Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Technology

The Technology Behind Formula One 586

axlrosen writes "An article in the NY Times about the technology behind Formula One. The wealthiest teams arm themselves with powerful advantages, almost entirely centering on computing controls in the cars and computer simulation in design. Car data is sent in multi-megabyte wireless bursts each time the team's cars flash past the pits, often in excess of 200 miles an hour. It is simultaneously sent over the Internet to a larger data center in Maranello, Italy, where more complex analysis is done. AMD is expected to supply a supercomputer roughly as fast as the world's 10th most powerful machine to the Swiss-based Sauber Petronas racing team... I love the crazy steering wheel - anyone know what all those buttons and knobs do?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Technology Behind Formula One

Comments Filter:
  • by ackthpt ( 218170 ) * on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:38PM (#9454199) Homepage Journal
    I'm a cycling fan and you would be correct to assume I'm on the edge of my seat regarding the upcoming 2004 Tour de France [slashdot.org]. For the past few years cyclists have been getting better connected to the team directors with radios and able to feed performance information via radio back to the team car where a trainer or doctor monitors heartrate and who knows what else. Some in the sports media and among fans of the sport gripe that this is taking away the exciting guesswork of the sport and turning riders into little more than robots. e.g. How does the peloton know how much speed to pick up to sweep up a break away with a 12 minute lead, 10 km from the finish line? Knowledge, feedback and monitoring the opposition. Sometimes they still get it wrong and a break succeeds, but not often these days.

    Having bought one of the top flight cycling computers, which came with software far more sophisticated than I need. I could go totally overboard on my power to mass, VO2 Max, heartrate training, etc. For what? To beat guys on my weekend rides? If I were a Pro I would need to have not just a coach, now, but a team behind me to monitor my fitness, nutrition, energy levels, and a slew of other data, where once I'd pretty much only need a coach. The bar is being raised and without money or sponsorship where does this leave the talented natural who can't meet the bar?

    There's considerable complaining about how uneven F1 is, with Ferrari's huge budget. It's hitting all sports. Spend to win and use money and technology to remove so much doubt the mystery of the game is ultimately solved.

    It was good to watch the Pistons dismantle the Lakers, but how less often are we to see upsets anymore?

  • by Ubergrendle ( 531719 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:39PM (#9454214) Journal
    ...to help a team beat Michael Schumacher. The guy is ridiculously good, and he's paired with a great car. F1 basically is a contest to see who will finish 2nd.

    Tiger Woods in golf, Wayne Gretzky in hockey, Michael Jordan in basketball -- all three of these guys dominated their respective sports at one time or another. But I don't think anyone has ever dominated a sport as much as Schumacher has in the past few years. Its getting so bad that F1 is actively NOT promoting Schumacher, as people are losing interest...
  • Super Speedway... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Cyclopedian ( 163375 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:40PM (#9454235) Journal
    If you've watched the IMAX film "Super Speedway", you'll see how they build a CART racer from scratch. It doesn't focus a lot on applied computer technology in this field, but it's still informative.

    Such as this tidbit: modern brakes on CART (and F1) racers can bring the vehicle to a total stop from 200mph in 1.6 seconds. Imagine the g-forces.

    -Cyc
  • Jamming! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by itwerx ( 165526 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:41PM (#9454240) Homepage
    Wonder how long it takes before they start either jamming each other's transmissions or playing man-in-the-middle and injecting false data...?
  • by DaedalusLogic ( 449896 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:42PM (#9454252)
    New regulations are being ushered through to eliminate a lot of the computerized systems in F1 cars. No more fancy traction control, the engines are going to be smaller, and there might even be an honest manual gearbox in future seasons. I doubt this will effect the telemetry advances, you still need all that data. What it will do is eliminate the edge Ferrari and BMW Williams have over everyone...

    Go out and look for articles on the changes. I read a great piece in Autoweek a month or two ago.
  • by CompWerks ( 684874 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:44PM (#9454270)
    I always wondered where the hell all of these F1 teams get so much cash. I know there tons of corporate sponsors, but I'd love to see the ROI of a 2x2 vodafone sticker on the front of a F1 car traveling @ 200 mph.

