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.
"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.
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.
I 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.
Every 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.
racing 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.
When 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.
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.
My theory is that they implemented an equivalent to traction control, but with no sensors at the wheel. It's all internal to the KERS, and probably a software hack. For example, if a drop in current from the KERS indicates the motor/generator needs less power even though the throttle is open, you might be able to infer wheel-spin without measuring it directly, and momentarily shut down the KERS to reduce power to the wheels.
Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.
Indeed, not to mention the very title of the Wired Article. I'm guessing the author has not recently checked into the concessions given to say, Ferrari [1][2].
That all said, to some extent controversies like these are what make F1 what it is...at least since I've been watching. Remember Jenson Button's secret fuel compartment? [3] Crashgate at Singapore? [4] Schumacher....everything? [5]
I have got to say that I don't tend to place a lot of faith in an article that cites The Daily Mail as a source and I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone. Even the Mail article referenced paints a much more balanced story and the headline is ironically "Vettel did not cheat! Horner defiant..."
As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.
If Red Bull is indeed cheating, Christian Horner would be a fool to come out and admit it.
Cheating with traction control has been a problem in multiple forms of motorsport for a long time. It's difficult to prove, so by and large, teams that were cheating with it have just denied it flat out.
Red Bull is definitely violating the spirit of the rules, it's just a question of will the FIA come down on them or clarify the rules. In Formula 1 the difference between getting punished for cheating and getting away with it is often political.
As a fan of the sport, I've so far only read about this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on forums and low-end blogs.
Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker.
I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.
As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery.
Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.
So, in your words, Wired covered a developing story that so far has only appeared in forums and low-end blogs. They pieced together a story from various sources, despite your claim, and presented what is out there right now.
I think they did their job.
You can't expect every time a news story is written that it will provide new information, especially when you are already quite aware of the content of the story before you even read it.
I, for one, have never heard of this story. I found the article interesting.
RBR is certainly one of those teams that is A+ in every facet. Traction control wouldn't explain their consistently amazing pitstop times, and their car's generally awesome reliability.
I've been watching pretty much every F1 race for the past 3+ years, but don't read any F1 blogs. This was news to me. I have been growing a little tired of the Vettel's domination, even if it's well earned.
That's why Silverstone was one of my favorite races this year. Because as soon as Vettel crashed, it was like, "oh, we have an actual race on our hands now!" and the commentators said something similar, something about it no longer just being a race for second place.
Well then, as a fan of the sport who apparently already knows everything a mainstream magazine has to offer and then some - can you offer some insight, a link or anything at all for the rest of us beyond self-satisfied bitching?
At least they didn't reprint the obviously-sarcastic comments that Vettel made in interviews, which Jalopnik put in their article. As far as the tech goes, it is a total rehash of Racecar Engineering's work, but Wired has a very different audience so that isn't such a waste. I think their reasoning is flawed as to why it would be kept from Webber — the money argument doesn't smell right to me — but at least they added something to the discussion that I haven't seen fleshed out elsewhere.
Also the money amounts they talk about sound very low for a team to care about. Budget is so big that $1k more per point (totally what like $270k) is not much money.
I was at the Formula 1 in Melbourne this year, back in March, and definitely noticed the unusual engine notes of the RBR cars as they accelerated out if corners.
But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.
I think the BBC's article from Oct 3rd has some good commentary on this topic:
"Red Bull's advantage is believed to come largely from a more effective use of the exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect. This creates more rear downforce than the other cars, meaning Vettel has the rear grip to enable him to accelerate sooner."
I love that this is really a cutthroat battle of engineering. Behind every driver there's a team of really bright individuals who are brainstorming, modeling, designing, tweaking, and refitting, to figure out just how Red Bull's doing it.
I've been keeping up on this and I don't believe it to be what Wired speculates (though I've seen those rumors myself). The generally accepted answer to this seems to be that the Redbull's engine (Renault) cuts half its cylinders[0]. Yes this can be seen as a type of _torque_ control, not traction control.
The sound was what my engine sounded like when a spark plug cable came loose and thus not firing the cylinder.
As for why Webber doesn't sound like that - well you can speculate that Webber just doesn't have the trust in his car as Vettel has to get on the power that early. And, if you've kept up with this season at all, you'd understand why Webber has no trust in his car[1].
