How to ban TC but not effect ECU's...?

RWC · 16 Jan 2003, 04:00 (Ref:475903)

Ok,we all agree TC should go...IF it could be effectively policed-no arguments,no doubts.
Of course THE big problem is not giving in to the control ECU mentality.Why would that be bad?
Engine builders NEED spark control to make progress.Fuel economy,emissions and all such things are controlled allmost entirely by what can be achieved by electronics.
One can imagine someone like Mercedes being less than proud of a motor they built that has spark control little more technologically advanced than the average villiers with electronic ignition kit!!!
What is needed is some form of control over HOW much they're allowed to do to the spark timing-ie only allow certain things inside those little black boxes.

Serious ideas anyone?

RWC · 16 Jan 2003, 04:05 (Ref:475904)

Of course one simple solution would be to limit the number of code lines so that they could be checked effectively for anything untoward.
But there should be less crude solutions...

shiny side up! · 16 Jan 2003, 13:48 (Ref:476209)

I think they should mandate that no speed sensor... other than engine rpm... be fed into, accessed, or manipulated by the ECU. In this manner, the only form of traction control possible would be by controlling the rate of change of engine rpm... and if the scrutineers know that that is the only thing they have to look for, then their job is much easier...

Glen · 16 Jan 2003, 15:44 (Ref:476304)

Quote:

Originally posted by shiny side up!
I think they should mandate that no speed sensor... other than engine rpm... be fed into, accessed, or manipulated by the ECU. In this manner, the only form of traction control possible would be by controlling the rate of change of engine rpm... and if the scrutineers know that that is the only thing they have to look for, then their job is much easier...

That's what they had before - but when millions of dollars are at stake the clever engineers come up with some amazing tricks...

Monitoring airbox pressure is necessary to set fuelling, but it is also a fairly good guide of car speed.

Suspension behaviour was also monitored to tell-tale signs of wheel spin - they would know what actions on the suspension and steering were likely to be associated with wheelspin, and then deploy their engine-cut accordingly.

No doubt there are may other ways.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 15:50 (Ref:476310)

How to ban TC? Releasing a deffinition of traction control would be a great start.

Damon · 16 Jan 2003, 15:52 (Ref:476315)

Thats the trouble Red, what ever the given description, the teams will find a way round it.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 15:56 (Ref:476321)

Yep. That's the problem. As Schumacher said in a recent interview, the guys who ellaborate the rules are 8-10. Guess how many engineers work for 10 teams? Besides, those guys who ellaborate the rules can see what was invented before and decide what's kosher and what not. They cannot imagine what will be done in the future and prevent the engineers to invent them. (if they could, they would be technical managers in one of the top teams instead).

shiny side up! · 16 Jan 2003, 16:28 (Ref:476342)

I am not an engine electronics guy at all, but I can see how you could use MAP or suspension kinematics to detect wheelspin... but if you don't let them feed in suspension or steering inputs into the ECU, or accelerometers, or anything else that has nothing to do with 'traditional' engine control, arent't you down to relatively few inputs that could be used for TC? A few would be TPS, MAP/MAF, speed sensors, temp and pressure... I'm sure there are more... but few enough to actually inspect for legality? Of course, I can certainly be wrong there...

Is it such a bad thing if they end up going to standardized engine software? If the basic code was the same for all the teams, if all teams had the same functions available to them, but customozed them with their own numbers, would that be good or bad for F1? It would certainly cut costs, I would think...

BTW, I rather like this thread, like to hear everyone's opinions on this!!

zork · 16 Jan 2003, 17:07 (Ref:476361)

Why not make them use a throttle cable again, with no ecu pick up from it and save a map of the ignition system to show only linear acceleration was given.(to be checked by the scrutineers.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 17:25 (Ref:476372)

Because it doesn't work. 850+ bhp in an extremely narrow power band can NOT be controlled with a foot and a throttle cable. You either spin the car or cook the engine within first 3 gearchanges.

**Adam43** · 16 Jan 2003, 18:02 (Ref:476402)

Remember the mid '80s 1400hp + on tap in qualifying and a throttle cabble.

