F1technical.net

when I read the article it says David Lamb, Renault Sport F1 engineer calls it .....

pseudo anti-lock ..... and
helping wheelspin control

so, please communicate your disbelief to him

perhaps he also will wish for you to understand that the accelerator pedal (or throttle as you call it) controlling both torque sources does not prohibit the behaviour that he goes to some trouble to explain

It’s not traction control as it isn’t controlling to a wheel slip target, but instead an open-loop method to try and help wheelspin control. It can be of real benefit when the tyres are worn out

It's not traction control. It's just a kind of lazy engine.


There is no traction control without a closed control loop, there are just strategies to make an engine gentler on REV increase. A big fly wheel would have similar results.

rjsa wrote:

It’s not traction control as it isn’t controlling to a wheel slip target, but instead an open-loop method to try and help wheelspin control. It can be of real benefit when the tyres are worn out

It's not traction control. It's just a kind of lazy engine.


There is no traction control without a closed control loop, there are just strategies to make an engine gentler on REV increase. A big fly wheel would have similar results.

Yep, but some people make you believe that using electric torque in addition to ICE torque will be of the devil. Physically it is no magic. You simply have to have a look at the engine characteristic and match the electric output in such a fashion that you expend the appropriate amount of energy and use the the electric drive basically in a slave mode to the ICE power. That can't be too difficult because the dynamics of the electric machines are massively higher than the ICE. Once you operate on a master slave principle you realise that there will be no more traction control caused by some power being electric than there was when the pedal was only controlling the ICE torque.

What the engineers are concerned about is the reliability and the complexity of the 2014 drive system. Naturally they will only find some bugs when the cars are taking to the tracks in anger. And even then they will not have full thermal loads and some bug will only show up when the system is exposed to maximum stress. So the concerns right now should be about the lack of field testing and application experience and not about some of the guys designing clever traction control cheats.

the technical article 'an insight into throttle mapping' 15 10 12
makes it clear that modulated displacement eg 4 cylinder running and zero fuelling is currently allowed

presumably then 2014 engines could run eg on combinations of 6 and 5 cylinders, as preferred
one way to reconcile the fixed fuel rate with the greater rev range required with the severe limits on whole-season overall ratios
(down in 2014 from 30 to 8, so requiring a rev range typical of a 6 speed gearbox)

autogyro wrote:Looks like a torturous route for the exhaust manifold to join the turbine housing.
If it is like that in the car, it will be a devils own job to prevent heat loss from the manifolds.

Whats the big box on the top, heat exchanger for charge cooling?
I would have expected the charge cooler to be in the side pods and to be much bigger.

If the unit between the compressor and turbine is the MG, that might have a cooling issue as well.

I think they also put water cooling in that MG, otherwise, it won't last a single lap.

The big box on the top is a mistery, also the air intake trough the middle of the engine, underneath the airbox/cooler.
The box just won't fit in an f1 car. so it's just there to cover something.

My guess, air intake just behind, or beside the driver(trough the side pods) and the air to the intercooler in the conventional airbox. Because an intercooler needs a lot of air at 2/3 bar.

Tommy Cookers wrote:presumably then 2014 engines could run eg on combinations of 6 and 5 cylinders, as preferred
one way to reconcile the fixed fuel rate with the greater rev range required with the severe limits on whole-season overall ratios(down in 2014 from 30 to 8, so requiring a rev range typical of a 6 speed gearbox)

I cannot see any advantage in cylinder shut down. Controlling the engine power by variable boost will be much smarter. The 2014 engines will have massive torque and drivability. Why would anybody bother with switching off cylinders? If you want less power at a given engine rpm you simply jack up the torque demand from the MGUH and the boost goes down to meet the torque demand. You can still use the electric power from the MGUH for some purposes. Much nicer than messing with cut off.

I think he was getting at shutting down a cylinder or two for higher revving, since you are only allowed so much fuel after a certain rpm.

IMO I would also just let the MGUH control and reduce the boost from 10500rpm up. The power output would stay the same without an in-balance of air flow and internal inertia.

One other advantage I can see for running a higher rpm past 10500rpm is you could decrease the engine's pre-turbo back pressure??? CDC wouldn't help in this area.

Your mass flow/compressor rpm would have to stay the same at every engine rpm past 10500 to obtain a constant a/f ratio. What does this do to pressure? Would this be to what you design your turbo?

dren wrote:Your mass flow/compressor rpm would have to stay the same at every engine rpm past 10500 to obtain a constant a/f ratio. What does this do to pressure? Would this be to what you design your turbo?

The turbo is controlled by software since you have the MGUH to spool it up or burden it with load if desired. So the air/fuel ratio can be managed from the fuel side as well as by the air side. No need to switch cylinder capacity.

Right, I understand that. I was asking what happens to the exhaust/turbine and compressor/intake pressures once you rev past 10500rpms. You still have the same energy flow in (fuel) and you have to supply the same air mass flow, which will have to be a constant compressor rpm from 10500rpm to redline. I'm guessing pressure may go down, but self regulates since mass flow in and out is the same.

dren wrote:Right, I understand that. I was asking what happens to the exhaust/turbine and compressor/intake pressures once you rev past 10500rpms. You still have the same energy flow in (fuel) and you have to supply the same air mass flow, which will have to be a constant compressor rpm from 10500rpm to redline. I'm guessing pressure may go down, but self regulates since mass flow in and out is the same.

compressor/intake pressures will drop at higher rpm (engine starts flowing more air so turbo wheel speed drops, less boost needed because engine is flowing more air and getting closer to the fuel flow limit)

exhaust/turbine will pressures will decrease at higher rpm (for the same above reason's using the same exhaust turbine size, but now the turbine will be in a more efficient area of its map towards the left)

engine delta p pressure will stay the same at both rpm's even with the same load from the MGUH

pgfpro wrote:

dren wrote:Right, I understand that. I was asking what happens to the exhaust/turbine and compressor/intake pressures once you rev past 10500rpms. You still have the same energy flow in (fuel) and you have to supply the same air mass flow, which will have to be a constant compressor rpm from 10500rpm to redline. I'm guessing pressure may go down, but self regulates since mass flow in and out is the same.

compressor/intake pressures will drop at higher rpm (engine starts flowing more air so turbo wheel speed drops, less boost needed because engine is flowing more air and getting closer to the fuel flow limit)

exhaust/turbine will pressures will decrease at higher rpm (for the same above reason's using the same exhaust turbine size, but now the turbine will be in a more efficient area of its map towards the left)

engine delta p pressure will stay the same at both rpm's even with the same load from the MGUH

With your theory how did a pop-off valve work?

WilliamsF1 wrote:

pgfpro wrote:

dren wrote:Right, I understand that. I was asking what happens to the exhaust/turbine and compressor/intake pressures once you rev past 10500rpms. You still have the same energy flow in (fuel) and you have to supply the same air mass flow, which will have to be a constant compressor rpm from 10500rpm to redline. I'm guessing pressure may go down, but self regulates since mass flow in and out is the same.

compressor/intake pressures will drop at higher rpm (engine starts flowing more air so turbo wheel speed drops, less boost needed because engine is flowing more air and getting closer to the fuel flow limit)

exhaust/turbine will pressures will decrease at higher rpm (for the same above reason's using the same exhaust turbine size, but now the turbine will be in a more efficient area of its map towards the left)

engine delta p pressure will stay the same at both rpm's even with the same load from the MGUH

With your theory how did a pop-off valve work?

To keep the playing field even (and the manifold pressures within the rules), CART provides each team with a manifold pressure relief, or pop-off valve, to put on top of their intake manifold. It's called a pop-off valve because it makes a loud pop when it lets off excess pressure. The effect is a sudden drop in horsepower. CART jealously guards these valves, and goes to great lengths to make sure they are both accurate and consistent. Each day of practice, qualifying and racing, CART officials pass out the pop-off valves to the teams and collect them in the evening.

Back when CART used manifold pressure as a boost control limit instead of todays 2014 fuel rule limit they ran a pop-off valve to control over boost. They would have boost creep at higher rpm do to waste-gate choke in which it would make higher boost past the set rule pressure.

What I'm talking about is todays 2014 rules based on fuel limit. The MGUH will be the boost controller and always control boost pressure by turbine load. The EMS will probably be reading fuel flow in turn this will dictate how much load to put on the turbine to control turbo wheel speed instead of todays boost reference waste-gate control turbo charger's.

pgfpro wrote: What I'm talking about is todays 2014 rules based on fuel limit. The MGUH will be the boost controller and always control boost pressure by turbine load. The EMS will probably be reading fuel flow in turn this will dictate how much load to put on the turbine to control turbo wheel speed instead of todays boost reference waste-gate control turbo charger's.

Pressure in the intake cannot drop, but should be maintained as a constant by the MGUH. I am not sure how this is works (as i know jack about electicals), as when MGUH is in Generator mode and connected to the 120 KW MGUK in motor mode how is the pressure on the intake maintained?