Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation Australia IT Hardware

The Technology Behind Formula 1 Racing 175

Posted by timothy
from the all-faked-like-the-moon-landings dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Technology Behind Formula 1 Racing

Comments Filter:
  • by h00manist (800926) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @01:51PM (#31649252) Journal
    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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      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!
      • by timeOday (582209) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:27PM (#31649550)
        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.
        • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:39PM (#31649620)

          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?

          • 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
             

            • 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

          • 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

            • by misfit815 (875442)

              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".

          • by DaveGod (703167)

            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

            • 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 ver
          • by tylernt (581794)

            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).

            • by Bakkster (1529253)

              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 repla

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          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: (Score:1, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward

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

            Its called Robot Wars.

          • by timeOday (582209)

            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...

            • by Moofie (22272)

              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.

              • by JWSmythe (446288)

                    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. :)

              • by timeOday (582209)
                I didn't equate them, but there is overlap, as well as contention about which role is more important. Quoting [defense.gov] 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

            • by T-Bone-T (1048702)

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

        • by shermo (1284310)

          There's one.

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

          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.

      • by Krneki (1192201)
        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.
    • by zonky (1153039) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:11PM (#31649428)
      The technology is so intense in F1......

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

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by timeOday (582209)
        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 constantl

        • by mjwalshe (1680392)
          so does the BBC coverage of F1
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by 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

          • by timeOday (582209)

            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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by zappepcs (820751)

      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!

      • by h00manist (800926) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:47PM (#31649686) Journal
        There is more to driving mass adoption, social behavior, and technology. Law, for example. Tax laws [cookco.us] have encouraged US adoption of massive trucks as cars. Change the laws, and everyone changes their behavior.
        • by zappepcs (820751)

          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.

    • by BitZtream (692029) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:29PM (#31649564)

      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!

      • by JWSmythe (446288)

        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.

        Y

      • 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 dri

    • by Jawn98685 (687784)

      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

  • All we need (Score:5, Funny)

    by Beelzebud (1361137) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @01:55PM (#31649278)
    All we need is a good computer analogy to explain this story!
  • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fbjon (692006)
      There is no remote control, actually. The teams are only allowed two-way voice radio and one-way telemetry.
    • by onepoint (301486)

      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...

  • CFD (Score:3, Informative)

    by heffrey (229704) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:03PM (#31649356)

    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!

  • US Participation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Col. Bloodnok (825749)

    Why don't yanks take part in F1?

    I thought you loved racing cars about.

    • by russotto (537200) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @02:24PM (#31649514) Journal
      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.
      • 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.

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

         

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          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...
          • by NekSnappa (803141)
            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.

          • 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?

    • by amorsen (7485)

      US cars don't do corners, remember?

    • by NoKaOi (1415755)

      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.

      • by mjwalshe (1680392)
        hard work and a ton of money is required plus acess to a big wind tunnel and a grunty connection to the national grid.
    • by Spad (470073)

      http://www.usgpe.com/ [usgpe.com]

      They almost managed to build a car in time.

    • by Huntr (951770)
      We like racing where the drivers and crew matter more than the computers.
      • "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).

    • by PPH (736903)
      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.
  • Good pics? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by hh4m (1549861)
    Good pics? Where? I didn't see a single pic of a server setup or wireless equipment :(
  • by galvitron (1540437) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @03:29PM (#31650006)
    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.
    • 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: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by galvitron (1540437)
        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.
  • by Chris Colohan (29716) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @03:30PM (#31650016) Homepage

    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?

    • by Wowsers (1151731)

      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 c

      • by AK Marc (707885)
        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?
    • 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
    • by sjasmund (70562) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @10:40PM (#31652972) Homepage

      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.

  • 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.
  • 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. [wikipedia.org]

    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

    • 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 [youtube.com] 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"?

    • "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 simila

      • by MrKaos (858439)

        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 developme

        • by Muad'Dave (255648)

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

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

        • "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...

  • by bagsta (1562275) on Sunday March 28, 2010 @05:13PM (#31650908) Journal
    ...there is a very interesting article [wired.co.uk] 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...

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...