Valencia for new engine mapping changes

EBD is produced by leaving the throttle 100% open even when the drivers foot is off the gas pedal. This makes the engine move a lot of air through it. The gas and ignition maps are altered so that the fuel is not used to produce power, but to producs gasses out the exhaust (in some cases the fuel is ignited in the headers and not in the cylinders). Thus, for all practical purposes, the airflow of the headers and exhaust is constant. Being constant, it is now safe to use it to accentuate the under body aerodynamics.

It used to be that one did not use the exhaust to power the under body aerodyamics because if a driver lifted (transfering weight to the front) he would simultaneously loose downforce at the rear (doubling the loss in rear traction).

It should also be noted that the cars are using 10%-12% more fuel this year, yet the engines are no more powerful than last year. The amount of fuel, and ignition timing are still free.

So CW is rewriting/reinterpreting the engine map rules so that when the driver is off the gas, the throttle can be no wider than 10% open.

 

I am very familiar with how the system operates. The idea behind using an engine, not as an engine, but as a way of moving hot gases for aerodynamic benefit is IMO very openly a moveable aero device albeit an electronically moveable one. As I stated prior, the mapping for this adds a 4th dimension which will be easy to govern as the amount of retard and fuel added when no power is being made must be an obscene amount.

 

Interpretation, interpretation, interpretation

- The engine is certainly rigidly secured & remains immobile.....
- There is no "device or construction" bridging any gaps....[Not even F1 could interpret exhaust gases as a "device or construction".]

But, I guess that last part is where he's got 'em - The driver moves the throttle, and that does alter the aero characteristics...... [Although, I could make an argument that what I'm actually doing with it is *not* altering said characteristics - I'm actually keeping them the same under all conditions......]

Cheers,
Ian

 

Rigidly and securely in Whiting's review can be interpreted to the engine as: the engine must be used rigidly as a means of making power only, meaning the concepts of 'rigid and secure' are not met by way of electronically controlled engine mapping creating flexibility to an engine not originally intended per its design. If it were an intended design, the engine would not be limited to only running 1-2 laps in qualy before essentially exploding. It's not what they have in mind, moreso than a flexible wing IMO

 

The "engine must be used rigidly as a means of making power only" - I think that's a stretch! And that would be something new in F1, huh?!.....

I reckon he's got 'em under "moveable by the driver" - This was added last year so as to outlaw F-ducts, but he's claiming throttle movement (very definitely driver controlled!) is influencing aero, and is hence illegal.

Not trying to argue BTW, an interesting question of interpretation......

Cheers,
Ian

 

No doubt a very interesting interpretation. Ultimately, I agree the engine mapping is not rigid and secure and exploits the engine into not being an engine. It's like making the butt of a knife a hammer. Sure, it works a bit but that is not it's intended purpose. However, I am not sure this change should have been made now when the end of the season might have been more appropriate. Evidently Whiting disagrees. How dare he, right?

 

And I don't see anything that says that is illegal...... Engine mapping is S/W and I can't see anyway the "rigid & immobile" constraint can apply to S/W.

Indeed. Which returns us to the crux of the matter; Is Charlie (alone or under direction from others? - JT? The Pygmy?] attempting to change the rules in order to (try and) slow down the Cans? We in the peanut gallery believed this was the case when Mad Max was the boss, but is JT now trying to manipulate the show? Has Charlie himself decided to try and "level the playing field"?

Cheers,
Ian

 

This is all up to the interpretation of the judge in this one, and the judge is Whiting. It's funny F1 is like this at times as I have litigated cases where the interpretation of one solitary word and its intent and context often decides the outcome. Although with the law in the US the intent and context of the word is often the deciding factor rather than how the word itself is interpreted.

 

Difference here is that the outcome precedes the rule.

 

The engine isn't one piece. All the moving components that amass it are being used as movable aero devices. Imo, this is the flagrant one.

The second one is a stretch, but RB is using the diffuser to create an extended diffuser, outwards and downwards.

There's two parts to this. Overrun blowing is illegal because the driver adjusts settings on the steering wheel to maximize DF when necessary. As far as DF from driver input, doesn't matter whether you're keeping it the same or not; DF is generated as a result of the driver pushing the pedal.

 

Maybe...

