As I remember the system that allowed independant braking to enhance cornering was both manual (OK pedal) and banned.
And, AFAIK, there is no ban on such a system.... You can't control traction "electronically", but that's not what they're doing. I'll say again, if Ferrari had come up with it, the tone herein would, I believe, be very different.
+1 AFAIK the rule is you can have different engine mappings in the ECU but the driver can only change between mappings after 90 seconds. Most teams have done this to get a launch control mapping at the start even though this will sacrifice the rest of the opening lap. There's no doubt in my mind that this is legal and that most teams will have this by next race.
My spell checker doesn't like it, but I've used it for years in high-tech - Whenever we didn't have something implemented in the flow chart for example the box would simply say "magic happens", and on a good day it could happen "automagically"....... Good spot! Cheers, Ian
Here is a photo of the wheel. There are actually six paddles; the lower two are the clutch. The four above are positioned as one, so they can be used at the same time; changing the gear and torque setting. Brilliant innovation on McLaren's part. The interesting thing is that we haven't heard the awful traction control sounds like in he past. Knowing the FIA two things are going to happen quickly: 1) The FIA will ban this, for some unknown and stupid reason. 2) Everyone will have this system soon. In fact some of the British press have said that other teams already have their own variations that they have been running with already this year. Kevin S. Orchard Park, NY Image Unavailable, Please Login
You are correct, it is funny. And I have to give McLaren credit for the concept. Great idea, although I still believe it is a Smokey Yunickish interpretation of the rules, not within the sporting guidelines, and probably should be illegal irrespective of who thought of it.
Ron, didn't you remember the 1998 MP4/13 that had the third brake pedal as a form of traction control. When the car broke down, Darren Heath took a photo of the inside, much to RD's chagrin and the system was banned shortly thereafter.
We met in a room with a light bulb dangling from the ceiling. Strangelove's cards were actual cards. Anyway, my question is, could a driver actually manage engine-torque paddles amidst everything else going on during a race?
By not hearing the sound that we heard last year, it seems that they have taken a big step forward. From what I have read here--and not much else--it seems that they just built a better mouse trap. I am sure the thing will be copied soon. On the issue of the 3rd McL brake, it was a brake that put pressure on either the left side or right side when pressed. The determining factor was the angle of the steering wheel. From what I remember, it was technically OK (because the rules did not address it) but was banned under the "unfair advantage" clause. (This is a few years back, so please correct me if I am wrong.)
You guys think the paddles are manual traction control... but they obviously achieve this by altering the fuel or ignition map. It's manually activated, but it is in no way "controlled" manually by the paddles. Like everyone has said, the FIA need to decide... ban it, or deem it legal. Either everyone will have it, or no one will. Since it evens the playing field out either way i vote to ban it, because the racing will be better with the only true manual traction control device: the pedal on the right. While I think innovation and creative problem solving is great, I find it frustrating that McLaren, who supply the "standard" ECU, have miraculously found the first way to utilize them to their extreme benefit with a questionable interpretation of the regs. If you don't want to be seen as cheaters, why put yourself in that comparison constantly? Ron Dennis just has no shame I guess.
I think they disallowed it because variable braking isn't permitted. It was tipped off by the photos of the car with front brakes glowing but not the rears. And then the in-cockpit shot of the infamous brake pedal.
While I think innovation and creative problem solving is great, I find it frustrating that McLaren, who supply the "standard" ECU, have miraculously found the first way to utilize them to their extreme benefit with a questionable interpretation of the regs. If you don't want to be seen as cheaters, why put yourself in that comparison constantly? Ron Dennis just has no shame I guess. Lindsay - don't take this as a personal attack. It's really a stretch condeming McLaren as cheaters because of this. Ferrari has a similar button square in the middle of the steering wheel; TQR or something like that, which is also rumored to be a variation of traction control. The frustrating part is that McLaren perfected their system, while Ferrari have not. McLaren have really upgraded the car recently; note the assytmetrical sidepods, and the revised front wing. The rear wing on their car is a work of art. The F2008 does not look like it's had major changes in a while. (I could be wrong though). If they pound us again in Hungary; it's going to be ugly during the three week mandatory break in August, both around here and in Maranello. Kevin S. Orchard Park, NY
Its Microsoft and McLaren Electronic Systems , Mad Max's, choice blame him. I knew it wouldn't be long before this issue raised its head, and if Mclaren we not ahead right now ,it wouldn't be a issue. It was the same after the Aussie GP. and I thought it was put to bed then.
