FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[billindenver]

Any extra speed you can carry through a corner is speed you carry all the way down the following straight. If your car builds more power the higher in the RPM range you are then you are also into that power sooner...meaning you gain that much more. All of which means you have to move your braking mark back accordingly once you reach the braking zone at the end of the straight.

WHAT?? Must be a typo "If your car builds more power the higher in the RPM range you are then you are also into that power sooner...meaning you gain that much more".

Sorry dude but I'm gonna say . Torque is what means the most through the lower rpm range and then hp takes over.

What are you talking about? If you can carry an extra amount of speed...say 5 mph through a corner...that is going to result in more RPM at the exit of that corner. If your car has more area under the power curve higher in the RPM's...then you are effectively carrying more power at the exit and all the way down the straight. That's what I said...and it's still true. Even in Texas. Dewd.

[f1ea]

Could it have been an earlier rumbling that this was going to happen that caused Mclaren to ditch the octopus?

i doubt it, it seems the octopus gave such reliability issues they weren't even able to assess how much improvement in lap time it offered.

So as well as more grip during braking allowing for later braking, with a little extra downforce during braking and coasting you could keep a little extra speed to the apex? And depending on the corner it could give that extra speed out of it and along the straight?

If your car builds more power the higher in the RPM range you are then you are also into that power sooner...meaning you gain that much more. All of which means you have to move your braking mark back accordingly once you reach the braking zone at the end of the straight.

by keeping the throttle going even during braking/decel, they are able to run the engine closer to the max power band, so all that power is available even sooner to use out of turns... Works the engine hard, but so far they've had no engine failures, so its working good.

[bigpat]

Could it have been an earlier rumbling that this was going to happen that caused Mclaren to ditch the octopus?

i doubt it, it seems the octopus gave such reliability issues they weren't even able to assess how much improvement in lap time it offered.

So as well as more grip during braking allowing for later braking, with a little extra downforce during braking and coasting you could keep a little extra speed to the apex? And depending on the corner it could give that extra speed out of it and along the straight?

If your car builds more power the higher in the RPM range you are then you are also into that power sooner...meaning you gain that much more. All of which means you have to move your braking mark back accordingly once you reach the braking zone at the end of the straight.

by keeping the throttle going even during braking/decel, they are able to run the engine closer to the max power band, so all that power is available even sooner to use out of turns... Works the engine hard, but so far they've had no engine failures, so its working good.

I don't believe the benefit is in running the engine closer to the "powerband", rather, it allows the car to carry a higher apex speed. Of course this allows a slightly higher top speed, but the gain is lap time, not so much kph (or mph)at the end of the next straight. The squared increase in drag with speed sees to this. Circuit racing is always about how QUICK you are on the stopwatch, not how fast how are on a speed gun....

Remember, an F1 engine is at a significantly level below its peak torque and power speed at the apex, to allow some forgiveness in modulation of the throttle be the driver. Theoretically, an F1 car could use a gear lower in most corners, but the suddenness of the power delivery, and inertia effects if he lifts mid corner, makes it almost impossible to drive, and manage wheelspin. The power map of an F1 engine is far from subtle, and ignition and fuel timing is moderated to give some form of a smoother power ( and torque curve).

I think the ban is in-line with making the sport appear greener. Remember a few seasons ago, each car had to start their qualifying session with a set amount of fuel. The cars would run around with the engines on a really rich setting, in 'fuel burn' mode, to get the weight down, upon which they change to new boots, and went out and banged in a time. In the eyes of the FIA, this "fuel burn" was a bad environmental look, so they canned that rule at years end.

With the premise, of cars "blowing' excess fuel on on overrun. it is also contrary to F1's plan to become more environmentally responsible. So I think this is more political, than anything else. At the end of the day, the spectator won't notice anything different, except the cars won't have a weird engine note on overrun...

[f1ea]

I don't believe the benefit is in running the engine closer to the "powerband", rather, it allows the car to carry a higher apex speed. Of course this allows a slightly higher top speed, but the gain is lap time, not so much kph (or mph)at the end of the next straight. The squared increase in drag with speed sees to this. Circuit racing is always about how QUICK you are on the stopwatch, not how fast how are on a speed gun....

I dont think its where the benefit is.. only that it is an added benefit. But by having the engine already near the power band, doesnt it hekp somewhat? I'm thinking in the line of these guys taking NO time between throttle-brake then back again....

With the premise, of cars "blowing' excess fuel on on overrun. it is also contrary to F1's plan to become more environmentally responsible. So I think this is more political, than anything else. At the end of the day, the spectator won't notice anything different, except the cars won't have a weird engine note on overrun...

yeah, i think this is one of the main reasons behind the overruling... it keps people from saying something in the lines of "these guys waste so much fuel, they keep the throttle even during braking..."

[acosmichippo]

Good post, bigpat.

But if it is a "green" decision, why not say so? FIA obviously has no problem citing that as a reason behind big decisions, but the only reasoning they've mentioned here is that it's too similar to a moveable aero device.

[texasmr2]

Even in Texas. Dewd.

Well that remark is . Do you actually think you are the.....

Oh never mind.

[bigpat]

Quote:
I dont think its where the benefit is.. only that it is an added benefit. But by having the engine already near the power band, doesnt it hekp somewhat? I'm thinking in the line of these guys taking NO time between throttle-brake then back again....



I think you have remember that having an engine 300-400 rpm closer to the powerband isn't really significant where the difference between apex and max RPM is in the region of 8000 rpm. It's only a 5% difference, on a not very user friendly power curve. In classes where engines run to 7000 or 8000 rpm max, yes, 300-400 rpm would be significant. Remember, the drivers don't really want to harness full power when they are back on the throttle. Watch the on board telemetry... the cars are traction limited until the car is well and truly straightening, on the exit releasing, any lateral load, where THEN, they mash the pedal. As for throttle, brake, throttle: watch the on board telemetry closely. You'll see there is some dwell time between the 2 pedals. On TV it LOOKS almost instantaneous, but believe me, 0.5-1.0 sec feels like a lifetime when you're behind the wheel yourself....

Cheers acosmichippo!
As for the FIA not public-ally announcing it is green decision.... I think they don't want to be seen as party to allowing it to happen in the first place. By saying it is a 'sporting decision', they could, in a cloudy way, say it is an attempt to limit the cars, by bringing down corner speeds. It's all smoke and mirrors, ......

Pat

[What's Burning?]

Quote:
I dont think its where the benefit is.. only that it is an added benefit. But by having the engine already near the power band, doesnt it hekp somewhat? I'm thinking in the line of these guys taking NO time between throttle-brake then back again....



I think you have remember that having an engine 300-400 rpm closer to the powerband isn't really significant where the difference between apex and max RPM is in the region of 8000 rpm. It's only a 5% difference, on a not very user friendly power curve. In classes where engines run to 7000 or 8000 rpm max, yes, 300-400 rpm would be significant. Remember, the drivers don't really want to harness full power when they are back on the throttle. Watch the on board telemetry... the cars are traction limited until the car is well and truly straightening, on the exit releasing, any lateral load, where THEN, they mash the pedal. As for throttle, brake, throttle: watch the on board telemetry closely. You'll see there is some dwell time between the 2 pedals. On TV it LOOKS almost instantaneous, but believe me, 0.5-1.0 sec feels like a lifetime when you're behind the wheel yourself....

Cheers acosmichippo!
As for the FIA not public-ally announcing it is green decision.... I think they don't want to be seen as party to allowing it to happen in the first place. By saying it is a 'sporting decision', they could, in a cloudy way, say it is an attempt to limit the cars, by bringing down corner speeds. It's all smoke and mirrors, ......

Pat

I'll keep all this in mind the next time I'm taking a highway off ramp.

[spankyham]

The FiA's variable rules implementation policy comes to the fore yet again.

For the record, no, I'm not convinced there's any "conspiracy" going on here, just a case or pure, unadulterated incompetence.

And also for the record, I'm not getting into the argument of whether a team could argue that they aren't breaching the rules.

What is clearly stated in Technical Directive #15 is the "police" are stating they believe teams are breaching the rules.

The FiA has officially said they see using an engine's exhaust blown through the diffuser as a moving aero device and therefore breaks the rules. You can't get any more straight forward that that.

Here's the ridiculous part IMO, they've decided to let teams continue breaking the rules because stopping a team from cheating might cause the cheats difficulties - ROFL. I'm sorry officer, you can't arrest that bank robber, he's needs to pick up his dry-cleaning in a few hours.

Last year, by the FiA's own admission in the "Team Orders" special hearing, they couldn't prove Ferrari used team orders, but they still penalized the team based purely on what they "heard".

It's also should be of no consequence to the FiA If a team can't race on safety reason if they remove the exhaust over-run - stiff, they miss the race. They make the call if they can race safely or not.

At Barcelona the FiA should penalize all teams where they hear the overrun when the drivers off throttle. The acted on what they "heard" in Germany last year and they should do the same now. Once Charlie Whiting calls in a few cars with drive-through penalties my guess is, we'll stop hearing the engine over-runs.

[bud]

I don't see how they can class it as moving aero. On full throttle it is ok because teams are using exhaust gas that is there regardless so off throttle the engine mapping allows the revs to continue creating a steady flow of exhaust gas, so they are saying the engine is the moving aero device morons!

[acosmichippo]

I think they're likening it more to those fans that sucked air from underneath the car. So the engine, instead of providing propulsion, is temporarily a device creating artificial aero effects.

Not saying I agree with the notion, but I believe it's the most logical way to interpret it.

[bigpat]

I think they're likening it more to those fans that sucked air from underneath the car. So the engine, instead of providing propulsion, is temporarily a device creating artificial aero effects.

Not saying I agree with the notion, but I believe it's the most logical way to interpret it.

Yes! I agree that in the sporting regulation sense, that this may be what the FIA are hinging their decision on. Good call.....

Spankyham, you make some valid points, but there is no case for any cars being unsafe due to the ban. Shutting off the excess fuel on overrun, won't make the cars underivable... The teams simply have to re balance the cars in an aero sense of things. They could also run a touch more brake bias towards the front, with the engine now adding a touch more braking effect. Remember F1 cars raced safely long before this phenomenon came into being....

The reversing of this effect in the engine mapping isn't too hard to do. All you have to do is ensure that fuel is injected in a proportional relationship to load (throttle opening) and engine speed, as it is in all EFI cars. As for policing it.....You can quickly see on the telemetry if the driver is off throttle, yet the butterflies are open, fuelling is richer than normal, and ignition is artificially retarded on the overrun. Remember the FIA know the source codes for the ECU's. It's not rocket science......

Of course, the drivers can still replicate the effect, they simply left foot brake, while cracking the throttle open with the right foot, as they have for years.... So instantly you've brought back some more skill to the driving component. The better you are at it, the quicker you'll be. A win for the racing "purists" out there....

[acosmichippo]

Of course, the drivers can still replicate the effect, they simply left foot brake, while cracking the throttle open with the right foot, as they have for years...

but wouldn't that drive the wheels against braking?

[bigpat]

Yeah it does, but were only talking 10-15% throttle opening here....

It's really works on faster corners, but is of benefit in the earlier phases of a hard stop (Turn 1 at Monza...) as it settles the rear end a little more.
Drivers have been using the technique since the 90's, with the flat bottoms....

[What's Burning?]

The FiA's variable rules implementation policy comes to the fore yet again.

For the record, no, I'm not convinced there's any "conspiracy" going on here, just a case or pure, unadulterated incompetence.

And also for the record, I'm not getting into the argument of whether a team could argue that they aren't breaching the rules.

What is clearly stated in Technical Directive #15 is the "police" are stating they believe teams are breaching the rules.

The FiA has officially said they see using an engine's exhaust blown through the diffuser as a moving aero device and therefore breaks the rules. You can't get any more straight forward that that.

Here's the ridiculous part IMO, they've decided to let teams continue breaking the rules because stopping a team from cheating might cause the cheats difficulties - ROFL. I'm sorry officer, you can't arrest that bank robber, he's needs to pick up his dry-cleaning in a few hours.

Last year, by the FiA's own admission in the "Team Orders" special hearing, they couldn't prove Ferrari used team orders, but they still penalized the team based purely on what they "heard".

It's also should be of no consequence to the FiA If a team can't race on safety reason if they remove the exhaust over-run - stiff, they miss the race. They make the call if they can race safely or not.

At Barcelona the FiA should penalize all teams where they hear the overrun when the drivers off throttle. The acted on what they "heard" in Germany last year and they should do the same now. Once Charlie Whiting calls in a few cars with drive-through penalties my guess is, we'll stop hearing the engine over-runs.

Your argument that they're being inconsistent is fair, and I agree with it. I'd rather them implement something rash like this and be consistent, than pick and choose and be inconsistent, or inept as you put it.

Your comparison however to Germany last year is not a valid comparison. Only one team was charged and penalized for something that in theory could not be definitively proved but in real world observation was impossible to discount. This scenario involves many teams, and there could be an argument that if everyone is openly doing it, then it's not cheating. The consistent thing to do in this case would be to ban it at the end of the season as they banned the F duct last year.