> Honda's deployment algorithm is calculated through major throttle input, with it basing its calculations of which corner it is at by major throttle inputs.
Presumably large changes in throttle input (such as lifting off considerably as the mapping expected Alonso to do through the Pouhon corner) - as opposed to small variations in input which the driver would use to keep the car stable and under traction.
Any ideas if there's some regulation stopping more accurate methods of figuring out where they are on the track than through such a strange system? It would not be my go-to method of navigating a track.
What would be better? GPS is inaccurate and probably has issues with the speed they are going, they'd have to some estimate of actual position based on average velocity. I think they want to know the instant they are out of turn.
Sensor in the vehicle is way more responsive and reliable than anything remote (EM emission based).
I get that, but even mid-2000s consumer cars have position sensors on the steering wheel and very accurate rotation sensors on each individual wheel (mainly for stability control), I'm sure some combination of this would allow them to build a fairly accurate dead reckoning system... Definitely better than stomp based navigation I'd hope
Use an RFID system similar to how EZPass works. Or they can use a lGPS system that supplements GPS data for increased accuracy and decreased latency. Or they can factor in odometer data into the algorithm. Those are just three ideas off the top of my head. There are certainly technical challenges with all of this stuff, but they are driving some of the most technically sophisticated machines on the planet.
I was thinking that accelerometers would make sense for counting curves. Then again, maybe they wanted to detect the transition from corner entry to corner exit, and apply the funky extra motors precisely there.
They probably have hundreds of sensors, the FIA certainly has a lot of information that they use when assessing incidents, but this was enough to throw the entire algorithm of multiple sensors off.
My understanding is that GPS is outlawed for safety reasons. I don't understand why other parameters couldn't also be used though - hence why this failure is so baffling.
Further Discussion can be found at /r/Formula1 [1]
I think the method is accurate, but Alonso did not repeat the previous pattern. Sounds strange, because everything is tested beforehand. Alonso had to do something completely different in that turn because he found a new way to reach the limits of the track with the car. How? That's the strange thing.
Ok, you are right. In an environment where everything is measured and controlled like F1 a driver still can cross the limits. That's what is really weird about Alonso.
It boils down to what is I think it's one of McLaren's major roadblocks right now - lack of integration with the engine supplier.
Alonso (or others in the team) had likely run Pouhon flat in a simulator. He, and his engineers, knew it was within the realm of possibility for the car. But, to what level of detail do McLaren's simulations model the energy system? Do they run real ECU code/parameters? Probably not.
Driver aids are banned in F1 to maximise the importance of driver skill. There are no anti-lock brakes or traction control. To maintain the integrity of this rule, F1 car electronics are heavily regulated.
The ECU is a sealed unit made by a single supplier. It has a finite number of sensor inputs and can only use relatively simple algorithms to control the power output. Mechanics can pre-program throttle curves for a particular track, drivers can tweak the throttle mapping mid-lap using their steering wheel controls, but the ECU can't do anything that could be regarded as "intelligent".
They have incredibly accurate position data (GPS + radio beacons, etc) but that can't be used to control the engine map.
The engine map has a finite number of allowed inputs and a bunch of restrictions they must adhere to. For example it must be monotonic so that more throttle pedal input means more torque to the wheels.
The engine map can not do anything based on track position, but the drivers regularly change engine maps while on track, especially in qualifying.
Wager a guess that they can tell what corner you are on because generally they stomp the throttle coming out of turns. This ended up not working as intended.
For the uninformed, Formula 1 has been running on supercharged 1600 cc V6 engines since 2014, with 100 kg of gasoline for the whole GP (300 km), 105 kg this year if I remember correctly (because of larger and heavier tires.) That wouldn't give enough power so there are energy recovery systems from the exhaust and brakes. They get close to 1000 HP when all those power system deploy all the power they can generate.
The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power so it's critical that the car knows when to recover energy (either when braking or when coasting) and when to go full throttle or deploy partial power, and which percentage. That's where Honda has failed.
> The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power
Is there a reason for that? I always assumed (as someone who doesn't know much about racing) that the inside of F1 cars would resemble a jet-fighter cockpit. They're not required to be stock cars, so why not optimize on HCI efficiency as well as on everything else the sport is about?
