Have computers wrecked F1?
Discussion
What do computers do in F1 now (and also been doing until recently)..
Traction control, driver presses a foot lever, computer decides whether he's pressed it too far and accelerates the car accordingly
ABS, driver presses another pedal, computer decides he's pressed it too hard, so brakes as hard as possible without skidding.
Driver stalls, computer keeps the car running.
Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
Launch control, computer predicted fuel stops, endless aero simulation etc
Do we want F1 to be a technical showpiece or so we want pure racing with men in control of machines, machines built by men.
Are those 2 things mutually exclusive?
Traction control, driver presses a foot lever, computer decides whether he's pressed it too far and accelerates the car accordingly
ABS, driver presses another pedal, computer decides he's pressed it too hard, so brakes as hard as possible without skidding.
Driver stalls, computer keeps the car running.
Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
Launch control, computer predicted fuel stops, endless aero simulation etc
Do we want F1 to be a technical showpiece or so we want pure racing with men in control of machines, machines built by men.
Are those 2 things mutually exclusive?
F1 cars don't have ABS AFAIK.
Don't think they use launch control either - they do have anti stall systems though.. I think the driver still has a fair amount of control for the start - witness Barichello who is often not the best at starts.
Fuel saving is usually done by the driver making an adjustment on the steering wheel, usually at the instruction of the team.
Don't think they use launch control either - they do have anti stall systems though.. I think the driver still has a fair amount of control for the start - witness Barichello who is often not the best at starts.
Fuel saving is usually done by the driver making an adjustment on the steering wheel, usually at the instruction of the team.
Edited by Crafty_ on Sunday 11th April 12:10
Conian said:
Driver stalls, computer keeps the car running.
Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
Out of that lot I'd like to see manual gearboxes making a comeback. Offers good scope for driver skill (or lack of!) to play a part and is great to watch. The rest does not detract from the racing. Rather they benefit the racing by keeping cars in the race which would otherwise be out. Say after failing to get the car going after a spin or running out of fuel.Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
I'm not sure if todays cars do not have some form of launch control or not. I'm sure it is not what it was in the past, but think they do have some kind of 'race start' map for the gearbox/engine.
It's not the electronics in F1 that are the problem, even though so many of them are now gone. The problem is the aerodynamics. If you want better racing, get rid of the aero.
There was a time a while ago that I was very much in favour of getting rid of all driver aids, electronics and aero on the cars and getting back to pure, old-fashioned motor racing where it was a competition between drivers, rather than electronics engineers and aerodynamicists. These days, I have come to realise that if that were to happen, it wouldn't be F1 any more.
F1 should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport, both technically and drivers. It cannot be that if it is hamstrung by regulation in the interest of making it more of a spectacle for theTV rights. Let it be. Give it free rein to do what it does best. Give the designers a box of particular dimensions and say that if the car fits inside the box, anything goes.
If, like me, you want to watch what you remember from years ago, then it's still available. Just go and watch historics or any other forumla that has a rule set to suit your taste. After all, one thing that we are blessed with in the world of motorsport, is choice. Make yours.
There was a time a while ago that I was very much in favour of getting rid of all driver aids, electronics and aero on the cars and getting back to pure, old-fashioned motor racing where it was a competition between drivers, rather than electronics engineers and aerodynamicists. These days, I have come to realise that if that were to happen, it wouldn't be F1 any more.
F1 should be the absolute pinnacle of motorsport, both technically and drivers. It cannot be that if it is hamstrung by regulation in the interest of making it more of a spectacle for theTV rights. Let it be. Give it free rein to do what it does best. Give the designers a box of particular dimensions and say that if the car fits inside the box, anything goes.
If, like me, you want to watch what you remember from years ago, then it's still available. Just go and watch historics or any other forumla that has a rule set to suit your taste. After all, one thing that we are blessed with in the world of motorsport, is choice. Make yours.
Conian said:
What do computers do in F1 now (and also been doing until recently)..
Traction control, driver presses a foot lever, computer decides whether he's pressed it too far and accelerates the car accordingly
ABS, driver presses another pedal, computer decides he's pressed it too hard, so brakes as hard as possible without skidding.
Driver stalls, computer keeps the car running.
Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
Launch control, computer predicted fuel stops, endless aero simulation etc
Do we want F1 to be a technical showpiece or so we want pure racing with men in control of machines, machines built by men.
Are those 2 things mutually exclusive?
F1 is a technical showpiece, it always has been even before computers arrived. Traction control, driver presses a foot lever, computer decides whether he's pressed it too far and accelerates the car accordingly
ABS, driver presses another pedal, computer decides he's pressed it too hard, so brakes as hard as possible without skidding.
Driver stalls, computer keeps the car running.
Driver pulls on a paddle, computer changes gears as fast as possible.
Driver is running out of fuel, computer adjusts the mixture
Launch control, computer predicted fuel stops, endless aero simulation etc
Do we want F1 to be a technical showpiece or so we want pure racing with men in control of machines, machines built by men.
Are those 2 things mutually exclusive?
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "pure racing with men in control of machines, machines built by men".
I don't have a problem with F1 to be honest. If you want to watch a load of drivers, racing old fashioned cars and could be overtaken by an upto date road legal sports car then you can. For me, if an F1 car is not the fastest racing machine (over most non-oval tarmac circuits) then I'll stop watching it. At the moment, an F1 car would lap a MotoGP bike at most calender tracks within 5 laps...now THAT...I like, as we all know how quick motorbikes are.
Upside down fighter jets FTW.
kiteless said:
GTP rpm said:
as we all know how quick motorbikes aren't.
Edited for accuracy.Top class motorcycles have always been about 20 seconds per lap slower than the equivalent F1 car from the same season on a given track. And I've followed bike racing for over 20 years.
Thanks for the heads up.
To my mind what they need are -
H-gate manual shift gearboxes, with proper manual foot operated clutches.
No more fly-by-wire throttles
No more hydraulic actuated transmissions
No more air-operated valves
and finally
Self Starters, then we can have "Gentlemen - and Michael - Start your engines!!"
If you spin off and stall it (or it just dies out), you just hit the button marked start and off you go again.
H-gate manual shift gearboxes, with proper manual foot operated clutches.
No more fly-by-wire throttles
No more hydraulic actuated transmissions
No more air-operated valves
and finally
Self Starters, then we can have "Gentlemen - and Michael - Start your engines!!"
If you spin off and stall it (or it just dies out), you just hit the button marked start and off you go again.
thunderbelmont said:
To my mind what they need are -
H-gate manual shift gearboxes, with proper manual foot operated clutches.
No more fly-by-wire throttles
No more hydraulic actuated transmissions
No more air-operated valves
and finally
Self Starters, then we can have "Gentlemen - and Michael - Start your engines!!"
If you spin off and stall it (or it just dies out), you just hit the button marked start and off you go again.
There are about a thousand series like this all over the world, if that's what you want to watch, go and watch it. It wasn't and will never be, either the pinnacle of motorsport, or F1.H-gate manual shift gearboxes, with proper manual foot operated clutches.
No more fly-by-wire throttles
No more hydraulic actuated transmissions
No more air-operated valves
and finally
Self Starters, then we can have "Gentlemen - and Michael - Start your engines!!"
If you spin off and stall it (or it just dies out), you just hit the button marked start and off you go again.
F1 isn't really about the racing, or certainly hasn't been for last 20 years or so. At least a few years ago they could change track position in the pits, these days even that does't seem to happen
kiteless said:
GTP rpm said:
as we all know how quick motorbikes aren't.
Edited for accuracy.Top class motorcycles have always been about 20 seconds per lap slower than the equivalent F1 car from the same season on a given track. And I've followed bike racing for over 20 years.
When it comes to the uses of technology in F1 I think there is a subtle but important difference between whether a feature is primarily making the cars faster vs making them easier. I would suggest that as F1 is about both speed and skill the former is good and that the latter is bad.
It only takes a bit of common sense to tell the difference really as well - for example a manually operated paddle shift is making the car faster, the driver is still making the decisions and the car is servicing those decisions as fast as possible (speed matters!) but a full auto is making it easier and that removes some of the skill factor. To me a full manual box wouldn't add anything to the skill factor - it would add to the physical challenge but I think F1 has plenty of that already.
Whenever I see an armchair critic talking about how F1 cars are "too easy" to drive I'm always reminded of a column I read in F1 Racing a few years back - Peter Windsor (later of USF1 infamy) had for some months been bashing F1 drivers saying how they had it easy and anyone could drive a modern car. Toyota pretty much told him to put up or shut up and come drive one of their cars so he did and in his write up basically ate humble pie and admitted that they are alot harder to drive then he gave them credit for. And IIRC this was when they had far more driver aids then they do now. Also anyone remember Hammond trying to drive the Renault a few years back?
It only takes a bit of common sense to tell the difference really as well - for example a manually operated paddle shift is making the car faster, the driver is still making the decisions and the car is servicing those decisions as fast as possible (speed matters!) but a full auto is making it easier and that removes some of the skill factor. To me a full manual box wouldn't add anything to the skill factor - it would add to the physical challenge but I think F1 has plenty of that already.
Whenever I see an armchair critic talking about how F1 cars are "too easy" to drive I'm always reminded of a column I read in F1 Racing a few years back - Peter Windsor (later of USF1 infamy) had for some months been bashing F1 drivers saying how they had it easy and anyone could drive a modern car. Toyota pretty much told him to put up or shut up and come drive one of their cars so he did and in his write up basically ate humble pie and admitted that they are alot harder to drive then he gave them credit for. And IIRC this was when they had far more driver aids then they do now. Also anyone remember Hammond trying to drive the Renault a few years back?
PhillipM said:
kiteless said:
GTP rpm said:
as we all know how quick motorbikes aren't.
Edited for accuracy.Top class motorcycles have always been about 20 seconds per lap slower than the equivalent F1 car from the same season on a given track. And I've followed bike racing for over 20 years.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff