No TC for Ferrari in Brazil

[eatapc]

Ferrari must have decided that their traction control demonstration in Malaysia was a bit too impressive. Perhaps they were worried that the stewards would give their software a harder look. Clearly one more weekend of running away from the rest of the field would have been asking for trouble.

So in damp track conditions, we have Schumi not able to keep up with that noted rainmeister David Coulthard, while two weeks earlier he was running 5 seconds a lap faster than anyone on those magic Bridgestone intermediates. There is no rational explanation other than traction control for what we witnessed during practice, qualifying and the race itself: either Ferrari stopped cheating, or McClaren and Williams concluded, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

[RedCarFan]

You have got to be kidding! First off one race does not make DC is not the rain-meister. Ask anyone who follows F1 and they will tell you MS is the best driver wet or dry. MS car was set up for dry weather, DC was set up for the damp. So...DC or anybody driving a car set up for the wet will do better that a car set up for dry. As for your conclusion, completely irrational! False premise=False conclusion. Even the evil boss at mac said the "Ferrari was legal." Next time try using LOGIC in your argument!

[Liz]

Take off that tifosi blindfold, man.

But all will be revealed in Spain.

[Jeanburrasca81]

RedCarFan is right, one race with the wrong setup and everyone changes his or her mind. TGF is and will be the best driver untill a new one comes along...and I'm pretty sure this one isn't DC.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by Jeanburrasca81
TGF is and will be the best driver untill a new one comes along...and I'm pretty sure this one isn't DC.

Exactly my point. Explain how the best driver, wet or dry, suddenly is: 1) vulnerable in qualifying; 2) beaten by a Williams running with a heavy fuel load while the Ferrari was running light; run away from by Coulthard on a wet track. Explain that in light of Ferrari superiority in Australia and Malaysia. Explain that in light of the Sepang race, where the Ferraris, both of them, were 5 seconds a lap faster than everyone else, and were passing cars on very wet sections of the track while on intermediates.

Wrong setup? Ferrari getting the weather wrong? Gimme a break. Schumi looked weak in both the wet and dry. Furthermore, Ferrari has spotters at all points of the compass miles from the track reporting weather info back to the pits. Ferrari strategy has been so successful in the Jean Todt/MS years because they know what they're doing and they're very, very good -- not lucky.

The illogical explanation is that Ferrari just had a bad weekend. (It's possible.) The logical explanation is that Ferrari decided to play this one by the rules. (Quite understandable.) And don't give me that stuff about Ron Dennis not accusing Ferrari so everything must be on the up and up. After the Frentzen flap, and given the history of FIA rulings in Ferrari's favor, and the consequences of challenging the integrity and competence of the FIA, and the fact that soon traction control will be allowed anyway, why in the world would Ron Dennis vent his suspicions? It was simply in his best interest to say what he did.

[Mania]

Michael's Ferrari was clearly of the pace. He's the best driver in F1 without a shadow of a doubt but he isent a machine. Sometimes Michael will have a bad day - or the team may get something wrong in set up that ruins the race for them. Thats exactly what happened here. As for traction control, the only people who believe that lame escuse are simply biased...because if there was traction control used in F1 - then the culprits were Mclaren and BAR throughout last season who were blatantly using TC - yet were able to get away with it..perhaps because they're British teams..and ofcourse all British drivers and teams are saints whereas the Germans and the Italians are cheats.
Whatever - Thats just whining, really.

Give credit where credit is due. Juan and Williams were outstanding - so was Ralf before Barrichelo took him out.
DC drove an excellent race and got lucky due to Montoya dropping out. Michael and Ferrari had a bad day. Simple. He'll be back - so will Mika Hakkinen.

[Tristan]

Oh for heaven's sake shut up you lot! No one's been cheating, of that I can ASSURE you. No TC just very good (and very legal) engine mapping and clever differential thingeys.

[Maximum F1]

I agree completely with Tristan...some of you people obviously having been paying attention to F1 very much. As Martin Brundell on ITV said, it is clever electronics which have got Ferrari where they were in the first 2 races. They have successfully used engine mapping to SIMULATE traction control LEGALLY! Somehow I don't think Ferrari are going to risk their whole reputation using Traction Control...even if there was this FIA conspiracy that keeps popping it's head up in these Forums! The issue is too contraversial for the FIA to let go...Ferrari or no Ferrari...if they thought Ferrari's system was illegal they would ban it!
So people...stop coming out with these stupid, unfounded, ludicrous allegations.
--------------------------------------
Maximum F1
http://www.maximumf1.com

[eatapc]

Originally posted by Tristan
Oh for heaven's sake shut up you lot! No one's been cheating, of that I can ASSURE you. No TC just very good (and very legal) engine mapping and clever differential thingeys.

I can assure you that your explanation of "clever differential thingeys" is not assuring me of anything. I'm frankly flabbergasted that anyone thinks the allegations are "stupid, unfounded, ludicrous." At least I can relate to Mania's assertion that McLaren and BAR may have tried a little TC last year.

I recognize that a driver can be off his game or on, and that some tracks play to the strengths of certain cars; that's what makes it interesting from week to week. But I've never seen a car slip so much (in comparable conditions) as the Ferrari did from Malaysia to Brazil. Did Ferrari have their engine maps (the ones that supposedly mimic traction control) stolen by thieves in Brazil? Frentzen thought something odd was going on a month ago. Was he being ludicrous? Just answer this: If the legal engine maps that were used in Malaysia were also used in Brazil, where did the 5 second a lap superiority go? If the wet-weather testing Ferrari did to get ready for Malaysia left them so well prepared, why did that experience leave them at a loss in Brazil? There is one explanation that elegantly fits the facts: traction control, or lack thereof.

Don't get me wrong: I love it when Schumacher wins. I'm a fan of his skill. But the FIA got bamboozled by Ferrari when they delayed the legalization of TC until Spain. The allegations I'm making are appropriate, and the FIA deserves to be embarrassed. Do the allegations offend your belief in Ferrari's absolute honesty or the FIA's infinite wisdom? From Spain on it'll be a great year, with Williams, McLaren and Ferrari (Jordan not far behind) battling for the championship on equal terms with great drivers (excepting Barrichello). (Go Montoya!)

[Piquet]

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about Traction Control / Engine mapping or whatever else can be done to a F1 car. I have mentioned this before - but here goes again - in Malaysia I noticed M.S. & R.B. left no trace of rubber on the track (certainly when leaving the line on the formation lap) - somebody kindly let me know that this was prob due to a talented software engineer who Ferrari "knicked" this year from McLaren. In Brazil MS lit up the rears when leaving the grid on the formation lap (not sure about the race !) & I said to myself - "no Traction control (Call it what you will) if there is rain he will struggle more than in Malaysia "

To my mind (call me old-fashioned) anything which limits wheelspin is basically Traction control - not a very exciting thing, and something which will lessen the excitment of F1 - for me anyway.

So from my personal viewpoint, which may well be completely inaccurate, I believe something other than a wet set-up & driver skill played a significant role in DC's win.

Bye

[JeremySmith]

Mr Eatapc....Very funny! David Coultard "The Rainmeister" Give me a break...Everyones knows that title belongs to Michael Schumacher..

[eatapc]

Originally posted by Jersound
Mr Eatapc....Very funny! David Coultard "The Rainmeister" Give me a break...Everyones knows that title belongs to Michael Schumacher..

irony n., pl. ironies.
1.a. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning. b. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning. c. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

Sorry. I certainly didn't intend to be funny.

[Valve Bounce]

I think that there are too many threads about TRACS, and the explanations are spead all over the forum. My view is that Ferrari have developed a legal form of open loop TRACS, and who says it is legal? None other than HHF (who started the ball rolling in the first place), Ron Dennis, and Patrick head. In fact, I am certain that both McLaren and Williams have just about as good a system and that is why both Ron and Patrick have been very coy about this legal TRACS. It is just that a number of unfortunate incidents affected both Williams and Maclaren in the first three races, and their legal TRACS was never put to the test except by DC and Montoya in Brazil.
The problem with TGF's car in Brazil was explained in the thread "TGF making too many mistakes" when I posted the explanation given by Shabby who heard the whole discussion between TGF and Ross during the race on digital TV (German). TGF has given a further clue to the complexity of TRACS when it will be legal because it not only controls the engine but also the gearbox and the differential. (see today's autorace.com). So, my opinion of Brazil is that the legal TRACS of Ferrari did not work that well and in fact caused vibrations, and probably affected the diff's performance. I think that Ferrari was sure that they had the better (legal) TRACS and that is why they postponed the introduction of direct TRACS until Spain.
eatapc, if you type colon, then type rolleyes, then another colon,you get which would explain the irony more clearly to the other guys.

