planetf1.com

It is currently Sat Nov 01, 2014 10:28 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 1441
Location: Austria
what a catchy headline, right? so let's talk business: the new ERS (the kinetic part) will aim directly at the drivetrain to harvest kinetic energy - at least afaik ... i believe i read somewhere about the possibility that engine suppliers might try to compensate a lack of power at low revs by supporting the turbo-engine with the electric one controlled by the ECU...

so my questions are:
1.) do the rules allow the automated usage of the electric engine through the ecu?

if yes, wouldn't that be a nice loophole to make the ecu aware of parameters that occur on wheelspin (hence detect it) and "harvest" the power-surplus into the batteries, allowing to reintroduce something like a traction control light?

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:11 am
Posts: 474
I hope that can't be used to create traction control. I welcomed the end of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3476
If the ic part of the engine produces less power than todays unit, the extra power of the 'electric' motors can easily be controlled to a level that does not allow wheelspin, and as far as I can see, be legal.
They will have 33 seconds of 'full' ERS, but I assume it will not be a on/off choice and as with KERS controlled to required %. Even if the regs say it has to be a on/off choice, they can hardly say when it is used, so could be pulsated to go give the same effect as reduced power. So in a word, yes, I assume T/C by what ever name will be here.

When traction control was 'banned' the teams just switched off a couple of the injectors which cave the same effect by reducing the power, this and later 'engine mapping' in truth means that traction control by other names and means has been there all along.

Edit
The drivers dont need a 'light' they know when T/C is operating by feel and sound.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 12:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2012 12:48 pm
Posts: 1380
I guess the clever people will try to make some sort of traction control put of it, and when's it found out will be banned. It just depends how long they get away with it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
The 2014 engine, although smaller in displacement than presently used, has that turbo supported by the MGU-H. We would assume that it has less power at lower revs, but that motor/generator attached to the turbo can spool up the turbo and thus deliver lots of meaty power at lower revs.

As far as attempting to have traction control, everything is controlled by the ECU. It is expressly designed to eliminate teams using it illegally.

Quote:
8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
8.2.2 All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
These components and units may not be disassembled or modified in any way and seals and identifiers must remain intact and legible.
8.2.3 The control system wiring loom connectivity must be approved by the FIA.
All wiring looms must be built to ensure that each control sensor and each control actuator connected to the ECU is electrically isolated from logging]only sensors connected to either the ECU or a team data acquisition unit.
In general, there must be no active or passive electronic component in the control loom. Exceptions (e.g. termination resistors) must be approved by the FIA before use.


At all and an time, the FIA can inspect hardware, wiring looms, and software, just to make sure something like traction control isn't being used. If any team even suspects that a competitor is using traction control, they will dash off an email to Charlie and it will be thoroughly investigated. Nothing is impossible, but this time the FIA has made it more than difficult for anyone to have traction control.

How long could anyone get away with it? With luck, first lap in first practice. Teams watch each other, they even have specialized microphones installed by the track to listen to the competitor's engines to analyze power levels, and what's going on in the engine.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
moby wrote:
If the ic part of the engine produces less power than todays unit, the extra power of the 'electric' motors can easily be controlled to a level that does not allow wheelspin, and as far as I can see, be legal.
They will have 33 seconds of 'full' ERS, but I assume it will not be a on/off choice and as with KERS controlled to required %. Even if the regs say it has to be a on/off choice, they can hardly say when it is used, so could be pulsated to go give the same effect as reduced power. So in a word, yes, I assume T/C by what ever name will be here.

When traction control was 'banned' the teams just switched off a couple of the injectors which cave the same effect by reducing the power, this and later 'engine mapping' in truth means that traction control by other names and means has been there all along.

Edit
The drivers dont need a 'light' they know when T/C is operating by feel and sound.

This is teetering right on the limit of my technical knowledge so I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't you need to alter the programming of the ECU?

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
I thought with the Turbo and the basic elimination of Lag they were expecting a load of torque low down and wheel spin out of corners?

TC was the invention of the devil I still say they should have a cable going to a throttle :twisted:

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 9:53 am
Posts: 2630
Location: Somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert
Johnston wrote:
TC was the invention of the devil

Max Mosley worked for Volvo? Ironic that a fascist masochist would work for a safety conscious firm in a liberal country.




