Thread

Powerless F1 drivers frustrated by Bahrain F1 software glitch

164 points · 99 comments · llm_nerd

Loading the complete thread in the background. This saved snapshot is available now. Refresh

jrflo · 1791166844 · focus · HN ↗
A question for someone who knows more about F1: Is this firmware shared by all cars? Or some local server at the track the cars connect to? Why is F1 able to control individual cars like this? The article is very light on details as to what exactly is going on...
1. fishgoesblub · 1791167034 · focus · HN ↗
  The FIA has this software to stop teams from creating a form of traction control (which has been banned for a good while now)
  1. para_parolu · 1791167413 · focus · HN ↗
    Why? To increase chances of crashes that produces more views?
    johannes1234321 · 1791168043 · focus · HN ↗
    I am not big in F1, but my understanding is that the primary goal is to have the driver be more relevant over the car/firmware producers.
    hidroto · 1791173522 · focus · HN ↗
    Then why not have standardised vehicles and have the driver be the only variable?
    usefulcat · 1791174509 · focus · HN ↗
    "Primary goal" does not mean the same thing as "only goal".
    usefulcat · 1791174790 · focus · HN ↗
    Presumably because they also see at least some value in technical innovation.
    It's possible for driver skill to be important without being the only thing that matters.
    bruce511 · 1791176341 · focus · HN ↗
    There have been series' like that, but its equally bad, in the other direction. In that scenario drivers qualify in speed order, then they do the race in the same order. It's not much fun to watch.
    Every track is the same because all the cars have the same strengths and weaknesses.
    In other words, there are too few variables.
    Good races are where teams are involved to make the best car, drivers are involved to execute the best driving, strategists are involved to make the best decisions, and luck creates jeopardy for all.
    With different cars (any they are remarkably different given the extensive regs) some do well at high speed tracks, others prefer corners and so on.
    djriley · 1791179772 · focus · HN ↗
    I mean that's pretty much the IndyCar spec and they have pretty decent racing. They've done things like embracing underbody aero to cut down on dirty air to allow them to follow closer, low downforce specs on ovals to force them to race the track. Even a spec car, a drivers ability to communicate setup issues to the team, the team to implement them, the budget to do it. F1 is some of the best in the world, but none since Mansell have really came over and dominated, not even Alonso.
    Current IndyCar is pretty good compared to the IRL years, this isn't an argument to make F1 a spec series. I was IndyCar for close exciting racing, I watch F1 for the engineering battle as well as the drivers. I think for a lot of F1 fans, the off track drama, the development of the teams through out the season, and the cool ideas they come up with to try to push the boundaries are about as good as the on track entertainment.
    The spectacle is still very important, there is nothing like seeing F1 cornering speeds in person. IndyCar isn't close, they have their oval thing with ultra high sustained top speeds, but not even close to F1 on a road course. When you see how fast an F1 car can change directions, it genuinely boggles the mind that a human is behind that. And they've really dropped the ball in that aspect this season. The fans aren't happy, the driver's aren't happy. Something needs to change.
    stackghost · 1791178608 · focus · HN ↗
    They have that, it’s Indycar.
    F1 has always been about the combination of excellence in driving and in engineering.
    scott_w · 1791179944 · focus · HN ↗
    Because that’s also not desirable all the time either. There are lots of one make series out there but they can be pretty mixed in how fun they are to watch. I was at Croft a few weeks ago and the BTCC rounds were incredible, close racing with overtakes and near miss crashes.
    The Porsche GT and GT Sprint Cups (911 and Cayman respectively) were a lot more like a procession where the faster drivers quickly ordered themselves and drove away from the rest of the grid. Granted there were fewer cars starting, which didn’t help, but it still didn’t make for exciting viewing.
    stackghost · 1791168107 · focus · HN ↗
    The entire purpose of traction control is to reduce the driver skill required when cornering and braking. This is why traction control is omnipresent in consumer vehicles, because the vast majority of road drivers are awful.
    FIA bans traction control so as to place more emphasis on driver skill.
    stingraycharles · 1791168220 · focus · HN ↗
    Basically, there's an endless struggle between "how much do we let automation control?" If there were no such rules, the role of the driver would be far less than it is now, which would effectively reduce competition.
    Rastonbury · 1791169616 · focus · HN ↗
    There's some debate but it's kinda settled, it's the pinnacle of motorsports so no driver aids, they are moving away from hybrids, realizing road car relevance/parity is no longer the direction
    duskwuff · 1791168419 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
    vel0city · 1791168773 · focus · HN ↗
    We should allow batting machines for baseball players to hit the ball more reliably as well. Poker players should play with their cards face up. I agree.
