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

    • Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
    • The roof is wrapped
    • This is how I last did this when I had a master cylinder fail and introduce air. Bleed before first stage, go oh shit through first stage, bleed at end of first stage, go oh shit through second stage, bleed at end of second stage, go oh shit through third stage, bleed at end of third stage, go oh shit through fourth stage, bleed at lunch, go oh shit through fifth stage, bleed at end of fifth stage, go oh shit through sixth stage....you get the idea. It did come good in the end. My Topdon scan tool can bleed the HY51 and V37, but it doesn't have a consult connector and I don't have an R34 to check that on. I think finding a tool in an Australian workshop other than Nissan that can bleed an R34 will be like rocking horse poo. No way will a generic ODB tool do it.
    • Hmm. Perhaps not the same engineers. The OE Nissan engineers did not forsee a future with spacers pushing the tie rod force application further away from the steering arm and creating that torque. The failures are happening since the advent of those things, and some 30 years after they designed the uprights. So latent casting deficiencies, 30+ yrs of wear and tear, + unexpected usage could quite easily = unforeseen failure. Meanwhile, the engineers who are designing the billet CNC or fabricated uprights are also designing, for the same parts makers, the correction tie rod ends. And they are designing and building these with motorsport (or, at the very least, the meth addled antics of drifters) in mind. So I would hope (in fact, I would expect) that their design work included the offset of that steering force. Doesn't mean that it is not totally valid to ask the question of them, before committing $$.
    • The downside of this is when you try to track the car, as soon as you hit ABS you get introduced to a unbled system. I want to avoid this. I do not want to bleed/flush/jack up the car twice just to bleed the f**kin car.
×
×
  • Create New...