Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/red-bull-f1-traction-control/

by GFuller • 13 years ago

282 247 13 years ago

Traction control sounds on youtube are very similar.

Would it be fair to fine the team if they were in fact using the "assisted KERS suspension"? Technically it is not traction control.

brey5• 13 years ago

Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

CompelTechnic• 13 years ago

Their implementation is almost certainly within the letter of the law in the rule book. So, no fine- but it could likely end up being the case that the rules are amended to ban whatever tech they are using in future seasons.

jlangenauer• 13 years ago

I was at the Formula 1 in Melbourne this year, back in March, and definitely noticed the unusual engine notes of the RBR cars as they accelerated out if corners.

But it was definitely both cars making the sound, so both Webber and Vettel had the system, if it did in fact exist.

anoother• 13 years ago

I find the justification presented for only Vettel having the technology a little strange.

It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team. If the technology works and is reliable, Webber will have it before the end of the season.

k-mcgrady3• 13 years ago

> "It's common to test new systems on one car before rolling them out across the team."

Every weekend Red Bull claims the two cars are the same and Vettel is not given any advantage. Usually they test on one car in the practice sessions to gauge the advantage it gives over the current car but in quali/race the cars are usually (if we are to believe Red Bull) identical. I find the justification in the article regarding money unlikely though.

buster2• 13 years ago

It could very well be that just in this race the technology was not working on Webbers car (as would be no surprise with new techology). Just wondering because of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532428

ChildOfChaos2• 13 years ago

Well Mark Webber did end up retiring from the race so something was not right with his car...

adhipg• 13 years ago

The article suggests that they are possibly linking the traction control to the KERS system.

Guess who's had the most issues with KERS in the last two years? Mark Webber.

Red Bull haven't been able to get either the weight distribution or something else right on his car to even get 'normal' KERS working reliably.

theshadow• 13 years ago

Makes perfect sense to me. Webber and RedBull are not on good terms therefore RedBull doesn't give him Traction Control esp since there's a good possibility that he might blow the whistle on the whole operation if he finds out. In a lot of F1 circles there are conspiracy theories that RedBull is actively sabotaging Webber and there might be some truth to that as Webber is constantly at the receiving end of reliability problems, mechanical failures and botched pitstops whereas Vettel's car runs smooth without a glitch. I very much doubt that those two guys have the same machinery underneath them.

brey5• 13 years ago

In an environment where innovation has been strictly regulated against (better engine management software? NOPE. better foil design? NOPE), the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it is naturally where the bleeding edge of F1 design is going to lie.

bliti7• 13 years ago

Every new technology introduced to racing allows teams to develop a secret advantage. Rules are adjusted over time to balance things out. But you can be sure that by then another new technology will have been introduced. The KERS system is already producing lots of results that are trickling down to consumers. I can imagine how using the torque and resistance of the electric motor as a means to increase grip is something that may be used in standard cars. Rather than using the braking system, this could be a smoother option.

brey5• 13 years ago

oh, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that we shouldn't be surprised ;)

sharkweek• 13 years ago

Friends and I always enjoy debating this --

At what point does a scientific improvement become too great of an advantage for competing athletes

polymatter• 13 years ago

when its no longer entertaining

Shivetya• 13 years ago

racing at most levels is highly regulated and innovation pretty much stifled. NASCAR almost ended themselves with the Car of Tomorrow and jellybean clones running down the tracks. About as much fun as watching IROC racing where cars were identical. The idea of subtle differences leading to a win is the source of drama and at times is very welcome in the sport

In other racing, the Nissan Deltawing racer has raised a ruckus, small engine yet very competent racer.

When tenths count its best to get as much of them from racer and pit screw skill which increases enjoyment of the fans and teams alike.

ericcumbee6• 13 years ago

The Delta Wing is nothing special. Especially compared with contemporary prototypes at Le Mans and WEC. Sure it looks like a prototype but its a prototype that they were able to pick and choose which parts of the rule book they wanted to follow.

ronaldx2• 13 years ago

Much the same in cycling - there are many innovations that could potentially improve speeds: as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions.

But, the UCI sets its rules based on innovations up to 1972, in order to make a fair comparison with Eddy Merckx.

Consumer bikes surely suffer for this lack of innovation at race level.

4ad• 13 years ago

As a cyclist interested in recumbent and other alternative bicycle designs, I disagree. You can buy whatever kind of bicycle you want.

