Ferrari F430 Spider
Discussion
F1 Issues
I mentioned in a previous update that my car had suffered an F1 problem. I took it to Christian Lewis to see Ed who diagnosed actuator bleed screws over the phone (liquid had begun to overfill from my tank on it's own accord, after being stood for a few months). Stored codes suggested a relay problem so that was changed. The EVF loop (clutch hydraulics) was also bled. A self-learn was also run and something I learned was that the CFC301 software is a far more advanced unit than the 231 and a 'DEIS Autoset' function is available, rather than the usual 'Self learn'.
From the first run of DEIS things started to get a bit funky. On the first attempt an error came back for low system pressure and so the pump was diagnosed. Luckily I had a complete nearly new Scuderia system at home so I went and got the pump from that to use on my car. At this point I was under my own pressure to get the car ready and at Silverstone - it was Thursday and I was due over on Friday!
Ed fitted the new pump/motor as soon as I got it over. It was now taking several attempts to connect to the TCU and at that point I suspected it was the real problem, or at least one of them. Ed persevered and got another DEIS run to be successful, but from then on the car wouldn't start. An hour or so of checking the basics like fuses, connections etc. and with no codes on the TCU or either DME - or anything untoward recorded anywhere in the SD3 - it still wouldn't start.
At this point there was no way I'd get to Silverstone but CL kindly gave me a loan car for the first day, and Ed was in discussion with some of his other contacts to get me a loan TCU for Silverstone. One finally came through on Saturday morning so I at least got the car there, though driving on a hastily set up (no time to do anything else) temporary CFC231 TCU was a bit of an eye opener when compared to the original 301!
Ed even gave the car a wash and polish so it looked good for the show - the service is really excellent. Parts taken off the car are also cleaned, like the under tray for example. This is service you just don't get at Ferrari and it made up my mind that my car won't be going back to a main dealer.
Scuderia gearbox & F1 system
Back from Silverstone the car went away for a few weeks whilst I was busy, and the next time I went back to it I saw another pool - albeit a small one - of F1 oil underneath, meaning the original issue remained. I suspected it was the actuator screws which weren’t touched given the other things that came up at the time, but by that point I was getting a bit fed up of the system. Truth be told I didn’t think much of the F1 when it was working - it’s too slow - so I had a choice: buy another TCU and get the standard system bled and working, or buy a 16M TCU and pay a bit extra to have the Scuderia system fitted. I decided on the latter.
Ed took a load of photos of the work, so here is the removal process.
A frame removal.
The old 'box being removed.
Here is the Scuderia gearbox and F1 system going in. 1,200 miles only hence like new.
F1 pump and valves installed.
I had already done my research on TCUs before embarking upon the conversion so I knew that Ferrari really improved the software on the 16M above and beyond the Scuderia, thus my choice was the latest 16M TCU revision suitable for the UK market: 254519.
I bought a new TCU from Eurospares so that all of the internal usage counters would be zero. I have a record of the old TCU values to include in the cars' history file.
Once installed the SD3 connected up fine. The following images show the zeroed counters and additional measurement blocks available from the TCU
Ed ran a DEIS on the TCU to begin the setup and calibration phase.
DEIS failed due to a problem with the clutch pressure sensor. As my old F1 system was 301 based it had the clutch pressure sensor, so it was swapped over and the fault cleared. This is where things got interesting.
Scuderia electronics research – Part 5
I had a call with Ed when he told of the remaining errors: P0600 Can bus, and P1762 lateral acceleration sensor. The car would not start with these logged.
When I heard I instantly knew the root cause and I also knew it would be extremely unlikely that I’d have the car for my road trip; in a previous ‘Scuderia electronics research’ update I covered the Scuderia lateral acceleration (commonly referred to as the yaw) sensor that changed to a CAN bus based ‘digital’ sensor, and also the ABS module itself which was updated. I also knew from testing with the Scuderia instrument cluster that the ABS data for the Scuderia was different to the F430 and thus when installed the Scuderia cluster reports similar errors to what the TCU had done . Evidently the new TCU would not work without the ABS module and CAN bus yaw sensor.
