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

161–170 of 253 posts

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

#161

Post by specialist »

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…

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.

But watching H1 Unlimited Racing was ecstasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplane_racing#Unlimited_Hyd...

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

#162

Post by specialist »

001sky wrote: post #51
7952 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Have you seen the robot soccer competitions?

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

#163

Post by cromulent »

Arjuna wrote: post #131
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.

"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 o…

The F-Duct, and also the double diffuser in 2009.

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.

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

#164

Post by yk »

curveship wrote: post #104
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.

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 jus…

> 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.

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

#165

Post by mcguire »

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…

Cough, cough, NASCAR.

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

#166

Post by cromulent »

ahlatimer wrote: post #145
beat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of NASCAR fans argue that F1 is just that - driving skill has been replaced by technology. I think that's nonsense. Better cars are an advantage, but ultimately, it's the driver's nerve and imagination that wins. I'd choose a lesser car with a greater driver any day.

I wouldn't. Not in F1, at least. Not if you wanted to regularly come in the points. You could stick Vettel in a Marussia, and he'd still finish near the back of the pack.

True, but then you have the teammates to compare. Vettel / Webber, Alonso / Massa, etc. Same cars, very different records.

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

#167

Post by simias »

specialist wrote: post #161
simias wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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. But watching H1 Unlimited Racing was ecstasy. http://en…

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...

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

#168

Post by sseveran »

ahlatimer wrote: post #145
beat wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of NASCAR fans argue that F1 is just that - driving skill has been replaced by technology. I think that's nonsense. Better cars are an advantage, but ultimately, it's the driver's nerve and imagination that wins. I'd choose a lesser car with a greater driver any day.

I wouldn't. Not in F1, at least. Not if you wanted to regularly come in the points. You could stick Vettel in a Marussia, and he'd still finish near the back of the pack.

Vettel won his first race with Toro Rosso. While he may not be able to win in dry conditions in a Marussia he could certainly get the most out of the car, and help the team build it over time.

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

#170

Post by GVIrish »

ahlatimer wrote: post #142
GVIrish wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tech…

> 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. Which is largely true today during the Vettel era and was largely true during the Schumacher era. People still watch it.

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.
Post reply on HN