Newey Worried about traction control "starts"

[Sodemo]

JUst read a report on Autosport.com and PlanetF1.com that Newey thinks that there will be numerous protests about the "starts" in 2004 relating to the launch/traction control.

"The rules themselves are reasonably clear in terms of what is launch control and what is traction control, so I don't think there is too much of an issue there," said Newey.

He states that he is afraid of protests, so what does this mean? That the drivers have to switch off TC for the start? I can't see what he is getting at...

[Jay]

Umm...Exactly who apart from the driver or the engineers monitoring the telemetry would know whether the car actually had the traction control switched on or off at the start? It is not as if there's a light on the car that indicates when it is on or off...and who knows what buttons they're pressing...

[Smokey 6 litre]

In autosport someone from the F1 thinktank, the technical working group, said that tracton control is a concern.

the driver must be in first gear and in full control of the clutch up to 60mph! only after that can traction control be used.

[Sodemo]

That seems ridiculous.
It just doesn't make sense.

[Adam43]

I agree.

Also what about slow hairpins taken at less than 60 mph? Although I read what it said in Autosport and it might just be the first time the car gets to 60mph from the begining of the race. And a similar thing applies to the not changing gear until after 60mph.

As Newey said, the definition is fairly straight forward though. It is the monitoring of it that is the problem.

[Mattracer]

This is what's wrong with contemporary F1.

[Smokey 6 litre]

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
It is the monitoring of it that is the problem.

Wasn't it said that they cant trust the results they get when montitoring which is the problem?

[Redblurr]

the easy way is to ban traction control and bring back racing

[Glen]

Traction control is banned - the teams insist on an exception to the rules. Bit hard to have racing without the teams. If it were "easy" to get rid of TC we wouldn't have it.

Personally I think the best idea is to simply get over it and enjoy the sport - as i've said many times before, the better drivers till prosper, so what's the problem? (BTW, I know what others think the problem is, I just don't agree with their assumptions - just to save anyone the bother of typing out the stock responses.)

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by Glen
(BTW, I know what others think the problem is, I just don't agree with their assumptions - just to save anyone the bother of typing out the stock responses.)

[KC]

Typical. The most expensive and most self aggrandizing form of motorsport in the world governed by the most incompetent and ineffective officials in the world. These guys make government bureaucrats and politicians look like integrity bound geniuses.

[DaveOrama]

Newey probaly has something up his sleeve that others may think is traction control....wait and see.

[BootsOntheSide]

Lots of long words there KC, I'm impressed.

Sounds like the regulations require classic clutch based starts, which is superb. Watch out for the guys with quick reactions moving up once the races start, and lots more crashing gears and burning rubber - the true sight and sound of the spectacle of 20 high-powered cars getting underway for up to 2 hours of action.

DaveOrama's point may sadly be true - I'm sure some of the top teams are scanning the rulebooks to see what they can exploit and what is and isn't technically allowed even if it goes agains tthe spirit of the rules. If both cars from one team are consistantly flying off the line it'll be a concern.

[krt917]

Originally posted by Glen
Personally I think the best idea is to simply get over it and enjoy the sport - as i've said many times before, the better drivers till prosper, so what's the problem? (BTW, I know what others think the problem is, I just don't agree with their assumptions - just to save anyone the bother of typing out the stock responses.)

Hi Glen

I don't agree with your assertions on TC either, but we've both been here before, so I'll leave it at that.

[Glen]

Here's hoping for another classic season either way, krt917 - for me, 2003 wasn't in the least spoiled by TC, and I don't excpect 2004 to be. Kimi will still beat DC, MS will get the better of RB, etc - the best still win, and the weaker drivers do not find themselves winning thanks to gizmos. Easier for us just to forget about it and enjoy the racing.

[golem]

What'd happen if they did what they did in the 60's I think, and knocked the power back by capping capacity back to say, around the 1.8-2.0 litre mark and making the engines 8's or 6's? with a reduction of min weight to 605kg including driver post race.

You'd get a decent drop in power but it'd still be faster than most other racing categories, and you could drop traction control perhaps because the power and speed was back in a controllable level? (I think 900hp with no TC would scare most drivers, let alone in the wet.)

Just food for thought.

[Sodemo]

In 2001 we had cars with 850BHP with no traction control (for the first half of the season), were the drivers scared then?

[DriverT]

Originally posted by golem
What'd happen if they did what they did in the 60's I think, and knocked the power back by capping capacity back to say, around the 1.8-2.0 litre mark and making the engines 8's or 6's? with a reduction of min weight to 605kg including driver post race.

My precious...

Well, you'd have to get the engine companies to agree to that and that just wouldn't happen.

[Trevor P]

Traction control, launch control, telemetry, active suspension, power steering, automatic transmissions, automatic diffs, radios, pit lane speed limiers, ......
all makes Michael Shumacher, Alain Prost Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell, etc, some of the least worthy world champions.

[shiny side up!]

Originally posted by Trevor P
Traction control, launch control, telemetry, active suspension, power steering, automatic transmissions, automatic diffs, radios, pit lane speed limiers, ......
all makes Michael Shumacher, Alain Prost Damon Hill, Nigel Mansell, etc, some of the least worthy world champions.

That's a flamer.

You can argue that those aids/technologies make driving easier (not sure you'd win that arguement, but let's skip that for now...), but saying that MS, Prost, Hill, Mansell, etc are not worthy world champions... well, they drove against the rest of the world and won, so they are rightly the WDC in Formula One. Do you think Senna or Fangio anyone else weren't worthy to be WDC because they weren't driving cars powered by steam engines? Or because they wore leather helmets instead of going bareheaded? That post is ludicrous, obvious flame bait.

[Adam43]

Well they didn't have a lot of those things in 1994-1996 when Michael and Damon won. Prost, of course, won three other championships before most of that. Nige was close during those same years.

I think they are all pretty deserving even if you decide that driving is childs play now (which it isn't).

[grumpy1]

Who cares what aids Prost Senna and co had.The important piont ot remember here is this.When Prost won he beat other drivers in that year with the same driver aids he had.Therefor he was the best in the world that year.If you then apply that to this year the same will apply all have the same aids so the winner is the person who took all his luck to the end.I would love it to be M.Webber but alas I don't think that will happen with his present team.

The Grumpy1
P.S. Sorry Mark but I don't think so this year (and I love Jags)a podium though

[golem]

The only reason I want TC/ABS/Autochange gone from the differential, braking and gearbox, is that it costs more money to develop these things, usually because it requires two mechanical, one electrical and one computer engineers to do what once was handled by just two or three mechanical engineers for example. Then there's testing of the extra systems etc, like TC and LC testing and recalibration throughout the year for various weather conditions, tyre compounds etc. One of Minardi's biggest drawbacks last year. They only had that friday to try and calibrate data to a new set of tyres the big teams had tested during the week and had a good many days to study results from and calibrate in the lab. It was better than nothing, but I imagine it'd be very very hard to get it done between friday free testing and friday qual, without a specific test team to handle it either.

For me, I think of it as a cost cutting measure. And for the cutback engine size, I don't think it'd actually be a problem for the manufacturers to agree on. To tell the truth, I think they'd still look at it favourably because it doesn't change the ENGINE power % produced between lead and rear teams, it just makes it easier for drivers without TC/LC/Autobox etc. I don't think the cars would drop much speed, and we'd see some more interesting designs, because you have less need for cooling with reduced size, less engine bulk, torque, so smaller gearboxes etc. The cars would retain most of their pace, but not their top speed and be a little easier on the throttle. The torque reduction might also increase the value of slipstreaming at high speeds?

Any thoughts?

PS: I know ABS isn't there now, but it's an example of the calibrated autosystem that I think F1 has used, developed enough and now the road manufacturers will take it from there.