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.