It was interesting to learn that the TCU software is dependent on the lateral sensor and has its own inbuilt error handling/diagnosis to cater for it. I can’t think that it is required for the gear change strategy so I hypothesise that there is redundancy in error detection of safety critical systems - the TCU for example already has code built in to prevent the engine starting if certain criteria aren’t met, so it’s likely the case that it’s used as the initiator for a safety check strategy. It’s an area of real interest and something I’d like to learn more about.
I decided to forget the car for a while so that evening took my fiancée out for dinner but more than a few drinks later I decided that a standard F430 actuator would run the Scuderia gearbox and enable me to use the car for the road trip. The selector fingers in the Scuderia gearbox are made from a stronger material and they are bevelled on their edges to allow the actuator to move diagonally across them, to allow rapid up and downshifts, but ultimately I thought, the actuator has to engage by pushing on the nose of the finger. If I used an F430 TCU the software could not take advantage of the optimised actuator and gearbox, but it could operate the gears and drive like an F430. Ed agreed to assist and helped me try a number of different TCUs.
After researching ABS modules I had the hair-brained idea of trying a Maserati TCU from around 2004 - based on specific models being equipped with the F430 type ABS module. Ed had one in stock and tried it but the result was a load of errors because it did not contain code for the drive mode settings. Next I sourced a CFC231 from an F430 and had it sent over from Germany for Ed to fit. The engine started and engaged gears. A result, or so we thought.
The engine ran but the F1 light came on shortly after, meaning no gears. Ed investigated and found errors logged for the RPM sensor so that was duly swapped with the one from my old gearbox. The same result. Upon closer inspection of the error P0175, it also applies to an inconsistent signal. Ed checked the teeth that drive the sensor and also continuity of the cables: no issues. The SD3 also showed zero RPM.
At this point my hypothesis was that because of the change in gearing on the Scuderia gearbox the tooth count on the gear that drove the RPM sensor differed and therefore the software function used to calculate shaft RPM differed to that in the F430. Ed was kind enough to try the TCU elsewhere and found no fault, so that concluded things.
My next steps are to strip the interior and rewire the body loom to Scuderia spec, then fit the Scuderia ABS module and yaw sensor. I’ve ordered the requisite brake pipes from Eurospares and I already have the CAN bus yaw sensor. I already have the latest revision of Scuderia/16M E-Diff and suspension modules so they will go in, too. To be honest it’s at the stage now where I would be really surprised if I did not need the Scuderia engine ECUs and the steering wheel, in fact I would be very surprised if the change in ABS module did not precipitate a code change in the ECUs for traction control at least. We shall see.
Christian Lewis / Ed Blasi
I need to leave a footnote to Ed because the service I received was second to none; he took a genuine interest in the project and on many occasions went above and beyond in an effort to help me get the car ready for both Silverstone and the road trip. This was far from the usual leave a car and pick it up a week alter type job, but one that had a lot of figuring out, ‘off piste’ work and many discussions between us about ideas. I won’t hesitate to recommend him/Christian Lewis.
I mentioned in a previous update that my car had suffered an F1 problem. I took it to Christian Lewis to see Ed who diagnosed actuator bleed screws over the phone (liquid had begun to overfill from my tank on it's own accord, after being stood for a few months). Stored codes suggested a relay problem so that was changed. The EVF loop (clutch hydraulics) was also bled. A self-learn was also run and something I learned was that the CFC301 software is a far more advanced unit than the 231 and a 'DEIS Autoset' function is available, rather than the usual 'Self learn'.
