Engine maps

[wedge]

http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?id=42139


An engine map is much like a ‘sport mode’ in one of those posh German cars – it changes the throttle response and consequently the torque curve you get from your engine through the rev range.

The introduction of the common ECU has cut down on the number of engine maps the teams can use.

There used to be lots of different maps for lots of different occasions, and the drivers could change them whenever they wanted, to get the best useable power from their engine.

Now, though, there is a 90-second period from the moment you get up to speed with one map to when you can change it for another.

This was done to dissuade the drivers using a particular map for the start, which would help them get off the line in a way that might simulate the banned launch control.

The thinking was that no one would want to drive with the start map for the first lap of the race.

But guess what? Everyone is using the start map and just living with the consequences for the first minute and a half. This has contributed to some of the first-lap incidents seen so far this season.

The start map effectively ‘softens up’ the power delivery so it is more controllable. There will still be the same amount of travel in the throttle pedal, but the torque comes in more smoothly at the low revs used at the start.

Then, the fun starts. This start map has a big torque plateau where revs rise but nothing happens, then all the twisting power comes in at the top of the rev range. With no traction control, you can imagine this takes a little getting used to.

They’re all doing it because, sad as it may seem, a driver’s best chance of overtaking someone these days is at the start, and a bad start will wreck your race.

[Valve Bounce]

Since I know nothing about engine maps apart from what I read above here, what if it suddenly rained heavily?
And what if half the track is wet and the other half is dry?

[edv]

And what if half the track is wet and the other half is dry?

Just Drive, Baby! The conditions would be the same for each driver, so it does not really matter, does it?

[Bagwan]

Would this have anything to do with Massa spinning , getting to the second corner in about 90 seconds from the grid ?
It would be roughly that long from his parking it in his slot until all the cars were parked and ready to go , wouldn't it ?
Did he simply change the settings too early to get onto the straight after the turn for it to change maps ?

[shaun8]

It also prevents the drivers from having different maps for different sectors of the track. eg; A different map for a slow middle sector of a track for example and another for te fast sections.

[Shifter]

Wait, 90 seconds between maps? So wouldnt they just start in the launch map and change it by fourth gear? Why is it 90 seconds into the race?

[Valve Bounce]

Just Drive, Baby! The conditions would be the same for each driver, so it does not really matter, does it?

If you just think about this before you reply so glibly, yes it does. It would depend on the tyres the driver would have on his car at the time, and the feedback he is getting from his pit, and the information his pits are getting from their spotters around the track, and also the ability of the driver to drive under wet conditions.

During GP's various drivers often decide to soldier on with dry tyres while others pull in early. Now if there is a 90 second time lag on the map change, this could also present an issue when the driver coms out on wets.

So, sensible replies, please.

[Tazio]

If you just think about this before you reply so glibly, yes it does. It would depend on the tyres the driver would have on his car at the time, and the feedback he is getting from his pit, and the information his pits are getting from their spotters around the track, and also the ability of the driver to drive under wet conditions.

During GP's various drivers often decide to soldier on with dry tyres while others pull in early. Now if there is a 90 second time lag on the map change, this could also present an issue when the driver coms out on wets.

So, sensible replies, please.I thought they just punched up mapquest !

[wmcot]

Since I know nothing about engine maps apart from what I read above here, what if it suddenly rained heavily?
And what if half the track is wet and the other half is dry?

The map will be wet and still impossible to fold! :)

(I still marvel at the engineers who can fold a map properly to make it fit inside the engine - I still don't know how the engines learned to read them, however) ;)

[markabilly]

This was my question much earlier: Is it possible that a particular program ("map") will favor a particular engine over another?

With the ability to change the map, to gain something from the engine, clearly, the map is NOT a one size fits all proposition.

So then the question obviously remains: Does Mecedes have an advantage due to the map? (Now that it seems the word should be "maps") and may be this explains the earlier news article specualtion about the special buttons......

[ioan]

This was my question much earlier: Is it possible that a particular program ("map") will favor a particular engine over another?

With the ability to change the map, to gain something from the engine, clearly, the map is NOT a one size fits all proposition.

So then the question obviously remains: Does Mecedes have an advantage due to the map? (Now that it seems the word should be "maps") and may be this explains the earlier news article specualtion about the special buttons......

I think that the "maps" are typical for every engine. Only the way these "maps" are used is regulated by the ECU. I might be wrong though, but this is how I see it.

