I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does. Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful. But if sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would at least get something useful out of sports.
It's even in the name. It's literally the prime formula or regulation. As opposed to free class racing, precisely to foster uniform development of the cars.
I've always wondered what the point is of shaving a couple of seconds from ones time. What you suggest is a worthwhile pursuit. It's a little like war, a new technology can completely turn the tables until everyone uses it.
> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does.
If F1 embraced technology they wouldn’t have cars they’d have airplanes that as a design constraints must always remain in contact with the ground. Technology is a huge factor in F1 but they’re perfectly happy to ban new technologies and materials to maintain the spectacle.
> Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful.
The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority.
> The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority.
The audience shows that there's room for sports, which, you know, nobody disagrees with. There's not really an established alternative.
I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
>> I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible.
We already tried that. Group B, for example.
>> If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
What it boosted was the risk taking by the drivers, also it motivated to put gas tanks right underneath the passengers so when they ended up in accident they most surely were dead.
You would still need rules meant for spectator safety. And then a degree of driver safety. And then the rules meant to control costs. And and and. The number of rules meant to slow the cars down is relatively small.
Remember too that racing rules are not the product of some nanny state government trying to keep everyone safe. They come from associations made up of the people and organizations participating in the sport. They come from racers to regulate racers.
I do know that my dislike of professional sports is in minority even on hn, that's why i wish there was a way to channel part of the money that goes into sports, to the technology instead.
Some rules are of course always needed, as you do not want someone on car to come into running competition, but currently the rules are unnecessarily strict even in F1.
I would argue that the most salient point is that without technological spinoffs, sport is not very useful in the long term. If we create the conditions to encourage technology transfers to society, humanity benefits in the long run from a short term spectacle.
I think this is a misunderstanding of the desired outcomes. Ads like the article are an effort to make us believe a certain brand can make us perform better, as in "a better person" if you dig all to the bottom of the messaging.
In competitive sports, specially racing, the entertainment factor comes from a level playing field where certain actors can push the boundaries just a little to overcome the competition.
With running, the limiting factor is the human body. This creates a natural ceiling for possible performance.
With F1, there was no "natural ceiling" to begin with. Technology isn't a way to overcome an already imposed limitation, it's quite literally what made the game. So to begin with, you could always get a massive edge by engineering innovation. You could easily add wheels to get even more traction, while you couldn't just add legs to a human to make it run like a cheetah.
So regulation in f1 pretty much takes the job making it a stay a race, not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed.
> not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed
I have to say, I'm not that interested in F1 but if there was a F1-like competition where there is no regulation and it's all about technological innovation, I would watch that.
I suspect that such a format would quickly devolve into who spends the most money wins.
The obvious fix is to group teams into budget categories. Maybe throw in some sort of obligation to onsell parts on demand for their declared price, which is used in some amature racing formats.
Yeah, budget categories would definitively be needed. While a 1 million euro budget would be fun to see, I think a 1000 euro budget group would be way more fun. It would basically be "Scrapheap Challenge" but more sport focused.
> I wish more sports would embrace technology the way F1 does.
Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers (ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …).
As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3 choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg and at least 80kg respectively).
F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills.
[0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014
> but to avoid killing drivers, crew, and spectators regularly.
That's the leaf FIA uses to impose their restrictions but it's unlikely e.g. limiting the KERS budget, and increasing it significantly just as you're restricting engines, is not a safety thing.
F1 very purposely constrains technological
innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to
avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than
driver skills.
I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive.
I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls...
The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the limits of human performance.
And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were also built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around... 10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].
> I'm not sure that that's a reasonable analysis. The restrictions aren't there to keep humans important. They're there to keep humans alive.
Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put restrictions in place.
If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the machines, not their design details.
> I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside.
So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha.
> Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances.
That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have nothing to do with safety.
> It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed.
So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on the performance characteristics of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of.
> Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].
Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the performance characteristics of competing planes.
FIA does not do that, it restricts the design details of the cars.
I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and restrictive embrace of tech.
>So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha.
That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the centrifugal force lifting them away from the track.
But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.
I would imagine that, very quickly the drivers inputs would necessarily be more and more ignored, taken as an unimportant hint about what to do, just to keep the audience interested and emotionally invested in the silly concept of a “driver”.
There probably is a case to be made to limit the height of running shoes: if anything to reduce ankle injuries.
But one solution to the technological race problem would be to allow only technologies that are accessible to any manufacturer. If patented, open the technology to indefinite free licensing in order to be used in competition.
For running, because the equipment required is so minimal, the costs of the materials should not become too prohibitive to any serious athletes.
A problem occurs when one manufacturer develops a superior product that actually does confer a competitive advantage, which a subset of competitors are unable to use due to e.g. sponsor obligations. Arguing that it's the sponsor's problem and they should relax the contractual obligations ignores the reality of the incentive structures at play. So banning said technology is suboptimal from the standpoint of pushing the possibilities of the human body to its limits (at least in sanctioned competition), but in the end it's more fair.
Sports where traditionally considered a purely human endeavour. One could replace humans partially or completely with technology but that wouldn't be quite the same thing.
But if sports were a competition between companies creating better shoes, better exoskeletons, better and safer performance enhancing drugs the society would at least get something useful out of sports.
That's what the military is for. They have collectively put a lot of money into that sort of research.
This just seems like an add for Nike. The reason all the fastest runners are using Nike shoes isn’t necessarily due to superior performance as much as the effects of superior sponsorships.
It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes. And why would Nike allow scientific comparison when they all-ready payed all the athletes millions to side with them on the conclusion?
The are other important factors, but no-one is pouring millions into marketing “Nike brand pacer support with efficient patented wind-breaking formations”.
Right, and you have to rule out the "superior sponsorship" effect, above.
I think you'd want to control for that by having a large sample size of unsponsored runner, who were accustomed to their chosen model of shoe, and then examine their race times vs shoe.
>It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes
The shoes reduce oxygen consumption by 4%, which translates to 2 minutes in a marathon. They are the primary contributor to the sub 2 marathon stunt. The effort in a regular race without those shoes would have produced about a 2:03. Shoes -2 minutes, drafting effects from the lead vehicle and contrived pacers, another minute.
You can check marathon times and shoe brands for elite runners easily enough. All the major shoe companies sponsor runners and give them similar resources. But pretty much all the really fast marathons within the past year were run on Nike Vaporflys. The shoes definitely make a difference.
> as much as the effects of superior sponsorships.
> likely there are hundreds of factors more important
The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did account for those kinds of confounding factors, and still found a 3-4% difference attributable to the shoes. If you can find a flaw in their analysis, we'd all love to hear it. Simply ignoring that analysis in favor of guess-work and hand-waves isn't persuasive.
I mean they lost me when they said the sole of the shoe operated like leg muscles that never tired, I’m mean seriously these probably account for half of 1% increased performance and I don’t believe other manufacturers won’t level the playing field too. I really don’t see better footwear as cheating or the authors belief that running shoes haven’t changed since the 70s. Poor journalism IMO.
Most top marathoners are not sponsored by Nike and don't wear its shoes.
Those that do, like Galen Rupp, have not completed many marathons since the shoes were introduced but did see improvements in the probs of the races they ran before dropping out.
At marathon duration, half of one percent is still more than 36 seconds even for the top finishers, over a minute for a lot of people faster than you or I will ever be. That's more than enough to affect placement, e.g. more than the difference between men's first and second in all but one of the last ten Boston marathons. And that's all besides the fact that a genuine statistical analysis does show a 3-4% difference.
It's cool that you don't see better footwear as cheating. Others do, and that doesn't make them "poor journalists" (which Amby Burfoot wouldn't be anyway since a guest editorial isn't supposed to be journalism). Personally I haven't made up my mind yet. I'd hate to see shoes evolve to the point where they encourage a gait that's no longer what we think of as running, but the carbon-fiber "spring" in these shoes seem well short of that and I'm not sure where to draw the line. When we do get closer to that line, I'm inclined to look at data and listen to people with more domain knowledge, not just shrug off any opinion with which I disagree and insult its proponents.
"A 2018 New York Times data analysis based on public race results uploaded to Strava, the athlete-tracking and networking company, found that runners in Vaporflys ran 3 to 4 percent faster than similar runners wearing other shoes."
This doesn't seem causal... Runners that were on average going to be 4 percent faster than the population mean anyway may also be runners that like buying the latest and greatest vaporflys. With that being said, I would have trouble designing an experiment though
Get a bunch of runners, hand them random shoes. Have em run and time it. Repeat over the course of a couple days, having a randomised distribution of shoes each day. For bonus points use covers on the shoes so people don't know which shoes they are wearing.
60 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadIf F1 embraced technology they wouldn’t have cars they’d have airplanes that as a design constraints must always remain in contact with the ground. Technology is a huge factor in F1 but they’re perfectly happy to ban new technologies and materials to maintain the spectacle.
> Waiting for people with random mutations, or ready to put huge amount of time for training, or crazy enough to take illegal and harmful drugs, in pursuit of hundredth of a second is not very interesting and not very useful.
The audiences for sports worldwide show that you’re in the minority.
The audience shows that there's room for sports, which, you know, nobody disagrees with. There's not really an established alternative.
I myself would love to see sports separated into "pure" and "enhanced" sports. The former is pretty much what we have today, while the latter would be modified with as little regulation as possible. If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
We already tried that. Group B, for example.
>> If it's a car race, something like "don't intentionally hurt other participants" and "your car should touch the floor" would certainly boost creativity.
What it boosted was the risk taking by the drivers, also it motivated to put gas tanks right underneath the passengers so when they ended up in accident they most surely were dead.
Remember too that racing rules are not the product of some nanny state government trying to keep everyone safe. They come from associations made up of the people and organizations participating in the sport. They come from racers to regulate racers.
There is: it's called war. Sports is war without (for the most part) death.
Some rules are of course always needed, as you do not want someone on car to come into running competition, but currently the rules are unnecessarily strict even in F1.
Except that 'dislike' is probably too neutral a description of my views on the phenomenon.
In competitive sports, specially racing, the entertainment factor comes from a level playing field where certain actors can push the boundaries just a little to overcome the competition.
With running, the limiting factor is the human body. This creates a natural ceiling for possible performance.
With F1, there was no "natural ceiling" to begin with. Technology isn't a way to overcome an already imposed limitation, it's quite literally what made the game. So to begin with, you could always get a massive edge by engineering innovation. You could easily add wheels to get even more traction, while you couldn't just add legs to a human to make it run like a cheetah.
So regulation in f1 pretty much takes the job making it a stay a race, not a tech demo where vastly different constructions would compete for speed.
I have to say, I'm not that interested in F1 but if there was a F1-like competition where there is no regulation and it's all about technological innovation, I would watch that.
The obvious fix is to group teams into budget categories. Maybe throw in some sort of obligation to onsell parts on demand for their declared price, which is used in some amature racing formats.
Something like the Pikes Peak hill climb, with their Unlimited category, is actually close to what you are proposing.
Very tightly constrain and regulate them? F1 hasn't been a technological free for all since the early 80s when FISA/FIA started constraining manufacturers (ban on ground-effect aerodynamics, fuel tank limitations, boost limitations and ultimately turbo ban[0], ban on multiple automated driver assistance, …).
As of 2019, engines are regulated down to materials, we're down to a single allowed tyre supplier (which has 5 dry-weather compounds but only provides 3 choices per race), as well as a specific car and (driver, seat) weight (660kg and at least 80kg respectively).
F1 very purposely constrains technological innovation — again since the 80s — specifically to avoid technology being a bigger victory factor than driver skills.
[0] until their reintroduction (and mandate) in 2014
but also to keep costs down.
That's the leaf FIA uses to impose their restrictions but it's unlikely e.g. limiting the KERS budget, and increasing it significantly just as you're restricting engines, is not a safety thing.
I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside. I believe it. Gas turbine, vacuum system, active cooling on the brakes, everything fully shrouded and active aerodynamic surfaces everywhere, electronic stability and traction controls...
The thing is, humans aren't getting that much faster or stronger, and we know that these unlimited cars would be unmanageable. Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances. It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed. Modern cars, as they constrained as they are, are already at the limits of human performance.
And this isn't surprising! The most maneuverable jet fighters in the world are built to turn at about 10g. The most maneuverable fighters built in WWII were also built to turn at about 10g [1, 2]. Humans stop functioning around... 10g. If you had an aircraft racing league, letting teams build higher-performance planes wouldn't result in victory going to the highest-performance plane. Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor#Sp... 2: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/insight-into-the-magni... 3: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-LOC#Thresholds 4: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Bull_Air_Race_World_Champi... 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_stability_control
Nah, that's an excuse FIA uses because it realised that's how it could put restrictions in place.
If it were solely about safety, FIA would restrict the capabilities of the machines, not their design details.
> I read an article once in which an F1 team's lead engineer claimed that a car with no limitations would average 300 hundred miles per hour around a track that's identical to a current track but turned so all the curves were banked 90 degrees to the outside.
So F1s could average 300mph on an identical track if it were nothing like the existing track. Gotcha.
> Restrictions seem to be tightened in direct response to severe accidents that increase in frequency as engineering advances.
That's really not true. FIA does regularly impose safety features or restrictions (e.g. halo, or wheel tethers) but most of the restrictions have nothing to do with safety.
> It turns out that letting cars get any faster than they are right now doesn't make human skill irrelevant, it just gets people killed.
So… don't do that? If your goal is the safety of the pilot you put limits on the performance characteristics of the car (top speed, acceleration, …). You don't mandate the materials the turbo can be built out of.
> Higher-performance planes would result in victory going to the pilot most willing to die. Which is precisely what we see in air racing: The Red Bull Air Race rules instantly disqualify racers that pull 10g for more than half a second or 12g ever [4].
Right, so for safety reasons RBAR restricts the performance characteristics of competing planes.
FIA does not do that, it restricts the design details of the cars.
I'm not saying it's bad, mind, just that F1 / the FIA has a very limited and restrictive embrace of tech.
That's not how I read it. He said 90 degrees to the -outside-. Which would be significantly more difficult than the current track and seemingly impossible until you consider that the air downforce would need to overpower the centrifugal force lifting them away from the track.
But perhaps 90 degrees to the outside doesn't mean what I think it means.
But one solution to the technological race problem would be to allow only technologies that are accessible to any manufacturer. If patented, open the technology to indefinite free licensing in order to be used in competition. For running, because the equipment required is so minimal, the costs of the materials should not become too prohibitive to any serious athletes.
Robot "Olympics" anyone?
That's what the military is for. They have collectively put a lot of money into that sort of research.
It would be interesting to compare times with other shoes under controlled conditions, but likely there are hundreds of factors more important that small differences in the shoes. And why would Nike allow scientific comparison when they all-ready payed all the athletes millions to side with them on the conclusion?
The are other important factors, but no-one is pouring millions into marketing “Nike brand pacer support with efficient patented wind-breaking formations”.
Getting the same runner to run with different shoes might not be quite so easy to do.
I think you'd want to control for that by having a large sample size of unsponsored runner, who were accustomed to their chosen model of shoe, and then examine their race times vs shoe.
The shoes reduce oxygen consumption by 4%, which translates to 2 minutes in a marathon. They are the primary contributor to the sub 2 marathon stunt. The effort in a regular race without those shoes would have produced about a 2:03. Shoes -2 minutes, drafting effects from the lead vehicle and contrived pacers, another minute.
The pacers and shoes combined only took off roughly a minute in the first 2 hour attempt.
The more detailed NYT analysis linked in the OP did account for those kinds of confounding factors, and still found a 3-4% difference attributable to the shoes. If you can find a flaw in their analysis, we'd all love to hear it. Simply ignoring that analysis in favor of guess-work and hand-waves isn't persuasive.
Those that do, like Galen Rupp, have not completed many marathons since the shoes were introduced but did see improvements in the probs of the races they ran before dropping out.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/07/18/upshot/nike-v...
It's cool that you don't see better footwear as cheating. Others do, and that doesn't make them "poor journalists" (which Amby Burfoot wouldn't be anyway since a guest editorial isn't supposed to be journalism). Personally I haven't made up my mind yet. I'd hate to see shoes evolve to the point where they encourage a gait that's no longer what we think of as running, but the carbon-fiber "spring" in these shoes seem well short of that and I'm not sure where to draw the line. When we do get closer to that line, I'm inclined to look at data and listen to people with more domain knowledge, not just shrug off any opinion with which I disagree and insult its proponents.