Or maybe their technical team is just better. Adrian Newey[1] has designed some very fast cars - at Williams, McLaren and now at Red Bull. Michael Schumacher managed to win seven championships in his career, but he was often racing against a (much) more superior Newey-designed car. F1 was fun in those days. With Vettel, arguably the most talented driver to drive a Newey designed car since Senna, it's no surprise Red Bull is cleaning up.
Red Bull's pace is unfortunate, because with Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel you have four incredibly fast drivers. And without Red Bull's dominance, the current era could have been one of the most exciting in F1 history. It doesn't help that Vettel is a bit of a dick, or at least that's the perception. Schumacher was a bit of dick too, but the crowd (or a sizable portion) liked him - the fact that he didn't always have the best car, also helped.
Eh, I wouldn't say Schumacher won against vastly superior Adrian Newey cars. Once Ferrari hit their stride in the Schumacher years they often beat McLaren by being far more reliable and robust. They also built up their advantage with their Bridgestone partnership to a level that made them dominant. So dominant in fact, that it led to a spec tire.
Adrian Newey designs in the past ran on the ragged edge of fragility in order to make the cars as fast as possible. But that resulted in many costly DNF's that cost McLaren at least one championship. Now the Red Bull cars are still blazing fast but they're also very reliable.
I'm pretty sure Red Bull is cheating with traction control through their KERS system but I'm also sure they'd be winning races without it.
This is pure speculation, I am sure Red Bull are doing some things with there car but it's not as big of a deal as everyone makes out and I don't think it's one thing.
It's worth noting, that Rosberg's engineer said that the rubber caught in his front wing for that race was costing him 1.7 seconds a lap. That's where the biggest difference came, Vettel wasn't that much faster in Korea.
I think they should just let the teams use whatever technology they can invent, as long as it doesn't make it unsafe. Who cares how good the drivers are? The technology is far more interesting.
That wouldn't work. Firstly the smaller teams would be gone as they couldn't afford to compete. It's also likely a lot of the mid-field teams would struggle to afford to compete (Lotus, one of the top 5 teams can't even pay it's top driver). Secondly your qualification 'as long as it doesn't make it unsafe' is one of the reasons there are so many rules in F1. It's an incredibly dangerous sport. The engineers could easily make the cars go much quicker - but it would be too dangerous and costly.
Technology can make the racing uninterested. ABS and TCS removes all the risk from cornering and braking, so you don't get spectacular overtakes on hard braking, which is a big part of racing. So, some technological advances actually reduce the entertainment factor.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe that the market (spectators) does not agree with you and that is the reason why F1 has had more and more regulations added to it.
Technological innovation appeared to be leading to a sport that was losing its spectacle more and more. And that's what the vast majority of people who watch(ed) F1 wanted.
I love technological advantages as much as anyone, but people relate to people, not machines.
An old remark was, without rules, auto
racing would soon become about as exciting
as watching the jets land at JFK.
Another point is, mostly sports are sold
as drama, that is, about human characters
the audience can identify with, characters
taking on challenges. So, see
lots of pictures of the drivers, that is,
the characters in the drama, and commentary
about the characters, but next to nothing
on the engineering of the cars. So, what's
the bore/stroke ratio, max piston speed, max
RPMs, number of valves per cylinder, valve
spring design (last I heard,
they don't use
metal springs and use compressed gas instead),
intake boost
design and pressures, intercooler design, fuel
injection design,
fuel chemistry,
clutch design, transmission design, suspension
design, etc.? Don't hear much about those
details!
So, it's not sold as a competition or lesson
in engineering or the old "improve the breed"
but as human drama.
So, have rules to deemphasize the engineering
and just let the drama show. On with the show!
The FIA must be aware of the system that they are using, buy looking at this section of the rules:
8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Regarding the mysterious hidden traction control that no one can find.
How about a modified wireless air pressure sensor inside the tires that also reported tire slippage?
Then perhaps that slippage info gets received by electronics built into the drivers shoes?
Then the millisecond acceleration and braking is controlled by actuators inside the shoes that hit the pedals, faster than any human can and using instant, actionable slippage data.
