What Is Traction Control?

[Valve Bounce]

How does Traction Control work? Is it a computer program that influences:
1. Fuel Supply,
2. Valve Timing,
3. Spark Timing,
4. Fuel Mixture,
5. Clutch,
6. Differential,
7. Brakes,
8. Gears,
9. A combination of some of the above?

I was going to post this in the thread about HHF, but I didn't want this buried there. It is obvious to me that the FIA, TGF and HHF are dancing around this subject - all agree that what they are using is legal, but so far, nobody has denied that some form of Traction Control is being used. The silence from the other teams is deafening.

Dino seems to know something but is not elaborating. I understand that it is possible to alter the mix, fuel supply and valve timing to get maximum performance out of an engine. Is it not possible to alter settings so as not to get maximum power/torque into the drive shaft? What was the system that McLaren were using that the FIA deemed legal a couple of years ago, but a Ferrari threat made McLaren remove from the car and not use?

We are not talking about simple car mechanical systems here, we are talking about the most sophisticated computer systems that the best nerds can come up with.

What we have to acknowledge at this stage is that the FIA has admitted that it cannot detect one or some of the forms of Traction Control. Is it possible that what they can detect does not infringe the regulations?

Let's not get into a slanging match which is uncharacteristic of this forum - let's discuss this rationally.

[slipstream]

The problem lies in what is defined as traction control. Max has said that any system that is reactionary is illegal. That is to say that if the car detects wheel spin and then reduces power to stop it, then that is traction control. The problem arises though, when the sophisticated mapping systems detect that in a certain position on the track in a previous lap the wheels spun, and then reduce power in anticipation of it happening again. This is allegedly what the Ferrari engines are doing, but it has been defined as not illegal.

I hope this makes sense.

[Airhead]

Valve this is one very good thread topic. I assumed that traction control worked on the combination of valve timing and fuel mapping as you describe above. I thought this would be easier to do electronically due to EFI and pnuematic valve actuation.

I had never considered the sort of 'intelligent' system that is within slipstream's post.

I await further replies on this one..

[Valve Bounce]

There could be engine mapping to get the maximum performance by adjusting valve timing, fuel mixture, spark timing, even gear ratios,...... the permutations and combinations are endless. I am waiting for Dino to come here to give us his views.

[carbonfibre]

I'm new here, and this seems as good as any topic for me to jump in and get my feet wet. Hmmm, what is traction control? Simplistically speaking, it would be any system, device or software that inserts between the driver's right foot and the contact patch on the driven tires to maintain traction in any situation. Of course it's not that simple.

You can read these two pages at technicalf1.com for more info:
http://www.technicalf1.com/article.php?sid=24
http://www.technicalf1.com/article.php?sid=29

Now look at the F1 tech reg section dealing with this subject as currently written:
9.2 Propulsion :
9.2.1) No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive throttle demand by the driver.

Of course, this rule will have to be amended before Barcelona. It seems to me that the essence of the rule is to require the driver alone to excercise the skill and bravery to put and keep F1 machines on the limit, in search of the best pace possible to win races, and avoid gravel excursions.

The FIA's (Max Mosley's) word games are amazing! Reactive TC is unlawful, but proactive mapping which may cut power by dropping cylinders is just fine. Fine as long as you have the rosso-colored glasses on, that is. In '98 when the McLaren fiddle brake controversy flared up, Team Red could not get their version working, so threw a hissy fit and had the fiddle brake banned. The fiddle brake was an ingenious device, requiring the driver to operate it for maximum effect - it was not an automatic system.

Now the apparent uproar over misfiring Saubers has led Max to say that dropping cylinders to cut power is fine, so long as it's proactive, not reactive. What nonsense! Active, passive, reactive, proactive, whatever - it is traction control.

Max Mosley has done much good for F1 in the safety area. The drivers are protected as never before. Now the same diligence must be applied to protecting people trackside, whether workers or spectators. The cars are fine, just make sure the cars stay inside the arena, so to speak. But the return to driver assistance devices is just wrong. The only traction control should be the skill of the driver.

