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

211–220 of 253 posts

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

#211

Post by nicholassmith »

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.

As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro.

Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.

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

#212

Post by MichaelGG »

ars wrote: post #209
MichaelGG wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Easier said than done? E.g. what's to stop a team from buying a part from "some company" that only had one item in stock? Or what if all the engineers on one team decided to work for $1/year because they all got rich from something else? It seems like you'd need a huge amount of regulation on the teams R&D process to prevent extra money from somehow being spent.

Aren't they spending a tremendous amount of effort regulating the tech as it is?

I know nothing about F1. It just seems more tractable to me to be able to have a single inspection item (the delivered car) at specified times (races) than trying to regulate the actions of thousands of people over years.

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

#213

Post by beat »

hencq wrote: post #139
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.

Completely agree. On Top Gear they have a segment where they have a celebrity drive a 'reasonably priced car'. They had to create a separate scoreboard for F1 drivers, because they are all so much faster than anybody else.

They also note that the F1 drivers take certain turns differently from every other driver.

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

#214

Post by beat »

justin66 wrote: post #195
beat wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not the sort of thing you could bring back today, even without the cost concerns. The "let's do everything we can do to make this fast" cars competing in that series killed a lot of drivers.

Yeah. I used to watch Can Am when I was a little kid. Drivers got killed a lot. Those cars were insane - 1000 horsepower sometimes.

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

#215

Post by phowat »

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.

Exactly, they will probably change the rules to forbid this particular hack for the next season. But there is absolutely no cheating involved, and there will be no punishment for Red Bull this year.

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

#216

Post by at-fates-hands »

walshemj wrote: post #176
jackgavigan wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Not sure the premiership is a good model it sucks all of the money away from the lower divisions. The premiership also has been trying to wall its self off from the other clubs so that they dont have relegation - unlike the NFL the worst performing teams get relegated which keeps the teams honest to an extent.

The one thing I think all US sports should incorporate is the idea of relegation. It make the rest of the season so much more exciting.

It's like one of the commentators pointed out. The Premiership is one of those leagues that even if you're mid-table, you might be safe since there are more points between say the #1 team and the #5 team as opposed to the number of points which separate the #5 team and the #20 team.

Plus, now it's just as exciting who's going down and who's staying up. As well as which teams from the Championship is getting their big break and can they stay up for more than one year?

If US teams had more of a setup like this, the story lines would be endless. I think it makes for a much more fan friendly league.

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

#217

Post by at-fates-hands »

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.

>>>>> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions

Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?

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

#218

Post by ElongatedTowel »

grannyg00se wrote: post #152
uptown wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting angle. I've heard the argument for allowing athletes to take and do whatever they want to improve their physical performance. The best argument against that approach that I've heard is that if you allow a virtual free-for-all in terms of performance-enhancing drugs, then you're essentially requiring every participant to assume the risks associated with taking those drugs. Not doing so means they…

You don't think everyone is doping to some degree as it is? I find that hard to believe. I think everyone at high level competition is enhancing. So I support the notion that high level performance sports should allow performance enhancing drugs. That's what everyone is doing anyway. The way it is right now you not only have to enhance, and be great, but you also have to be a great cheater (i.e. not get caught doping…

Even if they are, they are bound to use it in ways, or during times that allow them to pass checks. If everything was flat out allowed they would use stuff that would never pass those tests in far higher concentrations.

While the deaths due to complications seem to be overblown in bodybuilding circles and the overall safety of performance enhancing drugs seems to be rather high it leaves to wonder if that would still be true if athletes would just use everything there is out there. Seeing that bodybuilders probably don't care about endurance, power, nutrient retention and the thousand ways the whole oxygen and glycogen supply chain can be screwed with.

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

#219

Post by invaliddata »

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.

They ostensibly have this, a Resource Restriction Agreement. It does things like eliminate in season testing, which used to be very expensive, mandating a multi week summer shutdown during the middle of the season when no work is to be performed (even email is shut off for some teams). They also restrict time in the wind tunnel (even though most teams have their own wind tunnel(s), they can't use them all the time they are actually available, and limiting the computing power which gets applied to CFD in lieu of wind tunnel testing. There are a few notable things that don't get limited, for example, driver salaries, which can be very high.

In recent years, a lot of parts of the car are of a fixed design, and cannot be changed except for safety and reliability reasons. This includes the engine, the wheels and the main chassis monocoque (the latter is homologated at the beginning of the season). Chassis homologation caused a lot of teams problems in 2011 during the "f-duct" episodes due to teams having to find all sorts of clumsy workarounds to accommodate the ducting for the device without having designed space and openings for it in the homologated chassis.

Even the freeze on engine design (since 2007-2008 ish), has seen things like ferrari spending ridiculous sums to ostensibly improve the reliability of their oil pump, and oh, look at that, as a side effect, gain marginal amounts of engine horsepower.

Racing stresses components to their limit, on purpose, and fans don't like it when races are decided by attrition. So even well meaning attempts to limit development and restrict spending often fail. If someone has the money and the will to gain a slight advantage, it's hard to stop. Even templated designs and string limits on what development is allowed doesn't stop people from spending vast sums of money in search of tiny gains. Nascar is good example of this. While not all the spending is at the individual team level, you have large collectives and manufacturers doing things like designing their own suspension dampers and various engine optimizations. It's still extremely expensive in aggregate.

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

#220

Post by rodgerd »

jackgavigan wrote: post #114
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…

> 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…

More to the point, the two major investor groups pull about a billion a year in profit out of F1, while adding no value to the sport.
Post reply on HN