  • by asoap ( 740625 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:45PM (#9454290)
    Dynamic Suspension (the suspension changing automatically via electronics) and also changing settings of the car automatically from the pits has been outlawed in f1. So when you see the driver pressing buttons he can be doing stuff like changing fuel maps, suspension damping, viewing differnt informatio. They also have a 'turbo' button. Which has nothing do with a turbocharger. But it works like this. If you are at the last few laps of a race, and you want to catch the guy ahead of you, you press this button which lets you raise the rpms of the motor another 500 rpms, which gives you a little extra boost. But you also sacrifice the health of the motor.

    Years ago, when a driver crashed, you would see him get out and throw his steering wheel against something. That doesn't happen any more because those steering wheels cost $50,000.

    -asoap

  • by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:47PM (#9454313) Homepage Journal
    I'll take the liberty to recommend the 3D IMAX Nascar [imax.com] movie for likeminded 3D/slashdot buffs.

    That movie's the next best thing to experiencing the joys of 250mph+ car racing, and an absolute must if you're into car racing games (TD, NFS, etc). I also learnt a couple of neat facts like driving in quick succession (about 5ft apart) helps the successive cars to avoid drag, and the air flow from the following car helps push the leading car along.

    Anyway, enough ranting...here's hoping for a 3-D car racing game for the PC.

  • by fiannaFailMan ( 702447 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:47PM (#9454316) Journal
    the price of all this equipment is always coming down. I remember when my mates and I were all using toeclips and we had to look on jealously at the pros using Look pedals, nowadays everybody has the Looks. It wasn't so long ago that a wrist/handlebar mounted heart monitor with a radio telemetry strap was out of range of mere mortals, now you can pick them up for less than $70 and with a boatload of functions.
  • F1 Technical (Score:5, Interesting)

    by richj ( 85270 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:48PM (#9454334)
    This is a great site for a lot of the technical aspects of F1.

    http://www.f1technical.net/

    I found it funny that the NYT waited until the Ferrari was in Canada so they could shoot pictures of it without the Marlboro ads the car typically has painted on while racing outside North America. :)
  • What the buttons do (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jdehnert ( 84375 ) * <jdehnert@@@dehnert...com> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @01:48PM (#9454340) Homepage
    The buttons control all sorts of aspects of the car. Brake bias, sway bar settings, fuel mixture and horsepower, pit speed rev limiter, etc.

    Now the really AMAZING part is that if you watch the races, you can usually see Schumacher fiddling with these settings during a race and often in a turn or at well over 100 MPH.

    I race myself in an open wheel car, and I do OK, but my concentration is usually at close to 100% all of the time, so seeing Schumi adjusting things in a turn just blows me away every time.
  • by gosand ( 234100 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:03PM (#9454580)
    When I switch on Speedvision at my friend's house to watch Formula One, what amazes me most about these cars is not just their speed but their ability to turn left (of course) but also to the right. As a NASCAR fan, this "bidirectional steering" thing the Europeans are doing is truly amazing. Maybe someday it will come to the states.

    You mean like the US Grand Prix [formula1.com]? (I know you were joking)

    I have been to the Indy 500, and the US Grand Prix. I can tell you that to me, F1 is much more impressive than Indy cars. Thankfully, I have never been to a NAASCOOORRR race, but there were plenty of ignorant rednecks at the Indy 500 for my tastes. What is most impressive to me about F1 is their handling. Holy Crap! When I went, it was raining part of the time, and they were still going insanely fast through the corners. When it dried out, they were even faster. Unbelievable. The downforce on those cars, and the suspension/tires is amazing. Not to mention the braking ability. The sheer speed is nothing sto sneeze at either. Hell, their *average* speeds are impressive.

    I have heard NAASCOOOORRR fans say that F1 is too much technology and not enough driving, but F1 has the best of the best when it comes to sheer driving ability. Then there are those absolute FREAKS who do rally. Those guys are nuts.

