No sir!.... Definitely outlawed by article 9.3 - Traction control; Nice idea though. Having thrown that spanner in the works, back to the NFL. Cheers, Ian
Yes ... it's important to remember that the quantity "stored" is energy, not power. Energy is measured in joules, power (equal to energy per unit time) is measured in horsepower, typically, or watts. And of course, energy = power*time. What's fascinating to me is : where will this new 10x energy be stored? Battery technology has not advanced that far ... 160hp for 35 seconds versus 80hp for 7 seconds is 10x more energy storage. Will the energy be stored in batteries ... if so, how big and how heavy? Or will the energy be stored in a flywheel? Can a turbo compressor serve "double duty" as an energy storage device? The energy recovery systems will be interesting for sure ... perhaps, as been suggested, some recovery from residual turbo/exhaust heat. But where oh where will the 10x energy be stored?
How is 9.3 going to control the argument that the ERS system is only operating at lower levels due to it not having sufficient energy at the moment to produce full power? The system could be rigged to only produce and have available full power when full power is necessary. This could get complicated .......
+1 Storing & deploying 10x the energy might prove interesting....... Thankyou! Much more eloquent than my attempt. Some damn good Q's. To which I certainly don't know the answers. Some WAG's and comments; - I'm pretty sure the only ES allowed is now battery based. IIRC, no more flywheels - Reasons unknown. - Battery technology *may* have advanced that far (?) The "old" KERS systems were just test beds for what they're up to now maybe? - It certainly appears that the "turbo shaft" can be exploited - As has been noted, it seems that you can both take energy from it (as expected) but also feed it back (not so expected?) Is anyone else trying to do this right now? Looking that way. This could get personal. I reckon we're gonna see the Harbaugh-bowl however...... In short, no such systems are allowed. I understand what you're getting at - certainly possible technically (FWIW, I'd couple it with GPS positioning as well as your "inertial loads", but that's details ) However, Charlie will whip our asses real quick if we tried..... Cheers, Ian
What a depressing looking place! Looks like IBM in the 70's! They all wear light blue. [IBM was *always* white.] Cheers, Ian
+1 I'm sure management is proud of the low wall "cubicles" to allow for an open flow of communication blablabla. But I would so hate working in that place. I'm thanking my good fortune that I never had it that bad. Just look at the density level, the noise must be unbearable and any privacy out the door. Any conversation will be overheard by everybody around. How can they concentrate on anything?
Ferrari has everyone at tall desks in high chairs with more cramped layout, from what I hear anyway. Working in any office minus a corner location with a large panoramic window and a couch is no picnic haha.
let's read this carefully shall we: "No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver. Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted. " The crux of the interpretation in the policy first sentence is preveting spinning under power due to excessive torque, but this is specified by means of preventing the driven wheels. Driven wheels are attached to a gearbox which is attached to the flywheel/engine. Traction control post 2002 was used in such a way that it throttled back the engine which wheels sensors indicated wheelspin was inevitable. If the V6 turbo engines are built in such a way that boost and electrical energy production to the wheels are inherent to the amount of slip that is or is not in place, then it would be a function of engine and its inner working and not a specific traction control function, traction control would simply be a by-product of its fundamental function. This is similar in a way to the Renault engine designs and 'cold off-throttle blowing' which was inherently superior to the 'hot blowing' of the Mercedes/Ferrari engines. Renault's off-throttle blowing was simply a positive by-product of the way the engine simply had to function. Charlie could not simply go to Renault and order they alter their fundamental design, so he simply asked they tone down the amount of ignition timing thrown at the off-throttle blowing mechanism. This type of V6 energy harvesting and energy application option in no way provides any indicator to a driver which is strictly forbidden per the policy above.
Ferrari adds aerodynamicist Ferrari also announced that they had signed British aerodynamics expert Martin Bester to bolster their design team ahead of the 2013 season. Bester will work for the head of aerodynamics Loic Bigois who joined from Mercedes during 2012. Bester was previously aerodynamics team leader at Williams F1 where he worked alongside Bigois. Bester has also worked in the sport for BMW and McLaren.
That all makes sense but I see some interpretation and litigation in the offing. In that there's so much lead time it may be settled before the first race under the new formula. Interesting times.
Since when did road relevancy become important? I mean seriously?! I don't hate these new engines and I'm kinda excited, but there is little doubt that they will be quieter considering that turbo motors are usually always quieter than N/A counterparts and it has already been stated by people that have HEARD the actual engine run that the exhaust sounds "muffled." Turbos do that. I'm willing to give these engines a chance but it sure seems like a lot of complexity/cost/BS for cars that will end up being slower. The FIA doesn't make any sense. One second they're all about cutting costs, the next, they dream up all this ridiculously complicated ERS crap and demand that the engine builders implement a whole new formula. So become "environmentally relevant" or cut costs? Which is it?