That comment was incorrect. If you look at an F1 steering wheel, there are tons of buttons, switches, and knobs for adjusting engine and energy recover settings.
Exactly - they can change throttle map between a "start" mode (less intense application of power to ensure a smooth getaway without wheelspin) and race mode.
They've also got a heap of controls over things like the Diff, DRS (where the rear wing opens up to reduce drag on straights when they're lining up an overtake), and most crucially, engine mode - which tweaks fuel injection rate.
Some form of controls could be denied by technical or sporting regulations. I didn't read them in the last years. They are at http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110
Regulations are interesting and not too hard to follow.
I believe at some point they were afraid everything will get autopilpted in. That also increases the risk to the drivers lifes. So they decided to cut it out early.
Although it was primarily brake-bias, watch some onboards of Michael Schumacher from his prime, adjusting car parameters on the steering wheel at almost every point - there are a lot of different settings each driver can make inside that affect it.
In 97/98 McLaren added the fiddle brake which was quickly outlawed. The fiddle brake was a two brake pedal system so the left side and right side of the car could be controlled separately. This allowed for better braking entering into a corner and a slight traction advantage on exiting. I always thought it was fair play since it completely depended on the driver and should never have been banned.
I wonder if this couldn't be emulated somehow via e.g one pedal and steering angle and/or rear diff measurements to put more braking power to the inner wheel?
Then of course, it might be banned as a braking aid similar to ABS. Using any kind of feedback loop for braking effectively makes it a stability system
which I assume is not allowed?
I'm still surprised that "the computer knows where on the track you are, and alters the behavior of the car" is allowed. This is the sport which outlaws ABS because the driver is supposed to do the work, not the car.
It sounds as if the computer knows because of throttle though, which is rudimentary, and likely purposefully rudimentary to steer around rules about GPS/track mapping?
in 2014 vettel fell off a bit and Christian Horner said it was due to a loss of brake feeling with the new formula. Now most of the tricks are completely secret and it's all about tricks to comply with the regulations but circumvent them and racing drivers have a lot of excuses that aren't to be believed but I could sort of see this.
If you want to have more natural braking in some corners and recover less energy and then maybe deploy the energy at more optimal places on the track then this sort of thing makes a little sense, especially if you can make it work. I would think it highly prone to being confused though. It would be interesting to see some data on the differences between this type of algorithm when it works and the Prius algorithm.
So engineers and Alonso had to agree beforehand on motor maps and different steering wheel parameters. It's not clear if it's a problem in the software or an issue in the parametrization of the car for that qualy lap.
The sport aims to be an R&D center for road going technology. So the cars are pretty much hybrids with electric power increasing and the reliance on the petrol motors decreasing.
I guess there's two reasons - the first is when they started this process it was before we had full electric vehicles and it wasn't clear what the best technology would be, at the time hybrid vehicles were very popular.
The second is that F1 has been carbon neutral for at least two decades with the FIA planting trees to offset the extraordinary amount of pollution that flying the F1 circus around the world generates. Even though reducing fuel does nothing to make F1 greener when you take into account the carbon generated by transportation it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.
You're right. Didn't read your comment thoroughly. I guess I don't understand the general sentiment of why it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.
To me it just underscores the disparity between the feel-good green energy and the actual carbon footprint people generate. For example, it's a lot more "green" to not own a car than to own a Tesla.
I wish they kept racing a purely fun driver-focused endeavor and got rid of most of the electronics and hybrid tech.
And for those who love the tech maybe have a separate competition of self-driving electric vehicles.
Because it's good advertising and greentech is big business. Companies also want to be seen as being progressive and at the forefront of trends.
Also, petrolheads aren't the most environmentally conscious so F1 is being a good citizen of the world by promoting green tech. Even if it's very much do as I say not as I do.
One is simply that the engine manufacturers want efficiency to be a relevant factor, because it aids in their R&D and marketing efforts. With a fuel limit in place, F1 becomes a showcase for both performance and efficiency.
