10 ms·
In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of stic
by brey 13y ago
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.
- Shivetya 13y agoracing at most levels is highly regulated and innovation pretty much stifled. NASCAR almost ended themselves with the Car of Tomorrow and jellybean clones running down the tracks. About as much fun as watching IROC racing where cars were identical. The idea of subtle differences leading to a win is the source of drama and at times is very welcome in the sport In other racing, the Nissan Deltawing racer has raised a ruckus, small engine yet very competent racer. When tenths count its best to get as much of them from racer and pit screw skill which increases enjoyment of the fans and teams alike.
- ericcumbee 13y agoThe Delta Wing is nothing special. Especially compared with contemporary prototypes at Le Mans and WEC. Sure it looks like a prototype but its a prototype that they were able to pick and choose which parts of the rule book they wanted to follow.
- ronaldx 13y agoMuch 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.
- 4ad 13y agoAs a cyclist interested in recumbent and other alternative bicycle designs, I disagree. You can buy whatever kind of bicycle you want. Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.
- crockstar 13y agoI'm not sure that's explicitly true about competitions. I know there are a number of rules around weight, helmet design, etc. However, I think there is at least some room for innovation that does occur and at least some variation of equipment (see: http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bike-round-all-road-bikes-years-race http://road.cc/content/feature/85959-tour-de-france-team-bik... as well as http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804 http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/4320804). I distinctly remember growing up and watching the debate over which types of TT helmets were allowed, which wheelsets were allowed, etc. One area where I feel like is also an interesting comparison and where I thought ronaldx was going with this is around performance enhancing drugs and the UCI. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that things that Vettel being accused of now are, strictly speaking, not against the rules but clearly creating an advantage. The innovation is in the details in the same way that the drug regimens of many cyclists throughout the last couple of decades in many cases did not include drugs listed on a banned substance list (e.g. early blood doping '70s vs. became illegal in '86), because the UCI and WADA simply didn't know about them. It will be interesting to see if Vettel is found to be playing in this gray area how he and Red Bull will be judged. *Please note I do appreciate there is a big difference between doping and mechanical advantage through design, just thought there were some interesting parallels there too.
- walshemj 13y agoThe minimum weight is stop ultra light wight bikes catastrophically failing imagine a frame collapsing in a bunch 100kph descent. Though tease rules where implemented when steal was the only frame material you can build strong and safe bikes well under the UCI minimum nowadays
- ronaldx 13y agoYes, exactly. The present state of cycling is such that any R&D budget can be used more effectively on bending the doping rules than on mechanical innovation.
- davej 13y agoI 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 technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.
- bliti 13y agoLike the use of carbon fiber, active dynamic suspensions, aerodynamics that improve fuel consumption, stronger alloys, etc.
- garethadams 13y ago3. Safety
- CWuestefeld 13y agoaway 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 1976 Tyrrell six-wheel car [2], which used four small wheels in the front to improve downforce; and the 1978 Brabham BT46 "fan car" [3], which used a big fan like a vacuum, sucking the car down onto the track for better traction. These regulations may help prevent escalation of dumb "big iron", but they also completely shut the door on any kind of revolutionary thinking. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_FW14 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrrell_P34 [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46
- curveship 13y agoThis 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 just about speed, they're about speed and tactics I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. 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. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.
- BashiBazouk 13y agoI agree on the expense and corresponding lack of competitors in the America's Cup but those catamarans when up on the hydrofoils were mesmerizing to watch. I have watched many America's Cups over the years and was a bit apprehensive about another year of cats as I usually prefer a classic monohull but after this cup I'm not so sure...
- SeanLuke 13y ago> - 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 the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety" reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel bike manufacturers had gotten scared. Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels. And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs. So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.
- BashiBazouk 13y ago"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions" Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.
- SeanLuke 13y agoSet aside recumbents. How about small-wheeled uprights? The world upright speed record was set, and has held for 20 years, on a 17 inch steel bicycle with full suspension (a Moulton AM). There are strong arguments to be made that smaller-wheeled bikes allow for much faster and better designs: yet because the UCI banned them in the 1960s for being too fast, the industry was ruined and the only ones you can get nowadays are either folders (Brompton, Bike Friday Tikit) or bespoke Moultons. BTW: recumbents can have just as short a wheelbase as an upright, as well as about as high a center of gravity position. See for example http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/iwaskow/PICT1716.JPG http://www.wisil.recumbents.com/wisil/racing2007/xenia2007/i... The big issue with recumbents is that humans are designed to apply torque vertically, and torque is what you need for climbing; while aerodynamics are what you need for descending and on straights.
- lutorm 13y agoThere is a strong selection effect given that people who are competitive bicyclists in general won't ride recumbents since you will then be restricted to HPV competitions. The tradeoff is smaller frontal area vs higher weight. See http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/hein/Hpvpaper.htm Re: handling, my Lightning recumbent is way more nimble than any bicycle I've ever ridden, precisely because the wheelbase is shorter and the CG is lower to the ground than a normal bicycle.
- thwest 13y agoRecumbents aren't ever going to be popular racing bikes. Fighting aerodynamic drag is a huge source of tactics and race dynamics that the races would be quite boring without. Recumbents are also laughable going up hills.
- walshemj 13y agoYes can't see a recumbent working on the Hors catégorie climbs.
- dockd 13y agoThat's for road bikes. I don't know what the UCI says about mountain bikes, but since their introduction in the 80s, we've gone to clipless pedals, front and then rear suspension, 29" and 27.5" tires, disc brakes.
- Theriac25 13y ago> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions. I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s
- nicholassmith 13y agoAs 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.
- nicholassmith 13y agoAs 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.
- at-fates-hands 13y ago>>>>> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?
- undees 13y agoI ride a short wheel base recumbent, and regularly pass upright bicycles on moderate uphills.
- bliti 13y agoEvery new technology introduced to racing allows teams to develop a secret advantage. Rules are adjusted over time to balance things out. But you can be sure that by then another new technology will have been introduced. The KERS system is already producing lots of results that are trickling down to consumers. I can imagine how using the torque and resistance of the electric motor as a means to increase grip is something that may be used in standard cars. Rather than using the braking system, this could be a smoother option.
- sharkweek 13y agoFriends and I always enjoy debating this -- At what point does a scientific improvement become too great of an advantage for competing athletes
- polymatter 13y agowhen its no longer entertaining
- 7952 13y agoI would argue that it was more entertaining before it was made safe through technological advancements. It would be interesting to see a series that used self driving cars that could take more risks.
- sanskritabelt 13y agoIf it's entertaining because of the risks to the participants, that's not sport, it's blood sport.
- 001sky 13y agoSelf driving cars doesn't sound like a sport, tho.
- brey 13y agoan entirely remote controlled (as opposed to autonomous) car race could be fun to watch - can go much faster, risks of huge crashes are acceptable (or desirable...)
- lazyant 13y agoAmerica's cup comes to mind too
- geargrinder 13y agoWhen you say "foil design" are you referring to airfoils? Under the current F1 rules, almost all innovation is occurring in the aerodynamic area and teams are constantly testing and improving. The envelope is pretty small, but there is a lot of variation from team-to-team in this area.
- simias 13y agoI think that's a good thing honestly, instead of being only an arms race for the team that will make the most expensive car they have to be very clever in finding ways to shave a few milliseconds in each lap. I see that like code golf or the IOCCC, the constraints are what makes it interesting and challenging. In the case of F1 I think it's also about keeping the human factor, without regulations I'm sure by now we'd have fully automated cars that would react in a microsecond, better than any human could. But that's no good show.
- brey 13y agoit is a good thing. it's the same fundamental reason that we ban steroids from athletics. but human ingenuity being what it is, we shouldn't be surprised that people come up with new ways to bend the rules ... be that 'not-technically-traction-control traction control' or subtly altered performance-enhancing drugs the governing body's not had time to ban yet.
- simias 13y agoOf course, and at least in the case of formula one it usually does not endanger the pilots, unlike the use of performance enhancing drugs in sports. One team is being clever and finds a loophole/new way of doing something. They win big. Then next year either it gets forbidden or everybody else starts doing it and there's still competition ash innovation.
