Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret
wired.com
wired.com
At what point does a scientific improvement become too great of an advantage for competing athletes
I still haven't seen that, though...
My theory is that so much of driving (especially at the F1 level) is about feeling what's going on. That just doesn't translate to a remote control.
how exactly would that be interesting?
The number of fans that want to see the top technology vastly outnumber the number of fans that want to see the more limited tech.
At this point, most of the limitations are for safety. It seems like a good idea to allow innovation if it is available to all athletes. I don't for example want one F-1 team to have a patent on traction control and restrict all others from using it.
Anyway, yes, there are a lot of design restrictions in America's Cup yacht design.
I much prefer F1's approach because it challenges engineers to innovate within parameters, just like the real world. NASCAR is trying to make everything even on the technology side and the result is that innovation is often called "cheating."
Not that I'm necessarily anti the NASCAR approach (though I do think the organisation itself can be somewhat capricious), but it's certainly not a form of motor sport without team-based technical advantage.
All things being equal, fans would like to see more advanced technology on the ractrack. But the reality is that the more degrees of technical freedom in the rules, the more expensive it will be to compete, and the less close the racing will be.
NASCAR for instance is very restricted technically but is very, very successful because the racing is close. Formula 1 and Moto GP are two series with pretty open rules and they're always trying to rein them in to control costs and increase parity.
The number 1 thing fans want to see is a show. If you made Formula 1 totally unlimited you'd have gaps so big that there'd never be a question of who would win barring a crash. And it would be so expensive you'd end up with a single-digit grid of cars before long.
Which is largely true today during the Vettel era and was largely true during the Schumacher era. People still watch it.
In other racing, the Nissan Deltawing racer has raised a ruckus, small engine yet very competent racer.
When tenths count its best to get as much of them from racer and pit screw skill which increases enjoyment of the fans and teams alike.
But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx.
Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.
Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.
One area where I feel like is also an interesting comparison and where I thought ronaldx was going with this is around performance enhancing drugs and the UCI. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that things that Vettel being accused of now are, strictly speaking, not against the rules but clearly creating an advantage. The innovation is in the details in the same way that the drug regimens of many cyclists throughout the last couple of decades in many cases did not include drugs listed on a banned substance list (e.g. early blood doping '70s vs. became illegal in '86), because the UCI and WADA simply didn't know about them. It will be interesting to see if Vettel is found to be playing in this gray area how he and Red Bull will be judged.
*Please note I do appreciate there is a big difference between doping and mechanical advantage through design, just thought there were some interesting parallels there too.
Though tease rules where implemented when steal was the only frame material you can build strong and safe bikes well under the UCI minimum nowadays
The strict technical regulations are in place for two main reasons:
1. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete.
2. To focus innovation away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output. That kind of technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.
While there has been some of this back in the 80s (e.g., the Williams FW14B[1]), these regulations are also blocking a whole lot of real out-of-the-box thinking.
When I think of technical innovations from F1, I think of cars that showcased really unusual technologies. Some of my favorites have been the 1976 Tyrrell six-wheel car [2], which used four small wheels in the front to improve downforce; and the 1978 Brabham BT46 "fan car" [3], which used a big fan like a vacuum, sucking the car down onto the track for better traction.
These regulations may help prevent escalation of dumb "big iron", but they also completely shut the door on any kind of revolutionary thinking.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14
It was the opposite. 1.5 litre engines with a lot of boost making more horsepower than they do now.
It is possible to build an uncontrollable death rocket on 4 wheels, but this would simply be to dangerous for the drivers and fans.
If these strict regulations were not in place the teams would create cars that would be self destructive.
There's a far better way to help the smaller teams: Split the sport's revenues more equally.
Under the current regime, the top teams receive many times the amount the smallest teams do (e.g. more than a 9x difference between what the Constructors' Champion receives and the paltry $10m the bottom two teams are given) - http://www.hindustantimes.com/Images/Popup/2012/10/24-10-12-...