From the first run of DEIS things started to get a bit funky. On the first attempt an error came back for low system pressure and so the pump was diagnosed. Luckily I had a complete nearly new Scuderia system at home so I went and got the pump from that to use on my car. At this point I was under my own pressure to get the car ready and at Silverstone - it was Thursday and I was due over on Friday!
Ed fitted the new pump/motor as soon as I got it over. It was now taking several attempts to connect to the TCU and at that point I suspected it was the real problem, or at least one of them. Ed persevered and got another DEIS run to be successful, but from then on the car wouldn't start. An hour or so of checking the basics like fuses, connections etc. and with no codes on the TCU or either DME - or anything untoward recorded anywhere in the SD3 - it still wouldn't start.
At this point there was no way I'd get to Silverstone but CL kindly gave me a loan car for the first day, and Ed was in discussion with some of his other contacts to get me a loan TCU for Silverstone. One finally came through on Saturday morning so I at least got the car there, though driving on a hastily set up (no time to do anything else) temporary CFC231 TCU was a bit of an eye opener when compared to the original 301!
Ed even gave the car a wash and polish so it looked good for the show - the service is really excellent. Parts taken off the car are also cleaned, like the under tray for example. This is service you just don't get at Ferrari and it made up my mind that my car won't be going back to a main dealer.
Scuderia gearbox & F1 system
Back from Silverstone the car went away for a few weeks whilst I was busy, and the next time I went back to it I saw another pool - albeit a small one - of F1 oil underneath, meaning the original issue remained. I suspected it was the actuator screws which weren’t touched given the other things that came up at the time, but by that point I was getting a bit fed up of the system. Truth be told I didn’t think much of the F1 when it was working - it’s too slow - so I had a choice: buy another TCU and get the standard system bled and working, or buy a 16M TCU and pay a bit extra to have the Scuderia system fitted. I decided on the latter.
Ed took a load of photos of the work, so here is the removal process.
A frame removal.
The old 'box being removed.
Here is the Scuderia gearbox and F1 system going in. 1,200 miles only hence like new.
F1 pump and valves installed.
I had already done my research on TCUs before embarking upon the conversion so I knew that Ferrari really improved the software on the 16M above and beyond the Scuderia, thus my choice was the latest 16M TCU revision suitable for the UK market: 254519.
I bought a new TCU from Eurospares so that all of the internal usage counters would be zero. I have a record of the old TCU values to include in the cars' history file.
Once installed the SD3 connected up fine. The following images show the zeroed counters and additional measurement blocks available from the TCU
Ed ran a DEIS on the TCU to begin the setup and calibration phase.
DEIS failed due to a problem with the clutch pressure sensor. As my old F1 system was 301 based it had the clutch pressure sensor, so it was swapped over and the fault cleared. This is where things got interesting.
Scuderia electronics research – Part 5
I had a call with Ed when he told of the remaining errors: P0600 Can bus, and P1762 lateral acceleration sensor. The car would not start with these logged.
When I heard I instantly knew the root cause and I also knew it would be extremely unlikely that I’d have the car for my road trip; in a previous ‘Scuderia electronics research’ update I covered the Scuderia lateral acceleration (commonly referred to as the yaw) sensor that changed to a CAN bus based ‘digital’ sensor, and also the ABS module itself which was updated. I also knew from testing with the Scuderia instrument cluster that the ABS data for the Scuderia was different to the F430 and thus when installed the Scuderia cluster reports similar errors to what the TCU had done . Evidently the new TCU would not work without the ABS module and CAN bus yaw sensor.
It was interesting to learn that the TCU software is dependent on the lateral sensor and has its own inbuilt error handling/diagnosis to cater for it. I can’t think that it is required for the gear change strategy so I hypothesise that there is redundancy in error detection of safety critical systems - the TCU for example already has code built in to prevent the engine starting if certain criteria aren’t met, so it’s likely the case that it’s used as the initiator for a safety check strategy. It’s an area of real interest and something I’d like to learn more about.