    Manually controlling to the limits of the car is a big part of the skill of racing.
    pertymcpert · 1791169848 · focus · HN ↗
    Traction control removes of the most fundamental skills of a driver. It’s like allowing ABS.
    usefulcat · 1791172221 · focus · HN ↗
    Crashes don't directly make for a better race; what matters is the amount of actual competition, and for that you need variation.
    If every driver drove exactly the same way, then the race would be 100% down to basically just team strategy and the car itself. For fans of strategy that might be fine, but I think most people would find it much less interesting.
    nucleardog · 1791177988 · focus · HN ↗
    > Why? To increase chances of crashes that produces more views?
    Why not allow traction control? To increase crashes?
    Why not allow "lane keep assist"? To increase drivers crashing into walls?
    Why not allow "automatic braking"? To increase drivers slamming into walls and other drivers?
    Why do we still have the human in the car when a brick on the accelerator could do the same job? So when the cars crash people feel there are real stakes?
    (Presumably they've decided they want the sport to be about the drivers to some extent.)
  2. [deleted] · 1791167490 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
2. markus92 · 1791167150 · focus · HN ↗
  They all run the same ECU and the same firmware on it, yeah. Teams can control some parameters though. It's to stop any kind of traction control.
  1. jrflo · 1791172346 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow, crazy that all cars have to run the same firmware (sans parameter tweaking). I thought as an outsider to the sport that F1 was all about engineering the best possible car and putting the best possible driver in the seat, but the control systems engineer in me is sad that they're all stuck with the same control algorithms.
    octoberfranklin · 1791176273 · focus · HN ↗
    They want them to engineer everything except the things that replace driver skill.
3. vsskanth · 1791167217 · focus · HN ↗
  The firmware situation is mixed. The ECU hardware is a standard TAG700 from McLaren. Basically these are software-defined ECUs where you can do whatever. However, FIA has some rules on what you're allowed to modify and has some "compulsory" software in there for monitoring and competition regulatory reasons. It appears there was very limited testing of this module in wet conditions which seems to have affected a lot of vehicles. (I work in Motorsports)
  1. jrflo · 1791168675 · focus · HN ↗
    Wow. I just assumed it wouldn’t be firmware because going from making a fix in 50 minutes to having cars flying at hundreds of miles per hour on that firmware is kind of nuts
  2. xeonmc · 1791168762 · focus · HN ↗
    So basically like the anticheat rootkits used in online games to detect ilicit software controls on the player pc's?
    vsskanth · 1791170000 · focus · HN ↗
    F1 vehicles have a lot of actively controlled systems - Engine, MGU, Diff, Brake Bias, Aero etc. Their way of allowing active control but preventing "driver aids" like traction control, torque vectoring is to tightly regulate and give them a box where they can place their controls and what inputs they are allowed to use.
  3. AsmaraHolding · 1791171041 · focus · HN ↗
    McLaren sold McLaren Applied, the makers of the TAG700, in 2021 and it’s now known as Motion Applied.
  4. jcomp · 1791172763 · focus · HN ↗
    Adding to this summarizing my reading from elsewhere: It sounds as if the cause was going too slowly through a sector, and due to to combination of wet conditions and the specific layout of the sectors at Sepang it was triggered for the first time. Since everyone was driving in formation on the formation lap, multiple drivers triggered it.
    Would this be safety-related, something like "going this slowly through a sector indicates a problem, kill the throttle"? Still seems heavy-handed since the cars were moving, if dangerously slowly.
4. junofan · 1791167337 · focus · HN ↗
  The teams use a single homologated ECU to prevent driver aids. I would assume it doesn’t have a downlink on-track to prevent tampering, but presumably with umbilical cord connected in the garage during red flag they can make changes, which the FIA probably sent over. Who knows.
  1. mtremsal · 1791174297 · focus · HN ↗
    No this all happened during the formation lap. So teams could clearly push settings changes live.
5. riknos314 · 1791167357 · focus · HN ↗
  My understanding is that the FIA distributes a set of power unit limitations as either a library or config file (or maybe the teams build their own config from the rulebook) that the power unit management software for each car takes a dependency on.
  The rumors I've heard around this incident basically make it seem like the PU had limitations on engine-only output that applied only in wet conditions, but some cars exhausted the battery for the hybrid system leaving them on engine power only, leading to a condition where the cars had limited acceleration. This generation of cars does not have a traction control system, so the coarser-grained torque modulation from the engine revving is more likely to cause the wheels to lose grip than the finer grained torque control of the electric motors. The software update likely had something to do with changing that threshold or recharging limits.
algoth1 · 1791166889 · focus · HN ↗
I can't not read it as "They vibe coded a patch in 50 minutes". Had they used Sol 6.1 they would still be waiting
1. dante54 · 1791166989 · focus · HN ↗
  Still waiting for 6.1 sol to patch a UI bug as am reading this
2. throw03172019 · 1791170871 · focus · HN ↗
  Is 6.1 Sol that bad? Or just slow?
  1. unglaublich · 1791177413 · focus · HN ↗
    [delayed]
boredatoms · 1791167041 · focus · HN ↗
Time to go back to NA engines, the hybrids don't give the rock concert wall of sound
1. rapidfl · 1791167326 · focus · HN ↗
  Lets all vent in one more place. How this kind of regs get forced is sad. All the casual fans want something fun to watch. All the serious fans want NA engines. The drivers hate these "power units".
  1. xeonmc · 1791172501 · focus · HN ↗
    Gentlemen, a short view back to the past. Thirty years ago, Niki Lauda told us ‘take a monkey, place him into the cockpit and he is able to drive the car.’ Thirty years later, Sebastian told us ‘I had to start my car like a computer, it’s very complicated.’ And Nico Rosberg said that during the race – I don’t remember what race - he pressed the wrong button on the wheel. Question for you both: is Formula One driving today too complicated with twenty and more buttons on the wheel, are you too much under effort, under pressure? What are your wishes for the future concerning the technical programme during the race? Less buttons, more? Or less and more communication with your engineers?
    Kd368 · 1791172903 · focus · HN ↗
    Can you repeat the question?
2. penskymaterial · 1791174065 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't follow motorsports very closely, but sorry, racing hybrids sounds extremely queer.
  They might as well not do it at all.
  You cannot greenwash auto racing as "sustainable" when by its very nature it need not exist. It's done for sport.
  1. RantyDave · 1791174810 · focus · HN ↗
    In theory: it's not greenwashing, it's so that the humungous amounts of resources they put into developing F1 engines are not completely wasted ... so that some of the tech can "trickle down" to road car engines. Hence, the interest in hybrids. At least they get to learn how to charge a battery really, really fast.
    In practice, of course, it's all going to go a bit south when road cars go to 90% EV. There is already a "formula E", of course.
  2. klausa · 1791174975 · focus · HN ↗
    There are very obvious performance benefits to running a hybrid.
    rozap · 1791175407 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you're right, but I do wish the formula was more open ended. The super strict regs were supposed to prevent runaway costs, but now we have the cost cap. So like, why not institute a cost cap for the pu manufacturers and let them go nuts.
    klausa · 1791175853 · focus · HN ↗
    The PU development is under a separate cost cap.
  3. xtracto · 1791176181 · focus · HN ↗
    The worst thing is that, whatever they "save" in the hybrid part, is offsetted by the amount of pollution of flying all people and machines around the world.
    Someone on reddit showed a graph comparing both, and it's just ridiculous.
    I'm an avid F1 fan since 1990s, and think hybrid engines is the wrong way to do it.
    Skunkleton · 1791180094 · focus · HN ↗
    The hybrid power train isn't about carbon emissions at the race, its about advancing lower carbon technology.
    That said, its still dumb since consumer cars are moving on from hybrids it seems.
  4. coderenegade · 1791178192 · focus · HN ↗
    F1 couldn't call themselves the pinnacle of motorsports if they moved away from hybrid engines. The performance advantages are fairly staggering.
3. userbinator · 1791175409 · focus · HN ↗
  NASCAR still uses classic carbureted V8s. I personally prefer that sound over the much higher-pitched F1 engines.
  1. rascul · 1791176613 · focus · HN ↗
    NASCAR Cup series has been using EFI since 2012. The other series still use carburetors.
h4kunamata · 1791167191 · focus · HN ↗
The Enshittification era keeps on giving.
Moved from one of the most fun auto sports to an EV mess. The fact that they were able to vibe code ( You can't truly deliver a code without testing gates in place, let alone release to production, the cars themselves), tells:
1: The teams no longer own the car
2: F1 has become Formula E 2.0
1. LoganDark · 1791167468 · focus · HN ↗
  Gotta love how people assume software patches have never been prepared in an emergency before LLMs. Ever heard of Apollo 14?
  1. fishgoesblub · 1791170038 · focus · HN ↗
    Apollo 14? Is that a new model?
    LoganDark · 1791170726 · focus · HN ↗
    Apollo 14 was one of the original moon landing missions back in 1971. They had to make an emergency adjustment to the computer's memory to work around an electrical issue where the abort button would intermittently (and erroneously) register as pressed. Turns out they couldn't modify the actual machine code so it wasn't a "software patch" in the exact same sense, but there were certainly no large language models back then.
2. superb_dev · 1791167559 · focus · HN ↗
  F1 teams have never fully owned the car, you’ll notice they all look pretty similar. The FIA has a lot of rules around the construction of the cars
  1. lostlogin · 1791168211 · focus · HN ↗
    FIA, the FIFA of motorsport.
3. MBCook · 1791171984 · focus · HN ↗
  I’ve really enjoyed this year.
jey · 1791167555 · focus · HN ↗
Seems wild that they can code and deploy an update of a critical-seeming component in the field like that. I thought such a firmware update would need extensive QA in the lab, along with root causing why this bug slipped through their processes anyway.
But maybe that's the difference between shipping a controller for F1 versus shipping one for an industrial or consumer product? shrug.
1. dylan604 · 1791167909 · focus · HN ↗
  I'm wondering how good the simulators are. At the start of the season, they were still learning the systems trying to figure out why they were losing power in the straights. So depending on the driver, issues may or may not become apparent. That's like trying to debug why an email can only be sent to a recipient less than 500 miles away.
  1. rossriley · 1791168839 · focus · HN ↗
    Anthony Davidson who is the Mercedes test driver said that the teams can simulate these scenarios and it seemed that the Mercedes cars were not affected so it seems that other teams hadn't done similar testing in various scenarios.
    altmanaltman · 1791170362 · focus · HN ↗
    One of the mercedes literally broke down and did not finish the race. They might not have faced the issue during the first time they went out in that race but Merc reliablity has been very shaky. And ofc Ant will talk only good things about Mercedes. But this is not the type of things they use the driver simulator for, it is to help the drivers train. These types of issues don't make sense to spend simulator time on with the driver in it
    dylan604 · 1791174672 · focus · HN ↗
    Seems a lot better place to learn than in the middle of the race and earning $0 for the race. Isn't that the entire point of a simulator to learn things that are too expensive to learn in the real world?
    jcomp · 1791174724 · focus · HN ↗
    Interesting that both Mercedes also had great starts relative to the Red Bull that was affected, wonder if that’s somehow related
    _thisdot · 1791175368 · focus · HN ↗
    Piastri and Norris, both on Mercedes engines, seem to have been affected. Not to mention the start of this season where McLaren allegedly forgot to upgrade the firmware on their Mercedes engines and couldn't run more than a few laps for two races.
  2. degamad · 1791180177 · focus · HN ↗
    > trying to debug why an email can only be sent to a recipient less than 500 miles away.
    Ah, a student of the old masters....
    (For the uninitiated, or those who wish to relive the memory: <a href="https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html )
2. rapidfl · 1791167929 · focus · HN ↗
  It was probably just "config" changes or changing some hard-coded constants. So relatively straightforward.
  1. chrisandchris · 1791178308 · focus · HN ↗
    > just
    Sometimes we bring down whole services with "just" config (looking at you, DNS).
3. LeoPanthera · 1791168214 · focus · HN ↗
  It seems they simply disabled a bunch of power limits. Probably just settings, rather than an actual code update.
4. mvlipwig · 1791168927 · focus · HN ↗
  I think those engineers had some memories of their FSAE / FSUK days during that patch.
5. tiffanyh · 1791170206 · focus · HN ↗
  F1 are effectively prototype cars.
  Every GP is a slightly different car running bleeding edge tech and code.
6. DrewADesign · 1791171177 · focus · HN ↗
  I have no idea if SV’s “tests pass… idfk, it’s a web app… LGTM I guess” coding ethos was the cause of this particular bug. However, it’s a great, relatively benign demonstration of why it has absolutely zero fucking place controlling extremely dangerous hardware shooting a human around a race track surrounded by people.
7. fsckboy · 1791173171 · focus · HN ↗
  a fix was necessary in order for the race to take place, an event that has had a lot of planning and money poured into it. why do you think it's strange they would try to fix it on the spot? it was a governor and they shut it off; it was not a critical component, rather one that was causing a critical failure.
  >very low speeds, triggered by the power unit controller's wet weather mode ... and deliver a software patch for all 11 teams to install during the following red flag stoppage, lifting the usual wet weather power reduction in the affected zones
8. atmosx · 1791177763 · focus · HN ↗
  > Seems wild that they can code and deploy an update of a critical-seeming component in the field like that. I thought such a firmware update would need extensive QA in the lab, along with root causing why this bug slipped through their processes anyway.
  These cars are in a perpetual Q&A state, they are getting modified between races. That's true for the "big teams", small teams don't have the resources, they're just "happy to be there". That's why it's possible to see stories like Brawn GP[^1]. That's what makes the sport fascinating, because the overtakes are not as much as one would hope for a ~2-3 hours race. But every little thing counts. In the last race 1st and 2nd had ~103ms diff or something like that for example, which is something that didn't happen for 15-20 years (maybe more).
  [^1]: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3miTpvUmI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jd3miTpvUmI
HHC-Hunter · 1791169785 · focus · HN ↗
Honestly at this point, bring back the V10's.
aetherspawn · 1791170746 · focus · HN ↗
Auto software engineer here.
It’s frankly because Motorsport software guys are pretty arrogant. They look down on road car and truck engineers, but reality is they develop stuff with virtually no processes and they usually have only very basic engineering skills, yet every day they are told Motorsport is at the forefront of technology.
“Motorsport grade” auto components usually means crappy, and everything requires a software patch or constant maintenance to work correctly.
Not surprised there was a bug, and not surprised they were able to develop and deploy a patch in 1 hour without V&V testing it or anything.
1. LoganDark · 1791170951 · focus · HN ↗
  > everything requires a software patch to work correctly
  Isn't that literally the point? Most auto components aren't designed to be patched by the end user.
2. oshawa_connecti · 1791175818 · focus · HN ↗
  Preach; I worked with a couple guys who left the F1 software industry and my experience matches yours. They wrote JavaScript like it was old school C, didn’t know version control etc, and refused to learn anything different.
3. buriram · 1791178504 · focus · HN ↗
  Similar HFT and quants, they are elite in a very specialized niche: aerodynamics and CFD. The rest is extremely outdated.
  Keep in mind that when James Volwes become the team principal of Williams in 2023, he was horrified to realize Williams operated everything in Excel spreadsheet, and to track the progress of how parts are made, they emailed Excel spreadsheet to each other (and remember, we are talking about a car with 100k parts). And the first thing he did was to onboard Atlassian / Jira and redesigned the process of communication / car production from the basics.
  1. stevage · 1791179265 · focus · HN ↗
    I have a friend who has worked in aerodynamics at several of the F1 teams. The parts themselves are pretty high tech, but all of the management of the data, the processes, the software to produce them etc is pretty shoddy.
whalesalad · 1791170777 · focus · HN ↗
Make race cars analog again
1. guax · 1791177422 · focus · HN ↗
  Last full analog car must’ve been in the 50s
alexx-devv · 1791171455 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
crypto137 · 1791171668 · focus · HN ↗
Claude, make my car fast, make no mistakes
1. rozap · 1791175112 · focus · HN ↗
  I have a chuckle every time the Williams is on the screen with its Claude sponsorship. Why don't they simply ask Claude to make their car fast, are they stupid?
  My wife is tired of this joke.
  1. klausa · 1791175814 · focus · HN ↗
    Williams has Claude, McLaren has both Gemini and Groq, RedBull has Oracle, Aston has CoreWeave, F1 as a whole has AWS...
    Tons of AI (and adjacent) sponsors!
MBCook · 1791172029 · focus · HN ↗
I just finished watching the race. The start was certainly a callback to the start of the season when cars were dropping like flies and having constant odd problems.
1. mtremsal · 1791174203 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes. And wasn’t this the first wet race of the season as well?
damowangcy · 1791172053 · focus · HN ↗
"Meet the F1 developer who fix a critical bug in 50 minutes with AI agent"
2000 PRs per day btw.
kazinator · 1791173953 · focus · HN ↗
[delayed]
Starlevel004 · 1791174573 · focus · HN ↗
For anyone not willing to click through, by "Bahrain" they actually mean Malaysia.
1. d1sxeyes · 1791177873 · focus · HN ↗
  For anyone not aware, this was the Bahrain Grand Prix held in Malaysia. The FIA allowed Bahrain to host their Grand Prix at a circuit which isn’t normally used for F1 any more in Malaysia because of the geopolitical situation in countries around Bahrain.
  Therefore this was the Bahrain F1, it just happened to take place in Malaysia.
zkmon · 1791174576 · focus · HN ↗
When such complex and powerful machine is doing the actual run, and it has complex logic circuitry, capable of making some decisions, it is similar to horse racing and the machines should be awarded (same as horse), not the jockeys.
1. comradesmith · 1791175164 · focus · HN ↗
  They do. There are two parallel championships. The drivers and constructors championships.
  That’s why when Hadjar was off with an injury the Red Bull team got a replacement driver (Liam Lawson from Racing Bulls), because they still want to get as many points for that car in the constructors championship as possible :]
2. hxhsjsn · 1791175255 · focus · HN ↗
  They are, F1 had a driver's and constructors championship.
SA9G · 1791176023 · focus · HN ↗
Oh yes, the insanity of the new F1 power units! The goal was 50/50 Electric/ICE split... but why go hybrid when the cars use fully synthetic fuel and have essentially no runtime carbon footprint? Well for car makers to signal their virtue of course! Did they worry about the mega tons of goods they ship around the globe to race in 24 different countries... or perhaps the armada of VIP private planes that follow... or the 1M fans that drive to each venue?
Ok, so hybrid... but where will the E energy come from? Clearly from the brakes, the rear brakes... the same ones that get only a fraction of the braking energy because all the forces move to the front under deceleration. Where is the energy stored, in the battery of course... which is so small it runs out halfway down a single straight. So you basically have a big complicated heavy car with half the power it should...
And naturally you have lots of software controlling "deployment" of your meager E reserves. It even guesses where you are on track based on time/speed, because GPS is illegal for that. Sigh...
1. unglaublich · 1791177132 · focus · HN ↗
  Because electric engines are more performant than gas ones so you can in theory have better driving perfomrance? I.e., high, flat and predictable torque curve, re-use braking energy (so it adds up to ICE), extremely high energy density of the engine unit.
  1. SA9G · 1791177932 · focus · HN ↗
    All that, yes. But they don't work too well if the battery runs out halfway down the straight... and there is too little charging.
    I wasn't politicizing E vs ICE... but commenting on the particular specifications these rules mandate for F1. Specifications that are not fit for purpose.
2. fsh · 1791177239 · focus · HN ↗
  F1 is a constructors championship, and the constructors are interested in developing electric power trains. Nobody wants to spend 100 million to tweak the last 0.1% performance out of a turbo-charged V8.
  1. SA9G · 1791177761 · focus · HN ↗
    Quite right, on the constructor part... that is very much the appeal for us techies. But they do spend 100 million tweaking the last 0.1% of aero advantage and tire-deg management. a) They could just homologate a common engine, like in F2 and concentrate on the chassis or b) make a properly designed hybrid PU. By (b) I mean have an E component that gets adequately charged... the MGU-H (E-Turbo) of the last generation seemed to work fine. The current specs is nuts, definitely NOT advancing technology.
    fsh · 1791178848 · focus · HN ↗
    Banning teams like Ferrari or Mercedes from competing with their own cars (including the engines) would be the end of F1. The current regulations are extremely ambitious such that constructors can get a significant advantage from developing better tech. And it's working, the Mercedes powertrain is clearly dominating, even though the Ford V8 is more powerful.
3. guax · 1791177365 · focus · HN ↗
  Let’s all just watch go karts and ignore what F1 always was because we think electricity is political now.
unglaublich · 1791176589 · focus · HN ↗
> Lando Norris calling the electronic glitches "horrible" and further proof that F1 should move away from hybrids.
But the human fireballs, deaths and suffering of gasoline-related accidents are no proof that F1 should move away from gas-power?
1. Iknowsheknows · 1791177640 · focus · HN ↗
  Those are two seperate issues. Safety issues are solved by making the cars/driver gear safer.
2. bergen · 1791177844 · focus · HN ↗
  > "It's just horrible. I don't know, it just proves that we shouldn't have any of that stuff, the electronic side," Norris said
  It seems he doesn't want ANY electronics, which is frankly ridiculous. The steering wheel has looked like the one from a flighter jet for decades now. There is electronics in everything, even the helmets.
PedroBatista · 1791177769 · focus · HN ↗
While this is "interesting" for nerds like me.
This is also portrait of how embarrassing, fake, boring and not-racing F1 has become. Even the "boring" low overtaking 00's were orders of magnitude more exciting than this clown show.
This is also one of the consequences of the FIA Emperor being a complete power hungry fool and many competent people being pushed out of the FIA. Congratulations.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.