You said; I've taken the liberty of paraphrasing; If the powertrain is built in such a way that torque can be controlled and/or reduced in order to prevent wheel spin based upon outside influence(s).... ...... You've got a system that gives you TC. But it's a system whose function (fundamental or otherwise makes no difference IMO) is to reduce torque when other criteria are met. Doesn't matter how it's doing it - That's what it's doing. And that's explicitly not allowed. BTW, I think you're also overlooking article 5.5 Torque control; In other words, there cannot be any system on the car that interferes with the torque map. Which your (very clever BTW ) system is obviously doing. Cheers, Ian
I'll start by saying I loathe the argument that 'green is the way' and that is why all this was done, I don't agree with the 'science' or those who hide behind the argument. BUT Just as the Porsche 918 and Ferrari F70 are hybrid designs, this tech will ultimately strengthen the breed and the end-game which is to make faster machines. Fuel injection and emissions standards in the 70s were considered doomsday devices as well but here we are, EFI or direct injection is the way of the world and even NASCAR has finally gone EFI. Formula 1's contribution to energy recovery via heat will not only make its presence known in the auto industry, but the energy industry in general could very well benefit from their r & d.
Excellent points as always, but if the engine is designed inherently to function in varying torque bands, what would the FiAs argument then be? Torque control would simply be a by-product of its normal function. That strikes me as a gray area as the engines primary purpose is not to have varying torque, but it occurs regardless.
As the Viz often notes; common sense & F1 is a well known oxymoron. Leaving that aside though, the FIA didn't "dream up all this ridiculously complicated ERS crap and demand that the engine builders implement a whole new formula." Who did? The engine manufacturers asked 'em (via the TWG) to do it!..... They (at least Renault & Merc) wanted it implemented. I'm also hopeful it will attract other suppliers who see it's relevance to the real world - As I've already said, they're pushing the limits again here, not running dinosaurs.... The MGU-H really is bleeding edge stuff. Cheers, Ian
Sure, all engines (we're gonna have to get to used to using "powertrain" BTW ) have variable torque throughout their rev range. *But* you're varying that torque based upon "external influences" (track location, acceleration, deceleration, inertial loads, whatever). Not allowed..... Cheers, Ian
I think not if torque were based on the % of ERS harvesting and ERS application initiated at the beginning of a race. If at a tight circuit with several areas where slip can occur, I would arrange harvesting and application to be at a minimum so it would always be in use, but only be specifically useful when needed. This in essence means the powertrain could take on different personalities depending on the circuit and not be controlled during an event. Monza, full tilt, both systems, all around. Monaco, minimum heat harvesting, max power. With minimum heat harvesting, ERS could be tuned constantly for max power but would simply NOT be able at all to provide max power at times due to minimum harvesting in place simply not being able to keep up, although occasionally max power could be available. See what I mean? It's not a function of altering torque when the torque available is already a sliding scale simply due to energy harvesting. 9.3 would have to be written to including something regarding energy harvesting and ERS power output to be tuned to provide the maximum benefit of BOTH at all times, no minimal harvesting whilst having max power, no minimum power but max harvesting etc.
Another insidious example of the major auto makers pushing their own agenda at the expense of the sport?
True dat. I wouldn't want to work there either. While a private office is ideal, it doesn't have to be that luxorious: Just real cubicles with sound dampening fabric and some white noise is good enough for me. When companies cramped everybody together in a "trading floor" arrangement it made sense for places where real estate is insanely expensive like downtown Manhatten or when you had actual traders who need to constantly be in each other's faces to do trades. But a country side office like Brixworth or Maranello could be more generous with giving office space to its employees. I'm sure management is proud of what they did but then again they sit in that proverbial office corner window themselves.
5.5 Torque control : 5.5.1 The only means by which the driver may control acceleration torque to the driven wheels is via a single chassis mounted foot (accelerator) pedal. 5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the accelerator pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted. 5.5.3 The minimum and maximum accelerator pedal travel positions must correspond to the minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map. The idea I posted above also fits into this policy guideline, specifically 5.5.3. "Minimum and maximum available torque with the currently selected power unit torque map" in this passage is a very relative term for an engine that would have varying levels of maximum and minimum torque, which are of course based on the amount of energy harvested. In other words, putting ones right foot all the way down always corresponds to the maximum amount of power available at that moment.
True that. Let's not pretend this wasn't any of the FIA's doing. The FIA had plenty to do with these new regs. I'm sure TWG asks for tons of **** they never get as well so it's not like the FIA bends over backwards to make them happy. This is a big part of Todt and his greenie initiative and some of this stuff dates clear back to the whims of Mad Max. I keep hearing of all these new manufacturers being attracted by the new formula...well...where are they? In fact, we'll probably be losing one (Cosworth) as a result of the new engine formula and I haven't heard a peep from any other manufacturers even considering F1.
