The Technology Behind Formula 1 Racing

swandives writes "The Australian Grand Prix F1 event is being held in Melbourne this weekend (27-28 March) and Computerworld Australia has interviewed the technology teams for BMW Sauber, McLaren Racing, Red Bull Racing, and Renault about how they run their IT systems and how technology has changed the sport. Each car has about 100 sensors which capture data and send anywhere up to 20GB back to the pits during a race. The tech guys arrive a week before a race to set everything up — the kit for BMW Sauber weighs close to 3200 kilograms — and when it's all over, they pack it all up and move on to the next event. Good pics too."

Comments

Great! Now we can call it something else!

[h00manist]

I've always wanted to stop calling it a "sport". It's called a "car geek competition" now. -- I wonder how long will actual cars still be involved, and not just some 3D displays and simulations, due to danger, insurance or some other costs or whatever.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Mindcontrolled]

For it to be the ultimate car geek competition to me, they'd have to lift the technical regulations. Anything goes on the technical level. Who cares for the drivers? Let the engineers fight it out!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[zonky]

The technology is so intense in F1......

that they haven't even got around to producing HD TV feeds yet.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[zappepcs]

Why should technology not be in the sport of motor racing? It's technology that will push our passenger vehicles from 30-ish mpg to much more than that. Sure other vehicles can do more now, but lets take that ever popular SUV of USA. How do we get it making 75 mpg? Technology. The things that motor sports racing have done in the past have trickled down to passenger vehicles. If you want a damned flying car, it's going to need some technology! I say up with car geek competitions! Up in the air damnit!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[amorsen]

Formula 1 racing requires physical fitness. I'm not sure whether that's particularly important for it being a sport, but anyway.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

That's one of the interesting things about technology-driven sports - there are no un-regulated competitions because they aren't competitive and aren't fun or interesting to watch. It becomes little more than a question of who has the deepest pockets.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[BitZtream]

Perhaps you should look up the definition of sport ... I'll help, heres one that matters:

1. (General Sporting Terms) an individual or group activity pursued for exercise or pleasure, often involving the testing of physical capabilities and taking the form of a competitive game such as football, tennis, etc.

If you think there is no physical side to race car driving then I encourage you to ride as a passenger for one F1 race (not that you could) ... I'd bet 2 months pay you couldn't stay conscious just being in the car for a race, let alone staying alert and driving. $50 says you couldn't sit in the car and deal with the heat alone for the length of time they do. $10 says you couldn't stand on the asphalt with the fire suit on for the 2 to 5 hour duration of a typical summer F1 in the US or Brazil or the like.

You post makes it clear that you have no clue whats involved in racing and think when you watch the Indy 500 on TV that its really as easy as it looks on camera.

Yes, high end racing such as NASCAR, F1 and IndyCar (amount other less popular ones) have a great dependency on technology. So does football even if you don't realize it cause its not as obvious. When you consider that several types of racing limit the technology to something from one vendor then the tech matters a whole shitload less. IndyCar for instance uses one engine manufacture and one chassis manufacture and one brand of tire (that may have changed this year, they haven't really figured out their plan yet). So it doesn't matter that they have outrageous technology cause everyone else has the EXACT same tech, once again putting the human perspective back into it. Indy does try a little harder than F1 to make the field more consistent where as F1 is more open and as such has more expensive cars, but you'll find far more varying technology in your local walmart parking lot than you will at any modern high end racing event short of maybe some LeMans events with multiple classes of cars in one race.

Where there are large sums of money involved there are going to be people trying to maximize their portion of those large sums of money however they can and technology is a good reliable starting point for that. Of course its far easier on slashdot to read some article and start proclaiming things like your an expert about something you really don't understand at all. Congrats, you got that part down perfect!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

Say what you will about NASCAR and the NFL, because they're admittedly not true global sports - but the quality of the broadcasts is fantastic (picture quality, camera angles, closeups, slow-mo, high-tech infographic video overlays). I know there are purists who would rather see the broadcast be more like what you experience sitting in the stadium, but it's impressive technically if nothing else.

F1 doesn't even air on US network TV, it's cable/satellite only. And even then the commentators are constantly making inane comparisons to NASCAR.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Opportunist]

That's why the F1 has been crippled and regulated to the point where basically all the teams have been reduced to whatever the poorest team can muster. Only so-and-so many engines, so many gearboxes, these tyres HAVE to be used, etc...

Coupled with the inability to overtake sensibly anywhere on the curve-heavy courses most races are won and lost in the pits. Who chooses the right tyres, who gauges the weather best, who chooses the right moment to refill and change tyres... the driver is basically reduced to getting the best position during qualification and make sure the car somehow survives the race with its engine hopefully intact enough that it lasts another race, because it can only be changed after the next race because that costs us 10 places in the grid and we don't have a chance anyway in the next but one race...

C'mon, what's that got to do with race car driving?

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

Bass fishing isn't hunting. Show me a mountain goat guide and I'll show you a guy who is physically fit.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Mindcontrolled]

I see your point - but hell, we have enough sports that are determined by what athlete has the best genetic makeup. Why not creating one which is determined by who can throw the most money at the best engineers? Sure, it probably wouldn't have mass appeal, but a geek can dream, can't he? For me, F1 isn't interesting to watch in its current state. If I want to see driving skills, I watch a rally event. Give me some unadulterated car tech geekery! Battle of the Engineers!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not creating one which is determined by who can throw the most money at the best engineers?

Its called Robot Wars.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

Why not creating one which is determined by who can throw the most money at the best engineers?

Well, that's what we call "war." (All truly unregulated competition devolves into war).

But even then, the F35 is supplanting the (superior) F22 because the world's richest nation can't afford it, so...

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[mjwalshe]

so does the BBC coverage of F1

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll also be showing a guy who's downright nuts. What kind of a guy guides mountain goats?!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[boudie2]

"There are only three sports: bullfighting, motor racing, and mountaineering; all the rest are merely games." — Ernest Hemingway. I would take issue with your equating men who risk their lives at 200 miles per hour with geeks. Michael Schumacher isn't a geek. Someone who sits in their mom's basement playing some stupid racing game while not realizing what a loser that makes him is a geek. IMHO there's a lot of good things about modern technology. Games aren't one of them.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[shermo]

There's one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhkXr7M4JbQ&feature=channel

Ok, it does have shitload of rules associated with it, but on the technical side they have almost free reign.

Interestingly it was something of a failure and the competition is going back to a tightly regulated class system for the next one.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[The Wild Norseman]

Give me some unadulterated car tech geekery! Battle of the Engineers!

Junkyard Wars FTW!

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Mindcontrolled]

Yeah - but imagine junkyard wars with formula 1 funding....

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[beelsebob]

I've always figured that if it doesn't require you to be in some semblance of decent physical shape, it's not really a sport.

I'm not sure I can think of a less physically demanding sport than formula 1.

Next time you want to sit in a tiny box at 40-50C, and continuously concentrate for 2 hours on something that requires reactions as fast as a human can manage, while undergoing upwards of 7 lateral Gs. *Then* you can tell us that formula 1 isn't physically demanding.

The average driver loses 2 stone (12 kilograms for those on the continent) during a single race, because the sport is so physical.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[DaveGod]

By the way the Australian grand prix was a very good race. Lots of ballsy overtaking and constantly something to watch. Contrast that to Bahrain two weeks ago, two hours of utter tedium with maybe half a dozen overtakes once you take out car failure.

What changed? The weather. It blew all the calculations out the window so people were reacting on the fly. Button won thanks in large part to personally making the call to risk pitting early to swap to slicks on a damp circuit, sending him off the track on the first corner but more than compensated for later. Bahrain was sunny and everything went to plan.

Sure Vettel retiring with car failure was a bummer but reliability is the motoring equivalent to injury, fitness and fatigue. Limited number of engines etc could be considered broadly similar to the restricted transfer season windows in some sports.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

Stones? Kilograms? WTF wrong contintent.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[PopeRatzo]

I didn't suggest that Formula 1 racers aren't physically fit. I also didn't suggest that Formula 1 isn't a sport.

I just said I didn't understand why they are so insistent on being called a sport.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

In every way... Formula One is a remarkable sport. It is a technologically astonishing, utterly cut-throat global circus of motorsport. It's fed by the best drivers in the world making their way up through brutally competitive open wheel formulas... it is genuinely the toughest motorsport in the world to win at. BTW, they recently axed a lot of technology to put the driver back in control more (traction control etc).

