Thread

Powerless F1 drivers frustrated by Bahrain F1 software glitch

178 points · 112 comments · llm_nerd

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?
    [deleted] · 1791174509 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    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.
    __m · 1791181093 · focus · HN ↗
    that would make the engineering fans unhappy, it's in the DNA of f1 as much as driver skills, plus they still need to beat their teammate.
    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 ↗
    Traction control was allowed before 2008. The problem was that it trivialized some aspects of driving - drivers could floor the throttle through turns at little to no risk. (I suspect there may have also been some concerns that drivers who pushed traction control too far could have easily ended up in unrecoverable situations.)
    There's some interesting discussion of the history and technical aspects at: <a href="https://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Files/Honda/F1-SP2_25e.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Files/Honda/F1-SP2_25e.pd...
    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.
    djriley · 1791180855 · focus · HN ↗
    What I do find interesting is GT3 cars have both ABS and traction control these days and they have great racing. I believe prototypes have TC but no ABS. I realize the mix of talent is much different, especially in GT3 where there are Pro/AM teams and stuff like that, but I'm not sure TC makes that big of a difference on the racing. I don't think ABS should ever be allowed in open wheel as it inspires too much risk taking in overtakes. The whole reason NA F1 revved so high was partially to help keep the power band reasonable exiting slow corners.
    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.)
    johnwalkr · 1791183898 · focus · HN ↗
    There’s room for debate but automated safety features on a racetrack isn’t like having them for normal highway driving. What if an edge case isn’t found in testing and automatic braking causes a crash instead of prevents it? How do you consider all edge cases when there’s 22 cars driving at 300km/h?
    Aside from that it’s preposterous to think the FIA wants crashes or less safety. A large chunk of regulations are for safety and historically the drivers fight against many of of the safety measures.
  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.
  5. JetSetIlly · 1791183530 · focus · HN ↗
    Is the FIA code available for the teams to inspect, or is it just a binary blob they have to install?
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. [deleted] · 1791167357 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.