[markabilly]

I think that the "maps" are typical for every engine. Only the way these "maps" are used is regulated by the ECU. I might be wrong though, but this is how I see it.
if driven truly by equality, that should be true, but from my own experience with motorcyle engines, different timing (when done mechanically) always mattered as to the different engines as to producing the best power curve.

With ECU taking the place of mechanical timing and with fuel injection, varying the parameters of the map inside the ecu (as can be done by some after-market systems for motorcyles and street cars) can radically or substantially change the power curve, fuel consumption, and top horsepower------and the settings to do this are very much engine and engine manufacturer specific for the same size engine (for example: a 900cc motor, the Honda, suzuki and yamaha use different timing or injector sequenzing to produce the best result from each).

So how does the "map" inside the same ecu for all ensure equality?, how is it that the universal system would produce the overall best result for a mercedes, do the same for a ferrari or a renault or whatever?

the more i think about it, the more unlikely that would seem, given what I have seen with racing motorcylce engines


And considering that the same people overseiing this (the FIA) are the same people who can not figure how to take fuel temps in an accurate and meaningful manner........well now i dunno.....although if it were such a problem, one would think ferrari and so on would be hollerring at the moon about it.....

[wedge]

This was my question much earlier: Is it possible that a particular program ("map") will favor a particular engine over another?

With the ability to change the map, to gain something from the engine, clearly, the map is NOT a one size fits all proposition.

So then the question obviously remains: Does Mecedes have an advantage due to the map? (Now that it seems the word should be "maps") and may be this explains the earlier news article specualtion about the special buttons......

I would suspect that there would be some scope for software engineers to program the various engine maps with the 'launch map' being the lowest setting possible.

If I were to use an analogy it would be like the graphic equalizer on your stereo, you change various frequencies but only a limited range.

On a different forum someone claimed to have working knowledge of McLaren/TAG ECUs and said there was scope to program various torque curves and there's definitely no preset maps - if there was I think the teams would be up in arms about this by now if that was the case.

[JSH]

The way I see it...

The ECU Hardware of course is common, as is the software. But the maps are the calibratable part. Each team can calibrate the map to suit their engine, and come up with several MAPS for different conditions.

The restriction is that there is only a fixed number of MAPS that can be saved, and the fixed software provides a lag in switching between MAPS.

Also, the TC software algorithm is now gone. All they can do is make an engine MAP that provides a much less aggressive torque curve via spark, fuel and CAM timing(or were adjustable CAMS banned, I can't remember).

[Bagwan]

So , if you were in charge of building the ECU for the series , and you knew that you could design certain parameters that would suit the design of your car and systems , would you ?
If you had seen the data , and could somewhat forcast the direction of development in a rivals car , and could design in elements that could amplify that effect , would you ?

I think it's a no-brainer , especially when so much money is at stake .

Certainly , one must assume they are making the unit adaptable to any car , but if one could take even the smallest element of the process and make it more arduous , or at least different to what the other teams are used to doing , one gains advantage .
Make it so your competitors have trouble speaking to the unit and you gain by simply retarding the others .
Make it so the issues that occur tend to show up only during the heavy use of a race and you've got your rivals devoting a lot of time to understanding what you already know how to counter .

Would you ?
Could you survive if you didn't ?

Did Massa get bitten by the changing of mapping happening in the middle of a corner , too abrupt to catch ?
They didn't scold him after either event .
They did say they have a lot to learn about the box , though .


To supply the ECU , or not to supply the ECU .
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous accusations of further cheating , or to take arms against a sea of trouble , and work with a non-competitor's ECU .
To design , to struggle no more .
For in that design of dreams that lies both victory and harrassment , integrity must give us pause .

(apologies to Bill)

Everyone stretches every rule to the limit , and sometimes over .
There's no reason to think this wouldn't be the case here as well .

The issue here is whether or not they should be involved , being competitors , not whether they are using it to the best advantage or not .

In my opinion , it is folly from the get-go .

[airshifter]

if driven truly by equality, that should be true, but from my own experience with motorcyle engines, different timing (when done mechanically) always mattered as to the different engines as to producing the best power curve.

