In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it is naturally where the bleeding edge of F1 design is going to lie.
"the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it"
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.
The F-duct was a clever work around of the old F1 rule of no moveable aerodynamic devices (which dates from the 70's) and was motivated, intially by the practice of mounting the rear wing directly to unsprung parts of the suspension. A more applicable example of the rule was the late 70s brabham fan car which used a large fan at the rear (ostensibly for engine cooling purposes) to suck out air from the underside of the car to add downforce. Think of the hyperloop design, in reverse.
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).
I'll add that the no moveable aerodynamic devices ruling has been applied very widely, and in sometimes surprising ways. The prime example is the ban on Renault's tuned mass damper from the 2005 time frame. It was a mass damper inside the nosecone, which meant that the moving masses were never exposed to the air outside the car. It was ruled that by influencing the movement of the front wing (maintaining it at a more optimal height), it was therefore a moveable aerodynamic device. The sad part of this story is that the regulators didn't actually understand what benefit the device was supposed to provide, which was to allow for a more compliant suspension (a non aerodynamic advantage), and in fact Mclaren had a suspension element, the interter, which did effectively the same thing, but was not banned.
I know it'll sound like I'm just coming at the same thing from the other side, but the purpose of the mass damper was not to allow for more compliant suspension, but to stabilize the aero platform.
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.
That was precisely the misunderstanding. The purpose of the device was to improve mechanical grip by allowing the tires to have a more uniform pressure with the ground, removing some of the influence of impulses applied to the tire/suspension and the attendant lateral oscillations that result.
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 improved both mechanical and aero grip at the same time, but the primary purpose, as per Toyota's senior chassis engineer, was to be able to stabilize the aero platform, specifically around pitch. Which makes sense: same reason active suspension came into being, even at the expensive of grip. Aero gains are more productive, on balance, than mechanical grip gains, at least in Formula 1.
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.
Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions.
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.
I appreciate the comparison but it's really not "much the same". Modern F1 cars are much much better (not just faster) than they were in 1972.
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.
away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output
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. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete.
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-...
But if you look at total income, the difference still is huge. The top has way more income from merchandise, sponsorship, and revenue share from UEFA tournaments (champions league, in particular)
I'm not familiar with the sport at all, but Red Bull's other sponsorship ventures would lead me to think that the money they would spend on a team is not tied to the direct profitability of it. It would help letting smaller teams have a bit more cash, but it wouldn't prevent the top teams from continuing to spend them out of competition. We actually have seen this as well in the Premier League. To really get balanced competition you need a host of financial regulations, not just caps and limited revenue sharing, with a monopoly on your sports leauge, ala the NFL.
Not sure the premiership is a good model it sucks all of the money away from the lower divisions.
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.
The one thing I think all US sports should incorporate is the idea of relegation. It make the rest of the season so much more exciting.
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.
- 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 limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts.
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.
I want to reply to another odd piece of your claim. Why are you comparing recumbents to safety bicycles? We're talking about uprights. And so far as I know, recumbent velocipedes are later than upright velocipedes, recumbent pedaled bikes are later than upright pedaled bikes (notably the boneshaker); and recumbent chained bikes are later than upright chained bikes.
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'm pretty sure UCI Rule 49 banning small wheels long preexisted 1996. There's little information on the web, but The Spaceframe Moultons describes the ban existing in at least the 1994 pamphlet (it's on google book search if you want to hunt: chapter 9). And certainly there's lots of stuff on the web claiming a near immediate ban, though with no specific date. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
I ride with several people who do lots of mileage on 'bents. Lots of mileage (one has completed a 1200k brevet). These guys can cruise on the flats, and even on slight climbs, but as soon as the gradients hit 10%, they are forced to spin up in a ridiculously small gear. So, in some cases, yeah, 'bents could very be a performance gain, but I cannot imagine anyone riding competitively up the 20%+ slopes that races like the Giro and Vuelta include in their stages.
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.
> 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.
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.
Sailing is a good example of a sport with development classes like the Aussie 18 and International 14 where there are few rules and tech is really important, and also classes like the Laser that are cheap, strict one-design boats.