The English Premier Football League, on the other hand, splits the revenues far more evenly, with the winner receiving only 55% more than the last-placed team - http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/...
The premiership also has been trying to wall its self off from the other clubs so that they dont have relegation - unlike the NFL the worst performing teams get relegated which keeps the teams honest to an extent.
It's like one of the commentators pointed out. The Premiership is one of those leagues that even if you're mid-table, you might be safe since there are more points between say the #1 team and the #5 team as opposed to the number of points which separate the #5 team and the #20 team.
Plus, now it's just as exciting who's going down and who's staying up. As well as which teams from the Championship is getting their big break and can they stay up for more than one year?
If US teams had more of a setup like this, the story lines would be endless. I think it makes for a much more fan friendly league.
"sorry lad we love to sign you but rules is rules your going to be playing for Gillingham F.C in the second division of the Beezer homes League"
For example, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9N... shows that Manchester United had £320M revenue in 2012; 'only' £60M of that is from those broadcast rights.
At the bottom, http://www.wolves.co.uk/news/article/wolves-headline-financi... reports a total revenue of £60.6M.
- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three.
- bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics
I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.
The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims here.
At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby demanded it.
The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17" tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared.
Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels.
And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs.
So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.
Recumbent bicycles are older than the modern "safety" bicycle. They lost in the marketplace on their own merits long before the UCI even existed. They are faster in some scenarios, they are slower in others. They cost more, they weigh more, they break more, they're less agile.
The '30s were not the "dawn of racing." The peak of bicycle racing (and technological progress) was 1880-1917. That would be when the safety bicycle was emerging as the dominant configuration.
Moulton wheels had over 30 years to prove themselves before they were banned in 1996, following the Lugano Charter. They didn't.
And surely you realize that all of your claims (cost, weight, breaking, agility) can be more easily ascribed to the fact that uprights are a huge mass market with enormous R&D funding, and recumbents are a tiny little hobbyist thing. Okay, maybe not agility, that's probably inherent.
I agree, however, that the UCI seems to selectively make their equipment rules. At they've given up the disc brake fight in cyclocross, though some early returns show in certain conditions, rim brakes are still better.
I think this years America's Cup was the best argument for (engineering) rule changes. If you watched the LV cup ( the 'first round' of the America's Cup) and the final, you could actually see how the boat handling progressed. Most obviously, at the start of the LV cup it was believed that the boats could only foil downwind, in rather strong wind. Then New Zealand started to maneuver on foils, and in the final races of the America's Cup Oracle was actually foiling downwind.
So compare this to older America's Cups, there the boats were also very expensive, but the well understood sailing of ( for example) the J-class boats of the '30s did not really produce a similar evolving environment as this years America's Cup.
There is room for both forms of competition.
Having grown up racing Lasers, I'd have to say, however, that watching a sailboat race is incredibly boring no matter what kind of boat. Competing is fun, though.
The 2013 cup races were closer and more tactically focused than the majority of the mid century cups.
> Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see.
Anyone with that mentality would have assumed NZ would inevitably win. Obviously that wasn't the case, so it's not quite as simple as saying that you've seen it all after 5 minutes. One point where I would agree with you is that there weren't enough opportunities to make a mistake that results in a lead change.
> The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors
There were 12 originally submitted competitors in this years cup, and 3 that were funded and developed to the point of competing in the challenger selection series (LV cup). South Korea came close to contesting in the LV cup but dropped out after disappointing results in the preliminary AC World Series races the year prior. Notably this year saw higher interest and involvement from countries that have not had a strong presence in sailing races in the past, such as SK.
> and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money.
A team from Australia filed to be the next challenger of record literally moments after the conclusion of the 2013 cup. NZ, Italy, Sweeden and SK are highly motivated to repeat their interest. The event is most emphatically nowhere even close to dying.
