Technology vs. Racing

[KC]

This is an excerpt from a commentary article by Brock Yates from the RACER/Speedvision site. In it he comments on the rampant run of technology in motor racing and if it has done anything to improve the racing.

The young men who climbed into their Reynards and Lolas at Texas were prepared to drive the oval flat-out, relying on ground effects to glue them to the corners. This is now standard practice, even on relatively low-banked tracks like the Indianapolis Motor Speedway. The notion of employing the throttle or brake on an oval seems foreign to them, understanding as they do that ground effects is their silent partner in all high-speed running. This is hardly their fault. They are paid to run at maximum speeds, even if those speeds begin to scramble their brains and affect their reflexes.

What we have here is a war between technology and human capacity. The designers, engineers and computer modelers who have created modern racing cars are to be commended for their skills, but they are on the way to making the driver irrelevant, by either turning him into a well-tailored version of the chimpanzees who took the first rocket rides during the early space program or, even worse, relegating him to the pits to drive his car in the manner of a super-sophisticated video game.

If there is a lesson to be learned from the TMS/CART debacle, it is that technology is capable of destroying motor racing in its classic sense. We are now on the verge of obsoleting the driver, who has already discarded such basic techniques as the four-wheel drift, the power-slide, throttle-steering and trail-braking from big-time motorsports.

If this sport is to be saved, long-term, major restrictions must be placed on aerodynamics and on-board telemetry. Giving the drivers back the ability to steer, brake and accelerate their machines in all corners, as opposed to riding through them as if on rocket sleds, is something that must be addressed immediately.

If not, what is the next racetrack to be doomed with the label "too fast"?

Motor racing is an ultimate test of skill, audacity and overt courage, not of unfettered technology. Let our heroes be the men who master unruly, overpowered, essentially unstable machines, not a collection of technoids closeted in design studios and wind tunnels.

Give the driving back to the drivers. — Brock Yates

Steve Matchett, former Bennetton mechanic on Michael Schumachers WDC car, also mentioned this same thing after visiting his first CART race at Nazareth.

While looking over the cars at Nazareth, the one aspect that really caught my attention was how robust the suspension components are in comparison to those of F1; indeed both the Reynard and the Lola CART chassis appear distinctly beefier than anything currently produced by the F1 constructors. I understand CART’s technical regulations don’t allow for the use of composite suspensions, and thus the reason why the teams still use steel for much of their fabrication material.

The suspension layout of the current CART cars is similar to what the F1 teams were running seven or eight years ago: The front of the car uses steel wishbones and pushrods, connected to machined, horizontally-pivoted rockers, which in turn are connected to longitudinally mounted dampers (sitting atop the chassis and covered by a removable access panel). The dampers are fitted with coil springs; the front rollbar (sway bar) mounting is located inside the chassis, but, unlike F1 designs, the roll bars are adjustable by the driver, something that is forbidden in Formula 1. With just a few subtle alterations the same suspension design is used at the rear, too, the dampers and springs mounted above the transmission.

In fact, the more I studied the front suspension layout of the Reynard chassis, the more it reminded me of the 1992 Benetton. In contrast to CART, the current trend in F1 is to move away from coil springs, the Grand Prix teams instead favoring machined titanium torsion bars, the thinking being that they are lighter, more compact and don’t suffer from as much friction as coil springs (they are also frighteningly expensive). Also, Formula 1 teams are in the process of discarding steel wishbones: Aerodynamically shaped carbon units are now very much in vogue. A few teams still use steel to manufacture their rear-lower wishbones (due to the high loads they are subjected to), but it will only be a matter of time before every F1 car features full composite suspensions. There are engineering advantages to be gained by using carbon wishbones (primarily a saving in weight). but once again the financial cost incurred by the teams is fairly astronomical.

There are other notable differences between the two series. F1 uses hydraulically activated transmission selector mechanisms, operated by steering wheel-mounted paddle levers; CART has no high-pressure hydraulics, and therefore uses the more traditional ‘stick’ shift. F1 prefers longitudinally mounted transmissions, in order to make the rear of the car as narrow as possible; CART favors transverse boxes, a design which allows the gear ratios to be changed without removing the gearbox from the engine. CART’s regulations permit the engine manufactures to use turbochargers; the F1 rules do not. There are different fuels, different tires, different wing designs, and on and on it goes. There is also a significant weight difference: an F1 car tips the scales at 600kg (1320lb), while the CART chassis comes in at 1550lb (704kg).

If the nimble agility of an F1 car could be likened to a graceful ballerina, then a CART chassis looks more akin to a well-chiseled running back: Solid and powerful, sure-footed and very quick.

So, I guess the key question is this: Even if we conclude that Formula 1 is the more technologically advanced of the two series, does it actually matter? Does it make a significant difference to the quality of the racing? If no CART team is allowed to use carbon wishbones, then no one has to incur the vast expense in time, money and manpower to produce a composite suspension, the advantage of which will be completely negated by the very fact that everyone else has been forced to design a similar system.

The same reasoning also applies to semi-automatic transmissions, hydraulically-controlled differentials, traction control, launch control, etc., etc. If no team is allowed to use the technology, then no team gains or loses the advantage. Providing that the CART teams continue to play by the same rules, then the fact that they are all using relatively basic technology will have no detrimental impact to the excitement of the sport, the thrill of the show.

Personally I love the high tech aspect of today's motor racing, but so much of racing has become more of an engineering exercise than pure motor racing. What do you guys think?

[Ray Bell]

It all goes through stages, of course, but look back at the transition from the Maserati 250F to the Lotus 18 (with Vanwall, Ferrari, Aston Martin and Cooper in between), with the problems they overcame, the development they underwent, and all without anything like the money available today.

It's all part of the fascination of the top spheres of motor racing, and finding ways to apply the findings to the lesser (and more strictly controlled) lesser formulae is another fascination in itself.

[desmo]

I am surprised the argument that costs are controlable via the technical regulations is still being advanced. The simple truth is that costs are a function of the sponsorship capital a team can raise and mandating steel wishbones, stick shifts, whatever will only divert the spending to some other area. To argue to the contrary is to only display one's ignorance of the finances of motorsport.

If one takes Matchett's and Yates'arguments to their logical conclusions you wind up with- ta da- NASCAR. Which is OK I suppose, but which really is getting more like show biz than motorsport now. I guess pushrods and carbs don't detract from the show if everyone has to use them. Cast iron pistons anyone?

[KC]

I don't think that either made an argument that racing would be better because it would be cheaper, because like you said, if they have it to spend, they will find a way to spend it. I think what both wanted to get across is that the racing has not really improved for all the technical advances and at times it has suffered because of these same advances.

I like what Yates had to say when he said...

Let our heroes be the men who master unruly, overpowered, essentially unstable machines,

and I think the racing would be much better for it.

Don't be fooled into thinking that NASCAR is somehow cheaper than CART or the IRL because it is not if you want to run at the front. F1 seriously outstrips all other forms of racing and I think it has not helped the show very much at all. That does not mean I want them all driving front engined Vanwalls or other roadster type racers either.

The current NASCAR machines are so far advanced over the old "stock cars" that is simply amazing to watch old tape of drivers literally broadsliding a Ford or Chevy all the way around a corner instead of the "never lift" cars that currently run the tracks.

[Emfa]

Guys,

Interesting discussion...

The question seems to have been put as if technology and racing are opposed - was that your intent? That seems to be the point Mr. Yates is making, however I read Mr. Matchett's piece as "observations" only (except for the part about ovals!). If the question is "has the racing improved or not", then that may be too subjective to answer. You will probably hear lots of opinions, but no definitive answers. And the opinions will be as diverse as the people who follow motorsport and the reasons that they follow it.

Are the results of technological advancement to the detriment of spectacular racing? Often, but not always. As numerous people have stated, part of the fascination of top level motorsports is in the technology, particularly from an engineering standpoint.

One aspect of this that occurs to me that has not been mentioned is that of "getting to the front." Unless I have a fundamental missunderstanding of the dynamics of racing, the quickest way of getting to the checkers is not by sliding - unless you're on dirt (or you are Garry McCoy!). Therefore car design has advanced through technical innovation (already noted) so that they are planted more firmly on the tarmac in an effort to get to the front (in conjunction with development & transmission of power, of course). And that, I think, is the whole point of the exercise! Therefore there will not be a return to that type of racing that Mr. Yates describes, unfortunately. (What place is there for romanticism, other that in magazine columns? ) True - there are many skills from yester-year that have been lost, but I think todays pilots have new and different skills that we can admire as well.

Having said all that, it suddenly occurred to me that historic racing enjoys great support in some areas. So, maybe there is a legitimate place for romanticism anyway!

KC, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on "pure motor racing." To me, this is such a multi-faceted sport that no one aspect of it can be considered alone, and therein lies the greater interest for me.