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.

Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.

>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.

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.

"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.