I decided to forget the car for a while so that evening took my fiancée out for dinner but more than a few drinks later I decided that a standard F430 actuator would run the Scuderia gearbox and enable me to use the car for the road trip. The selector fingers in the Scuderia gearbox are made from a stronger material and they are bevelled on their edges to allow the actuator to move diagonally across them, to allow rapid up and downshifts, but ultimately I thought, the actuator has to engage by pushing on the nose of the finger. If I used an F430 TCU the software could not take advantage of the optimised actuator and gearbox, but it could operate the gears and drive like an F430. Ed agreed to assist and helped me try a number of different TCUs.
After researching ABS modules I had the hair-brained idea of trying a Maserati TCU from around 2004 - based on specific models being equipped with the F430 type ABS module. Ed had one in stock and tried it but the result was a load of errors because it did not contain code for the drive mode settings. Next I sourced a CFC231 from an F430 and had it sent over from Germany for Ed to fit. The engine started and engaged gears. A result, or so we thought.
The engine ran but the F1 light came on shortly after, meaning no gears. Ed investigated and found errors logged for the RPM sensor so that was duly swapped with the one from my old gearbox. The same result. Upon closer inspection of the error P0175, it also applies to an inconsistent signal. Ed checked the teeth that drive the sensor and also continuity of the cables: no issues. The SD3 also showed zero RPM.
At this point my hypothesis was that because of the change in gearing on the Scuderia gearbox the tooth count on the gear that drove the RPM sensor differed and therefore the software function used to calculate shaft RPM differed to that in the F430. Ed was kind enough to try the TCU elsewhere and found no fault, so that concluded things.
My next steps are to strip the interior and rewire the body loom to Scuderia spec, then fit the Scuderia ABS module and yaw sensor. I’ve ordered the requisite brake pipes from Eurospares and I already have the CAN bus yaw sensor. I already have the latest revision of Scuderia/16M E-Diff and suspension modules so they will go in, too. To be honest it’s at the stage now where I would be really surprised if I did not need the Scuderia engine ECUs and the steering wheel, in fact I would be very surprised if the change in ABS module did not precipitate a code change in the ECUs for traction control at least. We shall see.
Christian Lewis / Ed Blasi
I need to leave a footnote to Ed because the service I received was second to none; he took a genuine interest in the project and on many occasions went above and beyond in an effort to help me get the car ready for both Silverstone and the road trip. This was far from the usual leave a car and pick it up a week alter type job, but one that had a lot of figuring out, ‘off piste’ work and many discussions between us about ideas. I won’t hesitate to recommend him/Christian Lewis.
Just a quick question if I may....
I drive two identical F430 F1 Spiders for work. The beginning of my day involves driving them out of their garages, up a very steep slope, and into the road.
I find if I leave the cars idling to warm up for a few minutes, I can drive up the slope with no issues and without using that many revs. However, if I just turn the car on, drive it straight out of the garage and up the slope, I have to use a lot of revs, and I get a horrible smell of burning clutch - it's clear the cars don't like it at all.
My boss (the owner of the cars) has told me that he doesn't want me to leave the cars idling in the garage as residents complain about the noise (the irony of course being that the cars make a huge amount more noise trying to climb the slope when not warmed up properly), and that driving the cars straight up the slope without leaving them to warm up is not causing any damage to the clutches.
I absolutely hate doing this as it feels very mechanically unsympathetic and although they're not my cars, I don't like purposely damaging a beautiful car. The Gallardo LP560 I also drive gets up the slope no problem after a 10 second warm up, although I assume the gearbox/clutch setup on that is very different to the F430.
So, is this normal or do you think there is a particular problem with the cars? Would you agree that doing this is highly likely to cause some pretty serious damage?
I drive two identical F430 F1 Spiders for work. The beginning of my day involves driving them out of their garages, up a very steep slope, and into the road.
