Honda system confused by Alonso taking Pouhon flat
motorsport.com
motorsport.com
The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power so it's critical that the car knows when to recover energy (either when braking or when coasting) and when to go full throttle or deploy partial power, and which percentage. That's where Honda has failed.
Is there a reason for that? I always assumed (as someone who doesn't know much about racing) that the inside of F1 cars would resemble a jet-fighter cockpit. They're not required to be stock cars, so why not optimize on HCI efficiency as well as on everything else the sport is about?
They've also got a heap of controls over things like the Diff, DRS (where the rear wing opens up to reduce drag on straights when they're lining up an overtake), and most crucially, engine mode - which tweaks fuel injection rate.
Some form of controls could be denied by technical or sporting regulations. I didn't read them in the last years. They are at http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110 Regulations are interesting and not too hard to follow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1ux791/an_old_f1_...
Then of course, it might be banned as a braking aid similar to ABS. Using any kind of feedback loop for braking effectively makes it a stability system which I assume is not allowed?
That's been a silly distinction to bring up ever since the introduction of automated gearboxes and the end of clutch management.
I think they added the boost tech so that cars pass each other more frequently.
If you want to have more natural braking in some corners and recover less energy and then maybe deploy the energy at more optimal places on the track then this sort of thing makes a little sense, especially if you can make it work. I would think it highly prone to being confused though. It would be interesting to see some data on the differences between this type of algorithm when it works and the Prius algorithm.
http://www.thisisf1.com/2016/05/16/explained-2016-f1-steerin...
So engineers and Alonso had to agree beforehand on motor maps and different steering wheel parameters. It's not clear if it's a problem in the software or an issue in the parametrization of the car for that qualy lap.
Why would you have to limit gasoline when the system is going to evolve to wipe that out anyway?
The second is that F1 has been carbon neutral for at least two decades with the FIA planting trees to offset the extraordinary amount of pollution that flying the F1 circus around the world generates. Even though reducing fuel does nothing to make F1 greener when you take into account the carbon generated by transportation it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.
In bet now it's way more energy demanding than before just because there are way more people involved.
More journalists/media and many more support staff to work on hybrid tech.
To me it just underscores the disparity between the feel-good green energy and the actual carbon footprint people generate. For example, it's a lot more "green" to not own a car than to own a Tesla.
I wish they kept racing a purely fun driver-focused endeavor and got rid of most of the electronics and hybrid tech.
And for those who love the tech maybe have a separate competition of self-driving electric vehicles.
Also, petrolheads aren't the most environmentally conscious so F1 is being a good citizen of the world by promoting green tech. Even if it's very much do as I say not as I do.
One is simply that the engine manufacturers want efficiency to be a relevant factor, because it aids in their R&D and marketing efforts. With a fuel limit in place, F1 becomes a showcase for both performance and efficiency.
Another vital reason is to limit speed and cost. Back in the 1980s, F1 was in the midst of a turbocharger-driven arms race. Manufacturers were adding more and more boost, which had a severe impact on both costs and safety. The high levels of boost severely stressed the engines, so teams were replacing the entire engine after a single race. Many teams were using "qualifying special" engines that were built with a lifespan of just five laps. The extra power was creating dangerously high speeds and the effects of turbo lag made the power delivery of these engines very erratic and difficult to control.
Many other racing formulas use a restrictor plate - a metal flange with a hole of a specified diameter that restricts the air intake of the engine, creating a hard limit on maximum power.
Very short: they made the plate warp when in place and return to standard when the intake hose was removed for inspection.
Interesting hack.
Once upon a time, F1 used to be a "anything goes" series where the best in the world competed to build the fastest racing cars in the world. This stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.
Since then, the racing series has piled on rules and restrictions meant to limit what the cars can do. Since the gasoline engine is hard capped, and they allowed adding an electric engine on top of that, you now need to use one to compete.
That's true of almost all auto racing today. Powerplants can deliver more power than anyone can use. Now it's all about keeping the wheels on the ground.
This continues to surprise me. Is that really what is attractive to the audience?
[1] http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints/item/143400-johansson-m...
I just came back from looking up the IndyCar tracks for this reason, to see what non-ovals there are. :-) I prefer road courses, myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IndyCar_Series_racetra...
This is much clearer in other racing formulae, where the cars being raced may be modified versions of commercially-available road cars. Audi, Subaru and Mitsubishi built their reputation for performance almost entirely off the back of the World Rally Championship.
Sure, and I thought that you would have to do something that was attractive to the audience for the marketing to work.
A lot of the fan base is really engaged in the technology race while others are engaged in the personalities, that is what makes the sport so popular as it has a lot of entertainment to offer outside of what actually happens on the track.
Some people love the crashes, others love the personalities.
Me? I love the racing, the personalities, but most of all I love all the technical developments on the cars. These are fragile prototype cars with state-of-the-art engines (approaching 50% efficiency, which is insane) - new car launch time in F1 just before winter testing is one of my favourites!
Supercharger is an overloaded word, it refers both to the principle of forced induction as well as a particular mechanical method of achieving that. Oddly this isn't just a problems with English, German has the same overloading of 'kompressor'.
Turbocharging was originally called turbosupercharging when developed by GE.
A supercharger is very similar, but conceptually more simple. The turbine creating boost is instead connected mechanically to the engine's crankshaft, being driven directly by the engine.
And to nitpick, all turbochargers are superchargers. Their original term was a turbosupercharger. It was later renamed to turbocharger. :)
The so called 'electric superchargers' which you can buy on ebay have been mythbusted many times [0]
But the OP wasn't technically wrong, so I bring it uo
Superchargers used in automotive applications are, typically but not always, Roots-type blowers.[1]
An exhaust driven bladed fan type compressor turbo supercharger is shortened to turbocharger, and
a direct engine driven positive displacement compressor super charger is shortened to supercharger.
Taking gasoline at approximately 0.75kg/L, that's 133.3L for 300km or around 44.4L/100km. That's 5.3MPG in US units. Not very fuel-efficient...
In my opinion, the fuel efficiency suffers because it's a sport at the end of the day and burning more fuel at a higher rate (limited to 100 kg/hour) gives you more power.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/turbulent-times-for-for...
If it weren't for the inability to transfer all of the power to motion (due to traction loss), they could accelerate from 0 to 100 kph (62 mph) in around 1 second.
With the down force provided with increased speed, they actually accelerate faster from 100 to 200 kph (62 to 122 mph) than from 0 to 100 [1]:
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.4 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 4.4 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.4 seconds
I took my old (APR ECUd, rear sway bars, otherwise stock) turbo charged Polo GTI on the Winston racetrack once (V8 trucks practice day) to work on my driving skills, and it was surprising - but not at all unreasonable - to see the remaining fuel in KMs estimate perform a complete nosedive.
The fuel efficiency numbers of the F1s are truly awesome.
Some examples of low-drag downforce are if they can force vortices along the sides of the floor from elements on the front wing, which gives them similar benefits to the ground-effect skirts that Lotus and Williams used to great effect at the tail end of the 70s.
What's amazing is when you see an F1 car in humid conditions, because you can make out the vortices from the rear wing.
[0]: https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-content/uploads/XPB_789346...
Conversely, my family wagon would probably not be very efficient if I did 0-150-0mph a few dozen times between home and work.
The driving patterns are a bit different
[1] https://youtu.be/rhmGaCjpoBY?t=4m20s (check the speeds and the nice 3-way pass behind the leaders)
[2] http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-belgian-gr... at section "5) The crucial power de-rate"
I knew a guy on the electrical testing team and he said that they had just spent the better part of 2 weeks tracking down a single misfire from a race. Turned out two tracks on a PCB were slightly too close together.
Here is a quick bit about it.
http://en.f1i.com/magazine/73067-f1-telemetry-data-race.html
In the electrical testing room they had a few car simulators that effectively had the whole car in (they were about 5 ft tall from memory, large boxes). The could start them up and run the entire system physically.
The quality and design of each teams car matters a ton for winning. The drives of course are a huge part of it, however I strongly believe that you put Max Verstappen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Verstappen) in the same Mercedes that Lewis Hamilton is driving he would be likely to win.
For those that do not know there are 2 titles here - the drivers title and the team title. The team title is the "Constructors Championship" i.e., they built the car.
This isn't really an 'of course' - while I believe you're right in this instance, teammates having unequal machinery is very common (for example, the driver who brings the money being prioritised for upgrades).
This is the prime reason for his bad point total.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Formula_One_season#33
For example, if a marshall flags a yellow, you might pull off the throttle at an unexpected location.
Same as when racing - if another car breaks (for whatever reason, including crashing) - your "inputs" are going to be very different, so this could easily trick the computer into thinking it is not in the right position?
The new design with wider tyres and improved downforce means that drivers can now take previously 'brass ball' Spa corners like Eau Rouge and Pouhon with the pedal to the floor, compared to the old days. That very fact should have been allowed for in the AI algorithms.
You'll have to excuse me, I just woke up here on the other side of the world and watched HAM's pole setting lap last night at Spa, and man, these cars take all those tricky corners at Spa very fast! [0] (For reference, Eau Rouge is at 0:22, and Pouhon is at 1:01)
Alonso's balls 1 - Honda algorithms 0
I don't follow motorsport but it seems like the car in the article is highly calibrated for each race in order to provide optimal performance through-out every section of the track. The driver then deviated from the agreed upon, and successfully tested, driving pattern and the engineering team got the blame.
I mean sure... The car could behave differently - but these are the risks when you test in production.
It could be that the parameters were slightly off for downforce and grip with their low-downforce Spa and Monza package and Alonso (and the computer) couldn't take Pouhon flat.
What you really mean is that his car couldn’t account for his massive balls.
It’s racing ffs, if you can take it flat, you take it flat.
What does "major throttle" mean?
Sensor in the vehicle is way more responsive and reliable than anything remote (EM emission based).
Further Discussion can be found at /r/Formula1 [1]
Alonso (or others in the team) had likely run Pouhon flat in a simulator. He, and his engineers, knew it was within the realm of possibility for the car. But, to what level of detail do McLaren's simulations model the energy system? Do they run real ECU code/parameters? Probably not.
The ECU is a sealed unit made by a single supplier. It has a finite number of sensor inputs and can only use relatively simple algorithms to control the power output. Mechanics can pre-program throttle curves for a particular track, drivers can tweak the throttle mapping mid-lap using their steering wheel controls, but the ECU can't do anything that could be regarded as "intelligent".
The engine map has a finite number of allowed inputs and a bunch of restrictions they must adhere to. For example it must be monotonic so that more throttle pedal input means more torque to the wheels.
The engine map can not do anything based on track position, but the drivers regularly change engine maps while on track, especially in qualifying.
From a naive perspective, if engine manufacturers aren’t already investigating machine learning to optimise performance, it seems like something worth doing.
ML people need to learn to look into a problem before spouting this sort of stuff.