Cost control is a concern, but steps are being taken to address it. In the 2013 cup the NZ and Italy teams shared development costs as a partnership. It's highly likely that competitors in the next cup will purchase a design kit from the NZ team as a significant cost and time saving measure.
> Viewership has plummeted as a result.
Viewership and interest in the AC has absolutely exploded as a result of this years cup. Just compare it to the San Diego races. This is the first cup in ages to recruit a sizable new audience of people without a prior strong interest in sailboat racing.
There's a fair bit of misinformation running around about this year's AC that largely comes from two camps: people who like to bash on anything Ellison touches (understandable, he doesn't come across as a very likable guy), and nostalgia from folks that fetishise more classic looking boats. But it's just daft to think that returning to the 12m or J-boats has a brighter future than foiling multi-hulls. The AC will either continue on its current course, or if someone wins it away from Larry and reforms it in a reactionary way, it's likely that something based on the MOD70 boats will become the new king of sailboat racing. Stuff like the Volvo will continue largely unaffected because they have a very different spectating profile.
Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.
BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.
The tradeoff is smaller frontal area vs higher weight. See http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm
Re: handling, my Lightning recumbent is way more nimble than any bicycle I've ever ridden, precisely because the wheelbase is shorter and the CG is lower to the ground than a normal bicycle.
I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s
Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.
Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?
I see that like code golf or the IOCCC, the constraints are what makes it interesting and challenging.
In the case of F1 I think it's also about keeping the human factor, without regulations I'm sure by now we'd have fully automated cars that would react in a microsecond, better than any human could. But that's no good show.
but human ingenuity being what it is, we shouldn't be surprised that people come up with new ways to bend the rules ... be that 'not-technically-traction-control traction control' or subtly altered performance-enhancing drugs the governing body's not had time to ban yet.
One team is being clever and finds a loophole/new way of doing something. They win big. Then next year either it gets forbidden or everybody else starts doing it and there's still competition ash innovation.
It's not the same thing at all. Horrible analogy.
However they are righteous shit ( I have had to take them for medical reasons) but whilst on 40mg a day I read of a tragic case of a child that died due to a bad reaction and she was only on 60mg a day.
I grew up watching hydroplane racing. The local races were super fun. Much like going to local drag races.
But watching H1 Unlimited Racing was ecstasy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplane_racing#Unlimited_Hyd...
People want actual competition, underdogs, suspense. Not having the guy with the biggest bank account win invariably and predictably. They want to root for a human, not an operating system.
And nothing stops you from creating a new "F0" association with no rules, you just have to find a way to finance it and have people watch it.
If the FIA thought removing those rules would make them more money or bring more viewers I'm pretty sure they would have done that long ago...
It seems like you'd need a huge amount of regulation on the teams R&D process to prevent extra money from somehow being spent.
In recent years, a lot of parts of the car are of a fixed design, and cannot be changed except for safety and reliability reasons. This includes the engine, the wheels and the main chassis monocoque (the latter is homologated at the beginning of the season). Chassis homologation caused a lot of teams problems in 2011 during the "f-duct" episodes due to teams having to find all sorts of clumsy workarounds to accommodate the ducting for the device without having designed space and openings for it in the homologated chassis.
Even the freeze on engine design (since 2007-2008 ish), has seen things like ferrari spending ridiculous sums to ostensibly improve the reliability of their oil pump, and oh, look at that, as a side effect, gain marginal amounts of engine horsepower.
Racing stresses components to their limit, on purpose, and fans don't like it when races are decided by attrition. So even well meaning attempts to limit development and restrict spending often fail. If someone has the money and the will to gain a slight advantage, it's hard to stop. Even templated designs and string limits on what development is allowed doesn't stop people from spending vast sums of money in search of tiny gains. Nascar is good example of this. While not all the spending is at the individual team level, you have large collectives and manufacturers doing things like designing their own suspension dampers and various engine optimizations. It's still extremely expensive in aggregate.
