Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

2014 F1 calendar:

16 March Grand Prix of Australia
30 March Grand Prix of Malaysia
06 April Grand Prix of Bahrain
20 April Grand Prix of China
27 April Grand Prix of Korea (provisional)
11 May Grand Prix of Spain
25 May Grand Prix of Monaco
01 June Grand Prix of America, New Jersey (provisional*)
08 June Grand Prix of Canada
22 June Grand Prix of Austria
06 July Grand Prix of Great Britain
20 July Grand Prix of Germany (Hockenheim)
27 July Grand Prix of Hungary
24 August Grand Prix of Belgium
07 September Grand Prix of Italy
21 September Grand Prix of Singapore
05 October Grand Prix of Russia (Sochi)
12 October Grand Prix of Japan
26 October Grand Prix of Abu Dhabi
09 November Grand Prix of USA (Austin)
16 November Grand Prix of Mexico (provisional*)
30 November Grand Prix of Brazil

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/110175

So interesting discussion about Vettel and his performance at Singapore. Minardi has commented that theere was something audibly different in Vettels exhaust notes and some backroom discussions that the noise was only able to be heard when he had the hammer down building a gap.

From there his amazing traction out of a certain part of the track suggests he was using traction control. Now with the McLaren control ECU that is 99.999% impossible , but gives rise to how a team runs its KERS system and how it is perhaps able to drive the KERS motor off the gearbox to tone down the torque on slow corner exits or driving it relative to road speed.

"Furthermore, that sound was only heard when Vettel chalked up his excellent performances," added Minardi. "For example, after the safety car went in. In those moments it was more powerful (sounding) than any other engines -- Renault and the other brands."

ah, it was the kind of traction control that gives your engine more power!

Minardi having a seniors moment I reckon.

If you read the other parts of the article he was talkign that the noise was like the blown diffuser sounding...and some of the chat isnt about RBR cheating but having found a way to get the car to hook up out of the 130km/h and under corners. The fact that Webber was nowhere suggests he didnt have it....or was not able to exploit it.

More than assuming they are cheating it will be interesting in the next few races to see if they have found another innovation to account for their crazy speed which if KERS related is only going to help them next year when it is even more powerful.

I read the FIA regs the other night and they are pretty open about how you use KERS and its control system. Need to use control instruments for monitoring but not how they operate

Yeah who knows when you have someone as brillian as Newey designing things for your cars. Formula 1 is all about bending or finding loopholes in the rules. Thats what makes a successful team

Bit annoyed that Korea and Singapore GP's have both fallen on weekends when I'm out at work and cant watch. Have to ban myself from facebook etc till Wednesday when I get home :(

stolen from another forum

thought about redbulls supposed TC system

Instead of modulating engine output as a form of traction control (which is illegal, or everyone would be doing it), Racecar Engineering suggests that Red Bull might be using KERS output as a way of controlling traction. Or atleast that's how I'm reading it.

With this technique, the driver would push the throttle pedal enough to generate forward motion, but nowhere near enough to break traction, and the rest of the power would be provided by KERS which, I assume, isn't as heavily regulated as engine output since most teams use different KERS packages from different manufacturers. Controlling the torque output of an electric motor is much much easier compared to controlling torque output of an internal combustion engine, and a lot less obvious.

The strange sound heard from Vettel's car could've been the engine slightly bogging down (due to bumps on the track), but there would be no loss of traction as the supplementary power provided by the KERS motor would still be available and generating forward motion.

stolen from another forum

thought about redbulls supposed TC system

Instead of modulating engine output as a form of traction control (which is illegal, or everyone would be doing it), Racecar Engineering suggests that Red Bull might be using KERS output as a way of controlling traction. Or atleast that's how I'm reading it.

With this technique, the driver would push the throttle pedal enough to generate forward motion, but nowhere near enough to break traction, and the rest of the power would be provided by KERS which, I assume, isn't as heavily regulated as engine output since most teams use different KERS packages from different manufacturers

KERS is heavily controlled. Limited to a maximum of 80bhp (in or out) and is monitored in every car.