*BUT* the thing about F1... they long ago forgot about the humble spectator at the circuit itself. I've been to a NASCAR race, and quite a few F1 races. The NASCAR race was an awful lot more fun to attend... they treated the crowd better, a few dollars got you an infield pass and you get right next to drivers and teams... it was a mass of humanity gathered to watch an exciting spectacle. Fantastic stuff.

The F1 races - they've all felt like being treated with contempt. Creeping corporate hospitality, and moving further and further away from the masses ranks of fans. There is almost no chance you will get anywhere near a car - and you might see a driver occasionally through binoculars. And it costs a fortune even to sit on a patch of grass where you can't really see anything.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Regnad2k7]

No more refueling in f1 this year.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[beelsebob]

They are? Last I checked they were no more insistent on this than footballers, rugby players and swimmers were. They are doing a sport, so people tend to call them sportsmen, that's about it. This isn't chess we're talking about.

And for sure you did suggest that F1 drivers weren't physically fit and weren't doing any sporting activity. Or was 80% of your comment just an off topic ramble about something totally unrelated?

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[rHBa]

1. Bittorrent 2. BBC Broadcasts of F1 3. ... 4. F1 Satisfaction

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhkXr7M4JbQ&feature=channel

Ok, it does have shitload of rules associated with it, but on the technical side they have almost free reign.

For the top fully enclosed (and fully streamlined) class, Human Powered Vehicle (hpv) racing has only a few common sense safety rules. Here's a recent event, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScZFsyjtLKQ It's a true designer and engineering challenge, although it can help a little to have a really top cyclist to pedal. International rules are here http://www.ihpva.org/home/

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[PopeRatzo]

Or was 80% of your comment just an off topic ramble about something totally unrelated?

Precisely.

Did you figure that out on your own, Fermat?

Geez, formula racing fans are touchier than a cat with its skin flayed off.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

UK and Australia have 1080i feeds, so I'd blame your local broadcaster not the sport.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

The average driver loses 2 stone (12 kilograms for those on the continent) during a single race, because the sport is so physical.

citation fucking needed.

Concentrating, sweating, and using your muscles to compensate for high G forces will definitely cause you to lose more weight than the normal driver just going down the highway, but 99.9999999% of that is just going to be the water from the sweating. Which cannot account for 12 kilograms.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[zonky]

No it doesn't. http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbchd/programmes/schedules/2010/03/28

FOA do shoot in 1080p24, apparently, but no feed better than 16x9 576i is provided currently to any broadcaster.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

Holy crap. How can you say the quality of the broadcasts is fantastic when 1 hour of game takes 3 hours to broadcast? Last summer I started watching English Premier League football (soccer) on Saturday mornings, and the contrast is incredible. Once kickoff happens, there are no breaks in coverage before halftime. None. The clock starts, the cameras roll, and there are no ads, no breaks, just game time. Fifteen minutes for halftime, and you're back at it. No breaks until the game's done. A 90 minute + maybe 8 minutes of added time game takes about 2 hours to broadcast. Then comes Sunday and the NFL. You watch a play, maybe two, and we're gone for commercial. There's only 5-8 seconds of actual gameplay per play (not counting snap counts, I mean actual movement), most of the non-commercial time is spent being bombarded with meaningless analysis/stats or watching that goddamn stupid robotic football player strike poses while they plug the halftime panel. There's covering a sport, and then there's the NFL broadcasts.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Moofie]

That's a pretty ignorant analysis.

Did the F-16 supplant the F-15? No.

Can you land an F-22 on a carrier? No. (You might be able to navalize it, but it would be a substantial effort.)

Can the F-22 land on a Marine amphibious assault ship? Oh HELL no.

Now I'm not arguing that either aircraft was or was not a well-run, cost-effective program. But these aircraft have different missions and different capabilities, and to equate them is silly.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[T-Bone-T]

The F-35 can't replace the F-22. They serve different roles.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

By the way the Australian grand prix was a very good race. Lots of ballsy overtaking and constantly something to watch. Contrast that to Bahrain two weeks ago, two hours of utter tedium with maybe half a dozen overtakes once you take out car failure.
See I am not sure if the improved racing was due to the rain playing hell with the strategy, or the fact that the rain tires(and possibly the rain itself) doesn't create that mid race line of good traction and every where else is klag and marbles. See it's very difficult to pass a car if as soon as you get off the racing line you lose traction and can't corner worth a damn.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

So you set a dollar limit and allow any tech.

This is not that hard.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[tylernt]

Coupled with the inability to overtake sensibly anywhere on the curve-heavy courses most races are won and lost in the pits.

See, that's the problem I have with racing sports in general. You should race by yourself against the clock, shortest time wins. Might sound boring but computer tech can overlay your opponent's track runs on-screen so you still get the simultaneous competition feel (they did it in the Olympics for stuff like the bobsled, for example).

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[JWSmythe]

    You can land just about anything on a carrier. Now, if it'll stop before it falls off the end of the deck is another story. :)

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[JWSmythe]

If you think there is no physical side to race car driving then I encourage you to ride as a passenger for one F1 race (not that you could) ... I'd bet 2 months pay you couldn't stay conscious just being in the car for a race, let alone staying alert and driving. $50 says you couldn't sit in the car and deal with the heat alone for the length of time they do. $10 says you couldn't stand on the asphalt with the fire suit on for the 2 to 5 hour duration of a typical summer F1 in the US or Brazil or the like.

You post makes it clear that you have no clue whats involved in racing and think when you watch the Indy 500 on TV that its really as easy as it looks on camera.

    You know, that's very accurate. I can't say that I've been involved with F1 racing, but I've done some amateur racing, and I've been with short track (1/4 to 1/2 mile oval) racers.

    In amateur racing, running 30 minute sessions on a 3 mile street-type track, where you're constantly turning, shifting, and your dancing between the clutch, brakes, gas, and bracing yourself on turns. While you're doing it, you're focused on going faster, apex turns, perfect braking, perfect accelerating, and not losing control. 4 sessions, and most people are exhausted, unless they're driving a Geo Metro. Those drivers are kissing the ground, and thanking god they didn't get run over by the real cars. :) (just kidding, I've never seen a Geo on even an amateur course)

    Short track racers are doing the same constant work, plus working harder to not get their cars destroyed, since the tolerances are so much closer. The only way you see a car with it's body perfect is if it hadn't been run yet, and there's always several tow trucks and at least a couple ambulances standing by because it's pretty likely someone is going to get hurt enough to earn a ride to the hospital. Those drivers are usually drenched in sweat after 20 minutes, and if they're running even a 100, they'll be out there quite a while. A few laps is a lot of fun. 400 laps will make you wish it'd just end. For many of them, they don't make it through the whole race, since it's harder on the car than the driver.

    But, if you're opening up that bet to anyone, and you can get me track time in a F1 car, I'd be more than happy, win or lose. :)

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think there is no physical side to race car driving then I encourage you to ride as a passenger for one F1 race (not that you could) ... I'd bet 2 months pay you couldn't stay conscious just being in the car for a race, let alone staying alert and driving. $50 says you couldn't sit in the car and deal with the heat alone for the length of time they do. $10 says you couldn't stand on the asphalt with the fire suit on for the 2 to 5 hour duration of a typical summer F1 in the US or Brazil or the like.

Driving in a hot car is a sport! How enlightening.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Jarik_Tentsu]

Yes, F1 drivers are awesome. Yes, I couldn't hope to drive as good as they can. But what differentiates the winner comes largely down to the technology, and the workers in the pits - as opposed to differentiation in skill.

Sure you can argue other conventional sports rely largely on fancy sports medicine, or whatnot, but really, it's not to the same level as F1. Differentiation in other sports comes more down to the skill, morale and strategies employed by the team/individual who are *on the field*.

Rally driving on the other hand, certainly seems to have more emphasis on driving/navigation skill. I was just reading any article about how someone built up a cheap E30 318i which cost him $500 + money on cheap modifications. With no team, no fancy tools, he placed 3rd in a rally against $400k+ professional race cars with full teams. You'd never see that in F1.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[mjwalshe]

wel becuase each races coverage is done by the individual countries braodcasters

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Krneki]

Right now drivers have to cope with 4-5G. Abolish the limitations and you will need a PC to handle the 20G the car will be able to deliver.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

Who cares for the drivers? Let the engineers fight it out!

