6 ms·

I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or craz

by chr1 7y ago

I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful. But if sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would at least get something useful out of sports.

danmaz74 7y ago
F1 cars are super heavily regulated.
- tokai 7y ago
  It's even in the name. It's literally the prime formula or regulation. As opposed to free class racing, precisely to foster uniform development of the cars.
lighttower 7y ago
I've always wondered what the point is of shaving a couple of seconds from ones time. What you suggest is a worthwhile pursuit. It's a little like war, a new technology can completely turn the tables until everyone uses it.
barry-cotter 7y ago
> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. If F1 embraced technology they wouldn’t have cars they’d have airplanes that as a design constraints must always remain in contact with the ground. Technology is a huge factor in F1 but they’re perfectly happy to ban new technologies and materials to maintain the spectacle. > Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful. The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority.
- input_sh 7y ago
  > The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority. The audience shows that there's room for sports, which, you know, nobody disagrees with. There's not really an established alternative. I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
  - heavenlyblue 7y ago
    >> I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. We already tried that. Group B, for example. >> If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity. What it boosted was the risk taking by the drivers, also it motivated to put gas tanks right underneath the passengers so when they ended up in accident they most surely were dead.
  - sandworm101 7y ago
    You would still need rules meant for spectator safety. And then a degree of driver safety. And then the rules meant to control costs. And and and. The number of rules meant to slow the cars down is relatively small. Remember too that racing rules are not the product of some nanny state government trying to keep everyone safe. They come from associations made up of the people and organizations participating in the sport. They come from racers to regulate racers.
  - bookofjoe 7y ago
    >There's not really an established alternative. There is: it's called war. Sports is war without (for the most part) death.
- chr1 7y ago
  I do know that my dislike of professional sports is in minority even on hn, that's why i wish there was a way to channel part of the money that goes into sports, to the technology instead. Some rules are of course always needed, as you do not want someone on car to come into running competition, but currently the rules are unnecessarily strict even in F1.
krsdcbl 7y ago
I think this is a misunderstanding of the desired outcomes. Ads like the article are an effort to make us believe a certain brand can make us perform better, as in "a better person" if you dig all to the bottom of the messaging. In competitive sports, specially racing, the entertainment factor comes from a level playing field where certain actors can push the boundaries just a little to overcome the competition. With running, the limiting factor is the human body. This creates a natural ceiling for possible performance. With F1, there was no "natural ceiling" to begin with. Technology isn't a way to overcome an already imposed limitation, it's quite literally what made the game. So to begin with, you could always get a massive edge by engineering innovation. You could easily add wheels to get even more traction, while you couldn't just add legs to a human to make it run like a cheetah. So regulation in f1 pretty much takes the job making it a stay a race, not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed I have to say, I'm not that interested in F1 but if there was a F1-like competition where there is no regulation and it's all about technological innovation, I would watch that.
  - NickNameNick 7y ago
    I suspect that such a format would quickly devolve into who spends the most money wins. The obvious fix is to group teams into budget categories. Maybe throw in some sort of obligation to onsell parts on demand for their declared price, which is used in some amature racing formats.
    - bookofjoe 7y ago
      See: America's Cup
    - capableweb 7y ago
      Yeah, budget categories would definitively be needed. While a 1 million euro budget would be fun to see, I think a 1000 euro budget group would be way more fun. It would basically be "Scrapheap Challenge" but more sport focused.
Angostura 7y ago
F1 has very very strict rules limiting the introduction of innovative solutions
masklinn 7y ago
> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers (ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …). As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3 choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg and at least 80kg respectively). F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills. [0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014
- gameswithgo 7y ago
  not just to avoid tech being a bigger victory factor, but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly. but also to keep costs down.
  - masklinn 7y ago
    > but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly. That's the leaf FIA uses to impose their restrictions but it's unlikely e.g. limiting the KERS budget, and increasing it significantly just as you're restricting engines, is not a safety thing.
- saulrh 7y ago
  F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills. I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive. I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls... The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the limits of human performance. And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were also built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around... 10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Sp... 2: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magnitude-of-forces-involved-in-dogfights-during-ww2.11822/ https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magni... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Championship#Did_Not_Finish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Champi... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control
andreareina 7y ago
A problem occurs when one manufacturer develops a superior product that actually does confer a competitive advantage, which a subset of competitors are unable to use due to e.g. sponsor obligations. Arguing that it's the sponsor's problem and they should relax the contractual obligations ignores the reality of the incentive structures at play. So banning said technology is suboptimal from the standpoint of pushing the possibilities of the human body to its limits (at least in sanctioned competition), but in the end it's more fair.
sorokod 7y ago
Sports where traditionally considered a purely human endeavour. One could replace humans partially or completely with technology but that wouldn't be quite the same thing. Robot "Olympics" anyone?
gamblor956 7y ago
But if sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would at least get something useful out of sports. That's what the military is for. They have collectively put a lot of money into that sort of research.

