Time gained thanks to traction control?

[henrykleinespel]

Short update...

On GT5 with a GT-type car and on the Monaco circuit, I had (approximatively) a 5sec time gain between TCS and no-TCS...(with Force-feedback steering wheel and pedals...and not much training )

I'm going to work with Racer from now on as it implements the Pacejka tyre-model which I'm going to work with.

[mep]

Whit F1 challenge I was able to do almost the same time +-0,2s with TC on and off and with keyboard steering but it took me an afternoon of training and adjusted setup.

Sayshina might be right that it depends on the programmes implementation of TC in the game. I noticed that in fast corners its better to have TC of because it slows you down whereas in slow corners you have the risk of spinning and need to be more careful on the throttle. I am really not sure if its OK to use a game for a academic project.

On the other side you might have real trouble to find anything about it. When you do your own math model then it's just up to your implementation of TC and a simplified model. At least you have to do some serious math work to get a laptime simulation. How is your progress with this.

[raymondu999]

I've been looking over old on boards of Kimi and Jenson back in the traction control days. Whenever you watched their on boards, they were using TC the least, preferring to just use a smooth throttle input instead. The commentators would actually always say that this would gain them time... I wonder why.

Was TCS in F1 reactive or was it preventive? i.e. was it calibrated to a certain level of grip and gearing such that it stopped the engine from going full pelt immediately, or did the engine still go full pelt, just that every time a bit of slip angle was detected it then held the power back?

[AlexD0e]

From my research TCS is no faster than No TCS. Also, if the TCS settings are not optimal it could actually be slower than someone driving with no TCS. Steve Matchet was talking about this same subject after F1 switched to No TCS and he stated that "No TCS won't make the cars slower but it will make them less consistent on lap times." If i remember correctly he did say that TCS "MIGHT" gain a driver 0.1 - 0.3 tenths per lap due to the car being more consistant but said that it probably won't affect the good drivers too much. Here is something else to take into accountability though........TCS can considerably control rear tire wear over a long stint hence making the car faster.

[Pierce89]

I've been looking over old on boards of Kimi and Jenson back in the traction control days. Whenever you watched their on boards, they were using TC the least, preferring to just use a smooth throttle input instead. The commentators would actually always say that this would gain them time... I wonder why.

Was TCS in F1 reactive or was it preventive? i.e. was it calibrated to a certain level of grip and gearing such that it stopped the engine from going full pelt immediately, or did the engine still go full pelt, just that every time a bit of slip angle was detected it then held the power back?

It did both, that's why it was "active" traction control. In motogp, they feed GPS data in the TC also, this allows them to tailor throttle response for certain parts of the track. At first the GPS was so sensitive riders had the engine start acting up if they went offline.

[MadMatt]

How can you say TCS or NO-TCS is the same ? Do you think a human can drive at 100% of the adherence everytime ? Nothing can beats electronic, if correctly setup. With TCS, you can put your foot down, and the car will just accelerate at 100% of what is possible without spinning.

And then you can even control the % of wheelspin in order to have an oversteer car.

So really, TCS is FASTER than NO-TCS, no question about that. How would it be the other way ? It also depends a lot on the driver's driving-style, but if you can adapt your driving style to the use of TCS, you must gain time !

1 good reason for TCS car being faster than NO-TCS car : everytime you just accelerate A LITTLE bit too much, getting a small wheelspin, you lose time. If you had TCS, you wouldn't have that wheelspin, and the reduction of power to match the track's adherence won't make you lose more time than the wheelspin. This is physical.

When you wheelspin, the momentum of the wheel is lost, and then when the wheel grips again, there is another big change of momentum. That costs energy. A bit like with you have a seamless gearbox and a non-seamless gearbox. Which one is quicker ?

Just my 2 cents...

[munks]

How can you say TCS or NO-TCS is the same ? Do you think a human can drive at 100% of the adherence everytime ? Nothing can beats electronic, if correctly setup. With TCS, you can put your foot down, and the car will just accelerate at 100% of what is possible without spinning.

First off, not even the best electronics in the world is going to give you 100% of what is possible. Tire grip and optimal slip changes very rapidly with temperature and other factors, and until a traction control programmer has a perfect model of the tire (and surface), it will not achieve 100%. It's even possible that a good driver could intuitively beat traction control. Don't laugh - that was true for a long time with early ABS systems, and perhaps even now in certain situations - for example ABS tends to go to hell on washboard dirt roads.

Second, the goal of traction control is not necessarily to be at "100% grip", even if they could do that. The right amount of TC for a given corner is a balance between how much the driver wants to rotate the car with the throttle, and how much tire wear that will result in. These goals will usually result in more consistent laps with a longer tire lifetime, but with only a relatively small improvement in best lap time (less than half a second for a very good driver).

[raymondu999]

I've been looking over old on boards of Kimi and Jenson back in the traction control days. Whenever you watched their on boards, they were using TC the least, preferring to just use a smooth throttle input instead. The commentators would actually always say that this would gain them time... I wonder why.

Was TCS in F1 reactive or was it preventive? i.e. was it calibrated to a certain level of grip and gearing such that it stopped the engine from going full pelt immediately, or did the engine still go full pelt, just that every time a bit of slip angle was detected it then held the power back?

It did both, that's why it was "active" traction control. In motogp, they feed GPS data in the TC also, this allows them to tailor throttle response for certain parts of the track. At first the GPS was so sensitive riders had the engine start acting up if they went offline.

