Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by talmand » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:10 PM UTC

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.

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.

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

#112

Post by simias » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:12 PM UTC

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.

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.

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

#113

Post by beat » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:14 PM UTC

ChikkaChiChi wrote: post #106

Personally, I'd be all for a league similar to F1 that allowed for much greater disparaties between teams. We're talking about the most well funded teams in the world; no chance of a small upstart coming in with a low bankroll and making a splash anyway.

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.

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

#114

Post by jackgavigan » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:16 PM UTC

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…

> 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-...

The English Premier Football League, on the other hand, splits the revenues far more evenly, with the winner receiving only 55% more than the last-placed team - http://www.sportingintelligence.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/...

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

#115

Post by pilsetnieks » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

emhs wrote: post #105

brey wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

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.

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

#116

Post by AmVess » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:18 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #101

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…

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.

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

#117

Post by AmVess » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:20 PM UTC

deelowe wrote: post #94

rwmj wrote: post #33

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.

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. Thankfully, my favorite form of racing, motogp, has benefited greatly from recent technological advances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAiXqOwkmE

There are no driver aids in F1. No ABS, no (legal) traction control.

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

#118

Post by burgreblast » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:20 PM UTC

Zigurd wrote: post #101

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…

Wow, that's a really compelling guess.

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.

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

#119

Post by AmVess » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:24 PM UTC

TheCondor wrote: post #88

Sniperfish wrote: post #55

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." http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349

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…

Yeah, the weird plut-plut-plut of the Renault engine in the RBR is a result of the cold blowing.

KERS based traction control would be silent.

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

#120

Post by brey » Fri, Oct 11, 2013, 2:25 PM UTC

simias wrote: post #112

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.

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…

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.