive would be more intelligently generated and managed
of course the same effect will apply during generation

any MGUK will inherently provide a substantial effect in the direction of TC (and ABS) characteristics
(anyway, it would be near-impossible to avoid such an effect)
but of course it does not break the rules defining what is called TC and ABS
the 2014 rules were no accident

Yikes this thread is getting serious!

What did you expect? These are all determined people with an IQ above average and the will to make technical discussion about just everything going from grass aero to toothbrush airflow.

@turbof1; There's a dedicated 2014 engine thread for you Mensa-members, this one's for us mediocre wannabees.

richard_leeds wrote:Yikes this thread is getting serious!

Noting that cannot be rectified with a bit of effort straight from the heart, is it Richard?

Imagine a total of 2000 mm fuel-line after the flow-limiter, is there a limit to the length in the rules anyway?

If the id has a nominal 12 mm, it would only take an xpansion to 12.6 (5%) to hide 23 cc, which would boost power with 90 Hp for more than four seconds when you floor it!

Think about it.

xpensive wrote:Think about it.

Your post was going so well until that last line. Then I thought about it.

Let me humbly rephrase that last line, what I meant was more like; Please carefully consider the above without preconceptions.

There's a palette of materials on to handle a 5% elongation, while it can hardly be detected by the human eye, not CW's anyway.

I think Mercedes did stumble across some seemingly innocuous development whether it be with the fuel line, or something else that gives them a burst of power from the engine. Even if it falls anywhere on the scale from 50BHP to 100BHP, in this day and age, that will be in my estimation an immense advantage to be had.

I know it is still early, but I feel Mercedes power will still be the one to beat...unless of course all the teams have figured out the same thing. I find it hard to believe that Mercedes would figure something else while Renault and Ferrari are still busy scratching their heads?

While the key to the 100 Hp advantage might be mechanically be between the fuel-metering device and the injectors, like compliant fuel-lines suggested above, I can imagine outside disturbance of the fuel-meter itself, surely this gadget is remotely monitored?

How difficult could it be to interfere and hack it?

wuzak wrote:

GrandAxe wrote:Perhaps not an accumulator, but something like the FRIC system that can actively monitor and maintain pressures after the gauge as well as store fuel?

5.10.6 Any device, system or procedure the purpose and/or effect of which is to increase the flow rate after the measurement point is prohibited.

Any attempt to beat the fuel flow rate restriction will be met heavily.

Remember the FIA took BAR to the tribunal over not having enough fuel to sample, and got BAR banned for 2 races. (The stewards wrongly accepted data as proof that they hadn't run underweight during the race.)

I hate to think what the FIA would do to someone deliberately sidestepping this rule.

Rule 5.10.6 is concerned with devices to increase the flow after the gauge, but using a FRIC-like system would not have the effect of increasing the flow, rather it would simply act to smoothen pressure at the gauge through the periods when accumulated fuel is required (so that flexible fuel lines you mentioned wouldn't be needed).
Working on the pressures through the gauge in this way would completely circumvent the current rules with the double bonus of automating fuel mixes/ volume (and pressures) at the injectors, as well as hiding the trick that's being used.

The net benefits would be greater efficiency and more power in a way that can't be detected. Mercedes have quite a few years experience of playing with advanced hydraulics in their suspension already to make this work.

xpensive wrote:While the key to the 100 Hp advantage might be mechanically be between the fuel-metering device and the injectors, like compliant fuel-lines suggested above, I can imagine outside disturbance of the fuel-meter itself, surely this gadget is remotely monitored?

How difficult could it be to interfere and hack it?

That's what my point early was.

It wouldn't be even near the first time a or any team tried to do manipulate the onboard computer system to do something they want it to do that doesn't follow the letter of the law. I don't think it could be overly difficult to try and disrupt the fuel meter by placing some other electronic component nearby that acts for no other purpose other than to disrupt the fuel-meter's ability to accurately gauge the reading. Sort of like breaking into a slot machine at a casino to rig the reels with electronics.

Aha, I wonder who is manufacturing this device and to whom's specifications, if someone mentions anything or anywhere remotely connected to Daimler AG, I will unlock my 9 mm Luger in a heartbeat?