The Technology Behind Formula 1 Racing 175
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."
Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Formula 1 is tedious. Dull dull dull dull dull (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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
and the alternative would be what ? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Why not creating one which is determined by who can throw the most money at the best engineers?
Its called Robot Wars.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The F-35 can't replace the F-22. They serve different roles.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:4, Funny)
that they haven't even got around to producing HD TV feeds yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
F1 doesn't even air on US network TV, it's cable/satellite only. And even then the commentators are constantl
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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:2)
FOA do shoot in 1080p24, apparently, but no feed better than 16x9 576i is provided currently to any broadcaster.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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!
there are laws, too (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re:Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Great! Now we can call it something else! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
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/ [f1complete.com]
[2] Nicholas, C.W., Nuttal, F.E. and Williams, C.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
+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 wor
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
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
All we need (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's like overclocking with liquid nitrogen instead of watercooling. Speed costs money; how fast do you want to go?
Re:All we need (Score:5, Funny)
How many Library of Congresses can I get to the Furlong for three-fitty?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
All that tech and... (Score:1)
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)
Re: (Score:1)
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)
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)
Why don't yanks take part in F1?
I thought you loved racing cars about.
Re:US Participation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Sounds more like baseball. Great strategy. Boring ass game to bring your kids to.
Yes it is. It *is* that boring. (Score:2)
Far better is Touring Car Racing (look up some races on youtube). NASCAR... ovals. Oh My God it's dull.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I know some f1 drivers have (or are currently) in nascar such as Juan Pablo Montoya [wikipedia.org] who is currently ranked 22nd [nascar.com] 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 need
Re: (Score:2)
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 co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
US cars don't do corners, remember?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.usgpe.com/ [usgpe.com]
They almost managed to build a car in time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Good pics? (Score:2, Insightful)
The best in the world (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 contr
What do they do with the data? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 t
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What do they do with the data? (Score:5, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
Fascinating. Thank you for the details!
Re: (Score:2)
"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
a look a virgin's 100% CFD (Score:2, Interesting)
F1 Technology eh (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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"?
Re: (Score:2)
"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
Re: (Score:2)
Anything that contributed to less control of the vehicle is not bad luck, it's less control of the vehicle.
I prepared to accept your argument but can you give me some examples where F1 developme
Re: (Score:2)
...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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
"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.
McLaren's technology for air-traffic control... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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.