  • by javcrapa ( 594448 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:03PM (#9454581) Homepage
    Actually f1 racing requires far more skilled pilots than nascar, on nascar you get to see rookies, on f1 piltos have a BIG resume. I hate nascar becasue cable tv s plagued with it and I (and most people outside us) find it terribly boring, but since "gringos" like the sport its on tv
  • by phorm ( 591458 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:13PM (#9454712) Journal
    Participants have too much vested interest in the race to ruin it playing with things like this.

    Spectators, on the other hand, may have bets on the outcome - in which caes foul play is much more profitable per the risk.
  • by kwiqsilver ( 585008 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:17PM (#9454757)
    I was just about to post that...
    What makes champ car really cool is the in-car camera with all the useful info (like accel/brake pressure, rpms, speed, etc) when they show champ car racing on HDNet. It looks like the replay mode in GranTurismo 3, but in HDTV.
  • by GPLDAN ( 732269 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:17PM (#9454759)
    gpl_dan@yahoo.com. I will be in section C, way up high in row HH. Drop me a line if you will be there. Halfway between S/F line and T1. I'm hoping for Renault to do one of those crazy "we don't have launch control - wink wink" starts from row 3. :-)

    A few years ago, F1 used to have two-way telemetry to the car. Computers were adjusting brake-bias settings on the fly on a TURN by TURN basis. Cars were dynamically adjusting settings to optimize for all kinds of things. Really, it was getting silly.

    Eccelstone, the guru who presides over Formula 1 and looks like a cross between an evil elf from LOTR and Andy Warhol, had to make changes. He banned that. before last year's season, he reduced qualifying to a one lap shot instead of your best lap over time, and he created the parke-ferme, a parking garage that cars had to roll into after they pulled off the qualifying lap. Teams were (are) not allowed to touch the cars between the end of qualifying and the race start. At all.

    this created goofy things, such as last week's Canadian race where Schumi qualified back because his brother Ralf (we call him Little Ralfy) and the BMW-Williams just decided to go totally lite on fuel for the purpose of getting the pole. He had to pit 12 laps into the race, but it was part of the strategy. michael went for a 2-lap strategy and won.

    So, now - the rule changes have created a more boring sport. Unless you are some hard charger with brass ones (hello Montoya and Sato) you rarely risk passing for position, except at the start. It's just not worth the risk, wait for the pit strategy to kick in. It also promotes blocking. Rubens blocks for Michael and executes Team ferrari strategy, that's his role in life.

    The technology is shattering the smaller clubs. Arrows is gone, Minardi will probably be gone, Eddie Jordan is constantly broke and needs Ford engines to run. Now the dollars are cutting into teams that are bigger. Jaguar may pull out of F1 if they lose Webber, a promising driver. Honda was thinking of dropping BAR, after they dropped Jordan and leaving altogether, knowing they could not match the spending that Toyota was going to do. Toyota is something like 5x the size and wealth of Honda, something I didn't know until I started wacthing F1.

    Drivers are no longer valued for just driving prowess, but the engineers they can bring WITH them, and their leadership abilities within the organization. Michael Schumacher is part CEO, part engineer, part driver and basically gets what he gets because he is a large reason that Ferrari executed the plan it had. He brought Ross Brawn with him from Bennetton Ford.

    There are the big six in F1 right now - Honda, Toyota, Renault, Mercedes, BMW and Ferrari. Everyone else is an also-ran. Sauber uses 2 year old Ferrari engines, I think this year they upgraded to 1-year old engines. And to emphasize how big of a disadvantage that is - this year at Canada, the times were approaching 3 SECONDS faster than last year. The difference between a 1:12 and a 1:15 per lap is so large, old tech will leave you in the dust.

    In contrast, if you attend Champ Car (formerly CART) it's like going to a damn vintage race. Spec chassis with spec Ford engines, standard turbo, no traction control, no ABS, manual gearboxes. It's like watching F1 in 1989. And IRL is KILLING it, this is almost certainly the last year. Nobody wants to see those tanks doing makeshift street courses. Americans like ovals, and speed speed speed.