With ECU taking the place of mechanical timing and with fuel injection, varying the parameters of the map inside the ecu (as can be done by some after-market systems for motorcyles and street cars) can radically or substantially change the power curve, fuel consumption, and top horsepower------and the settings to do this are very much engine and engine manufacturer specific for the same size engine (for example: a 900cc motor, the Honda, suzuki and yamaha use different timing or injector sequenzing to produce the best result from each).

So how does the "map" inside the same ecu for all ensure equality?, how is it that the universal system would produce the overall best result for a mercedes, do the same for a ferrari or a renault or whatever?

the more i think about it, the more unlikely that would seem, given what I have seen with racing motorcylce engines


And considering that the same people overseiing this (the FIA) are the same people who can not figure how to take fuel temps in an accurate and meaningful manner........well now i dunno.....although if it were such a problem, one would think ferrari and so on would be hollerring at the moon about it.....

From everything I have seen, this is not the case. The standard ECU simply limits the number of "maps" available, and within those restrictions all relative parameters can be changed.

Think of it as one of the multi program chips or tuners available for cars or bikes. It can be changed on the fly and custom programmed to any spec that doesn't allow TC and banned assistance. I personally have no idea why they would impose the 90 second delay in the ECU switching, as I can think of a number of times it would be desired to have instant switching.

I can't possibly see any reason to intentionally add delay to the switching, over than to restrict even further the limits the driver has available. To me that is one of the differences between the good and great drivers, is using the equipment to the fullest. A good example is MS often adjusting brake bias between corners. As long as it's a driver controlled function I have no problem with it, but in the case of this we might be pushing into grey area.

[wedge]

I can't possibly see any reason to intentionally add delay to the switching, over than to restrict even further the limits the driver has available. To me that is one of the differences between the good and great drivers, is using the equipment to the fullest. A good example is MS often adjusting brake bias between corners. As long as it's a driver controlled function I have no problem with it, but in the case of this we might be pushing into grey area.

Perhaps if you were really smart it was possible to cycle through the engine maps to optimize torque during the start/launch phase????

[Knock-on]

Perhaps if you were really smart it was possible to cycle through the engine maps to optimize torque during the start/launch phase????

I would have thought that the TWG and Microsoft would have agreed the parameters that can be applied prior to Microsoft developing the code. The 90 second delay is to give the drivers the ability to fine tune rather than adjust on the fly.

ie: launch = Prog 1 where torque is fed in flatter until + 1.5 seconds into the race where Prog 2 is hit giving full power. Prog 3 is hit mid corner softening power delivery until corner exit and prog 2 hit for full power etc, etc, etc.

Result = LC and TC at the press of a button :)

[jjanicke]

So , if you were in charge of building the ECU for the series , and you knew that you could design certain parameters that would suit the design of your car and systems , would you ?
If you had seen the data , and could somewhat forcast the direction of development in a rivals car , and could design in elements that could amplify that effect , would you ?

I think it's a no-brainer , especially when so much money is at stake .

Certainly , one must assume they are making the unit adaptable to any car , but if one could take even the smallest element of the process and make it more arduous , or at least different to what the other teams are used to doing , one gains advantage .
Make it so your competitors have trouble speaking to the unit and you gain by simply retarding the others .
Make it so the issues that occur tend to show up only during the heavy use of a race and you've got your rivals devoting a lot of time to understanding what you already know how to counter .

Would you ?
Could you survive if you didn't ?

Did Massa get bitten by the changing of mapping happening in the middle of a corner , too abrupt to catch ?
They didn't scold him after either event .
They did say they have a lot to learn about the box , though .


To supply the ECU , or not to supply the ECU .
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous accusations of further cheating , or to take arms against a sea of trouble , and work with a non-competitor's ECU .
To design , to struggle no more .
For in that design of dreams that lies both victory and harrassment , integrity must give us pause .

(apologies to Bill)

Everyone stretches every rule to the limit , and sometimes over .
There's no reason to think this wouldn't be the case here as well .

The issue here is whether or not they should be involved , being competitors , not whether they are using it to the best advantage or not .

In my opinion , it is folly from the get-go .

Kinda like switching to the spec Ferrari, ahh I mean, Bridgestone tire. ;)

+ the tender for the standard ECU was available to all. So you only had to take a peak at the specification defined in the tender to understand what the parameters were going to be. ie. 90s delay for map switching. Where is the advantage gained by the ECU manufacturer?