3.15 Aerodynamic influence :
With the exception of the driver adjustable bodywork described in Article 3.18 (Ian; DRS) All bits & pieces influencing its aerodynamic performance :
- must comply with the rules relating to bodywork.
- must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom).
- must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car.
Any device or construction that is designed to bridge the gap between the sprung part of the car and the ground is prohibited under all circumstances.
No part having an aerodynamic influence and no part of the bodywork, with the exception of the skid block in 3.13 above, may under any circumstances be located below the reference plane.
With the exception of the parts necessary for the adjustment described in Article 3.18, any car system,
device or procedure which uses, or is suspected of using, driver movement as a means of altering the aerodynamic characteristics of the car is prohibited. "

"The FIA’s memo to the teams, issued on Saturday in Montreal, makes it clear that the reason for the move is that the direction these devices are taking the sport is completely opposite to what the federation is trying to achieve.

The memo says, “The financial, technical and human resources required to support such developments, as well as the impact on engine reliability and on fuel consumption are totally contrary to the objectives pursued by the FIA, the teams and the engine manufacturers.”

For next year exhausts will go back to looking conventional, they will have to extend to between 330-350mm beyond the rear wheel centre line, be situated in the area between the bottom of the rear wing and the top of the diffuser and have to be circular, with a vertical cut-off." - http://www.jamesallenonf1.com/2011/06/blown-diffusers-so-what-exactly-is-being-banned/

So... are the exhaust outlets are placed beneath the reference plane, making it illegal?

 

I couldn't give a crap less about McLaren...what does this mean for FERRARI and MERCEDES?

 

No, the reference plane is right above the plank (the only thing on the sprung part of the car below the reference plane is the plank).

 

My Bad...

I do understand the "plank" and have been attempting to locate a detailed illustration of the route that the exhaust takes to "feed" the diffuser, but can't seem to find one that shows me the view that I want to see. But I did find some interesting bits...

3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must
produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit),
impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

5.5 Engine throttles :
5.5.2 Designs which allow specific points along the pedal travel range to be identified by the driver or assist him to hold a position are not permitted. (reference to a suggestion in an earlier post)

5.5.3 The minimum and maximum throttle pedal travel positions must correspond to the engine throttle minimum (nominal idle) and maximum open positions. (well that specifically refers to the method of EBD)

 

Ferrari will be affected in a big way because they use a Red Bull style exhaust. MB not so much as their exhaust system loses a good amount of energy from its current placement already and does not gain nearly as much with off-throttle blowing. Also, MB is blowing the top of the diffuser rather than the bottom which is not as efficient of a system anyway. Don't expect any change in performance until after Silverstone though. Valencia would be a great place to get rid of it altogether as that track is highly reliant on that system.

 

It seems it not just the off-throttle map that must now remain the same between qualy & the race... Quick(ish ) Nick;

He makes some pretty good points; http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/92529

Cheers,
Ian

 

IIRC, that got "reworded" a while back so as to outlaw the "creative" access hole for the starter.....

It's that they can set "throttle_minimum" to pump gas into the sucker that Charlie doesn't like.... "But it *is* at nominal idle!" is their argument.....

Good finds - Thanks! [Hadn't come across those.]

Cheers,
Ian

 

Hi Ian,
What about the holes for the "feeding" of the diffuser? I would think this was adequately covered here.

Regards,
Bill

 

Very good question!......

I *believe* that some of 'em are blowing "above" the diffuser - ie, there's no holes in the referenced parts. Others are exiting forward of the referenced parts, and thence "under" the diffuser.

But, TBH, this is no more than a WAG.

Cheers,
Ian

 

The exhaust pipes on the RB, Ferrari, and Mclaren point slightly downward while maintaining their installed location above the floor at a break in the floor where the diffuser meets the floor. The break is located between the rear wheel and the floor and therefor legal and the outer 25% of the diffuser is the actual blown part

 

This applies to the "older" style, with the exhaust outlets, above the diffuser and below the rear wing, without exhaust being blown into the diffuser, which is within the intended framework of the regs, correct?

This is where the problem with the regulations was and is, a path (hole) for exhaust to be injected into the diffuser, where there are supposed to be no holes?

"3.12.5 All parts lying on the reference and step planes, in addition to the transition between the two planes, must produce uniform, solid, hard, continuous, rigid (no degree of freedom in relation to the body/chassis unit), impervious surfaces under all circumstances.

Could you cite something from the regs, which allows the "break" in an element located on the reference or step planes?

Thank you and best regards,
Bill

 

It's essentially a false floor. It's a floor on the outside and meets all regulations.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login