Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Renault comment on engine torque controversy
23 views
Skip to first unread message
Dave Baker
Jul 27, 2012, 6:36:48 PM7/27/12
to
http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/07/renault-break-cover-on-red-bull-engine-mapping-intrigue/
This clarifies a number of things including what Jo Bauer meant by
"mid-range" which turns out to be 10,000 to 14,000 rpm and how the ECU
torque maps work.
Hopefully you can now see that the situation is really not at all complex
and exactly as I described with RB trading off some unwanted torque by
retarding the ignition so the drivers could continue to use full throttle,
and therefore retain full exhaust output, without getting wheelspin or
driveability problems in the slippery conditions.
They could of course have just closed the engine butterflies a bit to lose
some torque at full pedal position at those rpms but this would obviously
have lost a bit of exhaust gas flow and diffuser operation.
Very clearly nothing illegal in any of this as the rules were written and
nothing remotely like traction control, which obviously requires a closed
loop (feedback) system to operate.
The knee jerk reaction from the FIA seems very silly to me. Teams now have
to submit a reference map and can only change ignition timing by 2.5% from
that and alter torque at any rpm by no more than 2%.
I'd like to see the exact wording of this new directive because 2.5% of
ignition timing could be as little as 0.5 degrees and not leave them any
margin to obviate detonation if an engine becomes susceptible to that.
Why the hell can't the teams be left to map their engines as they want, and
change those maps as they want, if that adds to the technical expertise
required and provides some small avenue for competitive advantage? It seems
ridiculous to actually mandate very complex and expensive things like KERS
which the sport could well do without and then restrict something as basic
as customised engine setup.
--
Dave Baker
This clarifies a number of things including what Jo Bauer meant by
"mid-range" which turns out to be 10,000 to 14,000 rpm and how the ECU
torque maps work.
Hopefully you can now see that the situation is really not at all complex
and exactly as I described with RB trading off some unwanted torque by
retarding the ignition so the drivers could continue to use full throttle,
and therefore retain full exhaust output, without getting wheelspin or
driveability problems in the slippery conditions.
They could of course have just closed the engine butterflies a bit to lose
some torque at full pedal position at those rpms but this would obviously
have lost a bit of exhaust gas flow and diffuser operation.
Very clearly nothing illegal in any of this as the rules were written and
nothing remotely like traction control, which obviously requires a closed
loop (feedback) system to operate.
The knee jerk reaction from the FIA seems very silly to me. Teams now have
to submit a reference map and can only change ignition timing by 2.5% from
that and alter torque at any rpm by no more than 2%.
I'd like to see the exact wording of this new directive because 2.5% of
ignition timing could be as little as 0.5 degrees and not leave them any
margin to obviate detonation if an engine becomes susceptible to that.
Why the hell can't the teams be left to map their engines as they want, and
change those maps as they want, if that adds to the technical expertise
required and provides some small avenue for competitive advantage? It seems
ridiculous to actually mandate very complex and expensive things like KERS
which the sport could well do without and then restrict something as basic
as customised engine setup.
--
Dave Baker
Grant
Jul 28, 2012, 7:15:23 AM7/28/12
to
"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:juv55t$62n$1...@news.datemas.de...
> http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2012/07/renault-break-cover-on-red-bull-engine-mapping-intrigue/
>
>
> Hopefully you can now see that the situation is really not at all complex
> and exactly as I described with RB trading off some unwanted torque by
> retarding the ignition so the drivers could continue to use full throttle,
> and therefore retain full exhaust output, without getting wheelspin or
> driveability problems in the slippery conditions.
>
So traction control then, somthing that you kept saying wasnt happening.
>
> Hopefully you can now see that the situation is really not at all complex
> and exactly as I described with RB trading off some unwanted torque by
> retarding the ignition so the drivers could continue to use full throttle,
> and therefore retain full exhaust output, without getting wheelspin or
> driveability problems in the slippery conditions.
>
>
When the story broke I said "Well it sounds like a form of traction control
to me " yuo responded "It doesn't sound remotely like that"
>
But there it is above in your own words and you claim "exactly as I
described" "without getting wheelspin " next you will claim that a systm
that prevemts wheelspin is not traction control?
Dave Baker
Jul 28, 2012, 8:08:59 AM7/28/12
to
" Grant" <Gr...@Mcleod40.fsnet.co.ku.com> wrote in message
news:YbednQf_kKQvVI7N...@giganews.com...
trolling elsewhere.
--
Dave Baker
Bigbird
Jul 28, 2012, 8:17:12 AM7/28/12
to
on the track and you will get wheelspin.
Grant
Jul 28, 2012, 9:55:54 AM7/28/12
to
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7i3i8...@mid.individual.net...
that way so higher rpm could be maintained which also aided aero. It was a
crude TC. There is no point arguing this point as it is now clearly a fact
as demonstrated by the actions of the FIA.
David Melville
Jul 28, 2012, 10:32:56 AM7/28/12
to
diffuser.
Thanks for your input. Or should I say feedback?
Guess it doesn't matter. They're the same thing.
Fuck.
Cheers,
Dave
Bigbird
Jul 28, 2012, 10:53:09 AM7/28/12
to
if someone has gone to that much trouble just to take the piss out of
you...
...you may even learn something if you can get your brain in working
order.
Phil Carmody
Jul 28, 2012, 6:34:43 PM7/28/12
to
idiot", not "you're wrong and you're an idiot".
Phil
--
> I'd argue that there is much evidence for the existence of a God.
Pics or it didn't happen.
-- Tom (/. uid 822)
Grant
Jul 29, 2012, 2:26:11 PM7/29/12
to
"Bigbird" <Bigbird.us...@Gmail.com> wrote in message
respect or confidence in what he writes.
>
>
The map was banned, Fact, why was it banned? Because it was a form of TC and
aided aero. What was the FIAs ruling?
Bigbird
Jul 29, 2012, 4:40:50 PM7/29/12
to
CatharticF1
Jul 29, 2012, 8:51:44 PM7/29/12
to
Phil Carmody <thefatphi...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:878ve38...@bazspaz.fatphil.org:
You're a social misfit incapable of understanding and conforming to simple
cultural norms. Your continual critique of people, though presented as
simple correction, is a need to inflate your own worth and ego. That it's
at the expense of others doesn't concern you as you are almost without
empathy and typically mystified by by much of what makes people 'human'.
In laymans terms you're a pedantic pretentious prat.
--
CatharticF1
I can't resist no crossing signs
news:878ve38...@bazspaz.fatphil.org:
cultural norms. Your continual critique of people, though presented as
simple correction, is a need to inflate your own worth and ego. That it's
at the expense of others doesn't concern you as you are almost without
empathy and typically mystified by by much of what makes people 'human'.
In laymans terms you're a pedantic pretentious prat.
--
CatharticF1
I can't resist no crossing signs
0 new messages