That's the problem. F1 cars that travel 500mph are not safe.
The budgets of F1 teams, in USD, was approaching astronomical levels to where only a handful of teams could ever justify existing. It would be impossible to fill even a third of the starting grid. If were allowed to continue, you'd have teams burning $1B+ per year.
The other limits have mostly been due to encountering the laws of physics and how it applies to humans. G-forces are limited as a part of car design to ensure the drivers don't black out in the corners from the extreme lateral loads. Pressure suits like fighter jets don't help you, because at least in a fighter jet the G-forces are top-down. Humans have been a weak link on Formula 1 since the mid-to-late 90s.
This is spot-on.
One of the best examples in recent memory was the so-called "F Duct" that was featured on McLaren Racing's MP4-25 car in 2010.
For those that are not aware, FIA sporting regulations strictly prohibit the driver from controlling the aerodynamic characteristics of the machine, for example, via electronic controls on the steering wheel or levers in the cockpit.
However, McLaren came up with a system that allowed the driver to block an air flow duct with the driver's leg. This permitted air to be channeled in an "on demand" fashion, such that the rear wing would stall and result in reduced drag. This allowed the car to achieve an advantage in the straights.
Ross Brawn even warned the other teams late in 2008 that the 2009 rules were open to interpretation, and then wiped the floor with everyone in the first half of the season. By then everyone had a DD of course.
EDIT: Also the hot-blown diffuser, where the engine management programme pushed fuel through the engine off-throttle with retarded ignition, which didn't put power through the wheels but due to specially shaped exhausts pushed more gas through the diffuser to get more downforce in cornering.
By making the only physical moving part in the f-duct design the driver (who obviously has to be allowed to move), the devices cleverly adhered to the letter of the law. The driver would close a hole in the cockpit which allowed some air to pass or not to a fluidic switch (think of a transistor), which would influence the flow of a larger stream of air to the rear wing).
One issue with banning the engine mapping that blew the diffuser off throttle was that this was already being done by many engine manufacturers for engine cooling purposes, and thus could not be easily regulated. Even their year end attempt at a fix by specifying the location, pointing direction, etc of the exhaust outlets didn't work (see coanda effect / downwash exhausts of 2012). They have finally addressed the solution in 2014 regulations by specifying that the exhaust outlet has to be behind all bodywork.
It's also worth pointing out that exhaust blown diffusers are more than a decade old, but in the past suffered from the problem of changing the balance of the car drastically mid throttle (when the driver gets on the throttle) due to 1) less advanced engine mapping), and 2) directly feeding into the diffuser venturis. In fact, for a long time, the standard solution (periscope exhausts pioneered by ferrari), sought to remove as much influence of exhaust air on the aerodynamics as possible to make the car's balance unaffected by engine exhaust volume, so given that environment, no one was worried about anyone using the exhaust for aerodynamic benefit. The modern (Red bull design) blown diffusers only channel a relatively small portion of exhaust air directly into the diffuser channel, and instead use a large portion of exhaust to blow over the top of the diffuser itself (enhancing the diffuser effect), and on the side of the diffuser (to provide a air skirt that prevents squirt air from the rear tires bleeding into the diffuser from the side which decreases efficiency), particularly on cars like the Red bull which run a high level of rake (which enhances aerodynamic downforce separately by placing the front wing closer to the ground but makes the diffuser more vulnerable to tire squirt and other effects).
And the way the regs were written at the time, "any specific part ofthe car influencing its aerodynamic performance must be rigidly secured to the entirely sprung part of the car (rigidly secured means not having any degree of freedom)," and "must remain immobile in relation to the sprung part of the car".
The regulators fully understood its benefit–as did McLaren, Ferrari, Toro Rosso, Honda, and Midland, who were all testing their own versions of that system–but it's hard to see how a moving weight strapped to the sprung part of the car in order to improve the aero platform is anything but illegal.