    F1 is brilliant, but they know they can't keep going as is. You hear crazy rumors all the time. One is that the V12s will get chucked, and everyone has to go to V8s. The spectacle and sound of a V12 revving at 19k RPM is amazing. THe cars will deafen you from 100 yards away. the carbon fiber chassis and cutting edge brake tech is stunning to see in person. Seeing a car brake from 200mph to 40mph in 200 feet really can't be described until you see it happen.
  • by Kallahar ( 227430 ) <kallahar@quickwired.com> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:20PM (#9454807) Homepage
    If you want to see some truely amazing driving check out WRC. 120mph on a frozen mountain road with a driver who doesn't know the course (the passenger says things like "turn right next" in order to navigate.
  • by feargal ( 99776 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:21PM (#9454817) Homepage
    On the best of days, for the best of teams, the pit-stop is still a hazardous affair. Coming in at high speed, braking at the last second to stop on a dime, pumping huge volumes of fuel, leaving again with maximum acceleration the instant work has finished - it's pretty dangerous. That's why all the mechanics have fire-proof gear, tough boots and so on.

    Every team and driver have had their problems in the pits, I think it's unfair to single out M. Schumacher. Besides, I wouldn't say Benneton were unsafe in the pit-stops - they probably were the best trained.

    If I were the front jack man, and I had to pick a driver to stand in front of, it'd be M. Schumacher. Not because I reckon he'd be the most concerned for my safety though; he'd want to hit his markings just right to minimise the stop time.

    He is of undoubted skill, but his arrogance makes it easy to take shots at him. My main problem is that right now nobody else is as good as him. I wouldn't mind if he won every single race, just as long as he had to fight hard for each victory.
  • by another_mr_lizard ( 608713 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:22PM (#9454822) Homepage
    Do you watch F1?
    Due to the extremely high performance aero on these cars overtaking has been reduced in some races to near zero - the dirty air produced by the cars makes slipstreaming (very important for overtaking). I do appreciate F1 for the technology and engineering that goes into it, but the style of racing has changed so much over the last 10 years that it has lost much of what made it exciting.

    I'm a McLaren fan but couldnt care less about Schuey winning as long as the racing is good to watch. Right now it isnt.
  • Crazy Steering Wheel (Score:2, Interesting)

    by syslog ( 535048 ) <<cc.irab> <ta> <meean>> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:25PM (#9454866)
    The crazy steering wheel in the pics does a ton of stuff. It allows the driver to change tons of parameters of the car - change fueld air mixture, raise, lower the car - change the braking characteristics etc etc - the list goes on and on. F1 cars are absolute marvels of tech. However, the driver has a *lot* to do with winning, regardless of what some might say. Like in the Canadian Grand Prix this last weekend, Michael S. won the race because he was best driver on the track - period. The amount of strategy that goes into each race is mind boggling - fox example when both Michael S and the other Ferrari driver were in the 1-2 spots, Michael intentionally slowed down to conserve his brakes, which had a problem. But he did not let his teammate pass, because he has the greatest chance of carrying Ferrari to victory, and a win for the other driver would make the season more difficult for Ferrari. And the other driver knew this and adjusted his driving to tail Michael, at the same time not letting the #3 & #4 car pass. Pretty exciting stuff if you know what you are watching.

    naeem

  • Re:war driving (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:41PM (#9455061)
    One of the neat tricks teams can use to spy on other cars is monitoring their in car camera feed and sending the audio through a dsp to find out stuff like what valve timings they're using. It works with a mic on the side of the road too, but then you've got to correct for the doppler effect.
  • V8 Formula 1 cars (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gordonjcp ( 186804 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @02:49PM (#9455163) Homepage
    A couple of years ago, there was a programme on TV about F1. Jacque Villeneuve took out a F1 racing car from the mid-1970s, all huge rear tyres, little skinny fronts (looked almost like a dragster), manual gearbox, V8 into open pipes... The look on his face when he came back in! Can't quite remember what he said, but it was along the lines of "This is fantastic, what racing's all about, but you'd never be able to race one today".


