Comment by tempestn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempestn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

For me this brings to mind Formula 1 racing. Each year teams pore through the rules looking for any possible advantage they can gain within their strict letter. And each year the FIA looks at which teams managed to do this a little too well, and tweaks the rules the following season to prevent whatever they did. They also plan ahead, making significant changes to car design parameters every few years, in order to correct shortcomings in the state or trajectory of the sport. It isn't always executed perfectly, but the attempt is made and is certainly impactful.

I don't see any reason the NHL couldn't do the same. Goalie pads too long? Set a max length above the knee. Torso pads billowing too much? Specify a maximum difference between torso circumference with and without pads. Or find some other way to measurably define the problem and then regulate against it. Any issue severe enough to be a problem can be specifically defined and therefore corrected.

And if necessary, you can make larger changes as well, like F1 is doing with ground effects this year to allow cars to follow more closely without sacrificing so much downforce. For example (not saying this would be a good change, just an example of the sort of large change that's possible) the pad shape could be redefined with a bulge at the top so that they wouldn't lie completely flat on the ice.

These problems are solvable; it just requires a willingness to continually tweak the minutia of the rules when things aren't going as desired.

Unlike Formula 1, millions of kids play the game and want to play it like the pros. Constantly changing the rules is feasible for the NHL. Goalies probably get new equipment every year anyway. But you can’t expect goalies in the recreational setting to do that. Probably the only people who would like that are the pad manufacturers. You’re also forgetting that the main aspect of goalie pads is protection and there’s a natural increase in protection as shooting power increases with stick technology. That being said, the hockey world needs to rip the bandaid off and simply make the goalie pads 6 inches narrower (3 off each) if they want more goals.

Bro, kids aren't going to be less enthused about playing hockey because their goalie's pads are slightly different than what they see on TV.

You're right, they're not. But if the league they play in says that their pads have to change, and the goalies are staring down a $200 investment in pads (this isn't totally unreasonable) there could be a lot of folks who can't swing that kind of cash just to have their kids play in a youth league, or adults who play in a beer league.

Hockey is already expensive - for goalies especially. More rule changes = more $$$ spent, and not always for great reasons.

Right, but why would the league institute this change? Because kids want to play in the NHL. Yes, kids aren’t going to care if the goalie pads are slightly different, but it’s the same enthusiasm for the NHL that puts pressure on the leagues to conform to the NHL. Have you ever seen a league play in a non NHL sized arena in North America? Sure is funny that huge infrastructure changes happened even though smaller cheaper rinks were viable for a long time.

Where I’m from in northern Ontario, a hockey centric place in the world, more kids played in recreational leagues than at the local barn rinks. Sure, playing shinny is really fun, but at the end of the day, kids want to play hockey as seen on TV. Whenever I went to the barn rink with my goalie equipment, people loved it because it was one of the few times they actually could shoot on a goalie. Playing posts or with a fake goalie is just as challenging (given I wasn’t very good) but it’s not the same as the real thing.

Yeah, but these rules don't need to be extended elsewhere. There are already tons of rules and gear that changes in popular sports based on the level of professional play... all the way down to swimming where professional meets have very different restrictions on suits, googles, caps than youth events.

Also as the article states, for most younger players, these changes wouldn't be an issue as the goalie isn't quite big enough to cause the rules to be needed.

It wouldn't be necessary to echo every minor change at lower levels of the sport. Racing is no different. Kids grow up racing karts, then the serious ones maybe move to Formula 3, Formula 2, before (a very select few) move up to F1. The equipment (car) at each of these levels is massively different, but the skills carry over, as they would for hockey, even if the goalie pads weren't identical.

Of course it wouldn't be necessary, but all the incentives are lined up against that happening in sports with millions of players. There's a reason why indoor soccer plays second fiddle to outdoor soccer. People aren't interested in playing sports with transferable skills. They are interested in playing what their idols play. Lacrosse is a prime example. In the US, the outdoor version is vastly more popular than the indoor version. In Canada, it is the exact opposite due to our access to indoor arenas and lack of summer months. To say something is possible without looking at the massive cultural momentum behind something is silly. You call equipment changes minor, but the very first thing hockey players do when they get to a high enough level is remove the cage from the helmet.

F1 isn’t an example of success to emulate. The over-regulation of the sport is widely hated by fans. The situation they have now is a negative feedback loop of excessive regulation requiring the implementation of an ever increasing amount of further regulation. Small teams used to be able to innovate, but the regulations have pushed the barrier to innovation so high that you need hundreds of millions of dollars, and even then, if you didn’t manage to hire Adrian Newey or James Allison, then you have to cheat to be anywhere near the front of the pack. You’ll never see another Ross Brawn in F1 again. The new status quo is a few rich teams at the front, a couple of permanent midfield teams, and 4-5 teams teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. I would hope that no other sport ever chooses this path.

