Red Bull and traction control?
10-08-2013, 04:49 PM
#1
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Red Bull and traction control?
Sounds amazing...but there was also some interesting bits thats showed up from the rubber Webber laid down at the Canadian GP this year.
Article link: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...cret-revealed/
From the Canadian GP - Note the intermittent black marks when Webber gets on the gas.
Article link: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n...cret-revealed/
Red Bull’s traction secret revealed?
By Sam // October 2, 2013
Red Bull’s secret weapon revealed? find out in the new issue of Racecar Engineering
Red Bull RB9
In the wake of the Singapore Grand Prix, utterly dominated by the Red Bull RB9 of Sebastian Vettel, questions have been raised about whether the car is using traction control.
This is highly unlikely and it is probable that those suggesting that the RB9 runs TC lack understanding of how such systems work, especially considering that all cars run identical TAG 320 ECU’s.
However the latest issue of Racecar Engineering raises an alternative, legal and highly innovative solution for the RB9′s mid corner performance, which could also explain many of Red Bull’s reliability issues.
It is theoretically easy to modulate the output torque and charging input torque to an electric motor/generator using capacitors, batteries, inductors and a feedback signal. Torque changes are instant and control is easy and legal.
If torque were to be modulated in response to the normal force of the tires against the track (in response to shock pressure for example) significant unused traction potential could be recovered during high pressure phases (upside of bumps) and initiation of full wheel spin during low pressure phases (downside of bumps) could be delayed. Yielding better turn exit acceleration, higher cornering speeds and stability. Especially on bumpy tracks like Singapore.
cover
In the new issue of Raccear Engineering magazine, this concept is fully explored, and Adrian Newey also comments on the issue. – Read the full story along with a full discussion of the RB9′s design below.
Adrian Newey on the RB9 and its secret weapon.
This idea largely backs up the comments made by one well known F1 figure which have been widely reported online. At Singapore former team boss Gian Carlo Minardi was sat trackside and wrote on his official website the following:
DOUBT 1: from my suite, I chose some mainstays as a reference point in order to monitor and compare the drivers’ way of driving. My mainstays were the kerbstones located on the corner which leads to Republic Boulevard.
Their function is to avoid passing on the kerb. I was impressed by Vettel’s neat way of driving on that stretch of the track. He was able to drive all that stretch without making any corrections, unlike all his rivals (also his teammate).
His laptime was also remarkable in T3, which is the track’s sector with the highest concentration of corners.
DOUBT 2: on the same stretch, Sebastian was able to speed up 50 m before any other driver, Webber included. Whilst all the other drivers speeded up on the same stretch, Vettel was able to speed up before them. The thing that surprised me the most was the RB1 engine’s output sound. Besides speeding up 50 m before any other driver, the Renault engine of the German’s car grinded like no other French engines on track, neither like Mark’s. That sound was similar to the sound made by the engine when the traction control system got into action in the past seasons.
Furthermore, that sound was only heard when Vettel chalked up his excellent performances. For example, after the safety car went off, he took a great re-start and chalked up many excellent laps, gaining a 32 sec. gap over Alonso, then he leveled off, taking precautions in the case he would have had to pit one more time.
In those moments the Renault engine was more powerful than any other engines (Renault and other brands). There are some aspects (1- Vettel’s very neat way of driving; 2-Vettel’s speedup 50 m before the other drivers; 3- the abnormal sound of the RB1’s Renault engine; 4- Vetter’s more than 2 sec. advantage over the rivals ) that make me think and I would like to have some answers. All those doubts are even more serious if we consider that Webber wasn’t able to do that, since he’s a common human being….I don’t want to blame anyone , I just would like to get into the deep of the matter.
- See more at: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n....7Orp94jf.dpuf
By Sam // October 2, 2013
Red Bull’s secret weapon revealed? find out in the new issue of Racecar Engineering
Red Bull RB9
In the wake of the Singapore Grand Prix, utterly dominated by the Red Bull RB9 of Sebastian Vettel, questions have been raised about whether the car is using traction control.
This is highly unlikely and it is probable that those suggesting that the RB9 runs TC lack understanding of how such systems work, especially considering that all cars run identical TAG 320 ECU’s.
However the latest issue of Racecar Engineering raises an alternative, legal and highly innovative solution for the RB9′s mid corner performance, which could also explain many of Red Bull’s reliability issues.
It is theoretically easy to modulate the output torque and charging input torque to an electric motor/generator using capacitors, batteries, inductors and a feedback signal. Torque changes are instant and control is easy and legal.
