3 ms·

I think F1 is a leading indicator here. At the beginning F1 was decided mostly by the pilots skills, then increasingly by training. Then technology took the sp

I think F1 is a leading indicator here. At the beginning F1 was decided mostly by the pilots skills, then increasingly by training. Then technology took the spotlight and was the way to have an edge, and now finally it’s the best lawyering what gets you wins. I’m guessing is that is some kind of pattern you can’t avoid. First the athletes compete, then competition gets fierce and simple selection does not cut it, training is required to be at the top of the game. Then when we hit the limits of what’s possible for a human only tech can step in and give you the edge. Then tech improvements subvert the statu quo and regulation is demanded, regulation kills innovation and brings in a new game, the winner is whoever can argue that they’re not breaking the rules, just bending them a little.

huffmsa 7y ago
It's still about driver skill. If left unchecked, the engineers could build a car that would be impossible for a human to drive. Too fast, corner too hard, brake like it was on a tether, etc. So then it would be a case of building a car that just barely didn't kill the most capable human. That was F1 in the 60s, when you saw all sorts of weird stuff.
t0mas88 7y ago
F1 has since day one been a competition of who could build the best car and then drive the fastest with it. Other racing series are really about the driver, but F1 has never really been. It's just in the very early days the guys building the cars would also drive their own car.