FIA Engine Mapping clarification a-comin'

http://www.totalf1.com/full_story/view/411084/Mercedes_wing_and_Renault_cylinder_cutting_OK/
As far as the issue of Renault cylinder cutting is concerned, Whiting revealed: "Mercedes has presented us with some audio analysis. It's quite complex but the upshot is, they say it shows that Red Bull are cutting more than four cylinders, which you are not allowed to do.
"Actually, the cut pattern is not determined, so you can cut as many cylinders in whatever order you like. We've got the data and we can see quite clearly that there are four cylinders being injected, four cylinders firing and they are timed at the right time, so there's every reason to suppose that there's combustion going on.
"Moreover, the throttle opening at that point is not any more than it is normally, so if they are doing anything funny they are not opening the throttle any more, so it negates the arguments a lot. As far as we are concerned it's entirely legal because they are not cutting more than four cylinders, which is what the contention is."
Whiting said he believed that the governing body is particularly well placed to check the engine issues because its new Head of Powertrain, taking over from Gilles Simon, is Fabrice Lom, who has worked with Red Bull Racing during recent seasons.
Click to expand
 
Right, I actually have some sympathy with the Stewards at Hockenheim over this. It seems as if they were expected to do the FIA's dirty laundry on their behalf. In some respects I'm glad they took the action they did and put the ball back in the FIA's court. In identifying an issue as complex as this at the 11th hour before a race meeting and then expecting a judgement on it was unfair.

I'm glad the loop hole has been closed however it was done with the usual lack of finesse.
 
cider_and_toast said:
Right, I actually have some sympathy with the Stewards at Hockenheim over this. It seems as if they were expected to do the FIA's dirty laundry on their behalf. In some respects I'm glad they took the action they did and put the ball back in the FIA's court. In identifying an issue as complex as this at the 11th hour before a race meeting and then expecting a judgement on it was unfair.

I'm glad the loop hole has been closed however it was done with the usual lack of finesse.
Click to expand

I have a lot of sympathy with the stewards. What else could they do? If the loophole is that easily closed, it should not have existed in the first place.
 
If this is all viewed in the context of the way the rules are created, I think this shows a little more underhandedness (possibly).

The rules (to the best of my knowledge) are defined by the teams in the various working groups, with all teams having a vote (either individually, or as part of FOTA) as does the FIA, and Ferrari have a veto.

Rules are written and worded, agreed, and ratified, as such, teams may well be aware of loopholes at the time of creation. They have a choice to either bring this to everyones attention, and suggest alternatives (Brawn in 2009 key example) or keep it to themselves with a view to being able to exploit this at some point.

To blame the FIA for the rules being to loose or complicated is somewhat erroneous.
 
The Pits said:
If this is all viewed in the context of the way the rules are created, I think this shows a little more underhandedness (possibly).

The rules (to the best of my knowledge) are defined by the teams in the various working groups, with all teams having a vote (either individually, or as part of FOTA) as does the FIA, and Ferrari have a veto.

Rules are written and worded, agreed, and ratified, as such, teams may well be aware of loopholes at the time of creation. They have a choice to either bring this to everyones attention, and suggest alternatives (Brawn in 2009 key example) or keep it to themselves with a view to being able to exploit this at some point.

To blame the FIA for the rules being to loose or complicated is somewhat erroneous.
Click to expand

At the end of the day, F1 is run according to rules set out by the FIA. Who has a say in voting for or against a particular rule is irrelevant. It is the FIA's responsibility to make sure the rules (as voted for) are unambiguous and free from loopholes. so many have been easily closed that I can't believe (very well paid) experts on the FIA side didn't think there could be a grey area. As I said before, there should be no room for ambiguity, it's either legal or it isn't.

The FIA are making themselves look stupid with their "we didn't think of that" approach. While I find Christian Horner irritating, why shouldn't Red Bull, or any other team, not take advantage of the FIA's inept writing of the rules? They have tried to stifle innovation in F1 for years to bring the cars closer together, so it's getting to be a spec formula. The only way most teams can gain anything on their rivals is to grab any advantage they can from poorly written regs. This is down to the FIA alone. Make every rule a straight "you can" or "you cannot" and most of this will stop.
 
Pyrope said:
So how would you word this rule?
Click to expand

Pyrope, I don't know if your post was aimed at me, but I'm not paid vast sums of cash to write the rules. I do however work in an industry that works to a very strict set of procedures, that involves keeping records for 20+ years of every parameter of the equipment used and could end up (if those procedures are not followed in any way) with a day or more in court and someone's wellbeing on your conscience.

We're talking about a sport here. I don't like golf myself, but my father has played for about 50 years. The rules are fairly complex, and some willfully break them, but grey areas don't really seem to exist. You either break the rule or you don't.
 
Dario Resta yes, it was aimed at you. Not aimed so much though, more directed. I was just interested in what you considered to be an unambiguous and clear-cut wording for a rule that tries to put into quantifiable terms what is, essentially, a philosophical process.

What is "traction control" and how can you measure it? Active TC is well and truly banned* but passive TC can be implemented in a number of ways. Modulating the torque curve is a fairly obvious and easy way to do it. But how do you define it? Because of the litigious nature of big business you need a metric. To my eyes, the regulation as written was pretty clear. There is no qualifier in there to say "on any given day" it just was "maximum output". Red Bull's engine was on record as producing more torque than was measured, and by a greater margin than could be explained by simple manufacturing tolerances, atmospheric factors, and so on. Ergo, it was breaking the rules.

However, as I know myself from putting together sizable contracts, one person's "clear and unambiguous" is another's "room for manoeuvre". This is why courts exist and form a vital part of the governance triumvirate. The executive write the rules, the legislative examine and pass the rules, and the judicial apply and interpret the rules in the real world. F1 works in somewhat the same way, except that the real world part only comes when teams get to put their thinking caps on and go looking for loopholes. With rules written by humans there will always be loopholes, and even in golf there are people who exploit loopholes in their equivalent of the Technical and Sporting Regulations.

Just a thought.

* Although listening to quite a few cars stuttering and blaring on their way out of corners, I'll admit that I'm starting to suspect that there's something going on for a number of teams.
 
Pyrope said:
* Although listening to quite a few cars stuttering and blaring on their way out of corners, I'll admit that I'm starting to suspect that there's something going on for a number of teams.
Click to expand
That was mentioned by Brundle at the German GP and it's the reduced number of cylinders, which is permitted.

Essentially they can cut to 4 cylinders in the corners to save fuel, etc.
 
That part I know Brogan, it's the fact that it keeps happening for about a second after they get on the gas at the exit that interests me. They claim it is just misfiring as the rest of the cylinders chime in again, but it is very convenient misfiring if so. But hey, I see conspiracy theories everywhere... ;)
 
My understanding about the FIA and teams difficulties with this mapping issue goes back to an original intention of the FIA to ban off-throttle exhaust blowing because teams were using it to blow diffusers for the aerodynamic effects. However, the teams argued that a total ban was impossible because F1 engines have for many years been designed to have some level of OTEB going on. Their reason for having OETB was to smooth out ignition management and maximise "pick-up" of the motor when going back onto full throttle following periods of deceleration and idling.

So, accepting that argument, the FIA's restrictions on OTEB were meant to go hand in hand with the requirement for teams to redesign and reposition their exhausts. By the way, this is not the same as playing with the ignition sequencing to momentarily cut some cylinders in the firing order and mixing the two issues actually just adds to the confusion - especially for us punters trying to understand what is going on. The upshot is that because OTEB cannot simply be banned outright, the boffins had to come up with a set of parameters within which OTEB can still occur but that the more extreme effects, especially the aerodynamic effects of OTEB, do not occur.

What RBR succeeded in doing was to use OTEB in a way that is supposed to be prohibited including using it for aerodynamic effect. Bauer's position is that the engines are working outside of the prescibed parameters and the Stewards did not accept RBR's argument on that. Hiwever, as we all now know, the stewards had trouble with the practical application of the regulation as it is written. From where I sit they are still having trouble getting the regulation written in an understandable, practical and applicable way. It is a shame because within F1 it will be no mystery at all as to the intent of this set of regulations.

Indeed, the frustration for the teams who have honoured the spirit of the rule is that by having them flouted means that the FIA may just take the easier option. That is, the easier option for the regulator not for the teams. I am of course referring to an outright and total ban of off-throttle exhaust blowing. The consequences of that will, if the teams original objections are to be believed, result in problems of expenditure, time and resources to modify their engines.

Sometimes a clever dick can be just a bit too clever.

Disclaimer: Of course, having said all of that I may just have run down a blind alley due to the confusion around the whole business!
 
The ironic thing about the passive traction control is that one of the reasons the FIA went for a standard ECU was to stop teams building software systems that included traction control.

If they want to stop the blowing of diffusers that should be very easy to regulate.
 
Bill Boddy said:
If they want to stop the blowing of diffusers that should be very easy to regulate.
Click to expand

Yep - As far as I'm concerned, the biggest problem was when exhausts were redirected from exiting underneath the floor to exiting above the floor... Personally, I'd just ensure that exhausts had to exit through holes in the floor, and should be flush with the diffuser.....

Something like this:

http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/att...ertray-rear-diffuser-venturi-exhausts-top.jpg

and

http://www.alfabb.com/bb/forums/att...dertray-rear-diffuser-rear-bottom-venturi.jpg
 
ZakspeedYakspeed.......The article you referenced raises points most of us are aware of and are only Edd Straws take on rule interpretation, a lot of which I don't agree with. The second to last paragraph is amusing to say the least. He states Red Bull have taken the art of rule interpretation to a completely new level leaving the FIA and other teams red faced. Is it any wonder I disagree with him. Ferrari have been following the regulations to the letter and are leading the drivers championship by 34 points. Their car may be bright red, their faces certainly aren't. :snigger:
 
I still think they should have stipulated that the exhausts must terminate beyond the rear axle, something like this:
Lotus-25-Climax_15.jpg


That would stop the buggers!
 
Yes, problem solved. But would it be acceptable on safety grounds to have the back of the exhausts protuding behind the rear wing? And if they don't then rear wing blowing would take over....
 

Similar threads

Galahad
Top 15: Best new car debuts in F1
    • Like
2
Replies
26
Views
11K
rufus_mcdufus
rufus_mcdufus
Back
Top Bottom