New insurance policy for Formula 1 Teams: Paper cuts

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

I call BS....these guys arent dropping 20lbs per race, they'd be dead.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Scootin159]

+1 - as someone who HAS driven a formula race car before (even one not remotely as fast as an F1 car, but still immensely quicker than any street car), I can confirm that it is VERY physically demanding. You wouldn't believe the amount of effort it takes just to keep your head upright. I'm a fairly decent athlete (although not pro caliber), yet before doing a concentrated workout routine, I couldn't go more than about 5 laps before I was just too physically tired to continue safely.

It's a fairly minor workout for your legs (although remember that the brake pedal of an F1 car takes nearly 100# of force to push down, ~15 times a lap for 50 laps), but it is a VERY intense workout for your arms and neck.

Anyone who doubts this - I challenge them to just 5 minutes in a 125cc go kart. Despite having nowhere near the capabilities of an F1 car, you'll still get a sense of the physical exhaustion involved. If you can go 20 minutes (at speed) without special training, I commend you.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

Holy crap. How can you say the quality of the broadcasts is fantastic when 1 hour of game takes 3 hours to broadcast?

Well, because I record the games on my PVR and skip the commercials. Even if I want to watch a game live, I start watching an hour after the game begins, and catch up some time in the 4th quarter.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[timeOday]

I didn't equate them, but there is overlap, as well as contention about which role is more important. Quoting secretary of defense Robert Gates:

In assessing the F-22 requirement, we also considered the advanced stealth and superior air-to-ground capabilities provided by the fifth-generation F-35s now being accelerated in this budget, the growing capability and range of unmanned platforms like the Reaper, and other systems in the Air Force and in other services

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Jawn98685]

I've always wanted to stop calling it a "sport".

You've obviously never driven/ridden a high performance racing vehicle. If you had, of course, you'd know that the physical demands of the sport are very real and the athlete's ability to deal with them, while performing at level required to be competitive, or even just safe, in a domain where the importance of awareness, reaction time, and finesse are is magnified because of the speeds involved, is absolutely a factor.
But no. You're probably one of the many who make the superficial (and markedly ignorant) view that motor racing is "...just a bunch of cars going 'round in a circle..."

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[john83]

Yeah, looks like it's more like 2-3 kg ([1] gives 2-3 l of water), which is comparable to what a professional soccer player will lose in a game [2] (which is only a simulation, but I've heard pro players in interviews mention weight loss of up to 4kg in matches in hot conditions). F1 is physically difficult, no doubt, but I'd expect a weight loss of 2 stone over a couple of hours to be pretty much fatal.

[1] http://www.f1complete.com/content/view/2672/392/
[2] Nicholas, C.W., Nuttal, F.E. and Williams, C. (2000) The Loughborough Intermittent Shuttle Test : A field test that simulates the activity pattern of soccer. Journal of Sports Sciences 18, 97-104.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Bakkster]

Well, that's why time trials and racing are different sports. Both have their place, but time trials will never completely replace head-to-head racing, because racing involves other techniques, such as the ability to run multiple lines, either to run adjacent to another car, or to apex late/early while passing. The issue with F1 is specific to the cars and the way they interact with the air (making drafting difficult), not with all auto racing.

Replacing racing with hot-lap time-trials would be like replacing basketball games with a slam-dunk, free-throw, and 3-point shot contest; highest combined score wins.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Bakkster]

I just said I didn't understand why they are so insistent on being called a sport.

Probably for the same reason other people are so insistent on racing not being considered a sport. If there wasn't some smartass chiming in with a 'but racing isn't a sport, lol' every time racing were mentioned, nobody would need to defend it.

To put it another way, it's the same thing that would happen if you tried to claim tennis weren't a sport because of the technology in the rackets, or skiing weren't a sport because of the technology of the skis. You'd end up with a lot of angry tennis players and skiers, not because they're militant by design, but because you made a silly claim with the intent of belittling their abilities.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

> The average driver loses 2 stone (12 kilograms for those on the continent) during a single race

Sorry, I gotta raise the BS flag on this one. I've heard of them losing 2 liters of fluid during a race, but 12kg?! Not for someone who weighs barely more that a jockey :)

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Knuckles]

So you set a dollar limit and allow any tech.

This is not that hard.

Didn't know that Max Mosley posts on /. Welcome. Have you still not understood that when the FIA cannot even police double diffusers, flexi floors and mass dampers correctly, it has no way whatsover of policing the financials of the McLaren Group or Mercedes?

Otherwise, yes, great idea .... oh wait, the cars would have movable aerodynamics and huge venturi tunnels. They would easily pull >5 g even on a shoestring budget and do at least 400 kmph in Monza, thus forcing spectators to stands located a mile from the track. It's a pity, but the 60ies won't come back.h

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

If they can't monitor several things like flexi floors or mass dampners, then surely monitoring one thing is beyond possibility.

You restructure to FIA to control one aspect- money with more control than it has with controlling double diffusors.

You set the minuim so you can either have venturi tunnels or a high horsepower motor, but not both (duh).

Your lack of imagination is pretty much what is killing motorsports.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Knuckles]

If they can't monitor several things like flexi floors or mass dampners, then surely monitoring one thing is beyond possibility.

A flexi floor is on the car and can be measured at any time during a race weekend. This is certainly easier than monitoring the spending at a, say, Mercedes development department that officially has nothing to do with the F1 team.

You restructure to FIA to control one aspect- money with more control than it has with controlling double diffusors.

You are making no sense grammatically to begin with, I don't know what you are saying. But you mention "restructure to FIA", which shows that you have no idea about the sport. That aside, how do you propose to police it if an F1 team shows up with some brilliant new piece of kit and says that it was very cheap, the idea came to an engineer in a dream. How do you prove that *actually* it was developed with a lot of money in some other part of the team's parent company that officially has no connection to the team? I mean, Mosley envisioned accountants combing the books, which is exactly why the idea was killed last year.

You set the minuim so you can either have venturi tunnels or a high horsepower motor, but not both (duh).

Duh, venturi tunnels are cheap as hell, certainly much cheaper to get efficient downforce with than today's regulation-limited aerodynamics. Indycar has them, what more do you need to know? If you set the limit so low that you can't have both venturi tunnels and high-horsepower engines, then you have killed F1, which is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports.

Besides, check out how cheap Colin Chapman's cars where compared to today's standards, how fast, and how deadly.

Your lack of imagination is pretty much what is killing motorsports.

I can assure you that it has no effect whatsoever on motorsports.

Re:Great! Now we can call it something else!

[Anonymous Coward]

The footage is produced in HD. FOM have chosen not to provide HD feeds to broadcasters.

I can only assume that this is because they have not agreed a financial deal that they are happy with yet.

Was held This weekend

[Anonymous Coward]

When this was posted, the race had been over for more than 10 hours. They are all off to Kuala Lumpur for next weekends race.

Jensen Button (Uk, Maclaren) won a much more exciting race than the seasons opener two weeks ago in Bahrain.

Re:Was held This weekend

[galvitron]

Best F1 race I've seen in a while. Very exciting and TONS of passing. I guess rain is the answer to F1's boredom problem?

Re:Was held This weekend

[onepoint]

yes let's have more rain, just the opening was amazing ( 3 wide into the turn ) ....

rain adds a huge variable to the entire set up, as does the tyre type. I woke up just to watch the races ( then back to bed )

Re:Was held This weekend

[beelsebob]

I guess rain is the answer to F1's boredom problem?

I'm not sure it was rain, so much as making sure Lewis Hamilton is put behind a bunch of people.

Re:Was held This weekend

[Anonymous Coward]

I was able to sneek a peek at the openning lap and the closing lap (I was working this weekend, and the time zone difference is not favourable (I work nights, central time.

first (non ac) post...ever

[DeanOh]

woo hoo. zoom zoom.

All we need

[Beelzebud]

All we need is a good computer analogy to explain this story!

Re:All we need

[Tackhead]

All we need is a good computer analogy to explain this story!

It's like overclocking with liquid nitrogen instead of watercooling. Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go?

Re:All we need

[Shadow Wrought]

Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go?

How many Library of Congresses can I get to the Furlong for three-fitty?

Re:All we need

[Bugamn]

It's as if we discovered that instead of algorithms, what really did the work inside the computer where little chinese men going up and down.

Re:All we need

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed costs money; how fast can you AFFORD to go?

Fixed that for ya.

