J
johnnoble1990
Guest
So should i loosen my grip on these straws i have then? 
FIA Technical Directive 15: Use of exhaust blown gasses to be restricted (or not, as the case may be)
- Thread starter Brogan
- Start date
Before the off-throttle blowing but after RB's initial EBD last year, Webber made a reference to driving the car differently, using much more throttle mid-corner and on the exit. I think it might take some drivers longer than others to adapt, in which case my money would be even more firmly on Vettel to win the WDC.
I've made this point before, in the days of turbo engines the drivers had to blip the throttle going through the corners with the clutch in (like the MotoGP riders do). This kept the engine revving and the turbo spinning, eliminating throttle lag. The better drivers should be able to do this to channel exhaust gases under the car so it puts more emphasis back on the driver. Good thing 
It really bothers me when they do these mid-season rule tweaks. It’s a bit like stopping a boxer after round 5 to ask him to change his gloves for a new pair because the ref doesn’t like the design of the ones he’s wearing or changing the design of a football mid way through a season. If the cars were deemed suitable and passed pre-season scrutineering then they should be good to go for the entire season. There are rules in place about what can and can’t be modified through out the season especially in the chassis area. If a car passes before a wheel is turned and continues to pass at each race then that should be that for the season. The EBD is another ingenious bit of development that shows why F1 is at the top of the technical motorsport tree as it always should be. The rapid curtailing of these developments makes the sport look rather silly in my opinion.
At least on this occasion though, the outcome should be less dramatic than previous mid-season technical bans such as the Mass Damper ban which in my opinion was clearly designed to curtail one team at the expense of others. (oops maybe straying in to the conspiracy thread there )
What is the point though of having such a restrictive set of technical regulations and then changing the goal posts at strange points of the season. Set your stall out and then stick to it for the season. If teams can maximise their performance and remain within the framework of the rules then good luck to them.
Finally, I still can’t believe after 30 plus years “the moving aerodynamic device” rule is still being used as a catch all for F1 invention. It is, as they say in Football, a funny old game.
At least on this occasion though, the outcome should be less dramatic than previous mid-season technical bans such as the Mass Damper ban which in my opinion was clearly designed to curtail one team at the expense of others. (oops maybe straying in to the conspiracy thread there )
What is the point though of having such a restrictive set of technical regulations and then changing the goal posts at strange points of the season. Set your stall out and then stick to it for the season. If teams can maximise their performance and remain within the framework of the rules then good luck to them.
Finally, I still can’t believe after 30 plus years “the moving aerodynamic device” rule is still being used as a catch all for F1 invention. It is, as they say in Football, a funny old game.
tranquility2k9
Podium Finisher
What a suprise that Red Bull are complaining about the EBD off-throttle ban for Silverstone. I like it how Horner says it won't affect them more than others. Well if that's the case, why are you moaning? http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92341
Knowing how the whole "flexible-wing" saga was handled last year, I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull got their way and the ban doesn't happen. For the sake of this season, I hope and pray it happens because it should make things much closer and we could have a fightback by McLaren and Ferrari.
Knowing how the whole "flexible-wing" saga was handled last year, I wouldn't be surprised if Red Bull got their way and the ban doesn't happen. For the sake of this season, I hope and pray it happens because it should make things much closer and we could have a fightback by McLaren and Ferrari.
).
ScarbsF1's take on all the shenanigans from today: http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/2011/07/08/10-rule-full-analysis/
How ridiculously incompetent do the FIA look here (not for the first time admittedly), seeing that they thought they could push this through with what, a week's notice, and now months later it's not even completely sorted out, with very little remaining of their originally planned crackdown.
Imagine the future rows ahead of us when 2014 rolls around.
Imagine the future rows ahead of us when 2014 rolls around.
Fenderman
Rooters Reporter
There's something wrong with Scarb's explanation of what is going inside an F1 engine and I'm not entirely sure that he's on the right track. I've got to give this a great deal more thought before I explain definitively what I think is wrong but if there's anyone on here with more current engineering knowledge than I've got I'd be really interested to hear their take on the following:
1) When did left foot braking become redundant?
The ability to brake with the left foot rather than taking the right foot off the accelerator allows the driver to manually control fuel flow into the engine, either smoothly or via staccato feathering of the throttle, whilst braking simultaneously. It is a technique long employed by racing drivers to control and balance engine braking, traction and the overall behaviour of the vehicle under braking. Motorcyclists learn to balance combined use of brakes and throttle for the same purpose. After initially braking hard and then "tipping" into a corner, road racers use this technique to "trail brake" to further decelerate through a corner before clipping the apex and getting back on the throttle to exit the corner. Rally drivers use the toe and heel method of balancing the throttle and brake with the right foot whilst using the clutch pedal with left for gear changes and indeed before the advent of automatic clutches and semi-auto gearboxes F1 drivers did this as well. Scarb's suggests that this is now controlled by the engine maps and I'm not sure that that is entirely the case as it would suggest that the accelerator pedal is just an on/off switch but it is actually a potentiometer the driver uses to input his demands into the “fly by wire” fuel induction system.
2) When a driver takes their foot off the throttle the inlet and exhaust valves in the engine continue to open and close mechanically synchronised with the revolutions of the crankshaft. The only difference is that less fuel is injected into the air being sucked through the air induction system, from the air box into the cylinders, during the induction strokes. This air is compressed on the compression stroke as usual but it is only ignited if there is sufficient fuel present in the mix, is less energetic and it is ejected cold into the exhaust header pipe when the exhaust valves open.
The vacuum Scarb's referred to would only exist in true terms if the air intake and or inlet valves remained closed during the induction stroke. Designing something into an engine to make that happen makes no sense to me since one of the principles of sound engineering is the KISS principle. It would require more complex valve and air induction control mechanisms into the design. Not only that, the sucking of "clean" air through the system helps to clean the combustion chamber during deceleration of the engine.
One of the other things Scarb's appears to overlook is the oiling of the engine. The engine oil used in any engine is designed to have characteristics (viscosity, etc.) in order to lubricate the engine but at the same time, in concert with the oil pump, maintain pressure in the crankcase. The oil pressure in the crankcase prevents the leakage of gases from the combustion chamber past the piston rings enabling maximisation of the compression and ignition of the fuel air mix. Unless I've misunderstood what he's saying Scarb's suggests that a vacuum in the combustion chamber draws air past the piston rings into the crankcase causing problems in the drive train. Without going into everything that's wrong with that idea, where that air is coming from is a mystery to me and again makes no sense at all. Maybe someone else can explain that to me!
3) From everything I've read about the hot blown EBD this is my understanding of how that works and it is not that complex an idea. In a standard configuration the valve timing and timing of the ignition of the fuel/air mix in the combustion chamber is synchronised so that the mix is burnt in a single explosion forcing the piston down the cylinder (i.e. the ignition stroke). On its return up the cylinder the exhaust valves open and the burnt gases are forced out through the exhaust system (i.e. exhaust pipes). An exhaust becomes hot blown when fuel is introduced into the air flow during the exhaust strokes and the ignition is momentarily retarded so that the mix is ignited whilst the exhaust valve is still open. This results in the gases in the exhaust pipe having been ignited and thus hot exhaust gases are blown through the exhaust pipes onto the diffuser.
Under normal circumstances there is a minimum throttle setting to enable an engine to keep running (i.e. to idle) otherwise the engine would stall. The application of a higher minimum setting means that more fuel is in the air mix that is burnt late due to the retardation of the ignition and therefore the quantity (and therefore energy and pressure) of hot gases blowing through the EBD system. The FIA's objective of setting a maximum limit of 10% is intended to constrain the effectiveness of the hot blown EBD but not outlaw it completely (yet) since they recognise that there are issues for the teams in making the design changes in areas of the car that will be affected by the removal of the system.
There's a couple of other issues but this post is already a bit long so I'll leave it there for 21st century engineering buffs (considering Scarb's take on things my buffness is still 20th century it seems) to take this up.
1) When did left foot braking become redundant?
The ability to brake with the left foot rather than taking the right foot off the accelerator allows the driver to manually control fuel flow into the engine, either smoothly or via staccato feathering of the throttle, whilst braking simultaneously. It is a technique long employed by racing drivers to control and balance engine braking, traction and the overall behaviour of the vehicle under braking. Motorcyclists learn to balance combined use of brakes and throttle for the same purpose. After initially braking hard and then "tipping" into a corner, road racers use this technique to "trail brake" to further decelerate through a corner before clipping the apex and getting back on the throttle to exit the corner. Rally drivers use the toe and heel method of balancing the throttle and brake with the right foot whilst using the clutch pedal with left for gear changes and indeed before the advent of automatic clutches and semi-auto gearboxes F1 drivers did this as well. Scarb's suggests that this is now controlled by the engine maps and I'm not sure that that is entirely the case as it would suggest that the accelerator pedal is just an on/off switch but it is actually a potentiometer the driver uses to input his demands into the “fly by wire” fuel induction system.
2) When a driver takes their foot off the throttle the inlet and exhaust valves in the engine continue to open and close mechanically synchronised with the revolutions of the crankshaft. The only difference is that less fuel is injected into the air being sucked through the air induction system, from the air box into the cylinders, during the induction strokes. This air is compressed on the compression stroke as usual but it is only ignited if there is sufficient fuel present in the mix, is less energetic and it is ejected cold into the exhaust header pipe when the exhaust valves open.
The vacuum Scarb's referred to would only exist in true terms if the air intake and or inlet valves remained closed during the induction stroke. Designing something into an engine to make that happen makes no sense to me since one of the principles of sound engineering is the KISS principle. It would require more complex valve and air induction control mechanisms into the design. Not only that, the sucking of "clean" air through the system helps to clean the combustion chamber during deceleration of the engine.
One of the other things Scarb's appears to overlook is the oiling of the engine. The engine oil used in any engine is designed to have characteristics (viscosity, etc.) in order to lubricate the engine but at the same time, in concert with the oil pump, maintain pressure in the crankcase. The oil pressure in the crankcase prevents the leakage of gases from the combustion chamber past the piston rings enabling maximisation of the compression and ignition of the fuel air mix. Unless I've misunderstood what he's saying Scarb's suggests that a vacuum in the combustion chamber draws air past the piston rings into the crankcase causing problems in the drive train. Without going into everything that's wrong with that idea, where that air is coming from is a mystery to me and again makes no sense at all. Maybe someone else can explain that to me!
3) From everything I've read about the hot blown EBD this is my understanding of how that works and it is not that complex an idea. In a standard configuration the valve timing and timing of the ignition of the fuel/air mix in the combustion chamber is synchronised so that the mix is burnt in a single explosion forcing the piston down the cylinder (i.e. the ignition stroke). On its return up the cylinder the exhaust valves open and the burnt gases are forced out through the exhaust system (i.e. exhaust pipes). An exhaust becomes hot blown when fuel is introduced into the air flow during the exhaust strokes and the ignition is momentarily retarded so that the mix is ignited whilst the exhaust valve is still open. This results in the gases in the exhaust pipe having been ignited and thus hot exhaust gases are blown through the exhaust pipes onto the diffuser.
Under normal circumstances there is a minimum throttle setting to enable an engine to keep running (i.e. to idle) otherwise the engine would stall. The application of a higher minimum setting means that more fuel is in the air mix that is burnt late due to the retardation of the ignition and therefore the quantity (and therefore energy and pressure) of hot gases blowing through the EBD system. The FIA's objective of setting a maximum limit of 10% is intended to constrain the effectiveness of the hot blown EBD but not outlaw it completely (yet) since they recognise that there are issues for the teams in making the design changes in areas of the car that will be affected by the removal of the system.
There's a couple of other issues but this post is already a bit long so I'll leave it there for 21st century engineering buffs (considering Scarb's take on things my buffness is still 20th century it seems) to take this up.
Possibly not.
All team technical people have been summoned by the FIA for an emergency meeting on engine throttle maps.
Good grief! What an absolute farce!
So they're meeting again as we speak type?
Because he's just a figurehead for the puppet-masters behind the scenes. Jean Todt and his minions have been feverishly devising a plan to pit the entire F1 paddock against each other while the Scarlet Dragon lies patiently in the weeds, waiting to spring upon the field like a beast that has cornered its prey.
Or it could be something slightly less sinister.