[Bagwan]

Kinda like switching to the spec Ferrari, ahh I mean, Bridgestone tire. ;)

+ the tender for the standard ECU was available to all. So you only had to take a peak at the specification defined in the tender to understand what the parameters were going to be. ie. 90s delay for map switching. Where is the advantage gained by the ECU manufacturer?

Did Ferrari employ microsoft software before this ECU ?
Have McLaren had any trouble , or worse , failures ?

I suppose it has some similarity to the single tire choice , but at least that's something that's tangible , rather than a collection of ones and zeros in a box of wires and circuit boards .

That's not so simple , and this has been the word at Ferrari .
And , not so much at the other teams .

Now , the usually bulletproof Ferrari breaks down regularly it seems , and if I remember correctly the team that had red plans last year is the same team that is making the ECUs with which Ferrari are having trouble .


Maybe this is just coincidence , but whether true or not , there will always be speculation about cheating as long as the ECU is made by a competitor .

[Valve Bounce]

The obvious solution to all this is to ban the ECU - something which I have been advocating for years. It does nothing to the spectacle of watching F1.

[jjanicke]

Did Ferrari employ microsoft software before this ECU ?.

Why didn't they then? I'm sure Micro$oft would be more than happy to consult.


Have McLaren had any trouble , or worse , failures ?.

Have BMW, Renault, Williams had any engine related trouble, or worse, fairlures?


I suppose it has some similarity to the single tire choice , but at least that's something that's tangible , rather than a collection of ones and zeros in a box of wires and circuit boards .

So? tangability is now a condition of fairness? ;)



That's not so simple , and this has been the word at Ferrari .
And , not so much at the other teams .

Now , the usually bulletproof Ferrari breaks down regularly it seems , and if I remember correctly the team that had red plans last year is the same team that is making the ECUs with which Ferrari are having trouble .


Maybe this is just coincidence , but whether true or not , there will always be speculation about cheating as long as the ECU is made by a competitor .

The usually bulletproof Ferrari starting breaking down back during MS's last couple of years.

[Bagwan]

Answer questions with questions . Nice ploy .

I asked about Microsoft and Ferrari , meaning I don't know .
I asked whether McLaren had any failures in contrast to the reds , as my point is to point that out .
I made the point that there is difference between tires and ECUs .

Then I said that there will be more speculation about cheating due to the situation .

JJanicke , if you'd like to reply to these points and then ask further questions I will continue this debate . Thanks .

[Valve Bounce]

Answer questions with questions . Thanks .

Why not??

[jjanicke]

Answer questions with questions . Nice ploy .

I asked about Microsoft and Ferrari , meaning I don't know .
I asked whether McLaren had any failures in contrast to the reds , as my point is to point that out .
I made the point that there is difference between tires and ECUs .

Then I said that there will be more speculation about cheating due to the situation .

JJanicke , if you'd like to reply to these points and then ask further questions I will continue this debate . Thanks .

I'm sorry, I did answer, but expected to much and assumed they could be interpreted from my "questions".

To simplify then:

- The FIA could have taken any tender for the ECU. Any one of them would have benefit one, or several teams, over others. Take Ferrari ECU supplier and Mclaren and others are disadvantaged, just like the spec Bridgestone tire.

- Only Ferrari engines have been effected by this ECU. Is that because MES sabotaged the ECU or because Ferrari have not been able to use it. As mentioned before perhaps they should have consulted Micro$oft to help them understand the SOFTWARE that drives their engine. Perhaps they did. Anyway, SOFTWARE after all is what sends the logic commands that run the engine. The hardware is only a facilitator. In other words, Ferrari need to get their ECU software act together, they have been outsmarted by every other team in that area. That software is not developed by MES, it's developed by Microsoft.

It's like blaming Dell for Windows bugs.

- Fundamentally there is no difference between the ECU and tires standardization. The initial adoption of each spec potentially benefited certain teams.

- There will be plenty of speculation about Mccheats for many years to come, just like there is about Michael Schumacher's illegal traction control, early driving habits (ie. crashing into title contenders), etc. I can't wait to participate in the discussions, and most of the time will probably find myself defending Mclaren.

Sorry for any confusion! :)

[markabilly]

The obvious solution to all this is to ban the ECU - something which I have been advocating for years. It does nothing to the spectacle of watching F1.
By far probably the best idea.