I don't quite understand what the big fuss is. Yes, I am a LH supporter, even more so I'm a McLaren Mercedes supporter. They found a way to better the car and because Ferrari didn't figure it out first people are upset. Give me a break, I watched the German GP twice, (yeah I'm obsessed, I watch the US version and then I download the UK version) and Hamilton was sliding his rear through some of the corners. Is it possible Ferrari went into this weekend over confident? Everyone knows that Ferrari should blow the competition away at tracks like Silverstone and Hockenberg, maybe they went in with this thought and McLaren was ready for them. I'm fairly new to this sport, this is only my second season, but why didn't they go back to the Nurburgring?
Co-incidentally, Charles Hawkins, the head of Mclaren Electronic Systems, came along to our Surrey (UK) Ferrari meeting on Monday of this week (and brought an F1 ECU along with him). Now I am a Ferrari fan but Charles was a great guy, took time to show us all the ECU and talk to us. The integrity of Mclaren Electonics in dealing with all the teams fairly and confidentially is beyond reproach. You know that because if it wasn't the other teams would be complaining long and loud. All teams push the regulations to the maximum to be competitive. It looked to me that both Mclaren have made progress recently and at the same time Ferrari have made a mess both with the car at Hockenheim and with their tactics at Silverstone. I sincerely hope they get their act together pretty damn quick and stuff Mclaren royally...but that doesn't mean Mclaren have been cheating. Jonathan
Welcome! I think.... I kind of agree - Better to claim, as Kraftwerk said, that Mcl are cheating than admit Ferrari got blown away..... The German GP alternates between these two circuits [Unless, IIRC, one of 'em also gets the "European GP", in which case Germany gets two races. This latter race seems to be Bernies "pat on the back" race.....] Cheers, Ian
This is incorrect. It changes the settings on the differential. This in no way alters the engine mapping. Here's my understanding of how it works. There's six different optional settings you can program into the differential and you can change them at any time in the pits. So, let’s say you're going to be at a low grip track and think you'll probably have a lot of wheel spin. You then set it up this way: Setting 1: Torque setting is for no more than 5% wheel spin Setting 2: Torque setting is for no more than 20% wheel spin Setting 3: Torque setting is for no more than 30% wheel spin Setting 4: Torque setting is for no more than 50% wheel spin Setting 5: Torque setting is for no more than 70% wheel spin Setting 6: Torque setting is for no more than 100% wheel spin Now those are SET within the system. Each of those settings work just like a limited slip differential. At no time do electronics alter vary the amount of wheel spin within a setting. It's like having a car with six different limited slip differentials. So the driver pulls the gear shift lever and the diff lever and as it moves up a gear it also moves it up a diff setting. If a driver is still traction problems let’s say in third, then all he/she has to do is not pull the diff lever when going from 2nd to 3rd gear and it'll leave the differential on setting number two. Or if he/she wanted to they could even drop it down to setting 1 for second gear and then move up the ladder from there. For a different track that has better grip the team would change the differential settings.
Yes, I concur IMO, Mclaren have just upped there game, interesting point's from Charles Hawkins no doubt, having Mclaren under the FIA spotlight last year with spygate and IIRC, the FIA have to approve each ECU, I very much doubt Mclaren have gained any advantage with it with by underhand means.
FYI - for reference, that was Lindsay's quote, that I was quoting above (in the first statement). I didn't agree with her assesment either. Thanks. Kevin S. Orchard Park, NY