And before anyone should label me anti-tech, nothing could be further from the truth. I love the technical aspect of Formula One, but I firmly believe that the skill of the drivers should not be enhanced by programmers. Can anyone see Kimi Raikkonen coming into F1 at the height of the turbo era?? I think not.

[Dino IV]

Welcome to Ten Tenths, carbonfibre!

Very well said! Could have been my words.
Well apart from the Mac's third brake paddle, but the rest is exactly on top. Have fun around here.

The articles provided by Technical F1 are an abstract from an early nineties Larrousse\Lamborghini designed TC SAE paper which is controlling torque through fuel cut-off. Today TC has the form Slipstream (welcome to 10-10's too!) roughly describes.

Cheers,
Dino

[Valve Bounce]

A big welcome for Carbonfibre and Slipstream to our insult and abuse free friendly forum. Please stay and enjoy yourself here. AND don't forget when you post 1000 posts, you qualify to enter into the lucky draw for a Ferrari. This will be drawn when everybody reaches 1000 posts.
And thank you for your kind response to my thread. This is what Patrick Head had to say : "......even if you go to a common ECU, there are many, many ways of either absorbing or diverting or doing all sorts of things to the power of an engine so that it doesn't arrive at the wheels, and even going to a common ECU is not going to in itself solve that problem. I really can't give you an answer". There is more in autorace.com.
I think that tells us more about Tracs than I would even have dreamt of previously. Under the circumstances, I think it is inappropriate to point the finger at any one team - I think that any team not using some form of TRACS now is either very naive, very poor, or just didn't have the time to sort it out yet (like Minardi.)

[Neil C]

Welcome Carbonf. I agree with you. To me the essence of racing is the "traction control" that exists between the brain and feet.

[Valve Bounce]

The whole argument here is that nobody can prove after the event exactly how the loss of power is effected. That's what Patrick head is saying without actually saying it. I don't think I disagree with nearly everyone here that TRACS is unwelcome, but that is like standing in front of a train and saying "you must turn back". It's simply not going to happen, and the way I see it, Spain is a non event as far as the official introduction of TRACS is concerned.

[Quino]

Just read ruling 9.2.1.

The absence (or limited amount) of wheelspin in itself is not illegal. And it's this circumstance that offers well-trained technicians more than enough (legal) room to manoeuvre around in on their neverending search for the lowering of lap-times and leaves the FIA with no alternative then to dropped the desired effect of banning the search for powergrip.

Suggesting this has anything to do with any Ferrari-favoring is and has been poorly documented en (therefor) arguemented, and shouldn't be part of this discussion

[Valve Bounce]

I fully agree with you Quino. I deliberately posted this thread to be a technical discussion, although I will be the first to admit that, after reading what Patrick Head said, nobody who has posted anything here really knows what is going on - the few people in F1 who do know are going to be like the three monkeys who see, hear and tell nothing. . What we do know is that nobody is going to stop the electronics revolution in F1, so it is quite useless to complain about it - be it suspension, brakes engine or what ever effects the computers control. BUT WAIT!! There is one way out of this mess - ban all computers from F1 cars. Allow no batteries whatsoever on F1 cars. Maybe I should start a new thread "BAN ALL COMPUTERS AND BATERIES ON F1 CARS" I am sure that without computers and batteries, everyone in this forum will be very happy with future developments on the cars. YES!! Fuel injection can be mechanically operated!!
Furthermore, I would implore anyone who wants to point the finger at any teams to go to the other thread, and leave this one as a technical discussion thread.
Many thanks!!

[Quino]

Ah wait, there are the smileys!

anyway, question from a non-technical fellow.

Considering the text of Ruling 9.2.1. --->

9.2.1) No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive throttle demand by the driver.

does that stricktly make a rearwing or any other form of aerodynamic feature to improve on powergrip, a device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels form spinning under power?
I think it does, although I don't think the FIA intended this.