Regarding competitions, I definitely think every cyclist has to ride the same type of bicycle, technology-wise, but I'd love to see competitions using alternative designs.

davej• 13 years ago

I appreciate the comparison but it's really not "much the same". Modern F1 cars are much much better (not just faster) than they were in 1972.

The strict technical regulations are in place for two main reasons:

1. To allow teams with smaller budgets to compete.

2. To focus innovation away from simply making bigger, more powerful engines with computers managing every facet of driver input and car output. That kind of technology will (and currently is) making it's way into roadcars anyway, it doesn't need the help of F1. F1 enforces constraints in the usual suspects (engines, driver assists, ECU, tyres, etc.) which pushes engineers to come up with genuinely new and creative approaches to making cars better and faster. This is all done within the competitive arena of sport. It's actually quite a smart way to bring about a particular type of innovation (I'm trying not to say "out-of-the-box thinking") that may not necessarily happen naturally but may still eventually make it's way into roadcars.

curveship2• 13 years ago

This is wrong on two important levels:

- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank accounts. Currently, a top pro's bike costs about $10-15k, and a competitive bike can be bought for as low as $2-3k (even lower at the amateur level). If they removed the technical limitations, that number would be at least an order of magnitude higher, and potentially two or three.

- bike races are not just about speed, they're about speed and tactics

I think a relevant comparison is the America's Cup race. Back when they raced tubby, slow, antiquated 12 Meter yachts, there were dozens of countries competing, viewership was high, and the races were exciting tactical battles from start to finish. Then they switched to super high tech wonderboats costing 100s of millions. Those boats are amazing feats of engineering, no doubt, but after you've watched them for 5 minutes, there's really nothing left to see. The costs are so high that there are now only two competitors, and the event may die entirely next go round, as there may be only one (Ellison) willing to pony up so much money. Viewership has plummeted as a result.

BashiBazouk2• 13 years ago

"recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions"

Is this demonstrably true under less than ideal conditions? I have been a cyclist for almost four decades and for a good three of those recumbent bicycles have been touted as faster and better. Yet I have never been passed by a recumbent. Not once. Ever. I have on the other hand passed many, though admittedly there are few on the road and usually ridden by old farts (to which I a rapidly becoming one). I understand that if you put an enclosure around a recumbent and run it on salt flats, you will hit a higher top speed. How does it fair in the Alps? In a crowded city with tight turns? It has always seemed to me that the recumbent position is countered by both the ability to stand up and put weight on the pedals for speed/acceleration and having a shorter wheel base while being on a taller pivot for handling.

thwest• 13 years ago

Recumbents aren't ever going to be popular racing bikes. Fighting aerodynamic drag is a huge source of tactics and race dynamics that the races would be quite boring without. Recumbents are also laughable going up hills.

dockd• 13 years ago

That's for road bikes. I don't know what the UCI says about mountain bikes, but since their introduction in the 80s, we've gone to clipless pedals, front and then rear suspension, 29" and 27.5" tires, disc brakes.

Theriac25• 13 years ago

as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions.

I highly doubt that. Everybody knows that ugly bikes are slow, and recumbents are as ugly as they come. /s

nicholassmith• 13 years ago

As a consumer I could go buy a bike that spec wise would embarrass a pro bike. I'd promptly be embarrassed riding it against a pro.

Just because UCI forbids it from races, doesn't mean you can't buy an ultralight bike with disc brakes and have a go. Cycling should have a restriction on what's allowed as it forces a level of competition based around human capability. With F1 the tech plays a very big role, and it skews the field somewhat, but the restrictions have ended up favouring the team with the bank account who can afford a team of people finding work arounds.

at-fates-hands2• 13 years ago

>>>> as a simple example, recumbent cycles are faster under many conditions

Ever tried to pedal one of those things up a mildly steep hill?

lazyant• 13 years ago

America's cup comes to mind too

geargrinder3• 13 years ago

When you say "foil design" are you referring to airfoils? Under the current F1 rules, almost all innovation is occurring in the aerodynamic area and teams are constantly testing and improving. The envelope is pretty small, but there is a lot of variation from team-to-team in this area.

simias4• 13 years ago

I think that's a good thing honestly, instead of being only an arms race for the team that will make the most expensive car they have to be very clever in finding ways to shave a few milliseconds in each lap.

I see that like code golf or the IOCCC, the constraints are what makes it interesting and challenging.

In the case of F1 I think it's also about keeping the human factor, without regulations I'm sure by now we'd have fully automated cars that would react in a microsecond, better than any human could. But that's no good show.

brey5• 13 years ago

it is a good thing. it's the same fundamental reason that we ban steroids from athletics.

but human ingenuity being what it is, we shouldn't be surprised that people come up with new ways to bend the rules ... be that 'not-technically-traction-control traction control' or subtly altered performance-enhancing drugs the governing body's not had time to ban yet.

ajays• 13 years ago

But it stifles innovation. A better solution (IMHO, and since I'm not a big follower of F-1 or racing in general, this is basically me talking out of my rear end) would be to, at the end of the year, share the designs and software with each other.

specialist2• 13 years ago

I favor having an unlimited tier for all sports. Anything (safe) goes. I think it would reduce cheating. Then I wouldn't care if the pros are using robots, steroids, time travel, whatever. And there's still plenty of competition for amateurs all the way up.

I grew up watching hydroplane racing. The local races were super fun. Much like going to local drag races.

But watching H1 Unlimited Racing was ecstasy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroplane_racing#Unlimited_Hyd...

mcguire• 13 years ago

Cough, cough, NASCAR.

Arjuna• 13 years ago

"the fine art of sticking to the letter of the law but totally bending the spirit of it"

This is spot-on.

One of the best examples in recent memory was the so-called "F Duct" that was featured on McLaren Racing's MP4-25 car in 2010.

For those that are not aware, FIA sporting regulations strictly prohibit the driver from controlling the aerodynamic characteristics of the machine, for example, via electronic controls on the steering wheel or levers in the cockpit.

However, McLaren came up with a system that allowed the driver to block an air flow duct with the driver's leg. This permitted air to be channeled in an "on demand" fashion, such that the rear wing would stall and result in reduced drag. This allowed the car to achieve an advantage in the straights.

cromulent2• 13 years ago

The F-Duct, and also the double diffuser in 2009.

Ross Brawn even warned the other teams late in 2008 that the 2009 rules were open to interpretation, and then wiped the floor with everyone in the first half of the season. By then everyone had a DD of course.

EDIT: Also the hot-blown diffuser, where the engine management programme pushed fuel through the engine off-throttle with retarded ignition, which didn't put power through the wheels but due to specially shaped exhausts pushed more gas through the diffuser to get more downforce in cornering.

phowat• 13 years ago

Exactly, they will probably change the rules to forbid this particular hack for the next season. But there is absolutely no cheating involved, and there will be no punishment for Red Bull this year.

gcb0• 13 years ago

They can't just allow anything new because that would render the driver (the sportsman) obsolete.

The only way out is to make F-1 GPL'ed.

Any technical improvement has to be shared when deployed/announced.

ericcumbee6• 13 years ago

Please no. As one that enjoys the gamesmenship and innovation of F1 and sportscar racing that would kill it for me.

ChildOfChaos2• 13 years ago

This is pure speculation, I am sure Red Bull are doing some things with there car but it's not as big of a deal as everyone makes out and I don't think it's one thing.

It's worth noting, that Rosberg's engineer said that the rubber caught in his front wing for that race was costing him 1.7 seconds a lap. That's where the biggest difference came, Vettel wasn't that much faster in Korea.

bliti7• 13 years ago

Link to Racecar Engineering web article: http://www.racecar-engineering.com/news/red-bulls-traction-s... This is a very nice magazine to read/subscribe even if you are not a race fan. Lots of technical discussions.

cjrp2• 13 years ago

If the secret is the automated use of KERS, you'd see it in the on-screen graphics (the HUD-esque display shows when a driver is deploying KERS).

Also the article makes the comparison in noise - but surely that noise is caused by the engine being limited/throttled, something which they could not get away with in this season since the ECUs are all the same. A KERS-based traction control wouldn't make the same noise because it doesn't work in the same way.

79523• 13 years ago

I'm not an engineer but couldn't you adjust how much energy the system generates on the recovery stage? If the magnets in the generator are electrical rather than rare earth you could adjust the strength of the magnets and the breaking affect of the generator would be adjustable. This would be akin to how ABS uses brake friction but with faster adjustment and less loss of energy.

bliti7• 13 years ago

Exactly. They can program the KERS to increase its resistance under given situations, and then tune the suspension to better respond to it. I can speculate about how this might seem less upsetting to the chassis, because it is not using force in the braking system (in the corners of the chassis). Having the resistance generated in the powertrain means that the tires do not have to deal with anything other than normal breaking, and acceleration.

cjrp2• 13 years ago

Good point, I was thinking more of the boost you might gain from deploying KERS, vs. the reduced force on the wheel while you're harvesting.

