Sherman's Ghost

I am holding judgment, but upon first contact with it I am left with a cold feeling. I think it's gone too far.

The current cars have intermittent power not fully under the control of the drivers. This is to an extent never seen before in F1. I interpret that as "increasing."

But it isn't a binary. All cars do to some extent, as you point out. The question is to what extent, and in what specific ways. Is brake by wire a bad idea? They banned anti-lock tech but left electronic controls.

I think this is about the margins. Has the current formula gone too far?

They are. I just don't think that is the pertinent question.

Is it Grand Prix racing if the driver is increasingly indirectly controlling the car and the nature of the tech is such that energy management is becoming more important than going fast?

Managing an engine/motor/battery system for maximum effect. Hybrid drivers do it all the time with their "hypermiling," although that is to minimize fuel consumption, not lap times. F1 drivers not must do this to for lap times.

It's a slippery slope, I would suggest, that has repeatedly been resisted by FOM/FIA by banning proprietary electronics, active aero and suspension, etc.

The capability to have a car drive itself around the circuit was there in the 1990s. The question is to what extent do we want that.

It won't be the only circuit to showcase hybrid skills over driver skills.

It may be a set time instead of a set distance, but it's still motor racing, just a longer race.

I would suggest that what is not racing, at least not as a sport, is the degree to which the cars are controlled more by the machines themselves than the drivers. WEC is also going down that road.

Merc lost to a customer team last year. There was no way they were going to let that happen again.

How can it be sporting if the machines can provide any fictional race the promoter wants? Are you going to spend ten grand to sit in a stand to see computers race? Are you going to spend hours of your precious life watching computers race on a screen?

Does F1 even perceive this as a problem?

8/8

There's nothing wrong with that, but the question is, will people watch it? It represents, I think, the diminishment of the human element in favor of, for lack of a better term, an A.I. element. Which seems pretty appropriate right now, right?

7/8

Current F1 regulations force the drivers to accept computer decisions, resulting in the driver's right foot not really controlling the throttle and cars slowing on the straights and in corners to charge a battery.

That isn't the sport of motor racing. It's a technology exhibition.

6/8

Here's the thing: if the drivers aren't fully in control of the cars, is it really motor racing? If humans weren't even in the cars, would it be? How about a simulation on a screen? The human element is why it is sport, and interesting, so where should we draw the line?

5/8

Crash-crash boom-boom big-colors big-lights sparkly fun and just deposit another quarter in the idiot box, folks, and the thrills will never end.

How did the fans respond? With a yawn. P.T. Barnum may have understood circuses, but he didn't understand open wheel racing fans.

4/8

The Indy-based crew had the biggest race and the cash to burn, so CART fell, a victim of the sizzle, really the desire of those in the sport who saw it only as a business to extract maximum revenue by going for the masses, which they thought would require appealing to less sophisticated fans.

3/8

In the U.S. NASCAR was the sizzle and champ cars (now IndyCar) were the steak. Then the owners of the Indy 500 split open wheel racing, seeking to provide NASCAR-like oval spectacles in open wheel cars, while Championship Auto Racing Teams held their ground, if only for a while.

2/8

Regarding #F1, sport, and the rise of the machines:

The question of whether racing should be a spectacle or a sport was there from the beginning.

Do fans want "The Big One" or skill and finesse? Side by side racing or the satisfaction of witnessing a challenging overtake?

1/8

The cars should deliver acceleration smoothly up to terminal velocity and allow the highest possible speeds through corners, implying the car should have an internal combustion engine for power, should be as small and light as reasonably possible, and should be controlled by a human.

OK.

The sport does not deliver motor racing, that is, a person driving a car at maximum possible velocities, on the edge of adhesion, to minimize a lap times in order to finish a set distance before competitors do.

Current regs prevent max velocities and cornering at the edge of adhesion.

Then people in every country don't accept the country they live in, because they are all guilty of something, and people in general don't accept the world they live in, because in reality there are no substantial national differences between people.

Can you give us an example of what a technical objection would sound like?

a man in a white shirt and tie is holding his hands to his chin and saying yes . Alt: a man in a white shirt and tie is holding his hands to his chin and saying yes .

"I don't trust Elon with my ability to flee."

Track layout reminds me of GP Houston in CART.

Mickey Freaking Mouse.

Sorry, I think someone else mentioned Tavern. Chicago-style is definitely Chicago's.

Faraday.

Your home will never be secure unless you live in a cabin in the mountains or have extreme resources devoted to creating a secure environment. I am more concerned about mobility without tracking.

And of course the best place to hide is in plain sight, so...

You can use a Faraday cage to isolate small electronics, and you can us cash instead of credit card.

The two main points of worry if you are not transmitting are faces and license plates. Which can be disguised.

I wanted to see that but missed it.

Thanks for the recommendation.

They won't do it en masse. They will do it to individuals.

I was trying to be nice, I guess. Why? I don't know.

May they burn in eternal torture.