Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by J.R. » Wed, 10 Mar 2004 20:45:55


The two Renault drivers made the best starts in Melbourne on Sunday. Both
Alonso and Trulli stormed passed cars that had qualified higher than them as
they flew off the grid, leading some to question just how legal the Renault
R24 is.

Jenson Button expressed his suspicions saying that the starts made by the
Renault team-mates were "quite strange when you take into account that it's
meant to be manual starts now."

Symonds, though, is not worried about other teams' suspicions because he
believes whatever Renault are using to aid their starts is not classified as
launch control and therefore is not illegal.

"It's not something we want to talk about, but read the rules." the Renault
technical director told Autosport.

"It's true that it's very difficult to overtake in F1 and the start is one
of the best times to do it. Obviously we work very hard at that."

From PlanetF1.

J.R.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Major Shaff » Wed, 10 Mar 2004 22:06:45

On the Speed broadcast Matchett (sp?) said it was clutch presets.
Apparently the test how much torque they can apply before the
wheels break loose and then program the clutch to allow only
that much through.  Sort of like top fuel dragsters.

It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

I would expect by the European races that either it will be
outlawed or most every team will have it.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Markus Lau » Wed, 10 Mar 2004 23:41:34

Quote:

> On the Speed broadcast Matchett (sp?) said it was clutch presets.
> Apparently the test how much torque they can apply before the
> wheels break loose and then program the clutch to allow only
> that much through.  Sort of like top fuel dragsters.

> It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
> the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
> the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

> I would expect by the European races that either it will be
> outlawed or most every team will have it.

AFAIK all of the bigger teams have it. It's just that renault have a
system that works better then the others.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by F2004: 1 of 1 » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:04:38



Quote:

>> On the Speed broadcast Matchett (sp?) said it was clutch presets.
>> Apparently the test how much torque they can apply before the
>> wheels break loose and then program the clutch to allow only
>> that much through.  Sort of like top fuel dragsters.

>> It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
>> the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
>> the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

>> I would expect by the European races that either it will be
>> outlawed or most every team will have it.

>AFAIK

And just how would _you_ know anything about it?
Quote:
>all of the bigger teams have it. It's just that renault have a
>system that works better then the others.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Markus Lau » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 00:27:46


Quote:



>>>On the Speed broadcast Matchett (sp?) said it was clutch presets.
>>>Apparently the test how much torque they can apply before the
>>>wheels break loose and then program the clutch to allow only
>>>that much through.  Sort of like top fuel dragsters.

>>>It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
>>>the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
>>>the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

>>>I would expect by the European races that either it will be
>>>outlawed or most every team will have it.

>>AFAIK

> And just how would _you_ know anything about it?

for instance:
Comments on Digital TV by people such as Marc Surer and HJ Stuck.
Comments on Warm-up when drivers are measuring in their systems by trial
starts. On Digital TV we saw these 'trial' starts with appropriate
comments and explanations by the digital tv team.

- Show quoted text -

Quote:

>>all of the bigger teams have it. It's just that renault have a
>>system that works better then the others.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Chris Cavi » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 01:47:05

Quote:

> It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
> the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
> the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

Active launch control, passive launch control...

<shrug>

What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks rosier
under the current rules.

-Chris-

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Jona » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 03:06:02



Quote:



>>> On the Speed broadcast Matchett (sp?) said it was clutch presets.
>>> Apparently the test how much torque they can apply before the
>>> wheels break loose and then program the clutch to allow only
>>> that much through.  Sort of like top fuel dragsters.

>>> It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
>>> the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
>>> the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

>>> I would expect by the European races that either it will be
>>> outlawed or most every team will have it.

>> AFAIK

> And just how would _you_ know anything about it?

Bj?rn Wirdheim explained the Jaguar preset clutch system on Swedish tv.
He talked about the 20 or so actions the driver has to perform to make
the car ready for start.
 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Richard Stride » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 03:39:44


Quote:
> The two Renault drivers made the best starts in Melbourne on Sunday. Both
> Alonso and Trulli stormed passed cars that had qualified higher than them
as
> they flew off the grid, leading some to question just how legal the
Renault
> R24 is.

> Jenson Button expressed his suspicions saying that the starts made by the
> Renault team-mates were "quite strange when you take into account that
it's
> meant to be manual starts now."

Translation:

"Why do teams challenge for podium finishes after I leave? Why can't we have
any cool stuff?"

Dick

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Stuffe » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:28:10


Quote:

> > It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
> > the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
> > the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

> Active launch control, passive launch control...

> <shrug>

> What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks
rosier
> under the current rules.

I can't understand why the FIA don't simply ban all black boxes not directly
needed for the engine to run and gearbox to work. Have one, 2 if absolutely
necessary ECUs, totally self contained with the engine and box. Allow plain
simple wires for things like the steering wheel buttons and instruments.

And give the drivers a clutch pedal, that works mechanically.

No problems policing traction control, launch control, etc.

And before the teams try to say they can't make a car without those things,
they certainly could even only a few years ago!

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Marvi » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 04:50:40



Quote:
>> What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks
> rosier
>> under the current rules.

> I can't understand why the FIA don't simply ban all black boxes not
> directly needed for the engine to run and gearbox to work. Have one, 2
> if absolutely necessary ECUs, totally self contained with the engine
> and box. Allow plain simple wires for things like the steering wheel
> buttons and instruments.

> And give the drivers a clutch pedal, that works mechanically.

And while you are at it, why not ban all electricity on the car. Im sure
you can fudge together a car that runs on purely mechanical means.
(ok, so it might look like a diesel tractor. erm, it would *be* a diesel
tractor, so what)

Of course, *then* you would start complaining about the advanced gear
systems used for traction control. After all, isnt that **exactly** what
the diff on a car is, hmm?

So lets throw out the gears n stuff. For that matter, we need to throw out
all the machinery. Seems we are down to 'drivers' running. *** of course,
else the "supa-grip" shoesoles might give some teams an advantage?

At what point would you be satisfied that there can be no technological
cheating going on?

The F1 race is supposed to be the racing of the elite of automobiles.
Demanding that we downgrade the tech used completely invalidates this
concept.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Stuffe » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:33:35


Quote:


> >> What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks
> > rosier
> >> under the current rules.

> > I can't understand why the FIA don't simply ban all black boxes not
> > directly needed for the engine to run and gearbox to work. Have one, 2
> > if absolutely necessary ECUs, totally self contained with the engine
> > and box. Allow plain simple wires for things like the steering wheel
> > buttons and instruments.

> > And give the drivers a clutch pedal, that works mechanically.

> And while you are at it, why not ban all electricity on the car. Im sure
> you can fudge together a car that runs on purely mechanical means.
> (ok, so it might look like a diesel tractor. erm, it would *be* a diesel
> tractor, so what)

> Of course, *then* you would start complaining about the advanced gear
> systems used for traction control. After all, isnt that **exactly** what
> the diff on a car is, hmm?

> So lets throw out the gears n stuff. For that matter, we need to throw out
> all the machinery. Seems we are down to 'drivers' running. *** of
course,
> else the "supa-grip" shoesoles might give some teams an advantage?

> At what point would you be satisfied that there can be no technological
> cheating going on?

At the point where, according to the rules, there couldn't be. Optimising
gears, engine maps, that sort of thing, fully allowed. Having feedback loops
that can be plugged into it all, not.

Is that a simple enough explanation?

Quote:
> The F1 race is supposed to be the racing of the elite of automobiles.
> Demanding that we downgrade the tech used completely invalidates this
> concept.

Who said anything about downgrading the level of technology? I merely think
moving it away from the aspects that currently aid the drivers would not
only be a good thing, but also a very easy to regulate thing if done
correctly.

Although, by your logic, it's not the driver that counts, so maybe they
should just build cars that race themselves. After all, that would be the
pinnacle of technology, wouldn't it? And I'll bet you'll be glued to your
screen seeing who's software blue screens into the gravel first.

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Wayne Stua » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:42:45

Quote:

> The two Renault drivers made the best starts in Melbourne on Sunday. Both
> Alonso and Trulli stormed passed cars that had qualified higher than them as
> they flew off the grid, leading some to question just how legal the Renault
> R24 is.

> Jenson Button expressed his suspicions saying that the starts made by the
> Renault team-mates were "quite strange when you take into account that it's
> meant to be manual starts now."

> Symonds, though, is not worried about other teams' suspicions because he
> believes whatever Renault are using to aid their starts is not classified as
> launch control and therefore is not illegal.

> "It's not something we want to talk about, but read the rules." the Renault
> technical director told Autosport.

> "It's true that it's very difficult to overtake in F1 and the start is one
> of the best times to do it. Obviously we work very hard at that."

Hmmmmmmm... Didn't Renault used to be Benetton?

Just saying... :-v

--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by John Adersee » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 06:48:22

I do agree with you Chris, however I am afraid that this is not really the
current trend. Instead, the FIA imposes newer black boxes, nobody really
knowing what they hold (although ...).

John



Quote:




> > > It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
> > > the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
> > > the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

> > Active launch control, passive launch control...

> > <shrug>

> > What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks
> rosier
> > under the current rules.

> I can't understand why the FIA don't simply ban all black boxes not
directly
> needed for the engine to run and gearbox to work. Have one, 2 if
absolutely
> necessary ECUs, totally self contained with the engine and box. Allow
plain
> simple wires for things like the steering wheel buttons and instruments.

> And give the drivers a clutch pedal, that works mechanically.

> No problems policing traction control, launch control, etc.

> And before the teams try to say they can't make a car without those
things,
> they certainly could even only a few years ago!

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by Paul-B - the original and the best » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 16:12:29

Quote:

> The F1 race is supposed to be the racing of the elite of automobiles.
> Demanding that we downgrade the tech used completely invalidates this
> concept.

But we *do* downgrade it. Restrictions on tyres, restrictions on
aerodynamics, restrictions on traction control, restrictions on
materials technology, restrictions on brake construction... the list is
endless.

--
Paul-B

"If everything seems under control, you're just not going fast enough."
- Mario Andretti

 
 
 

Not "Launch Control", just "Start Help"...?

Post by John Opensha » Thu, 11 Mar 2004 19:15:52



Quote:




>> > It is legal because there is no feedback loop.  It is up to
>> > the engineers to get the calculations right.  Is it with in
>> > the spirit of the rules?  Who knows.

>> Active launch control, passive launch control...

>> <shrug>

>> What's the difference?  Both accomplish the same end.  One just looks
>rosier
>> under the current rules.

>I can't understand why the FIA don't simply ban all black boxes not directly
>needed for the engine to run and gearbox to work. Have one, 2 if absolutely
>necessary ECUs, totally self contained with the engine and box. Allow plain
>simple wires for things like the steering wheel buttons and instruments.

>And give the drivers a clutch pedal, that works mechanically.

>No problems policing traction control, launch control, etc.

The problem is that it's possible to embed a form of traction control
and launch control in the engine ECU. There must be engine speed
feedback to the ECU and this can be used to derive what gear you're in
and whether the wheels are slipping more than they should (sudden
increase in engine revs) and back off the power.

Very tricky to say if this is going on in an ECU from examining the code
alone. As for the mechnical clutch idea just bang out the clutch and let
the ECU look after the start, much like it does now.

Quote:
>And before the teams try to say they can't make a car without those things,
>they certainly could even only a few years ago!

Getting the points right at over 19k rpm might be tricky!

--
John Openshaw