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

231–240 of 253 posts

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

#231

Post by CrankyPants »

talmand wrote: post #111
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 befor…

Eh, it's been covered by the BBC (by the astute and experienced Gary Anderson), by Racecar Engineering, a highly respected publication, among others. Hardly forums and low-end 'blogs.

The Wired article, while to be commended for bringing the appeal of the technical challenges of Formula 1, demonstrates a shallow and incomplete understanding of the issues at play, unfortunately. It's unsurprising, but a little disappointing.

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

#232

Post by CrankyPants »

invaliddata wrote: post #205
invaliddata wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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…

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.

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

#233

Post by mapt »

ars wrote: post #181
simias wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

So limit how much money a team is allowed to spend, rather than limit the technology.

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.

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

#234

Post by gcb0 »

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.

They can't just allow anything new because that would render the driver (the sportsman) obsolete.

The only way out is to make F-1 GPL'ed.

Any technical improvement has to be shared when deployed/announced.

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

#235

Post by ericcumbee »

Shivetya wrote: post #29
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.

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 r…

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.

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

#236

Post by curveship »

SeanLuke wrote: post #160
curveship wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> - 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 th…

So much distorted 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.

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

#237

Post by cvos »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #103
davej wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 main reason for the strict limits on car and engine design is safety.

It is possible to build an uncontrollable death rocket on 4 wheels, but this would simply be to dangerous for the drivers and fans.

If these strict regulations were not in place the teams would create cars that would be self destructive.

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

#239

Post by sneak »

minikites wrote: post #81
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.

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.

Battlebots, scaled up and at high speed? Where do I sign up?!

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

#240

Post by sneak »

FeloniousHam wrote: post #82
uptown wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yes? I'm not a cycling fan, but I consider doping and attempts to evade detection fundamental to the sport. _Every rider is doping_, some are just better at it.

Everybody's playing the same game. Some just don't know it.
Post reply on HN