[Official] Hungarian Grand Prix 2020: Grand Prix Weekend Thread - Round 3

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

Advocating an unequal or arbitrary application of the rules is contrived imo..just saying.

It makes a mockery of the rules. What's the point of having rules in the first place, if they can be over ruled by an arbitrary decision?

[S griffin]

Sometimes you have to have leeway. After all, they do allow tolerance on movement, so it’s not like they ignored the rules

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by S griffin

Sometimes you have to have leeway. After all, they do allow tolerance on movement, so it’s not like they ignored the rules

As there is already a tolerance, let's leave it at that. Does F1 really need yet another lot of regulation/technology?

[wnut]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

As there is already a tolerance, let's leave it at that. Does F1 really need yet another lot of regulation/technology?

My problem as with BJ and Chillibowl is that "secret tolerance", smacks of manipulation, and a jump start is about as clear a violation as can be judged.

P.S. At no time was Bottas stopped after he began rolling, he did not gain an advantage, but he did not stop. What advantage did Kimi gain when he lined up on the wrong grid spot at the back of the grid? Started slightly further back than he should have, still subject to a penalty though.

Anyway

[wnut]

Originally Posted by sizzle

At the risk of appearing like an ignoramus, Horner said Max put the car in the fence because he was "synchronising 8th gear". Can someone enlighten me a little more about this as I have heard it a couple of times lately where they are "synchronising the gearbox"..

Good question from Sizzle, I don't know what the answer is, anybody?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by wnut

Good question from Sizzle, I don't know what the answer is, anybody?

As I understand it, the ECU regulates the power delivery to ensure that it matches (as much as possible) the pre-engagement of shift changes. Characteristics of the gearbox and PU change as a result of environmental and other factors, and the ECU is continuously remapping (for want of a better phrase). The pre-race synch ensures the ECU and gearbox characteristics are aligned.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

As I understand it, the ECU regulates the power delivery to ensure that it matches (as much as possible) the pre-engagement of shift changes. Characteristics of the gearbox and PU change as a result of environmental and other factors, and the ECU is continuously remapping (for want of a better phrase). The pre-race synch ensures the ECU and gearbox characteristics are aligned.

Thanks CR, that makes sense.

[sizzle]

So not really driving the car unaided then?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by sizzle

So not really driving the car unaided then?

True, but I wouldn't call an ECU a driver aid.

An explanation of the process can be found here - http://www.formula1-dictionary.net/seamless_gearbox.html
'To achieve a seamless gearchange we essentially engage two gears at once by moving separate barrels and rely on the fact that it takes a finite time, just a few milliseconds, before both gears would actually engage and lock the gearbox with disastrous results. In this very short period we have to disengage the previous drive gear to ensure such catastrophe. It sound complex, and indeed, it is. It fundamentally depend on knowing the precise position of the dogs in the shaft. Bear in mind that modern seamless gearbox can shift in 2 - 3 milliseconds. This is complicated with the facts that barrel shaft is not only turning in many RPM-s, but is also flexing. It is the process of sensing and recording positions of each gear in the ECU that is known as "learning" the gears.'

[S griffin]

The ECU was introduced to keep driver aids out, although I wonder how many teams have got around it? Would be surprised if there were many

Good find there. Have to say paddle shift gearboxes are about the only original driver aid left, although Mercedes' DAS could be interpreted as one. To me that's fine, at least we don't have fully automatic gearboxes, although we need to make sure it doesn't get silly with driver aids again. Just focus on other areas to keep costs down too, rather than just one area

[bjohnsonsmith]

In their own article on the ECU, McLaren site the difficulty in policing the ban on traction and launch control, as well as unsustainable costs being the reasons for the ECU.

https://www.mclaren.com/applied/case...formula-1-ecu/

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by S griffin

The ECU was introduced to keep driver aids out, although I wonder how many teams have got around it? Would be surprised if there were many

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

In their own article on the ECU, McLaren site the difficulty in policing the ban on traction and launch control, as well as unsustainable costs being the reasons for the ECU.[/url]

I come from a background of software development, but do not have experience with control and data systems such as like the McLaren ECU, so I don't know what tooling and controls are put in place within that ecosystem. I suspect for the most part it is a sandbox system in which you can do as much as the hardware allows. Such as you define how you pump fuel via your own code rather than you tell the ECU "pump X liters/second" and it handles it via it's own code. It is probably a blank sheet of paper that you place the code upon.

My perspective is that the standard ECU was to primarily address the difficulty of policing a multitude of proprietary solutions (cost was likely another reason). Proprietary solutions makes it easy to hide things. Either directly or by the fact that those inspecting the system will not be experts in how it works and could easily miss the offending bits. With the standard solution, I believe teams are supposed to submit copies of the software and the reasons for that would be for later analysis if needed. Everyone is using a standard platform, so it makes it easier to inspect. However, as anyone who has written software can attest, looking at code written by someone else and trying to determine "intent" can sometimes be difficult. Especially if the author is actively trying to be evasive!

Anyone in F1 who is doing questionable operations within the ECU is unlikely to have code that is obviously illegal. Nobody is writing a function called "traction control". What is more likely is that you will have code that clearly does X, but has a side effect of also doing (or impacting) Y. X is legal, Y is illegal. Even then, if you suspect that Y is happening, it may be difficult to tie the actions of Y back to the code that does X. And if it is doing Y well, you may not see Y in the data.

But in the end, if someone is doing something nefarious, then the FIA has the ability to expose it. It would just take work (which speaks to the points made in the article about difficulty of policing) and they probably would have a specific target (i.e. traction control) that they would need to try to ferret out. I think this has an effect to keeping teams from doing anything that might be blatant.

The recent speculation about how Ferrari may have been introducing extra fuel flow that the flow sensor didn't see. If that accusation were true, I expect the code that controlled the system appeared to be relatively innocuous, but the "potential" for undetected flow changes appearing as an unintended (or intended ) side effect. And when you are able to fool the sensors that also feed the data log, there is no data to prove that it happened. You are just left with suspicion.

Richard

[bjohnsonsmith]

McLaren have a detailed page dedicated to the TAG-320.

https://www.mclaren.com/applied/prod...-unit-tag-320/

[wnut]

I would guess you could build a lot of traction control and other features in a drive by wire system under the guise of complying with the maximum fuel flow and fuel economy regulations.
Pretty sure the accelerators would be a torque mapped control too, so the percentage depression of the pedal is the percentage torque required from the engine, and you would further map this for each gear. That would immediately be crude traction control. You could also control the rate the engine spools up to "protect it from damage", again traction control.

[Adam43]

Well Ferrari aren’t very good at that as Vettel keeps spinning coming out of corners

I would say that what you are describing is more akin to improving the drivability of the engine than traction control. Traction control in the sense of driver aid requires some feedback loop.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

I would guess you could build a lot of traction control and other features in a drive by wire system under the guise of complying with the maximum fuel flow and fuel economy regulations.
Pretty sure the accelerators would be a torque mapped control too, so the percentage depression of the pedal is the percentage torque required from the engine, and you would further map this for each gear. That would immediately be crude traction control. You could also control the rate the engine spools up to "protect it from damage", again traction control.

The technical regulations "try" to reduce the amount of gaming like you say. Sections 5.5 (Power unit torque demand) and 5.6 (Power unit control) specifically. Here is one example...

5.5.3 At any given engine speed the driver torque demand map must be monotonically increasing for an increase in accelerator pedal position.

There is a handful similar to that. Even the one above has wiggle room for creativity IMHO.

But in the end, yeah, playing around with how the engine mappings work can help the driver in specific conditions.

Richard

[Mike Harte]

Despite all the above about the ECU, it has to be borne in mind that the FIA does have constant access to the data of settings on every single ECU whether in the pits or on the track.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

The technical regulations "try" to reduce the amount of gaming like you say. Sections 5.5 (Power unit torque demand) and 5.6 (Power unit control) specifically. Here is one example...



There is a handful similar to that. Even the one above has wiggle room for creativity IMHO.

But in the end, yeah, playing around with how the engine mappings work can help the driver in specific conditions.

Richard

Reading that reg it looks like the F1 throttle is actually a (hopefully by regulation) linear torque control, and had nothing at all to do with actual engine rpm. ??

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

Reading that reg it looks like the F1 throttle is actually a (hopefully by regulation) linear torque control, and had nothing at all to do with actual engine rpm. ??

So I had to look up "monotonically increasing" as I was wondering if that meant a linear relationship, but it does not. Basically the torque must increase as the throttle increases, but it does not have to be linear.

Richard

[crmalcolm]

Being a torque control (as opposed to an rpm, or fuel flow control) is probably vital when it comes to seamless gearboxes.

When the driver shifts up, he is not releasing the throttle, but the rpm will have to drop to match the next gear. Being monotonic means that the torque can plateau to achieve the requirement for being in two gears at the same time.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So I had to look up "monotonically increasing" as I was wondering if that meant a linear relationship, but it does not. Basically the torque must increase as the throttle increases, but it does not have to be linear.

Richard

Whoops, my fail, got that wrong!

So essentially that particular piece of gobbledygook means nothing at all as far as setting up a throttle or more correctly torque control pedal is concerned.

Can't see why you would want the torque to decrease as you push the pedal, could get a bit strange when the engine goes beyond its powerband and the torque curve drops off though!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by wnut

Can't see why you would want the torque to decrease as you push the pedal,

Traction control would be one example.

[crmalcolm]

A lot has been written about the engine torque map, inverse engine torque map, driver demand torque map, pedal map and ignition map here:

'So, with the generic term “Engine Maps” we refer to a wide set of one-dimension or two-dimension parameter tables loaded into the ECU to control all the engine parameters, that are, at least, throttle opening, injection and ignition timings (duration, phase, etc...). All maps are filled with proper data during hours of engine calibration done at the test rig and/or at track. The torque demand, as requested from the driver by the acceleration pedal, is calculated by the chain composed by the Pedal Map and the Torque Demand Map. The input variable is the accelerator pedal position, given by the drive by wire potentiometer and the output variable will be the throttle position, actuated from the ECU by hydraulic or electric actuators on the engine intake butterflies or barrels.'

[wnut]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

A lot has been written about the engine torque map, inverse engine torque map, driver demand torque map, pedal map and ignition map here:

'So, with the generic term “Engine Maps” we refer to a wide set of one-dimension or two-dimension parameter tables loaded into the ECU to control all the engine parameters, that are, at least, throttle opening, injection and ignition timings (duration, phase, etc...). All maps are filled with proper data during hours of engine calibration done at the test rig and/or at track. The torque demand, as requested from the driver by the acceleration pedal, is calculated by the chain composed by the Pedal Map and the Torque Demand Map. The input variable is the accelerator pedal position, given by the drive by wire potentiometer and the output variable will be the throttle position, actuated from the ECU by hydraulic or electric actuators on the engine intake butterflies or barrels.'

Thank you CR, great article!

I see there is this despite all the controls

"It’s not traction control as it isn’t controlling to a wheel slip target, but instead an open-loop method to try and help wheelspin control. It can be of real benefit when the tires are worn out.”


and considerable work on the engine overrun.