Nigel Mansell Was Right: Traction Control in CART Since 1994!

[pchall]

During the Milwaukee Town Meeting Paul Tracy said that he had been driving with some sort of traction control since 1994.

Which, of course, means Penske is a cheater ;) and suggests a good reason for the continuing decline in the quality of the racing over the years as the engine manufacturers and teams got more sophisticated in their use of TC. :saywhat:

[Foxman]

I remember hearing grumblings about this back then, instead of retarding spark, the engine mfg's were doing things with the 9th butterfly, it was less effective than retarding spark, but the engine didn't make those horrible misfiring noises.

[pchall]

Mansell was very adamant that Penske had to have TC on his cars in 1994 -- I remember him complaining that he had seen plenty of cars exiting corners with TC in F1 and Penske clearly had something that made the cars react the same. Nobody listened and most thought the fatman was just grousing in a bad season.

[Chief]

Can you imagine how cool it'll be when the gag order is off Paul and he can really discuss stuff?? I can't wait!

[JLMannin]

Ford/Cosworth was alledged to be doing TC in '95 on road/street races by "fuel mapping", or limiting the amount of fuel getting to the engine based on position on the track.

[nrc]

I suspect that "driveability" was largely a euphamism for traction control during this time. It probably wouldn't be a closed loop system like full blown traction control, but you could control how quickly the engine revs in each gear, possibly even according to which part of the track you're on.

[Ziggy]

Reason number 406 to hate Paul Tracy even more

dont forget, Emmo and Little Al were driving the same car!!!

gotta love the selective bashing

Ziggy

[cartmanoz]

Really, this comes as no surprise as traction control can be hidden in so many ways it ain't funny. Think of all the stories over the years about hidden TC in F1.

[Hink]

Originally posted by Ziggy
Reason number 406 to hate Paul Tracy even more

dont forget, Emmo and Little Al were driving the same car!!!

gotta love the selective bashing

Ziggy

Selective indeed - thank the lord for Penske too.

On the other hand in that situation I'd have done the same thing. They can't police it, you might as well use it.

[KobySon]

right - everyone else was doing it too. toyota was the only mfg to buck that trend with the spacer-gate fiasco.

[RARules]

Originally posted by KobySon
right - everyone else was doing it too. toyota was the only mfg to buck that trend with the spacer-gate fiasco.
Ohhh. Red Herring alert.

As much as I didn't like Honda's handling of their defection, I never felt that Honda or Toyota were in actual violation of CART's turbo boost rules. It is the job of race engineers to push against the envelope of the allowed specifications. They were just more creative in doing so than Toyota. I'd go so far as to day that the Toyota engineers weren't doing their jobs since they obviously missed that one. CART should have specced the attachment of the pop off valve more closely if they wanted to avoid the spacergate issue.

OTOH, traction control was obviously over the line (again, IMO).

[pchall]

Originally posted by RARules
Ohhh. Red Herring alert.


I was inclined to think that Honda was just being ingenious in a reacerly fashion. If the 34" pop-off valve is reading 34" and doesn't pop, that's pretty damned close to the rules.

[rabbit]

Originally posted by RARules
I'd go so far as to day that the Toyota engineers weren't doing their jobs since they obviously missed that one. My thoughts exactly. Never forget that Ford and Honda's plenum(sp?) designs were approved by CART before they were ever used in a race. It wasn't until Toyota cried, "Foul!" that CART did anything.

[nrc]

CART never said that the plenums were illegal or forced Honda to change anything in their plenum design. They only changed their way of measuring boost to foil any attempt to cheat or, if you prefer, engineer around it.

[mapguy]

A quote from PT on Autosport.com (http://www.autosport.com/newsitem.asp?id=22746&s=7)


"There were forms of traction control since 1994 when I was with Penske," he said. "Even though people said we didn't have traction control, we actually had it but we were not allowed to say or else you would have your arm cut off by your engine supplier.

[KobySon]

no red herring... I have no love for penske or toyota and do not need to defend them or change the subject and I'm still pissed at honda.

I just think that you're kidding yourself if you think that both instances (plenum "engineering" and traction- I mean "track mapping") were in agreement with "the letter and the intent or spirit" of the rules.

I remember thinking the same thing you guys are saying back then - toyota just couldn't "engineer" as well as honda and ford.

back then I didn't think that a series with one engine mfg would be worth watching either. the racing and politics this season have changed my mind quite a bit.

traction control kills racing. the machines and technology are great, but I like the human factor better.

[RARules]

Originally posted by KobySon
I just think that you're kidding yourself if you think that both instances (plenum "engineering" and traction- I mean "track mapping") were in agreement with "the letter and the intent or spirit" of the rules. I still think they're different and it's at the heart of the debate here. The spacergate issue had to do with a concrete specification. Everybody knows that more boost gives more power, and they also know Bernoulli's equation. I would imagine that we should not expect them to engineer something that gives them less than optimum power. CART drew the line and said go up to it, but don't go over it (the intent). And we're going to hand out pop-off valves to make sure you don't exceed the spec. It was pretty clear that the intent was to go up to but not over a specific limit. But the spec wasn't quite specific enough.

But with "traction control", just what is traction control? The TC spec is way more nebulous than the boost issue. (I'll admit I haven't read it.) But the intent is much clearer (IMO) - don't mess with power capability artificially (not assisting direct manual human control). That includes track mapping (ECU parameters as a function of track position).

It is this that makes TC such an issue. Clear intent, almost impossible to specify and enforce.

Hey, I could (theoretically) design a fuel system with a little acceleration-activated check valve (or similar but more benign mechanical oddity) that would have a roughly similar effect of cutting fuel flow right after a turn. (I know it wouldn't work, but humor me here.) Would this be in the spirit of the rules? Of course not. Does it break the rules? Probably not if it wasn't intentional. Enforceable? Of course not.

It's a fundamental problem of intent vs. specificity and enforceability.

In spacergate, they found that the manufacturers were taking advantage of a loose specification. So they closed up on the spec. That's OK. Of course the controversy was about the timing, etc.

BTW, I'm "that guy" who when there's a lane blockage in my lane - I always go almost fully down to the blockage, signal my intent to join the other lane, stop fully and patiently wait for somebody to let me in. I don't force my way in - ever. I then gratefully acknowledge their consideration with a "thank-you" wave as I merge. I'm being fully legal and polite, yet assertive. It's always the other person who determines when I get to merge.

Anybody see a parallel here?

(As an aside - on the other hand, when people ride on the shoulder and attempt to force their way in by "playing chicken", that really frosts me and everybody else. That's being aggressive and dangerous, as opposed to simply assertive. It's also clearly illegal.)

OK, now putting on my asbestos suit...

regards,

RARules

[ncmlj]

BTW, I'm "that guy" who when there's a lane blockage in my lane - I always go almost fully down to the blockage, signal my intent to join the other lane, stop fully and patiently wait for somebody to let me in. I don't force my way in - ever. I then gratefully acknowledge their consideration with a "thank-you" wave as I merge


BTW I am the guy that flips you off and says you had 2 fricking miles to get in this lane, you should have started back there. And maybe if you would have tried sooner the traffic would be moving, but nope you had to get those few extra 10ths of a mile so you could be ahead of them other losers back there. Yep I think you got that right on the head.

[RARules]

Originally posted by ncmlj
BTW I am the guy that flips you off and says you had 2 fricking miles to get in this lane, you should have started back there.
Respectfully:

Ah, yes. The point is where should one merge? The only way to guarantee fairness is a set of equal length queues (like at a toll plaza). This is clearly impractical to enforce in a traffic dicruption scenario. Still, should the two lanes adjust for this, and both lanes be of equal length from that merge point, it would be the fairest possible scenario. Frankly, everyone should do what I do and there would be no problem. But most (certainly not all) get in line early. Unfortunately, most aren't polite about merging. I may wait 5, 10, 20, 200 cars. That's OK. 200 is OK. I'll sigh and live by that.

I'll freely admit that I'm taking advantage of a societal phenomenon (etiquette?), but there's no sign, law, etc. that says you have to merge immediately - only by the end. I also don't play the lottery. I let others pay a portion of my taxes for me. That's OK?

I don't go to the very end because of what you noted - the traffic should be fully moving at the actual merge point or it disrupts flow. Having a single file for two miles doesn't help the traffic flow. Standard wave dynamics produce the inevitable "rubber-banding".

We certainly differ about the proper etiquette. But is one clearly "right" compared to the other? I respectfully don't think so.

BTW, I often surprise my riders in my vehicle with lots of graciousness and random acts of kindness while driving. I also try to even out my speed in heavy traffic to do my part to reduce rubber-banding.

Back on topic:

So is the venturi effect on the pop-off valve cheating when CART has approved your plenum design? I don't think so. All parties should design for the optimal result within the specifications.

[pchall]

Originally posted by RARules


So is the venturi effect on the pop-off valve cheating when CART has approved your plenum design? I don't think so. All parties should design for the optimal result within the specifications.

This is basically what I was thinking during the spacer flap -- Honda was just a bit more clever than the others about the rules.

[KobySon]

Originally posted by pchall
This is basically what I was thinking during the spacer flap -- Honda was just a bit more clever than the others about the rules.

ford was doing the same thing as honda.

toyota's spy/informant clued them in to how they were getting whipped every weekend. I have no link, but remember reading scuttlebutt that it was an ex-honda engineer or team member who had knowledge that was somehow poached by toyota.