
Formula 1′s Leading Team Has a Big Secret - GFuller
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/10/red-bull-f1-traction-control/
======
brey
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.

~~~
ronaldx
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.

~~~
curveship
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.

~~~
SeanLuke
> \- the UCI limits bicycles so that it's a race between cyclists, not bank
> accounts.

The UCI has been hypocritical, inconsistent, and mendacious in its claims
here.

At the dawn of racing the UCI banned the recumbent Velocar not because it was
so much faster (it was), but because the powerful (ahem) upright bicycle lobby
demanded it.

The there was the Moulton, which started winning lots of races on its 17"
tires in the 1960s. The UCI notionally banned it for nonsensical "safety"
reasons, while it was really about small wheels being too fast. The big-wheel
bike manufacturers had gotten scared.

Meanwhile, while the UCI was busy banning minor things like beam bikes, disc
brakes, and even different rider positions (!), it was perfectly happy to
allow huge changes in materials (carbon fiber notably), pedals, and wheels.

And then there's the UCI largely ignoring and wrist-slapping the biggest
technological improvement by far: performance enhancing drugs.

So if you don't mind, allow me to be annoyed that the UCI has destroyed the
small-wheel and recumbent market in the name of consistency, while being
largely complicit in the biggest sports drug scandal in history.

~~~
curveship
So much distorted history.

Recumbent bicycles are _older_ than the modern "safety" bicycle. They lost in
the marketplace on their own merits long before the UCI even existed. They are
faster in some scenarios, they are slower in others. They cost more, they
weigh more, they break more, they're less agile.

The '30s were not the "dawn of racing." The _peak_ of bicycle racing (and
technological progress) was 1880-1917. That would be when the safety bicycle
was emerging as the dominant configuration.

Moulton wheels had over 30 years to prove themselves before they were banned
in 1996, following the Lugano Charter. They didn't.

~~~
SeanLuke
I want to reply to another odd piece of your claim. Why are you comparing
recumbents to _safety bicycles_? We're talking about uprights. And so far as I
know, recumbent velocipedes are later than upright velocipedes, recumbent
pedaled bikes are later than upright pedaled bikes (notably the boneshaker);
and recumbent chained bikes are later than upright chained bikes.

And surely you realize that all of your claims (cost, weight, breaking,
agility) can be more easily ascribed to the fact that uprights are a huge mass
market with enormous R&D funding, and recumbents are a tiny little hobbyist
thing. Okay, maybe not agility, that's probably inherent.

------
Zigurd
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.

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

------
TillE
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
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.

~~~
TillE
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.

~~~
mjpa
A 30s gap over an entire race isn't that big of a deal, Hamilton won the 2008
British GP by over a minute but that was changeable conditions. Watch the
first lap of any race and see the gap Vettel builds in a single gap, it has
hovered around 2 seconds for many races...

~~~
mcroft
I think it was Singapore where a safety car blew out Vettel's advantage and
the pack caught up. Obviously tyre wear was very low in that period, so the
team told him to put his foot down, at which point he again managed to
increase the gap by about 2s per lap to the point where he had gained back an
entire pit stop. Even with a favourable track, I'm sure those in the paddock
can't help thinking of the similarities with the 1994 season.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_contr...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Formula_One_cheating_controversy)

------
bowlofpetunias
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
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
"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.

~~~
mikeryan
The point isn't that it is or isn't interesting the point is that Wired is
bringing an intriguing technical story to a population who wouldn't normally
care.

------
jlangenauer
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.

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

------
Sniperfish
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](http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/24381349)

~~~
TheCondor
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.

~~~
AmVess
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.

------
kyro
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.

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

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
ahlatimer
I wouldn't. Not in F1, at least. Not if you wanted to regularly come in the
points. You could stick Vettel in a Marussia, and he'd still finish near the
back of the pack.

~~~
sseveran
Vettel won his first race with Toro Rosso. While he may not be able to win in
dry conditions in a Marussia he could certainly get the most out of the car,
and help the team build it over time.

------
cmsimike
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](http://www.roadandtrack.com/go/news/racing/red-bull-traction)

[1] [https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
frc1/600837_1010...](https://scontent-a-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-
frc1/600837_10101889413082864_224334807_n.jpg)

------
eaurouge
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Newey)

~~~
GVIrish
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.

~~~
eaurouge
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.

------
ChildOfChaos
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.

------
rwmj
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
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.

~~~
cmsimike
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
I agree, but I don't think a budget cap would be easily enforceable which is
why - after years of talking about it - it has never been implemented.

------
graycat
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!

------
iSloth
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.

------
swamp40
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.

------
cjrp
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.

~~~
7952
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.

~~~
bliti
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.

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

~~~
brey
Technically correct - the best kind of correct.

------
Fuzzwah
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...](http://blog.axisofoversteer.com/2013/10/so-how-is-red-bull-running-
traction.html)

------
brianbreslin
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.

------
anoother
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.

~~~
buster
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6532428)

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

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

Yes, what was not right was the car being in flames because a crash :P

------
ChikkaChiChi
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.

~~~
beat
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.

~~~
justin66
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.

~~~
beat
Yeah. I used to watch Can Am when I was a little kid. Drivers got killed a
lot. Those cars were insane - 1000 horsepower sometimes.

~~~
justin66
Something like the Porsche 917k30 was capable of close to 1500hp. (I can't
imagine you'd actually run on race day with that setup) My dad and his friends
commented on watching that car many times, and specifically the amount of
noise that it made.

That car was illustrative of a few of the problems with the "let's just allow
the teams to build the fastest cars they possibly can!" notion. Teams didn't
pay as much attention to safety in general as they should have in the
seventies, but more to the point: the performance differential between some of
those cars - racing on the same crowded track - was just too extreme. There is
no safe way to run when that extreme difference exists.

------
RaSoJo
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.

------
csmatt
Obligatory Smokey Yunick mention.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smokey_Yunick)

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

------
chiph
_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
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.

------
anonymous
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?

~~~
oostevo
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.

~~~
chiph
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.

~~~
lmm
Has anyone tried an input system that would allow that? I'm thinking some kind
of split brake pedal that you can press either side of.

------
chrismealy
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
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...

~~~
TallGuyShort
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.

------
WalterBright
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.

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

------
linux_devil
Traction control sounds on youtube are very similar.

------
danbmil99
This is why I hate all sports.

