74 replies to this topic

[YHR]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Aug 31 2007, 04:48 AM, said:

>
^ People make it sound like there's a "spec TC" and they're all the same in this thread like it's an on-off switch and no difference between teams in how the TC program is developed and integrated.

There's been much talk of late related to Hamilton's preference for setting the car up with more oversteer compared to other drivers and this suits the balance for these Bridgestones.

It would seem to me that TC programming for a driver that prefers oversteer to one who prefers understeer would be different as you integrate the front grip level into the overall package (since TC would affect rear grip RELATIVE to front ....and this year, it seems getting the front tyres right is the key).

One of the reasons that the McLaren/Ferrari supposedly has better 1 lap qualifying pace versus race pace is it's ability to run more front grip and how an oversteer setup would further enhance that. In terms of TC, your delivery of TC on an oversteering car could work against that setup package if you're too aggressive on it's delivery
1] The spot that I want to point to is that the techno reversionists that are so prevalent on here, seem to have this black box view of TC and that it's not a symbiotic tool rather than a crutch for lack of skill.
Also, the view on here seems to totally ignore integration and discounts driving style with TC.
Same people here wanting to go backwards in technology don't even consider the role of the steering wheel adjustments on the differential and brake bias adjustment , as well; if they are even aware of it - if they are, they don't acknowledge it.
Removing it will slow the cars for sure but a drop off in 1 car when TC being removed is NOT solely attributable to driving skill...my point was: there's some TC that is better than others.

The amount of performance drop off can also be due to how good the TC program was between teams and the balance of the car... Not all programs are the same in quality.
AND
how much TC was masking poor design balance (totally UNRELATED to driver input).

So what's with Montoya (or Villeneuve) ?!
He was an unadapted slacker; didn't worked with the team to the adapt the TC to his style, nor did he worked on his style to adapt to the TC.2] Another misconception, TC reduces tire wear.
There are several forms of TC (throttle pedal as an engine torque demand, throttle pedal as a rear wheel torque demand, throttle pedal as a speed demand, throttle pedal as a slip ratio command and others).

The throttle pedal as a slip ratio command:
- controlling rear wheel slip ratio provides the driver with the means of either demanding the maximum acceleration the car can deliver (full pedal deflection), either limited by the traction available or the power available, or a means of steering the car under power by varying the slip ratio, and thus the location on the friction ellipse of the tyres at which they are operating. The slip ratio will be set as required by the driver's pedal, irrespective of engine characteristics, speed, or rear axle load (aerodynamic, load transfer or bump induced). He can still try and negotiate a corner too fast, and lose control, but under all conditions in which power is required, he will be operating at the maximum and still be able to steer the car on the "throttle", though now he has virtually no control over the engine throttles. Because he will nearly always be at the maximum slip ratio, tyre wear will become greater.  

This could be the reason, or a contributing factor, as to why Hamilton's tire blew up in Turkey.  
3] Misconception 3, TC can be policed, truly baned.
3.1] The standard ECU CAN BE hacked (and it will be).
3.2] There are other ways to put back TC besides ECU (this coming from people who write TC and actually have racing experience).
3.1] The (big) teams will have one form or another of TC (rest assured as they are working hard on it right now).

Thanks for your views

Techno reversionists want to see more control left with the driver, plain and simple. All the points above are correct, (except of course the JV slag, which it totally off base with respect to him as a driver)but the fundemental difference is that there is a team of engineers between the driver I/O. The point that you made that I bolded is the very essence of our arguement. Drive by wire doesn't do it for me, and that is why F1 is loosing its appeal to me, and I suspect many others, otherwise why would F1 be moving in the direction that they are.

I respect you opinion, but totally disagree with it.  Driving is about passion and drivers.  There ia a planned MARS mission.  Let the engineers do their magic on that project, and leave car racing to drivers feeling the road and using the footfeed around corners.

Brake Bias, give us a break will you.

Edited by YHR, 31 August 2007 - 01:41 PM.

[DOF_power]

>



^ But the techno-revisionists don't seem to understand that when you're making a car go fast, there are factors witch lead to accidents/incidents that are irrelevant of drivers skills.




The flaws of today's cars are numerous.

Suspensions (witch absorb shock transversally), tires and perhaps above all the flat bottom design.


If it wasn't TC it was chemical enhanced tires, active suspension (later coupled to TC), skirts and/or inverted wing (on the non-flat bottom ground effects) and so on.

The streamlined GP cars of the 30s, sports prototypes of late 60/early 70s showed flat bottom cars had problems with back-flipping/take-offs/rotations or at the very least a weirdo rally like behavior.


Reduced power and ground effects (fans, mini-skirts, inverted wings) reduced this.
The combination of turbo engines (making the cars fast on straights) with ground effects (fast on turns) - plus the limited run-off areas and the incipient use of composite materials and deformable structures in the cars - was turning Formula 1/motor-sport into a far too dangerous exercise.

So then the flat bottom returned and its problems (just as bad as the non-ground ground effects). When inverted-wing and mini-skirts ground effect were banned, the main role of keeping the car stuck to the ground shifted to the tyres. In a couple of seasons cornering speeds were even higher, and running costs only soared - especially due to the super-sticky (chemicaly enhanced) qualification tyres.
Then came active-suspensions.

The fact if, as long as the elevation changes are in the corners, after the corners, or leading up to them, there is gonna be trouble.
The humps, vibrators and peaks (or car in front in case of an accident) are really acting like a ramps and the sensitive flat bottomed cars love it as an excuse to rotate and/or take off and/or act like rally cars (and maybe this is why we have the AWD hint in the 2011 proposals).

That's we had the active ride cars with their active-suspensions (that follow the track surface) and (legal) TC.
When they were banned, to keep the (flat bottom) cars on track, they needed constantly redesignable aero & suspensions, and TC (legal or hidden-illegal) and so forth, and also increased weight to 605 kg.


The problem with the non-flat-bottomed car, the ground effects skirt cars was their reliance to mini-skirts and close contact with the ground. When that was no longer the case (as in skirts were damaged/destroyed) boom.


There are de facto 4 ground-effects solutions, the inverted-wing, mini-skirts (aka de facto ground effects), fan cars, and flat bottom+rear diffuser used today.

So, in my opinion, inverted-wing ground-effects cars - and not mini-skirt nor flat bottom ground effect ones - could make racing safer and better.
By using inverted-wing shaped sidepods/undertrays the overall downforce generated by the single seater becomes less dependent on the front and rear wing. So the system may act as a "safety harness" in case the front is lost and/or the car goes over a crest following the tow given by another.
Besides safety, wing cars can also be used to spice up racing.
Cars become less dependent on the front wing, so they are more able to follow another one through disturbed air (turbulent air) and not become quite tough to handle in these circumstances. So it would be easier (and safer) to a car to follow another one up close and then pull an overtaking move.

Ofcourse this is not perfect.
The big elevation changes will influence the car regardless. This is where either AWD or active-suspension is needed.


This combined solution will actually drastically reduce the need for TC (cause its either that, or make every track perfectly flat).



So what about the the driver ?!
When performance goes up (under non-perfectly flat tracks), under some circumstances/scenarios, someone takes part of the control away from him.
Whether its a sophisticated aerodynamics coupled to some electro-mecanical solution or Mother Nature's Law's of Physics (pulling the car in a accident) something surely happens.

In the old days, serious accidents was what happened. And whether you called yourself Bernd Rosemeyer (in a ground effects mini-skirt car) to Ayrton Senna (flat bottom "passive" car), your skill was not enough.


Now other single seater series have slicks, wider track, and are heavier, and slower so as to keep the car on track (for a while at least).
Other like midgets/whatever don't even utilize downforce.
And while they might satisfy some old school/techno revisionists, these are not popular or even heard of, compared to F1 of today.
In fact this was the case of old F1, as it was in many ways a small niche sport and only became popular starting with the late 70s/early 80s (witch "coincidence" saw F1 become the pinnacle in therms of technology (turbos, ground effects, carbon fibre)).

[DOF_power]

Quote

Driving is about passion and drivers. There ia a planned MARS mission. Let the engineers do their magic on that project, and leave car racing to drivers feeling the road and using the footfeed around corners.