I find if I leave the cars idling to warm up for a few minutes, I can drive up the slope with no issues and without using that many revs. However, if I just turn the car on, drive it straight out of the garage and up the slope, I have to use a lot of revs, and I get a horrible smell of burning clutch - it's clear the cars don't like it at all.
My boss (the owner of the cars) has told me that he doesn't want me to leave the cars idling in the garage as residents complain about the noise (the irony of course being that the cars make a huge amount more noise trying to climb the slope when not warmed up properly), and that driving the cars straight up the slope without leaving them to warm up is not causing any damage to the clutches.
I absolutely hate doing this as it feels very mechanically unsympathetic and although they're not my cars, I don't like purposely damaging a beautiful car. The Gallardo LP560 I also drive gets up the slope no problem after a 10 second warm up, although I assume the gearbox/clutch setup on that is very different to the F430.
So, is this normal or do you think there is a particular problem with the cars? Would you agree that doing this is highly likely to cause some pretty serious damage?
Thanks all. At the moment the only exterior pics I have are already in this thread.
If you put the cars in Race mode and try to get the revs up to 1500 the clutch should fully release regardless of engine temperature; if you are very positive with the set-off you can drive around a poor setup - to a degree.
Essentially the cars need examining by a technician who's good with F1.
Geekman said:
Just a quick question if I may....
...
So, is this normal or do you think there is a particular problem with the cars? Would you agree that doing this is highly likely to cause some pretty serious damage?
Your driving situation isn't a usual one and may never feel perfect but clutch setup in these cars is a bit of an art, especially pre-2008; what year are the cars? The clutch configuration works on micrometers and because the rotating assembly moves slightly when the engine is warm (crank nose, flywheel etc. expand when hot), if the setup isn't great it will out one way or the other, or worse, both! The calibration of the clutch must take this into account and so the car must be driven when cold and hot during the calibration stage. Post 2008 uses an algoritm based on requested/provided torque and gets around this by a large degree, but still requires initial config. ...
So, is this normal or do you think there is a particular problem with the cars? Would you agree that doing this is highly likely to cause some pretty serious damage?
If you put the cars in Race mode and try to get the revs up to 1500 the clutch should fully release regardless of engine temperature; if you are very positive with the set-off you can drive around a poor setup - to a degree.
Essentially the cars need examining by a technician who's good with F1.
Main issue I think you've got is the mixing and matching of TCU and ABS module (which from what I can decipher, you've already worked out!). It's unlikely you'll get the ABS or TCM to work together unless they're the two from the same car. Gear ratios, shift speeds etc are intrinsic to the operation of the TCS, ABS and VDC, so even if it works initially, you'll probably find you get checksum errors as the TCM won't be sending the correct data on the correct CAN frame. Unfortunately, as cars get more complicated, the networking gets next to impossible to understand without the access to the base code.
Assuming then you're going to match the ABS, Yaw sensor and TCM now? IMO, that largely should work providing the engine ECU didn't have significant changes?
Assuming then you're going to match the ABS, Yaw sensor and TCM now? IMO, that largely should work providing the engine ECU didn't have significant changes?
RacerMike said:
Main issue I think you've got is the mixing and matching of TCU and ABS module (which from what I can decipher, you've already worked out!). It's unlikely you'll get the ABS or TCM to work together unless they're the two from the same car. Gear ratios, shift speeds etc are intrinsic to the operation of the TCS, ABS and VDC, so even if it works initially, you'll probably find you get checksum errors as the TCM won't be sending the correct data on the correct CAN frame. Unfortunately, as cars get more complicated, the networking gets next to impossible to understand without the access to the base code.
Assuming then you're going to match the ABS, Yaw sensor and TCM now? IMO, that largely should work providing the engine ECU didn't have significant changes?
Thank you - interesting info. Yes, that's the plan. Given the cluster and TCU software were changed to work with the later ABS modukle I'm doubtful that my ECUs will remain valid with those in place, but I'll give it a go. I've identified the wiring changes required to convert my engine loom to Scuderia spec so if I do go that far, with the ion knock sensing system etc., I may as well start on the engine project Assuming then you're going to match the ABS, Yaw sensor and TCM now? IMO, that largely should work providing the engine ECU didn't have significant changes?
mwstewart said:
Thank you - interesting info. Yes, that's the plan. Given the cluster and TCU software were changed to work with the later ABS modukle I'm doubtful that my ECUs will remain valid with those in place, but I'll give it a go. I've identified the wiring changes required to convert my engine loom to Scuderia spec so if I do go that far, with the ion knock sensing system etc., I may as well start on the engine project
Engine should be ok generally as I'd be surprised if there was a significant CAN network database change between the 430 and 16M, but with it being Ferrari, anything's possible! If you can get someone to crack the CAN signals from the PCM (engine ECU), that might help as you can duplicate the signals if you run something like a MOTEC. Basically, I suspect that they introduced a re-calibrated ABS module with the 16M which was driven by the faster shift speeds of the F1 Superfast. That effectively means they were able to make some changes 'for free' like the yaw sensor. Providing you match the Wiring, Sensors, TCM and ABS ECU of the 16M, I suspect it should work.
mwstewart said:
Your driving situation isn't a usual one and may never feel perfect but clutch setup in these cars is a bit of an art, especially pre-2008; what year are the cars? The clutch configuration works on micrometers and because the rotating assembly moves slightly when the engine is warm (crank nose, flywheel etc. expand when hot), if the setup isn't great it will out one way or the other, or worse, both! The calibration of the clutch must take this into account and so the car must be driven when cold and hot during the calibration stage. Post 2008 uses an algoritm based on requested/provided torque and gets around this by a large degree, but still requires initial config.
If you put the cars in Race mode and try to get the revs up to 1500 the clutch should fully release regardless of engine temperature; if you are very positive with the set-off you can drive around a poor setup - to a degree.
Essentially the cars need examining by a technician who's good with F1.
Very interesting, thanks. I'll mention all that to my boss. Going to try starting the car in race mode this afternoon and see if it makes any difference.If you put the cars in Race mode and try to get the revs up to 1500 the clutch should fully release regardless of engine temperature; if you are very positive with the set-off you can drive around a poor setup - to a degree.
Essentially the cars need examining by a technician who's good with F1.
RacerMike said:
Engine should be ok generally as I'd be surprised if there was a significant CAN network database change between the 430 and 16M, but with it being Ferrari, anything's possible! If you can get someone to crack the CAN signals from the PCM (engine ECU), that might help as you can duplicate the signals if you run something like a MOTEC.
Basically, I suspect that they introduced a re-calibrated ABS module with the 16M which was driven by the faster shift speeds of the F1 Superfast. That effectively means they were able to make some changes 'for free' like the yaw sensor. Providing you match the Wiring, Sensors, TCM and ABS ECU of the 16M, I suspect it should work.
The 16M/Scuderia have an updated traction control system called 'F1-Trac' and my assumption is the CAN bus based yaw sensor has a faster response time than the 2 channel analogue version that came before it; do you think that's the case? The ABS module is a faster, later generation type - I assume its processing speed is required to realise F1-Trac.Basically, I suspect that they introduced a re-calibrated ABS module with the 16M which was driven by the faster shift speeds of the F1 Superfast. That effectively means they were able to make some changes 'for free' like the yaw sensor. Providing you match the Wiring, Sensors, TCM and ABS ECU of the 16M, I suspect it should work.
Ferrari said:
Like the E-Diff, F1-Trac traction control system is directly derived from experience gained with F1 cars. The system also allows a less expert driver to take the vehicle "to its limits" in terms of cornering, safety and stability. Introduced for the fi rst time on road vehicles with the Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano, it is faster and more precise than a traditional control system and allows constant modulation of the engine torque to ensure that the desired trajectory is maintained. The system is capable of estimating the maximum levels of traction availabile by continually monitoring the relative speed of the wheels and through a self-adapting system function logic. By making a comparison with a model of the vehicle's dynamics, stored in the control system, F1-Trac optimizes the delivery of engine torque to ensure to maximum effectiveness of how the power is transmitted to the wheels.
This system guarantees:
- maximum propulsion when coming out of curves;
- stability and ease in driving even in extreme driving conditions; - consistency in performance;
- driving comfort.
The result of this E-Diff and F1-Trac combination, compared to a traditional traction and stability control system, is shown by a 40% increase in acceleration when exiting corners. The greater potential provided by the F1- Trac can be best exploited when driving in racetrack conditions with excellent road-holding (RACE), achieving:
- near - professional driving performances even from less expert drivers (40% increased acceleration, coming out of bends);
- intervention comfort (reductions of vibrations or oscillations).
The F1- Trac potential can also be exploited on high and average roadholding surfaces, achieving:
- increased performance compared to traditional control systems (acceleration coming out of bends- up 20%);
- greater comfort and intervention safety (15% reduction in system's vibrations).
This system guarantees:
- maximum propulsion when coming out of curves;
- stability and ease in driving even in extreme driving conditions; - consistency in performance;
- driving comfort.
The result of this E-Diff and F1-Trac combination, compared to a traditional traction and stability control system, is shown by a 40% increase in acceleration when exiting corners. The greater potential provided by the F1- Trac can be best exploited when driving in racetrack conditions with excellent road-holding (RACE), achieving:
- near - professional driving performances even from less expert drivers (40% increased acceleration, coming out of bends);
- intervention comfort (reductions of vibrations or oscillations).
The F1- Trac potential can also be exploited on high and average roadholding surfaces, achieving:
- increased performance compared to traditional control systems (acceleration coming out of bends- up 20%);
- greater comfort and intervention safety (15% reduction in system's vibrations).
Geekman said:
Very interesting, thanks. I'll mention all that to my boss. Going to try starting the car in race mode this afternoon and see if it makes any difference.
No problem. Clutch release in Race will be as instant as it gets, so it may help. Any slurring in Race mode is most likely down to poor clutch setup.Craikeybaby said:
CAN generally ads some latency, but handles more data, so I expect the newer sensor has a higher resolution, rather than speed.
Got you. Cheers. Makes sense - they added a dedicated line bewteen the TCU and ECU (for torque cut) because CAN wasn't quick enough for the 60ms gear change speed. mwstewart said:
The 16M/Scuderia have an updated traction control system called 'F1-Trac' and my assumption is the CAN bus based yaw sensor has a faster response time than the 2 channel analogue version that came before it; do you think that's the case? The ABS module is a faster, later generation type - I assume its processing speed is required to realise F1-Trac.
From looking back at your pictures, Ferrari changed from Bosch 5.7 to Bosch 8 (there was no 6 or 7!). At the time the F430 came out, 5.7 was already fairly old hat so I suspect Ferrari needed a new application for the 16M which then necessitated a switch to the newer modulator due to the fact 5.7 was a legacy system. Bosch 8 introduced some new control strategies in the software due to the increased processing power and customer demands.Ferrari do a good/clever job of marketing their TCS. Ultimately, the F1-Trac would have been a byproduct of the greater capability of Bosch 8 (which was also available to other OEMs) and probably greater focus on calibration (it was around this time that most premium car manufacturers started to see TCS and VDC as an attribute rather than just a safety function). This likely led to changes in the requirements of the system and an identification that it could be marketed as a driver aid, rather than a safety aid.