With such a rigid interpretation of the regulations, one could say the anti roll bar, spring, or damper would also be in violation of the regulations, as they have knock on effects concerning the aerodynamics.
It was moveable ballast, plain and simple. In its early guise, was totally unconnected from the suspension. So that's a pretty easy distinction to make vs. springs/dampers/anti-roll bars.
The only way out is to make F-1 GPL'ed.
Any technical improvement has to be shared when deployed/announced.
Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.
Lewis Hamilton stated that Vettel's RBR car was getting on full throttle 65 feet(!) sooner than all the other cars at a corner in Singapore...which means that there's clearly something going on that isn't just Newey's aero.
I've been lucky enough to go to MC for several years and usually get at least one session on the outside of Rascasse. Everyone has problems accelerating out of that corner, especially the first 10-15 laps. They all get on the power, and oversteer. You watch their rear tires get shiny, the rear slips out of line, and you hear them back off the throttle.
Except Vettel. Constant power, a strange exhaust, and never ever oversteering. I remember jumping up and down the first time I saw it: "THAT'S why he's so fast--RB have different technology. No one else can go though the turn like that. No one."
I never did figure out what it could be, but your theory makes perfect sense. Thanks.
Your theory is getting some press, too: http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl...
For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn’t saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.
No cheating involved
Red Bull have the best car, Vettel is the best driver, they do the fastest pit stops, and with a little luck this creates big wins.
He's a great driver, no doubt about it, but he isn't head and shoulders over ALO, HAM or RAI.
Personally, I wouldn't outright call it cheating, since it's within the rules, which is what F1 presumably wants, but it is against the spirit of anti-traction control rules.
It's been stated more than once by more than one person that Alonso is "the best driver in F1 at the moment, pound for pound". In addition to that, Vettel doesn't have the fastest time on the Top Gear Track (not that it's the ultimate test of a great driver) - but to say that Vettel is the best driver in F1 right now is mis-guided. He most certainly isn't. What would be correct to say is that he has the best car. Now whether that is because of some sort of traction control or not; I don't know. But needless to say, he's not winning races based on pure talent alone.
Vettel also is very consistent, hard working, excellent under pressure and generally pretty faultless. Top gear times dont say much, but he was on the top there for quite some time, so if Lewis gets a 2nd chance, Vettel should be given one too.
I also think that Alonso is the best overall driver, but i think Hamilton is the fastest in terms of lap-time.
I'm sure there are enough examples to be found. Very often you have can find a margin of around 20-30 seconds between position 1 and 3 and sometimes large margins between 1 and 2.
Not just old tyres, but a problem with his front wing after collecting rubber
Same goes for Lance Armstrong, right?
I've heard the argument for allowing athletes to take and do whatever they want to improve their physical performance. The best argument against that approach that I've heard is that if you allow a virtual free-for-all in terms of performance-enhancing drugs, then you're essentially requiring every participant to assume the risks associated with taking those drugs. Not doing so means they'll be unlikely to compete, which has all sorts of negative implications on their careers.
Obviously, the consequences of tweaking a car are different that tweaking the human body, and there's certainly banned performance-enhancing methods in sports that aren't currently thought to be damaging to the human body, but I think my point is clear.
So I support the notion that high level performance sports should allow performance enhancing drugs. That's what everyone is doing anyway. The way it is right now you not only have to enhance, and be great, but you also have to be a great cheater (i.e. not get caught doping). I don't like systems that give advantages to the best cheater.
While the deaths due to complications seem to be overblown in bodybuilding circles and the overall safety of performance enhancing drugs seems to be rather high it leaves to wonder if that would still be true if athletes would just use everything there is out there. Seeing that bodybuilders probably don't care about endurance, power, nutrient retention and the thousand ways the whole oxygen and glycogen supply chain can be screwed with.