I can't get my head around this. Why both? If it was preventive, ie working on the engine side rather than reacting to slip, what if it was programmed hideously below the actual slip threshold (maybe someone poured molten rubber over the racing line overnight) and so you were too slow? Surely it can't be both at the same time.

[Tim.Wright]

I can't get my head around this. Why both?...

With the terms "reactive" and "preventative" you are alluding to closed-loop and open-loop control respectively. Closed loop means it reads the slip of the wheels, open loop means it estimates it.

TCS is closed loop control of the rear wheel slip (so reactive). It monitors the slip condition of the wheels (which itself is an estimate) and adjusts the engine torque based on what it sees.

Bear in mind in a sophisticated TCS its not only wheel slip which is an input to the controller. Even in road going sports cars there are other driving condition inputs such as steer angle, throttle position, yaw rate etc which are used to drive the TCS.

Tim

[raymondu999]

That makes a lot more sense to me. Cheers mate

[Blanchimont]

Traction control also increases cornering speeds...

Really?
IMO the cornering (=apex) speeds depend on tyre grip, weight and downforce but not on traction control.
Traction control increases the ability to accelerate out of a corner, but not the apex speed.

That's the point: TC will bring you closer to the apex speed. If you go too hot into a corner, you will have too much speed for the current level of grip. You'll start to slide and loose time.

That's the point: TC will bring you closer to the apex speed. If you go too hot into a corner, you will have too much speed for the current level of grip. You'll start to slide and loose time.

Can you please explain how the TC will help a driver when going/braking into a corner?

For my understanding TC only helps if the throttle is a activ, i.e. when accelerating from the apex onwards.
Does it also increase stability during braking?

You seem to think that throttle isn't applied during cornering...

Does it also increase stability during braking?

No, but a driver is likely to stabilize the car with throttle even before getting to the apex, the more frivolous you can be with the throttle (regardless if it's due to engine characteristics/mapping etc, or any electronic aids), the more risks you'll be able to take under braking.

And when I said 'cornering speeds' I meant not only corner entry.

[Blanchimont]

What i found on TC/throttle position during cornering (= entry, apex and exit).

The telemetry is from the hairpin in Canada and shows throttle position, brake pedal force and the speed.
Schumacher's throttle is mostly greater than 0%, while Barrichello is at 0% through the corner.
So this shows there are different driving styles and as a result Barrichello can not profit from TC when throttle is not activ.
Of course the hairpin is a very slow corner and what the diagram shows here is maybe not valid for high speed corners at a constant speed.



But as the official F1 homepage offers qualifying laps with telemetry of throttle and brake pedal position, you can get an impression of how smooth/aggressive the throttle is activated.

For example Button this year in Spa:
http://www.formula1.com/video/?uid=2012090212O

Through La Source it seems the throttle is used from the apex forwards, as in Bus Stop.
Through Rivage it seems throttle is used even before the apex.
Through Pouhon Button seems very aggressive with the throttle.


Video of TC at Bus Stop:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IERMHCRNB5w

TC seems activ from the apex onwards.


What i'm interested is when the TC is really activated.
Maybe there are some telemetry data showing if TC is used or not through different corners on different tracks?

[krisfx]

Reading through, people talking regarding games, I find that TC gives massive amounts of understeer, and our house normally go around a second quicker than their previous with TC turned off, it's easier to balance a car on the power than ploughing into the wall because you've got no turn in


Edit: OP use RFactor, the professional version is used by F1 teams afaik, so it's pretty reliable and has formula cars on there including the BMW 07

[Pierce89]

I can't get my head around this. Why both?...

With the terms "reactive" and "preventative" you are alluding to closed-loop and open-loop control respectively. Closed loop means it reads the slip of the wheels, open loop means it estimates it.

TCS is closed loop control of the rear wheel slip (so reactive). It monitors the slip condition of the wheels (which itself is an estimate) and adjusts the engine torque based on what it sees.

Bear in mind in a sophisticated TCS its not only wheel slip which is an input to the controller. Even in road going sports cars there are other driving condition inputs such as steer angle, throttle position, yaw rate etc which are used to drive the TCS.

Tim

Actually closed loop is reactive and preventative because they can now use GPS to tailor the initial throttle response and then if the pilot still gets spin you get reactive ignition cuts.

[Pierce89]

I've been looking over old on boards of Kimi and Jenson back in the traction control days. Whenever you watched their on boards, they were using TC the least, preferring to just use a smooth throttle input instead. The commentators would actually always say that this would gain them time... I wonder why.

Was TCS in F1 reactive or was it preventive? i.e. was it calibrated to a certain level of grip and gearing such that it stopped the engine from going full pelt immediately, or did the engine still go full pelt, just that every time a bit of slip angle was detected it then held the power back?

It did both, that's why it was "active" traction control. In motogp, they feed GPS data in the TC also, this allows them to tailor throttle response for certain parts of the track. At first the GPS was so sensitive riders had the engine start acting up if they went offline.

I can't get my head around this. Why both? If it was preventive, ie working on the engine side rather than reacting to slip, what if it was programmed hideously below the actual slip threshold (maybe someone poured molten rubber over the racing line overnight) and so you were too slow? Surely it can't be both at the same time.

Surely as smart as you are, Ray, you can understand that the GPS programming of throttle response for different corners is "preventative" while further needed ignition cuts are "reactive"