Official 2019 Monaco Grand Prix Thread ***SPOILERS***
Discussion
DuncB7 said:
Deesee said:
Rear wheel steering, the one thing they have and no one else does
2019 Formula One Technical Regulations, Article 10.4.1:"Any steering system which permits the re?alignment of more than two wheels is not permitted"
Would that be legal?
FourWheelDrift said:
They might have developed a version of McLaren's 3rd pedal brake steering that has no input from the drive this time - https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/archive/article...
Would that be legal?
No, that would be allow for an adjustment of alignment. Effectively steering, albeit indirectly. Whatever they're doing that's different, if anything at all, will be a side product of the suspension doing it's normal job. I'm sure that any driver or computer/automated control would be spotted in an instant and become a complaint from the other teams.Would that be legal?
TheDeuce said:
No, that would be allow for an adjustment of alignment. Effectively steering, albeit indirectly. Whatever they're doing that's different, if anything at all, will be a side product of the suspension doing it's normal job. I'm sure that any driver or computer/automated control would be spotted in an instant and become a complaint from the other teams.
Even a complaint from other teams does not always translate into a ban and/or penalty.This 1.6 hybrid era is all about who can throw down the biggest budget and convince the FIA that it's good for their green credentials.
The days of a small team coming up with something novel and exciting, eg Brawn, and winning, are no longer possible.
sparta6 said:
TheDeuce said:
No, that would be allow for an adjustment of alignment. Effectively steering, albeit indirectly. Whatever they're doing that's different, if anything at all, will be a side product of the suspension doing it's normal job. I'm sure that any driver or computer/automated control would be spotted in an instant and become a complaint from the other teams.
Even a complaint from other teams does not always translate into a ban and/or penalty.This 1.6 hybrid era is all about who can throw down the biggest budget and convince the FIA that it's good for their green credentials.
The days of a small team coming up with something novel and exciting, eg Brawn, and winning, are no longer possible.
To be realistic, looking at how strong their overall offering is, it's very likely they're not doing anything special - just getting an extra 1-2% out of everything. That's why budget wins. That final extra push costs the most.
noell35 said:
Could they harvest more mgu-k energy from the inside rear wheel using GPS positioning?
Yes the can transfer K to H (and vice versa unlimited) and would not need GPS, if... they can then you would need to separate mgu k left/right..Here is a flow chart (it’s from last yr so the fuel flows will be out), but the principle is the same.
Deesee said:
Yes the can transfer K to H (and vice versa unlimited) and would not need GPS, if... they can then you would need to separate mgu k left/right..
Here is a flow chart (it’s from last yr so the fuel flows will be out), but the principle is the same.
The 'K' comes from the engine crankshaft. It would need to be connected to the output of the differential to make that work, and as a by-product would also be able.to send torque to individual wheels, which I think is banned.Here is a flow chart (it’s from last yr so the fuel flows will be out), but the principle is the same.
TheDeuce said:
sparta6 said:
TheDeuce said:
No, that would be allow for an adjustment of alignment. Effectively steering, albeit indirectly. Whatever they're doing that's different, if anything at all, will be a side product of the suspension doing it's normal job. I'm sure that any driver or computer/automated control would be spotted in an instant and become a complaint from the other teams.
Even a complaint from other teams does not always translate into a ban and/or penalty.This 1.6 hybrid era is all about who can throw down the biggest budget and convince the FIA that it's good for their green credentials.
The days of a small team coming up with something novel and exciting, eg Brawn, and winning, are no longer possible.
To be realistic, looking at how strong their overall offering is, it's very likely they're not doing anything special - just getting an extra 1-2% out of everything. That's why budget wins. That final extra push costs the most.
This is a war of marginal gains, and to find a 10th a lap is something, to find 2 tenths a corner is mind blowing..
BTW, look out for the force India from the German GP...
thegreenhell said:
Deesee said:
The 'K' comes from the engine crankshaft. It would need to be connected to the output of the differential to make that work, and as a by-product would also be able.to send torque to individual wheels, which I think is banned.But I understand the deployment (which I mentioned earlier in the thread)..
Edit Noell35..
Deesee said:
Harvesting is different to deployment.. the question was from noel35 was harvesting..
But I understand the deployment (which I mentioned earlier in the thread)..
Edit Noell35..
The point is that whether it's harvesting or deploying, it's the same unit and it's connected to the engine crankshaft, which doesn't see individual wheels.But I understand the deployment (which I mentioned earlier in the thread)..
Edit Noell35..
thegreenhell said:
Deesee said:
Harvesting is different to deployment.. the question was from noel35 was harvesting..
