FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[stonemonkey]

Something I've wondered about before, since TC was banned and the SECU brought in, could the KERS MGU be used or controlled in some way to provide some form TC and/or ABS by varying the load on the drive?

Theoretically it shouldnt be a problem to have the Kers harvesting unit do its thing in spurts that lead to less overall power in pulses, leading to a 'slip/less power/more power/slip' etc pattern. But it would have to be used only on demand and that is back to TC.

If there was a program that changed the way it harvested at certain times that would be picked up by the SECU, in fact we would be theoretically able to see it on the graphic we get on screen showing the Kers level of charge and so the FIA would most definitely know

If thats what you meant by providing TC

The graphic we see isn't the charge in the batteries, it's just a representation of how much the driver is allowed to use over the couse of 1 lap. The bar is filled at the start finish line and goes down whenever they press the button, when the bar is empty they can't use any more.

What I meant is that instead of only harvesting energy under braking, what if the KERS could harvest energy when wheelslip is detected, that would reduce the amount of energy going to the wheels.

Could also help explain Redbull's 'ongoing' KERS overheating issues for the past what, 3 years now?

I'm not pointing fingers, just wondering if it could be used in that way. There doesn't seem to be anything in the rules that limits when they're allowed to harvest energy from the MGU, from what I've seen, the rules only specify a max rate and amount that they're allowed to store in the batteries.

[Hammer278]

Not pointing fingers either, but I always wondered why such an efficient team can't get a basic KERS unit working reliably after all these years.

For what it's worth ...that picture with those tyre tread marks made me laugh at the Italian media's desperate attempts to get Redbull in trouble.

[stonemonkey]

Searching around, it seems from a technical point it is possible but I read somewhere by Scarbs that the teams have been warned not to try anything like that.

[NHcheese]

Wait if it is a desperate attempt, why is it a topic, why start a small speculated topic.

[andrew]

'Cos folks don't like Red Bull so they have to make a big crama out of the smallest of rumours. It's how F1 forums and journalism works.

[NHcheese]

As a McLaren fan, I would jump on an opportunity like this, but it's not backed up with a reliable source of proof.

[What's Burning?]

No one is being forced to post in threads they don't want to participate in.

[NHcheese]

I know. Just saying that it is not a big issue at the moment. I understand that it could have been though.

[bigpat]

Is it just me, but I thought its a bit hard to harvest KERS under acceleration, when its done under braking......

Not to mention that if you tried to use the KERS unit for traction control, it would be very slow to modulate that it would really be a hinderance.

Regarding rules, Red Bull do skirt close to the edge, but they simply look at the rules from a fresh perspective, which allows them to come up with clever things. The "parc ferme" ride adjuster, is no different from any other suspension adjustment mechanism that you could put on a car, they just thought of it first....
Same with deflection test of wings and front floors, you look how the test is applied, and build it to pass the test.

No different from when Ferrari ran traction control is days it was banned. They regulated power in during re-engagement of power during gearshifts. They could, because the rules stated the control of the engine could be taken away from the driver for 0.2 sec to allow for shifting of gears. At 0.05 sec for an upshift, they used the 'spare' time for what they could......

Renault are in the same boat. They simply outsmart the others on occasion, and they have done so for many years. The tightening up of the throttle vs torque map has mostly helped to stop not only off & part throttle diffuser blowing, but also traction control. You could theoretically ( I think, if the rules don't prohibit it somehow)) over-fuel the engine on acceleration to control wheelspin, but I think in qualifying and practice, as the fuel consumption a race would be too high.

Pat

[What's Burning?]

Red Bull do skirt close to the edge, but they simply look at the rules from a fresh perspective, which allows them to come up with clever things. The "parc ferme" ride adjuster, is no different from any other suspension adjustment mechanism that you could put on a car, they just thought of it first....
Same with deflection test of wings and front floors, you look how the test is applied, and build it to pass the test.

The flexing wing was a brilliant move on Reb Bull's part and kudos to them for it, that was a case of looking at the rules from a fresh perspective and they exploited it as long as they could because "legally" it was passing the tests.

The ride height adjustment is different story all together. The rules mandated that the adjustment require a tool to be used specifically so that it couldn't be don't during parc ferme, since they'd have to use a tool which would be noticed. That was a blatant case of cheating, not rule book skirting. It wasn't investigated because I guess it was a simple thing for the officials to keep an eye out for once they knew it was going on, but one was a brilliant manipulation of the FiA's own rules. The other was a blatant case of cheating since the rule was being broken.

In hindsight, I won't why Mercedes, Ferrari or McLaren protest... I think the protests leading to tribunals, they will be rising in the future.

[spankyham]

The ride height adjustment is different story all together. The rules mandated that the adjustment require a tool to be used specifically so that it couldn't be don't during parc ferme, since they'd have to use a tool which would be noticed. That was a blatant case of cheating, not rule book skirting.

+1

[What's Burning?]

Red Bull do skirt close to the edge, but they simply look at the rules from a fresh perspective, which allows them to come up with clever things. The "parc ferme" ride adjuster, is no different from any other suspension adjustment mechanism that you could put on a car, they just thought of it first....
Same with deflection test of wings and front floors, you look how the test is applied, and build it to pass the test.

The flexing wing was a brilliant move on Reb Bull's part and kudos to them for it, that was a case of looking at the rules from a fresh perspective and they exploited it as long as they could because "legally" it was passing the tests.

The ride height adjustment is different story all together. The rules mandated that the adjustment require a tool to be used specifically so that it couldn't be don't during parc ferme, since they'd have to use a tool which would be noticed. That was a blatant case of cheating, not rule book skirting. It wasn't investigated because I guess it was a simple thing for the officials to keep an eye out for once they knew it was going on, but one was a brilliant manipulation of the FiA's own rules. The other was a blatant case of cheating since the rule was being broken.

In hindsight, I won't why Mercedes, Ferrari or McLaren protest... I think the protests leading to tribunals, they will be rising in the future.

I really should not type long responses from my iPad. I'd get more accuracy typing with my feet on a desktop keyboard.

[1Lemon]

Or this:

[NHcheese]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyWwEm-rKUY[/youtube]

or this