FIA to check Hamilton's car

[mstillhere]

I am sure you guys know about this check. I wonder how many of you would expect any illegal issues with it. I would give a 98% chance that there is nothing irregular. The other 2 % is because stupity never dies.
Also I add this file adress:http://217.204.13.141/resources/documents/1928282414__MAL_F1_Engine_Checks_07.pdf, so that you can read all the parts of the engine the inspectors will be checking.

[Valve Bounce]

I am sure you guys know about this check. I wonder how many of you would expect any illegal issues with it. I would give a 98% chance that there is nothing irregular. The other 2 % is because stupity never dies.
Also I add this file adress:http://217.204.13.141/resources/documents/1928282414__MAL_F1_Engine_Checks_07.pdf, so that you can read all the parts of the engine the inspectors will be checking.

Maybe there are some valves missing :(

[MadDan]

you do have to ask WHY have they got more speed they have not yet changed the aero package so it only leaves the engine and gearbox.

maybe they have a backdoor to the ECU

[mstillhere]

I am not sure if it's the McLArens that got more speed or just the opposite, that teh Ferraris slowed down.

[DonJippo]

you do have to ask WHY have they got more speed they have not yet changed the aero package so it only leaves the engine and gearbox.

And yet the better pace is a result of better aero set-ups than earlier of the season.

[elinagr]

or cheating by changing the engine mapping in every corner..

[Valve Bounce]

or cheating by changing the engine mapping in every corner..

Maybe they are looking for that tragic ending :D

[harsha]

mclaren have always been aerodynamically strong esp in the cornering speeds...and with the F1 cars relying more on aerodynamics rather than on sheer engine speed...it's natural for the mac's to have some advantage

[Sleeper]

you do have to ask WHY have they got more speed they have not yet changed the aero package so it only leaves the engine and gearbox.

maybe they have a backdoor to the ECU
You do realise that the top teams bring new aero pieces to just about every race dont you? Besides, the big updates that have increased their pace came in France, its only now that we are getting to see what they are all about.

[elinagr]

they will remove the extra buttons on the steering wheel...if ferrari is not able to develop it until Hungary :D

[markabilly]

Put in an ecu to make it standard but then they went and allowed for a little "tuning"....., and guess what? Extra paddles and so forth...looks like nothing changed really, just more work for the ones at the top to figure out how to gain an advantage.

The ecu and assorted hardware/software should truly be standard, not something that can be "tweaked"

[elinagr]

so you are telling us that mclaren is cheating ?

[mstillhere]

so you are telling us that mclaren is cheating ?

The fact is McLAren should be very happy to have their car checked so that any rumour concerning a device "controlling traction control" (sorry..) installed in their car(s?) will be silenced.
Nobody knows exactely what those levers do exactely. One thing is sure: no traction control devices on board. So, let's hope that everything is regular and we will be able to continue enjoying the show.
PS Rumors say that a not better identified team (not Ferrari) shared their concerns with the FIA

[markabilly]

Put in an ecu to make it standard but then they went and allowed for a little "tuning"....., and guess what? Extra paddles and so forth...looks like nothing changed really, just more work for the ones at the top to figure out how to gain an advantage.

The ecu and assorted hardware/software should truly be standard, not something that can be "tweaked"


so you are telling us that mclaren is cheating ?
no, not necessarily at all. Cheating would be puting a new software into it to replace what was there.

"Tweaking" is leaving it open to being manipulated by smart techs into doing what they want with it to gain an Advantage.

If they put one and only program in to it such that torgue curves, wet settings, start type modes, rich or lean running or whatever, could NOT be done, then all this would actually be forced to stop.

Not sure what difference it really makes with the new ECU rule as far as that is concerned.
What a joke

[ArrowsFA1]

The fact is McLAren should be very happy to have their car checked so that any rumour concerning a device "controlling traction control" (sorry..) installed in their car(s?) will be silenced...PS Rumors say that a not better identified team (not Ferrari) shared their concerns with the FIA
Lots of rumours, but no substance. Rumours will go on regardless.

[wedge]

no, not necessarily at all. Cheating would be puting a new software into it to replace what was there.

"Tweaking" is leaving it open to being manipulated by smart techs into doing what they want with it to gain an Advantage.

If they put one and only program in to it such that torgue curves, wet settings, start type modes, rich or lean running or whatever, could NOT be done, then all this would actually be forced to stop.

Not sure what difference it really makes with the new ECU rule as far as that is concerned.
What a joke

F1 is the pinnacle and that idea would turn F1 into NASCAR

As difficult as it is I think the current rules are a good compromise of good racing/driver skill back to the forefront and cutting edge technology.

[Knock-on]

I am not sure if it's the McLArens that got more speed or just the opposite, that teh Ferraris slowed down.

I think you're right.