Havoc2• 13 years ago

What you see on screen regarding KERS isn't a direct representation of whats happening. e.g. It might pick up more energy than is permitted for use & the graphics won't show that.

TillE2• 13 years ago

The smeary tone of this article is really quite obvious and unpleasant, and I don't think qualifying it as a "conspiracy theory" makes up for that.

For example the claim that "Christian Horner isn’t saying much", when in fact he's flatly denied any kind of rule breaking.

ye• 13 years ago

When one guy leads by 30+ seconds, while everyone else fights for fractions of a second, either there's a major breakthrough or somebody is cheating.

Oletros3• 13 years ago

Or somebody like ROS had problems in his front wing and they didn't had the pace, and not counting that VET was on clean air.

No cheating involved

TillE2• 13 years ago

Vettel has won races by large margins before, without any accusations of cheating. The time difference of ONE LAP is under a second, but that adds up over the course of an entire race.

Red Bull have the best car, Vettel is the best driver, they do the fastest pit stops, and with a little luck this creates big wins.

dolphenstein• 13 years ago

That statement in the article is quite disingenuous. 30 seconds is a comfortable win but not something to get excited about. The front runners routinely lap the poorer teams, so it's hardly "fractions of a second".

buster2• 13 years ago

That's 30 seconds accumulated over many rounds. You should compare 1-2 seconds per round to your fractions of a second and that's not as uncommon as you suggest. For example, look at the Singapore Grand Prix 2011, except for #2 there are similar margins between the top racers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Singapore_Grand_Prix Or Australia 2011, Vettel won with 22 seconds ahead: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Australian_Grand_Prix

I'm sure there are enough examples to be found. Very often you have can find a margin of around 20-30 seconds between position 1 and 3 and sometimes large margins between 1 and 2.

bliti7• 13 years ago

It can't be cheating if they pass inspections. Developing an advantage is not something to be punished for. This is racing after all.

DanBC• 13 years ago

When 2 and 3 are battling for position 1 can just drive, using clean air, to build their advantage. Red Bull have particularly good pit crew, and that also helps their drivers.

ecuzzillo• 13 years ago

Rosberg was losing 1.7 seconds a lap because of rubber in his front wing, and he started the race on tyres that has done two runs in qualifying. It is the general consensus that Red Bull do have a performance advantage, but it's nowhere near 2 seconds.

crockstar2• 13 years ago

I have got to say that I don't tend to place a lot of faith in an article that cites The Daily Mail as a source and I'm inclined to agree with you about the tone. Even the Mail article referenced paints a much more balanced story and the headline is ironically "Vettel did not cheat! Horner defiant..."

As a non-F1 fan though it certainly made for interesting reading.

SanjayUttam• 13 years ago

Indeed, not to mention the very title of the Wired Article. I'm guessing the author has not recently checked into the concessions given to say, Ferrari [1][2].

That all said, to some extent controversies like these are what make F1 what it is...at least since I've been watching. Remember Jenson Button's secret fuel compartment? [3] Crashgate at Singapore? [4] Schumacher....everything? [5]

[1] http://en.espnf1.com/ferrari/motorsport/story/104589.html

[2] http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/motorsport/bernie-blasts-ferr...

[3] http://www.thefreelibrary.com/MOTOR+RACING%3A+BAR+face+fuel+...

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_Formula_One_crash_contr...

[5] Honestly, just google "Schumacher controversies"

edit: formatting

eftpotrm2• 13 years ago

If we're going to pick up on BAR's fuel tank problems from 2005 (and calling it a 'secret fuel tank' as the article does is rather disingenuous), then it's worth also pointing out that the tank manufacturer said that BAR's design wasn't unusual; they were merely the scapegoat picked on by the FIA during a period when it was noticeably pro-Ferrari and BAR were for a period their leading challenger.

Or we could point out that McLaren specifically asked about running a hydraulic-based hybrid system in the late 90s and it was initially approved then rejected on pressure from Ferrari, or about their (entirely driver controlled) fiddle brakes system being ruled an illegal driver aid and banned while Ferrari were allowed to decouple the throttle pedal from the engine throttle, or Ferrari getting higher spec tyres from Bridgestone than the other teams, or.....

GVIrish4• 13 years ago

If Red Bull is indeed cheating, Christian Horner would be a fool to come out and admit it.

Cheating with traction control has been a problem in multiple forms of motorsport for a long time. It's difficult to prove, so by and large, teams that were cheating with it have just denied it flat out.

Red Bull is definitely violating the spirit of the rules, it's just a question of will the FIA come down on them or clarify the rules. In Formula 1 the difference between getting punished for cheating and getting away with it is often political.

robryan• 13 years ago

They would be stupid to do anything that was flat outside the rules, they just don't need to to get wins.

kyro• 13 years ago

I love that this is really a cutthroat battle of engineering. Behind every driver there's a team of really bright individuals who are brainstorming, modeling, designing, tweaking, and refitting, to figure out just how Red Bull's doing it.

Havoc2• 13 years ago

Plus some serious computers crunching the numbers

zonkey2• 13 years ago

Wouldn't it be even more of an engineering battle if the drivers were replaced with computers?

beat6• 13 years ago

A lot of NASCAR fans argue that F1 is just that - driving skill has been replaced by technology. I think that's nonsense. Better cars are an advantage, but ultimately, it's the driver's nerve and imagination that wins. I'd choose a lesser car with a greater driver any day.

swamp403• 13 years ago

There will certainly be a driverless racing circuit one day.

Soon, if Google's automatic cars ever become available.

It will probably start out as an underground thing.

anonymous• 13 years ago

Couldn't it be some sort of new notification system for the driver which gives him instinctive feedback and lets him drive the engine the same way traction control would?

alexeisadeski32• 13 years ago

Nope. Humans can't react nearly quickly enough for such a notification system to be of any use.

Unosolo• 13 years ago

Could that be a forecasting system that notifies the driver just in time for him to react about what is going to happen in a next moment?

jzzskijj• 13 years ago

F1 drivers surely have fast reactions, but could they really improve driver's reactions so much with a new kind of sound/light/tactile feedback, that a driver could replace TCS? Or be at least remarkably faster than drivers not using that notification technology. I find that quite unlikely.

I am not confident that they have cheated either.

oostevo• 13 years ago

From my (limited) experience in (not even close to F1-level) racing, the physical sensations of the tires being near the limits of grip are fairly obvious. The reason why traction control helps so much is that a computer can adjust power accordingly vastly faster than a human ever could.

The drivers are extraordinarily focused professionals during races. I can't imagine adding some signaling system that would let the driver react any faster than he already was.

chiph2• 13 years ago

Not only that, but the traction control system can control wheel slip at a per-wheel basis. Something the driver can't do, with his single brake pedal.

jcampbell1• 13 years ago

As a person that worked on a traction control system, a driver is not going to notice the difference between 5% slip and 15% slip, but 5% slip is much faster, (and faster than 0% slip) A light that went off at 1% slip would be an enormous advantage. It wouldn't be as good as a traction control system that is making 1000 changes per second, but it would be huge compared to nothing at all.

maxden• 13 years ago

That is also against the rules: http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/tech...

"Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted."

rwmj• 13 years ago

I think they should just let the teams use whatever technology they can invent, as long as it doesn't make it unsafe. Who cares how good the drivers are? The technology is far more interesting.

paddyoloughlin• 13 years ago

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I believe that the market (spectators) does not agree with you and that is the reason why F1 has had more and more regulations added to it.

Technological innovation appeared to be leading to a sport that was losing its spectacle more and more. And that's what the vast majority of people who watch(ed) F1 wanted.

I love technological advantages as much as anyone, but people relate to people, not machines.

k-mcgrady3• 13 years ago

That wouldn't work. Firstly the smaller teams would be gone as they couldn't afford to compete. It's also likely a lot of the mid-field teams would struggle to afford to compete (Lotus, one of the top 5 teams can't even pay it's top driver). Secondly your qualification 'as long as it doesn't make it unsafe' is one of the reasons there are so many rules in F1. It's an incredibly dangerous sport. The engineers could easily make the cars go much quicker - but it would be too dangerous and costly.

marcosdumay• 13 years ago

It's an incredibly dangerous sport.

Maybe it is time to make a clone of the race, but without the pilots.

mafro• 13 years ago

Making the cars go fast has never been the issue. Making them slow down however is quite a different thing. :)

cmsimike2• 13 years ago

I would love to see that elusive budget cap implemented but if that were to happen, I would want to ease the technological limitations.

Imagine the kind of innovation if you were free to do what you want up to a max of X million/year.

samuel2• 13 years ago

That implies to make cars that are too dependent of aerodynamic performance, which makes them incapable of overtaking.

deelowe2• 13 years ago

Technology can make the racing uninterested. ABS and TCS removes all the risk from cornering and braking, so you don't get spectacular overtakes on hard braking, which is a big part of racing. So, some technological advances actually reduce the entertainment factor.

Thankfully, my favorite form of racing, motogp, has benefited greatly from recent technological advances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YAiXqOwkmE

AmVess4• 13 years ago

There are no driver aids in F1. No ABS, no (legal) traction control.

RaSoJo• 13 years ago

Minardi's old team was bought out by Dietrich Mateschitz and converted into Torro Rosso. I feel there is some bad blood still around, since it was Giancarlo Minardi who pretty much started this theory/conspiracy.

Sniperfish• 13 years ago

I think the BBC's article from Oct 3rd has some good commentary on this topic:

"Red Bull's advantage is believed to come largely from a more effective use of the exhaust gases for aerodynamic effect. This creates more rear downforce than the other cars, meaning Vettel has the rear grip to enable him to accelerate sooner."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349

TheCondor• 13 years ago

Blown diffusers. They did outlaw hot blown diffusers but blowing cold is still within the sporting regs. Thus the odd sound at low power, they are flowing air through the exhaust when they arent on the power to flow over the diffuser to provide more down force to accelerate quicker.

Seems like there could be some clever uses if kers to bleed off power for traction control like applications though. This is what f1 is all about people... That's the drama and excitement. There is technology, intrigue, and then the real debates start when you simply suggest Vettel is the very best in the world and that's the difference. Fun stuff.

AmVess4• 13 years ago

Yeah, the weird plut-plut-plut of the Renault engine in the RBR is a result of the cold blowing.

KERS based traction control would be silent.

chiph2• 13 years ago

the RB9 could limit power when compressed and boost power when expanded

Isn't that backwards? If you're light on the suspension, that means you have less grip, and thus less traction.

CrazyCatDog• 13 years ago

Right turn: right suspension compressed, left wheels on the outside have further to travel, if both spinning at the same speed then you will break traction on one side or the other. Not sure what type of differentials are legal in F1, but the technology in the article is plausible in the absence of some fancy limited slip diffs.

hvidgaard• 13 years ago

You do not want to floor the pedal while still getting out of the corner. The side way force means you have less grip for forward motion, and too much torque to the tires and they will spin.

eaurouge2• 13 years ago

Or maybe their technical team is just better. Adrian Newey[1] has designed some very fast cars - at Williams, McLaren and now at Red Bull. Michael Schumacher managed to win seven championships in his career, but he was often racing against a (much) more superior Newey-designed car. F1 was fun in those days. With Vettel, arguably the most talented driver to drive a Newey designed car since Senna, it's no surprise Red Bull is cleaning up.

Red Bull's pace is unfortunate, because with Alonso, Hamilton, Kimi and Vettel you have four incredibly fast drivers. And without Red Bull's dominance, the current era could have been one of the most exciting in F1 history. It doesn't help that Vettel is a bit of a dick, or at least that's the perception. Schumacher was a bit of dick too, but the crowd (or a sizable portion) liked him - the fact that he didn't always have the best car, also helped.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey

GVIrish4• 13 years ago

Eh, I wouldn't say Schumacher won against vastly superior Adrian Newey cars. Once Ferrari hit their stride in the Schumacher years they often beat McLaren by being far more reliable and robust. They also built up their advantage with their Bridgestone partnership to a level that made them dominant. So dominant in fact, that it led to a spec tire.

Adrian Newey designs in the past ran on the ragged edge of fragility in order to make the cars as fast as possible. But that resulted in many costly DNF's that cost McLaren at least one championship. Now the Red Bull cars are still blazing fast but they're also very reliable.

I'm pretty sure Red Bull is cheating with traction control through their KERS system but I'm also sure they'd be winning races without it.

eaurouge2• 13 years ago

He won his first two titles in a Benetton Ford that was widely considered to be inferior to the Williamses. At Ferrari, it took the team four years after Schumacher joined, to build a car that was truly on par with the best on the grid. But even before that Schumacher had come close to winning the championship, challenging Villeneuve's Williams for the title in 97, and Hakkinen's McLaren in 98 and 99.

bowlofpetunias• 13 years ago

As a fan of the sport, I've so far only read about this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory on forums and low-end blogs.

Wired adds no new insights, no facts, no sources, not even new speculative theories, it just rehashes old gossip. Fuck, this is one step down from Gawker.

I'm so glad I stopped taken Wired seriously since the 90's.

antris• 13 years ago

As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery.

Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.

Journalism is about so much more than pure facts.

beaker52• 13 years ago

"As a non-fan of the sport, this story sounds exciting. Clearly something interesting is happening in the F1 scene, and nobody knows for sure what it is. It's a great mystery."

This is the case most of the time whether it's a new design, or political. That's F1.

onebaddude• 13 years ago

Even if this story is a rehash of what has been already said in F1 fan blogs, it is very accessible to people who know little about the sport.

Don't worry, that's just the obligatory HN top comment of: I happen to have more knowledge of the topic, therefore this article sucks.

I also thought it was an interesting read.

atonse• 13 years ago

RBR is certainly one of those teams that is A+ in every facet. Traction control wouldn't explain their consistently amazing pitstop times, and their car's generally awesome reliability.

I've been watching pretty much every F1 race for the past 3+ years, but don't read any F1 blogs. This was news to me. I have been growing a little tired of the Vettel's domination, even if it's well earned.

That's why Silverstone was one of my favorite races this year. Because as soon as Vettel crashed, it was like, "oh, we have an actual race on our hands now!" and the commentators said something similar, something about it no longer just being a race for second place.

talmand• 13 years ago

So, in your words, Wired covered a developing story that so far has only appeared in forums and low-end blogs. They pieced together a story from various sources, despite your claim, and presented what is out there right now.

I think they did their job.

You can't expect every time a news story is written that it will provide new information, especially when you are already quite aware of the content of the story before you even read it.

I, for one, have never heard of this story. I found the article interesting.

CrankyPants3• 13 years ago

Eh, it's been covered by the BBC (by the astute and experienced Gary Anderson), by Racecar Engineering, a highly respected publication, among others. Hardly forums and low-end 'blogs.

The Wired article, while to be commended for bringing the appeal of the technical challenges of Formula 1, demonstrates a shallow and incomplete understanding of the issues at play, unfortunately. It's unsurprising, but a little disappointing.

jongala• 13 years ago

At least they didn't reprint the obviously-sarcastic comments that Vettel made in interviews, which Jalopnik put in their article. As far as the tech goes, it is a total rehash of Racecar Engineering's work, but Wired has a very different audience so that isn't such a waste. I think their reasoning is flawed as to why it would be kept from Webber — the money argument doesn't smell right to me — but at least they added something to the discussion that I haven't seen fleshed out elsewhere.

mchanson• 13 years ago

Also the money amounts they talk about sound very low for a team to care about. Budget is so big that $1k more per point (totally what like $270k) is not much money.

incision• 13 years ago

Well then, as a fan of the sport who apparently already knows everything a mainstream magazine has to offer and then some - can you offer some insight, a link or anything at all for the rest of us beyond self-satisfied bitching?

csmatt• 13 years ago

Obligatory Smokey Yunick mention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick

The guy was a hacker in many senses of the word!

Zigurd• 13 years ago

My theory is that they implemented an equivalent to traction control, but with no sensors at the wheel. It's all internal to the KERS, and probably a software hack. For example, if a drop in current from the KERS indicates the motor/generator needs less power even though the throttle is open, you might be able to infer wheel-spin without measuring it directly, and momentarily shut down the KERS to reduce power to the wheels.

Even if they audited the code, it might look like code that protects that motor/generator from over-revving than a software traction control.

AmVess4• 13 years ago

How it would work is to use the KERS to charge during engine acceleration. A brilliant idea, and it wouldn't have to be plumbed into the standard McLaren ECU all the teams have to use.

Lewis Hamilton stated that Vettel's RBR car was getting on full throttle 65 feet(!) sooner than all the other cars at a corner in Singapore...which means that there's clearly something going on that isn't just Newey's aero.

burgreblast• 13 years ago

Wow, that's a really compelling guess.

I've been lucky enough to go to MC for several years and usually get at least one session on the outside of Rascasse. Everyone has problems accelerating out of that corner, especially the first 10-15 laps. They all get on the power, and oversteer. You watch their rear tires get shiny, the rear slips out of line, and you hear them back off the throttle.

Except Vettel. Constant power, a strange exhaust, and never ever oversteering. I remember jumping up and down the first time I saw it: "THAT'S why he's so fast--RB have different technology. No one else can go though the turn like that. No one."

I never did figure out what it could be, but your theory makes perfect sense. Thanks.

swamp403• 13 years ago

I think you are probably right.

Your theory is getting some press, too: http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=articl...