All that tech and...

[sxedog]

They still make critical mistakes like the one that cost Lewis Hamilton second place and maybe the race in Melbourne. Sad really, that they rely so heavily on Tech that the "pit boss" doesn't matter any more, its what the computer tells them to do.

You are right, soon it will be remote control racing with out humans.

Re:All that tech and...

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a neat trick to get tyre-wear sensors into the tyre construction; "Tyre to base - I'm going to be bald in 16 laps unless the prat in the cockpit stops sliding me round corners 3, 8 and 16"

Re:All that tech and...

[fbjon]

There is no remote control, actually. The teams are only allowed two-way voice radio and one-way telemetry.

Re:All that tech and...

[onepoint]

the 'pit boss' still has the final call, he just has more data to work with. besides, as today's race proves, driver courage to put on slicks proved to be decisive...

We're talking about computers here

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it 3200 kilograms or 3.125 kibigrams?

CFD

[heffrey]

Lots of the teams use CFD to help design their cars but basically CFD doesn't work anywhere near as well as old fashioned wind tunnel testing and so all the top teams spend all year (24/7!) doing tunnel testing!

Re:CFD

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, they actually don't spend all their time in the wind tunnel, as the number of wind tunnel days are limited by the regulation.

US Participation

[Col. Bloodnok]

Why don't yanks take part in F1?

I thought you loved racing cars about.

Re:US Participation

[russotto]

Racing. Not driving fast in a line where position basically never changes unless someone screws up drastically. That's just a high speed parade. For all of NASCAR's faults (and they are legion), it's not THAT boring.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

They only like watching huge cars running around giant scalectrix ovals so its easy to see the whole race from any one seat.

Plus, its got to be easy to handicap and bet on before the Yanks get interested.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. With that, and having Money&Space, they built plenty of tracks and race leagues on home soil. Result is F1 has to be imported into a physcial and social infrastructure that's already well-packed with aggressively competing motorsports. The very expensive F1 races just can't get a foothold there now. Hence plenty of yanks who enjoy F1 just follow it in the media and see the races on vacation.

F1 is a very EU sort of thing; no single European nation could be sufficient base, so they joined together to present a market roughly the size of the US, which was sufficient. Hence we're always going to have this parallel of similar-but-not-quite-the-same sports, like the two that are called 'football'.

There are other factors one could jaw about, but that's the foundation.

Re:US Participation

[amorsen]

US cars don't do corners, remember?

Re:US Participation

[NoKaOi]

Why don't yanks take part in F1?

Because there's too much advertising money from NASCAR (Non-Athletic Sport Centered Around Rednecks) to care about anything else.

Re:US Participation

[Spad]

http://www.usgpe.com/

They almost managed to build a car in time.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

Not driving fast in a line where position basically never changes unless someone screws up drastically. That's just a high speed parade.

For someone who doesn't follow either, would this criticism apply to NASCAR or Formula 1?

(Ugh, the one thing about NASCAR that irritates me is how the cars are designed to do left turns only. Yeah, that's very "stock". Let's design airplanes that are only good at falling...).

Re:US Participation

[Huntr]

We like racing where the drivers and crew matter more than the computers.

Re:US Participation

[Rising Ape]

Not driving fast in a line

That's a bit rich, coming from the land of drag racing.

But yes, F1 is pretty dull. Which is quite an impressive achievement, considering the speeds and extremes of technology involved.

Re:US Participation

[timeOday]

the one thing about NASCAR that irritates me is how the cars are designed to do left turns only. Yeah, that's very "stock". Let's design airplanes that are only good at falling...

The "stock" in "stock car" (the "s" in NASCAR) is a vestige of a bygone era. Today's cars have nothing to do with production vehicles. To see one up close, they don't even look (superficially) very well made, the fit and finish is nothing like a Lexus, more like an overgrown go-cart, but of course they put the money where it counts.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

Because most of the races take place in the middle of the American night. It's difficult to build up sufficient grass-roots enthusiasm for the sport. If you can afford an F1 team, you can afford a football team* and, for an American, the latter would bring far greater kudos.

*I'm guessing. If I'm wrong, substitute "football team" for something else that fits and still makes my point valid, thanks.

Re:US Participation

[PPH]

Only left turns.

Re:US Participation

[PPH]

Because our favorite racing (stock car) descended from moonshine running. And if a car doesn't look like its got a few plastic jugs of homemade hootch in the trunk, it just doesn't interest us.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

Same guy replying here.

So why do they make the cars turn left only? Why do they have a track that is pretty much a convex oval? They might as well plant a steel tower in the middle of the oval and tie a cable to each car.

I can understand limiting the engines to carburetor-only, or not bothering with things other than the drivetrain/frame. But why would they set up these weird conditions that make it such an artificial competition?

Re:US Participation

[mjwalshe]

hard work and a ton of money is required plus acess to a big wind tunnel and a grunty connection to the national grid.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know much about NASCAR, but I do know that they race on some "street" tracks a few times a year, which aren't simple left-turn-only ovals. I'd have to guess the left-only thing is a byproduct of wanting the cars to go as fast as they can and the economics of building tracks.

Re:US Participation

[ooshna]

They would be glass or ceramic plastic wasn't big back then.

Re:US Participation

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Why do they have a track that is pretty much a convex oval?
 
Ovals are much better for spectators attending the race. Road courses only work when televised.

But why would they set up these weird conditions that make it such an artificial competition?
 
NASCAR started manufacturing finishes to create drama and draw ratings.

Re:US Participation

[Ekuryua]

Amusingly I was IT there... and we did not really make a car:)
Really is too bad since we had a pretty good team, but just had some issues with project management.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to see it as a strategic competition between teams rather than a race between individual drivers. The drivers are important of course, but most of the drama (or what you might call it) comes from strategy.

Like, one of the most interesting moments of yesterdays race was when Button pulled in for slicks very early. It had a huge impact on the rest of the race.

Think chess more than drag racing.

Re:US Participation

[NatasRevol]

Sounds more like baseball. Great strategy. Boring ass game to bring your kids to.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

They do. With that, and having Money&Space, they built plenty of tracks and race leagues on home soil.

Historically, European racing was done on existing roads by royalty and other upper class folk, even called "sport of kings". USA racing started at local horse race tracks (dirt ovals) with the car builders racing each other (ie, Henry Ford was a low-budget racer at the start of his career). This has to be a big part of the difference between Euro road racing and American oval racing.

Another difference is that road racing cars are compromised to work reasonably for a variety of different corners. Oval cars are very highly optimized for the two corners (which are often similar but never identical). Different objective, very challenging to do either one.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

hard work and a ton of money is required plus acess to a big wind tunnel and a grunty connection to the national grid.

The biggest rolling road wind tunnel http://www.windshearinc.com/ is in Charlotte, NC, USA built primarily for NASCAR cars...but F1 teams fly cars over on a regular basis.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's like "wrestling"?

Re:US Participation

[turbidostato]

"We like racing where the drivers and crew matter more than the computers."

Ha!

That surely explains why Michael Andretti, very reputed on USA, going into F1 on his best shape showed as mediocre while Mansell, while a brilliant F1 pilot not a real top notch star, managed to win Indy Series on his very first try when on decadency (he was 40 year old back then -1993).

Re:US Participation

[fropenn]

There are F1 fans in North America...or at least there were back when F1 ran races in North America! Might I mention how badly F1 mangled the U.S. race at Indy a few years ago? Personally I much prefer F1 over IRL and NASCAR, but I don't see F1 catching on anytime soon in the U.S. And that's too bad - it seems to be a much higher quality product than either IRL or NASCAR.

Re:US Participation

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. NASCAR on TV puts me to sleep, and I'm an American. If I want the excitement from cars traveling that close at high speed, I take my own out on the Edens. The excitement then comes from my own ass being on the line.

But NASCAR fits in a stadium, and it's a good spectator sport in that regard. And some people enjoy the drama from rivalry that occurs when racing under conditions akin to rush hour traffic. I think some people go just to see the inevitable pile-up that's bound to occur sooner or later, it's like accident gawking as a sponsored event.