McLaren seem to be maximising their car and drivers while Ferrari seem to have put the wheels on back to front.

[MadDan]

http://blogs.automobilemag.com/6268846/motorsports/mclaren-sidesteps-f1-s-ban-on-traction-control/index.html


Yes, traction control systems have been banned from Formula 1 for 2008, but McLaren’s F1 cars are still using them – and without technically breaking any rules.



NOW i see how he did so good in the British Grand Prix.

[Mad_Hatter]

weak sauce.

Simply a rehash of the 2-week old rumors of the 6 paddle steering wheel controlling engine mapping. Besides, Automobile Magazine is hardly THE source for motorsport happenings. They don't even have a section for motorsports. This is from someone's "blog".

[Knock-on]

weak sauce.

Simply a rehash of the 2-week old rumors of the 6 paddle steering wheel controlling engine mapping. Besides, Automobile Magazine is hardly THE source for motorsport happenings. They don't even have a section for motorsports. This is from someone's "blog".

Shame on you.

It's written on The Internet so it must be true :D

As I understand it, TC modifies power thousands of times a second to ensure maximum traction with no wheelslip.

Poor old Lewis would end up with RSI after 1 lap with all that flicking :laugh:

[MadDan]

ATLAS F1 Volume 6, Issue 52
Comprehensive Traction Control in F1
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/dec27/shoebotham.html
this is old info


Traction control isn't limited to preventing wheel spin during acceleration. It allows traction at the rear wheels to be actively controlled by the drivetrain at anytime. This control can be used to influence any aspect of a car's performance, including braking and cornering. Control of rear wheel traction may not be an engineer's first choice to influence braking or cornering, but it certainly suffices.

This comprehensive traction control requires a complex algorithm. Teams will program traction control computers with the car's desired behavior for any situation. Sensors on the car will tell the traction control computer what the car's behavior actually is. The computer will then use mathematical models of the drivetrain and vehicle dynamics to determine what drivetrain actions should be taken to make actual car behavior most closely match desired car behavior. Closed loop feedback can be used to fine tune any part of this algorithm while the car is being driven.


I think that lewis should be striped of his last 2 wins

[ArrowsFA1]

ATLAS F1 Volume 6, Issue 52
Comprehensive Traction Control in F1
http://atlasf1.autosport.com/2000/dec27/shoebotham.html
this is old info
Very old info. That is from the Dec 27th 2000 issue of the old AtlasF1 journal.

[Mad_Hatter]

The computer will then use mathematical models of the drivetrain and vehicle dynamics to determine what drivetrain actions should be taken...

This is the main reason why what Mclaren have supposedly done isn't illegal under the rules and has apparently been adopted by Renault and soon others.

[Knock-on]

This is the main reason why what Mclaren have supposedly done isn't illegal under the rules and has apparently been adopted by Renault and soon others.

But McLaren are allowing Lewis to make 50,000,000 adjustments per lap but have restricted Hekki's brain to only 25,000,000 computations.

Obvious #1 driver.

:D

[Robinho]

Shame on you.


Poor old Lewis would end up with RSI after 1 lap with all that flicking :laugh:

so thats how he pulled a Pussy Cat Doll! ;)

[Knock-on]

so thats how he pulled a Pussy Cat Doll! ;)

Naughty, naughty ;)

[Mark]

Mac cars DO have a manual traction control system. The FIA have announced that throttle pedals will be banned from the next race.

[mstillhere]

Mac cars DO have a manual traction control system. The FIA have announced that throttle pedals will be banned from the next race.

Would you add a link please?

[Dave B]

Mac cars DO have a manual traction control system. The FIA have announced that throttle pedals will be banned from the next race.
The only racing car I'm aware of with no throttle pedal is Alex Zanardi's BMW :eek:

[ArrowsFA1]

The fact is McLAren should be very happy to have their car checked so that any rumour concerning a device "controlling traction control" (sorry..) installed in their car(s?) will be silenced.


FIA gives Hamilton's engine the all-clear
Lewis Hamilton's engine has been given the all clear by the FIA following its routine examination prior to the Hungarian Grand Prix.
As autosport.com reported last week, the FIA has begun a series of random tests of the power-units of the car manufacturers in F1 to ensure they are complying with the freeze on development.
Mercedes-Benz were the first manufacturer whose engine was picked to be examined, with Lewis Hamilton's race-winning unit from the German Grand Prix sealed after the race for a detailed examination by the FIA.
The sport's governing body duly conducted an exhaustive test of the engine and its parts, as well as comparing it with the engine that was submitted to the FIA by Mercedes-Benz's High Performance Engines division earlier this year.
The FIA confirmed in Hungary on Thursday that all parts of the engine conformed with the regulations, and there was no disparity between the power unit submitted before the season and the one being used now.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69522

[Dave B]

Good to hear. So, I wonder who Flavio could have been talking about when he claims that Renault have been "buggered" by teams ahead of them not sticking to the rules?