Furthermore, the Ruling speakes of prevention. Therefor, wheelspin must be at level 0. Minimalizing or limiting the amount of wheelspin is by no means the same as preventing. It's not prevented for the simple fact wheelspin still occurs, be it at limited amount. In that respect one can think of many ways to influence and limited the amount of wheelspin without voilating Ruling 9.2.1.

I still think the terms "device" and "system" give the Ruling their weakness. It implies a form of TC which exists independendly form engineconfiguration and construction. Like I stated, Im no technician, but once they are able to bring the desired affect of traction-control and/or wheelspin-prevention into the fundamental design of the engine and its characteristics, one can no longer speak of a "device" and/or "system".

In my humble opinion it is this what Ferrari and/or McLaren have achieved. They have reached the desired effect of TC and WP without voilating Ruling 9.2.1. which was created just to ban this desired effect. Since it is realistically impossible to ban the simple circumstance of absence (or limited amount of) wheelspin, Ferrari and/or McLaren are in the clear.

Hanging on to Ruling 9.2.1. would force other 'lesser' teams to change their enginefundamentals quite drastically to achieve a desired effect which can't be banned in the first place, but is just made harder to achieve by Ruling 9.2.1. Not to big a problem for the bigger teams, but quite possibly it is for any other team. Therefor, Ruling 9.2.1. has to go.

That would explain the FIA inabillity to punish a team which is racing while enjoying the desired affect of TC and WP and the cancellation of Ruling 9.2.1.

[Valve Bounce]

I am confused that there is an arrow in front of my thread and a note that says it is "moved" . I deliberately posted this thread here in F1 so as it could be an F1 duscussion, and to try to stop the bickering and finger pointing at the other thread. It saddens me to see it moved without anyone explaining to me why it has been moved. Or where it is moved to, or th enumber of posts not shown.

[WilliamsBMWF1]

I am sure Ferrari can tell you!

[R]

Good one, WilliamsBMWF1!!!

[chunder]

I have my doubts about this but I believe that traction control has never erally left F1.
How can any electronic device controlled by computer be policed properly. Everything is electronic now. First the gears, now the pedals and steering. What else could the FIA do?
McLaren were running theri brake system in what was it 1999. So it bears reason that Ferrari have used something since then at least.
You can not stop progress and the FIA should be applauded for holding their hands up and saying "we can not police this". Even if they could, the big teams would just employ cleverer programmers to cover things up.

[Andrew Millis]

Rules shmules... No one can police something buried in software, hidden by guys who are paid a lot of money to hide it! Simple solution, pay someone ( volunteers form a queue to the left ) to get all the cars on the track and while doing doughnuts, press all the buttons in the cockpit. Lots of smoke - pass, intermittent or no smoke then fail ( sorry Ferrari ).

[Red]

Interesting solution... shows some potential. The only drawback is that it presumes a button labeled traction control. If the “super-control” activates only if you press 5 times the water supply button then change to 2 gear and back to 3 three times meanwhile whispering some magik words in the radio, all that in less than 5 seconds the volunteer misses and the car is legal. Nevertheless I’d be one of the volunteers, just to be allowed to drive one of those beauties. (of course I won’t be able to move it let alone doughnuts)

Why everybody hangs on “difficult to police” thing and understands that Jo Bauer is an incompetent guy who’s unable to find the illegal devices? Or the regulations made unclear on purpose? What’s the myth about the software stuff? The regulations are quite clear, even the article 9.2.1 so heavily discussed in this thread (by the way, it refers to transmission, not the engine. Sorry to spoil the fun). The “difficult to police” means that FIA is unable to define and subsequently ban a device/system/technology NOT INVENTED yet. You can bet all your money that some honest engineers will design something legal but not “clearly regulated” yet simply because nobody thought about it before. That’s what Max wanted to say by “difficult to police”. Not the willing software guru + dirty driver + unscrupulous teammanager conspiracy. Indeed, some teams like Ferrari and McLaren have the resources to hire the best specialists so they know better than others what is legal and what is not but that’s what Max is trying to equalize.

Besides, leave aside the FIA conspiracy. Not they are making the regulations. There are committees in which every team has its consultants and if a rule passes then all of them are as guilty as FIA. (or they didn’t know what they just have voted, but I find that a little unlikely)

[Dino IV]

Red is mistaking 'transmission' with 'gearbox' I guess. Transmission is the relationship between the engine and the rear wheels. Propulsion covers it all. It therefore states the whole thing as 'car' and not as 'transmission' in 9.2.1.

9.2.1 ain't that bad actually, it's only way too vague to be usefull. Quino even reads that even the weight of the car would be an illegal form of pressing the car too the ground thus preventing wheelspin.

"Once they are able to bring the desired affect of traction-control and/or wheelspin-prevention into the fundamental design of the engine and its characteristics, one can no longer speak of a "device" and/or "system"." This is a bit off though. When there's a traction controlling functionality inside the engine-management it's a TC 'system'.

The engine-manegment of it's own is heavily regulated as well. Only RPM and throttle position may be used as input to manage fuel and ignition settings (the enginemap). When one feeds a ground speed signal (through front wheel sensors, prandtle-tube airspeed derivation or through airboxsensor) and derives a speed window from that, it's allowed (shouldn't be!) to change from one engine map to the other between gear changes, thus entering the world of selecting from a pile of engine maps on top of each other, also known as 3D engine-mapping. Because no other input is allowed than the two mentioned above, 3D-mapping already is illegal (since 1998). When one feeds the gearbox position into the engine-mangement (i.e. the engine knows in which gear it's running, which is not allowed btw) one has enough parameters for an open loop TC system. By directly feeding (or deriving it through signalfiltering) rearwheel slip or a maximal raise of RPM-ratio and adjusting the enginemap accordingly you have achieved a closed loop TC system.

So input signals are regulated on paper, but are nonetheless all entering the maincomputer which controls the ECU. The maincomputer is only regulated on it's connection type an not on configuration. So when it's running the software, monitoring all signals, loading a TC algorithm in it's RAM (in the C+ code hidden as an over-rev algorithm or something else as innocent as that) and deleting it when the engine is cut, it's been there in use either as 3D-mapping, open loop or closed loop TC (more difficult along the way, but more 'rewarding' as well), but can't be traced back.

You won't be surprised if I heard the Dutch engine-software engineer of Eddie Irvine (last year, since early march he's in charge of Juan's BMW) explain there aren't many areas in which F1 would be usefull for technology exchange with the ordinary automobile industry except two: sensors which perform double functions and signaltreatment deriving other information than the original signal was intended for.

Can't say that Max has tried much to cover the loopholes in the Tech Rules and already he says he's giving up and letting TC in. I don't agree with the 'fixed WC's' theories but he for sure has given (and is giving) room for unfair advantages. Ban Max and get someone with the right intentions will solve a lot I guess. Considering 'fixing' Balestre and 'go ahead and cheat' Mosley we might look at it from the bright side and draw the conclusion that F1 is getting a increasingly fairer competition and still heading in some right direction. Far off though.

Cheers,
Dino

[Red]

Then I fell into Max’ trap. Probably there are more than one definition for transmission and propulsion. I reckon I’m a bit confused about “propulsion” thing. Why FIA specifically made different chapters for all these and propulsion is a subchapter of transmission? Indeed is vague. If instead of 9.2 Propulsion we had ARTICLE 5 : Propulsion, before the Article 6 : Engine then engine mapping would be illegal, isn’t it?

Dino, it is not allowed for the engine to know in which gear is running, but it is allowed to choose a different map when changing gear. You lost me on this one. Is allowed or is it not? From what I understand, only RPM and throttle position may be used for engine’s mappings. But with several exceptions, one of them is gear changing. And the air temperature and pressure in the air-intake. Or the driver may choose from three fuel mixture settings. Or... Furthermore, an abrupt change in engine’s revvs - checked, but rearwheel slip? I thought that only instantaneous values might be used for various purposes. Anyway it is illegal to change the engine’s map while in motion (other than specified) and here we go back to the software dilemma.