by chr1 7y ago

danmaz74 7y ago

F1 cars are super heavily regulated.

tokai 7y ago
It's even in the name. It's literally the prime formula or regulation. As opposed to free class racing, precisely to foster uniform development of the cars.

lighttower 7y ago

I've always wondered what the point is of shaving a couple of seconds from ones time. What you suggest is a worthwhile pursuit. It's a little like war, a new technology can completely turn the tables until everyone uses it.

barry-cotter 7y ago

> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. If F1 embraced technology they wouldn’t have cars they’d have airplanes that as a design constraints must always remain in contact with the ground. Technology is a huge factor in F1 but they’re perfectly happy to ban new technologies and materials to maintain the spectacle. > Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful. The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority.

input_sh 7y ago
> The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority. The audience shows that there's room for sports, which, you know, nobody disagrees with. There's not really an established alternative. I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
- heavenlyblue 7y ago
  >> I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. We already tried that. Group B, for example. >> If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity. What it boosted was the risk taking by the drivers, also it motivated to put gas tanks right underneath the passengers so when they ended up in accident they most surely were dead.
- sandworm101 7y ago
  You would still need rules meant for spectator safety. And then a degree of driver safety. And then the rules meant to control costs. And and and. The number of rules meant to slow the cars down is relatively small. Remember too that racing rules are not the product of some nanny state government trying to keep everyone safe. They come from associations made up of the people and organizations participating in the sport. They come from racers to regulate racers.
- bookofjoe 7y ago
  >There's not really an established alternative. There is: it's called war. Sports is war without (for the most part) death.
chr1 7y ago
I do know that my dislike of professional sports is in minority even on hn, that's why i wish there was a way to channel part of the money that goes into sports, to the technology instead. Some rules are of course always needed, as you do not want someone on car to come into running competition, but currently the rules are unnecessarily strict even in F1.

krsdcbl 7y ago

I think this is a misunderstanding of the desired outcomes. Ads like the article are an effort to make us believe a certain brand can make us perform better, as in "a better person" if you dig all to the bottom of the messaging. In competitive sports, specially racing, the entertainment factor comes from a level playing field where certain actors can push the boundaries just a little to overcome the competition. With running, the limiting factor is the human body. This creates a natural ceiling for possible performance. With F1, there was no "natural ceiling" to begin with. Technology isn't a way to overcome an already imposed limitation, it's quite literally what made the game. So to begin with, you could always get a massive edge by engineering innovation. You could easily add wheels to get even more traction, while you couldn't just add legs to a human to make it run like a cheetah. So regulation in f1 pretty much takes the job making it a stay a race, not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed.

capableweb 7y ago
> not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed I have to say, I'm not that interested in F1 but if there was a F1-like competition where there is no regulation and it's all about technological innovation, I would watch that.
- NickNameNick 7y ago
  I suspect that such a format would quickly devolve into who spends the most money wins. The obvious fix is to group teams into budget categories. Maybe throw in some sort of obligation to onsell parts on demand for their declared price, which is used in some amature racing formats.
  - bookofjoe 7y ago
    See: America's Cup
  - capableweb 7y ago
    Yeah, budget categories would definitively be needed. While a 1 million euro budget would be fun to see, I think a 1000 euro budget group would be way more fun. It would basically be "Scrapheap Challenge" but more sport focused.

Angostura 7y ago

F1 has very very strict rules limiting the introduction of innovative solutions

masklinn 7y ago

> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers (ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …). As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3 choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg and at least 80kg respectively). F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills. [0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014

gameswithgo 7y ago
not just to avoid tech being a bigger victory factor, but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly. but also to keep costs down.
- masklinn 7y ago
  > but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly. That's the leaf FIA uses to impose their restrictions but it's unlikely e.g. limiting the KERS budget, and increasing it significantly just as you're restricting engines, is not a safety thing.
saulrh 7y ago
F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills. I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive. I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls... The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the limits of human performance. And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were also built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around... 10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4]. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Specifications_(F-22A) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Sp... 2: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magnitude-of-forces-involved-in-dogfights-during-ww2.11822/ https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magni... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Championship#Did_Not_Finish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Champi... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control

andreareina 7y ago

A problem occurs when one manufacturer develops a superior product that actually does confer a competitive advantage, which a subset of competitors are unable to use due to e.g. sponsor obligations. Arguing that it's the sponsor's problem and they should relax the contractual obligations ignores the reality of the incentive structures at play. So banning said technology is suboptimal from the standpoint of pushing the possibilities of the human body to its limits (at least in sanctioned competition), but in the end it's more fair.

sorokod 7y ago

Sports where traditionally considered a purely human endeavour. One could replace humans partially or completely with technology but that wouldn't be quite the same thing. Robot "Olympics" anyone?

gamblor956 7y ago

But if sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would at least get something useful out of sports. That's what the military is for. They have collectively put a lot of money into that sort of research.