TallGuyShort2• 13 years ago

I'd be surprised if they hadn't looked at something like this, but it wouldn't explain the suspicious sound. The electric motor that KERS controls would be relatively silent compared to the V-8... (Oh how I miss the V-12's...)

sp332• 13 years ago

And they're moving to turbocharged V-6's soon. http://www.formula1.com/news/features/2013/8/14875.html

ChikkaChiChi• 13 years ago

Personally, I'd be all for a league similar to F1 that allowed for much greater disparaties between teams.

We're talking about the most well funded teams in the world; no chance of a small upstart coming in with a low bankroll and making a splash anyway.

beat6• 13 years ago

There used to be such a beast. It was called Can-Am, and the rules were basically that cars had to have two seats, fenders, and at least one engine. Other than that, it was anything goes. It made for spectacular racing, but tended to be dominated by one team at a time, and it was ridiculously expensive. It was ultimately shut down for cost reasons.

justin662• 13 years ago

Not the sort of thing you could bring back today, even without the cost concerns. The "let's do everything we can do to make this fast" cars competing in that series killed a lot of drivers.

cmsimike2• 13 years ago

I've been keeping up on this and I don't believe it to be what Wired speculates (though I've seen those rumors myself). The generally accepted answer to this seems to be that the Redbull's engine (Renault) cuts half its cylinders[0]. Yes this can be seen as a type of _torque_ control, not traction control.

The sound was what my engine sounded like when a spark plug cable came loose and thus not firing the cylinder.

As for why Webber doesn't sound like that - well you can speculate that Webber just doesn't have the trust in his car as Vettel has to get on the power that early. And, if you've kept up with this season at all, you'd understand why Webber has no trust in his car[1].

[0] http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull-traction

[1] https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/600837_1010...

graycat• 13 years ago

An old remark was, without rules, auto racing would soon become about as exciting as watching the jets land at JFK.

Another point is, mostly sports are sold as drama, that is, about human characters the audience can identify with, characters taking on challenges. So, see lots of pictures of the drivers, that is, the characters in the drama, and commentary about the characters, but next to nothing on the engineering of the cars. So, what's the bore/stroke ratio, max piston speed, max RPMs, number of valves per cylinder, valve spring design (last I heard, they don't use metal springs and use compressed gas instead), intake boost design and pressures, intercooler design, fuel injection design, fuel chemistry, clutch design, transmission design, suspension design, etc.? Don't hear much about those details!

So, it's not sold as a competition or lesson in engineering or the old "improve the breed" but as human drama.

So, have rules to deemphasize the engineering and just let the drama show. On with the show!

JulianMorrison• 13 years ago

I wonder what a race with "truly, anything goes" as the rule for car design would be like?

brianbreslin• 13 years ago

I am not really a huge racing fan, but am fascinated by the innovation going on in formula 1, and other race circuits. These innovations eventually make it into mainstream cars. By self-imposing constraints, they are pushing the engineers to get creative.

swamp403• 13 years ago

Regarding the mysterious hidden traction control that no one can find.

How about a modified wireless air pressure sensor inside the tires that also reported tire slippage?

Then perhaps that slippage info gets received by electronics built into the drivers shoes?

Then the millisecond acceleration and braking is controlled by actuators inside the shoes that hit the pedals, faster than any human can and using instant, actionable slippage data.

When the driver walks away, nothing unusual can be found on the car when it is presented for inspection.

chrismealy• 13 years ago

I'm pretty sure there's a ton of money in constructors' points, way more than the entrance fee, but the prize money isn't disclosed.

jotm• 13 years ago

F1 was supposed to be about the fastest cars with the best technologies, why did they ban traction control (among other things)? What a joke...

TallGuyShort2• 13 years ago

While I agree with your disappointment, many people believe F1 was supposed to be about the best drivers more than about the best cars. I will admit that the regulations have made the races more exciting in the sense of competition, even though I would love to see what happened if you just let the engineers go crazy.

iSloth• 13 years ago

The FIA must be aware of the system that they are using, buy looking at this section of the rules:

8.2.1 All components of the engine and gearbox, including clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA. The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA. Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

Fuzzwah• 13 years ago

I'm a huge F1 fan and this is the best wrap up of what red bull are probably doing:

http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red-bull-r...

danbmil99• 13 years ago

This is why I hate all sports.

WalterBright• 13 years ago

What I'd do if I was in charge of it (and I never would be) would be to outlaw all semiconductors in the car.

Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret

Related Stories