Another angle to consider is that by creating gossip and rumors, the other teams might be creating a competitive advantage. By getting the officials to stress Red Bull and throw them off their game. Its not cheating, because it is allowed by the rules. When they ban gossip and rumors then you can take action against them. Otherwise, the cat is still dead and alive.
Your statement is like saying that if we don't detect intrusion into our computers, that no one intruded.
As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.
That all said, to some extent controversies like these are what make F1 what it is...at least since I've been watching. Remember Jenson Button's secret fuel compartment? [3] Crashgate at Singapore? [4] Schumacher....everything? [5]
[1] http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/104589.html
[2] http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/motorsport/bernie-blasts-ferr...
[3] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MOTOR+RACING%3A+BAR+face+fuel+...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Formula_One_crash_contr...
[5] Honestly, just google "Schumacher controversies"
edit: formatting
Or we could point out that McLaren specifically asked about running a hydraulic-based hybrid system in the late 90s and it was initially approved then rejected on pressure from Ferrari, or about their (entirely driver controlled) fiddle brakes system being ruled an illegal driver aid and banned while Ferrari were allowed to decouple the throttle pedal from the engine throttle, or Ferrari getting higher spec tyres from Bridgestone than the other teams, or.....
Cheating with traction control has been a problem in multiple forms of motorsport for a long time. It's difficult to prove, so by and large, teams that were cheating with it have just denied it flat out.
Red Bull is definitely violating the spirit of the rules, it's just a question of will the FIA come down on them or clarify the rules. In Formula 1 the difference between getting punished for cheating and getting away with it is often political.
Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker.
I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.
Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.
Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.
This is the case most of the time whether it's a new design, or political. That's F1.
Don't worry, that's just the obligatory HN top comment of: I happen to have more knowledge of the topic, therefore this article sucks.
I also thought it was an interesting read.
I've been watching pretty much every F1 race for the past 3+ years, but don't read any F1 blogs. This was news to me. I have been growing a little tired of the Vettel's domination, even if it's well earned.
That's why Silverstone was one of my favorite races this year. Because as soon as Vettel crashed, it was like, "oh, we have an actual race on our hands now!" and the commentators said something similar, something about it no longer just being a race for second place.
I think they did their job.
You can't expect every time a news story is written that it will provide new information, especially when you are already quite aware of the content of the story before you even read it.
I, for one, have never heard of this story. I found the article interesting.
The Wired article, while to be commended for bringing the appeal of the technical challenges of Formula 1, demonstrates a shallow and incomplete understanding of the issues at play, unfortunately. It's unsurprising, but a little disappointing.
But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.
"Red Bull's advantage is believed to come largely from a more effective use of the exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect. This creates more rear downforce than the other cars, meaning Vettel has the rear grip to enable him to accelerate sooner."
Seems like there could be some clever uses if kers to bleed off power for traction control like applications though. This is what f1 is all about people... That's the drama and excitement. There is technology, intrigue, and then the real debates start when you simply suggest Vettel is the very best in the world and that's the difference. Fun stuff.
KERS based traction control would be silent.
Soon, if Google's automatic cars ever become available.
It will probably start out as an underground thing.
The sound was what my engine sounded like when a spark plug cable came loose and thus not firing the cylinder.
As for why Webber doesn't sound like that - well you can speculate that Webber just doesn't have the trust in his car as Vettel has to get on the power that early. And, if you've kept up with this season at all, you'd understand why Webber has no trust in his car[1].
[0] http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull-traction
[1] https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/600837_1010...
Red Bull's pace is unfortunate, because with Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel you have four incredibly fast drivers. And without Red Bull's dominance, the current era could have been one of the most exciting in F1 history. It doesn't help that Vettel is a bit of a dick, or at least that's the perception. Schumacher was a bit of dick too, but the crowd (or a sizable portion) liked him - the fact that he didn't always have the best car, also helped.
Adrian Newey designs in the past ran on the ragged edge of fragility in order to make the cars as fast as possible. But that resulted in many costly DNF's that cost McLaren at least one championship. Now the Red Bull cars are still blazing fast but they're also very reliable.