That's fair. Another alternative from racing would be 'spec' equipment. For example, there could be a league office responsible for goalie equipment, which could take goalie measurements and work with suppliers to provide each NHL goalie with authorized equipment.

You'd still need some regulations around how the equipment is worn, but that's the case regardless.

Formula 1 is funny because in some ways it is like a sport of lawyers and engineers. Engineers try to push the envelope and lawyers dive through the minutiae of the regulations to try to find loopholes and justifications for the car changes.

The league even has these little arbitrated court cases where the teams defend themselves against the regulations, while the league or other teams fight in opposition. If a loophole is discovered, then it is either patched in the regulations the next year, or it becomes adopted by every other team immediately.

Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car? Then it would just be about driver skill? Otherwise all of the rules are just too easy to game for a season and dominate.

F1 is as much about the engineering challenge of having the teams competing to build the fastest circuit racing car in the world as it is about the drivers driving it. If you remove the engineering challenge, you no longer have F1. (Kind of literally, as the Formula in Formula 1 refers to the regulations teams need to follow in their construction of the vehicle.)

There are plenty of other major racing series around the world that use standardized vehicles. The reason F1 is special is the engineering, plain and simple. The aerodynamics involved, the engine efficiencies... Mercedes' ICU (traditional fuel part of the power unit) has achieved a thermal efficiency of over 50%. That is astounding. You just don't get these sort of advances with a spec series; there's no motivation for it.

If you combat the imbalance in team success at all, you do it by inserting negative feedback loops and spending limits. Making total available budget be not the #1 determining factor is an obvious choice. Some caps are in the works currently. And for negative feedback loops, these are things like -- the higher your finishing position for the season, the less wind tunnel time you have available to use in the offseason. Something like that, things that make it so if you win, it's a little bit harder to keep winning the next time.

You definitely don't turn it into a spec series, because then you have killed the sport.

Just make the cars and the tires less wide and you'll have a competitive F1 series with overtaking at every corner.

Like what Fangio had to drive.

> Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?

This already exists. Formula 2 is essentially Formula 1 racing, but everyone races the same car with the same specs. IndyCar is another example of Formula style racing where everyone races the same vehicle.

But Formula 1 is fascinating because it pushes the technological envelope of what is possible. The engineers back at car-manufacturer headquarters are the athletes participating on the team. The main driver of course is important, but there are plenty of examples of amazing drivers in less desirable cars that lose repeatedly. Because the engineering is part of the sport. Formula 1 drivers have quit teams over engineering decisions. Formula 1 is so interesting because the cars just keep pushing the engineering envelope of what is possible with 4 wheels.

This is similar to the old Ford vs Ferrari days at Le Mans, where car manufacturers had to build cars that were capable of racing at high speeds for 24 hours straight. Of course the driver is important. But more important than the driver is the car. The car must be able to last, and especially back in the 60s, cars really couldn't do that.

Much of the technology that is developed at those races trickled down into what we drive today and have built more reliable cars. Technology like fuel injection that we take for granted in cars today came from these races.

> Wouldn't Formula 1 be more interesting if everyone had to race with the same car?

It would be a different sport. Not necessarily worse or better, just different. The engineering constrains and challenges are, et this moment, part of the point.

Formula E is closer to what you’re talking about, i believe only the power train is customisable.

F1 is a team sport, car engineering is part of the competition.

It can become boring when one team is very dominant, as has been the case for a number of years now. Absent that though, differences between the cars can make the sport more interesting. The engineering competition is a part of it. As are the adaptations the drivers and teams need to make to take into account their cars' relative strengths and weaknesses compared to others. Plus, if the disadvantage isn't too great, it can be fun to cheer for an underdog who overcomes a disadvantageous car and still manages to win.

Spec racing certainly has its place, and it is indeed also nice to see drivers pitted against each other on skill (and luck) alone. But that's never been Formula 1.

That sport is called already exists, it’s called IndyCar. Viewership and revenue statistics would suggest that it’s probably not more interesting.

As one of the 10 people who watched Indycar, simliar things still happen. Teams are limited in the number of wind tunnel trials they can do each year, so one team bought a mountain with a road that tunnels the wind in order to skirt regulations. Its called the Laurel Hill Tunnel if you want to read more

> Teams are limited in the number of wind tunnel trials they can do each year

I don't understand, what's the purpose of wind tunnel trials when you're not designing the car?

I think they can do some minor body adjustments to fins and things. But the core car and powertrain is the same.

In a sport where everyone drives the same car, marginal gains (1% more performance) can be what wins a race.

There are leagues that do this, they aren't as popular as formula 1. Even still, the best teams can afford to buy 3 engines and keep the one that's 10% better.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com