It's about winning by getting the edge over your opposition.
The Gran-Prix single seater was conceive and born because of this. It was the ultimate machinery, the jet fighter/space shuttle on 4 wheels meant to destroy the filed. And indeed the first the Alfa P3, then its successors the silver arrows did just this.
  
Winning by competing at every level, from aerodynamics, to from mecanics who can refuel and change tires faster, electronics, better software programmers, to bosses who can attract more sponsors.
A (almost) Total War on Multiple Levels, for this is no stinking little league for kids, this is Grand Prix racing.

[YHR]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Aug 31 2007, 10:16 AM, said:

It's about winning by getting the edge over your opposition.
The Gran-Prix single seater was conceive and born because of this. It was the ultimate machinery, the jet fighter/space shuttle on 4 wheels meant to destroy the filed. And indeed the first the Alfa P3, then its successors the silver arrows did just this.
  
Winning by competing at every level, from aerodynamics, to from mecanics who can refuel and change tires faster, electronics, better software programmers, to bosses who can attract more sponsors.
A (almost) Total War on Multiple Levels, for this is no stinking little league for kids, this is Grand Prix racing.

Well that is an interesting perspective.  Since this world is driven on economics, in order for you to enjoy you view of F1 racing, then the product must be marketable.  I suggest that the parade of cars is getting long on tooth.  As can be seen on this forum, most discussion involves drivers.  That is what the general poplation are passionate about.  If your all out assault on everything diminshes the joy of watching your favorite driver drift around a corner, then you vision may not be sustainable.  

The on track racing has been pitifully bad over the years.  Slightly improved this year, but over all, very little doubt on the finish.  I don't  make any special effort to watch a race anymore.  In my world that is the reality

[DOF_power]

>



^ In the FIA AMD pole, 91% said F1 is the pinnacle and should remain.
So should we focus of the 9%.


You can improve the show by actually adding more technology.

Because in the "good old" Prost - Senna days you only had ground-effects (suspected illegal versions too), slicks, chemicaly enhanced tires, active suspensions, turbos with illegal pop up valves, illegal twin-chassis, twin-floor, illegal water cooled brakes, and all before we even mention the active-ride cars.

We live in boring times.

[YHR]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Aug 31 2007, 02:07 PM, said:

>
^ In the FIA AMD pole, 91% said F1 is the pinnacle and should remain.
So should we focus of the 9%. You can improve the show by actually adding more technology.

Because in the "good old" Prost - Senna days you only had ground-effects (suspected illegal versions too), slicks, chemicaly enhanced tires, active suspensions, turbos with illegal pop up valves, illegal twin-chassis, twin-floor, illegal water cooled brakes, and all before we even mention the active-ride cars.

We live in boring times.

First of all, I have other forms of racing to watch.  I quite enjoy Champcar.  I find it more entertaining. So don't worry about the 9%

I doubt the economics of motor racing will support an all out assault of technology.  The F1 field is already short two cars and there are 2 B teams because the sport can't attract people to invest in the product. It all boils down to economics in the end.

As I mentioned before we are on totally different planes with respect to what auto racing should be.  I am fine with that.  F1 can be anything it wants to be, If I am interested I will watch.

[DOF_power]

YHR, on Sep 1 2007, 01:55 AM, said:

First of all, I have other forms of racing to watch.  I quite enjoy Champcar.  I find it more entertaining. So don't worry about the 9%

I doubt the economics of motor racing will support an all out assault of technology.  The F1 field is already short two cars and there are 2 B teams because the sport can't attract people to invest in the product. It all boils down to economics in the end.

As I mentioned before we are on totally different planes with respect to what auto racing should be.  I am fine with that.  F1 can be anything it wants to be, If I am interested I will watch.

1] But the sport is atracting money.

With the likes of Vodafone, Santander, Marlboro throwing money like confetti. After the tobacco era we have telecomunications and finacial giants pouring money. And next are airline companies.

In the "good old days" before 84, the dominant engine was the DFV (powering most of the field) and customer chassis were allowed (Rob Walker Cooper/Lotus; Tyrell Matra and so on; not to forget the 96 Ligiers aka "blue Benettons" or the "blue Ferraris" of the 80s).

And even the poorest teams today have it a lot better than the likes of Fondmetal and Andreea Moda.



2] Some these technologies would actually reduced costs and improve the show.
for example
Inverted-wing ground-effects, movable aero coupled to active-suspensions would reduce drasticaly/eliminate the need to redesign/modify suspensions, aerodynamics and modify/rewrite TC software for every track (witch is the main reason for the spiraling of costs today and the boredom).





So nothing new really.

[YHR]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Sep 1 2007, 03:57 AM, said:

1] But the sport is atracting money.

With the likes of Vodafone, Santander, Marlboro throwing money like confetti. After the tobacco era we have telecomunications and finacial giants pouring money. And next are airline companies.

In the "good old days" before 84, the dominant engine was the DFV (powering most of the field) and customer chassis were allowed (Rob Walker Cooper/Lotus; Tyrell Matra and so on; not to forget the 96 Ligiers aka "blue Benettons" or the "blue Ferraris" of the 80s).

And even the poorest teams today have it a lot better than the likes of Fondmetal and Andreea Moda.
2] Some these technologies would actually reduced costs and improve the show.
for example
Inverted-wing ground-effects, movable aero coupled to active-suspensions would reduce drasticaly/eliminate the need to redesign/modify suspensions, aerodynamics and modify/rewrite TC software for every track (witch is the main reason for the spiraling of costs today and the boredom).
So nothing new really.

Ok

[DOF_power]

>



^ Well thank goodness for that.

[Rainmaster]

A thread about traction control eh? Well it sucks and good riddance I say.

[Eric]

Rainmaster, on Nov 24 2007, 04:18 PM, said:

A thread about traction control eh? Well it sucks and good riddance I say.

TC is for babies.  Except when driving above 3 mph in dry conditions, 1 mph in the rain, and 0.6 mph in the snow

Just kidding.  TC sucks, I say down with it.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

ERIC, on Nov 24 2007, 09:28 PM, said:

TC is for babies.  Except when driving above 3 mph in dry conditions, 1 mph in the rain, and 0.6 mph in the snow

Just kidding.  TC sucks, I say down with it.

Burn it! No, build a bridge out of it! etc

[Eric]

Meanioni, on Nov 24 2007, 04:29 PM, said:

Burn it! No, build a bridge out of it! etc

I've a better idea: eat it.

See, in America, there's a holiday called Thanksgiving.  In which we say everything we're thankful for, and then eat 43 million turkeys until everyone in America who isn't already obese (all 3 of us) is obese.  And then we all get so drunk until we can't remember how obese everyone is.

So I propose Hatesgiving.  We say what we all hate, and then eat what we hate, like TC.  And then we get so drunk so we forget we ate our 800-lb mother-in-law.

[ykickamoocow]

ERIC, on Nov 25 2007, 08:35 AM, said:

I've a better idea: eat it.

See, in America, there's a holiday called Thanksgiving.  In which we say everything we're thankful for, and then eat 43 million turkeys until everyone in America who isn't already obese (all 3 of us) is obese.  And then we all get so drunk until we can't remember how obese everyone is.

So I propose Hatesgiving.  We say what we all hate, and then eat what we hate, like TC.  And then we get so drunk so we forget we ate our 800-lb mother-in-law.

You have got the meaning of thanksgiven all wrong. For me Thanksgiving is some random week in the year where all my favourite TV shows wont air as they arnt airing in America. How can anyone be thankful without new episodes i'll never know.

[goferrarigo]

ykickamoocow, on Nov 24 2007, 10:27 PM, said:

You have got the meaning of thanksgiven all wrong. For me Thanksgiving is some random week in the year where all my favourite TV shows wont air as they arnt airing in America. How can anyone be thankful without new episodes i'll never know.

In America new TV show episodes did air....

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

ERIC, on Nov 24 2007, 09:35 PM, said:

So I propose Hatesgiving.  We say what we all hate, and then eat what we hate, like TC.  And then we get so drunk so we forget we ate our 800-lb mother-in-law.

That's called Christmas in the UK, but you omitted the "and all the relatives who you really don't like come round and give you presents that you don't want and they got from someone else last year and re-wrapped them".

[DOF_power]

Rainmaster, on Nov 24 2007, 11:18 PM, said:

A thread about traction control eh? Well it sucks and good riddance I say.

Have you actually bothered to read the tread ?!

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Nov 25 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Have you actually bothered to read the tread ?!

No there's no tread on most F1 cars, they have grooves instead

[Rainmaster]

DOF_Renault_BMW, on Nov 25 2007, 02:12 PM, said:

Have you actually bothered to read the tread ?!

Do I have to? I don't want tc in F1, that's my opinion.

Yes I have read it.

[Eric]

ykickamoocow, on Nov 24 2007, 11:27 PM, said:

You have got the meaning of thanksgiven all wrong. For me Thanksgiving is some random week in the year where all my favourite TV shows wont air as they arnt airing in America. How can anyone be thankful without new episodes i'll never know.

Maybe if you have an actual life, those things don't bother you so much

Meanioni, on Nov 25 2007, 06:01 AM, said:

That's called Christmas in the UK, but you omitted the "and all the relatives who you really don't like come round and give you presents that you don't want and they got from someone else last year and re-wrapped them".

Indeed.  Like the time when I was 10 and my grandfather sent me girl's clothes and my sister boy's clothes and my brother nothing...and it's not like he just mislabeled them, the girl's clothes were too small for my sister, and the boy's clothes were too big for me...

Which is why I celebrate Festivus.  It's a Festivus for the rest of us!

Meanioni, on Nov 25 2007, 09:15 AM, said:

No there's no tread on most F1 cars, they have grooves instead

[Eric]

Rainmaster, on Nov 25 2007, 09:39 AM, said:

Do I have to? I don't want tc in F1, that's my opinion.

Yes I have read it.

Do you think if I changed my display name to Raimnaster and copied your avatar, location, personal photo, profile information, and signature, that people would believe I'm you?

[Rainmaster]

Eric, on Nov 25 2007, 02:40 PM, said:

Do you think if I changed my display name to Raimnaster and copied your avatar, location, personal photo, profile information, and signature, that people would believe I'm you?

No, you'd still have a small penis. Anyway don't worry, it's only natural that you want to be like me.

[Eric]

Rainmaster, on Nov 25 2007, 09:53 AM, said:

No, you'd still have a small penis. Anyway don't worry, it's only natural that you want to be like me.

No.  I just want to make you say embarrassing things and have people think it's really you.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer]

Eric, on Nov 25 2007, 02:39 PM, said:

Indeed.  Like the time when I was 10 and my grandfather sent me girl's clothes and my sister boy's clothes and my brother nothing...and it's not like he just mislabeled them, the girl's clothes were too small for my sister, and the boy's clothes were too big for me...

I think he got your measure early on

[Rainmaster]

Eric, on Nov 25 2007, 03:06 PM, said:

No. I just want to make you say embarrassing things and have people think it's really you.

I know you do, but I would have to return the favour .

[goferrarigo]

Eric, on Nov 25 2007, 08:40 AM, said:

Do you think if I changed my display name to Raimnaster and copied your avatar, location, personal photo, profile information, and signature, that people would believe I'm you?

Yes, you could get away with it for sometime...

ykick did that too Ben once, and then almost all senior members changed themselves to avatars of ykick(also know in history books as ykick virus)

[Eric]

Rainmaster, on Nov 25 2007, 11:02 AM, said:

I know you do, but I would have to return the favour .

But everyone would notice.  Eric is too short of a name to switch letters.  Most people see the "nm" in your name as 3 breasts, and "mn" is the same thing...no switching of Eric would work.

[Eric]

goferrarigo, on Nov 25 2007, 11:24 AM, said:

Yes, you could get away with it for sometime...

ykick did that too Ben once, and then almost all senior members changed themselves to avatars of ykick(also know in history books as ykick virus)

Yeah, I remember it.  I wasn't a registered sex offender member.  But I saw it.

Edited by Eric, 25 November 2007 - 04:30 PM.

[goferrarigo]

Eric, on Nov 25 2007, 10:30 AM, said:

Yeah, I remember it.  I wasn't a registered sex offender member.  But I saw it.

Then go for it rainnaster...

[Eric]

goferrarigo, on Nov 25 2007, 11:42 AM, said:

Then go for it rainnaster...

Naah.  Now they no my secret plans.

I'll try as someone else...