Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft to Supply Electronics to Formula 1
Yooden_Vranx writes "speedtv.com reports that beginning in 2008, Microsoft will be the sole supplier of Engine Control Units to Formula 1. Apparently, moving to a single supplier is part of the FIA's (Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile) attempts to cut costs.
The article does not clarify whether this cost reduction is enabled by cutting back on tech support, what percentage of the engine's power will be required to run all the 'features' embedded in the device, or whether 'crash' will now refer primarily to software behavior rather than driving incidents."
This is a good chance for Microsoft to show off their embedded systems (Maybe WinCE? The article doesn't say.)
...). Microsoft wants new engine control technology developed on and tied into WinCE. When the time comes to transfer that to the production world, WinCE will come along with it.
Of course WinCE (it's their only embedded OS, not counting the XBOX OS and WinXP embedded). The real point of this exercise is to get Microsoft software in *production* automobiles. Technology developed or refined in F1 and other racing leagues often makes its way down to consumer vehicles (antilock brakes, stability control systems, variable valve timing, hydraulic clutch,
Having worked with WinCE, this is a very scary proposition. I'd be terrified of putting it on any device that doesn't have a RESET button (hmm, why do all WinCE phones have reset buttons but Symbian ones don't?). One can only imagine how much they paid the F1 people to "standardize" on a software platform that is individually and independently developed by each team/manufacturer.
While I agree completely with all of your points (make Friday spectacular again!), I suspect what the FIA are trying to do is simplify some of their own procedures and reduce some of their costs. Currently all code on board an F1 car goes through pre- and post-race scrutineering just like every other part. Looking over the (compiled!) code for illegalities is a true nightmare.
:-)
Now imagine everyone is running ECU-OS 1.0 (ignoring all MS jokes for the time being)... The "OS" is exactly the same (i.e. it checksums to the same value) for all, only the various configuration parameters (held in RAM?) vary. Now the scrutineering effort becomes: hook up to ECU ROM, download code (or do a boundary scan), perform checksum. If the checksum isn't right - bang - you're disqualified.
To a lesser extent it will also save the teams some money. Rich teams might currently have 200 engine parameters that they can tweak. Poorer teams might have only been able to afford to develop 50. If everyone gets 100 parameters, it comes down to engineering quality rather than quantity to work out what works best.
Maybe...
Hmm. where is the time that the only requirement was that you could get your car down the track as fast as possible?
I think they overregulated formula 1. Too many restrictions on engine, fuel type, gearbox type, wing type, tire type, everything.
They should reinvent something like formula 0, with the only restriction of getting round the track as fast as possible.
B.
Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
Being an avid F1 fan up until the mid 90's, I'd have to disagree with that. If anyone remembers 'back in the day', drivers had the option of turning up or down their turbo boost to gain speed but at a great cost to fuel. This definitely was technology taken to the N'th degree, but it was still the drivers decision when/if to turn up or down that affected the outcome. It may not be a physical skill, but driving is as much, if not more, mental than physical.
Right now the drivers are much better than the cars, so the limiting factor is the cars. Rather than the drivers skill then deciding outcomes, its the cars lack of skill that decides who wins.
I'm all for making F1 more exciting for fans, and increasing the field sizes (remember pre-qualifying?!), but this isn't the way to do it. Compare the tapes of Senna vs Piquet, against Schumacher vs Alonso and you might as well be watching two different sports.
Where I work at, we (not me, but the company) approached MS about getting windows Do-178B certified so as to be able to use in cockpits. After MS read the requirements they laughed us out of the office and told us that none of their OS can meet the conditions. Now we use Linux for the critical OSs.
As to the publicity, I suspect that you will never know if there was an issue. MS is bigger than governments economies. Few countries take them on. EU as a whole does, but most of the countries do not. Unless a death occurs, they can, and will see to it, that any issues from them do not get out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.