If torque were to be modulated in response to the normal force of the tires against the track (in response to shock pressure for example) significant unused traction potential could be recovered during high pressure phases (upside of bumps) and initiation of full wheel spin during low pressure phases (downside of bumps) could be delayed. Yielding better turn exit acceleration, higher cornering speeds and stability. Especially on bumpy tracks like Singapore.
cover
In the new issue of Raccear Engineering magazine, this concept is fully explored, and Adrian Newey also comments on the issue. – Read the full story along with a full discussion of the RB9′s design below.
Adrian Newey on the RB9 and its secret weapon.
This idea largely backs up the comments made by one well known F1 figure which have been widely reported online. At Singapore former team boss Gian Carlo Minardi was sat trackside and wrote on his official website the following:
DOUBT 1: from my suite, I chose some mainstays as a reference point in order to monitor and compare the drivers’ way of driving. My mainstays were the kerbstones located on the corner which leads to Republic Boulevard.
Their function is to avoid passing on the kerb. I was impressed by Vettel’s neat way of driving on that stretch of the track. He was able to drive all that stretch without making any corrections, unlike all his rivals (also his teammate).
His laptime was also remarkable in T3, which is the track’s sector with the highest concentration of corners.
DOUBT 2: on the same stretch, Sebastian was able to speed up 50 m before any other driver, Webber included. Whilst all the other drivers speeded up on the same stretch, Vettel was able to speed up before them. The thing that surprised me the most was the RB1 engine’s output sound. Besides speeding up 50 m before any other driver, the Renault engine of the German’s car grinded like no other French engines on track, neither like Mark’s. That sound was similar to the sound made by the engine when the traction control system got into action in the past seasons.
Furthermore, that sound was only heard when Vettel chalked up his excellent performances. For example, after the safety car went off, he took a great re-start and chalked up many excellent laps, gaining a 32 sec. gap over Alonso, then he leveled off, taking precautions in the case he would have had to pit one more time.
In those moments the Renault engine was more powerful than any other engines (Renault and other brands). There are some aspects (1- Vettel’s very neat way of driving; 2-Vettel’s speedup 50 m before the other drivers; 3- the abnormal sound of the RB1’s Renault engine; 4- Vetter’s more than 2 sec. advantage over the rivals ) that make me think and I would like to have some answers. All those doubts are even more serious if we consider that Webber wasn’t able to do that, since he’s a common human being….I don’t want to blame anyone , I just would like to get into the deep of the matter.
- See more at: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/n....7Orp94jf.dpuf
From the Canadian GP - Note the intermittent black marks when Webber gets on the gas.
10-08-2013, 05:37 PM
#2
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
More....
http://jalopnik.com/red-bull-may-hav...olo-1442585020
Note the sound of Vettel's engine exhaust...
http://jalopnik.com/red-bull-may-hav...olo-1442585020
Note the sound of Vettel's engine exhaust...
Last edited by Chads996; 10-08-2013 at 05:58 PM.
10-08-2013, 05:59 PM
#3
On temporary vacation
I put a lot of stock into what Giancarlo Minardi disclosed. Hamilton says the on board shots show Vettel getting on the gas 20m early, Minardi says 50m. Regardless, it's an incredible advantage.
In looking at sector times in Korea, the gap was very marginal from Vettel's car and others, however, in the third sector, the one that has the most slow corners, he is able to pull out a .3 advantage over everyone else.
The bottom line is Red bull has figured a way to get TC by bypassing the ECU, but TC is banned regardless of how it's achieved. And of course RBR are not going to activate it on the car of a driver that is leaving the team by next month....
In looking at sector times in Korea, the gap was very marginal from Vettel's car and others, however, in the third sector, the one that has the most slow corners, he is able to pull out a .3 advantage over everyone else.
The bottom line is Red bull has figured a way to get TC by bypassing the ECU, but TC is banned regardless of how it's achieved. And of course RBR are not going to activate it on the car of a driver that is leaving the team by next month....
10-08-2013, 06:12 PM
#4
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
10-08-2013, 06:40 PM
#5
On temporary vacation
A couple more fun facts, only 1 of the 4 RBR and Toro Rosso Jr. team cars finished the race. Also Vettel had a "Fail 22" radio transmission on multiple occasions to him. We can only speculate, but given the "Multi 21" earlier in the year where Webber is "2" and Vettel is "1" and that they were to have finished in that order in Malaysia, that both KERS systems failed on the cars. As a result, Vettel only won the Korean Gp by 4 seconds over Kimi
10-09-2013, 12:36 AM
#6
Rennlist Member
Assuming this is all true the question posed is simple, do we praise Red Bull for finding a way of making their car much faster within the rules, or do we punish them for not upholding the spirit of the law which is no aids of anu kind.
Clearly this is a significant aid and in my view, although brilliant fron an engineering view point it is totally not in the spirit of the law
Clearly this is a significant aid and in my view, although brilliant fron an engineering view point it is totally not in the spirit of the law
10-09-2013, 06:22 AM
#7
Rennlist Member
Remember a few years ago when Button was allowed a rear diffuser aid that others weren't, and he won about 6 races and then everyone else was allowed to use it. I thought it was an unfair advantage and Button won the WDC that year because of it. I don't see much difference here, and if it is a loophole that is not in the rule book, good on Redbull for exploiting it. This kind of thing has been going on in motorsports forever. Spirit of the law my ***. Of course, I am rooting for Vettel to win the WDC.
Trending Topics
10-09-2013, 08:48 AM
#8
King of Cool
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Assuming this is all true the question posed is simple, do we praise Red Bull for finding a way of making their car much faster within the rules, or do we punish them for not upholding the spirit of the law which is no aids of anu kind.
Clearly this is a significant aid and in my view, although brilliant fron an engineering view point it is totally not in the spirit of the law
Clearly this is a significant aid and in my view, although brilliant fron an engineering view point it is totally not in the spirit of the law
However, since there has been nothing from other teams and drivers, I doubt there's anything there, they monitor each others so closely (for example Alonso has been closely behind Seb in many recent races) and also, since the KERS system in Renault cars is developed by Renault, that would make them part of this which seems something they wouldn't want to expose them for.
Interesting to see if this starts to spread in the F1 media although at this point RB can just stop using it.
10-09-2013, 09:15 AM
#9
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: In the pasture.
Posts: 4,202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the FIA were to ban this type of innovation, it would be the end of the 'Spirit' of F1.
Which spirit is more important, innovation or dogmatic adherence to a rule written with undefined borders. I believe F1 is first and foremost about creative and innovative engineering. If they were to turn it into a sport controlled by fundamentalist dogma requiring strict obeisance to a 'Spirit', they would excommunicate the creative, kill the heretics like RBR and Brawn and establish death as the measure of innocence. Ban the winners!
Which spirit is more important, innovation or dogmatic adherence to a rule written with undefined borders. I believe F1 is first and foremost about creative and innovative engineering. If they were to turn it into a sport controlled by fundamentalist dogma requiring strict obeisance to a 'Spirit', they would excommunicate the creative, kill the heretics like RBR and Brawn and establish death as the measure of innocence. Ban the winners!
10-09-2013, 09:49 AM
#11
Nordschleife Master
Thread Starter
Is this not in the whole spirit of "engineering competitions?" Similar to virtually every engineering based form...Red Bull has simply interpreted the rules and found a loophole to create a system that allows the driver additional control. The question is....is it truly "traction control." The second question is - how do the rules define "traction control." If the definition from the FIA specifies the traction control specifically through the primary ECU, there could be a blatant hole in the rules. If this is the case - Good on Red Bull and Adrian Newey for finding it.
There is no question Newey is one amazing dude...
C.
There is no question Newey is one amazing dude...
C.
10-09-2013, 10:23 AM
#12
Rennlist Member
Is this not in the whole spirit of "engineering competitions?" Similar to virtually every engineering based form...Red Bull has simply interpreted the rules and found a loophole to create a system that allows the driver additional control. The question is....is it truly "traction control." The second question is - how do the rules define "traction control." If the definition from the FIA specifies the traction control specifically through the primary ECU, there could be a blatant hole in the rules. If this is the case - Good on Red Bull and Adrian Newey for finding it.
There is no question Newey is one amazing dude...
C.
There is no question Newey is one amazing dude...
C.
10-09-2013, 10:31 AM
#13
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
I thought Machett's comments about how the airflow around the car was quite informative. That, along with his comments about the apparent symbiotic relationship between Vettel and Newey, makes me wonder if those two things combined gives Vettel the opportunity to get on the gas earlier. Could the different engine note be the fact he's on the gas and his gearing may have been different because he can get on the gas earlier?
Either way, RB has a bunch of bright folks working there and quite frankly, if they are doing it and no other team is complaining (Ferrari) they are really really bright folks. As much as the teams study the competitors' cars, I find it hard to believe they can't make a better case than what I've read.
Either way, RB has a bunch of bright folks working there and quite frankly, if they are doing it and no other team is complaining (Ferrari) they are really really bright folks. As much as the teams study the competitors' cars, I find it hard to believe they can't make a better case than what I've read.
10-09-2013, 02:43 PM
#14
On temporary vacation
Matchett's explanation made sense except that the gasses from the exhaust need to go under the diffuser when the car is traveling at a higher rate of speed to have an effect. The RBR is making it's time up on the slowest corners.
I've changed my view of the RBR in light of all the evidence that has come out and IMHO Red Bull is flat out cheating at this point, but it won't change the championship outcome this late in the season. There is now evidence of a car that is clearly different than the rest of the grid which mimicks TC from sight and sound. There is also objective evidence that the RBR is making up it's time in the slowest of corners. Couple this with the fact that the RBR is usual the SLOWEST in the trap speed and you can see that this car is making it's time up in mechanical grip and not necessarily aero efficiency.
The teams cannot figure out HOW RBR are doing it but the speculation from Minardi, who has been a team principle for many years, is that it's got to be the KERS system. Is it any wonder that the RBR have more trouble with their KERS system than any other team????
I'm all for innovation in F1 and wish that teams could go back to using any engine they want whether that be a V12, V10, V8 or turbo charged V6 but the bottom line is that TC has been banned -- regardless of how it is produced. Having a legal eagle read the rules to circumvent the rules and develop TC aside from the ECU is ingenious if it is indeed coming from the KERS, but my street cars have TC, it is not really inventive aside from exploiting a loophole? The bottom line is that TC is illegal as is a moveable aero device and this is no different from the Mass Damper of 2006 Renault. The fact that the Mass Damper was located inside the nose rather than exposed on the outside of the car makes no different if the outcome is the same. The same goes for TC, no matter how is it replicated.
Finally, the great innovations in F1 of the past few years have been the following:
Double Diffuser developed by Brawn GP
Blown Diffuser developed by Lotus Renault
F-Duct to stall the rear wing on straights developed by McLaren
Double F-Duct developed by Mercedes F1 to stall the rear and front wing.
Each one found new and sometimes ingenious ways of either creating or eliminating down force. Why they were outlawed by the FIA makes no sense to me at least. The team that discovered it first had the advantage and the others had to play catch up. That, to me is great and motivates a team to find new ways WITHIN THE RULES because if they do, they have a head start on everyone else. But to me TC is TC and is cheating.
I've changed my view of the RBR in light of all the evidence that has come out and IMHO Red Bull is flat out cheating at this point, but it won't change the championship outcome this late in the season. There is now evidence of a car that is clearly different than the rest of the grid which mimicks TC from sight and sound. There is also objective evidence that the RBR is making up it's time in the slowest of corners. Couple this with the fact that the RBR is usual the SLOWEST in the trap speed and you can see that this car is making it's time up in mechanical grip and not necessarily aero efficiency.
The teams cannot figure out HOW RBR are doing it but the speculation from Minardi, who has been a team principle for many years, is that it's got to be the KERS system. Is it any wonder that the RBR have more trouble with their KERS system than any other team????
I'm all for innovation in F1 and wish that teams could go back to using any engine they want whether that be a V12, V10, V8 or turbo charged V6 but the bottom line is that TC has been banned -- regardless of how it is produced. Having a legal eagle read the rules to circumvent the rules and develop TC aside from the ECU is ingenious if it is indeed coming from the KERS, but my street cars have TC, it is not really inventive aside from exploiting a loophole? The bottom line is that TC is illegal as is a moveable aero device and this is no different from the Mass Damper of 2006 Renault. The fact that the Mass Damper was located inside the nose rather than exposed on the outside of the car makes no different if the outcome is the same. The same goes for TC, no matter how is it replicated.
Finally, the great innovations in F1 of the past few years have been the following:
Double Diffuser developed by Brawn GP
Blown Diffuser developed by Lotus Renault
F-Duct to stall the rear wing on straights developed by McLaren
Double F-Duct developed by Mercedes F1 to stall the rear and front wing.
Each one found new and sometimes ingenious ways of either creating or eliminating down force. Why they were outlawed by the FIA makes no sense to me at least. The team that discovered it first had the advantage and the others had to play catch up. That, to me is great and motivates a team to find new ways WITHIN THE RULES because if they do, they have a head start on everyone else. But to me TC is TC and is cheating.
10-09-2013, 03:05 PM
#15
Boost Junkie
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Plymouth MN and Scottsdale AZ
Posts: 2,526
Received 38 Likes
on
31 Posts
Pete - didn't 2 other teams also start that season with double diffusers (Toyota and Williams IIRC) but did not optimize them like Brawn?