F1technical.net

Pingguest wrote: An alternative for the standard ECU would be to allow teams to use their own (supplied) ECU and get it approved by the FIA. After approval no changes without notice should be allowed.

They used a third set of paddles and loads of different engine maps to limit the torque as a sort of TC before the standard ECUs were introduced, or so i believe, maybe someone else might be able to shed some light on his...

Anyway without standard ECUs it'd be a matter of the teams versus the FIA in order to try and outsmart them. At the end of the day its a lot easier to check something standard than try to understand each teams indivudal ECU's and then see if you can spot anything wrong

what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

Check out Silverstone 2008 for example. Felipe baby doing the spinning. =D>

010010011010 wrote:

Pingguest wrote: An alternative for the standard ECU would be to allow teams to use their own (supplied) ECU and get it approved by the FIA. After approval no changes without notice should be allowed.

They used a third set of paddles and loads of different engine maps to limit the torque as a sort of TC before the standard ECUs were introduced, or so i believe, maybe someone else might be able to shed some light on his...

Anyway without standard ECUs it'd be a matter of the teams versus the FIA in order to try and outsmart them. At the end of the day its a lot easier to check something standard than try to understand each teams indivudal ECU's and then see if you can spot anything wrong

Assuming a standard ECU would be necessary to successfully enforce the ban on traction control, then all WTCC-teams would run their cars illegally?

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

It has. Not only in the rain. IMO, the more the drivers have to feather the throttle instead of flooring it the better!

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

There's nothing bad about traction control itself. Its useful and road relevant. But the system should be banned in the ultimate drivers' championship, which Formula 1 should be in the first place.

And yes, the ban on traction control did change the racing. However, I'd like the FIA make a step further ahead by banning other driver aids (drive-by-wire, active differential, semi-automatic gearbox, etc.) as well.

Pingguest wrote:

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

There's nothing bad about traction control itself. Its useful and road relevant. But the system should be banned in the ultimate drivers' championship, which Formula 1 should be in the first place.

And yes, the ban on traction control did change the racing. However, I'd like the FIA make a step further ahead by banning other driver aids (drive-by-wire, active differential, semi-automatic gearbox, etc.) as well.

Very difficult call. Gearboxes are already manual upshifts with sequential operation. With current braking distances it would be difficult to manualy change down without non sequential operation and that would defeat the object in many ways. First it would make balanceing rear braking to any Kers system much more difficult and it would delay development in that and other areas of powertrain control. Keeping manual control over traction however is essential, TC could be used with other electronics today to completely do away with the driver.

Pingguest wrote:

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

There's nothing bad about traction control itself. Its useful and road relevant. But the system should be banned in the ultimate drivers' championship, which Formula 1 should be in the first place.

And yes, the ban on traction control did change the racing. However, I'd like the FIA make a step further ahead by banning other driver aids (drive-by-wire, active differential, semi-automatic gearbox, etc.) as well.

Traction Control is a "Help-you-get-out-of-trouble" system whereas DBW, Active Diffs and paddleshift gearboxes are not. So i cant see why they should be banned.

Holm86 wrote:

Pingguest wrote:

flynfrog wrote:what was so bad about TC? has the racing changed since it has been re banned?

There's nothing bad about traction control itself. Its useful and road relevant. But the system should be banned in the ultimate drivers' championship, which Formula 1 should be in the first place.

And yes, the ban on traction control did change the racing. However, I'd like the FIA make a step further ahead by banning other driver aids (drive-by-wire, active differential, semi-automatic gearbox, etc.) as well.

Traction Control is a "Help-you-get-out-of-trouble" system whereas DBW, Active Diffs and paddleshift gearboxes are not. So i cant see why they should be banned.

Drive-by-wire, active differentials and semi-automatic gearbox also help the driver. Mistakes are far less likely.

Pingguest wrote:
Assuming a standard ECU would be necessary to successfully enforce the ban on traction control, then all WTCC-teams would run their cars illegally?

Not really. They use mechanical sequental gearboxs on an ordanry lever in WTCC so they counldnt use a sneaky extra paddle to change maps really

Im not sayin its not possible to enforce, its just a lot harder, especially with the rate of development in F1

"Drive-by-wire, active differentials and semi-automatic gearbox also help the driver. Mistakes are far less likely."

So aerodynamics and slick tyres should be banned as well according to your philosophy?

... And the steering wheel and peddles.. they're definitely "driver aids"!!!!!!

People should focus on things that make sense. Considering how important the start is in F1 you do not want launch control. You also do not want a computer to control throttle and brake or the gear that is selected. All that is for the driver to do by himself. In my view it is ok to have a sequential gearbox. It is no big deal. The driver still gives the input to change the gear.

The question is how will these objectives be achieved when you have two source of acceleration and breaking, electric and ICE for throttle, electric and disk brakes for brake. My view is that you must allow some mapping to occur how the two forces are blended. There could be problems with TC and ABS but if those can be resolved I think it would be beneficial to do it with one common SECU program which can only be manipulated by parameters. So it is down to the FiA to write the program in such a way that the driver input remains pivotal for the quality of driving and not the computer programming.

WhiteBlue wrote:People should focus on things that make sense. Considering how important the start is in F1 you do not want launch control. You also do not want a computer to control throttle and brake or the gear that is selected. All that is for the driver to do by himself. In my view it is ok to have a sequential gearbox. It is no big deal. The driver still gives the input to change the gear.

Agreed so far, TC and ABS is an absolute no-no, so was active suspension and automatic up- and downshift. As for the starting sequence, now when that is the single most decisive moment of the race, launch control is completely out of the question, but could we imagine a derivate of the old Le mans start, which would definetely add to the spectacle? Engine-development must be liberated somehow, this way we are heading for a spec series, while a strict flat-bottom rule all the way should be employed. Driver operated wings is an interesting option which must be investigated, when everything adding to the driver's input should be welcomed.

xpensive wrote:could we imagine a derivate of the old Le mans start, which would definetely add to the spectacle?

That would be entertaining alright, but they banned it for safety reasons in Le Mans, so I cant see them ever even considering introducing it again.

Also the fact that F1 drivers cant actually belt themelves in on their own