[/U]
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69522

Thank feck for that.

Due to my predisposition to all things emanating from Maranello, I will probably never fully trust the integrity of Mclaren after the events of last year, but I must admit relief that the tests have all been passed.

If Mclaren do an (honest) better job than my Scuderia and take the title, then I am happy to see the best team win.

[ioan]

Thank feck for that.

Due to my predisposition to all things emanating from Maranello, I will probably never fully trust the integrity of Mclaren after the events of last year, but I must admit relief that the tests have all been passed.

If Mclaren do an (honest) better job than my Scuderia and take the title, then I am happy to see the best team win.

Couldn't put it any better! :up:

[mstillhere]

Thank feck for that.

Due to my predisposition to all things emanating from Maranello, I will probably never fully trust the integrity of Mclaren after the events of last year, but I must admit relief that the tests have all been passed.

If Mclaren do an (honest) better job than my Scuderia and take the title, then I am happy to see the best team win.

Second that

[Knock-on]

Good to hear. So, I wonder who Flavio could have been talking about when he claims that Renault have been "buggered" by teams ahead of them not sticking to the rules?

Flav doesn't need any reason to make a claim :laugh:

[Knock-on]

Well, the suggestion is that it may be Ferrari Flav is unhappy about.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69723

Suggestin is that a STR compared the Renault and Ferrar power plants and said "Bloody Hell!"

Flav aint happy with Ferrai engines and refuelling.

Probably a load of hot air knowing Flav. Still, if I were Ferrari, I would want the FIA to check my engines next.

[markabilly]

Well, the suggestion is that it may be Ferrari Flav is unhappy about.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69723

Suggestin is that a STR compared the Renault and Ferrar power plants and said "Bloody Hell!"

Flav aint happy with Ferrai engines and refuelling.

Probably a load of hot air knowing Flav. Still, if I were Ferrari, I would want the FIA to check my engines next.
Well that may well have happenned before the engine freeze as well, one engine better than the other.

However, the real issue is the electornics and whther some teams have figured out much better ways to make the "standard ECU" work better for its purposes than other teams....after all it is not just a simple matter of horsepower, but how it is used.

[markabilly]

F1 is the pinnacle and that idea would turn F1 into NASCAR

As difficult as it is I think the current rules are a good compromise of good racing/driver skill back to the forefront and cutting edge technology.


well than why not be open and honest, and simply toss the "standard ECU" into the dustbin of history?

After all, that is the idea----- behind engine freezes and standard ECU and stanadrd tires, limited testing etc and so forth, to imitate the "level playing field" of Nastycar and other such sports

[Knock-on]

Well that may well have happenned before the engine freeze as well, one engine better than the other.

However, the real issue is the electornics and whther some teams have figured out much better ways to make the "standard ECU" work better for its purposes than other teams....after all it is not just a simple matter of horsepower, but how it is used.

You may be closer to the truth than you think.

Rumour has it that a certain team were using some sort of TC up to Monaco. The FIA found out about it and it was removed with no penalty.

However, I’m wondering if they have found a way around it again.

As there is nothing to support this in the press, I cannot substantiate this in any way, shape or form so please put it down to rumour. I will not even mention the team.

[fredman]

F1 oughtta just say 'Here are the dimensions and weights you must adhere to, aside from that, there are no rules, have at it' and let them go at it.

[schmenke]

F1 oughtta just say 'Here are the dimensions and weights you must adhere to, aside from that, there are no rules, have at it' and let them go at it.

Take it a step further then... solicit bids for the championship. Highest bid wins. Racing is redundant.

[PolePosition_1]

I like how certain members are questioning McLaren integrity from last year after defending Benetton in another topic.....

.......smells of double standards.

Benetton had LC yet never proved they used it.

McLaren had documents but never proved they used it for the design of their cars.

Benetton are good, McLaren untrustworthy. :)

[aryan]

no, not necessarily at all. Cheating would be puting a new software into it to replace what was there.

"Tweaking" is leaving it open to being manipulated by smart techs into doing what they want with it to gain an Advantage.


There is no way to tamper with the ECU software, it's binary only and it's digitaly signed. Unless someone has come up with a way to break AES 256-bit encryption, no one will be able to touch it.

For those without an IT background, signing is akin to homologation, or rather, putting a seal with which you can easily (by comparing a number) see if the software is exactly the one you put there, or if it has changed in any way.

And if someone has managed to break the AES algorithm, I hear MI5, DoD and CIA will pay millions, even billions to get their hands on that (Not to mention Mossad and FSB).

In the 90s, they did not have a common ECU hence, there, by definition, could be no digital signing. It's a different scenario these days.

[Knock-on]

There is no way to tamper with the ECU software, it's binary only and it's digitaly signed. Unless someone has come up with a way to break AES 256-bit encryption, no one will be able to touch it.

For those without an IT background, signing is akin to homologation, or rather, putting a seal with which you can easily (by comparing a number) see if the software is exactly the one you put there, or if it has changed in any way.

And if someone has managed to break the AES algorithm, I hear MI5, DoD and CIA will pay millions, even billions to get their hands on that (Not to mention Mossad and FSB).

In the 90s, they did not have a common ECU hence, there, by definition, could be no digital signing. It's a different scenario these days.

The only practical way as you say to alter the source code is to have the encryption key but a more secure comparison is examining the footprint.

Commercially available application have digital signatures that do not preclude the inclusions of malware.

For example, a "legitimate" copy of Vista may look and smell like the real deal and to all extent and purposes is. The digital signature will say it is part of a corporate umbrella agreement (for example) and for licencing purposes is FAST compliant and will not flag.

However, it is possible that the version may have been manipulated to contain a trojan or spyware and only a full forensic footprint will show up an anomaly between the legitimate footprint and the modified code.

I have done a bit of work with FAST in the last few years looking at efficient audit or corporate environments as most organisations tend to just rely on a basic inventory (ie from add/remove programs for example), ignore anything that they cannot categorise and close their eyes to the the risk.

[ioan]

I like how certain members are questioning McLaren integrity from last year after defending Benetton in another topic.....

.......smells of double standards.

Benetton had LC yet never proved they used it.

McLaren had documents but never proved they used it for the design of their cars.

Benetton are good, McLaren untrustworthy. :)

At the end of last year (not season) the FIA checked the new McLaren contender (the one for 2008) and discovered several systems that were copied from the Ferrari documentation.

Is that proof enough?

[ArrowsFA1]

At the end of last year (not season) the FIA checked the new McLaren contender (the one for 2008) and discovered several systems that were copied from the Ferrari documentation.
ioan, if you read the FIA report (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64370) on this subject from December 2007 you will note phrases such as:
"...appears to have been re-investigated and developed by McLaren as a result of the receipt of confidential Ferrari information."
"...appears to have been initiated by the receipt of confidential Ferrari information."
"...It is believed 'more likely than not' that the idea came to the team from information given by Nigel Stepney."

So in fact the FIA did not conclude that systems were copied, just that they might have been initiated or developed as a result.

[markabilly]

There is no way to tamper with the ECU software, it's binary only and it's digitaly signed. Unless someone has come up with a way to break AES 256-bit encryption, no one will be able to touch it.

For those without an IT background, signing is akin to homologation, or rather, putting a seal with which you can easily (by comparing a number) see if the software is exactly the one you put there, or if it has changed in any way.

And if someone has managed to break the AES algorithm, I hear MI5, DoD and CIA will pay millions, even billions to get their hands on that (Not to mention Mossad and FSB).

In the 90s, they did not have a common ECU hence, there, by definition, could be no digital signing. It's a different scenario these days.

My point was that one does not necessarily have to change the actual software, just tweak all the components around the software to get what you want. Supposedly the six paddle steering wheel of mac is there to do just eaxactly that....

[Knock-on]

My point was that one does not necessarily have to change the actual software, just tweak all the components around the software to get what you want. Supposedly the six paddle steering wheel of mac is there to do just eaxactly that....

Actually, I don't know exactly what the paddles are supposed to do.

Can anyone enlighten me how they work.

[ArrowsFA1]

Actually, I don't know exactly what the paddles are supposed to do.
Wind everyone up? :p

[ioan]

ioan, if you read the FIA report (http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/64370) on this subject from December 2007 you will note phrases such as:
"...appears to have been re-investigated and developed by McLaren as a result of the receipt of confidential Ferrari information."
"...appears to have been initiated by the receipt of confidential Ferrari information."
"...It is believed 'more likely than not' that the idea came to the team from information given by Nigel Stepney."

So in fact the FIA did not conclude that systems were copied, just that they might have been initiated or developed as a result.

If designs of internal systems that can't be seen in other place but in the stolen documentation are very similar to the original Ferrari systems than it is more than likely that those designs were inspired by what they saw in that technical documentation.

If this wasn't the case than you might be sure that McLaren wouldn't have written that famous letter we all know about.

You should be happy that the FIA didn't chose to publicly say that McLaren was copying the Ferrari designs.

[ioan]

Wind everyone up? :p

:rotflmao:

[markabilly]

Actually, I don't know exactly what the paddles are supposed to do.

Can anyone enlighten me how they work.


Helps him paddle faster in the rain.... :D and to paddle Ferrari when they get too close

somewhere i read some speculation it had to do with Torque curves related (of all things) to different setting of the ECU (and the settings of the ECU are adjustable although there is suppose to be some sort of time delay); but I just do not know

[ArrowsFA1]

You should be happy that the FIA didn't chose to publicly say that McLaren was copying the Ferrari designs.
That assumes the FIA could have said that. If you cannot support that assumption then we are left with the FIA report which is more circumstantial than factual.

[ioan]

That assumes the FIA could have said that. If you cannot support that assumption then we are left with the FIA report which is more circumstantial than factual.

Maybe the FIA didn't want to bring the sport into further disrepute?! ;)
What Ron and his team did was already muddy enough.

[Dave B]

Maybe the FIA didn't want to bring the sport into further disrepute?! ;)
What Ron and his team did was already muddy enough.
Oh please. Remember the way in which Max spoke of the way McLaren had "poisoned" the Championship? Do you honestly think that if the FIA had had concrete evidence of any cheating they would have kept it quiet? :dozey:

[PolePosition_1]

At the end of last year (not season) the FIA checked the new McLaren contender (the one for 2008) and discovered several systems that were copied from the Ferrari documentation.

Is that proof enough?


Not without a source its not I'm sorry :)

Though to be fair I know what you mean. Though my understanding is that some parts had similar designs, whether that was coincidental as it was way majority of teams design certain parts, or whether it directly copied from Ferrari is another matter - which was not determined.

[PolePosition_1]

At the end of last year (not season) the FIA checked the new McLaren contender (the one for 2008) and discovered several systems that were copied from the Ferrari documentation.

Is that proof enough?


Not without a source its not I'm sorry :)

Though to be fair I know what you mean. Though my understanding is that some parts had similar designs, whether that was coincidental as it was way majority of teams design certain parts, or whether it directly copied from Ferrari is another matter - which was not determined.

[Knock-on]

Not without a source its not I'm sorry :)

Though to be fair I know what you mean. Though my understanding is that some parts had similar designs, whether that was coincidental as it was way majority of teams design certain parts, or whether it directly copied from Ferrari is another matter - which was not determined.

There is a certain amount of cross pollination.

When the Honda was accused by Max of cheating (later proved not to be true), the fuel tank supplier confirmed that they furnished a number of other teams on the grid with a similar design.

I like how certain members are questioning McLaren integrity from last year after defending Benetton in another topic.....

.......smells of double standards.

Benetton had LC yet never proved they used it.

McLaren had documents but never proved they used it for the design of their cars.

Benetton are good, McLaren untrustworthy. :)

And apparently the reverse is also true.

But, just to bring a fact into this, having a LC/TC program within the ECU was not against the rules, whereas having another teams designs certainly is.

There is the vital difference which appears to have been conveniently overlooked.

When the Honda was accused by Max of cheating (later proved not to be true), the fuel tank supplier confirmed that they furnished a number of other teams on the grid with a similar design.

Not that I don't believe you...but is there any chance of a link to confirm that?

[Dave B]

The Honda engineers had designed the fuel tank such that the car would pass scrutineering easily before the race but could run underweight during it. As such, the FIA deemed that the car was illegal as it was designed to use fuel as ballast. After the penalty became known, several other teams also had to quickly adapt their systems to make sure their cars were valid with the rulebook. [My italics]

Source: http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/cars/892

[Knock-on]

Not that I don't believe you...but is there any chance of a link to confirm that?

I'll have a butchers.

[Knock-on]

Not that I don't believe you...but is there any chance of a link to confirm that?

To add to Daves link, this is a superb article.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=24345

The FIA was out for BAr in a similar way to the onslaught against McLaren.

This car had been passed by the FIA and just about everyone out there used a similar system. Yet BAR, being out of favor with Max over team colours and the proposed breakaway series, were hung, drawn and quartered.

Yet, when it proved impossible to prosocute on the charges levelled against them and there was no evidence found that they were cheating, the goal posts were changed and they were still punished.

Funnily enough, BAR could, and tried to prove their innocence (which cropped up on another thread) yet the FIA refused to allow evidence gained by electronic means as it didn't suit their arguement :laugh:

Crazy!

To add to Daves link, this is a superb article.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=24345



Grazie.

[ioan]

There is a certain amount of cross pollination.

When the Honda was accused by Max of cheating (later proved not to be true), the fuel tank supplier confirmed that they furnished a number of other teams on the grid with a similar design.

Did any of those other teams lie when asked if all the fuel has been drained fom their fuel tanks?!
I think not.

Some people, Honda and Button fans, spread the false version o the story that Honda (BAR) were punished because they had a certain type of tank.
This is false!
They were punished because after all the fuel was drained from the car, their car was found to be underweight. They also lied to the FIA when asked if there was any more fuel left in the fuel tank.

Two more teams had their cars checked in the same way by the FIA officials, one of the teams was Ferrari, and the cars of these teams were also using the same type of fuel tank as Honda BAR, however their cars were not underweight after ALL the fuel was drained from the fuel tanks.

I thought it would be useful to clear up the muddy waters some people are trading around here. ;)

[ioan]

Yet, when it proved impossible to prosocute on the charges levelled against them and there was no evidence found that they were cheating, the goal posts were changed and they were still punished.

There was nothing changed, the car was underweight and thus didn't conform to the regulations. The regulations state that fuel can't be used as ballast, but BAR Honda decided they know better, and they got burned because some other team were not happy with them cheating and went to the FIA. Not so hard to understand is it?



Funnily enough, BAR could, and tried to prove their innocence (which cropped up on another thread) yet the FIA refused to allow evidence gained by electronic means as it didn't suit their arguement :laugh:

An me thinking that you were the FIA regulations specialist. You should have known that electronic evidence was not permitted under the regulations. It had nothing to do with what suited or not the FIA.

However, you being a staunch BAR and Button fan, I understand that you need to twist facts to suit your POV. :laugh:

[ioan]

To add to Daves link, this is a superb article.

http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_feature_item.php?fes_art_id=24345

The best part of it:


Let's start with the facts. The BAR car was underweight when it was drained of all it's fuel. The real question here is; was there a performance advantage? BAR argue not.


The regulations aren't about if there is a performance advantage or not, depending on the point of view of the team.

The regulations state that the car should weigh a certain number of kilograms, and that fuel is not included in this weight.

The case was simple, the car was underweight and thus illegal. There is no place for assumptions and crying. Case closed.

[ioan]

BTW, shouldn't we move this discussion to the H&N forum in the Petty bickering thread?!

http://rosehillpilot.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!5FB1122D5376279D!652.entry

"July 22
Hockenheim GP - a first look back at a key issue. When is traction control not traction control?

“Lewis, you did a fantastic sector three and you had a very high speed on the straight as well. This combination is difficult to achieve, can you explain it for us?” asked Livio Oricchio of O Estado de Sao Paulo in the post-qualifying press conference. Needless to say Lewis was unable to give a proper answer. But this question not only made me suspicious at the time, but it now seems to be the first indication that some of the press corps were beginning to question what lies behind McLaren’s recent dominance.

Many blogs ago I asked the rhetorical question “when is traction control not traction control?” I had intended to discuss this aspect of the rules and the team’s response to the limitations it imposed but I put this on a back-burner. Events then began to overtake me on this issue. During my visit to Silverstone I was surprised to see that the cars were still stopping at the exit of the pitlane to make a practice start. One or two of them even sounded to me as if they were misfiring as they pulled away. The television coverage of the German Grand Prix showed that this practice had become even more common since Silverstone, though it was impossible to hear whether any of the engines were sounding at all odd.

This used to be done routinely as the teams fine-tuned their traction control to get the optimum degree of slip (wheelspin, if you like) as the cars pulled away from a standing start. Various algorithms could then be employed to optimise the traction-control system for higher speeds. So these constant standing-starts during practice sessions were used to tune the traction control system to the track, the tyres, and the weather.

Traction control is now specifically banned. I notice that there is no definition of ‘traction control’ given in the regulations but I think everyone would agree that it is the utilisation of a speed sensor on the undriven front wheels which then compares this with the speed of the rear wheels. Once a chosen differential is reached the system will knock back the engine to prevent further wheelspin and gain optimum acceleration. The addition of lateral G measurement could allow such a system to make an earlier intervention when the car was cornering and even very slight wheelspin would produce an excursion into oversteer. The key to this definition is that there is a feedback loop. Wheelspin results in reduced engine power and then as wheelspin is controlled the engine is freed off again. Meanwhile the driver simply keeps his foot planted. In order to gain rapid response the engines were controlled by cutting the electrical supply to some of the cylinders. This made the engines sound very sick and there was often quite a bit of backfiring as the unburnt mixture from the electrically dead cylinders ignited in the hot exhaust system. It was the characteristic sound of Formula 1, particularly when the young drivers like Robert Kubica exploited the system to the full. The world’s most sophisticated racing engines popped and banged their way around the corners.

Now the intent of the ban on traction control is to return all control of the engine to the right foot of the driver. Years ago, during the previous attempt to outlaw traction control, I asked a friend who was working at McLaren at the time whether the team was controlling wheelspin at the start of races by using an engine-map to limit the acceleration of the engine itself. He said that he doubted if this was possible. However, this is exactly how the teams use the ECU engine map to gain a form of launch control. The engine map can be used to set an upper limit to the rate of change of rpm (the acceleration) of the engine itself and wheelspin is then controlled as an indirect result. As there is no direct measurement of wheelspin or any feedback-loop to anything outside the engine, this is not actually traction control as it might be defined. The driver has full control of the engine but during the start it will simply not have the capability to spin the wheels even though he has his foot flat down. So it produces the same advantages as traction control though by different means. After the initial acceleration off the line the engine map then reverts to normal and full engine acceleration is available. For the rest of the race the driver should have to control wheelspin himself.

It was my understanding that there were only three permitted engine maps. A normal mode would allow the engine to perform without restriction, a driver-switched pitlane speed limit mode for safety, and a launch mode for use only at the start. I could never understand why the latter was permitted but assumed it was as a result of pressure from the teams who may have used a safety argument to win this concession. I am now unsure where I had heard of these rules as I can find no reference to them in the F1 regulations as published (if you know please tell me). All software in use does have to be revealed to the FIA for approval, however.

There are two complications to consider. My information from Maranello is that because Max Mosley has been understandably preoccupied with the search for those who paid people to investigate his private life, and with his court action against The News of the World, which published the invasive and damaging story that those investigations made possible, the FIA has been pretty much stalled as far as technical decision-making is concerned. This might have been a window of opportunity for any team that might have wanted to drive a coach and horses through the ruling body’s attempt to ban ‘driver-aids’. Next we have to acknowledge that there is one team that is in a unique position with regard to working with the standard ECU to produce sophisticated engine control. McLaren manufacture the ECU and supply it to all the teams, and they will have an understanding of this device which far exceeds that of anybody else. Other teams and the FIA included.

What a moment for the news to break that McLaren has a driver-switched system that runs a different engine-management map for each gear. As the described system is switched independently of the gearshift it would seem to me that it does have the potential to be selected at other times as well. It may well be that maps can be selected for individual corners not merely for the gear they are taken in. A McLaren running wide onto the start finish straight at Hockenheim, let’s say, might be very much more stable, as the driver applied the throttle on the plastic grass-protection matting, than other cars that carried as much speed through the turn and ran wide at the same place.

So this was perhaps an opportune moment in which to introduce a clever and innovative system which subverts the intention of the regulations, particularly by a team which might have such a sophisticated knowledge of the ECU that they could submit software that was far from transparent in its operation. So long as the software and the steering-wheel switches were correctly submitted for approval to the FIA there will have been no breach of the regulations. Just as the regulations on the flexibility of the under-floors were revised last year I feel sure that we are about to see a similar move to block the development that McLaren appears to be running on Lewis’s car at least. But in the meantime they have cleaned up.

Although I already had some misgivings about the possible introduction of sophisticated engine-managements to regain the benefits of traction control, this story first broke in Mark Hughes’ piece in The Daily Telegraph and gave details of the steering-wheel controls involved. This would not have been leaked by anyone from McLaren. The information must have come from another team. This means that a request to the FIA for ‘clarification’ is imminent, and the governing body should now be coming out of its period of crisis and back to full concentration on the sport. Already the McLaren PR response is being finessed, and you can see that Ed Gorman is poised to launch it publicly on his Times newspaper blog.

But McLaren may have already enjoyed the advantages of this system during this extended period of regulatory distraction. Regard this as phase-one of my discussion of the German GP….

Ciao"

Please note that this is not my 'blog', but it's an interesting read.

[Dave B]

...seems to be ...
... some of the press corps were beginning to question ...
It was my understanding ...
I am now unsure where I had heard of these rules as ...
My information from Maranello is ...
This might have been a window of opportunity ...
... it would seem to me that it does have the potential ...
It may well be that ...
So this was perhaps ...
But McLaren may have already enjoyed the advantages ...

Interesting maybe, but no more accurate or credible than me blogging that Kimi might perhaps enjoy sniffing saddles or that it would seem to me that Massa has the potential to interfere with labradors.

Interesting maybe, but no more accurate or credible than me blogging that Kimi might perhaps enjoy sniffing saddles or that it would seem to me that Massa has the potential to interfere with labradors.

Never said it was credible or accurate.

Having said that, I have it on good authority that Ron Dennis tortures puppies.

[carracing]

Take it a step further then... solicit bids for the championship. Highest bid wins. Racing is redundant.

Oh.... like NASCAR? ;)

[ioan]

Interesting maybe, but no more accurate or credible than me blogging that Kimi might perhaps enjoy sniffing saddles or that it would seem to me that Massa has the potential to interfere with labradors.

At least it was written in English, otherwise you would have said that it has no relevance in any other language!

Since when people doesn't have the right to question things that doesn't look OK to them?! I bet if he was questioning Ferrari you wouldn't have oposed it so much.

[ioan]

Never said it was credible or accurate.

Having said that, I have it on good authority that Ron Dennis tortures puppies.

And he doesn't like supposed gay people.


BTW, why is that the thread about RD firing his fly attendant, on homosexuality claims, was closed while we had the pleasure to talk about Max's private life for months?

[janneppi]

But you obviously agree on the decision to close the Dennis thread, right?

Being not about F1, but a personal matter, something you've been defending Max here, so you must have the same view concerning the Dennis case, right?

[Dave B]

At least it was written in English, otherwise you would have said that it has no relevance in any other language!
For the second time of asking, if you're going to make such accusations against me on a public forum would you at least have the good grace to link to anywhere I've said that a non-English source is less credible than its English-language counterpart IF it actually includes quotes rather than hearsay or speculation. Otherwise I will have to assume you are making a personal attack on me and report your posts accordingly. I post here under my real name and such unfounded accusations are not something I take lightly.

[ioan]

For the second time of asking, if you're going to make such accusations against me on a public forum would you at least have the good grace to link to anywhere I've said that a non-English source is less credible than its English-language counterpart IF it actually includes quotes rather than hearsay or speculation. Otherwise I will have to assume you are making a personal attack on me and report your posts accordingly. I post here under my real name and such unfounded accusations are not something I take lightly.

Feel free to report the posts wherever you wish, if you think it was a personal attack.
I fail to see where I attacked you in any way by simply stating a fact, and not using any kind of bad language.

And the post of yours that I answered was very patronizing and dismissive, so I don't see why you are getting on your high horse.

[gloomyDAY]

For the second time of asking, if you're going to make such accusations against me on a public forum would you at least have the good grace to link to anywhere I've said that a non-English source is less credible than its English-language counterpart IF it actually includes quotes rather than hearsay or speculation. Otherwise I will have to assume you are making a personal attack on me and report your posts accordingly. I post here under my real name and such unfounded accusations are not something I take lightly.


Feel free to report the posts wherever you wish, if you think it was a personal attack.
I fail to see where I attacked you in any way by simply stating a fact, and not using any kind of bad language.

And the post of yours that I answered was very patronizing and dismissive, so I don't see why you are getting on your high horse.
http://freespace.virgin.net/bg.shields/HighHorse.JPG

[gloomyDAY]

Any updates on the McLaren car's?

[ioan]

Any updates on the McLaren car's?

We shall see in a few hours time.

[Knock-on]

For the second time of asking, if you're going to make such accusations against me on a public forum would you at least have the good grace to link to anywhere I've said that a non-English source is less credible than its English-language counterpart IF it actually includes quotes rather than hearsay or speculation. Otherwise I will have to assume you are making a personal attack on me and report your posts accordingly. I post here under my real name and such unfounded accusations are not something I take lightly.


I understand how you feel Dave.

I have had ioan lying and making spurious accusations against me with no proof whatsoever.

Yet, when I respond on here demanding he retracts them and stops lying, I get warned by the management for making personal attacks.

How can it be a personal attack to ask someone to stop lying so from now on I'll just do what you suggest and report him?

Anyway, back on topic.

The article is very speculative but as an opinion it's interesting.

Love the suggestion that the whole of the FIA is nothing more than Max's trial team. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that the FIA has ground to a complete halt and any team can push through whatever they want while the FIA's back is turned. Still as a work of fiction with no basis in fact, an opinion can express anything without basis I suppose ;)

[Dave B]

Any updates on the McLaren car's?


We shall see in a few hours time.

We saw a few weeks ago, in fact.


Lewis Hamilton's engine has been given the all clear by the FIA following its routine examination prior to the Hungarian Grand Prix.
As autosport.com reported last week, the FIA has begun a series of random tests of the power-units of the car manufacturers in F1 to ensure they are complying with the freeze on development.
Mercedes-Benz were the first manufacturer whose engine was picked to be examined, with Lewis Hamilton's race-winning unit from the German Grand Prix sealed after the race for a detailed examination by the FIA.
The sport's governing body duly conducted an exhaustive test of the engine and its parts, as well as comparing it with the engine that was submitted to the FIA by Mercedes-Benz's High Performance Engines division earlier this year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69522

[ioan]

We saw a few weeks ago, in fact.


Lewis Hamilton's engine has been given the all clear by the FIA following its routine examination prior to the Hungarian Grand Prix.
As autosport.com reported last week, the FIA has begun a series of random tests of the power-units of the car manufacturers in F1 to ensure they are complying with the freeze on development.
Mercedes-Benz were the first manufacturer whose engine was picked to be examined, with Lewis Hamilton's race-winning unit from the German Grand Prix sealed after the race for a detailed examination by the FIA.
The sport's governing body duly conducted an exhaustive test of the engine and its parts, as well as comparing it with the engine that was submitted to the FIA by Mercedes-Benz's High Performance Engines division earlier this year.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/69522

You're right about that.
I thought he was talking about something new on car for this week end's race.