    Thing is, F1 is about putting cars out with the absolute hottest technology possible on board. The current regulations ban so many cool things that would give the less spendy teams a bit more of a chance.

  • by HBPiper ( 472715 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @03:00PM (#9455303)
    I have always found that reading about F1 in Road & Track was much more thrilling than actually watching a race. At least for the last 15 years or so. The most fun was watching Nigel Mansell leave F-1 and go to Cart where he trounced everybody. Now that was some racing.......
  • by tgd ( 2822 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @03:09PM (#9455396)
    To be fair, they usually significantly dumb down the track or drive simpler road tracks.

    At Watkins Glen, for example, (my favorite track to drive), they skip the toe of the boot, which is the most complicated part of the track to drive well.

    Not slamming NASCAR, but there's a world of difference in the type of driving they do.

    They're all (F1, NASCAR, etc) pansies compared to the drivers in SCCA ProRally, CARS and WRC, though. I mean, really. They don't even have trees to hit!
  • by kid zeus ( 563146 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @03:23PM (#9455586)
    We shouldn't forget that there was a time that Americans competed fiercely in both this style of racing as well as in the groundbreaking engineering aspect. Nobody typified both traits as much as Jim Hall. After he introduced high wings to devastating effect, they were banned. Then he introduced something else:

    The 2J was as radical as the 2E and 2H had been. Maybe more so. The car looked like a white brick. A very fast white brick. The car carried two motors. A 465 cubic inch Chevy V8 powered the rear wheels and a 274 cc Rockwell snowmobile engine powered a pair of "sucker" fans in the rear bodywork. The fans sucked air out from under the car, creating a vacuum that held the 2J on the track. Sliding Lexan skirts were placed around the bottom edge of the body to seal the "plenum" area under the car. Enough suction could be generated to hold the car upside down on the ceiling of a room! Where a wing generates downforce (good) it also generates drag (bad). The suction device generated downforce with no drag loss.

    Reigning F1 World Driving Champion Jackie Stewart qualified the 2J third at Watkins Glen and drove the race's fastest lap, but his race was cut short by brake problems. The Chaparral team missed the next three races but returned to competition in September at Road Atlanta. They also brought a new driver with them, Vic Elford. Elford drove the 2J in three of the remaining four races. (The team would miss one more race.)

    Elford was fastest qualifier in all three of those races but he only finished one (sixth at Road Atlanta). Something always broke. But the competition felt that, with a year of experience under their belt, the Chaparral team would bury them in 1971. Competitors were always lobbying the SCCA to ban the 2J. At the end of the season it was. The sliding Lexan skirts were said to have violated the "moveable aerodynamic device" ban. With that, Jim Hall closed up shop. An era in international autoracing had come to a close.

    Also, there is another type of racing that approaches the excitement and sheer driving skill of F1, and that would be Rally. The control those guys evince under such conditions is truly mind-boggling. Beyond that, for pure joy of automotive race, it's hard to beat the beauty of GT. The cars, the tracks. Not the same rush as F1, but for a car lover it's heaven.

  • Re:Nascar (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jackmakrl ( 115512 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @03:25PM (#9455607)
    I hate NASCAR. Nothing puts me to sleep faster (except motocross racing). If you want to see some *real* racing watch FIA World Rally. Some of the in car footage is insane.
  • by OrsonKart ( 789169 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @03:45PM (#9455870)
    I used to work for the Benetton F1 team when Schumacher was around. I joined in 94 as their sole software engineer tasked with writing data analysis, strategy and telemetry sw. 94 & 95 were great years - we won around 60% of that year's GP's and the bonus was $$$$ :-) In those days the on-board data loggers contained 4mb(now 128Mb) and the real-time telemetry was a pitiful 9600 baud, which didn't work 100% on every track (e.g. Hockenheim and Monaco). I found Schumacher to be a good egg, fairly quiet, polite and interested in your work. Happy days. wrt the super computer etc, I'd take that with a slight pinch of salt. F1 teams are prone to exagerate slightly. PC's are adequate for most of their tasks excepting cfd and design work which is usually done on unix boxes.
  • by davegust ( 624570 ) <gustafson@ieee.org> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @04:04PM (#9456117)

    Actually that not a fair assessment. CART was first with HANS (head and neck restraints), pit lane speed limits, wheel tethers, monocock crash test requirements. Before the money disappeared, CART had a huge budget for safety R&D. They were the model in the racing industry for proactive safety programs.