Another vital reason is to limit speed and cost. Back in the 1980s, F1 was in the midst of a turbocharger-driven arms race. Manufacturers were adding more and more boost, which had a severe impact on both costs and safety. The high levels of boost severely stressed the engines, so teams were replacing the entire engine after a single race. Many teams were using "qualifying special" engines that were built with a lifespan of just five laps. The extra power was creating dangerously high speeds and the effects of turbo lag made the power delivery of these engines very erratic and difficult to control.
Many other racing formulas use a restrictor plate - a metal flange with a hole of a specified diameter that restricts the air intake of the engine, creating a hard limit on maximum power.
The hybrid versions do not outpeform what a petrol version could be, if it wasn't strictly restricted to a specified maximum engine volume and pressure.
Once upon a time, F1 used to be a "anything goes" series where the best in the world competed to build the fastest racing cars in the world. This stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.
Since then, the racing series has piled on rules and restrictions meant to limit what the cars can do. Since the gasoline engine is hard capped, and they allowed adding an electric engine on top of that, you now need to use one to compete.
stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.
That's true of almost all auto racing today. Powerplants can deliver more power than anyone can use. Now it's all about keeping the wheels on the ground.
You've just brushed upon one of the biggest debates in modern motorsport. If you are interested in reading further there's many great opinion pieces on both sides of the fence. Here's one interesting piece written recently by ex-F1 driver Stefan Johansson [1].
I've been watching MotoGP recently instead of F1 for some of those reasons. Much more enjoyable, dangerous and unpredictable. And you don't go around an oval unlike indycar.
It's attractive to the manufacturers. F1 is stupendously expensive, so manufacturers want to get maximum bang for their buck in terms of marketing. Trickle-down technology is a major marketing hook, particularly for McLaren and Ferrari. Both companies introduced KERS- and DRS-inspired systems on their road cars when they were added to the F1 rules.
This is much clearer in other racing formulae, where the cars being raced may be modified versions of commercially-available road cars. Audi, Subaru and Mitsubishi built their reputation for performance almost entirely off the back of the World Rally Championship.
F1 is the pinnacle of motorsports, it's the most expensive racing series out there and one of the most advanced. Every team builds designs and builds their own cars and has new models for every season and then throughout the season they work hard and spend untold millions and man hours improving the cars.
A lot of the fan base is really engaged in the technology race while others are engaged in the personalities, that is what makes the sport so popular as it has a lot of entertainment to offer outside of what actually happens on the track.
Some people love the crashes, others love the personalities.
Me? I love the racing, the personalities, but most of all I love all the technical developments on the cars. These are fragile prototype cars with state-of-the-art engines (approaching 50% efficiency, which is insane) - new car launch time in F1 just before winter testing is one of my favourites!
There are a number of reasons, but limiting the amount of fuel provides a certain amount of safety in a crash. It also prevents an arms race for ever increasing horsepower amongst builders. You can't just increase power delivery forever if you don't have the fuel to finish the race.
Technically the article is correct, turbocharging is a form of supercharging.
Supercharger is an overloaded word, it refers both to the principle of forced induction as well as a particular mechanical method of achieving that. Oddly this isn't just a problems with English, German has the same overloading of 'kompressor'.
Turbocharging was originally called turbosupercharging when developed by GE.
Correction: they're turbocharged not supercharged. For those that don't know the difference, a turbocharger is two turbines connected to eachother. One, powered by exhaust gases, spins the other, which forces air into the combustion chamber (the pressure applied is typically called "boost"). More air means more fuel can be injected while maintaining stoichiometric equilibrium. More fuel combusted means more power is produced, given equal waste due to friction etc.
A supercharger is very similar, but conceptually more simple. The turbine creating boost is instead connected mechanically to the engine's crankshaft, being driven directly by the engine.
To be fair, the turbochargers in contemporary F1 cars are not powered only by exhaust gases. To get rid of the infamous turbo lag, they are electrically assisted. Still not a super charger of course, but the "assisted" part makes them a bit more similar.
The poor mans equivalent of this is hooking up a decent computer fan to the battery on a scooter. Force feeding the intake on the poor little thing certainly felt like it doubled the power, but double almost nothing still isn't much. Turboing the lawn mower works great too, but I'm less sure you would want that done.
That is not supercharging. A computer fan is not designed for compressing air, and it's nowhere near powerful enough to do so. There may be a small increase in performance, but that is just because you overcome the restrictions (increasing airflow) in the inlet manifold
The so called 'electric superchargers' which you can buy on ebay have been mythbusted many times [0]
I think I rememeber seeing someone hooking up a highly modified leaf blower to the intake of a car and getting like a dozen more HP. This was a part of a bunch of experiments with the electrics turbos, and the the leaf blower was the only thing that worked?
Yup, it takes not only high pressure, but a high volume of air. Add to that the need to squeeze more air through existing small ducting, and you need quite a bit to make a difference. Turbos work by their intake being powered in close relation to their exhaust volume. The rest is just effeciency curves and fueling issues.
To be super pedantic a turbocharger is technically a subset of superchargers (something that "supers" the charge) having turbunes (for the work needed to compress/accelerate the air)
I recently saw a comment on HN linking to a company that creates very neat animations of how various things work [1] and they happen to have done one on turbo vs superchargers [2] -- it's a pretty good way to see it.
I was under the impression that the MGU was manually controlled by the driver via controls on the cockpit. Also I don't know if that 1000HP figure is correct. AFAIK teams don't disclose power ratings to the public.
It might sound like bad fuel efficiency but the engine efficiencies they have managed to achieve are insane.
The latest Mercedes and Ferrari engines are able to gain 47% efficiency [1]. Compare that to the road cars which are able to do 25-30% thermal efficiency and Prius which can manage 40%.
In my opinion, the fuel efficiency suffers because it's a sport at the end of the day and burning more fuel at a higher rate (limited to 100 kg/hour) gives you more power.
No it's not, but keep in mind that the cars accelerate at an average of around 1.45g.
If it weren't for the inability to transfer all of the power to motion (due to traction loss), they could accelerate from 0 to 100 kph (62 mph) in around 1 second.
With the down force provided with increased speed, they actually accelerate faster from 100 to 200 kph (62 to 122 mph) than from 0 to 100 [1]:
0 to 100 km/h (62 mph): 2.4 seconds
0 to 200 km/h (124 mph): 4.4 seconds
0 to 300 km/h (186 mph): 8.4 seconds
Well they're in par with fuel consumption of supercars. For example, a Lamborghini Aventador has 10 MPG, an Aston Martin V12 Vantage has 12 MPG, a Bentley Continental has 13, a Ferrari 488 GTB has 15,a McLaren 570GT has 16, a Mercedes AMG GT also has 16 as does a Nissan GT-R, and only Porsches get a tad above 20. Considering that none of the above could hold a candle to an F1 car, its fuel consumption doesn't sound too exotic.
Consider also that the above stats are (I assume) based on NEDC, a driving cycle so scared of acceleration even a Lada Niva [1] has to be gentle with the throttle.
Exactly. Take any car and race it flat out for two hours; see how much fuel you burn. Especially with a turbocharged car, it's possible to have pretty decent fuel economy in regular driving, while still going through a ton when you're really pushing it (and getting the power to match).
Very much this. In fact I would suspect the extreme opposite is performed, by anorexic hyper miling people looking at the wind directions for any possible advantage - the brake pedal never to be touched.
I took my old (APR ECUd, rear sway bars, otherwise stock) turbo charged Polo GTI on the Winston racetrack once (V8 trucks practice day) to work on my driving skills, and it was surprising - but not at all unreasonable - to see the remaining fuel in KMs estimate perform a complete nosedive.
The fuel efficiency numbers of the F1s are truly awesome.
And these cars have quite a lot of drag to give them downforce. The truly amazing cars have "efficient" downforce, which is where for a given level they've managed it with lower drag than the competition.
Some examples of low-drag downforce are if they can force vortices along the sides of the floor from elements on the front wing, which gives them similar benefits to the ground-effect skirts that Lotus and Williams used to great effect at the tail end of the 70s.
What's amazing is when you see an F1 car in humid conditions, because you can make out the vortices from the rear wing.
It's also impressive to see them in the rain, because the spray coming off the back of the car [0] shows you exactly how much air the cars are moving to get the downforce they have.
Interestingly Ferrari missed the opportunity to pass Mercedes at a restart after a safety car late in the race [1] because software cut off one electrical motor close to the end of the main straight [2]. That was a common choice to preserve energy for other parts of the track. Still Mercedes has a button on the steering wheel to override the software and keep delivering power from all engines. That might have won the race for them.
The reliance on "major throttle" to determine track position seems strange, especially when you consider unknown variables are possible.
For example, if a marshall flags a yellow, you might pull off the throttle at an unexpected location.
Same as when racing - if another car breaks (for whatever reason, including crashing) - your "inputs" are going to be very different, so this could easily trick the computer into thinking it is not in the right position?
Ages ago, they had GPS/INS systems and active suspension that would pick the car's tires up over known bumps in the road. They also had a few spectacular accidents possibly related to misbehaving tech of that sort and it also represented a disproportionate chance to spend money in an arms race, so F1 banned much of that. I don't see them likely going back on it.
My suggestion would be to place the car by distance travelled since last leaving the home straight. Use steering + throttle inputs to determine when you are on the home straight, make a best guess at where the start/finish line is, then guess where you are based on distance travelled since last passing it.
The electronic systems in an F1 car are heavily regulated, because teams were using ECU tricks to sneakily add traction control. The teams have no choice but to use the limited number of inputs available, because the ECU is a sealed box.
I'm really amazed I had to scroll down this far (past the pedantic supercharger/turbocharger nomenclature arguments) to get to someone making this point.
OT Some years back I was given a tour around the McLaren workshop. The work that goes into those machines is impressive to say the least.
I knew a guy on the electrical testing team and he said that they had just spent the better part of 2 weeks tracking down a single misfire from a race. Turned out two tracks on a PCB were slightly too close together.
The amount of sensors they have on the cars is insane. Each race they basically set up a data center in the paddock. Then that is remote linked to the teams HQ DC over MPLS links.
I have no idea actually. The kit they had was amazing though. My favourite was the machine for testing their radio link. It was a long room full of baffles and at one end they put the receiver. At the other end was a large machine that spent all day shaking the life out of the transmitter.
In the electrical testing room they had a few car simulators that effectively had the whole car in (they were about 5 ft tall from memory, large boxes). The could start them up and run the entire system physically.
Seems almost comical when you analyse it like this. But in all seriousness, this should have been a major consideration when designing the software systems for the 2017 regulation cars.
The new design with wider tyres and improved downforce means that drivers can now take previously 'brass ball' Spa corners like Eau Rouge and Pouhon with the pedal to the floor, compared to the old days. That very fact should have been allowed for in the AI algorithms.
You'll have to excuse me, I just woke up here on the other side of the world and watched HAM's pole setting lap last night at Spa, and man, these cars take all those tricky corners at Spa very fast! [0] (For reference, Eau Rouge is at 0:22, and Pouhon is at 1:01)
Perhaps I’m way off (I haven’t had a lot of experience with machine learning), but mapping this sort of thing seems like something a neural network could learn to do extremely well. There may be hardware limitations or reasons to why this can’t be done, but in general optimising an engine’s performance looks like a problem with very measureable inputs and outputs, which would seem to lend well to a machine learning problem.
From a naive perspective, if engine manufacturers aren’t already investigating machine learning to optimise performance, it seems like something worth doing.
The most important thing about machine learning is you don't use machine learning unless you have to. The problem here is not with the ecu maps themselves, but that their hand coded program that determines where the car is on the track had a bug.
Both my wife and I are F1 fans and make a point to watch the races together (which is cool!). While McLaren has no hope of winning watching them fail over and over this and last year due to Honda is heartbreaking.
The quality and design of each teams car matters a ton for winning. The drives of course are a huge part of it, however I strongly believe that you put Max Verstappen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Verstappen) in the same Mercedes that Lewis Hamilton is driving he would be likely to win.
For those that do not know there are 2 titles here - the drivers title and the team title. The team title is the "Constructors Championship" i.e., they built the car.
This isn't really an 'of course' - while I believe you're right in this instance, teammates having unequal machinery is very common (for example, the driver who brings the money being prioritised for upgrades).
If you count today's race, his car stopped working 6 out of 12 races this year [1] -- through no (obvious) fault of his own. They were mostly engine-related failures.
"Top paid human driver unaware of car limitations."
I don't follow motorsport but it seems like the car in the article is highly calibrated for each race in order to provide optimal performance through-out every section of the track. The driver then deviated from the agreed upon, and successfully tested, driving pattern and the engineering team got the blame.
I mean sure... The car could behave differently - but these are the risks when you test in production.
I would imagine they tuned the map from simulator runs, McLaren are well known for having one of the best simulators in F1 for human in the loop, and computer in the loop, testing.
It could be that the parameters were slightly off for downforce and grip with their low-downforce Spa and Monza package and Alonso (and the computer) couldn't take Pouhon flat.
That lap in particular was a coordinated team effort where Alonso's car was "launched" by his team mate drag effect in the first part of the circuit.
I would expect that the whole team was aware of the strategy and it was validated and given the go ahead before hand
136 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 180 ms ] threadWhat does "major throttle" mean?
Sensor in the vehicle is way more responsive and reliable than anything remote (EM emission based).
Further Discussion can be found at /r/Formula1 [1]
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/6w6vp5/
Alonso (or others in the team) had likely run Pouhon flat in a simulator. He, and his engineers, knew it was within the realm of possibility for the car. But, to what level of detail do McLaren's simulations model the energy system? Do they run real ECU code/parameters? Probably not.
The ECU is a sealed unit made by a single supplier. It has a finite number of sensor inputs and can only use relatively simple algorithms to control the power output. Mechanics can pre-program throttle curves for a particular track, drivers can tweak the throttle mapping mid-lap using their steering wheel controls, but the ECU can't do anything that could be regarded as "intelligent".
The engine map has a finite number of allowed inputs and a bunch of restrictions they must adhere to. For example it must be monotonic so that more throttle pedal input means more torque to the wheels.
The engine map can not do anything based on track position, but the drivers regularly change engine maps while on track, especially in qualifying.
Alonso's balls 1 - Honda algorithms 0
The driver has still only the accelerator and the brakes pedals to control power so it's critical that the car knows when to recover energy (either when braking or when coasting) and when to go full throttle or deploy partial power, and which percentage. That's where Honda has failed.
Is there a reason for that? I always assumed (as someone who doesn't know much about racing) that the inside of F1 cars would resemble a jet-fighter cockpit. They're not required to be stock cars, so why not optimize on HCI efficiency as well as on everything else the sport is about?
They've also got a heap of controls over things like the Diff, DRS (where the rear wing opens up to reduce drag on straights when they're lining up an overtake), and most crucially, engine mode - which tweaks fuel injection rate.
Some form of controls could be denied by technical or sporting regulations. I didn't read them in the last years. They are at http://www.fia.com/regulation/category/110 Regulations are interesting and not too hard to follow.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1ux791/an_old_f1_...
Then of course, it might be banned as a braking aid similar to ABS. Using any kind of feedback loop for braking effectively makes it a stability system which I assume is not allowed?
That's been a silly distinction to bring up ever since the introduction of automated gearboxes and the end of clutch management.
I think they added the boost tech so that cars pass each other more frequently.
If you want to have more natural braking in some corners and recover less energy and then maybe deploy the energy at more optimal places on the track then this sort of thing makes a little sense, especially if you can make it work. I would think it highly prone to being confused though. It would be interesting to see some data on the differences between this type of algorithm when it works and the Prius algorithm.
http://www.thisisf1.com/2016/05/16/explained-2016-f1-steerin...
So engineers and Alonso had to agree beforehand on motor maps and different steering wheel parameters. It's not clear if it's a problem in the software or an issue in the parametrization of the car for that qualy lap.
Why would you have to limit gasoline when the system is going to evolve to wipe that out anyway?
The second is that F1 has been carbon neutral for at least two decades with the FIA planting trees to offset the extraordinary amount of pollution that flying the F1 circus around the world generates. Even though reducing fuel does nothing to make F1 greener when you take into account the carbon generated by transportation it is important that the actual show is as green as possible.
In bet now it's way more energy demanding than before just because there are way more people involved.
More journalists/media and many more support staff to work on hybrid tech.
To me it just underscores the disparity between the feel-good green energy and the actual carbon footprint people generate. For example, it's a lot more "green" to not own a car than to own a Tesla.
I wish they kept racing a purely fun driver-focused endeavor and got rid of most of the electronics and hybrid tech.
And for those who love the tech maybe have a separate competition of self-driving electric vehicles.
Also, petrolheads aren't the most environmentally conscious so F1 is being a good citizen of the world by promoting green tech. Even if it's very much do as I say not as I do.
One is simply that the engine manufacturers want efficiency to be a relevant factor, because it aids in their R&D and marketing efforts. With a fuel limit in place, F1 becomes a showcase for both performance and efficiency.
Another vital reason is to limit speed and cost. Back in the 1980s, F1 was in the midst of a turbocharger-driven arms race. Manufacturers were adding more and more boost, which had a severe impact on both costs and safety. The high levels of boost severely stressed the engines, so teams were replacing the entire engine after a single race. Many teams were using "qualifying special" engines that were built with a lifespan of just five laps. The extra power was creating dangerously high speeds and the effects of turbo lag made the power delivery of these engines very erratic and difficult to control.
Many other racing formulas use a restrictor plate - a metal flange with a hole of a specified diameter that restricts the air intake of the engine, creating a hard limit on maximum power.
Very short: they made the plate warp when in place and return to standard when the intake hose was removed for inspection.
Interesting hack.
Once upon a time, F1 used to be a "anything goes" series where the best in the world competed to build the fastest racing cars in the world. This stopped when it became easily possible to build a car that was simply too fast for a human to drive.
Since then, the racing series has piled on rules and restrictions meant to limit what the cars can do. Since the gasoline engine is hard capped, and they allowed adding an electric engine on top of that, you now need to use one to compete.
That's true of almost all auto racing today. Powerplants can deliver more power than anyone can use. Now it's all about keeping the wheels on the ground.
This continues to surprise me. Is that really what is attractive to the audience?
[1] http://www.racer.com/more/viewpoints/item/143400-johansson-m...
I just came back from looking up the IndyCar tracks for this reason, to see what non-ovals there are. :-) I prefer road courses, myself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_IndyCar_Series_racetra...
This is much clearer in other racing formulae, where the cars being raced may be modified versions of commercially-available road cars. Audi, Subaru and Mitsubishi built their reputation for performance almost entirely off the back of the World Rally Championship.
Sure, and I thought that you would have to do something that was attractive to the audience for the marketing to work.
A lot of the fan base is really engaged in the technology race while others are engaged in the personalities, that is what makes the sport so popular as it has a lot of entertainment to offer outside of what actually happens on the track.
Some people love the crashes, others love the personalities.
Me? I love the racing, the personalities, but most of all I love all the technical developments on the cars. These are fragile prototype cars with state-of-the-art engines (approaching 50% efficiency, which is insane) - new car launch time in F1 just before winter testing is one of my favourites!
Supercharger is an overloaded word, it refers both to the principle of forced induction as well as a particular mechanical method of achieving that. Oddly this isn't just a problems with English, German has the same overloading of 'kompressor'.
Turbocharging was originally called turbosupercharging when developed by GE.
A supercharger is very similar, but conceptually more simple. The turbine creating boost is instead connected mechanically to the engine's crankshaft, being driven directly by the engine.
And to nitpick, all turbochargers are superchargers. Their original term was a turbosupercharger. It was later renamed to turbocharger. :)
The so called 'electric superchargers' which you can buy on ebay have been mythbusted many times [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbGWgvJN1_8
But the OP wasn't technically wrong, so I bring it uo
[1] https://animagraffs.com/
[2] https://www.tyroola.com.au/supercharger-vs-turbo/
Superchargers used in automotive applications are, typically but not always, Roots-type blowers.[1]
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots-type_supercharger
An exhaust driven bladed fan type compressor turbo supercharger is shortened to turbocharger, and
a direct engine driven positive displacement compressor super charger is shortened to supercharger.
Taking gasoline at approximately 0.75kg/L, that's 133.3L for 300km or around 44.4L/100km. That's 5.3MPG in US units. Not very fuel-efficient...
In my opinion, the fuel efficiency suffers because it's a sport at the end of the day and burning more fuel at a higher rate (limited to 100 kg/hour) gives you more power.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/05/turbulent-times-for-for...
If it weren't for the inability to transfer all of the power to motion (due to traction loss), they could accelerate from 0 to 100 kph (62 mph) in around 1 second.
With the down force provided with increased speed, they actually accelerate faster from 100 to 200 kph (62 to 122 mph) than from 0 to 100 [1]:
[1] 2016 Mercedes W07 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car)[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LADA_4x4
I took my old (APR ECUd, rear sway bars, otherwise stock) turbo charged Polo GTI on the Winston racetrack once (V8 trucks practice day) to work on my driving skills, and it was surprising - but not at all unreasonable - to see the remaining fuel in KMs estimate perform a complete nosedive.
The fuel efficiency numbers of the F1s are truly awesome.
Some examples of low-drag downforce are if they can force vortices along the sides of the floor from elements on the front wing, which gives them similar benefits to the ground-effect skirts that Lotus and Williams used to great effect at the tail end of the 70s.
What's amazing is when you see an F1 car in humid conditions, because you can make out the vortices from the rear wing.
[0]: https://www.jamesallenonf1.com/wp-content/uploads/XPB_789346...
Conversely, my family wagon would probably not be very efficient if I did 0-150-0mph a few dozen times between home and work.
The driving patterns are a bit different
[1] https://youtu.be/rhmGaCjpoBY?t=4m20s (check the speeds and the nice 3-way pass behind the leaders)
[2] http://www.motorsportmagazine.com/reports/f1/2017-belgian-gr... at section "5) The crucial power de-rate"
For example, if a marshall flags a yellow, you might pull off the throttle at an unexpected location.
Same as when racing - if another car breaks (for whatever reason, including crashing) - your "inputs" are going to be very different, so this could easily trick the computer into thinking it is not in the right position?
https://www.wired.com/2013/10/red-bull-f1-traction-control/
I knew a guy on the electrical testing team and he said that they had just spent the better part of 2 weeks tracking down a single misfire from a race. Turned out two tracks on a PCB were slightly too close together.
Here is a quick bit about it.
http://en.f1i.com/magazine/73067-f1-telemetry-data-race.html
In the electrical testing room they had a few car simulators that effectively had the whole car in (they were about 5 ft tall from memory, large boxes). The could start them up and run the entire system physically.
The new design with wider tyres and improved downforce means that drivers can now take previously 'brass ball' Spa corners like Eau Rouge and Pouhon with the pedal to the floor, compared to the old days. That very fact should have been allowed for in the AI algorithms.
You'll have to excuse me, I just woke up here on the other side of the world and watched HAM's pole setting lap last night at Spa, and man, these cars take all those tricky corners at Spa very fast! [0] (For reference, Eau Rouge is at 0:22, and Pouhon is at 1:01)
[0] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIRYrgVhJYQ
From a naive perspective, if engine manufacturers aren’t already investigating machine learning to optimise performance, it seems like something worth doing.
ML people need to learn to look into a problem before spouting this sort of stuff.
The quality and design of each teams car matters a ton for winning. The drives of course are a huge part of it, however I strongly believe that you put Max Verstappen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Verstappen) in the same Mercedes that Lewis Hamilton is driving he would be likely to win.
For those that do not know there are 2 titles here - the drivers title and the team title. The team title is the "Constructors Championship" i.e., they built the car.
This isn't really an 'of course' - while I believe you're right in this instance, teammates having unequal machinery is very common (for example, the driver who brings the money being prioritised for upgrades).
This is the prime reason for his bad point total.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Formula_One_season#33
I don't follow motorsport but it seems like the car in the article is highly calibrated for each race in order to provide optimal performance through-out every section of the track. The driver then deviated from the agreed upon, and successfully tested, driving pattern and the engineering team got the blame.
I mean sure... The car could behave differently - but these are the risks when you test in production.
It could be that the parameters were slightly off for downforce and grip with their low-downforce Spa and Monza package and Alonso (and the computer) couldn't take Pouhon flat.
What you really mean is that his car couldn’t account for his massive balls.
It’s racing ffs, if you can take it flat, you take it flat.