An FIA Technical Report on Sunday morning in Hockenheim has thrown the cat amongst the pigeons in F1 circles. The FIA Technical Delegate Jo Bauer reported that “having examinded the engine torque map of cars 1 and 2 it became apparent that the maximum torque output of both engines is significantly less in the mid rpm range than previously seen for these engines at other events”.
He went on “in my opinion this is therefore in breach of Article 5.5.3 of the Technical regulations as the engines are able to deliver more torque at a given engine speed in the mid rpm range. Furthermore this new torque map will artificially alter the aerodynamic characteristics of both cars which is also in contravention of TD 036-11.”
It is not clear what TD 036-11 is but one presumes it is a technical directive, or clarification.
Article 5.5.3 states that “The maximum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or greater than the maximum engine torque at the measured engine speed. The minimum accelerator pedal travel position must correspond to an engine torque demand equal to or lower than 0Nm.”
The FIA Stewards are now considering the matter.
I’m probably mis-understanding something, so hopefully someone can explain – if the maximum torque output in the mid range of the engine has dropped doesn’t that mean the engine is unhealthy and that there is a possibility it will fail?
This sounds like a bad thing because the engines are going to die, not because they gain an advantage.
or the team use this difference to be able to put a punch into the exhaust blowing mark
It’s a matter of gearing. Different gear ratios can raise torque (amount of pressure) at the cost of speed (revolutions/time), or do the inverse and raise speed at the cost of torque. A lower torque would then result in a higher speed (but slower acceleration, as there’s less umph behind the speed)
I’m not a F1 Steward. I have trouble intrepreting a lot of the Technical F1 regulations.
BUT
To me, Article 5.5.3 makes no mention of torque outputs anywhere between fully opened and fully closed throttle positions.
In the absence of knowledge of TD 036-11 it seems to me that Jo Bauer has picked the wrong regulation.
Article 5.5.5 seems to indicate there needs to a linear or ordered relationship between Throttle Position and Torque.
Just my initial opinion, will be interesting to see how this pans out. Would be even more interesting to hear the argument from Jo Bauer and the counter from Red Bull.
It might be wise to know all the rules before coming to conclusions
I thought that was a useful comment, John, which made it very clear that you were speculating…
RBR has always surprised me there is no consistency like either Ferrari or Mclaren. Being a drinks manufacturer it clearly shows their lack of F1 thinking and understanding it’s amazing they have achieved two wdc.
Having two immensely talented drivers is the only advantage they seem to have Adrian newey as well.
Adrian Newey is well revered for his energy drink manufacture isn’t he?! Red Bull maybe the sponsors and owners but they clearly have some of the best F1 thinking and talent in the paddock.
?!
I was being a bit sarcastic 4ule. Gowra S suggested that as Red Bull made drinks they had no F1 thinking and understanding. I was reminding him that Adrian Newey works for the Red Bull team!
Adrian is of course the soup king.
Soup Dragon,really.
And so we learn that “standard” ECUs are still things which do as they are bidden. I mumbled about that before but couched it in terms of software controls, not pedals, but then pedals effect actuators which create the electronic signals . . .
Before I mucked off yesterday, Brundle was cooing over the McLaren ECU assembly line. I gave up when he gushed how n thousand SMT parts (tiny, surface mount components you’d loose in a shallow pile carpet) were being assembled by hand. Seriously, heat reflow (for solder which is silk screened) and computer vision inspection were perfected long ago. I presume editorial mistake, else I worry over McLaren.
Inspections may not be confined to RBR, is my guess . . .
The standard ECU was always intended to be configurable. Think back to last season and Silverstone and how it turned out that some teams were using engine mapping to ensure that the EBD was blown even when the driver was off-throttle. Because it’s fitted to different engines it HAS to be configurable. What it does mean is that FIA can rule certain options out of bound, they can forbid by-passing of the ECU and they don’t have to worry about different data formats for the maps and the output – they can see what you’ve been doing with the ECU.
John, The machines we used at Pioneer for assembling SMT components on to pcbs was only viable because of the huge number of boards being made. We used a robot arm to pick and place about a hundred components. The major problem being where do you store the components so the arm can pick them up without increasing the time of the operation too much. If you use the same component in many places then that helps a lot. But we then move into mass production design not F1 design. The old discrete components were easier in a way, a single belt was made to hold everything in the correct order, then all were effectively picked from the same place. Perhaps that’s the answer here, if the cost can be justified.
Hmmm. I used to work for a small electronics manufacturer making high-end equipment. When SMT first came across our horizons in the early 90s, it was indeed a scary prospect. But we were soon doing all our stuff that way, and routinely doing SMT PCBs in quite small runs of 20 or 30. The most successful product we ever had sold about 1500 machines as I recall; most were far less than that. (They sold for five or six digits each, mind.)
I would be most surprised to find that the McLaren ECUs were hand pick-n-placed except for the odd unusual component. Aren’t they also used in other forms of racing as well, which would increase the volumes? (Not that volume is really an issue, as mentioned above.)
Hi guys,
I also first saw SMT also in the early 90s. My first reaction was “how the fff do I solder that?”*
rpaco is correct, for automation then you had huge feed machines, pick and place robots were not small, IR solder reflow and masking**, all that. I think NeXT were the first to go full on with a automated factory. I forget you have to get some serious air filtration, sub 2K 2nm particles per cubic meter.
however, today, I still get many catalogues sent to me of no immediate use, I believe you could set up a low volume system for just a few hundred grand.***
So, what I imagined, was the McLaren boys were manually inspecting solder joints, and testing what must be multi layer boards. That second part, is harder. So, I either think they are being obsessive (hello Ron!) or just advertising.
But why?
I talked a lot with a guy who designed computer vision systems for just this sort of thing, which results ended up in motor cars for a Major. RShack thought him a bit rude. Me, I just considered myself schooled. You know, dry solder joints, spilled flux, that sort of thing. Auto rejects. With multi spectral cams you can look deeper, see if anything went wrong with the multi layer board.
This kind of kit is coming to a “hackerspace” near you, any time now.
I could afford to buy a passable 3D printer and much of the other kit, if I had a purpose. I am not rich. I pay attention because I have a neato little dream project.
– - Sometimes I just reckon I was lazy, should have kept at it. But there were way more girls in advertising. I hope you may forgive me!
yours,
~ j
*there are some cool tutorials online how to manage with a regular iron! I probably do not have the motor control practice by hand still!
** this is now not reflow, but targetted IR beams.
*** I am ignoring QA etc, RF compliance, crosstalk, which almost never works from design stage to reality, and so on . . I am also ignoring failed devices due to low budget on things like clean room air. .
What sort of penalties are on the cards?
Allow to race current spec but under investigation?
Demoted to back of grid? Forced to change engine maps?
None?
if they change the engine mappings, that is braking parc ferme, making for a pitlane start. Or maybe they can race but risk protests from the other teams (pretty likely they would protest it)
So in plain English, are they saying Red Bull has managed to hack the ECU somehow?
So basically traction control on corner exit!
Alonso, Melbourne, in a Benneton Renault, spun. Answer: his computer broke.
Is it illegal to change the engine map at all – or only if changing it affects aero?
Seems odd if the remap was to give better traction – especially in the wet – but I’m guessing theres more to it
I thought drivers had buttons on the wheel to adjust torque curves – to adjust for a a linear or non linear application when applying the throttle pedal?
Seems like 5.5.3 is there to prevent a work-around method of passive traction control.
I have to admit that (as an engineer) I don’t see the point on having that regulation, but that doesn’t excuse RBR if indeed they breached the rule book
So the maximum torque must be generated at 100% throttle, not, say 50%, which would mean the are limiting it in a traction control sort of way?
That’s not usually how engines work. The crossover between power and torque curve is dependent on many factors, at Max RPM you would normally see a peak in power as opposed to torque.
So… when will this become clearer? Will RBR run under appeal, should the stewards agree with the FIA view?
I expect we will find out soon enough
Jo Bauer. Isn’t that the guy from “24″?
Finding :The torque output is significantly ‘less’ in the midrange than hitherto.
Opinion: Engines able to deliver more torque (at that rev range).
Logical but hardly an opinion.
An opinon that this characteristic is prohibited by Art. 5.5.5 is not tenable on the words of that Article.
I think it’s a problem that you have a driver like Warwick expect to adjudicate with others on an alleged problem with software coding vis a vis the rules? This is expert territory really, so I’m not surprised having heard experts from Renault make their case the decision was made to do nothing.
I have never not understood something more in my life. Holy crap am I stupid!!!
Newey is determined to use that engine as an air pump, too much exploitation of the “legalise” diminishes the sport.
Its time to pay through the nose for teams of lawyers to write bullet proof ‘sporting rules’, then the teams can get into an ‘arms race’ building up legal departments to exploit those loopholes. What a great use of ‘engineering resources’ that could be. How sportsmanlike.
And you think they haven’t been paying lawyers? How joyously naive!
Deciding the Championship in a courtroom one day should be really good for the ‘sport’. No such thing as bad publicity?
Nope, especially in Bernie’s world. Heck, why not get some of these high-powered law firms involved in F1 with some sponsorship. I’m sure Bern knows at least 1,000 lawyers.
How’s this for an F1 tie-in.
“Is a government or two on your back? Have you been accused of making bribes? Corporate espionage, perhaps? Well, look no further…at Linklater’s, our expertise ranges from Crisis Management to Banking to Intellectual Protection to Competition, to name a few. Linklaters…for all your litigation needs.”
I think they write these rules so poorly. I did read once an interview with Mosley where he stated that they do it on purpose, basically leaving the stewards and the appeals court an open book to judge however the see fit. Not sure i agree with that approach.
If the 5.5.3 is supposed to be preventing traction control being implemented via controlling the torque output, then why not say simply: “any tempering with the engine torque output with engine mapping is not allowed at any engine speed”?
At least it was on both cars, all hell would have broken loose if the setting was found on, say, Car No 1 only.
Crikey!!
Finally the Bulls are hauled up funny that they do such things who is right who is wrong it’s difficult to say
I actually think based on my interpretation of the rules there isn’t an issue. The rules simlpy state that there should be zero torque at no throttle and maximum pedal travel is should correspond to the maxium torque at any given engine rpm.
What Red Bull appear to have done is simply decide and limit what the maximum torque at any given rpm should be. As long as there are no circumstance where the torque is higher for any rpm then it’s in the rules. The rules do not state that max throttle should be the maximum amount of torque the engine is capable of producing.
So yes, it was done probably to assist in the wet weather by limiting low/mid torque where the chances of wheelspinning are higher (torque is generally lower at high rpm anyway).
Drivers change maps all the time – they have different fuel maps to lean things out and extend the range of the car however this naturally lowers the maximum torque…