planetf1.com

It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:56 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 1300
Location: Austria
reports (at least one from german language publication "auto motor und sport") say, the FIA ruled that engine mapping for 2013 has to adhere to the same reference mapping the teams had used in 2012 - apparently renault's interpretation was, that they could start all over with a new reference mapping...

Ross Brawn was quick stating that this would explain the approach of both - Lotus and RBR - exhaust-layout wise as the new mapping could have had a positive effect on the coanda-ramp layout in off-throttle situations...

link (german): http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/motorkennfelder-wie-2012-mapping-schlappe-fuer-renault-6667636.html

_________________
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: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5158
Auch. If true, and they have to revert back to the old mapping, this could be a major setback for Lotus and Red Bull if they have indeed designed their cars based on some new mapping.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
Engine Freeze is bad but Management freeze is taking the gherkin.

Don't forget that this will also affect the Merc and Ferrari engined cars too.

_________________
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: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2012 11:18 am
Posts: 679
I didn't even know there was a clamp down on engine mapping last year. I'm pretty sure teams were able to change most settings from race to race. It would be odd that they have a clampdown now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 1300
Location: Austria
Cozz wrote:
I didn't even know there was a clamp down on engine mapping last year. I'm pretty sure teams were able to change most settings from race to race. It would be odd that they have a clampdown now.

let me explain/excerpt from the article:
Quote:
in germany RBR and Renault introduced a new engine mapping that reduced torque at maximum throttle while generating some off-throttle blowing after max. throttle passages. that was achieved by using a loophole in the regulations which just left out the max. throttle position (silly thing to do, btw). FIA ruled it was against the spirit of the rules and issued a technical directive. from this point on teams were allowed to change ignition-angle and torque-curve by a maximum of 2.5 and 2 percent respectively from a reference mapping. the reference mapping had to be chosen from one of the 4 used mappings from the first 4 GPs.

so Renault thought they would be able to define a new reference-mapping for 2013, which apparently the aren't..

_________________
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: Mon Feb 25, 2013 12:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 94
nothing will affect redbull and nothing did really , everything thrown at them and they only emerge as winners at the end


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 23, 2009 9:42 pm
Posts: 708
Grosjean wrote:
nothing will affect redbull and nothing did really , everything thrown at them and they only emerge as winners at the end


You never know - and we will have to wait and see! The whole engine mapping and off throttle blowing issue was critical to the initial use of the EBD and RBR in particular. The Renault engine mapping variation (percentage) was set to partly reduce the EBD effect IIRC. Given that exhaust gases are now more restricted, the overall effect of retention of the previous engine mapping rules should not be too great, unless they did design in some new interpretation in the base design? - but I doubt it....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:26 am
Posts: 94
FringeUK wrote:
Grosjean wrote:
nothing will affect redbull and nothing did really , everything thrown at them and they only emerge as winners at the end


You never know - and we will have to wait and see! The whole engine mapping and off throttle blowing issue was critical to the initial use of the EBD and RBR in particular. The Renault engine mapping variation (percentage) was set to partly reduce the EBD effect IIRC. Given that exhaust gases are now more restricted, the overall effect of retention of the previous engine mapping rules should not be too great, unless they did design in some new interpretation in the base design? - but I doubt it....


FIA banned EBD specifically to eliminate redbull advantage , and what did they do in 2012 ? yeah they won both championships


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 5:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:01 am
Posts: 940
Grosjean wrote:
FringeUK wrote:
Grosjean wrote:
nothing will affect redbull and nothing did really , everything thrown at them and they only emerge as winners at the end


You never know - and we will have to wait and see! The whole engine mapping and off throttle blowing issue was critical to the initial use of the EBD and RBR in particular. The Renault engine mapping variation (percentage) was set to partly reduce the EBD effect IIRC. Given that exhaust gases are now more restricted, the overall effect of retention of the previous engine mapping rules should not be too great, unless they did design in some new interpretation in the base design? - but I doubt it....


FIA banned EBD specifically to eliminate redbull advantage , and what did they do in 2012 ? yeah they won both championships


And did it eliminate the RBR advantage - yes. We had a damn close championship all season.

Now, if the FIA are further clamping down on any attempt at RBR to re-gain that advantage, it could see other teams either close that gap or push past RBR by making greater gains between seasons than RBR...

We won't know if there is any effect until Oz though...

:D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 272
YAY :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
When the FIA issued the non-public technical directive on this subject last year, the reports were that it specified the teams must choose a "standard" engine map used at one of the four opening races, which must then be approved by the FIA, and then torque curves above 6,000rpm on subsequent maps must not vary by +/- two percent from that "standard" engine map.

If that is what it says, you can bet Renault and friends are arguing that the FIA should have specified "one of the four opening races of the 2012 Formula 1 World Championship season" or similar, if they meant that the map chosen last year would apply for this year too. Yet another reason I wish the FIA were more transparent with its technical documents.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
@Ashley: Yeah the FIA are known to goof up many a times, but to be fair on them, many times the teams do things knowingly just to see if they can get away with it. Every person has a different way of interpreting a bunch of words in their own way, no matter how airtight the FIA thinks their rules are.

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
By transparent I meant so that we can read them, and know what the debate is about first hand rather than read a reporter's synopsis of what he thinks the directive might say. IMSA, Grand Am...they post tech bulletins on their website for all to see. You're not getting an FIA bulletin without a competitor log-in.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5237
Race2win wrote:
@Ashley: Yeah the FIA are known to goof up many a times, but to be fair on them, many times the teams do things knowingly just to see if they can get away with it. Every person has a different way of interpreting a bunch of words in their own way, no matter how airtight the FIA thinks their rules are.

Rules are not what FIA think they are, but rules are actual text. Teams must only comply with wording.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:56 pm
Posts: 105
That's the problem. The wording is always ambiguous where the FIA rule book is concerned. You would think that after all these years of people taking advantage of loopholes that exists as a result of the way the rules are worded that they would have found a way to nail it down by now. Clearly, in a manner that cannot be deliberately or undeliberatly misunderstood or misconstrued.

They can't.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:18 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 12:00 am
Posts: 272
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.


This.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:56 pm
Posts: 105
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.


If that were true Ashley, then they wouldn't crack down on teams every time someone finds a loophole that's worth exploiting. Ever stop to think about that?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 6:20 pm
Posts: 1622
Location: Secret Volcano Lair
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.

I didnt call them dumb mind you. Hell, Charlie Whiting is anything but dumb. What you say could be a possibility. But then the question is, Most of Paddock does complain about the lack of stability in the rules. I guess that was also cited as one of the reason why maufacturers are no willing to enter. So if the rules remain stable say for atleast 5 years for example, you can only develop and redevelop a part for so long. What then?

_________________
Loading Quote.......
--------------------


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 25, 2013 10:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 5237
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.

They are not dumb, they just can't compete against army of engineers from 11 teams. FIA doesn't have money to compete. All FIA can do is to close all loopholes after they are spotted. Still remember that something like 99% of F1 rules is bulletproof.

_________________
..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:33 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:01 am
Posts: 940
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.


NO - I just think they can't be arsed to spend 10,000 hours considering every possible interpretation that teams might come up with and write 10 million rules to make sure they all can't be implemented.

Instead, they know what they mean and write up a quick rule, wait for teams to try and circumvent it and then adjust the rule where they think teams are pushing too far...

:D :D :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 1:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 12:11 pm
Posts: 3029
RMF 1 wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.


If that were true Ashley, then they wouldn't crack down on teams every time someone finds a loophole that's worth exploiting. Ever stop to think about that?

They don't "crack down" on them every time. Things have been allowed to stand. Probably more than we hear about. Hence my point about the lack of transparency in the process.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2012 7:54 am
Posts: 1300
Location: Austria
RMF 1 wrote:
ashley313 wrote:
Ever stop to think they deliberately word things ambiguously to allow some room for real development? I don't think the rule writers are as dumb as they get credit for being.


If that were true Ashley, then they wouldn't crack down on teams every time someone finds a loophole that's worth exploiting. Ever stop to think about that?

you think the guys at the FIA didn't think about the coanda-effect, which has been succsessfully described to the public by a guy using a spoon and water? there is no way the rule-writers didn't see that development coming... maybe they just knew that teams would have to find a compromise between the coke-bottle shape and the coanda ramp but they knew what direction the teams would go...

probably not every loophole is on purpose - that's why stuff like f-duct and ddrs was ruled out, but they do leave some spots open since it would hamper the spirit of f1 too much if they regulated it entirely ... F1 is not a spec-series, it needs development and different approaches so there must be room for that...

_________________
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: Tue Feb 26, 2013 7:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:33 pm
Posts: 922
Johnston wrote:
Engine Freeze is bad but Management freeze is taking the gherkin.

Don't forget that this will also affect the Merc and Ferrari engined cars too.


Not as badly since I believe only the Renault cars have the coanda ramp.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 26, 2013 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 6:41 pm
Posts: 6587
TheThirdTenor wrote:
Johnston wrote:
Engine Freeze is bad but Management freeze is taking the gherkin.

Don't forget that this will also affect the Merc and Ferrari engined cars too.


Not as badly since I believe only the Renault cars have the coanda ramp.


It'll limit what they can do as the season goes on. Limits their development routes.

_________________
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: Tue Feb 26, 2013 11:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:06 am
Posts: 2325
Thanks for this high-tech, behind-scenes info, Egnat69. Sounds as if it could have a significant effect on some cars.

_________________
http://grandprixratings.blogspot.com


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 28, 2013 5:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 5158
Auto Motor und Sport interviewed Permane who denied this having any effect on their performance. Apparently Kimi used the new engine mapping during one warm up lap and hated it. Grosjean used it in the wet once and it was ok.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Rosberg - Bottas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 01, 2013 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:41 pm
Posts: 482
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Well, with the season opening soon, and with the Honeywell deal not confirmed yet, he couldn't very well say " we blew it, we're f*cked, why oh why..." after all, it's PR standard procedure to deny all repercussions and look as if everything is a bed of roses. Even if maybe the only things from the roses you've got are the spines in the back, you gotta look good in the media, no matter what. Everybody does it.

Just by looking, for instance, at 2012's qualifying statements, there were races where everybody was happy. RedBull were happy, Lotus were happy...etc...etc... Caterham were happy, Marussia were happy, HRT were happy, one big happy family. At least statements -wise.

_________________
Olivier Panis fan.
...and also Jenson Button fan.


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: F1Mad, Guia, Ja'a, Mr-E 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
[ Time : 0.147s | 15 Queries | GZIP : Off ]