petty bickering about a racing incident that happened 10 years ago thread

[Knock-on]

You're missing the point of the concept. Static predictive systems wouldn't work, as you say, but this wasn't meant to be static.

The aim of the concept was to have engine management controlled by remote computers. It was in the days when pit-to-car telemetry was allowed, and by precisely locating the car on the track (which wasn't the hard part) the engine management could receive pre-programmed alterations to best fit the expected needs of the engine for optimum traction at any point.

Example -

"Telemetry hasn’t remained immune to this debate. If it were up to the technologists, they would already have developed the necessary systems to recalibrate engine or chassis settings of an F1 car while it was out racing – wirelessly, from the pits and without the intervention of the driver. But pit-to-car telemetry has been prohibited by the FIA since 2003, precisely to prevent this type of ‘telecommand’ operation"

http://kn.theiet.org/magazine/issues...ata-driven.cfm

For what it's worth, it was considered (but crucially never alleged nor proven) that several teams had mastered this system by the 2000 season.

This was the reason why the FIA banned pit-to-car engine management communication.

Who needs the drivers foot?

"The Future of Mobility : A Selection of Novel Commercial Applications
Loke Kar Seng
Monash University Malaysia
No. 2, Jalan Kolej, Bandar Sunway, 46150 Petaling Jaya,
Selangor Darul Ehsan, Malaysia

Bi-directional telemetry, from car-to-pit and pit-to-car, was allowed back for a short while a few years ago. Bi-directional telemetry enables teams to alter settings on the governing electronic control unit by
radio signal, and this can mean between victory and defeat"

http://www.infotech.monash.edu.my/~k...reofmobile.pdf

Ultimately, the concept meant that there would be no need for good old-fashioned neanderthal Traction Control.

This was another reason why TC was allowed again in 2001. The costs of running a simple TC program were nothing compared to the expenditure needed to perfect state-of-the-art pit-to-car bi-directional telemetry.

But, as an IT specialist, I'm surprised that you needed something so well known and basic to be pointed out.

http://www.edn.com/index.asp?layout=...dustryid=47041

"By its nature, real-time telemetry data is also controversial in auto racing. With the proper setup, pit crews or even factory specialists can monitor vehicle sensors during the race to prepare for pit stops, devise alternative strategies for fuel conservation, or even identify and troubleshoot engine or mechanical malfunctions. Typical telemetry measurements include multiaxis acceleration, temperature, rotational speeds, and mechanical displacement. With two-way telemetry, experts can tune the engine performance or adjust aerodynamic characteristic in real time throughout a race"

Tamburello

You post a lot of words with a lot of technical links which all make perfect sense.

However, they have nothing at all to do with the subject we are discussing.

All of what you posted is completely valid and I agree with it but it still IN NO WAY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTED LC OR TC FUNCTION EMBEDDED IN THE BENNETTON ECU!!!

Sorry for having to do a PolePosition and emphasise this so much but you seem to have a habit of arguing to the nth degree something that is not related to the subject being discussed.

Your posts are knowledgeable and factual but irrelevant to the purpose of the SW we were discussing and why it would still be used.

Tamburello

You post a lot of words with a lot of technical links which all make perfect sense.

However, they have nothing at all to do with the subject we are discussing.

All of what you posted is completely valid and I agree with it but it still IN NO WAY HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DISPUTED LC OR TC FUNCTION EMBEDDED IN THE BENNETTON ECU!!!

Sorry for having to do a PolePosition and emphasise this so much but you seem to have a habit of arguing to the nth degree something that is not related to the subject being discussed.

Your posts are knowledgeable and factual but irrelevant to the purpose of the SW we were discussing and why it would still be used.

It has everything to do with the disputed LC/TC.

1994 marked the start of the development of pit-to-car traction telemetry, but, as I keep saying, the 'old fashioned' TC system had to be run in testing to compare the results.

The results, although I can offer no proof of this (because for a start I didn't stuff my pockets with discs at the end of every working day and I signed an NDA), were that the pit-to-car telemetry was going to work....eventually. In 1994, at the start of its development, it wasn't producing reliable workable results.

However, in addition to that, as stated before, running with TC in testing and data-logging the amount of TC used was a very good way of defining the merits of set-up.

This is where I had a personal interest in the results of tests run with TC on.

The effectiveness on car performance (eg -tyre wear / engine performance, etc) of Aero updates was all the more clear when comparing the TC 'on' results.

With TC off, there was plenty of data to study, but with additional TC 'on' results to look at, it gave even more.

Any F1 engineer, and at Benetton in 1994 there were some of the very best, will tell you that the more data they have got, the better.

Again I have no proof (for the afore-mentioned reasons), but I never saw TC 'on' data from a GP.