Now if I want to see something involving racing on TV that really keeps me on the edge of my seat, it's WRC all the way. Of course it's on at an odd time on Discovery HD (and I beleive Speedvision carries some too), but it's really worth catching. Sure I don't really understand most of the languages, and I try my best at guesstimating the metric to imperial conversions, but outside of that - I can plainly as hell understand that there's a fast straight on a loose gravel road with a jump in the middle followed by a switchback that will throw you down a 50ft cliff and eat your car if you manage not to get it right. These courses are tricky enough that you actually need a focused navigator to remind the driver of what is coming up next. And all that is going on in a car that's has a lot more in common with production models than anything seen in most other racing series. It's really about driver vs. the course, and hoping the car can hold up its end of the bargain by not breaking in the process.

Unfortunately WRC racing doesn't make much of a spectator sport because if you go to watch in person it's just one car zipping around the bend and being gone. (But I suspect some people make up for that by making another sport out of watching from dangerously close locations.) And then waiting a couple minutes for the next one to make it's run. Not to mention there really aren't too many places in the U.S. that are willing to close off roadways and get the insurance and sponsors for such racing.

Good pics?

[hh4m]

Good pics? Where? I didn't see a single pic of a server setup or wireless equipment :(

Warning: Parent is Spoiler

[Anonymous Coward]

parent needs spoiler tag

there are laws, too

[h00manist]

There is more to driving mass adoption, social behavior, and technology. Law, for example. Tax laws have encouraged US adoption of massive trucks as cars. Change the laws, and everyone changes their behavior.

Re:there are laws, too

[zappepcs]

Yes, changing the law is one solution. 55 mph speed limits worked well. IMO it's much more realistic to force efficiency on users by using the law to make manufacturers make it easier to be efficient. Technology in the vehicles will do that, and is doing that already. The better our technology, the better our efficiency. I would like to see electric vehicle racing as a way to drive that technology further and faster.

The best in the world

[galvitron]

The tech in F1 is outstanding. They are above and beyond all other forms of motor racing and car technology in general. The Le Mans Prototypes are the only thing approaching F1 levels.

There was a point a few years ago (before the new regulations went into effect) where they were worried that the intake speed of the air into the engine was approaching supersonic. Nobody really knew what that would do to the engines (read: intake manifold).

Last year, on Speed channel, Steve Matchett was interviewing a Red Bull engineer, and the engineer basically said that the real life "Q" from British Intelligence had approached them with questions about their tech. That really says something about the level that F1 plays at.

Here is an interesting fact: Despite all the limiting regulations that have been put in place, including reduced aero packages, no refueling, no traction control, etc., this weekend at Melbourne a new lap record was set by Vettel. The old lap record was set in 2004 with a V10 engine revving to probably 21,000 rpms. Current engine is a 2.4L V8 probably revving to 18,000 rpms. So, despite all the restrictions, the teams are still able to move the technology forward so drastically that they are basically nullifying the FIA's (sport governing body) efforts to slow the cars down.

As an American working with technology, I would hope that more of my peers appreciated the extreme cutting edge that F1 dances on.

Re:The best in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Very rightful comment. I hate seeing the flame war on topic of F1NASCAR'etc..', that start on any mention of some car racing. Comparing those is like comparing apples, oranges, strawberries....They're all fruits, share similarities, but amazingly beneficial for consumers, mother nature created them so different. Same for the original topic. It's a matter of spectator's preference and it's good to have variety of choice. Technologically, F1 is way ahead any other form of car racing, which I think was exactly the point of this article and thread. It's indeed due to insane amounts of money behind R&D, but that shouldn't diminish it's value. Having a remote control instead of an actual human driver as somebody suggested is a bit of an overboard comment. There's still no such sophisticated form of remote control that would allow such stunt. With the same analogy in mind, we should be seeing planes take-off and landing, not only being autopiloted at high altitudes at pretty stable conditions. So far, only military drones have similar control and I believe, even not knowing technical details, limitations exist. That's why actual humas still pilot military planes. Human being has smaller margin of error than any automatic control in such situations. The F1 driver's physical and mental fitness is definitely put to the toughest endurance tests. In some manner, at least based on generated forces during the race, they are almost in the level of fighter pilots. That's hardly comparable to any other form of track racing. Exceptions are endurance races and Paris-Dakkar style off-road madness. That still doesn't mean that the same driver would have amazing race results in some other form of motorized 4-wheel vehicle. A good example is ex-F1 driver, Kimi Raikkonen who recently started driving in WRC (World Rally Championship).

Bottom line, any human being that gets into a vehicle and participates in any form of racing event, no matter of category, deserves respect for skills and guts. Again, technologically, F1 is way above any other motor racing and the vehicles are above any car class in general.

Re:The best in the world

[petermgreen]

we should be seeing planes take-off and landing
My understanding is that many airliners now have autoland systems because they can land in conditions where a human can't.

Afaict we still have pilots on our planes for a few reasons
1: noone wants to be the person being investigated over the first crash of an automated plane.
2: there are things human pilots can do that the computers can't. E.G. landing visually on a runway with no infrastructure (or in a pinch landing anywhere that looks flat enough).
3: (related to 2) computers are good at following plans and rules but not so good at making difficult descisions. What should a computer do if the plane is in a state where no suitable airports are reachable.
4: ATC still uses voice as it's primary means of communication (and voice recognition and natural language interpretation on computers still isn't good enough to rely on).

Re:The best in the world

[Buelldozer]

I agree that the technology level in F1 is very high, even extremely high. Is it the HIGHEST? Of that I'm not so sure. I think the MotoGP guys might have a thing or two to say about that. They're doing roughly the same speeds but on two wheels. The WRC guys would probably argue as well. They may not be going as fast but their races are far more punishing on the cars.

Re:The best in the world

[drsmithy]

Having a remote control instead of an actual human driver as somebody suggested is a bit of an overboard comment. There's still no such sophisticated form of remote control that would allow such stunt.

What aspect of the technology do you think is deficient ?

With the same analogy in mind, we should be seeing planes take-off and landing, not only being autopiloted at high altitudes at pretty stable conditions.

Modern autopilots can do landings and takeoffs.

So far, only military drones have similar control and I believe, even not knowing technical details, limitations exist. That's why actual humas still pilot military planes.

Humans are still piloting because even "cutting edge" military aircraft were all designed 20-30 years ago. This is almost certainly the last generation of military planes that will have humans riding shotgun. Human pilots are still in passenger plans because of the psychological factor, so they'll probably be around for a lot longer.

Re:The best in the world

[galvitron]

You are right in the sense of the racing being at the highest level. WRC, Le Mans, and MotoGP are some of the best racing ever. But from a purely technical level (as the topic of TFA focuses on) F1 is the highest. Look at Toyota's $200 million budget for the last years. And that is just one team...who knows what Ferrari spends.

Re:The best in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Predictability. Humans are able to predict some of the events and react appropriately in advance. Even tons of sensors can't replace this. Talking about planes, even nothing was officially proven, the malfunctioning speed sensors apparently took their toll. Indeed, landings and takeoffs can be done automatically, but I bet you wouldn't be confident enough to sit in a pilotless plane. Pilots will stay, no matter of technology level.

Re:The best in the world

[Anonymous Coward]

Human ability to predict and react in some situations based on a given environment is way beyond any sophisticated computer controlled farm of sensors and actuators. Another set of factors (and not the only ones) are called 'fear' and 'cautiousness'. This can be easily explained by behaviour in virtual racing (or flying), where players don't care to slam into wall or other player. Having this implemented in real racing, you'd end up having nothing but a pile of junk on the reacetrack in no time.

What do they do with the data?

[Chris Colohan]

I was amazed to read this entire article and not learn:

a) what do they do with the data they collect? I'd have loved to learn what sensor data is valuable for, and how it changes the dynamics of the race. (Who cares how many bits they ship if you have no idea if the bits are _useful_ bits?)

b) how much of an impact does this have on the race? Does this make a 1% difference in track times, 80%, something in the middle?

Anyone have a link to an article which explains _why_ they collect all this data?

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Anonymous Coward]

I seriously doubt they waste any sensors on collecting data they don't have a use for.

One example of how they use the data: During a practice session, the team can print out a graph for the slower of their two drivers(well, both drivers would have access to this kind of data, only it's more likely to be the slower driver who wants it so he can see where his teammate is faster). The horizontal axis would be laptime/lap-position, the vertical axis would be the speed at a given moment/position on the track. A driver can then see that their teammate is braking x metres earlier than they are, or what have you. I imagine they can embellish such graphs with stuff like brake/throttle application, and all sorts of other stuff.

A better answer probably is: they use the data to make their cars go faster. And they'll use any data they can get their hands on which helps them towards that goal.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Wowsers]

I have followed Formula One for many years, and enjoy the technical side just as much as the racing.

The huge amount of data has many uses. These days, many of the teams have test rigs back at the factory, so they can re-create the x,y,z motion of a race on a car, and investigate part failures or how to fix them, or even investigate if something is over-engineered so they can shave weight and thus shave lap times.

Additionally, some teams have developed their own simulators that the drivers sit in, and they can test out various configurations of the car, with weather patterns etc. and "drive" round a circuit. This is more beneficial now as the amount of real track testing has been severely restricted though the off-season and in-season. Some places like Monaco are street circuits, so the only practice and data you will get is during an actual race.

And finally, with more teams using computational fluid analysis of their cars aerodynamic packages, the data that the teams thought they would get can be matched with what they actually got, and refine their engineering calculations, and so save money on expensive x% sized model or full size mock-ups... autoclaves for carbon fiber are not cheap to run, and scrapping a part that you thought would work but didn't is equally not cheap, let alone the man hours wasted in manufacture.

If it can be seen to give tenths of a second per lap improvement, the teams would count that as reasonable success.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[AK Marc]

Does anything come back live (feedback, not just recording - like the sitcoms that always bugged me with "recorded live" messages at the beginning)? Does anything signal a failure before it happens (i.e. suspension travel out of line with g-force, indicating a bad shock or spring, thus letting them know real time so they can choose to replace it or just drive that way with fingers crossed)? It apparently has a lot to do with design, but does it have anything to do with the actual race it's collected in?

Re:What do they do with the data?

[turbidostato]

"During a practice session, the team can print out a graph for the slower of their two drivers(well, both drivers would have access to this kind of data, only it's more likely to be the slower driver who wants it so he can see where his teammate is faster)."

You can bet they *both* are slower. That's not a NASCAR oval but a real circuit. While certainly one of the two pilots is overall better, usually one of the pilot swill trace on part of the circuit better than the other and some rounds are better than others so both pilots (and engineers) do benefit from the whole telemetry.

"A better answer probably is: they use the data to make their cars go faster"

To some extent, "faster" is the easy part. So easy that FIA is always looking for ways to avoid them going so fast. They also need to do it securely, on the (relatively) cheap, robust enough not to break apart before the end, and without wasting too much tire and gas since they are limited.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Chuck Chunder]

Which bits are useful probably depends on what's happening. In the most recent race for example Lewis Hamilton appeared to lose a small piece of his front wing. McLaren were very quickly able to determine the performance impact of the "modification" and determine that is wasn't serious enough to spend time changing the nose cone. Is the engine running too hot, are the tire pressures too low, is the front not generating enough downforce etc etc etc? There are a lot of variables that can effect the cars real world performance and they need to be managed if the team is going to get the most of their car. Secondly the current rules means that teams get very little track time for testing so all the data they can retrieve during a race will be useful in confirming (or not) their existing modeling/wind tunnel results and informing them for future developments. Teams frequently bring new part designs to each race and the first time they will be used on the car will be that race weekend. Without the sensor data there would be no way to quantitatively confirm that the new designs are more effective than the previous ones.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anything come back live (feedback, not just recording - like the sitcoms that always bugged me with "recorded live" messages at the beginning)? Does anything signal a failure before it happens (i.e. suspension travel out of line with g-force, indicating a bad shock or spring, thus letting them know real time so they can choose to replace it or just drive that way with fingers crossed)? It apparently has a lot to do with design, but does it have anything to do with the actual race it's collected in?

Yes, the car's performance is monitored live. They use live telemetry in combination with driver feedback to make decisions in race on tyre, engine, and aero management and then apply this to adapt their race strategy as the race develops. An example of this is when you're closely following a lead car, your car is consequently put into the very turbulent and very hot air generated by the car in front. This will directly affect your engine temperature. This sometimes means you have to either back off from the car in front or otherwise change your racing line to get into clean air to keep your engine temperature under control.

In the Australian grand prix Sebastian Vettel was the race leader and should have won the race. However, he was running with a wheel problem which they knew about but they took the gamble to ignore it for a couple of laps to avoid pitting and thus avoid compromising his track position - which eventually lead to brake failure and put him out of the race. Jenson Button won the race because he made the early call to change to dry weather slicks and because his smooth driving style lets him maximize tyre performance over a longer period than most (and perhaps all) of the other F1 drivers. In both cases the teams adapted their race strategy to suit the current characteristics of the car. It failed for Red Bull and succeeded spectacularly for McLaren.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[sjasmund]

I do data acquisition/telemetry/electronics with endurance racing teams in ALMS and other series. While we don't have quite the infrastructure that F1 teams have, we do collect quite a bit of data. In the car, there is a data acquisition system consisting of a combination display/logger, which also collects data from several other components on the car via CAN network. Data can be logged at speeds up to 1000 Hz for detailed analysis once the car is downloaded in the pits. This data is also broadcast via telemetry while the car is on track. The Engine Control Unit has it's own logging capability as well, which collects engine parameters and traction control data. We also collect video whenever the car is on track.

The data we collect is used for several key purposes.

1. Driver performance -- The drivers use a handful of logged channels (steering angle, throttle position, gear, brake pressures, lat/lon G, etc.) to compare laps. With the data, we can overlay laps to compare where time is gained or lost in relation to other laps for a driver or compare to their teammate/co-driver. This helps both drivers to see how things can be done better, which improves laps times.

2. Engineering -- Sensors such as damper (shock) position, ride heights, aero pressures, etc. allow us to quantify what the drivers are telling us. Ultimately, we have to tune the handling of the car to what will allow the drivers to go the fastest. After each outing or session, we'll debrief and they'll tell us what the car is doing in various places around the track. We then use the data to help identify what it is the car is doing physically and what adjustments need to be made to give the driver a better car.

3. Health of the car -- Many channels (temperatures, pressures, amperages, etc.) give us a picture of the health of the car. The car must be reliable and this information can tell us if a component is failing. Even though we can't send data to the car while it's on track, there are ways that we can utilize some of the redundancies built into the systems (electrical systems anyhow) or change other things to help assure the car will make it to the finish.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Chris Colohan]

Fascinating. Thank you for the details!

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they can analyse both the car's performance (after the race) and the driver's performance.

There was a segment on TopGear where Richard Hammond took a F1 car around the track.

They were able to say that he hit peak acceleration for 0.5 seconds (or something like that.) They briefly showed graphs that plotted speed, acceleration, etc, real time for his trip around the lap. For drivers in practice sessions, they can look at data like that after the session and work out where they're going to slow, where they can speed up, etc.

In practice sessions, it is not uncommon for them to change aero configurations, tyres, etc. The data lets them compare how the changes impact the performance and loading on the car without just looking at lap times and if the driver was faster or slower.

By collecting all of this data, you're able to determine how many revolutions the engine really does, how the temperature of the engine varies according to the stress, etc. Using that data you're then able to design future engines that meet the load requirements that you know exist in real world conditions. That doesn't mean you can't test but it does get your first round of engineering at least into the right ballpark.

How much difference does this make?
Well, there's all of the weight of the wires going everywhere in the car plus the transmitter to send it back to base. So maybe a couple of extra kilograms? There's also the small antenna mounted on the external surface to transmit that data. All told, I wouldn't be surprised if it was less than 1%.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/439315/mclaren-electronics-fuels-analysis.html
http://www.asiaone.com/Motoring/Motorworld/Story/A1Story20080924-89835.html

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Anonymous Coward]

Some data can be used to influence the race they are in.

For example...
A sudden increase of ride height on a fast section of track would indicate a drop in downforce created by a possibly damaged wing or underbody area.
This could then be checked on during a pit stop and possibly repaired (ie, replace the nose cone).
If it cant be repaired, the decrease in lap times and tyre wear rates may change the optimum pit window.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[djjockey]

Yes. Data is analysed live, and decisions made from it. Probably not all 20+GB of data, but a significant portion is used. Things like aero settings, tyre pressures suspension, engine conditions. One example of the reactivity was when one of the teams (Mercedes I think) thought they saw a problem and had the pit crew ready and waiting while they analysed the rest of the data before deciding it was ok. Drivers will often be given feedback on tyre performance based on tyre temps and pressures.

What impresses me almost as much as the technology is the level of awareness the driver has at the same time - how well they feel the things that are going on around them. That and how they can see anything out of those cockpits.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[AK Marc]

What impresses me almost as much as the technology is the level of awareness the driver has at the same time - how well they feel the things that are going on around them.

It's an easily trainable skill. I'm not a professional driver, but I hopped in a friends car and about two blocks away, I asked him what was wrong with his right front tire. He looked at me like I was nuts. I said that it felt like there was a shimmy from the right front as if the wheel was out of alignment, but it wasn't there last time I rode with him, so I accused him of hitting a curb. Turns out, he had a flat the day before and put on the spare (full size on the same rims). I told him that he needed to get his spare balanced when he got the tire fixed. I still think he didn't believe me. But I could feel the vibration, and with my hand on the dash, could feel that it was from the front right. I'm sure the race drivers can feel much of the same.

I also had a friend that could beat ABS every time, any surface (and by massive amounts, if you let him pick the surface). With the windows down, he could tell the squeal of the tires before they locked up, and would keep them right at the threshold almost perfectly. ABS works by releasing brake pressure, so that a perfect human will always beat ABS in a straight line stop. But perfect humans are infrequent and straight line stops in emergencies aren't as common as one might think, so ABS is better in the real world. But it's also a telling limitation on the tech to see a person beat ABS consistently.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[Kumiorava]

Beating ABS is not possible for any human. Some surfaces it might be possible to get better result if you are an experienced driver but most surfaces that ABS is needed there is just no way a human could beat it. Just the fact that ABS manages braking force of each wheel separately and a human manages the general braking force is alone deciding factor in favor of ABS. Imagine surface where left wheels are on good traction surface and right wheels are on slippery surface. Managing this situation without ABS will result in a spin.

Re:What do they do with the data?

[AK Marc]

Beating ABS is not possible for any human.

Your incompetence doesn't transfer to others. ABS works by turning off the brakes. And you assert that turning off the brakes repeatedly will always beat a human who keeps them on the whole time. But yes, your unsubstantiated personal opinion beats the fact that I've seen it done (and that a number of car magazines did the same tests with similar results as well).

Managing this situation without ABS will result in a spin.

I'm confused, how does that relate to the discussion at hand? ABS will decrease braking power in order to keep the car pointed in the correct direction. We all agree on that. However, that has nothing to do with the question at hand for braking distances. In fact, the spin may stop the car sooner than stopping in a straight line. But that's not saying the spin is safer, because you have no control once a spin begins. You are confusing "safer" with "better braking" and using examples of when ABS in undoubtedly safer to try to convince us it's better. No one said it wasn't. It was just stated that ABS isn't necessarily shorter.

If you want to poop your pants, just roll into an intersection because you hit some sand. I had a 2002 Subaru Impreza who was recalled for that exact behavior. When passing over a very short disturbance (wet railroad track or a pothole with a steep descending lip), the brakes would take so long to respond that it would double the distance to stop. But after the recall, this behavior was fixed. However, Subaru and the NHTSA both asserted that near-complete loss of braking power in order to "maintain stability" was consistent with the operation of ABS and so the recall was voluntary. Before the recall, I could beat ABS 100% of the time, if you let me pick where. Wet railroad tracks and an unavoidable pothole near work would both make the ABS take much longer than a person could manage. And remember, that's not failed ABS, that's ABS where I have a letter from Subaru stating the horrible stopping distance is a figment of my imagination and the NHTSA certifies the ABS to be operating properly.

a look a virgin's 100% CFD

[mjwalshe]

As Virgin racing have gone for a 100% CFD approach it would be interesting to see a write up on their set up that they use to design the car.

Re:Lewis Hamilton...

[Anonymous Coward]

woah, michael richards reads /. !

captainoftheussinevitable.ytmnd.com

Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[Colin Smith]

It is only beaten in levels of tedium by they Indy 500. I once watched that... WTF? What a bunch of pansies.

You want racing?

Moto GP
World Superbikes
British Superbikes
Isle of Man TT
 

Re:Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[Anonymous Coward]

There is still plent of good open wheel racing out there. Formula 1 has become dull, but the racers who get into it generally have to come from somewhere. Things like GP2/GP2 Asia, IFM, A1GP, Formula Renault, Formula BMW, Formula 2000, Formula 2, and there are more all have rulesets that allow for awesome racing. IFM in particular is one of my recent favorites.

On top of all that F1 no longer does refills with fuel and the Melbourne race was fun. But basically that was due to the rain and not the ruleset.

Re:Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[Hurricane78]

Don’t forget rally racing!

Yes, they’re not all on the road at the same time. (Only virtually.) But that’s a good thing with those roads.
And you get the only point of watching that stuff: Cool drifts, flights, indoor action, and crashes with parts flying off. :)

Man, I have to reinstall Richard Burns Rally! Never sweated so much (like a pig) from the tension/stress as when getting trough a whole race alive. (Yes, it’s that hard. That’s why it’s so much fun when you actually get it right.) [btw: don’t even try without a proper steering wheel!]

Re:Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[Anonymous Coward]

It is only beaten in levels of tedium by they Indy 500.

Clearly you didn't watch the Australian grand prix.

Re:Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[strack]

tell me about it. its like they looked at F1 and asked, "how can we make it more like NASCAR?". ewwww. rally ftw.

Re:Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull

[zaddikim]

And DTM, BTCC, WRC (as others have noted) I fondly remember Speedvision before it got ruined by (FOX/Murdoch?) and turned into Redneck TV - Speed isn't much of a real Car Channel - Pinks, NASCAR and Pimp My Ride type shows don't make up for not showing Dakar highlights and Aussie racing madness.

Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[Colin Smith]

Far better is Touring Car Racing (look up some races on youtube). NASCAR... ovals. Oh My God it's dull.

 

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[AK Marc]

NASCAR... ovals. Oh My God it's dull.

It's actually fun to watch the few NASCAR races which aren't ovals. The drivers are obviously incompetent at finding a line and such. They are like putting amateurs in F1 cars and sending them around the track. I've never seen "professional" racing with so many drivers that lock up at the end of a straightaway. You'd think that a professional race car driver would know how to brake...

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Superbike and Moto GP is much more interesting than watching people drive in circles (counterclockwise only) for several hours. I've heard people refer to Nascar as "rednecks doing left turns for prize money".

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[mwolfe38]

Yeah because nascar drivers don't know how to turn. I've only watched a few races myself, as my father in law is a big fan, but after doing so I have to say I respect the sport much more now. I know some f1 drivers have (or are currently) in nascar such as Juan Pablo Montoya who is currently ranked 22nd on the season. When I've watched he seems like a good driver, manages to stay up at the front of the pack for most of the race. He hasn't exactly dominated though. We'll see how Danica does if she makes it to the sprint cup next year or later. I used to bash nascar quite a bit, but its actually pretty fun.. You can usually skip the first few hundred laps and just watch the end, when everyone goes all out to win.

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[NekSnappa]

The worst part of watching NASCAR on a road course is that every off course excursion brings on a full course caution! I don't know why they can't use local yellows like even the most basic SCCA club racers do.

Seriously, one guy gets loose and goes off the track in one corner, doesn't even get stuck. And out comes the safety car, oops pace car. What a bunch of clowns.

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[Anonymous Coward]

Second that. To be fair, not all bike races are nail-biters, but this is more than made up by scorchers like the Laguna Seca 2008 MotoGP race. Great personalities too, in contrast to the rather bland types currently en vogue in F1 (I miss Mansell, Prost and Senna).

Plus, and I say this with utter respect, most of the riders in the bike races are, by any practical definition of the word, clinically insane.

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[Bakkster]

I know some f1 drivers have (or are currently) in nascar such as Juan Pablo Montoya who is currently ranked 22nd on the season. When I've watched he seems like a good driver, manages to stay up at the front of the pack for most of the race. He hasn't exactly dominated though. We'll see how Danica does if she makes it to the sprint cup next year or later.

Don't forget that Juan Pablo has won the 24 Hours at Daytona and the Indy 500, yet in over 2 seasons has yet to win an oval race in NASCAR. He's a fantastic driver, but has a different skillset. He's also proof that NASCAR racers are quality racers, since if they weren't, Montoya would be dominant like he was in F1. I can't wait until he really starts succeeding in the series.

With Danika, I hope they give her enough time to grow into the series, rather than rushing her. Like Juan Pablo, she really needs to build up the 'stock' car skillset that she doesn't have yet. And, because she's a woman and good for publicity, her being on the track has generally been more important than her being a good racer. The other drivers have had a lot of praise for her learning ability, given time I think she will do well also.

I used to bash nascar quite a bit, but its actually pretty fun.. You can usually skip the first few hundred laps and just watch the end, when everyone goes all out to win.

If you only watch 30 minutes, the last 30 are usually the ones to watch. And those who say it's not interesting or exciting obviously didn't watch this year's Daytona 500 when Jr. went from 10th to 2nd place on the last 2 laps of the race. I'm not aware of many other racing series where that happens without a wreck.

Re:Yes it is. It *is* that boring.

[Bromskloss]

It's actually fun to watch the few NASCAR races which aren't ovals.

I'd like to see that. Do you have a link to a video?

and the alternative would be what ?

[Brigadier]

NASCAR ? F1 is not the eng all of racing it is one aspect. If you want more driver friendly racing then go WRC, extreme machines 24 hour Lemans. Nature vs Car then select the Dakar Rally, and if you wanna drink beer well nascar ofcourse

Re:and the alternative would be what ?

[misfit815]

IndyCar has the road and street courses of F1, the ovals of NASCAR, a fraction of the budgets of either, the Greatest Spectacle in Racing each May, and a good balance of technology and driver skill.

Plus, they're in the decision-making stage for the 2012+ chassis, and one of the competitors (Delta Wing) is a freakish design that's actually being billed as "open source".

Re:and the alternative would be what ?

[dudpixel]

NASCAR would be so much better if they had, you know, corners...

Re:and the alternative would be what ?

[HolyCrapSCOsux]

That's why I only watch Watkin's Glen.

F1 Technology eh

[MrKaos]

One of the main points of F1 is to advance car Technology (it's why disc brakes were invented) and whilst I still enjoy the racing the point of it was destroyed by the death of Ayrton Senna back in 1994.

What the wiki doesn't say (but I remember) is Senna complained that the removal of active suspension from the vehicles might get someone killed. What happened was two drivers were killed Senna and Roland Ratzenberger.

So as cool as this all is it's not as advanced as it should be. Those cars racing around out on the track had a job beyond racing to make automotive technology as advanced as it can be. I wonder how many lives off the track have been lost because F1 does not do this job anymore.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[piquadratCH]

Formula1's obsession with security only really began with Ayrton Senna's tragic death. What the engineers have achieved since then is nothing else but breathtaking. Have a look at some crashes from the last decade on Youtube (e.g. Robert Kubica in 2007). In todays F1 cars, you can basically drive into a concrete wall at 120 mph and come out of the wreck with little more than a dizzy head. And that's what you call "not doing their job"?

Re:F1 Technology eh

[turbidostato]

"What the wiki doesn't say (but I remember) is Senna complained that the removal of active suspension from the vehicles might get someone killed. What happened was two drivers were killed Senna and Roland Ratzenberger."

But you certainly seem to forget that neither Senna nor Ratzenberger were killed because anything related to active suspension, but a case of bad luck.

The case of Ratzenberger was understandable (was a terrible accident at very high speed) while others having gone without injuries from similar situations.

But the case of Senna was a terribly hard punch of the worst luck -what are the chances for a piece of the car to go exactly through the short window on his helmet?

"I wonder how many lives off the track have been lost because F1 does not do this job anymore."

You can't be wronger. F1 is today as technosavvy as always, it's only it's pointing technology to different objectives -which, while disputable if on purpouse or not, are much more aligned with mass production cars than ever.

Current F1 cars have to be more robust, more stable, more economic than ever. There's no point on 1500 HP engines, active suspension, massive turbochargers or floor effects for mass production but there is a point for better mileage, engines that last longer, better passive security or better general-purpose grip and stability over tyres that don't seem taken from a 20Tm bulldozer.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[djjockey]

And it's not just the technology that is interesting here - the preparation and attention to detail is amazing. Things like on site medical centres with operating rooms, ability to get medical assistance to any incident anywhere on a 6km track within 30 seconds and in Monaco - a team of divers in case the barriers fail and a car ends up in the ocean.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[MrKaos]

neither Senna nor Ratzenberger were killed because anything related to active suspension, but a case of bad luck.

Anything that contributed to less control of the vehicle is not bad luck, it's less control of the vehicle.

F1 is today as technosavvy as always, it's only it's pointing technology to different objectives -which, while disputable if on purpouse or not, are much more aligned with mass production cars than ever.

I prepared to accept your argument but can you give me some examples where F1 developments Post 1994 are in common mass produced production cars. I want F1 to be making technology for the road, not just the track.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[Muad'Dave]

...examples where F1 developments Post 1994 are in common mass produced production cars.

Many performance road cars owe their seamless shift transmissions to F1.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[turbidostato]

"give me some examples where F1 developments Post 1994"

They are not as visible as they used to be, but they are very important nonetheless: clutchless transmissions, better/cheaper/more durable rubber composites on tyres, better chamber and admission geometries, beter gas mixtures, all kinds of software and electronics controlling engine combustion -both of them driving to better mileage, better undestandment about aerodynamics, esp. aroung pits and holes...

Re:F1 Technology eh

[Knuckles]

It's true that a suspension part going through his helmet is what killed Senna, but he went off the road in the first place because his car bottomed out on a bump into the Tamburello corner. It's pretty reasonable to argue that this wouldn't have happened with an active suspension, especially since drivers - and most of all Senna - had been complaining all season that the removal of active suspension from cars that were built for it makes them difficult to control. As far as I am concerned this premature removal was yet another error of the governing body, the FIA. And generally, the FIA is what really is wrong with F1.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[turbidostato]

"It's true that a suspension part going through his helmet is what killed Senna, but he went off the road in the first place because his car bottomed out on a bump into the Tamburello corner."

AFAIK it was the other way around: first the car broke, that's why he lost control.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[Knuckles]

On further reflection, the actual reason for going off the road was never officially determined, but on Youtube there are on-board videos of Senna on the approach to Tamburello which clearly show the car bottoming out, and it wasn't the first time either. The Wikipedia article is quite good and lists several competing theories including cold tires after the safety car period and steering column breakage. However, suspension breakage is not among the suspected reasons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ayrton_Senna

Re:F1 Technology eh

[turbidostato]

"The Wikipedia article is quite good and lists several competing theories including cold tires after the safety car period and steering column breakage."

As far as I know, steering column breakage is both the official and more plausible theory.

Re:F1 Technology eh

[Knuckles]

I don't think there is an "official" (FIA) conclusion, but there may be other "official" conclusions by courts. Anyway it may well have ultimately been the steering column, but he *did* bottom out, it's plain to see in the video. We'll never know because the FIA fucked up yet again.

There's an actual computer war in F1

[Anonymous Coward]

Much can be said about the technology that goes into F1 but there's also a darker side that steps both feet firmly into the traditional wars fought with actual weapons and religions.

Intel (the chip company, that is) supports and sponsors several of the teams. Intel's recent Core chip line came in part from their Israeli engineering offices. This was noticed.

When other teams wanted IT sponsors, they went to AMD and to assorted Arabic sponsors seeking not only sponsorship but also offering a way to attack the perceived intel-Israel ties held by some other teams.

This is one of the reasons Ferrari gained AMD and assorted sponsors from the Arab countries; and of course Ferrari has very strong ties in that area anyway.

This is also one of the reasons AMD has heavy investment from Arab-based sources. If intel is aligned with Israel, of course the option is to support intel's enemy. And AMD needs the money, so... it works out. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all.

You bet I am posting this anonymously. But all of what I've said can be found on the sponsor decals of the teams and in intel and AMD's annual reports and history. It's there.

McLaren's technology for air-traffic control...

[bagsta]

...there is a very interesting article in this UK Wired's issue regarding how the Heathrow air-traffic controllers are going to use the McLaren's proprietary software to simulate air-traffic like an F1 race...

WTF??

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF? NASCAR is more interesting than F1? NASCAR has drivers changing position and not F1?

I thought NASCAR is the one where bunch of rednecks go in circles for long time and than the race ends when the crowd has run out of hamburgers and coke and bud.

Better yet...

[StickANeedleInMyEye]

Better yet...Let the engineers drive the F1 cars they've designed! That would provide great post-race interviews ... lmao !!

Watch out

[WinstonWolfIT]

If the cruise control ever gets locked, it may get dicey.

3200 kilograms

[tokul]

How about calling it '3.2 tons'? Even 'weights more than one ton' is impressive and you have more than three.