For the above reason, the software architecture of Bosch 8 requires different inputs (and hence necessitates the new yaw sensor). These aren't to make F1-Trac work per se, but they are needed in an ABS ECU that has greater capacity and ability to control the car. With the standard TCM, it's likely a good number of the required signals for the ABS ECU to work will be missing or different. You'll probably have more luck with the engine, as the PCM interface is usually 'just' a torque down or torque up signal which would then be handled by the PCM, however it is possible that if they went to the trouble of recalibrating the ABS and TCM, they may have done a number on the PCM too (it's possible for instance that they improved the engine response to torque cut signals to improve the control of the TCS).
Hope that helps explain a bit. ABS, TCS and VDC are incredibly complicated to explain, and increasingly reliant on inputs from an increasing array of input sensors, so they're not getting any simpler. It's pretty much the case that the PCM, TCM and ABS are all interlinked and near enough a complete inseparable system. God help anyone when they try and start working on anything hybrid...
RacerMike said:
From looking back at your pictures, Ferrari changed from Bosch 5.7 to Bosch 8 (there was no 6 or 7!). At the time the F430 came out, 5.7 was already fairly old hat so I suspect Ferrari needed a new application for the 16M which then necessitated a switch to the newer modulator due to the fact 5.7 was a legacy system. Bosch 8 introduced some new control strategies in the software due to the increased processing power and customer demands.
Ferrari do a good/clever job of marketing their TCS. Ultimately, the F1-Trac would have been a byproduct of the greater capability of Bosch 8 (which was also available to other OEMs) and probably greater focus on calibration (it was around this time that most premium car manufacturers started to see TCS and VDC as an attribute rather than just a safety function). This likely led to changes in the requirements of the system and an identification that it could be marketed as a driver aid, rather than a safety aid.
For the above reason, the software architecture of Bosch 8 requires different inputs (and hence necessitates the new yaw sensor). These aren't to make F1-Trac work per se, but they are needed in an ABS ECU that has greater capacity and ability to control the car. With the standard TCM, it's likely a good number of the required signals for the ABS ECU to work will be missing or different. You'll probably have more luck with the engine, as the PCM interface is usually 'just' a torque down or torque up signal which would then be handled by the PCM, however it is possible that if they went to the trouble of recalibrating the ABS and TCM, they may have done a number on the PCM too (it's possible for instance that they improved the engine response to torque cut signals to improve the control of the TCS).
Hope that helps explain a bit. ABS, TCS and VDC are incredibly complicated to explain, and increasingly reliant on inputs from an increasing array of input sensors, so they're not getting any simpler. It's pretty much the case that the PCM, TCM and ABS are all interlinked and near enough a complete inseparable system. God help anyone when they try and start working on anything hybrid...
Thank you. Very interesting! I need to get started on the wiring now.Ferrari do a good/clever job of marketing their TCS. Ultimately, the F1-Trac would have been a byproduct of the greater capability of Bosch 8 (which was also available to other OEMs) and probably greater focus on calibration (it was around this time that most premium car manufacturers started to see TCS and VDC as an attribute rather than just a safety function). This likely led to changes in the requirements of the system and an identification that it could be marketed as a driver aid, rather than a safety aid.
For the above reason, the software architecture of Bosch 8 requires different inputs (and hence necessitates the new yaw sensor). These aren't to make F1-Trac work per se, but they are needed in an ABS ECU that has greater capacity and ability to control the car. With the standard TCM, it's likely a good number of the required signals for the ABS ECU to work will be missing or different. You'll probably have more luck with the engine, as the PCM interface is usually 'just' a torque down or torque up signal which would then be handled by the PCM, however it is possible that if they went to the trouble of recalibrating the ABS and TCM, they may have done a number on the PCM too (it's possible for instance that they improved the engine response to torque cut signals to improve the control of the TCS).
Hope that helps explain a bit. ABS, TCS and VDC are incredibly complicated to explain, and increasingly reliant on inputs from an increasing array of input sensors, so they're not getting any simpler. It's pretty much the case that the PCM, TCM and ABS are all interlinked and near enough a complete inseparable system. God help anyone when they try and start working on anything hybrid...
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff