Hacker News Reader

Comment by masklinn | Hacker News Reader

> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does.

Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers (ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …).

As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3 choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg and at least 80kg respectively).

F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills.

[0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014

View on HN

not just to avoid tech being a bigger victory factor, but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly.

but also to keep costs down.

> but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly.

That's the leaf FIA uses to impose their restrictions but it's unlikely e.g. limiting the KERS budget, and increasing it significantly just as you're restricting engines, is not a safety thing.

There probably is a case to be made to limit the height of running shoes: if anything to reduce ankle injuries.

But one solution to the technological race problem would be to allow only technologies that are accessible to any manufacturer. If patented, open the technology to indefinite free licensing in order to be used in competition. For running, because the equipment required is so minimal, the costs of the materials should not become too prohibitive to any serious athletes.

  F1 very purposely constrains technological
  innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to
  avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than
  driver skills.

I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive.

I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls...

The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the limits of human performance.

And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were also built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around... 10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Sp... 2: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magni... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Champi... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control

> I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive.

Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put restrictions in place.

If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the machines, not their design details.

> I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside.

So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha.

> Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances.

That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have nothing to do with safety.

> It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed.

So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on the performance characteristics of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of.

> Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].

Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the performance characteristics of competing planes.

FIA does not do that, it restricts the design details of the cars.

I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and restrictive embrace of tech.

>So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha.

That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the centrifugal force lifting them away from the track.

But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.

  A Formula 1 car can drive upside down .

https://uk.sports.yahoo.com/news/can-an-f1-car-drive-on-the-...

I would imagine that, very quickly the drivers inputs would necessarily be more and more ignored, taken as an unimportant hint about what to do, just to keep the audience interested and emotionally invested in the silly concept of a “driver”.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com