"Simplify, then add beer" (jeffoh)
10/12/2013 at 07:26 • Filed to: F1
1
11|
"Simplify, then add beer" (jeffoh)
10/12/2013 at 07:26 • Filed to: F1 | 1
| 11 |
During FP3 and Qualifying Vettel reported an issue with KERS. Whilst the KERS was down, a number of times he slid the back end out whilst trying to get on power out of a corner.
It seems strangely coincidental that at the same time he lost his KERS he started having traction issues? !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!
davedave1111
> Simplify, then add beer
10/12/2013 at 08:15 |
|
All F1 cars have TC, whatever the rules say, just like all teams use team orders whether or not they're 'legal' that season.
That said, the wild-ass theories about Vettel's car - not Red Bull's cars, but Vettel's alone - are ludicrous. The suggestion that only he is affected by the 'secret' is nonsensical, so the fact that Webber's so much slower basically shows there's nothing going on.
Ultimately, the way the KERS TC system is supposed to work is just as illegal as if they'd fitted off the shelf TC, so it would be completely pointless.
GhostZ
> davedave1111
10/12/2013 at 08:50 |
|
It's not about whether the system is illegal or not, it's how easy it is to detect. They can't just ban "all" forms of traction control, but they have banned ones at significant (and the most obvious) points, the throttle linkage, the engine, the transmission, etc. But they never thought about people using KERS and the suspension geometry to work as traction control, just like they didn't expect people to mount aerodynamics in a way that lets the exhaust blow the spoiler.
They can't very well ban something if they have no idea how it works or where/what to ban about it to make it not work.
|
GhostZ
> Simplify, then add beer
10/12/2013 at 08:51 |
|
I hope they're right. Because if so, this ascends Adrian Newey from "mastermind" to "F1 Godhood" status. The entire concept is actually fascinating .
I'm all for the rule-skirting. Let the teams with worse designers fight for 2nd and 3rd, I want to see some incredibly clever innovation out of F1. And I guarantee you that Adrian Newey isn't the only one doing it (we saw Mercedes doing the same stuff before). F1 should be about the limits of what drivers and vehicle technology can do. It may not be at those limits anymore, but that doesn't mean they can't create new, ingenious ideas.
If I wanted fairness and only driver's skill, I'd go watch a spec series.
|
davedave1111
> GhostZ
10/12/2013 at 08:58 |
|
First up, we can't be totally disagreeing because what you start with is my point. As I said, all F1 teams use TC - my point there was that, like team orders, it's impossible to prove what's going on. It's just that it's trivially easy to implement it in the electronics in a undetectable way, so anything more complicated is completely pointless.
"They can't just ban "all" forms of traction control,"
They can and they have. The mechanisms aren't mentioned in the rules, only the effects. As a result, you simply cannot put traction control on an F1 car and be in compliance with the rules.
As far as I can make out, the mad theories here seem to suggest that RB had avoided the rules by building a TC system that used a mechanical, analogue computer (comprised of bits of suspension, tyres, and so-on) instead of a digital one and a load of sensors. The problem is that it wouldn't avoid the ban on TC at all, because the ban's on what you do, not how you do it. If your system limits wheelspin by detecting and allowing for traction differences, it's TC, and banned, however you did it.
nippon
> davedave1111
10/12/2013 at 09:02 |
|
Legal or not. And even if the other teams are in the same "gray area", they still don't have Newey to back it up.
That man is an F1 engineering god.
With that said, im happy we get to have that kind of stuff back in F1. It breaths some life back into it.
|
GhostZ
> davedave1111
10/12/2013 at 09:06 |
|
This is what I'm responding mostly to:
Ultimately, the way the KERS TC system is supposed to work is just as illegal as if they'd fitted off the shelf TC, so it would be completely pointless.
I'm saying there is a legitimate reason for them to use a KERS-based system even if it is as "illegal" as a EFI standard traction control, and that's for the detection. If they used a traditional EFI, they'd be found out right away and be forced to remove it. By using this complex system, they've gotten race after race out of it without anyone realizing just what it is.
The ban on TC only counts if they can find working evidence of it . It's not like the staff is going to say "Yeah, we think you have TC, but we have no idea how to regulate it so you can't, so could you kindly remove it?" The Red Bull team doesn't have to do anything until someone figures out exactly how it works, if that's what it is.
Even a blanket-ban on traction control needs to explain what the regulations call "traction control", and what components are regulated to prevent it. And even then, to prove that it "is" traction control, they'd have to find an explicit device that works within the car, which requires that the regulations guys know just as much (or more) about the car than its designer.
Imagine someone stealing a car. You're saying that there's no way someone would steal a car, repaint it, replace the vins, and hide it as someone's own real car because the theft would be just as illegal as if they just stole it and drove it around without any modifications, and it would just be more complicated. I'm saying that if that person did steal the car, and did all of that to hide that it was stolen, then they may not get caught, so it doesn't matter if its illegal or not. Does that explain my point?
|
davedave1111
> nippon
10/12/2013 at 09:13 |
|
Yeah, I think what I object to most is the way the daft TC theory detracts from the all-round excellence of the Red Bull car.
|
davedave1111
> GhostZ
10/12/2013 at 09:21 |
|
I really think you've got the wrong end of the stick as far as what I'm saying goes.
One point is that they can't detect TC done in any number of ways much simpler than the proposed 'KERS TC'. Like with team orders, you don't need to do much for whatever you've done to be unprovable. There are enough electronic systems on the car to allow you to hide it without any difficulty, at which point it's almost impossible to detect. The KERS TC idea would be much easier to detect and prove.
The other point is about what the rules actually say. They define TC by the effects, not by the mechanism. If you have anything on the car which limits wheelspin by detecting the traction available, it's banned.
What we end up with, then, is an idea that's still just as illegal as a straight-up electronic system, which would be much easier to detect. On that basis, the chances that RB are using it are obviously pretty close to zero.
The other point, of course, is that what we're seeing from Vettel is about what we expect from a top driver in a dominant car. There's no need for conspiracy theories to explain something completely normal.
TurboSloth
> Simplify, then add beer
10/12/2013 at 10:01 |
|
This is why I'm a big fan of RBR. Not because Vettel. Because Newey. I love the engineering behind F1 cars, and seriously, if Newey was able to create a KERS traction control, then seriously. I'm impressed. That's amazing.
|
Simplify, then add beer
> TurboSloth
10/12/2013 at 19:26 |
|
I think that may be the perfect meme/caption for this.
If this is true, it is one of the reasons why I watch F1. The tech is so far ahead its unbelievable.
I am a big RBR fan however I'm kinda hoping they get busted for this. 4 championships from Vettel is getting quite tiresome.
|
Simplify, then add beer
> GhostZ
10/12/2013 at 19:29 |
|
Very true.
I used to bemoan the kneecapping of abilities to make the f1 more balanced. However, working around the rules has made the engineers even craftier (exhaust diffuser anyone?) which make the sport just that more interesting.