While TC may be banned, if a team can put its own paramaters into ther ecu, and given the way i have now been told its is intended to work (ie, launch control mode and so forth), clearly one can program in the ability to eliminate a too sharp increase in revs, and that alone is a form of traction control.

If there were no TC, then we should be back to the old days of some burning wheel spin at the beginng of a race, notwithstanding the special clutches that are designed to elinimate it.

[jjanicke]

By far probably the best idea.

While TC may be banned, if a team can put its own paramaters into ther ecu, and given the way i have now been told its is intended to work (ie, launch control mode and so forth), clearly one can program in the ability to eliminate a too sharp increase in revs, and that alone is a form of traction control.

If there were no TC, then we should be back to the old days of some burning wheel spin at the beginng of a race, notwithstanding the special clutches that are designed to elinimate it.

Could be a why NASCAR still runs with carborators.

[Bagwan]

I'm sorry, I did answer, but expected to much and assumed they could be interpreted from my "questions".

To simplify then:

- The FIA could have taken any tender for the ECU. Any one of them would have benefit one, or several teams, over others. Take Ferrari ECU supplier and Mclaren and others are disadvantaged, just like the spec Bridgestone tire.

- Only Ferrari engines have been effected by this ECU. Is that because MES sabotaged the ECU or because Ferrari have not been able to use it. As mentioned before perhaps they should have consulted Micro$oft to help them understand the SOFTWARE that drives their engine. Perhaps they did. Anyway, SOFTWARE after all is what sends the logic commands that run the engine. The hardware is only a facilitator. In other words, Ferrari need to get their ECU software act together, they have been outsmarted by every other team in that area. That software is not developed by MES, it's developed by Microsoft.

It's like blaming Dell for Windows bugs.

- Fundamentally there is no difference between the ECU and tires standardization. The initial adoption of each spec potentially benefited certain teams.

- There will be plenty of speculation about Mccheats for many years to come, just like there is about Michael Schumacher's illegal traction control, early driving habits (ie. crashing into title contenders), etc. I can't wait to participate in the discussions, and most of the time will probably find myself defending Mclaren.

Sorry for any confusion! :)

I guess I should be simpler in my explanation , too .

The Ferrari engines have been breaking .
McLaren had the Ferrari plans last year .
McLaren had a part in designing the ECU .

Are these things related ? I don't know , but they're pretty fishy , and when it smelled fishy last year , the kettle turned out to be rather full and rather rotten .

[JSH]

By far probably the best idea.

While TC may be banned, if a team can put its own paramaters into ther ecu, and given the way i have now been told its is intended to work (ie, launch control mode and so forth), clearly one can program in the ability to eliminate a too sharp increase in revs, and that alone is a form of traction control.

If there were no TC, then we should be back to the old days of some burning wheel spin at the beginng of a race, notwithstanding the special clutches that are designed to elinimate it.

The critical element in a real Traction Control system is the electronic feedback loop from the wheels to the Engine ECU and the brakes(if the car has ABS). This feedback loop adjusts the torque output from the engine faster than any human can.

So even with a "launch control MAP" or a "smoothed torque curve MAP", the critical element - feedback - is still up to the driver.

Even if you did eliminate the ECU. With a little mechanical ingenuity, you could come up with a throttle body and accelerater cable linkage system that could provide different different "MAPS" so to speak, for power delivery. It's been done on older mechanical throttle road cars in the past.

[jjanicke]

I guess I should be simpler in my explanation , too .

The Ferrari engines have been breaking .
McLaren had the Ferrari plans last year .
McLaren had a part in designing the ECU .

Are these things related ? I don't know , but they're pretty fishy , and when it smelled fishy last year , the kettle turned out to be rather full and rather rotten .

I can see how that connection could be made, but frankly believe it to be a far fetched conspiracy. Mccheats were caught, fined massively, and are very likely not engaging in activities that would surely get them booted from their business, F1. The ECU’s have the full scrutiny of the FIA and therefore it would be very tough to “hide” code that would affect only Ferrari.

[grantb4]

The ECU’s have the full scrutiny of the FIA and therefore it would be very tough to “hide” code that would affect only Ferrari.

I believe, after the Renault, errr Benetton launch control scandal in the 90's, that the FIA had access to both the source code and build tools for all the ECU's. I would think they still do in the case of the common ECU.

GB

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14519704.200-may-the-best-driver-win.html
http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=655&FS=F1