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.
I agree on the expense and corresponding lack of competitors in the America's Cup but those catamarans when up on the hydrofoils were mesmerizing to watch. I have watched many America's Cups over the years and was a bit apprehensive about another year of cats as I usually prefer a classic monohull but after this cup I'm not so sure...
> the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish.
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.
"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions"
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.
There is a strong selection effect given that people who are competitive bicyclists in general won't ride recumbents since you will then be restricted to HPV competitions.
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.
Set aside recumbents. How about small-wheeled uprights? The world upright speed record was set, and has held for 20 years, on a 17 inch steel bicycle with full suspension (a Moulton AM). There are strong arguments to be made that smaller-wheeled bikes allow for much faster and better designs: yet because the UCI banned them in the 1960s for being too fast, the industry was ruined and the only ones you can get nowadays are either folders (Brompton, Bike Friday Tikit) or bespoke Moultons.
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.
As a cyclist interested in recumbent and other alternative bicycle designs, I disagree. You can buy whatever kind of bicycle you want.
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.
I'm not sure that's explicitly true about competitions. I know there are a number of rules around weight, helmet design, etc. However, I think there is at least some room for innovation that does occur and at least some variation of equipment (see: http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bik... as well as http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804). I distinctly remember growing up and watching the debate over which types of TT helmets were allowed, which wheelsets were allowed, etc.
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.
Yes, exactly. The present state of cycling is such that any R&D budget can be used more effectively on bending the doping rules than on mechanical innovation.
Recumbents aren't ever going to be popular racing bikes. Fighting aerodynamic drag is a huge source of tactics and race dynamics that the races would be quite boring without. Recumbents are also laughable going up hills.
As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro.
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.
That's for road bikes. I don't know what the UCI says about mountain bikes, but since their introduction in the 80s, we've gone to clipless pedals, front and then rear suspension, 29" and 27.5" tires, disc brakes.
I think that's a good thing honestly, instead of being only an arms race for the team that will make the most expensive car they have to be very clever in finding ways to shave a few milliseconds in each lap.
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.
I favor having an unlimited tier for all sports. Anything (safe) goes. I think it would reduce cheating. Then I wouldn't care if the pros are using robots, steroids, time travel, whatever. And there's still plenty of competition for amateurs all the way up.
I grew up watching hydroplane racing. The local races were super fun. Much like going to local drag races.
The reason why F1 now has so many rules governing it is because it was impossible for new teams to be founded, and many teams were pulling out, because the costs were insane.
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.
That can end up killing the competition (and the sport). See the criticism of the America's Cup for instance, where even competing teams said it was getting way too expensive to participate.
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...
Easier said than done? E.g. what's to stop a team from buying a part from "some company" that only had one item in stock? Or what if all the engineers on one team decided to work for $1/year because they all got rich from something else?
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.
I know nothing about F1. It just seems more tractable to me to be able to have a single inspection item (the delivered car) at specified times (races) than trying to regulate the actions of thousands of people over years.
They ostensibly have this, a Resource Restriction Agreement. It does things like eliminate in season testing, which used to be very expensive, mandating a multi week summer shutdown during the middle of the season when no work is to be performed (even email is shut off for some teams). They also restrict time in the wind tunnel (even though most teams have their own wind tunnel(s), they can't use them all the time they are actually available, and limiting the computing power which gets applied to CFD in lieu of wind tunnel testing. There are a few notable things that don't get limited, for example, driver salaries, which can be very high.
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.
Limit how much money a team gets in prize revenue to progressive levels where even the losers can fund the next race, and restrain most of the revenue streams to funnel through prize money, and you effectively limit how much money a team is allowed to spend. Nothing else really does it, they just invite rule stretching.
it is a good thing. it's the same fundamental reason that we ban steroids from athletics.
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.
Of course, and at least in the case of formula one it usually does not endanger the pilots, unlike the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports.
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.
Yes changes your sex / danger of death and a whole load of other nasty side effects - I found I turned into Homer Simpson "mm doughnuts"
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.