When the driver walks away, nothing unusual can be found on the car when it is presented for inspection.
If the secret is the automated use of KERS, you'd see it in the on-screen graphics (the HUD-esque display shows when a driver is deploying KERS).
Also the article makes the comparison in noise - but surely that noise is caused by the engine being limited/throttled, something which they could not get away with in this season since the ECUs are all the same. A KERS-based traction control wouldn't make the same noise because it doesn't work in the same way.
I'm not an engineer but couldn't you adjust how much energy the system generates on the recovery stage? If the magnets in the generator are electrical rather than rare earth you could adjust the strength of the magnets and the breaking affect of the generator would be adjustable. This would be akin to how ABS uses brake friction but with faster adjustment and less loss of energy.
What you see on screen regarding KERS isn't a direct representation of whats happening. e.g. It might pick up more energy than is permitted for use & the graphics won't show that.
Their implementation is almost certainly within the letter of the law in the rule book. So, no fine- but it could likely end up being the case that the rules are amended to ban whatever tech they are using in future seasons.
I am not really a huge racing fan, but am fascinated by the innovation going on in formula 1, and other race circuits. These innovations eventually make it into mainstream cars. By self-imposing constraints, they are pushing the engineers to get creative.
I find the justification presented for only Vettel having the technology a little strange.
It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team. If the technology works and is reliable, Webber will have it before the end of the season.
Makes perfect sense to me. Webber and RedBull are not on good terms therefore RedBull doesn't give him Traction Control esp since there's a good possibility that he might blow the whistle on the whole operation if he finds out. In a lot of F1 circles there are conspiracy theories that RedBull is actively sabotaging Webber and there might be some truth to that as Webber is constantly at the receiving end of reliability problems, mechanical failures and botched pitstops whereas Vettel's car runs smooth without a glitch. I very much doubt that those two guys have the same machinery underneath them.
[+] [-] brey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Arjuna|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ronaldx|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] simias|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] sharkweek|12 years ago|reply
At what point does a scientific improvement become too great of an advantage for competing athletes
[+] [-] bliti|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Shivetya|12 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] geargrinder|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gcb0|12 years ago|reply
The only way out is to make F-1 GPL'ed.
Any technical improvement has to be shared when deployed/announced.
[+] [-] phowat|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lazyant|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Zigurd|12 years ago|reply
Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.
[+] [-] TillE|12 years ago|reply
For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn’t saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.
[+] [-] SanjayUttam|12 years ago|reply
That all said, to some extent controversies like these are what make F1 what it is...at least since I've been watching. Remember Jenson Button's secret fuel compartment? [3] Crashgate at Singapore? [4] Schumacher....everything? [5]
[1] http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/104589.html
[2] http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/motorsport/bernie-blasts-ferr...
[3] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MOTOR+RACING%3A+BAR+face+fuel+...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Formula_One_crash_contr...
[5] Honestly, just google "Schumacher controversies"
edit: formatting
[+] [-] crockstar|12 years ago|reply
As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.
[+] [-] GVIrish|12 years ago|reply
Cheating with traction control has been a problem in multiple forms of motorsport for a long time. It's difficult to prove, so by and large, teams that were cheating with it have just denied it flat out.
Red Bull is definitely violating the spirit of the rules, it's just a question of will the FIA come down on them or clarify the rules. In Formula 1 the difference between getting punished for cheating and getting away with it is often political.
[+] [-] ye|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bowlofpetunias|12 years ago|reply
Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker.
I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.
[+] [-] antris|12 years ago|reply
Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.
Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.
[+] [-] talmand|12 years ago|reply
I think they did their job.
You can't expect every time a news story is written that it will provide new information, especially when you are already quite aware of the content of the story before you even read it.
I, for one, have never heard of this story. I found the article interesting.
[+] [-] atonse|12 years ago|reply
I've been watching pretty much every F1 race for the past 3+ years, but don't read any F1 blogs. This was news to me. I have been growing a little tired of the Vettel's domination, even if it's well earned.
That's why Silverstone was one of my favorite races this year. Because as soon as Vettel crashed, it was like, "oh, we have an actual race on our hands now!" and the commentators said something similar, something about it no longer just being a race for second place.