I don’t think that “The maincomputer is only regulated on it's connection type an not on configuration”. I believe they are and FIA (at least is supposed to) identify the devices that can be reprogrammed. Besides several hundred thousands lines of C++ code (if the engineers are nice and not using assembly language) are difficult to verify at each event, so they verify and validate the entire code once, before the season starts. But they do check if it remained the same when they scrutineer the car. If the algorithms are already hidden in that code we speak again about FIA’s complicity or it’s incompetence to find it.

But I stand to my point, if any of the allowed systems can be used for controlling the traction, FIA didn’t thought that it could be used that way and that’s why they decided to lift all limitations.

[eatapc]

Thank you, Red, for the comprehensive posts. I learned quite a lot.

I had been willing to give Ferrari the benefit of the doubt on the issue of traction control and chalk up their superiority to clever but legal "engine mapping." However, all the circumstantial evidence points to cheating. The fact that both Ferraris went to intermediates when no other team did indicates that Ferrari believed wheelspin would not be an issue on their cars even on a wet track. No form of legal engine mapping would simulate traction control on a track that's half wet and half dry, nor would it work on a track that was drying out more and more with each lap. When the safety car came off, the Ferraris were lapping over 5 seconds a lap faster than anyone else, and this has been attributed to the tire choice. But it would be interesting to see the sector times. How was it that the Ferraris were passing cars shod with full wets on wet sections of the track?

When traction control comes "out of the closet" soon and the other teams suddenly make progress relative to Ferrari, then we'll have another piece to the puzzle.

[Dino IV]

Red, that's it in a nutshell: The Tech Regs are a mess.

1. It's not allowed for the engine to know which gear the box is in.
2. It's allowed to let go of the fixed relation between driver throttle and engine throttle (defined in the flowchart known as enginemap) during gearchanges (and for idle-, pit speed and stall-control).
3. It's not allowed to use more than one engine-map.

The intentions of the rules are quite clear about what's totally legal. Problem is though, the regs are really insufficient to describe exactly what is illegal precisely offering far too many loopholes.

One can tell the intent of the above mapping rules for instance and technically it's quite clear there's no way to design any form of TC circumventing that intent. You need at least more input, more signals, more maps in order to play around in any way to achieve either 3D-mapping, either open loop, let alone closed loop TC. Simple, all types are totally off-line. They can't be done without violating the intent of the rules, but it can be done using the loopholes the actual rules offer.

[Sparky]

Originally posted by eatapc
The fact that both Ferraris went to intermediates when no other team did indicates that Ferrari believed wheelspin would not be an issue on their cars even on a wet track.

This is a quote from F1News:
"The BAR team opted for intermediate tyres in the Malaysian GP, the same as Ferrari, but according to team boss Craig Pollock, taking their performance into account, it seems as though they made a bad tyre choice, in direct contrast to the Ferrari team's performance."

More fuel for that TC fire you've got going there...

[eatapc]

Sparky, I saw that story quoting Craig Pollock also, and it makes no sense. Panis' engine blew before the rain, and JV spun out before making it back to the pits for tires. Jacques' statement after the race: "We were on dry tyres and there were no wet lights so we couldn’t see where we were going and suddenly I started to slide into the gravel trap." So what is Pollock talking about? I sent an e-mail to the writer of that F1 News report, but did not get a reply. I suspect there was a misunderstanding on the part of the reporter, as there are no direct quotation marks around the info from Pollock.

[Red]

Dino, I completely agree. The regs are insufficient to describe exactly what’s illegal and what is not, that’s exactly what I said. But instead of calling for “new and better ways to police” (that’s Patrick Head in a recent statement) wouldn’t be more constructive to actually bring some solutions?

In theory it is no way to design any form of TC. Also in theory it’s always a possibility of cheating.. circumventing.. whatever. I for one would consider the risk too high for the potential benefits, but the suspicions will always exist among them (I guess that paranoia is a better word). Combine that with mind-games, war of declarations and journalists and... but I digress... Now that this scarecrow will go I wonder what’s gonna be the next one.

Thanks for the gearbox info. So, only one mapping irrespective of gear.