(Are my attempts to remind everyone what Mosley's really like sometimes a bit strained?)

_________________
I went skating on your name,
And by tracing it twice,
I fell through the ice,
of Alice


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 3:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
Balibari wrote:
Johnston wrote:
TC was the invention of the devil

Max Mosley worked for Volvo? Ironic that a fascist masochist would work for a safety conscious firm in a liberal country

The whips should sting, but not leave any permanent damage.... lol

Back to TC.
Quote:
If the ic part of the engine produces less power than todays unit, the extra power of the 'electric' motors can easily be controlled to a level that does not allow wheelspin, and as far as I can see, be legal.


To control wheelspin, it has to be an active system, you require sensors to feed their inputs into the ECU, and the FIA definitely has that covered.

And if you consider pulsing the motor (I assume you're referring to the MGU-K because it makes no sense to do that to the MGU-H), please remember the transmissions are not unlimited. I love the big bang engine, but it's absolutely brutal on the drivetrain.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 1441
Location: Austria
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
To control wheelspin, it has to be an active system, you require sensors to feed their inputs into the ECU, and the FIA definitely has that covered.

well that actually answers my initial question... so another unlikely scenario: could a mechanical system be implimented that reacts to ... say a sudden increase of revs (due to wheelspin) by reverting some kinetic energy to the ers? lotus right-height-stability-system was somehow hydro-mechanical, wasn't it?

after all we see those engineers implementing systems we would never have thought of and/or would never have thought could be feasible... most of the time the guys at FIA thought the same way i guess :lol:

_________________
How to fix F1:
1. Stop seeking consensuses on rules - it will always turn out to be the least favourible option for everyone involved...
2. Listen to the fans - there are plenty of them and they have good ideas...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
There can be a way for teams to exploit the rules to circumvent violating them and thus be able to use a system, that while not necessarily a true traction control, could limit or minimize the amount of wheel spin without involving Electronics of any kind. They just have to figure out how. ;)

In my tinkerer's head I've envisioned a system that is based on lateral inertia/load that slightly lessens the amount of torque transferred to the outside wheel where by the faster and harder a car is driven through a corner, the greater the effect of the system. I'm not an engineer per say but I do see things mechanically in my brain and can see precisely how it should and would work but there'd be a whole lot of math for the engineers to crutch to perfect such a system. LOL

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
If I have read your idea right it sounds like what the WRC cars used to have in the days of active diffs. The full factory cars used to have things like Gyros that sensed loads which were then used for the Diff. (Certain things never came on customer cars ;) ) but I think F1 has that covered already.

_________________
Disclaimer: The above post maybe tongue in cheek.

"I thought I'd get your theories, mock them, then embrace my own. The usual."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Kinda sort of, but not really. It would not be an active Diff in that it would not be software driven and would instead be a fully mechanical system that would have to be set up for each track according to the average max G-Load. The way I'm envisioning it, it would use a clutch-like mechanism inside the differential that would maintain constant friction until lateral loads induce a slight enough decrease of pressure, thereby reducing the amount of torque sent to the outside wheel. With something like this it would have to would be completely devoid of electronics which would mean its effectiveness would be totally reliant on setup. Too much and the car would understeer a bit and too little and it would do nothing different than the static systems we have currently.

Of course this is something that works in theory in my mind but not so sure it could be made to work as I envision, though if any group of people can make it happen it's most certainly the F1 elite!

Now if I'd only gone to engineering school instead of Graphic Arts School! Grrrr!!

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 8:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 897
Location: Los Angeles, California
Balibari wrote:
Johnston wrote:
TC was the invention of the devil

Max Mosley worked for Volvo?


What? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
the incubus wrote:
Kinda sort of, but not really. It would not be an active Diff in that it would not be software driven and would instead be a fully mechanical system that would have to be set up for each track according to the average max G-Load. The way I'm envisioning it, it would use a clutch-like mechanism inside the differential that would maintain constant friction until lateral loads induce a slight enough decrease of pressure, thereby reducing the amount of torque sent to the outside wheel. With something like this it would have to would be completely devoid of electronics which would mean its effectiveness would be totally reliant on setup. Too much and the car would understeer a bit and too little and it would do nothing different than the static systems we have currently.

Of course this is something that works in theory in my mind but not so sure it could be made to work as I envision, though if any group of people can make it happen it's most certainly the F1 elite!

Now if I'd only gone to engineering school instead of Graphic Arts School! Grrrr!!


It's a novel and valid concept, but sounds like the Torsen (torque sensing) differential, described as "a differential for the improvement of traction control". And unfortunately, the FIA has that covered to, under Article
Quote:
9.9.1 Any system or device the design of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a slower to a faster rotating wheel is not permitted.


In the 90's traction control was banned, but it was commonly used by almost every team, since the procedures and equipment of that day weren't capable of identifying it. Eventually the FIA gave up attempting to police traction control. But they had a master plan, and that was to have a common ECU, built to their specifications, and the ability to access any software incorporated into the ECU. This entire package was designed expressly to eliminate traction control and launch control. It was introduced in 2008.

Quote:
One key motivation for the FIA choosing a Standard ECU for Formula One was to prevent driver aids. Until the system was introduced, it was very difficult to police aids such as traction control and launch control. In over 15 years of supplying electronics into Formula One, McLaren Electronics has pioneered innovative security mechanisms to ensure that only approved versions of software can be used in the ECU.
http://www.mclarenelectronics.com/Systems/CaseStudy/Formula%20One


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
the incubus wrote:
Kinda sort of, but not really. It would not be an active Diff in that it would not be software driven and would instead be a fully mechanical system that would have to be set up for each track according to the average max G-Load. The way I'm envisioning it, it would use a clutch-like mechanism inside the differential that would maintain constant friction until lateral loads induce a slight enough decrease of pressure, thereby reducing the amount of torque sent to the outside wheel. With something like this it would have to would be completely devoid of electronics which would mean its effectiveness would be totally reliant on setup. Too much and the car would understeer a bit and too little and it would do nothing different than the static systems we have currently.

Of course this is something that works in theory in my mind but not so sure it could be made to work as I envision, though if any group of people can make it happen it's most certainly the F1 elite!

Now if I'd only gone to engineering school instead of Graphic Arts School! Grrrr!!


It's a novel and valid concept, but sounds like the Torsen (torque sensing) differential, described as "a differential for the improvement of traction control". And unfortunately, the FIA has that covered to, under Article
Quote:
9.9.1 Any system or device the design of which is capable of transferring or diverting torque from a slower to a faster rotating wheel is not permitted

I am well aware but what I am talking about could possibly find it's way around the ever elusive loophole in that it would not transfer torque from one wheel to another. Rather it would only allow the outside rear wheel from over spinning itself so the car loses traction. Given the car is going around a corner fast enough, as the rear outside wheel is about to break loose, the amount of frictional force applied to an inertial force clutch would lessen, thus allowing the wheel to maintain its grip on the tarmac.

Like I said, it's just something I've conjured up in my brain but it is not a traction control system per say. This would be a means to prevent the outside rear tire from breaking away on a driver. And while the final effect is similar to traction "control", the way it achieves it is far different and much simpler in that there would be no electronics driving it.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
But when cornering, the weight transfer loads up the outside (and faster) wheel more than the inside. It's always going to be the inside wheel that breaks traction first. And even if the inside wheel is the one receiving the G-sensitive braking, thus the outside wheel will receive more torque as long as you have a differential.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 7:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
Yes but it's the outside wheel that determines the breakaway point which is why the system would be designed to target that point specifically. I'd expect F1 engineers would scratch their heads for a good long while on this one but I think they could do it.

And BTW Blinky, is it me or did you change your Avatar twice the last few days?

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3476
Balibari wrote:
moby wrote:
If the ic part of the engine produces less power than todays unit, the extra power of the 'electric' motors can easily be controlled to a level that does not allow wheelspin, and as far as I can see, be legal.
They will have 33 seconds of 'full' ERS, but I assume it will not be a on/off choice and as with KERS controlled to required %. Even if the regs say it has to be a on/off choice, they can hardly say when it is used, so could be pulsated to go give the same effect as reduced power. So in a word, yes, I assume T/C by what ever name will be here.

When traction control was 'banned' the teams just switched off a couple of the injectors which cave the same effect by reducing the power, this and later 'engine mapping' in truth means that traction control by other names and means has been there all along.

Edit
The drivers dont need a 'light' they know when T/C is operating by feel and sound.


This is teetering right on the limit of my technical knowledge so I may have misunderstood, but wouldn't you need to alter the programming of the ECU?


Me too :]

I think I did not explain what I meant, if other posts are referring to it. What I intended, was switching the 'motor/generator' between modes. (although I think this was dealt with in someone else's post)

If the motor outputs say 350-400hp at lowish revs out of a corner, 'grabbing' some of it, until there is not enough to spin the wheel will not actually be reducing engine power, just redirecting it. once the tipping point is reached, it once again becomes a motor and drives, taking the hp to what ever the tyres can handle.

If this will be allowed, is another thing.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 1:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
moby wrote:
I think I did not explain what I meant, if other posts are referring to it. What I intended, was switching the 'motor/generator' between modes. (although I think this was dealt with in someone else's post)

If the motor outputs say 350-400hp at lowish revs out of a corner, 'grabbing' some of it, until there is not enough to spin the wheel will not actually be reducing engine power, just redirecting it. once the tipping point is reached, it once again becomes a motor and drives, taking the hp to what ever the tyres can handle.

If this will be allowed, is another thing.


If you just constructed the engine lump to put out inferior power at low revs, it would be passed by everyone, even a 2 year old HRT. So you just have to build in lots of juicy power. The trick with traction control is to sense exactly when wheelspin is beginning, and then temporarily restrict engine power levels.

If you have the MGU in harvest mode to further dampen engine output, it has to know when and where to do that, and that requires some form of sensor input into the ECU. There's just no way around it, everything has to go through the ECU. Most fans do not see what happens behind the scenes, but the FIA inspectors are very busy, they go everywhere, examine everything, and miss nothing. They may not understand (at that moment) exactly what any component is doing, but they feed their questions to technical experts and they do get to the bottom of it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 4:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:43 pm
Posts: 3385
the incubus wrote:
And BTW Blinky, is it me or did you change your Avatar twice the last few days?


Sorry, I haven't, at least in this forum. But it's a good idea to refresh.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 4:09 pm
Posts: 1182
No need to change it on account of my question. I quite liked your CaterhaLOTUS Avi. LOL

Seriously though, I saw the car and then a Red Helmet, wanna say it was Gilles' Helmet but can't remember exactly ATM.

_________________
Second place is the first loser!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 3476
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
moby wrote:
I think I did not explain what I meant, if other posts are referring to it. What I intended, was switching the 'motor/generator' between modes. (although I think this was dealt with in someone else's post)

If the motor outputs say 350-400hp at lowish revs out of a corner, 'grabbing' some of it, until there is not enough to spin the wheel will not actually be reducing engine power, just redirecting it. once the tipping point is reached, it once again becomes a motor and drives, taking the hp to what ever the tyres can handle.

If this will be allowed, is another thing.


If you just constructed the engine lump to put out inferior power at low revs, it would be passed by everyone, even a 2 year old HRT. So you just have to build in lots of juicy power. The trick with traction control is to sense exactly when wheelspin is beginning, and then temporarily restrict engine power levels.

If you have the MGU in harvest mode to further dampen engine output, it has to know when and where to do that, and that requires some form of sensor input into the ECU. There's just no way around it, everything has to go through the ECU. Most fans do not see what happens behind the scenes, but the FIA inspectors are very busy, they go everywhere, examine everything, and miss nothing. They may not understand (at that moment) exactly what any component is doing, but they feed their questions to technical experts and they do get to the bottom of it.


I think even the very best engine will struggle to reach this figure at low revs. Not specifically design the engine for this, just use it at the lower end of its range, which when ERS is added to the mix would be ideal as ratios have to be declared at the start of the year a this would in effect give a very wide band of usable power. As you say though, it depends what will be allowed.

_________________
I have nothing to offer but blood, oil, gears, and sweat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2013 8:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:19 pm
Posts: 159
I actually thought about the same today - there may be loopholes allowing creating of a TC like system. That would be interesting and quickly banned.

The gear ratio thing is stupid.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Chunky, Clarky, Google Adsense [Bot], JohnnyGuitar, Mr-E, nixxxon, Pest44, ryan2032, shoot999, TakumaSatoforthewin, zaar and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group