Also what about '70s Can-Am and those 917-30s?

And these cars had less overall traction!

I think Michael is quite capable of controlling only 850bhp with his right foot. And I would love to see him do it.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 18:07 (Ref:476404)

Yes Adam, but those 1400 bhp (in qual trim) were turbo's. That is the powerband was a bit wider that nowadays NA engines.

Furthermore, those days, pilots died.

PS: One more point: those days, the technology from today was NOT available. Don't believe for a second that Fangio would have rejected a semiautomatic gearbox, if he could get one. Those technologies exists today because they were needed.

PS2: Yes, I believe too that Schumacher (or perhaps any other driver) can control that kind of cars. However the rate of mistakes that those 24 drivers will make during a race will increasing big time. I don't know about you guys, but I can find little excitement in seeing lots of drivers crashing into guardrails. I think that I'd rather prefer them making the distance and live with the thought that the connection between the feet and the rear wheels is a bit more complicated than a cable and a carburettor.

**Adam43** · 16 Jan 2003, 18:14 (Ref:476412)

What those 1.5litre cars a broad power band

. Nothing, nothing, nothing and then bang when the turbo kicks in!

The death thing. Hmmmm. They also raced on tracks with no run off and where much quicker and in cars that weren't as strong. All these factors contribute to the (lack off) safety far more than the extra power. IIRC when the turbo cars were at there most dominant (say 1983-1988) there was only one driver death and that was in testing. 1982 was a bad year, but had much more to do with the ground effect chassis.

Frankly I am of the opinion that 850bhp is not enough for a modern GP car.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 18:17 (Ref:476415)

Adam, the turbos have a kinda 'flat' power curve. Or at least flatter than a NA engine. And they were revving nowhere near the 19,000 rpms from today.

**Adam43** · 16 Jan 2003, 18:17 (Ref:476416)

I don't watch GP racing for the crashing. One of the bests thing about the racing is the nearly crashing - the driving on the limit all the time. What is the point in watching 20 drivers never having a challenge for the entire race.

Make the limit harder to achieve consistently and when they get to the finish it is far more exciting and much more of an achievement.

**Adam43** · 16 Jan 2003, 18:22 (Ref:476420)

I disagree. The way the drivers described the way a turbo car worked. The throttle was like a light switch. Far more difficult to drive than a NA car.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 18:25 (Ref:476424)

What's a 'limit' Adam? They DO race these car at the limit. It's just that we don't like the 'limit' and want more.

How do you explain that each year the track records are broken, despite grooves, half of the power from the 'golden ages', or 'massacred by the chicanes' tracks? They do race the cars to the limits. Electronics help them push the limits beyond our understanding. And is human nature to reject what we don't understand.

Red · 16 Jan 2003, 18:27 (Ref:476427)

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
I disagree. The way the drivers described the way a turbo car worked. The throttle was like a light switch. Far more difficult to drive than a NA car.

I see. That's why a monkey could drive a jaguar. But Niki Lauda is not a monkey of course.

**Adam43** · 16 Jan 2003, 18:38 (Ref:476440)

At no point am I saying that today's cars are easy to drive. It's all relative.

Track records being broken has nothing to do with what I am saying. Today's cars are quicker. However some cars are easier to drive on the limit (for that car).

I am not talking about the limit that can be achieved. Bring back turbos/ground effects/active suspension/or whatever and the limit that a car could go would increase a fantastic amount, but this has nothing to do with what I am talking about. Clearly.

Every car has a limit in every corner. I can driver my car on the limit (sometimes

), but this is not some theoretical limt that you talk about. It is the limit for my car.

I'm not sure what the understanding bit is on about. I am not rejecting anything because I don't understand it.

MrPress · 16 Jan 2003, 20:27 (Ref:476563)

Is there any other reason why an ECU would measure the air speed going into the airbox, or the suspension EXCEPT to have some sort of traction control effect.

Make the teams explain why they measure EVERYTHING.

RWC · 16 Jan 2003, 23:47 (Ref:476732)

They HAVE to be able to read the air pressure in the airbox so they know how much fuel to mix with it.So that one has to stay...but can it be policed somehow?
Actually i can't at the moment think of any real reasons WHY they don't go back to mechanically operated throttles(Red's rather lame reasons notwithstanding-sorry red but todays engines DO have quite a flat power curve.I've heard it mentioned so many times)
Anyone think of any reasons why full mechanical throttles wouldn't work?

Red · 17 Jan 2003, 07:24 (Ref:476929)

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamAshmore
However some cars are easier to drive on the limit (for that car).

Yes! That's what I wanted to say. Having driver aids allow them to drive the car closer to the limits, even push the limits further, without worrying of possible mistakes.

I don't know, everyone complains about the lack of overtakings. I'm not talking about traction control, I'm kinda neutral in that matter. I'm talking about throttle cable vs enginne management system or semi-automatic gearbox vs manual-clutch gearbox. With a carburettor directly linked to driver's foot, the driver in front (who has to worry about steering, changing gears, passing some backmarkers and defending from attacks) is prone to make mistakes. The chassing driver will wait the mistake and make a relatively safe pass. (if he himself doesn't make one and in that case the pass doesn't happen at all)With 'driver aids' the driver in front will make mistakes only if he forgets to brake or leaves the track. Thus the pass will be more valuable and more enjoyable to watch, knowing that the merit lies only on driver's tallent and courage; not on a silly mistake. Let me ask you something: what do you rate higher: the 'pass' that Kimi made on Montoya at Hungaroring when Montoya made a mistake and hadd an off or the carefully planned move that Schumacher made on Montoya in Oz. Montoya didn't make a mistake then.

And the 'understanding' bit (and by the way, I'm sorry if it sounds like an offense, it definitelly was not my intention). They do drive the car to the limit but because it looks so easy we don't understand what they are going through.

RWC. The powerband is not flat. That's one reason. Secondly. Sorry to say that once again, but the engines do not grow in trees. There is someone who builds them. And one of the reasons they are willing to pay the bills is to prove their potential to develop something new. Every year. Revert to some 30 years old technology and all of them will suddenly lose interest. The costs will be dramatically cut. And I mean dramatically. However you will have a Fred & Barnie stoneage powered Formula 1. Another reason is to prove that their engines are fast, powerfull and reliable. Remove ecu's and they will quickly burn up in flames or you'll get yet another formula Porsche Pirelli supercup, but with openwheels. And they will lose the interest again.

Not only for the love of the sport.

RWC · 17 Jan 2003, 11:46 (Ref:477071)

Yes the powerbands ARE flat (more or less) according to the DRIVERS.I guess they should know
And turbo's may have had a good flat powerspread between 6K and 11-12K,but that explanation totally ignores turbo lag.
Once again it's the DRIVERS who said this(usually commenting on how hard it was to control those lovely beasts)
Anyhow i thought of a good reason against the all mechanical throttle connection.Simple really,dunno why i missed it.They could have the throttles full open but just aboput any TC device still cutting the spark and/or injectors
Back to the ideas i guess

Valve Bounce · 17 Jan 2003, 12:12 (Ref:477115)

Listen to me!! Listen to me!! Just have a look at the title of the thread and see what you guys are mumbling about instead. I am yelling "HIJACK"

I have a very simple solution : BAN ALL ON BOARD COMPUTERS

BTW Red, I totally disagree with you on your point about overtaking being more valuable and enjoyable to watch. OK it's your opinion, and I respect that; but I think you are the only guy in the entire forum that has this viewpoint ( same as Max until he realised he was wrong)

Valve Bounce · 17 Jan 2003, 12:14 (Ref:477119)

...and the only reason they are willing to pay the bills is because they want to win. Period!!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Standard ECU's,for or against?	Marbot	Formula One	63	21 Apr 2006 01:37
ECU's up for tender	Marbot	Formula One	25	24 Feb 2006 00:53
ECU's	Redracer77	Racing Technology	26	20 Dec 2005 22:21
Ground effect anyone?	torsion_bar	Formula One	3	9 Dec 2000 13:46