I'm pretty sure Red Bull is cheating with traction control through their KERS system but I'm also sure they'd be winning races without it.
It's worth noting, that Rosberg's engineer said that the rubber caught in his front wing for that race was costing him 1.7 seconds a lap. That's where the biggest difference came, Vettel wasn't that much faster in Korea.
Technological innovation appeared to be leading to a sport that was losing its spectacle more and more. And that's what the vast majority of people who watch(ed) F1 wanted.
I love technological advantages as much as anyone, but people relate to people, not machines.
Maybe it is time to make a clone of the race, but without the pilots.
Imagine the kind of innovation if you were free to do what you want up to a max of X million/year.
Thankfully, my favorite form of racing, motogp, has benefited greatly from recent technological advances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAiXqOwkmE
I think they should just let the teams use whatever technology they can invent...
Another point is, mostly sports are sold as drama, that is, about human characters the audience can identify with, characters taking on challenges. So, see lots of pictures of the drivers, that is, the characters in the drama, and commentary about the characters, but next to nothing on the engineering of the cars. So, what's the bore/stroke ratio, max piston speed, max RPMs, number of valves per cylinder, valve spring design (last I heard, they don't use metal springs and use compressed gas instead), intake boost design and pressures, intercooler design, fuel injection design, fuel chemistry, clutch design, transmission design, suspension design, etc.? Don't hear much about those details!
So, it's not sold as a competition or lesson in engineering or the old "improve the breed" but as human drama.
So, have rules to deemphasize the engineering and just let the drama show. On with the show!
8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA. Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
How about a modified wireless air pressure sensor inside the tires that also reported tire slippage?
Then perhaps that slippage info gets received by electronics built into the drivers shoes?
Then the millisecond acceleration and braking is controlled by actuators inside the shoes that hit the pedals, faster than any human can and using instant, actionable slippage data.
When the driver walks away, nothing unusual can be found on the car when it is presented for inspection.
Also the article makes the comparison in noise - but surely that noise is caused by the engine being limited/throttled, something which they could not get away with in this season since the ECUs are all the same. A KERS-based traction control wouldn't make the same noise because it doesn't work in the same way.
http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red-bull-r...
It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team. If the technology works and is reliable, Webber will have it before the end of the season.
Every weekend Red Bull claims the two cars are the same and Vettel is not given any advantage. Usually they test on one car in the practice sessions to gauge the advantage it gives over the current car but in quali/race the cars are usually (if we are to believe Red Bull) identical. I find the justification in the article regarding money unlikely though.
Yes, what was not right was the car being in flames because a crash :P
Guess who's had the most issues with KERS in the last two years? Mark Webber.
Red Bull haven't been able to get either the weight distribution or something else right on his car to even get 'normal' KERS working reliably.
We're talking about the most well funded teams in the world; no chance of a small upstart coming in with a low bankroll and making a splash anyway.
That car was illustrative of a few of the problems with the "let's just allow the teams to build the fastest cars they possibly can!" notion. Teams didn't pay as much attention to safety in general as they should have in the seventies, but more to the point: the performance differential between some of those cars - racing on the same crowded track - was just too extreme. There is no safe way to run when that extreme difference exists.
The guy was a hacker in many senses of the word!
Isn't that backwards? If you're light on the suspension, that means you have less grip, and thus less traction.
The problem is that you'd need to be right almost every single time - a single slightly wrong prediction could quite easily cause a crash.
Ultimately, I doubt that such a system (one which relies on the drivers' reaction to a TCS notification) would really gain very much. These drivers are already incredibly experienced, they have a team of professionals poring over their telemetry, and thus they are already using a sort of "traction control," albeit completely manually.
I am not confident that they have cheated either.
The drivers are extraordinarily focused professionals during races. I can't imagine adding some signaling system that would let the driver react any faster than he already was.
"Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted."