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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

All the evidence does not imply that TC was used.

If your statement was fact, then Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd. (LDRA) would not have stated that they could not show it was used.

In this vital piece of evidence, it says the exact opposite.

I prefer to stick with proven evidence rather than paddock gossip, but if you wish to take the statements of people who did not have the analysis of the system to study above those who did, I can see why you aren't willing to accept my version of events.

But that doesn't actually improve your argument. Proven Facts have a legal basis, hearsay doesn't.

---

Tamb - this is what you just said to me, "if you wish to take the statements of people who did not have the analysis of the system to study above those who did, I can see why you aren't willing to accept my version of events."

I'm shocked. I posted in bold and in seperate paragraph saying I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

I honestly don't understand, I've repeated myself several times in asking you to read my posts before reply to me with something I didn't even say.

The Liverpool Data Research Associates Ltd could not prove if it was used in races or not. In same way they could not prove it was used in private tests where they openly admitted to using it.

Because they didn't prove it doesn't mean they can't have used it. Its just what they said, we can't prove it either way.

My opinion is that they did use it in races. I've come to that conclusion from all the facts that we've discussed over the past 7 pages. I cannot prove they did use it. You cannot prove they didn't use it.

We both agree on innocent until proven guilty, we both agree that they shouldn't be punished.

Only thing we disagree on is you believe they never used it in races. While I think they did.

But once again, I'll put it in bold, maybe second time lucky you'll read it,

I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

You cannot prove they didn't use it.

---

Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Not quite.

The idea was to get a recording of the best settings for torque, in the hope that the Engine Management could replicate these. This was not Traction Control, as TC was a 'reactive' system. This concept was more 'predictive'.

Obviously, the better set up the car was in testing, the less TC was needed, so it was necessary to know at what point TC cut-out. This would...well, should, not only give a better base-line for power delivery (torque settings) but also have a, and I apologise for the pun, knock-on into other areas, such as Tyre wear & fuel consumption.

I'm pretty certain that is what Ferrari were trying to do eventually with their 'Engine Modulation System' they ran in practice at Aida, based on the notion that they were following a similar line of thinking.

Their mistake was, it seems, to have turned up at a GP and run with the system operating.

---

It's a good argument but doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

What you would want to know is how much power to apply to the rear wheels to give optimum drive.

Power = (Torque x 2PI x RPM) / 60k

The amount of power to be applied depends on velocity, Tyre grip, temp, temp, track temp, wind direction, down force etc and is not a static factor as a torque curve would be.

That is why you have TC. To regulate power at the limit where acceleration / deceleration is optimized against grip.

Now, LC is a bit more static. Putting a setting for LC is much more straightforward as you have a couple of hundred meters of track which you can have a pretty good guess what the characteristics will be (i.e. temp, wind direction, increase in down force etc).

However, it is counter productive to have a static TC that can benefit a driver as the parameters are not constant from one lap to the next.

Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

It may have limited use as a driver training aid but seeing as you drive completely differently with TC on and off, I would suggest would do more harm than good at a race weekend (which of course they wouldn’t use it at ;) )

As an aero expert, you don't need me to point out something so basic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?

---

Only if you're McLaren ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

It's a good argument but doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

What you would want to know is how much power to apply to the rear wheels to give optimum drive.

Power = (Torque x 2PI x RPM) / 60k

The amount of power to be applied depends on velocity, Tyre grip, temp, temp, track temp, wind direction, down force etc and is not a static factor as a torque curve would be.

That is why you have TC. To regulate power at the limit where acceleration / deceleration is optimized against grip.

Now, LC is a bit more static. Putting a setting for LC is much more straightforward as you have a couple of hundred meters of track which you can have a pretty good guess what the characteristics will be (i.e. temp, wind direction, increase in down force etc).

However, it is counter productive to have a static TC that can benefit a driver as the parameters are not constant from one lap to the next.

Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

It may have limited use as a driver training aid but seeing as you drive completely differently with TC on and off, I would suggest would do more harm than good at a race weekend (which of course they wouldn’t use it at ;) )

As an aero expert, you don't need me to point out something so basic?

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

Therefore, baselining against an electronic TC system has no engineering benefit as you cannot transfer that data to a driver’s right foot.

---

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"

This is the situation we currently have:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Knock-on

There was no logical reason to have LC or TC on a car unless you plan to use it.
Basically, if it looks like Chicken, smells like chicken and tastes like chicken, the chances are it's chicken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

I'm shocked. I posted in bold and in seperate paragraph saying I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.
Only thing we disagree on is you believe they never used it in races. While I think they did.
Because they didn't prove it doesn't mean they can't have used it. Its just what they said, we can't prove it either way.

---

Uncle Knock and Mr Position have both stated what is quite a reasonable position to take; quite frankly, I also very much think that if Benetton had the system then they used it, because the whole concept of a "noble" Formula One team is/was/always will be impossible (find me one ;) )

However Mr Position brings up a very very valid point:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PolePosition_1

We both agree on innocent until proven guilty, we both agree that they shouldn't be punished.
I cannot prove they used it in the races, and therefore it would be wrong to punish them.

---

This is the basis of why the FIA reached their decision:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.html

Quote:

---

The FIA investigation concluded that there was "no direct evidence" of traction control having been used - although Benetton was fined $100,000 for failing to supply the governing body with access to its systems within the time limits dictated.

---

My standard dictionary from the UK Ministry of Justice has this to say:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The FIA's decision therefore was entirely proper. Despite this, aren't we entitled to an opinion on the matter?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tamburello

Does the accused ever have to prove he didn't do something?

---

You must be kidding me.

I stated 5 or 6 times we cannot prove they're guilty, so we can't punish them!What more do you want?

I get impression that you think because we can't prove they used it, it must mean 100% they didn't use it. I'm just pointing out thats not the case. Its just case we can't prove it. End of.

But I agree, we shouldn't punish them if we can't prove it 100%. Hence why I said, we treat them as innocent until proven guilty, which they have been. So for about, not sure I lost count, please read my posts before quoting me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

This is the situation we currently have:




Uncle Knock and Mr Position have both stated what is quite a reasonable position to take; quite frankly, I also very much think that if Benetton had the system then they used it, because the whole concept of a "noble" Formula One team is/was/always will be impossible (find me one ;) )

However Mr Position brings up a very very valid point:


This is the basis of why the FIA reached their decision:
http://www.grandprix.com/gpe/cref-czatad.html


My standard dictionary from the UK Ministry of Justice has this to say:
The standard that must be met by the prosecution's evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The FIA's decision therefore was entirely proper. Despite this, aren't we entitled to an opinion on the matter?

---

Excellent post Rollo.

My feelings exactly. And to be fair to Tamb, he has shifted my point of view from they should have been punished, to 'at end of day, the FIA couldn't prove they used it, so you cannot punish them'.

But my opinion, I've taken all the facts together, and I've come to a subjective opinion. Its open to interpretation as can be seen by other posts in this topic. But thats my opinion, and we've gone into pretty much full detail regarding this topic, so I feel confident in saying I've looked at both sides of the story (which have been well backed up btw with sources which is nice to see), and have come to an educated personal decision.

And I'm quite proud in saying I started this petty bickering with my post bringing this subject up, 200 posts later, we're coming to an end :)