But I understand the deployment (which I mentioned earlier in the thread)..
Edit Noell35..
The point is that whether it's harvesting or deploying, it's the same unit and it's connected to the engine crankshaft, which doesn't see individual wheels.But I understand the deployment (which I mentioned earlier in the thread)..
Edit Noell35..
& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
Deesee said:
No it’s not/ but almost .. harvesting is massively different to deployment, see the flow chart above..the energy can be used in different ways, deployed back to the k into the h or Stored in the ES.
& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
So.. increased resistance on the inner wheels harvesting could pull the car tighter in to the corner? Essentially an e-diff.& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
That's allowed!? That's just an e-diff but via harvesting as opposed to electronic brake feathering.
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
No it’s not/ but almost .. harvesting is massively different to deployment, see the flow chart above..the energy can be used in different ways, deployed back to the k into the h or Stored in the ES.
& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
So.. increased resistance on the inner wheels harvesting could pull the car tighter in to the corner? Essentially an e-diff.& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
That's allowed!? That's just an e-diff but via harvesting as opposed to electronic brake feathering.
(Hang on I’ll edit this)
Some clever idiot not in the conversation or adds not to our threads (apart to piss on high) will say this was done in the 50/60/70/80 or even BC..
Edited by Deesee on Tuesday 21st May 21:53
Deesee said:
No it’s not/ but almost .. harvesting is massively different to deployment, see the flow chart above..the energy can be used in different ways, deployed back to the k into the h or Stored in the ES.
& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
As you like flow charts so much, please use it to explain how you control the torque (either from harvesting or deployment) to an individual wheel. The only point in the entire system where torque splits to individual wheels is at the output of the differential, to which neither the MGU-K nor any other PU component has any direct connection other than through a single transmission shaft. It simply is not possible in any way that you describe.& you don’t have to have a single ‘solid’ rear axle (which you would assume would be standard with a mgu k) for harvesting, (The individual axles R & L could harvest separately to the energy store or redeploy as unlimited energy k to h / h to k).
thegreenhell said:
As you like flow charts so much, please use it to explain how you control the torque (either from harvesting or deployment) to an individual wheel. The only point in the entire system where torque splits to individual wheels is at the output of the differential, to which neither the MGU-K nor any other PU component has any direct connection other than through a single transmission shaft. It simply is not possible in any way that you describe.
This is my issue with the theory. The harvesting doesn't happen at the wheel, but through the box surely? So no control over either rear wheel specifically.It could only make sense if under extreme deceleration, the harvesting could have the effect of braking the inner wheel to a greater extent than the pad breaking slows the outer wheel. I doubt the harvesting deceleration is anything like what those brembos are capable of so I doubt it.
Deesee, need to clear the fog and explain this theory better!
Individual ‘wheels’ can collect kinetic energy and place that (via the flow/diagram/chart) into the h, or the ES, and then much more under breaking.
Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
Deesee said:
Individual ‘wheels’ can collect kinetic energy and place that (via the flow/diagram/chart) into the h, or the ES, and then much more under breaking.
Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
That wouldn't effect turn in though. I understand the under braked wheel feeds more energy back.. but by definition it's under braked for that to happen, so no turn in.Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
The only way to pull the car towards an apex beyond some toe in suspension geometry, is to under rotate it. The centralised harvesting can't do that per wheel, so it could only otherwise be done by wheel specific braking. Which would be a driver aid..
Unless you do believe that harvesting force can exceed braking in slower corners.
TheDeuce said:
Deesee said:
Individual ‘wheels’ can collect kinetic energy and place that (via the flow/diagram/chart) into the h, or the ES, and then much more under breaking.
Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
That wouldn't effect turn in though. I understand the under braked wheel feeds more energy back.. but by definition it's under braked for that to happen, so no turn in.Now if this was a clock wise track with 11 turns right and say 4 left, you would have more revolutions on the rear left than the rear right, and you would budget for the kinetic return to mgu h or Es appropriately.
The only way to pull the car towards an apex beyond some toe in suspension geometry, is to under rotate it. The centralised harvesting can't do that per wheel, so it could only otherwise be done by wheel specific braking. Which would be a driver aid..
Unless you do believe that harvesting force can exceed braking in slower corners.
let’s see the Merc advantage this weekend in the bends, must be something right ????Individual brake bias could be used both ways (Manuel of course) for braking and harvesting.
IF you watch the Merc in FP1/2 it’s a mess understeer snaps to oversteer and vice versa, in quali/race trim its a beast, they understand the tyre window (1 of 10 teams)? They have a significant operating advantage..
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff