51–60 of 253 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
when its no longer entertaining
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 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 ea…
Maybe it is time to make a clone of the race, but without the pilots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When one guy leads by 30+ seconds, while everyone else fights for fractions of a second, either there's a major breakthrough or somebody is cheating.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
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.
Isn't that backwards? If you're light on the suspension, that means you have less grip, and thus less traction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 somet…
oh, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that we shouldn't be surprised ;)
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…
The smeary tone of this article is really quite obvious and unpleasant, and I don't think qualifying it as a "conspiracy theory" makes up for that. For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn’t saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.
When one guy leads by 30+ seconds, while everyone else fights for fractions of a second, either there's a major breakthrough or somebody is cheating.