[+] [-] incision|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jongala|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mchanson|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jlangenauer|12 years ago|reply
But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.
[+] [-] bliti|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Sniperfish|12 years ago|reply
"Red Bull's advantage is believed to come largely from a more effective use of the exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect. This creates more rear downforce than the other cars, meaning Vettel has the rear grip to enable him to accelerate sooner."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349
[+] [-] kyro|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cmsimike|12 years ago|reply
The sound was what my engine sounded like when a spark plug cable came loose and thus not firing the cylinder.
As for why Webber doesn't sound like that - well you can speculate that Webber just doesn't have the trust in his car as Vettel has to get on the power that early. And, if you've kept up with this season at all, you'd understand why Webber has no trust in his car[1].
[0] http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull-traction
[1] https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/600837_1010...
[+] [-] eaurouge|12 years ago|reply
Red Bull's pace is unfortunate, because with Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel you have four incredibly fast drivers. And without Red Bull's dominance, the current era could have been one of the most exciting in F1 history. It doesn't help that Vettel is a bit of a dick, or at least that's the perception. Schumacher was a bit of dick too, but the crowd (or a sizable portion) liked him - the fact that he didn't always have the best car, also helped.
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey
[+] [-] GVIrish|12 years ago|reply
Adrian Newey designs in the past ran on the ragged edge of fragility in order to make the cars as fast as possible. But that resulted in many costly DNF's that cost McLaren at least one championship. Now the Red Bull cars are still blazing fast but they're also very reliable.
I'm pretty sure Red Bull is cheating with traction control through their KERS system but I'm also sure they'd be winning races without it.
[+] [-] ChildOfChaos|12 years ago|reply
It's worth noting, that Rosberg's engineer said that the rubber caught in his front wing for that race was costing him 1.7 seconds a lap. That's where the biggest difference came, Vettel wasn't that much faster in Korea.
[+] [-] rwmj|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deelowe|12 years ago|reply
Thankfully, my favorite form of racing, motogp, has benefited greatly from recent technological advances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAiXqOwkmE
[+] [-] paddyoloughlin|12 years ago|reply
Technological innovation appeared to be leading to a sport that was losing its spectacle more and more. And that's what the vast majority of people who watch(ed) F1 wanted.
I love technological advantages as much as anyone, but people relate to people, not machines.
[+] [-] samuel|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] graycat|12 years ago|reply
Another point is, mostly sports are sold as drama, that is, about human characters the audience can identify with, characters taking on challenges. So, see lots of pictures of the drivers, that is, the characters in the drama, and commentary about the characters, but next to nothing on the engineering of the cars. So, what's the bore/stroke ratio, max piston speed, max RPMs, number of valves per cylinder, valve spring design (last I heard, they don't use metal springs and use compressed gas instead), intake boost design and pressures, intercooler design, fuel injection design, fuel chemistry, clutch design, transmission design, suspension design, etc.? Don't hear much about those details!
So, it's not sold as a competition or lesson in engineering or the old "improve the breed" but as human drama.
So, have rules to deemphasize the engineering and just let the drama show. On with the show!
[+] [-] iSloth|12 years ago|reply
8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA. Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
[+] [-] swamp40|12 years ago|reply
How about a modified wireless air pressure sensor inside the tires that also reported tire slippage?
Then perhaps that slippage info gets received by electronics built into the drivers shoes?
Then the millisecond acceleration and braking is controlled by actuators inside the shoes that hit the pedals, faster than any human can and using instant, actionable slippage data.
When the driver walks away, nothing unusual can be found on the car when it is presented for inspection.
[+] [-] cjrp|12 years ago|reply
Also the article makes the comparison in noise - but surely that noise is caused by the engine being limited/throttled, something which they could not get away with in this season since the ECUs are all the same. A KERS-based traction control wouldn't make the same noise because it doesn't work in the same way.
[+] [-] 7952|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Havoc|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] OhhHeyTyler|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brey|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CompelTechnic|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fuzzwah|12 years ago|reply
http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red-bull-r...
[+] [-] brianbreslin|12 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anoother|12 years ago|reply
It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team. If the technology works and is reliable, Webber will have it before the end of the season.
[+] [-] theshadow|12 years ago|reply