Live data from Hacker News

Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

wired.com

241–250 of 253 posts

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

#241
post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it stifles innovation. A better solution (IMHO, and since I'm not a big follower of F-1 or racing in general, this is basically me talking out of my rear end) would be to, at the end of the year, share the designs and software with each other.

Designs and software while it might help. It's having people that understand the technology. I read an article that Porsche has been trying to poach engineers from F1 and Audi's Le Mans program that have experience with Hybrid Drive Systems. They said that there are only maybe 10-15 people in the entire world that truly understand Hybrid Energy Recovery systems for racing applications.

Audi don't use an in-house hybrid system — it's bought from Williams Hybrid Power (one of the technology sales parts of Williams F1). The Porsche 911 GT3 R Hybrid similarly used a WHP system; I wouldn't be surprised if Porsche have gone down a similar route for next year.

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

#242

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…

I ride with several people who do lots of mileage on 'bents. Lots of mileage (one has completed a 1200k brevet). These guys can cruise on the flats, and even on slight climbs, but as soon as the gradients hit 10%, they are forced to spin up in a ridiculously small gear. So, in some cases, yeah, 'bents could very be a performance gain, but I cannot imagine anyone riding competitively up the 20%+ slopes that races like the Giro and Vuelta include in their stages.

I agree, however, that the UCI seems to selectively make their equipment rules. At they've given up the disc brake fight in cyclocross, though some early returns show in certain conditions, rim brakes are still better.

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

#243
post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A good example of this is the heyday of Group B cars in rallying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_B

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

#244
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…

I'd be surprised if they hadn't looked at something like this, but it wouldn't explain the suspicious sound. The electric motor that KERS controls would be relatively silent compared to the V-8... (Oh how I miss the V-12's...)

And they're moving to turbocharged V-6's soon. http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/8/14875.html

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

#245
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…

> the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish.

The 2013 cup races were closer and more tactically focused than the majority of the mid century cups.

> 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.

Anyone with that mentality would have assumed NZ would inevitably win. Obviously that wasn't the case, so it's not quite as simple as saying that you've seen it all after 5 minutes. One point where I would agree with you is that there weren't enough opportunities to make a mistake that results in a lead change.

> The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors

There were 12 originally submitted competitors in this years cup, and 3 that were funded and developed to the point of competing in the challenger selection series (LV cup). South Korea came close to contesting in the LV cup but dropped out after disappointing results in the preliminary AC World Series races the year prior. Notably this year saw higher interest and involvement from countries that have not had a strong presence in sailing races in the past, such as SK.

> and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money.

A team from Australia filed to be the next challenger of record literally moments after the conclusion of the 2013 cup. NZ, Italy, Sweeden and SK are highly motivated to repeat their interest. The event is most emphatically nowhere even close to dying.

Cost control is a concern, but steps are being taken to address it. In the 2013 cup the NZ and Italy teams shared development costs as a partnership. It's highly likely that competitors in the next cup will purchase a design kit from the NZ team as a significant cost and time saving measure.

> Viewership has plummeted as a result.

Viewership and interest in the AC has absolutely exploded as a result of this years cup. Just compare it to the San Diego races. This is the first cup in ages to recruit a sizable new audience of people without a prior strong interest in sailboat racing.

There's a fair bit of misinformation running around about this year's AC that largely comes from two camps: people who like to bash on anything Ellison touches (understandable, he doesn't come across as a very likable guy), and nostalgia from folks that fetishise more classic looking boats. But it's just daft to think that returning to the 12m or J-boats has a brighter future than foiling multi-hulls. The AC will either continue on its current course, or if someone wins it away from Larry and reforms it in a reactionary way, it's likely that something based on the MOD70 boats will become the new king of sailboat racing. Stuff like the Volvo will continue largely unaffected because they have a very different spectating profile.

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

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designs and software while it might help. It's having people that understand the technology. I read an article that Porsche has been trying to poach engineers from F1 and Audi's Le Mans program that have experience with Hybrid Drive Systems. They said that there are only maybe 10-15 people in the entire world that truly understand Hybrid Energy Recovery systems for racing applications.

Audi don't use an in-house hybrid system — it's bought from Williams Hybrid Power (one of the technology sales parts of Williams F1). The Porsche 911 GT3 R Hybrid similarly used a WHP system; I wouldn't be surprised if Porsche have gone down a similar route for next year.

Yep but the Audi Engineers have the experience of integrating it with a car. Things like how the Hybrid system effects chassis setup, tire wear, fuel consumption, race strategy etc. All stuff that is not in the manual that comes from Williams.

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

#247
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Same thing happened in autoracing. See Group C

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

#248
post #234
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.

Please no. As one that enjoys the gamesmenship and innovation of F1 and sportscar racing that would kill it for me.

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

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 degre…

That was precisely the misunderstanding. The purpose of the device was to improve mechanical grip by allowing the tires to have a more uniform pressure with the ground, removing some of the influence of impulses applied to the tire/suspension and the attendant lateral oscillations that result.

With such a rigid interpretation of the regulations, one could say the anti roll bar, spring, or damper would also be in violation of the regulations, as they have knock on effects concerning the aerodynamics.

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

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> - 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…

I'm pretty sure UCI Rule 49 banning small wheels long preexisted 1996. There's little information on the web, but The Spaceframe Moultons describes the ban existing in at least the 1994 pamphlet (it's on google book search if you want to hunt: chapter 9). And certainly there's lots of stuff on the web claiming a near immediate ban, though with no specific date. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
Post reply on HN