- uhhmwat 13y ago> it's the same fundamental reason that we ban steroids from athletics. It's not the same thing at all. Horrible analogy.
- walshemj 13y agoYes changes your sex / danger of death and a whole load of other nasty side effects - I found I turned into Homer Simpson "mm doughnuts" However they are righteous shit ( I have had to take them for medical reasons) but whilst on 40mg a day I read of a tragic case of a child that died due to a bad reaction and she was only on 60mg a day.
- Arjuna 13y ago"the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it" This is spot-on. One of the best examples in recent memory was the so-called "F Duct" that was featured on McLaren Racing's MP4-25 car in 2010. For those that are not aware, FIA sporting regulations strictly prohibit the driver from controlling the aerodynamic characteristics of the machine, for example, via electronic controls on the steering wheel or levers in the cockpit. However, McLaren came up with a system that allowed the driver to block an air flow duct with the driver's leg. This permitted air to be channeled in an "on demand" fashion, such that the rear wing would stall and result in reduced drag. This allowed the car to achieve an advantage in the straights.
- cromulent 13y agoThe F-Duct, and also the double diffuser in 2009. Ross Brawn even warned the other teams late in 2008 that the 2009 rules were open to interpretation, and then wiped the floor with everyone in the first half of the season. By then everyone had a DD of course. EDIT: Also the hot-blown diffuser, where the engine management programme pushed fuel through the engine off-throttle with retarded ignition, which didn't put power through the wheels but due to specially shaped exhausts pushed more gas through the diffuser to get more downforce in cornering.
- invaliddata 13y agoThe F-duct was a clever work around of the old F1 rule of no moveable aerodynamic devices (which dates from the 70's) and was motivated, intially by the practice of mounting the rear wing directly to unsprung parts of the suspension. A more applicable example of the rule was the late 70s brabham fan car which used a large fan at the rear (ostensibly for engine cooling purposes) to suck out air from the underside of the car to add downforce. Think of the hyperloop design, in reverse. By making the only physical moving part in the f-duct design the driver (who obviously has to be allowed to move), the devices cleverly adhered to the letter of the law. The driver would close a hole in the cockpit which allowed some air to pass or not to a fluidic switch (think of a transistor), which would influence the flow of a larger stream of air to the rear wing). One issue with banning the engine mapping that blew the diffuser off throttle was that this was already being done by many engine manufacturers for engine cooling purposes, and thus could not be easily regulated. Even their year end attempt at a fix by specifying the location, pointing direction, etc of the exhaust outlets didn't work (see coanda effect / downwash exhausts of 2012). They have finally addressed the solution in 2014 regulations by specifying that the exhaust outlet has to be behind all bodywork. It's also worth pointing out that exhaust blown diffusers are more than a decade old, but in the past suffered from the problem of changing the balance of the car drastically mid throttle (when the driver gets on the throttle) due to 1) less advanced engine mapping), and 2) directly feeding into the diffuser venturis. In fact, for a long time, the standard solution (periscope exhausts pioneered by ferrari), sought to remove as much influence of exhaust air on the aerodynamics as possible to make the car's balance unaffected by engine exhaust volume, so given that environment, no one was worried about anyone using the exhaust for aerodynamic benefit. The modern (Red bull design) blown diffusers only channel a relatively small portion of exhaust air directly into the diffuser channel, and instead use a large portion of exhaust to blow over the top of the diffuser itself (enhancing the diffuser effect), and on the side of the diffuser (to provide a air skirt that prevents squirt air from the rear tires bleeding into the diffuser from the side which decreases efficiency), particularly on cars like the Red bull which run a high level of rake (which enhances aerodynamic downforce separately by placing the front wing closer to the ground but makes the diffuser more vulnerable to tire squirt and other effects).
- phowat 13y agoExactly, 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.
- gcb0 13y agoThey 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.
- ericcumbee 13y agoPlease no. As one that enjoys the gamesmenship and innovation of F1 and sportscar racing that would kill it for me.