    F1 still doesn't have a traveling trauma team or safety team. They rely on local authorities for medical response. If CART had run that way, Alex Zanardi would be dead today.

    F1's biggest advantage in safety is improved track design to prevent the deadly crashes to start with - run off areas, etc. That's great, and Champ cars are catching up by wisely abandoning oval tracks.

  • by Jabes ( 238775 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @04:29PM (#9456434) Homepage
    You might not want to hear this, but when they gotta go - they gotta go.

    An average formula-1 race lasts about 90 minutes (there is a 2 hour maximum for any race). Somewhere hot, say, malaysia, the air temperature is 40 degrees C (104F). Or more.

    Now, imagine you're dressed up in a fire proof coat sat right next to a powerful engine. You're going to get very hot, right?

    They drink lots of water before and throughout the race to prevent dehydration. They can lose 3-4kg throughout the race.

    So it's not unusual for them to have to "go" during a race.

    Watch out for the dark spots when they get out of the cars... used to show up quite a bit on the silver McLaren suits.

    Not quite so glamarous thinking about pissing yourself, is it? You would think with a $400m budget they could sort that out!
  • by davegust ( 624570 ) <gustafson@ieee.org> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @04:29PM (#9456442)

    The Champ car machines are all standardised. They use the same Lola/Reynard chassis and Ford V8 engine. They're more like Formula 3000.

    Until three years ago there was alot of interesting comptetion in CART - engines from Toyota, Honda, Ford, and Mercedes - chassis from Reynard, Lola, and Swift - tires from Firestone and Goodyear - big budgets.

    It was a poor mans Formula 1, with great drivers, some great tracks, and the frightening spectacle of the super speedways. I mean a world record 246MPH qualifying lap! And the horsepower they used to run!

    Unfortunately, the money is gone now, and Champ car is surviving with as a spec type series. It still has some great drivers, great tracks, and a good fan base -- especially in Mexico and Canada. It's still serves as a feeder series to F1 along with F3000. Let's hope Honda and Toyota come to their senses and bring their money back to Champ cars.

    Let's also hope the same thing doesn't happen to F1.

  • Another summary... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Shoten ( 260439 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @04:38PM (#9456535)
    A couple of years ago, Wired [wired.com] had an amazing article [wired.com] about F1 racing, particularly in terms of how it evolved yearly from the technological arms race. A team would develop something astounding, and others might copy it, and by the next year it would be outlawed. Innovation after innovation came and went like this, with few of them being allowed to remain. What I most liked about the article was the picture of a Mercedes-Benz F1 motor mounted to the dyno, looking utterly gorgeous (spotlessly clean, I should add) with its huge shiny exhaust pipes glowing cherry red. :)
  • by 16K Ram Pack ( 690082 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (dnomla.mit)> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @04:58PM (#9456737) Homepage
    Is the Indy racing stuff to do with Americans liking to see Americans win?

    Looking at the sports Americans like, it's quite localised - American Football, Baseball, Ice Hockey. Basically, hardly anyone else plays them.

    They've picked up Football (the proper one) only as a ladies game (where there's little competition). I wonder how long interest will be held if someone gets a better ladies team out there.

  • by TomServo ( 79922 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @05:02PM (#9456783)
    They sorta do this in F1, but really only the RPM. I don't believe the F1 teams are willing to share telemetry data like that, so they actually base the RPM on the in-car shot on the tone of the engine being picked up by the ambient microphones on the cars. It's reportedly "very accurate", but it's not a true reading of the car's actual RPM.

    This is, all based on things heard from the commentary on Speed Channel here in the states, but I have no reason to doubt it.
  • by GTRacer ( 234395 ) <gtracer308@nOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Thursday June 17, 2004 @05:13PM (#9456890) Homepage Journal
    My understanding of the SpeedChannel commentary went like this:

    Renault figures out, based on track conditions, fuel load, air temp, etc. what the ideal clutch pressure/engagement speed is for a wheelspin-free launch and set that into the computer. Red lights go off, Alonso pulls the upshift paddle (or releases the brake - not sure which) and the computer grabs first with a hopefully-optimal clutch drop.

    If the number-crunching goes wrong the start is less-than-perfect. But in any event, they aren't using proper TC, just a really slick first-gear engagement!

    GTRacer
    - Enjoying the 2004 Schumacher Victory Tour (Monaco cancelled due to inclement conditions)

  • by mangu ( 126918 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @05:23PM (#9456976)
    Additionally Formula 1 pushes the envelope in Saftey


    Not really. The last driver to die was Ayrton Senna, 10 years ago, in a freak accident. A suspension rod went straight through his helmet faceplate. How unlucky can you get? Formula 1 cars only crash after going through a gravel pit, and then they hit tyre barriers. In CART, IRL, or NASCAR they hit the wall without any speed reduction. It's only because the angle is usually shallow that drivers survive crashes in those races.

  • Re: Damaging, my ass (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Coyote ( 9900 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @07:50PM (#9458266)
    My God, man. You're watching history being made. Enjoy it.

    If incredibly dominant teams damaged the sport, it would have already been terminally ill after the McLaren/Proust/Senna years when other teams were lucky to finish on the same lap with the leaders.
  • by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @07:57PM (#9458322) Journal
    Chek out last weeks Autoweek magazine http://www.autoweek.com McLaren just opened a new shop. $900 million worth. I wouldn't be suprised at a supercomputer. Just wish theyd had some inside shots.
  • by karit ( 681682 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @08:30PM (#9458549) Homepage Journal
    Renault had it on their site live at Monaco. I wacthed it during the race, but it got Slashdotted and haven't seen it on their site since.
  • by js290 ( 697670 ) on Thursday June 17, 2004 @10:22PM (#9459202)
    CFD and vehicle dynamics modelling would require some real computing power. I think HP supplies Linux clusters to Williams. A microcontroller with a 128MB compact flash card could probably log all the data they need from a race. Plus, collecting data is pretty easy. The real trick is making sense of the data.
  • by OrsonKart ( 789169 ) on Friday June 18, 2004 @04:39AM (#9460991)
    IIRC The main CFD processing used to be done at night when all the designers had gone home. They used to distribute the processing over ~30 unix workstations. We also used to have HP kit like Williams and Jordan.

    Vehicle dynamics modelling was performed on PC's.

    >>A microcontroller with a 128MB compact flash card could probably log all the data they need from a race

    Maybe back in the 1980's. Today's loggers are doing a large amount of processing. They have around 200 different sensors on the cars, some logged at 10Hz (pressures, temperatures) some at 200, 300, 500 or 1000Hz. At these rates 128Mb is not enough for a race, so the number of channels and their frequency are cut back. This is not so important now that most teams have microwave telemetry.

    IIRC the memory was not compact flash, it wasn't fast enough.

    >>The real trick is making sense of the data.

    No shit :-) In Addition, another trick was making sense of the data in a timely manner, which was my main objective. Just think about qualifying:

    1. The car comes in.
    2. You download the data from the car (twas by fibre)
    3. The race engineer talk to the driver: "The car is rubbish"
    4. The race engineer examine the data
    5. The race engineer issues instructions to the mechanics
    6. Mechanics make changes to the car
    7. The driver goes out
    8. Repeat 4 times during the (old) qualifying hour

"More software projects have gone awry for lack of calendar time than for all other causes combined." -- Fred Brooks, Jr., _The Mythical Man Month_

Working...