The smart money says there is no more to these rumours than there was to the last RBR traction control rumours about Webber's car at Canada.

Yeh, i think IF they are doing it then it will be in the way that they are harvesting or how the KERS motor may be being used to dull the torque and work as a damper. I suppose they could turn the mapping down a load and use a soft torque setting ont eh KERS to pump out 80hp....but think its more to do with the harvesting as you woudl be needing to chase a HUGE amoutn of traction advantage to give away the 780hp burst for 6 seconds.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I have engineer in my job title One of or motto's though is "we make and we break"
    • This is actually 2 whole different trains of thought that need to be addressed separately. No, as Matt says above, "Engineer" is not a directly protected title. A lot of guys who just do mechanical design via CAD, with or without even some sort of associate diploma in engineering, often have the job title of "Design Engineer". A train driver can probably still describe themselves as an engineer. But, to usefully get employment with anyone as a proper engineer, you're going to have to have at least the necessary and relevant degree qualification. You're not going to get a job as an electrical engineer if you have a chem eng degree, unless you can demonstrate x number of years of working in that capacity, sufficient knowledge, etc. Having the degree is at least in indication that you've seen the relevant text books, even if you haven't read them (like pretty much the last 10 years of graduates!). To be a self employed engineer.....you could get away with quite a lot pretending that you're suitably qualified, without actually being a proper engineer. But, you will find yourself unable to work for a large section of the client space because a lot demand CVs and capability statements when considering contracting for any engineering work these days. Insurances too. If you're not a proper engineer, it will be much harder to obtain proper PI insurance. Insurance companies have gotten hip to that. The "Professional Engineer" thing is a thing in Australia. If you have the right qualifications and experience you can apply to the relevant engineering top level body (mostly Engineers Australia, the less said about whom, the better), to be assessed and approved as a Chartered Professional Engineer, CPE. There are high bars to get over and a requirement for CPD to maintain it. The RPEQ thing is similar-ish, in that you have to demonstrate and maintain, but the bars are a little lower. It is required to be RPEQ in order to sign off as an engineer on any engineering design in Queensland. The other states haven't fully followed suit yet. There's "engineering" and there's "engineering". Being an engineer that signs off on timber (or even steel) frames for housing projects, council creek crossing bridges, etc, is a flavour of civil engineering that barely warrants the name, description and degree. That would be soul crushing work anyway. Being an automotive engineer working in the space where you have to sign off on modifications to cars and trucks would also be similarly soul crushing. At least partly because of the level of clientelle, their expecations, depths of bank balance, etc. And that brings us to your second question. No, we do not have professional engineers "do vehicle inspections". Well, not the regular roadworthies, etc etc. That's done by mechanics. There might be some vehicle standards engineers at the various state govco inspection stations where cars go to get defects cleared and so on, but that's because they (the cars) are there specifically for defect inspection and clearance and so the stakes are a little higher than on an annual lights and brakes working check. But, if you modify a vehicle in Australia, you have to get it engineered. A suitably qualified (and effectively licensed, which I will get back to) automotive engineer will have to go over the application, advise on what would be required to make the mods legal, supervise some parts of the work, inspect and test the results, and sign off. The "licensed" aspect comes from there being a list of approved engineers to do these things in each state. They have to jump through hoops set up by the govco vehicle standards divisions that mean only the suitably qualified can offer to and approve such mods.
    • It's got a problem Prank... It looks like both washer spray caps have fallen off this car... 😛
    • Meh, it's only got to last another 10 years or so until you'll be forbidden to drive it. Keep it dry and forget about it.
    • The title of Engineer is not protected. However different states have different rules about what an Engineer requires to operate. Engineering for a motor vehicle modification is very different to engineering for a bridge, electronics, etc, including what that engineer needs as certifications.   In Canberra, "Engineer" is the loosest category with basically nothing stopping you calling yourself and engineer and designing a bridge or building. From what I've reviewed, QLD has the strictest requirements through RPEIQ.
×
×
  • Create New...