From: tomh@wes.on.ca (Tom Haapanen)
Subject: Drivers' Championships and technology (was: Aus GP Stuff)
Organization: Waterloo Engineering Software
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 01:50:14 GMT

danjones@pyrps5.eng.pyramid.com (Dan Jones) writes:
> So at what point, between where F1 is today and Dave's [automated
> technology] F1, does the World Championship of Drivers become bogus?
> Or has the point already been reached?

Umm, let's see, Fangio won his championships in part thanks to superior
cars (this despite the fact that I still believe Fangio to be in the top
three F1 pilots ever).  So was it bogus back then already?  Or what about
the Lotus 78?  Technological assistance has played a part for a long time...

> Maybe all of you great fans of technology should think about it.  There
> is a place for unlimited technology, but not in a driver's championship.

Well, Dan, I'll have to disagree with you on this one.  Let's take a look
at your statement, and substitute a little more old-fashioned term for the
"technology":

    "There is a place for unlimited engineering, but not in a driver's
     championship."

My personal belief is that there has always been unlimited engineering in
Formula 1, and there have always been teams with superior engineering --
thus giving their drivers an edge in the Drivers' Championsip.  If this
edge is undesirable, maybe we should put the drivers in IndyCars -- or
Formula Renaults.  (I'm not implying that Dan would want to go this extreme,
though!)

On the other hand, if you're decrying the increasing assistance given to
a driver by electronics ... yes, there is some of that.  But you can never
automate Senna's moves in traffic, Alesi's flair in the wet or Prost's
smoothness -- I think. :)  In any case, I expect the Formula 1 Commission
to make sure things don't get *too* out of hand ...

Howeverstraying only slightly from the topi cat hand, what we *have* seen
is what might be called excessive domination by a team in the past five or
so years.  Indeed, a Drivers' Championship is a little less so when the
only way to win is to drive a McLaren-Honda in '89 or a Williams-Renault
in '92.  Certainly Mansell is an excellent driver, but how many drivers had
a realistic chance to win even a single race?  Not more than ten, even if
both Williams pilots dropped out.

Now, I admit this is not good, but I claim that "technology" or "enginee-
ring" is not evil in itself, but the way it is distributed can cause
problems.  If a team can buy an off-the-shelf traction controller from
Bosch (akin to Magnetti Marelli ignitions, Lockheed brakes and X-Trac
transmissions) and a Bilstein active suspension kit, those technologies
don't cause problems.  They only cause disparities when it costs $50M
to research, design, test and implement such new technologies.  I predict
that active suspensions, semiauto gearboxes and traction control will be
relatively commonplace (and *relatively* inexpensive on the F1 scale) in
the space of five years.

But what could be done to limit the advantage enjoyed by a single team?
It'd be very difficult limiting the amount of engineering and/or techno-
logy going into a car -- I'm sure we don't want spending limits!  The
engine advantage (such as enjoyed by Honda from 1986 to about 1990) could
be easier to deal with: we could require an engine manufacturer to
supply up to N teams with customer engines, where N is the number of
Constructors' Championships they've won in the past five years.  Hey,
FISA already does this kind of thing for tires...

For new technology, though, there are really only three things you can do:

    1. Nothing.  This is what FISA does now, and we've seen what the
       effects are.  Not a disaster, but prone to domination, and VERY
       prone to VERY large development budgets.
    
    2. Ban it.  I doubt that this is a desirable direction in general. 
       Sure, IndyCars do it this way, but that doesn't mean it'll work
       for F1.  Maybe you'd could say "no full-auto transmissions" but
       I doubt anything more would get by FOC...  :)
    
    3. Try to minimize its effects.  I'm not quite sure what the tools
       that could be used here are.  FISA's move to narrower tyres for 
       1993 tries to limit the advantage you gain from a better engine.

I'm not proposing anything ... more like just venting some feelings from
the past year.  I'd be happy to see a constructive discussion arise from
this, though: maybe we could try to get fisa.org on the net!  :)

[ \tom haapanen  |  "only auto racing, bullfighting and mountain climbing are ]
[ tomh@wes.on.ca |   sports -- all others are only games" -- ernest hemingway ]
[ waterloo engineering software |     "to thine own self be true" -- polonius ]