[angst]

If they had legal engine mapping before then where did it go for Brazil? If it was completely legal then why would they stop using it after the first two races? None of this adds up. Like you eatapc I am far from assured that TC has not been used by any team.
I've said before though that the FIA ave not shown the leadership that has been needed on this issue. The regs covering TC are very ambiguous and it is the duty of an F1 team to push the boundaries of the rules to the it's limits in order to be as competitve as possible. I always believed that the reason for the ambiguity was so that the FIA could rule on what they would accept and not accept in regards to engine management/mapping. If this was the case then there has been a serious breakdown in communication somewhere along the line. I believe that the FIA have ruled that they do not support Ferrari's interpretation of the regs and gave them a time period to put it right without recourse to attemting to take action against the team. Ferrari and the FIA (and the other teams for that matter) will be fully aware of how damaging to the image of F1 this would be and so there has been co-operation.
I would not say that Ferrari have been cheating, but maybe there has been a difference of opinion on what is and isn't within the regulations.
Valve Bounce, I agree there are alot of threads about TRACS, but I think that just highlights the importance this issue holds with F1 fans. I absolutely detest the idea of TRACS in F1. This is supposed to be the World DRIVER's championship for God's sakes.

[Tristan]

No "engine mapping" jiggerypokery is going to keep a poorly set up car going in a straight line in the wet. It was still there, they didn't think "we'll turn it off today. Just for a laugh." Nothing was "turned off" because there was nothing TO turn off.

[eatapc]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
The problem with TGF's car in Brazil was explained in the thread "TGF making too many mistakes" when I posted the explanation given by Shabby who heard the whole discussion between TGF and Ross during the race on digital TV (German). TGF has given a further clue to the complexity of TRACS when it will be legal because it not only controls the engine but also the gearbox and the differential. (see today's autorace.com). So, my opinion of Brazil is that the legal TRACS of Ferrari did not work that well and in fact caused vibrations, and probably affected the diff's performance.

Yes, Schumacher makes mistakes, but it was clear that the car in Brazil just wasn't what he was used to, and wasn't the same car as in Malaysia. Just hypothetically, let's say Ferrari was using a "questionable" traction control system (that is, one of debatable legality) in Malaysia. After Malaysia, with 2 victories in hand, the team got nervous that its effectiveness was a bit too obvious; a groundswell of innuendo -- even outright accusation -- was building, with closer FIA scrutiny in the offing. So they decided to dial it back for Brazil, just to be safe. McLaren was floundering, Schumacher was off to a great start. Why risk the blowing it all by getting caught.

Again, this is just hypothetical. As far as the discussions between Schumacher and Brawn or Todt on the radio during the race, with the car misbehaving, would Schumacher say, "Damnit, Jean, why did you make us change the TRACS setup we had in Malaysia? You're making me look bad out here!" Or would he say what he did, asking about the vibrations and requesting a tire change. And after the race, when Mika asked him why the Ferrari was so slow and difficult, would Schumacher answer, "Because we turned the godamn traction control off! Duh!." Or would he say what he did, that the car drove like s**t, which, after all, was true.

Valve Bounce, I appreciate your report in the other thread on the German TV coverage and the radio communication between Schumacher and the pits. Juicy stuff for sure, but it doesn't affect my traction control hypothesis at all. Something happened to the car between Malaysia and Brazil. While dark clouds gathered and showers were forecast for the race, supposedly Ferrari went with a dry track setup -- yet somehow they managed to go slower than expected on the dry track during the first part of the race. Are the Ferrari engineers so incompetent that they set the car up in such a way that it lost 5 seconds a lap in wet conditions and was also a half second slower in the dry? It's possible, but not likely. I've followed Formual One closely for several years, and this situation can't be explained by a normal, "Hey, it happens. That's racing."

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by angst

I believe that the FIA have ruled that they do not support Ferrari's interpretation of the regs and gave them a time period to put it right without recourse to attemting to take action against the team.
I would not say that Ferrari have been cheating, but maybe there has been a difference of opinion on what is and isn't within the regulations.
Valve Bounce, I agree there are alot of threads about TRACS, but I think that just highlights the importance this issue holds with F1 fans. I absolutely detest the idea of TRACS in F1. This is supposed to be the World DRIVER's championship for God's sakes.

To be prefectly honest and cynical, I do not believe the FIA would act on anything if Ron and Patrick agreed with each other that Ferrari had a legal system.
AS for TRACS and the rest of the electronic garbage, I did say that the only way to restore sanity to F1 is to ban ALL on board computers, and batteries as well so that small computers cannot be hidden somewhere in the car.
AND, eatapc, could be there was some mechanical problem with the diff as well, we will never know, no matter how much we conjecture.

[Sparky]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
AS for TRACS and the rest of the electronic garbage, I did say that the only way to restore sanity to F1 is to ban ALL on board computers, and batteries as well so that small computers cannot be hidden somewhere in the car.

And you'd fire the spark plugs...how? :confused:

oh! I see... Formula Diesel

[Tristan]

...how spark plugs were fired before computors, dimwit. He has a point, y'know....

[Sparky]

Originally posted by Tristan
...how spark plugs were fired before computors, dimwit. He has a point, y'know....

DIMWIT!!??? Read his post again... He said batteries. Without resorting to calling you names, I will ask you if you know of the ELECTRICAL requirements for firing a spark plug... No, thought not. Even without a battery, you will still require an alternator or some kind of charging system. This totally negates the point of banning all electrical systems so that there could be no hidden computers...

And knock it off with the insults.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Sparky


And you'd fire the spark plugs...how? :confused:

oh! I see... Formula Diesel

With a name like Sparky, you don't know?
Just remember not to laugh at anyone in this forum because you will only end up looking rather foolish. You will find there are a lot of technical people in this forum.

I rode my Matchless 4 stroke motor cycle around for 3 months without a battery when I was at Uni. Now figure this out for yourself how.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Sparky


And you'd fire the spark plugs...how? :confused:

oh! I see... Formula Diesel

Actually when I posted the above post, I did not realise that Sparky was host to the technical forum. I can only suggest you consult your co-host Dino to explain to you the intricacies of how spark plugs work. Suffice it for me to say that not so long ago, F1 cars did not have batteries. As my old friend George Pridanikoff used to say, "He who laughs last, laughs best".
I also do not think that Tristan really insulted you - if you think about it, he was quite accurate in his assessment.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Sparky


This totally negates the point of banning all electrical systems so that there could be no hidden computers...

And knock it off with the insults.

OK, Oh Bright Spark, I'd like you to tell us how you would run a computer on a magneto.

There, I told you how I managed to get my bike running.

[Sparky]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce


OK, Oh Bright Spark, I'd like you to tell us how you would run a computer on a magneto.

There, I told you how I managed to get my bike running.

You're quite right - a magneto will run a spark ignition system. You're equally correct that it will not run a computer. But I'd like you to suggest how the other systems on the car will be run?

So, from your post, I assume you’d like to see Formula one cars running magnetos and no other electrical devices at all?

Let’s (just for a split second) assume that all electrical devices (not just those controlling and supplying engine requirements) have been banned:

What about the anti-stall device, or the pit-lane speed limiter?
Then there’s the electronic differential, clutch and gearbox, the gearchange mechanism, instruments and warning lights, even the visibility light. Didn’t you suggest the teams should run brake lights recently? How are they going to be lit? Candles?

As long as there is power to run any of the electrical systems on the car - even just a visibility light - there is the opportunity to use an electronic device.

The reason I made a joke (remember jokes?) about Formula diesel, is that the whole idea of the totally wire-free Grand Prix car is ridiculous.

Lighten up man.

[Tristan]

Surely you could power cockpit lights with some AAs and the pit lane limiter could be mechanical or using a small series circuit sommitorother.

As for the rest, yup, get rid of 'em!! He has a point, that Mr Bounce......

And sorry for calling you a dimwit. It was only a light hearted quasi-insult. If I was insulting you I'd call you a ****wit or something similar!