Vettel and traction control?
Discussion
mollytherocker said:
Thats all very interesting. And naive. Its not where the big boys are playing.
I will say it again, just in case it wasnt clear. The car passes the tests, the car races. What dont you understand?
fI will say it again, just in case it wasnt clear. The car passes the tests, the car races. What dont you understand?
k me. Who pressed your "condescending dick" switch? He stated an opinion FFS.Some Gump said:
fk me. Who pressed your "condescending dick" switch? He stated an opinion FFS.
Ok, but I am just trying to get this clear. This is the reality of the situation and some people need to grow up.k me. Who pressed your "condescending dick" switch? He stated an opinion FFS.This is not about racing a few cars with some mates. Its about millions of pounds.
Maybe billions of pounds.
mollytherocker said:
PiB said:
Hmmm . . . the big boys sometimes get information from other teams engineers and it's legal until it's caught and penalty reflects an entire season of cheating? ? ?
Yes, that can happen. Your point is?Edited by mollytherocker on Saturday 12th October 23:11
williamp said:
I know what you're getting at, but why? Modern shopping cars have flappy paddle gearboxes, traction control, clever suspension and different throttle maps which learn what sort of driver you are/ what the conditions are
why wouldn't the pinnacle of motorsport offer at least this??
This goes straight to the heart of the argument, should F1 be about the most advanced race cars or about the worlds best racing drivers? If you want the top drivers duking it out on the track without the technology "getting in the way" then you are looking at something like an early Lotus 49 with all the modern safety kit. Lets face it, at the moment we have the micky mouse tyres and this DRS thing. Also kers deployment is heavily controlled. IMHO those 3 things take away from F1 being the pinnacle of engineering so we are well on the way to F1 being show and not techno go. If you understand what I'm on about there. why wouldn't the pinnacle of motorsport offer at least this??
jammy_basturd said:
The flip side of your argument is what is the point in having regulations at all? If all it takes for something to be deemed legal is for one team to sneak it through scrutineering...
Our point is that, even after testing, if something is found that blatantly goes against the rules, points should be deducted and drivers disqualified. Which is essentially what happened when BAR was found to have an illegal second fuel tank AFTER the race had taken place.
There was nothing illegal about the fuel tank in that car, all F1 cars have multiple chambers in the fuel cell. What was illegal was the way the team used some of the fuel in the tank as ballast. They needed 5 litres in there at all times to guarantee a fuel feed to their particular design of high pressure fuel system, so made sure there was always 5 litres in the tank at the end of the race and worked that 5 litres into their minimum weight value.Our point is that, even after testing, if something is found that blatantly goes against the rules, points should be deducted and drivers disqualified. Which is essentially what happened when BAR was found to have an illegal second fuel tank AFTER the race had taken place.
The rules state the car had to be weighed with all fuel removed from the cell, so they failed on weight when all the fuel was pumped out, the initial fuel pump out had not removed the extra 5 litres in the final chamber and the car had passed the weight limit with that extra fuel still on board at the end of the race.
So BAR/Honda argued that they always ran with that ballast, but that's not allowed under the rules, so they were penalised, even though the car was never under weight during a race. They spent the rest of the year running heavier than everyone else, due to having to run the extra fuel weight and not being able to take that into the overall weight of the car.
So a case of meeting the spirit of the rules on weight, but the execution didn't meet the regulations. The opposite of what normally happens.
williamp said:
johnfm said:
Go back to manual gearboxes, no TC, brake bias lever, no KERs., no 'throttle maps'...
Just drivers using skills.
Too many gizmos
I know what you're getting at, but why? Modern shopping cars have flappy paddle gearboxes, traction control, clever suspension and different throttle maps which learn what sort of driver you are/ what the conditions areJust drivers using skills.
Too many gizmos
why wouldn't the pinnacle of motorsport offer at least this??
I want to see racing , not an engineering competition.
>>> Looks like they have removed his tc for Japan <<<
It does, doesn't it? I know SV still won, and this was through an immaculately planned and orchestrated strategy, including delivery from SV himself. Full marks to team and driver, a winning performance. Markedly NOT the way things have been this year to date though. So to sum up: outcry (with evidence) that SV has a technical advantage -> car loses perfromance next race. An awfully big coincidence, no?
How about another coincidence. When Benetton was widely accused of running TC and Launch Control and took Schumi to a Drivers Championship, the electronics man at Benetton was Tad Czapski. Tad has been the driving force (until very recently) at Red Bull's engine partner, Renault. It's been said (above in this thread) that all the cars use the stock McLaren electronics package, and they do, but the software is down to the team itself and like everything else these days, the software dictates the performance of the machine. The FIA has access to check the software at the start of the season and has to be informed of any changes/version upgrades but the rules are hazy about verification of functionality and how exactly this might take place. Tellingly, the rules require the logging of sensor and control inputs (including driver controls for example) but not outputs, as I read it: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regula... Under these circumstances, how does the FIA know exactly what the software causes to happen on the car?
Has anyone noticed the disproportionate number of 'KERS failures' Red Bull has suffered in recent years? What are they doing with their system which makes it more unreliable than everyone elses?
Has anyone noticed how the team goes on about SV's driving and says nothing at all about the car's performance?
Has everyone forgotten how the RB team had no problem with robbing aero parts off Webbers car to favour Vettel at Silverstone in 2010? Why would they have any worries about doing the same with TC now?
Leave 'cheating' and liking one driver or another out of this as they are emotional concepts. There is plentiful circumstantial and observed evidence that SV's car has a technical advantage. I think today's race in Japan adds more evidence to support this - at the same time as supporting the view that SV and the RB team is a winning combination under any circumstances.
It does, doesn't it? I know SV still won, and this was through an immaculately planned and orchestrated strategy, including delivery from SV himself. Full marks to team and driver, a winning performance. Markedly NOT the way things have been this year to date though. So to sum up: outcry (with evidence) that SV has a technical advantage -> car loses perfromance next race. An awfully big coincidence, no?
How about another coincidence. When Benetton was widely accused of running TC and Launch Control and took Schumi to a Drivers Championship, the electronics man at Benetton was Tad Czapski. Tad has been the driving force (until very recently) at Red Bull's engine partner, Renault. It's been said (above in this thread) that all the cars use the stock McLaren electronics package, and they do, but the software is down to the team itself and like everything else these days, the software dictates the performance of the machine. The FIA has access to check the software at the start of the season and has to be informed of any changes/version upgrades but the rules are hazy about verification of functionality and how exactly this might take place. Tellingly, the rules require the logging of sensor and control inputs (including driver controls for example) but not outputs, as I read it: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regula... Under these circumstances, how does the FIA know exactly what the software causes to happen on the car?
Has anyone noticed the disproportionate number of 'KERS failures' Red Bull has suffered in recent years? What are they doing with their system which makes it more unreliable than everyone elses?
Has anyone noticed how the team goes on about SV's driving and says nothing at all about the car's performance?
Has everyone forgotten how the RB team had no problem with robbing aero parts off Webbers car to favour Vettel at Silverstone in 2010? Why would they have any worries about doing the same with TC now?
Leave 'cheating' and liking one driver or another out of this as they are emotional concepts. There is plentiful circumstantial and observed evidence that SV's car has a technical advantage. I think today's race in Japan adds more evidence to support this - at the same time as supporting the view that SV and the RB team is a winning combination under any circumstances.
Yellow Fever said:
>>> Looks like they have removed his tc for Japan <<<
It does, doesn't it? I know SV still won, and this was through an immaculately planned and orchestrated strategy, including delivery from SV himself. Full marks to team and driver, a winning performance. Markedly NOT the way things have been this year to date though. So to sum up: outcry (with evidence) that SV has a technical advantage -> car loses perfromance next race. An awfully big coincidence, no?
How about another coincidence. When Benetton was widely accused of running TC and Launch Control and took Schumi to a Drivers Championship, the electronics man at Benetton was Tad Czapski. Tad has been the driving force (until very recently) at Red Bull's engine partner, Renault. It's been said (above in this thread) that all the cars use the stock McLaren electronics package, and they do, but the software is down to the team itself and like everything else these days, the software dictates the performance of the machine. The FIA has access to check the software at the start of the season and has to be informed of any changes/version upgrades but the rules are hazy about verification of functionality and how exactly this might take place. Tellingly, the rules require the logging of sensor and control inputs (including driver controls for example) but not outputs, as I read it: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regula... Under these circumstances, how does the FIA know exactly what the software causes to happen on the car?
Has anyone noticed the disproportionate number of 'KERS failures' Red Bull has suffered in recent years? What are they doing with their system which makes it more unreliable than everyone elses?
Has anyone noticed how the team goes on about SV's driving and says nothing at all about the car's performance?
Has everyone forgotten how the RB team had no problem with robbing aero parts off Webbers car to favour Vettel at Silverstone in 2010? Why would they have any worries about doing the same with TC now?
Leave 'cheating' and liking one driver or another out of this as they are emotional concepts. There is plentiful circumstantial and observed evidence that SV's car has a technical advantage. I think today's race in Japan adds more evidence to support this - at the same time as supporting the view that SV and the RB team is a winning combination under any circumstances.
Spot on. But i am now bored with it all. Won't watch the rest of this season now. It does, doesn't it? I know SV still won, and this was through an immaculately planned and orchestrated strategy, including delivery from SV himself. Full marks to team and driver, a winning performance. Markedly NOT the way things have been this year to date though. So to sum up: outcry (with evidence) that SV has a technical advantage -> car loses perfromance next race. An awfully big coincidence, no?
How about another coincidence. When Benetton was widely accused of running TC and Launch Control and took Schumi to a Drivers Championship, the electronics man at Benetton was Tad Czapski. Tad has been the driving force (until very recently) at Red Bull's engine partner, Renault. It's been said (above in this thread) that all the cars use the stock McLaren electronics package, and they do, but the software is down to the team itself and like everything else these days, the software dictates the performance of the machine. The FIA has access to check the software at the start of the season and has to be informed of any changes/version upgrades but the rules are hazy about verification of functionality and how exactly this might take place. Tellingly, the rules require the logging of sensor and control inputs (including driver controls for example) but not outputs, as I read it: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regula... Under these circumstances, how does the FIA know exactly what the software causes to happen on the car?
Has anyone noticed the disproportionate number of 'KERS failures' Red Bull has suffered in recent years? What are they doing with their system which makes it more unreliable than everyone elses?
Has anyone noticed how the team goes on about SV's driving and says nothing at all about the car's performance?
Has everyone forgotten how the RB team had no problem with robbing aero parts off Webbers car to favour Vettel at Silverstone in 2010? Why would they have any worries about doing the same with TC now?
Leave 'cheating' and liking one driver or another out of this as they are emotional concepts. There is plentiful circumstantial and observed evidence that SV's car has a technical advantage. I think today's race in Japan adds more evidence to support this - at the same time as supporting the view that SV and the RB team is a winning combination under any circumstances.
Roll on next year hey..(will RB have tc in 2014 though!)
Yellow Fever said:
Has anyone noticed the disproportionate number of 'KERS failures' Red Bull has suffered in recent years? What are they doing with their system which makes it more unreliable than everyone elses?
I tend to agree with what you are speculating but I recall at least one of the failures was an alternator overheating possibly due to ultra tight aero packaging therefore the car was running hot.Christian horner let it out during the Sky pre race programming, that the KERS on the Red Bull is packaged inside the gearbox. That's not going to help keep it cool and would explain two things. Firstly if it's inside the gearbox then they don't have to accommodate it externally, which has to improve the packaging for aero. Secondly, it's going to be harder to keep cool, making it less reliable.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff