4 ms·

F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver s

by 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

masklinn 7y ago
> 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. Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put restrictions in place. If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the machines, not their design details. > 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. So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha. > Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have nothing to do with safety. > 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. So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on the performance characteristics of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of. > 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]. Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the performance characteristics of competing planes. FIA does not do that, it restricts the design details of the cars. I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and restrictive embrace of tech.
- jjeaff 7y ago
  >So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha. That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the centrifugal force lifting them away from the track. But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.
  - lakisy 7y ago

by saulrh 7y ago

masklinn 7y ago

> 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. Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put restrictions in place. If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the machines, not their design details. > 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. So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha. > Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have nothing to do with safety. > 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. So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on the performance characteristics of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of. > 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]. Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the performance characteristics of competing planes. FIA does not do that, it restricts the design details of the cars. I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and restrictive embrace of tech.

jjeaff 7y ago
>So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha. That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the centrifugal force lifting them away from the track. But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.
- lakisy 7y ago