Any word on the FIA investigating this? In the old days, Ferrari would have protested by now.
I think, generally speaking, any time there is that much difference (e.g. 2.5 secs/lap) between a driver and his nearest rivals it has been due to either a) mastery in changing conditions (rain, etc) or b) the team built a better mousetrap. I'm not mad at Red Bull for getting it right and I believe Seb is correct to say "it's the other teams' homework to figure out how we make our system work, not ours". Even Fernando and Lewis have both conceded that the RB9 is superior because their engineers are making the right adjustments during the season. This is not to denigrate Seb's skills...if you aren't a top-shelf driver, you don't run away with the championship. Red Bull just has the best combo of car/driver on the grid right now.
If I may add 1) Only the driver can actuate KERS 2) Every driver input must be dealt with by the ECU 3) The ECU functions are fixed, only the data/values can be changed = No KERS TC
+1 spot on my view on it as well. Also it goes without saying, that I'am sure the powers that be have had that Redbull car under heavy scrutiny and surveillance.
All the theories about using KERS are pretty nice, although using the electric machine for shifting the operating point of the combustion engine upwards (or, if the engine power stays the same, taking torque away) is not a genius invetion of RB, but standard operation of any hybrid vehicle. Actually, load point shifting in regions of higher efficieny is where a hybrid gains nearly all of its fuel consumption benefit. Brake energy recovery is not very large in comparison. As for the TC, you are underestimating the control effort of such a system. You just can't do that by letting the driver switch between two sets of numbers.
Have any of you guys stopped to ask yourself why is it that the car which directs its exhaust gases into the diffuser to create downforce somehow sounds different to the cars that are not creating downforce with their exhausts....? I find it funny that there are 128 posts here, many news articles and many people talking about how the car mysteriously sounds different than the other cars on the track yet none of these people seem to touch on or question this. Physics would not allow two cars with such different exhaust gas paths to sound the same. In any car you can point one pipe up and one down and you will have an extremely different sounding exhaust, the diversion of these gasses into the aero will change the exhaust sound equally. If done right this could only be effective in certain speed ranges as above and below these speeds the airflow may not follow the same path. RB may be getting extreme downforce at mid speed corner exits due to the perfectly directed gases and the airflow may fall into another channel at higher speeds allowing the car to be as unusually fast as it has been in the straights. This will make the car sound different at high speed vs mid speed corners. There are some pretty back yard theories here as to how RB is building a very crude traction control system and I find it hard to believe that many of these theories would even be considered or given a second of thought with the level of engineering that F1 runs with today. Food for thought
Far Out, the KERS system is NOT being used to release power but consume it in this case thus no rule covers this. Pete
Very good points. A cleverly devised aero is a lot more probable, especially with Newey in the loop, than a TC hackjob.
Good point. Still, you'd need to heavily modify the engine control functions to make this work (as I said before, I'm writing a doctor thesis about that kind of stuff ). And you'd need to add even more stuff (which you can't) to realize a TC with it. I can however find nothing on the internet how KERS charges the battery. The name (kinetic energy recovery system) suggests only by brake energy recuperation.
KERS charges the battery by engaging a motor that is attached to the transmission. During braking this motor is driven and charges the system.
That's what's called "brake energy recuperation" (or only "recuperation"). The question is if the engine's controls are set up so that the engine too can power KERS by shifting its operating point, ie: Propulsion torque needed: 100Nm Engine torque: 150Nm Electric machine (KERS): -50Nm = charging the battery. As I said, that's where road HEVs get the electric energy from. But I don't think the F1 ECU is set up for that.
I guess I did not fully understand your question. There is no doubt whatsoever that the only charging on the F1 KERS system comes from a generator mounted to the transmission. It is designed to charge under braking however there is not a specific rule that stated that it can only be engaged under braking. The function of the transmission which is only operating in one direction would not differentiate between a charge from deceleration due to braking or from acceleration powered by the engine. If you could engage the KERS system under each condition it would work mechanically the same under both situations. Your idea however of an intelligent calculation would be banned by the wording of the traction control rules. There is not a specific rule stating that KERS can only be engaged under braking. There is a rule however that states that the KERS system cannot be charged or discharged at a rate of more than 60kW. So the engineers would have to build their system to meet that one function. I suppose the efficiency of that generator could be tuned per track to reduce the output by a previously calculated desired torque figure while not exceeding 60kW of recovery at any time. There are also mandatory sensors on the car to determine how much charge and discharge and at what time these are occurring. So if the RB is charging under acceleration it would have been logged and verified immediately by the officials. Would it have been illegal? Probably not but it would be looked at and most likely would have been banned shortly there after.
If the regeneration should not be necessarily linked with braking they can pretty much do whatever they want. Are you sure of that?
It's not the people here alleging there is the use of a crude traction control system. It started with Minardi stating his belief they were using one based on observing the car in Singapore. Now it has spread to the paddock, with the following theory emerging (not my words, so I'll quote: "The rumours, which date back to Singapore last month, say Red Bull could have linked KERS to suspension sensors, with the engine being subsequently dragged through the process of energy harvesting. The report made a potential link between the system and the fact that Red Bull tends to have frequent reliability problems with its KERS units. Mark Webber said immediately after retiring in Korea that there was a KERS fire, but Red Bull later said it was caused by oil leaking onto the exhaust after the crash with Adrian Sutil. Newey, meanwhile, played down the link between Red Bulls KERS system and its superior traction. I doubt the gain is from KERS, he is quoted by Racecar Engineering. We, like everyone, do work on how to best deploy it, but I think everyone is similar in how they use it. (GMM)" I know that all teams have experimented with different ways to channel their exhaust to improve downforce in corners, so I don't think that's close to a far-fetched concept. That was all the buzz in the early part of the season (i.e. coanda-effect exhaust). I think RBR is just two steps ahead of everyone else and figured out an innovative use of an existing device on the car.
Ricksb Minardi based his theory on the sound of the car as he was sitting in the grandstands when he made his observation. You could stretch to relate both the KERS problem as well as their transmission issues to this. Vettel and Webber both had to back of in Italy due to transmission problems and Webber had to do the same in Singapore. Dragging KERS means running it through the transmission under power. I not going to deny that this could happen or that it is happening. I am referring to the backyard traction control systems that you'll see referenced in this thread if you read every single post. If this is happening it is verifiable as these sensors are monitored by race officials to make sure that the charge and discharge is within spec. If they are working around these sensors that's illegal. If the sensors are in place it's being recorded and not reported as that would be underhanded by officials to report teams tactics when rules do not speak against them. I stand by my statements regarding why one car will sound different than another. I also stand by the statement that these teams are not using some of the suggested TC systems posted. Furthermore whatever RB is doing they are ahead of the rest. I suspect nothing illegal. Why would you risk that when you're already the clear favorite this far into the season. Whatever they are doing could be outlawed later though.
The efficiency of the generator is nothing you can tune after it has been designed and built, I suppose you're talking about something else? Then you wouldn't want to constantly have the electric machine in generator mode, eating power from the engine is not what we want in F1 Again, all of that stuff requires pretty complex control algorithms which are not there in the ECU. No they can't, because for anything that involves the engine, you have to modify or add functions... which you can't
I was referring to the drag that the KERS systems puts on the drivetrain while maximizing the desired charge. Essentially the gearing in the motor could be changed to create more or less drag while charging at maximum spec. They may not even change it race to race I was just saying its a possibility if you want to go after that theory. Fuel for this fire as a whole is that word has been out for sometime that RB's KERS system as a whole much larger than most.why run a larger system to do the same thing everyone else is with less? It makes an interesting topic at a minimum. Second part of quote: I think he was asking if you can engage KERS at any time.