But it stifles innovation. A better solution (IMHO, and since I'm not a big follower of F-1 or racing in general, this is basically me talking out of my rear end) would be to, at the end of the year, share the designs and software with each other.
Designs and software while it might help. It's having people that understand the technology. I read an article that Porsche has been trying to poach engineers from F1 and Audi's Le Mans program that have experience with Hybrid Drive Systems. They said that there are only maybe 10-15 people in the entire world that truly understand Hybrid Energy Recovery systems for racing applications.
Audi don't use an in-house hybrid system — it's bought from Williams Hybrid Power (one of the technology sales parts of Williams F1). The Porsche 911 GT3 R Hybrid similarly used a WHP system; I wouldn't be surprised if Porsche have gone down a similar route for next year.
Yep but the Audi Engineers have the experience of integrating it with a car. Things like how the Hybrid system effects chassis setup, tire wear, fuel consumption, race strategy etc. All stuff that is not in the manual that comes from Williams.
Every new technology introduced to racing allows teams to develop a secret advantage. Rules are adjusted over time to balance things out. But you can be sure that by then another new technology will have been introduced. The KERS system is already producing lots of results that are trickling down to consumers. I can imagine how using the torque and resistance of the electric motor as a means to increase grip is something that may be used in standard cars. Rather than using the braking system, this could be a smoother option.
Sorry, I did not realize my tone would make it sound as if I looked at it as a bad thing. This is a very good thing. Strict F1 rules are a good thing for innovation.
I would argue that it was more entertaining before it was made safe through technological advancements. It would be interesting to see a series that used self driving cars that could take more risks.
I would like to see full size remote controlled cars, that way you could cheer for wrecks without injuries. Maybe include some Spyhunter style weapons (oil slicks) like a hybrid Nascar / Battlebots event.
Perhaps it is because I'm from the generation that thinks watching tool assisted speed runs of video games is a good leisure activity, but I would actually watch F1 if the humans were removed and it was a battle of wits between engineers and automated systems. It sounds awesome.
an entirely remote controlled (as opposed to autonomous) car race could be fun to watch - can go much faster, risks of huge crashes are acceptable (or desirable...)
I actually think that would be extremely difficult. I think that such cars -- even with less restrictions -- would actually be slower than F1 cars around the same track.
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.
That's Hugh Jackman, the movie's called "Real Steel". Not to confuse with the Robert Downey Jr. movie series where he controls a fighting robot that he occasionally is inside of.
For those that enjoy bicycle racing, check out motorcycle racing. For those that like gocart racing, check out NASCAR (seriously, check it out if you haven't).
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.
NASCAR and F1 take opposite approaches to regulating technology. F1 defines an envelope and you can do anything within that envelope. NASCAR defines specs and anything on either side of that spec is treated as a violation.
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."
NASCAR is trying to eliminate technical advantage so that the competition is entirely about which driver and crew is best. I don't see anything wrong with that.
And if that were really the case then you wouldn't see the big teams like Hendrick and Penske dominating. Heck, even Chip Ganassi has problems competing in NASCAR and he's hardly a small player.
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.
I don't think there's anything wrong with that. It's just a different philosophy. Personally I like the ability for engineers to innovate in F1 more, but of course that varies from person to person.
NASCAR is a terrible example in this case. I'm not what you would call a huge fan of the sport, but I did work for the organization for a while and the racing itself is very much not "top technology". In fact, many would say the appeal is in the restrictions placed on the technology allowed for the teams.
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.
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.
The gaps I'm talking about would mean the winner lapped up to the top 5 or top 3. A truly unlimited ruleset would be financially ruinous as well. Only a few years ago top teams were spending $500 million or more a season and that was with a ruleset that had quite a few restrictions.
The America's Cup has very strict design restrictions. For example, in the latest edition, they weren't expecting catamarans to be able to foil because they had disallowed moving parts on the control surfaces. The Kiwis realised that you could actually move the entire control surface to get the desired control. It was awkward, which is why they had so much trouble actually controlling the foiling.
Anyway, yes, there are a lot of design restrictions in America's Cup yacht design.
That surprises me - I would have thought they would have disallowed the catamaran entirely. It's a radically different design. Are the restrictions for safety, or to cap some kind of performance?
racing at most levels is highly regulated and innovation pretty much stifled. NASCAR almost ended themselves with the Car of Tomorrow and jellybean clones running down the tracks. About as much fun as watching IROC racing where cars were identical. The idea of subtle differences leading to a win is the source of drama and at times is very welcome in the sport
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.
The Delta Wing is nothing special. Especially compared with contemporary prototypes at Le Mans and WEC. Sure it looks like a prototype but its a prototype that they were able to pick and choose which parts of the rule book they wanted to follow.
When you say "foil design" are you referring to airfoils? Under the current F1 rules, almost all innovation is occurring in the aerodynamic area and teams are constantly testing and improving. The envelope is pretty small, but there is a lot of variation from team-to-team in this area.
Exactly, they will probably change the rules to forbid this particular hack for the next season. But there is absolutely no cheating involved, and there will be no punishment for Red Bull this year.
My theory is that they implemented an equivalent to traction control, but with no sensors at the wheel. It's all internal to the KERS, and probably a software hack. For example, if a drop in current from the KERS indicates the motor/generator needs less power even though the throttle is open, you might be able to infer wheel-spin without measuring it directly, and momentarily shut down the KERS to reduce power to the wheels.
Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.
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.
How it would work is to use the KERS to charge during engine acceleration. A brilliant idea, and it wouldn't have to be plumbed into the standard McLaren ECU all the teams have to use.
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'd be surprised if they hadn't looked at something like this, but it wouldn't explain the suspicious sound. The electric motor that KERS controls would be relatively silent compared to the V-8... (Oh how I miss the V-12's...)
Indeed, not to mention the very title of the Wired Article. I'm guessing the author has not recently checked into the concessions given to say, Ferrari [1][2].
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]
If we're going to pick up on BAR's fuel tank problems from 2005 (and calling it a 'secret fuel tank' as the article does is rather disingenuous), then it's worth also pointing out that the tank manufacturer said that BAR's design wasn't unusual; they were merely the scapegoat picked on by the FIA during a period when it was noticeably pro-Ferrari and BAR were for a period their leading challenger.
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.....
I have got to say that I don't tend to place a lot of faith in an article that cites The Daily Mail as a source and I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone. Even the Mail article referenced paints a much more balanced story and the headline is ironically "Vettel did not cheat! Horner defiant..."
As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.
If Red Bull is indeed cheating, Christian Horner would be a fool to come out and admit it.
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.
Vettel has won races by large margins before, without any accusations of cheating. The time difference of ONE LAP is under a second, but that adds up over the course of an entire race.
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.
Negative. After the yellow flag erased his lead between laps 25-30, he was able to get ahead by 3.2 seconds in one lap after the restart. After that he gains about 2 seconds per lap. They are definitely using something, especially with that engine audio signature.
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.
Vettel was cruising most of the race. That's what he has been doing during all the seasons. He opens a gap in few laps and takes care of tyres and engine for the rest of the race. If needed(as after a Safety Car), he does it again.
He's a great driver, no doubt about it, but he isn't head and shoulders over ALO, HAM or RAI.
A 30s gap over an entire race isn't that big of a deal, Hamilton won the 2008 British GP by over a minute but that was changeable conditions. Watch the first lap of any race and see the gap Vettel builds in a single gap, it has hovered around 2 seconds for many races...
I think it was Singapore where a safety car blew out Vettel's advantage and the pack caught up. Obviously tyre wear was very low in that period, so the team told him to put his foot down, at which point he again managed to increase the gap by about 2s per lap to the point where he had gained back an entire pit stop. Even with a favourable track, I'm sure those in the paddock can't help thinking of the similarities with the 1994 season.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_contr...
Yeah, huge gaps aren't evidence of cheating. There was once race in 2003 or 4 when Schumi lapped the entire field up to 3rd place. He technically came in 1st and 4th place. :)
In Hamilton's last season at Maclaren (when there car was very competitive), he said more than once "they're definitely doing something with that car".
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.
There are several other drivers who're as fast or faster than Vettel. I think he's comparable to Nigel Mansell in the 1992 season: a very good driver in a far, far superior car.
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.
The problem is not only the +30 second lead. It's the time the 30 second lead was achieved in. After the second safety car, Vettel was just driving away from Rosberg with 2+ seconds a lap. That's an unbelievable difference, with Rosberg also racing for a top team (namely Mercedes, same team as Hamilton). There are also speculations Rosberg was on old tires and held the rest of the pack up, but still, 2+ seconds a lap is incredible.
It's also worth remembering that once Vettel builds up enough of a lead, he's likely to ease off a bit. If he kept pushing, his lead at the end of the race would likely be far bigger than 30 seconds.
That statement in the article is quite disingenuous. 30 seconds is a comfortable win but not something to get excited about. The front runners routinely lap the poorer teams, so it's hardly "fractions of a second".
When 2 and 3 are battling for position 1 can just drive, using clean air, to build their advantage. Red Bull have particularly good pit crew, and that also helps their drivers.
Yes? I'm not a cycling fan, but I consider doping and attempts to evade detection fundamental to the sport. _Every rider is doping_, some are just better at it.
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.
You don't think everyone is doping to some degree as it is?
I find that hard to believe. I think everyone at high level competition is enhancing.
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.
Even if they are, they are bound to use it in ways, or during times that allow them to pass checks. If everything was flat out allowed they would use stuff that would never pass those tests in far higher concentrations.
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.
Schrödinger's cat comes into mind. They looked at the cat, and it was healthy and alive. If later on, they check again and find it dead, then they can action. Otherwise, if it passes regulation, its not cheating. You can't really accuse anyone of cheating until you actually catch them cheating.
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.
Rosberg was losing 1.7 seconds a lap because of rubber in his front wing, and he started the race on tyres that has done two runs in qualifying. It is the general consensus that Red Bull do have a performance advantage, but it's nowhere near 2 seconds.
As a fan of the sport, I've so far only read about this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on forums and low-end blogs.
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.
As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery.
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.
"As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery."
This is the case most of the time whether it's a new design, or political. That's F1.
The point isn't that it is or isn't interesting the point is that Wired is bringing an intriguing technical story to a population who wouldn't normally care.
So, in your words, Wired covered a developing story that so far has only appeared in forums and low-end blogs. They pieced together a story from various sources, despite your claim, and presented what is out there right now.
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.
Eh, it's been covered by the BBC (by the astute and experienced Gary Anderson), by Racecar Engineering, a highly respected publication, among others. Hardly forums and low-end 'blogs.
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.
RBR is certainly one of those teams that is A+ in every facet. Traction control wouldn't explain their consistently amazing pitstop times, and their car's generally awesome reliability.
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.
Well then, as a fan of the sport who apparently already knows everything a mainstream magazine has to offer and then some - can you offer some insight, a link or anything at all for the rest of us beyond self-satisfied bitching?
At least they didn't reprint the obviously-sarcastic comments that Vettel made in interviews, which Jalopnik put in their article. As far as the tech goes, it is a total rehash of Racecar Engineering's work, but Wired has a very different audience so that isn't such a waste. I think their reasoning is flawed as to why it would be kept from Webber — the money argument doesn't smell right to me — but at least they added something to the discussion that I haven't seen fleshed out elsewhere.
Also the money amounts they talk about sound very low for a team to care about. Budget is so big that $1k more per point (totally what like $270k) is not much money.
I was at the Formula 1 in Melbourne this year, back in March, and definitely noticed the unusual engine notes of the RBR cars as they accelerated out if corners.
But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.
I think the BBC's article from Oct 3rd has some good commentary on this topic:
"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."
Blown diffusers. They did outlaw hot blown diffusers but blowing cold is still within the sporting regs. Thus the odd sound at low power, they are flowing air through the exhaust when they arent on the power to flow over the diffuser to provide more down force to accelerate quicker.
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.
I love that this is really a cutthroat battle of engineering. Behind every driver there's a team of really bright individuals who are brainstorming, modeling, designing, tweaking, and refitting, to figure out just how Red Bull's doing it.
A lot of NASCAR fans argue that F1 is just that - driving skill has been replaced by technology. I think that's nonsense. Better cars are an advantage, but ultimately, it's the driver's nerve and imagination that wins. I'd choose a lesser car with a greater driver any day.
Completely agree. On Top Gear they have a segment where they have a celebrity drive a 'reasonably priced car'. They had to create a separate scoreboard for F1 drivers, because they are all so much faster than anybody else.
I wouldn't. Not in F1, at least. Not if you wanted to regularly come in the points. You could stick Vettel in a Marussia, and he'd still finish near the back of the pack.
Vettel won his first race with Toro Rosso. While he may not be able to win in dry conditions in a Marussia he could certainly get the most out of the car, and help the team build it over time.
I've been keeping up on this and I don't believe it to be what Wired speculates (though I've seen those rumors myself). The generally accepted answer to this seems to be that the Redbull's engine (Renault) cuts half its cylinders[0]. Yes this can be seen as a type of _torque_ control, not traction control.
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].
Or maybe their technical team is just better. Adrian Newey[1] has designed some very fast cars - at Williams, McLaren and now at Red Bull. Michael Schumacher managed to win seven championships in his career, but he was often racing against a (much) more superior Newey-designed car. F1 was fun in those days. With Vettel, arguably the most talented driver to drive a Newey designed car since Senna, it's no surprise Red Bull is cleaning up.
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.
Eh, I wouldn't say Schumacher won against vastly superior Adrian Newey cars. Once Ferrari hit their stride in the Schumacher years they often beat McLaren by being far more reliable and robust. They also built up their advantage with their Bridgestone partnership to a level that made them dominant. So dominant in fact, that it led to a spec tire.
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.
He won his first two titles in a Benetton Ford that was widely considered to be inferior to the Williamses. At Ferrari, it took the team four years after Schumacher joined, to build a car that was truly on par with the best on the grid. But even before that Schumacher had come close to winning the championship, challenging Villeneuve's Williams for the title in 97, and Hakkinen's McLaren in 98 and 99.
This is pure speculation, I am sure Red Bull are doing some things with there car but it's not as big of a deal as everyone makes out and I don't think it's one thing.
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.
I think they should just let the teams use whatever technology they can invent, as long as it doesn't make it unsafe. Who cares how good the drivers are? The technology is far more interesting.
That wouldn't work. Firstly the smaller teams would be gone as they couldn't afford to compete. It's also likely a lot of the mid-field teams would struggle to afford to compete (Lotus, one of the top 5 teams can't even pay it's top driver). Secondly your qualification 'as long as it doesn't make it unsafe' is one of the reasons there are so many rules in F1. It's an incredibly dangerous sport. The engineers could easily make the cars go much quicker - but it would be too dangerous and costly.
Technology can make the racing uninterested. ABS and TCS removes all the risk from cornering and braking, so you don't get spectacular overtakes on hard braking, which is a big part of racing. So, some technological advances actually reduce the entertainment factor.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe that the market (spectators) does not agree with you and that is the reason why F1 has had more and more regulations added to it.
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.
An old remark was, without rules, auto
racing would soon become about as exciting
as watching the jets land at JFK.
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!
The FIA must be aware of the system that they are using, buy looking at this section of the rules:
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.
Regarding the mysterious hidden traction control that no one can find.
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.
If the secret is the automated use of KERS, you'd see it in the on-screen graphics (the HUD-esque display shows when a driver is deploying KERS).
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.
I'm not an engineer but couldn't you adjust how much energy the system generates on the recovery stage? If the magnets in the generator are electrical rather than rare earth you could adjust the strength of the magnets and the breaking affect of the generator would be adjustable. This would be akin to how ABS uses brake friction but with faster adjustment and less loss of energy.
Exactly. They can program the KERS to increase its resistance under given situations, and then tune the suspension to better respond to it. I can speculate about how this might seem less upsetting to the chassis, because it is not using force in the braking system (in the corners of the chassis). Having the resistance generated in the powertrain means that the tires do not have to deal with anything other than normal breaking, and acceleration.
What you see on screen regarding KERS isn't a direct representation of whats happening. e.g. It might pick up more energy than is permitted for use & the graphics won't show that.
Their implementation is almost certainly within the letter of the law in the rule book. So, no fine- but it could likely end up being the case that the rules are amended to ban whatever tech they are using in future seasons.
I am not really a huge racing fan, but am fascinated by the innovation going on in formula 1, and other race circuits. These innovations eventually make it into mainstream cars. By self-imposing constraints, they are pushing the engineers to get creative.
I find the justification presented for only Vettel having the technology a little strange.
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.
Makes perfect sense to me. Webber and RedBull are not on good terms therefore RedBull doesn't give him Traction Control esp since there's a good possibility that he might blow the whistle on the whole operation if he finds out. In a lot of F1 circles there are conspiracy theories that RedBull is actively sabotaging Webber and there might be some truth to that as Webber is constantly at the receiving end of reliability problems, mechanical failures and botched pitstops whereas Vettel's car runs smooth without a glitch. I very much doubt that those two guys have the same machinery underneath them.
>> "It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team."
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.
It could very well be that just in this race the technology was not working on Webbers car (as would be no surprise with new techology). Just wondering because of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532428
There used to be such a beast. It was called Can-Am, and the rules were basically that cars had to have two seats, fenders, and at least one engine. Other than that, it was anything goes. It made for spectacular racing, but tended to be dominated by one team at a time, and it was ridiculously expensive. It was ultimately shut down for cost reasons.
Not the sort of thing you could bring back today, even without the cost concerns. The "let's do everything we can do to make this fast" cars competing in that series killed a lot of drivers.
Something like the Porsche 917k30 was capable of close to 1500hp. (I can't imagine you'd actually run on race day with that setup) My dad and his friends commented on watching that car many times, and specifically the amount of noise that it made.
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.
Minardi's old team was bought out by Dietrich Mateschitz and converted into Torro Rosso.
I feel there is some bad blood still around, since it was Giancarlo Minardi who pretty much started this theory/conspiracy.
Right turn: right suspension compressed, left wheels on the outside have further to travel, if both spinning at the same speed then you will break traction on one side or the other. Not sure what type of differentials are legal in F1, but the technology in the article is plausible in the absence of some fancy limited slip diffs.
You do not want to floor the pedal while still getting out of the corner. The side way force means you have less grip for forward motion, and too much torque to the tires and they will spin.
Couldn't it be some sort of new notification system for the driver which gives him instinctive feedback and lets him drive the engine the same way traction control would?
From my (limited) experience in (not even close to F1-level) racing, the physical sensations of the tires being near the limits of grip are fairly obvious. The reason why traction control helps so much is that a computer can adjust power accordingly vastly faster than a human ever could.
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.
As a person that worked on a traction control system, a driver is not going to notice the difference between 5% slip and 15% slip, but 5% slip is much faster, (and faster than 0% slip) A light that went off at 1% slip would be an enormous advantage. It wouldn't be as good as a traction control system that is making 1000 changes per second, but it would be huge compared to nothing at all.
Not only that, but the traction control system can control wheel slip at a per-wheel basis. Something the driver can't do, with his single brake pedal.
F1 drivers surely have fast reactions, but could they really improve driver's reactions so much with a new kind of sound/light/tactile feedback, that a driver could replace TCS? Or be at least remarkably faster than drivers not using that notification technology. I find that quite unlikely.
I suppose that it would be possible to predict what the driver should do x0ms in the future, and adjust your signal-to-driver to correct for that.
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.
While I agree with your disappointment, many people believe F1 was supposed to be about the best drivers more than about the best cars. I will admit that the regulations have made the races more exciting in the sense of competition, even though I would love to see what happened if you just let the engineers go crazy.
