Electronics ban in F1

[twomey]

Anyone see that program on channel 4 tonight, brought up the issue of the ban on electronics to aid the driver that is in place in F1.

The way I see it is the teams should be allowed to do what they want, after all its not just the drivers who are in competition with each other, what about all the engineers, they too are trying to get the best performance out of the cars, and for the governing body to just say "right you cant have traction control or anything" is totally unfair.

one guy mentioned a race in 95 when all the cars had traction control, and was it schumacher, I forget what he said but he overtook 5 other cars on the first lap and it was brilliant entertainment apparently....

anyone got any views?

[Valve Bounce]

I see no reason for banning traction control nor ABS as these are positive developments for the passenger car industry. Any development in F1 that will eventually benefit passenger cars must be good.

[Marshal]

Originally posted by twomey
one guy mentioned a race in 95 when all the cars had traction control, and was it schumacher, I forget what he said but he overtook 5 other cars on the first lap and it was brilliant entertainment apparently....

I think you'll find that was Senna in '93, particularly as the electronic aids were banned at the start of the '94 season. I saw that lap and it was brilliant, however both Senna and Prost hated traction control as they felt it let the less gifted compete more closely with the greats.

As for what I think, F1 has moved in the right direction, by deciding to remain a sport where the driver has a significant input. I personally think they should go further and re-introduce manual gearboxes and mechanically controlled throttle opening.

Also on Valve Bounces point regarding technology transfer, the way F1 did traction control was effective but crude (blanking off cylinders to produce less power), which made the cars sound like they had a dreadful misfire, and as such wasn't considered appropriate for road car use.

[angst]

I'd go along with Marshall on this. Do you want a sport or do you want a technical excercise? It is the World DRIVERS championship we're talking about here, if it's technical advances that we're after then road cars have overtaken racing cars anyway. Things like ABS were developed for roadcar use and THEN were going to be adapted for racing, so the argument that racing improves the breed no longer stands as far as technologies go. How much use are the current trends in aerodynamics to road cars? Now if you want F1 to be of some use to roadcar development, why not go back to the regs brought in in 1984. Here you are given your fuel-tank dimensions and there's no re-fuelling. Every couple of years you could reduce the amount of fuel. It would also help with reducing speeds, as you couldn't just storm along at full speed, stop and fill up and storm along at full speed again (which is what happens now). It would mean drivers would have to fight for position ON THE TRACK, which in turn would force the engineers to build cars that can race with each other.It would also meanthe drivers would have to work more on their own wits, and sort out their race tactics as the race went on.

[twomey]

Don't forget it could also be argued that aids such as traction control make the cars safer by making it harder to spin off when going round bends, which lets face it is how most crashes are caused.

Another thing, what was the sense near the beginning of the 2000 season when it was decided to ban the electronics for engine monitoring etc. ? Didn;t have a great effect on the performance of the cars.

As for angst point, why would we want to help with reducing speed? I can think of some entertaining strategies ie a refuelling strategy but reducing the speed or the cars doesnt strike me as the way forward.

[angst]

Well why do you think Max decided upon grooved tyres and narrower cars in the first place? I don't advocate bringing down the speeds, but rather than have some ridiculous measures brought in to do so and instead of constantly altering tracks because the cars are too fast for them (which has also happened in the past) this could be used to keep speeds at the level they are currently at. (in conjunction with reducing aerodynamic grip, of course).

[Valve Bounce]

OK, I'll Bite. Am I correct in how it works? I know there are some really keen motoring types here. I have TRACS (traction control) as well as AWD. I assumed that the TRACS worked when I hit ice and used too much throttle going uphill, and the engine cuts down on power to prevent wheelspin. How else does it work?? By the way, I am still listening to "Ambassador Satch" while I post this (Undecided). Great stuff, I found the CD by chance today. Last time I heard it was back in 1979 when my brother took my LP record and kept it for me.

[angst]

Twomey, another point which I failed to pick up on, most accidents , by which I mean possibly injurious accidents, are cause by component failures and contact, not by spinning off. Surely one of the main skills of a driver is to keep the car on the circuit while going as fast as he can, so traction control just takes another skill further out of the control of the driver. As I said before, do you want a competition between drivers and teams or a competition between teams with an assigned team-member behind the wheel of their latest technological masterpiece. Senna and Prost hated all the gadgets beacause it took away their advantage, ie being better drivers than the majority of their competitors.

[tazzoid]

But this is the problem in Formula 1, outside of the little internalised world of teams and drivers. Formula 1 used to be the pinnacle of automobile technology with the most advanced features that left the whole world stunned every time a new one appeared. But with the ban on all these driver aids, the sport is getting left behind technologically while trying to achieve a driver/car contribution balance.

For engineering hopefuls such as myself, this is a BIG problem. Can you imagine where F1 would be today if traction control had not been so viciously nipped in the bud? If the Adrian Neweys and Paul Gascoynes of this world had been able to learn from, work with and improve upon these raw ideas? There are only so many loopholes to be found, and the likes of McLaren and Ferrari are reaching the limits. One day, they'll just have to stop. And that will be it. No more new gadgets, exciting little quips... the sport will become stagnant.

My solution? In the offseason, I think teams should be allowed to build and test the ideas they have accumulated throughout the year and present their ideas to the FIA and FOCA, where the members will take a vote as to whether the new parts should be allowed or not. From there, all teams have the right to use the new features, but in the end it will be the team who can modify the feature best to their advantage that will win. That way, the sport advances but the competition is still close and requires innovative thought.

Just a suggestion.

[angst]

Originally posted by tazzoid
But this is the problem in Formula 1, outside of the little internalised world of teams and drivers. Formula 1 used to be the pinnacle of automobile technology with the most advanced features that left the whole world stunned every time a new one appeared. But with the ban on all these driver aids, the sport is getting left behind technologically while trying to achieve a driver/car contribution balance.

For engineering hopefuls such as myself, this is a BIG problem.

As I said before, do you want a drivers WC or a competition between the most technological companies in the world. Personally I have always been more interested in the drivers than the cars, but I'm not completely blind to the innovative ideas in F1 design. What I would say is that alot of the things that have been banned would have added nothing, or very little to roadcar design, as most of these things are already on road cars and were altered to suit F1. As an engineer there are plenty of other routes to follow, rather than the dead end routes that F1 has been following recently (ie - aerodynamics, where is this going to be useful anywhere outside of F1?). If you are really interested a budding engineer in such as traction control, ABS etc then there is far more exciting work going on in the world of road car engineering.

Originally posted by tazzoid


My solution? In the offseason, I think teams should be allowed to build and test the ideas they have accumulated throughout the year and present their ideas to the FIA and FOCA, where the members will take a vote as to whether the new parts should be allowed or not.

Just a suggestion.

I don't think the teams would be willing to fork out the millions of pounds to develop an idea, only to have it disallowed at some meeting or other.

[tazzoid]

Hehehe... ok, ouch.

What I meant was that, although few, some people are more interested in the cars - and you have to admit, if all that changed from year to year was the setups and the little adverts on the side of the cars, it would get rather boring. And I know that there are other routes, but I was just referring to the motorsport one, which is most appealing for obvious reasons.

And obviously it would be stupid not to research the popularity of your idea before launching into production, but if they did it intermittently I think it could work. And it's like biodiversity: how do you know the new stuff wouldn't be of any use if you didn't at least explore it? You need as much as you can get.

[angst]

The point about other routes being available was in regards to F1. If you want to have technological advances then, as I say, why not have them in a way that actually benefits the car industry, ie efficient engines (limit the fuel available), suspension design (reduce the effect of aerodynamics) AND improve the racing element/ increase the driver's input.

[tazzoid]

But wouldn't advances in suspension be the same as TRACS only in another direction? Because as it is, active suspension does everything anyway - it even bleeds itself.

And I don't think that aeros really has a direct impact on driver contribution anyway, because you can't really have speed without it. The driver still has to turn into the corners right, keep the car on the track, etc but just at a greater speed.

I have a feeling I'm missing the point?

[angst]

If all the engineers understood aerodynamics to a reasonably equal degree this would be true, but it would still provide problems for any car following another. Unfortunately there are very, very few engineers who do understand aerodynamics involved in racing car design and if the aerodynamic package isn't right every other aspect of the car/driver combination will not make up for the definciency in this area. This is the reason Ferrari made Rory Byrne an offer he could not refuse (not in the Godfather sense, I hasten to add) to keep him involved in F1, and why Adrian Newey is handsomely rewarded by Ron Dennis, why Jaguar have added Mark Handford to their staff (from Lola), why Mike Gascoyne has been brought on board by Benetton/Renault, why Jordan have replaced him with Eghbal Hamidy.

[tazzoid]

Exactly. They specifically employ aerodynamicists who do have a great understanding of the concepts. They have specialised in it and have all learned the same things in college - from then on it's who can produce the most innovative ideas for the car. It's just the same as signing on talent in the form of drivers. They all contribute to the success of the team by using their resources and skills, but they all start off with the same knowledge, just some are naturally better than others.

[Marshal]

Its an interesting debate, and out of interest I'm an engineer too Tazoid. What I think should be done is looking at a way that a set of rules could be formulated with enough freedom to make the engineering interesting and varied (which it isn't currently) while still retaining the drivers skill as an integral part of the sport.

I'd like to see things like complete freedom of engine design, but a limit on the amout of energy that can be used per second. As for aerodynamics, you can't ban them, but I agree with angst, you can make them less dominant. Perhaps this could be done by using rules like the CART rules which allow underbodt=y aereodynamic profiles, which lessens the dependance on front and rear wings which are more susceptable to turbulence. I always liked the idea of minimum ground clearance being half of your tyre width.... but perhaps the best way would be for someone really clever, with a good understanding of racing car aerodynamics and design, who is independant from the current teams, be tasked with making a rule book. I was thinking of Gordon Murray.

[angst]

Marshall, two fantastic ideas there. The CART thing I've touched on on another thread. But getting Mr Murray to draw up the rules - absolutely brilliant, but a little too much common-sense for Max to grasp, I think (ie -get an engineer to solve an engineering problem).

[LYM]

I 'm not a engineer, so my comment on this is quite simple:
Only the richest and most advanced teams would have the funds and infrastructure to develope the electronics aids while they also have the most skillful drivers under their wings, so it's a case of the strong get stronger and the weak get force out of the sports eventually.

Even for companies who are able to invent the aids, they might not have enough resources left to for controls or safety-testings. And I thought the FIA has done well in making safety first in technical regulations. Much of the technology will be passed down the rest of the car industry and it's probably a responsible act in foresight. But they are sandwiched between making the cars safe and making the races exciting, so I thought the vague regulations being brought up by KC in another thread probably serve as an a leeway for teams that are trying to achieve technology breakthrough. Unfortunately FIA can only react to some innovations when they are in operations.

Nice thread twomey btw, learnt a lot from u guys.

[tazzoid]

Yeah, I like those ideas too, but I just want to know what kind of rules you had in mind, Marshal? It would be so hard to set limits for how far the teams could go. Somebody would always have a problem, no doubt about that, and the other teams would all use the same ideas anyway. And how would the rules be able to level out the driver input at the same time? I'd be really interested to hear suggestions. I think it's a really good idea. What do you reckon the chances are of it ever happening?

And at the risk of sounding like an idiot: who is Gordon Murray?

[angst]

Tazzoid I'm surprised at you! Gordon Murray is the former Brabham and Mclaren designer, responsible for Babham BT42-BT55 and the all conquering Mclaren-Honda MP4/4. Also designed the Mclaren F1 road car. The reason I'm surprised that you didn't know is that he is South African.
The CART regs basically have a standard car bottom which is compulsory for all the teams, so there's no fiddling around there, and they are very strict on electronic driver aids. I'm not sure of the exact rules, perhaps somebody else can enlighten us. Driver input is much more important in CART and although that would alter slightly because the F1 teams would be designing their own cars and not buying proprietery chassis there would be differences between the cars, but all the 'black' arts currently used in F1 would be banished meaning the cars would be much closer. Plus the driver would be having a direct input on the control of his car, so electronics wouldn't override the drivers physical actions as they blatantly do now.
The chances of it ever happening are practically zero unfortunately - far too much in the way of vested interest.

[Marshal]

Originally posted by tazzoid
Yeah, I like those ideas too, but I just want to know what kind of rules you had in mind, Marshal?

As I mentioned in the earlier post, one of my favourite ideas is limiting the energy available for the engine (Number of Joules/Sec). I'd hope that this would promote the most efficient use of energy by the engines, but could also promote the indroduction of different engine types (turbo's, non-turbo's, gas turbines etc.

It would be so hard to set limits for how far the teams could go. Somebody would always have a problem, no doubt about that, and the other teams would all use the same ideas anyway.

Yeah! Rules always get pushed to the limit which is why simple rules are best, as its easier to see when they are broken!

And how would the rules be able to level out the driver input at the same time?

My ideal would be more engineering freedom on the car (shape and size, engine etc) whilst ensuring that all input from the driver must be directly translated into a response from the vehicle, and nothing else can alter vehicle behaviour without driver input. ie You wouldn't be allowed to have the engine management system automatically blip the throttle on downchange liek they currently do, for example.

What do you reckon the chances are of it ever happening?

None whatsoever!

And at the risk of sounding like an idiot: who is Gordon Murray?

He designed Brabham's through the '70's up to the mid '80's. He then went to McLaren but became fed up with the tight controls placed upon modern F1, so he went off and worked for McLaren cars and designed the F1 roadcar. He's a definite free thinker, with a very deep love and understanding of Racing and Engineering.

[tazzoid]

Oops! Ok, not only did I sound like a complete idiot, I feel like one too. But I honestly didn't know who he was. Thanks!!

The way you guys put it, it sounds like such a simple and effective solution, and basically all that appears to be the problem is money. But if, as you say, the racing would be closer etc, wouldn't it attract more spectators? And wouldn't there be other manufacturers, sponsors, etc interested? It sounds ideal...?

I have to go think about this before my head xplodes. Thanx!