FIA Engine Mapping clarification a-comin'

ZakspeedYakspeed........Nothing you've said changes my view. Exploiting technical regulations is fine by me and I accept that occasionally they stretch those interpretations of the regulations a little too far, sometimes unintentionally. That is part of the game and if they didn't play it to the maximum they wouldn't be competitive. These are intelligent men who know full well when they're distorting the wording of a regulation knowing what the intent of that rule is. That is very different and in my view is cheating. Brogan has been right on the button with everything he's said and has every right along with many of us to direct his criticism or anger directly at Red Bull.
 
Brogan said:
Just because there is a loophole, it doesn't mean it should be exploited.
Red Bull could have alerted the FIA to it instead of gaining an advantage.
Click to expand
In precisely the same way that Ross Brawn alerted the FIA when he saw a loophole in the diffuser regs for 2009. Trouble was, no-one was interested in closing that loophole, so he was then quite justified in exploiting it with the Brawn 'double' diffuser.
 
jez101 Brogan

I'm not sure that analogy is really fair. It's the job of car designers to innovate and that often means bending the rules to breaking point. It's quite different to ethics in the sense of fair play on the track, drivers respecting each other etc. It's similar to the development of shark suits in swimming I guess, I don't think you can blame the participants for using the most extreme equipment possible and then it's up to the organiser's to intervene if/when they think things have gone to far.
 
jez101 said:
I'm going to look for some loopholes in the FF1 regs. Let's see how you all feel when I exploit those...

Sport is nothing without ethics. It is incumbent on participants to adhere to the spirit of competition, I think.
Click to expand

Looking at your performances this year, I think you may have done it last year, it will explain everything :p
 
Kewee ... well stated. I understand where you, Brogan and others are coming from on this issue... and I most certainly respect everyones views and opinions. RBR were accused of a qualitative crime... of going against the "spirit" of the regulation... but not breaking the regulation...and we know the "spirit" of the regulation will be enshrined in a clarification that all teams will be bound by from this weekend forward...

I don't condone what RBR have done... I simply accept this is the nature of the beast... and I am also not naive enough to think that every team sitting their watching this unfold doesn't have butter that is currently not melting in its mouth...


RBR has just taken a dive in the box... it's arm flailing an imaginary yellow card whilst twisting its body searching out the referee imploring him for the call...


This is well worth a read... it makes the issues we see today seem minor in comparison...

http://plus.autosport.com/premium/feature/4352/
 
Mezzer......Have you got an example since Alonso joined Ferrari. It seems pointless to rehash transgressions that go back years which is why I'm wondering if your referring to something that they've done during the last few years. I'll look for your answer when I wake up in the morning. :sleeping:
 
ZakspeedYakspeed said:
RBR were accused of a qualitative crime... of going against the "spirit" of the regulation... but not breaking the regulation...
Click to expand

Um, no. The regulation 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." In other words, with the throttle wide open, at any given engine speed the engine must be at maximum torque output that the engine is capable of at that speed. The FIA have torque maps from previous races so they know what this curve looks like for the Renault installation in the RB8.

However, they found that in the latest set of telemetry data they have that the mid-range torque output was significantly lower than it had been previously. In other words, at maximum throttle pedal travel the engine was not giving maximum torque. This isn't a "qualitative" breach of the rules, it's an actual and real breach of the rules. By cutting the mid-range torque you are effectively providing passive traction control. The driver no longer has to modulate the throttle pedal to avoid wheel spin, the engine map does it all for them.

This is breaking the rules. This is cheating. Quite how Pure As The Driven Snow Racing managed to persuade the FIA that the regulation was badly written I don't know, but there you go.
 
Kewee I am not referring to any specific issue and my comment in general was not anticipated to be taken too seriously. :goodday:
 
Pyrope... thanks for this information... I guess we will never know what "reasons" were ascribed to them using this setting... that the stewards didn't believe but chose not to take action over...

* Did RBR break the rules... on the evidence/information you listed... yes
* Were they caught... yes... faster than a speeding bullet Jo Bauer nicked them early Sunday...taken into custody for a fast track hearing on the matter...
* Wow... so what happened... jail time...bans... DQ from the weekend... what type of bricks did the FIA drop on them ?
* Ah.... hmmm....well.... not really a ton... more like a pound of feathers and a warning to never never ever do it again...

WHAT ?!?!

It is all coming to me now... RBR used the dead parrot sketch deduction...

* That Engine Map is clearly not producing maximum torque
* Yes it is...
* No it's not...
* Yes it is ... it's just sleeping...


Lastly... Pyrope...are you Pat Fry ? :thinking: because if you are :goodday:for such a great job you are doing...
 
They didn't said they didn't accept all of RB's explanations, they said they didn't agree with all of their explanations, which is different.
 
However, they found that in the latest set of telemetry data they have that the mid-range torque output was significantly lower than it had been previously. In other words, at maximum throttle pedal travel the engine was not giving maximum torque. This isn't a "qualitative" breach of the rules, it's an actual and real breach of the rules.
Click to expand

I think Red Bulls' argument was that as they were cutting the spark to some of the cylinders, the maximum throttle pedal travel was matching the maximum torque of the engine at that point. Again, matching the wording of the rule, but not the intent (which is a better word than 'spirit' to describe this kind of breach)
 
sobriety have you got a link for that? I don't think I've seen that information in the places I've been looking.

And actually, having had a think about it, what does it matter how they were cutting torque? The regulation makes no mention of good ways and bad ways. How is cutting the spark any different to limiting the fuel flow and running a leaner mix, or adjusting the timing?
 
I think it was the sky commentary that mentioned that they were claiming that it was for fuel saving or some such nonsense (the spark cutting), and I may have inferred the reason for it's legality in my head based upon the chunk of the rules posted above, but it was probably one of the commentators, as I'm not that smart.
 
I've heard of them cutting the spark on the over run, off throttle and in the pit lane, but I've never heard of people claiming that they were cutting the spark at maximum throttle.

Edit: And of course, as soon as I hit "Post" I remember the old MotoGP 500cc two strokes that used to manipulate the ignition so that they could make maximum throttle, clutchless upshifts. I don't follow the 'bikes closely enough these days, but as far as I understand it you couldn't do that with an F1 engine as the sheer momentum of the F1 drivetrain would cause so much backlash that the gearbox would disintegrate.
 
I think the intention of the engine mapping change was clear. It's was not like there was any grey area in the intention behind the rule change. That is very different from a grey area that no one had thought of before.
 

Similar threads

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