That is different - they will use more of the top end of the revs when they need to overtake, bearing in mind that more revs means more damage to the engine and the engines have to last 2 races. It is self regulation and the thought of the ten place penalty that limits it, not an electronics system.
That is different - they will use more of the top end of the revs when they need to overtake, bearing in mind that more revs means more damage to the engine and the engines have to last 2 races. It is self regulation and the thought of the ten place penalty that limits it, not an electronics system.
If "instate"(how to spell it...) Power Booste in LFS, I hope that it will fix how much power it get, but we can set how to use it.
e.g. More power in a short time or lesser power in a long time.
e.g. More power in a short time or lesser power in a long time.
So basically we're asking for naaaaaaaawz here, just not calling it naaaaaaawz?
No, it is not a nitrous oxide system. And only on the FO8. Like the RL power boost system in A1GP.
I'm studying to be an engineer...the first time I heard F1 TC in person I couldn't believe my ears. The exhaust valves in those engines must be made from pure unobtanium with magic sorcery heat treatments.
The way to make nice sounding TC would be with electromechanical valve lift control. If you can control lift cycle to cycle, you don't need to keep pumping fuel and retarding/dropping spark. Although the transient response might still not match spark drop with indirect injection because of the X-Tau port wetting functions. It doesn't appear that all the high CG weight that would entail amongst other problems is worth it at the moment...
In the meantime, I continue to be awed that they can get away with such brutal spark retard/suppression without breaking or melting things.
I might be awed that nothing breaks each time, but I still hate the sound 
If they run fly-by-wire throttles, why can't they just use the throttle, or is that banned for some reason? So the ECU says "oops, bit too much power there, I'll close the throttle 6%". No nasty sounds or broken engines.
Throttle bodies might wear a tiny bit more though
If they run fly-by-wire throttles, why can't they just use the throttle, or is that banned for some reason? So the ECU says "oops, bit too much power there, I'll close the throttle 6%". No nasty sounds or broken engines.
Throttle bodies might wear a tiny bit more though
Why does F1 use traction control anyway? Takes away some skill.
I think they do use the throttle for gross adjustments.
The problem with using the throttle exclusively is that it is sort of a blunt instrument and the response time will be a lot slower than spark retard/cut. My understanding suggests the response time is longer in large part because of wall wetting. You can't really reduce throttle without reducing injector duration as well, so when you reduce throttle the trumpet walls dry up. IIRC, this is an even bigger issue in F1 than road cars because they purposely use as much wetted area in the intake trumpet as they can, whereas road cars shoot the fuel right at the back of the valve. Then when you need more power you reapply injector duration but the fuel flow to the combustion chamber is substantially less while the walls wet up again. This need for acceleration enrichment in transients must make the transient response somewhat slower, but I've no idea how much. There is also the issue that at peak power the injectors are very likely saturated...they do have to size the injectors so the thing will sorta idle...so maybe they don't have enough duration to get enough enrichment near the end of a corner exit without relying on spark cut to keep the fuel flowing.
One thing I would love to know is how much fuel they scavenge out the exhaust port using all that spark cut. Getting an extra lap on a fuel load could be very important strategically, so I wonder if a few kilos go overboard during a race.
Anyway, here is a 2000 Ford Patent that goes way beyond a single time constant model like X-Tau enrichment and actually takes into account the various fractions in the fuel. Neat stuff.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6067965.html
As I understand it, it was a practical decision. If you allow ECUs, you must hire someone to carefully inspect all the codebase for an ECU to ensure they haven't found a clever way to implement a form of traction control...and some ways I can think of would be very subtle. The teams each have half a dozen or more people working on the ECU code full-time.....it would cost the FIA a mint to hire enough people to inspect all that code thoroughly.
Probably because it would be nigh on impossible to drive the cars around Monaco without it.
they did it with 1000hp back in the 80's alright.
They would have to drive with different gear ratios settings to prevent wheel spin. It wouldnt be impossible. There has been times were they had to control 1000 hp in Monaco
-1 for Power Boost and all kinds of this stuff
-1 for NOS boost (sry, rev limit, turbo pressure or ECU mapping)
imagine some lower skilled driver using TC at the same places every lap
getting TC to work more and more 
or just bursting it instead of leak
imagine some lower skilled driver using TC at the same places every lap
getting TC to work more and more or just bursting it instead of leak
1
2
Regenerative brake & Power Booste
(37 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG