Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 253 posts

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#101

Post by Zigurd »

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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#102

Post by beaker52 »

antris wrote: post #100
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #89

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. Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.

"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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#103

Post by CWuestefeld »

davej wrote: post #56
ronaldx wrote: post #32

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.

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…

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] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34

[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#104

Post by curveship »

ronaldx wrote: post #32
brey wrote: post #7

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.

This is wrong on two important levels:

- 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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#105

Post by emhs »

brey wrote: post #75
001sky wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Self driving cars doesn't sound like a sport, tho.

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...)

E.g. the Robert Downey Jr movie where he controls a fighting robot. Bigger and nastier risks allowed than human boxing.

I still haven't seen that, though...

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#107

Post by atonse »

bowlofpetunias wrote: post #89

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.

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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#108

Post by bliti »

uptown wrote: post #73
bliti wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can't be cheating if they pass inspections. Developing an advantage is not something to be punished for. This is racing after all.

"It can't be cheating if they pass inspections." Same goes for Lance Armstrong, right?

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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#109

Post by onebaddude »

antris wrote: post #100
bowlofpetunias wrote: post #89

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. 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.

Re: Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

#110

Post by scott_s »

antimagic wrote: post #97
scott_s wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out America's Cup. The boat designs are now far different than what they were decades ago - and I don't think they have design 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…

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?
Post reply on HN