Sound Off! Does Technology Take Away from Racing?

[JohnBM01]

Time to sound off again. Make your hypthetical voices heard. Sound off or go home. The topic here is on technology and racing. Some purists say that all this technology is actually taking away from racing. I'm actually intrigued by technology regardless of the sport or motorsport. But is there a limit? Does that limit apply to just how much technology can actually be applied to where it doesn't take away from actual racing? Is it better to race something like a Nextel Cup stock car vs. something like an Audi R10 on the basis of technology? Is it better to race something like a Formula Ford race car vs. a Scuderia Ferrari F1 car on the basis of technology? There are also those who think that character among racing is lost with technology. So racing a technologically-advanced car is boring to some people since racing something with a lot less technology actually makes you a better driver overall. What exactly do you think about technology in racing, and is it taking away from racing?

Racing technology is sort of a secondary topic for me. In something like Le Mans race cars, I am always intrigued by fascinating gadgetry in prototypes as well as certain systems and computers in racing cars. Speed Channel road racing anaylst, Dorsey S., did a small report on the Audi R8 about two years ago stating that the Audi R8 could really be electronically tuned to suit your own driving style. I forgot about most of the details, but it's really interesting to have most of these high-profile cars with these boosts in technology. I don't want to say that actual DRIVING is truly taking away from racing, however. Times have changed in the world of racing. I don't like a real focus on technology for racing because I've always considered technology as a secondary aspect of racing. Technology costs money. Innovation costs money. A more minimalistic approach on technology usage results in less dollars, hence less overall costs. I've always considered Formula One and sportscar racing prototypes as some of the sharpest and best race cars in the world. Most teams have the money to pick out high-profile racing machines and compete with them for the length of a season. So I have no problem with those. I just don't want to think that technology is more important than actual driving. There was an old thread announcing that Honda won't become part of the NASCAR circuit because of being too technological for NASCAR. Some of you know that I admire Honda for its quality in almost everything they make ranging from their automobiles to their wonderful robot, ASIMO (Advanced Step in Innovative Mobility). Others were probably happy Honda wasn't in so that more American companies can rule the high banks and tough road courses of NASCAR.

Does technology take away from racing? If so, how much and what should be done? And is there a limit to how much technology is involved without taking away from racing? If not, why do such people put such an emphasis on this deal, thinking these technological advances are only taking away from actual racing? Race fans, SOUND OFF!

 

[Tom_IW_Racer]

Well, I'm all for new technologies in motorsports but when they are to aid the driver such as traction and launch control I think that takes away from some of the skill of being a race driver. The driver should have more control over a car rather than computers interupting to aid them although safety measures that are computer controlled should be kept (like ABS).

 

[amp88]

Great idea for a thread 👍

I'm going to stay on the fence a little and say "it depends". I'd say technology plays a much larger part in some forms of motorsport than it does in others, as you pointed out.

From the very beginning of motorsport constructors have been battling with each other trying to make their car better than the other team's car. Bigger and more powerful engines at the start, moving onto less drag and better brakes then onto more downforce. Without "technology" how far would this race have come?

Well, I think we have to agree on a definition of technology. I'd say technology (in relation to racing) was the continued development and improvement of current or new designs, either introduced to decrease laptimes or increase driver safety.

So, by my definition that leaves us with two different branches of technology in racing. It used to be that many racing drivers were killed each year due to terrible safety in comparison to today. No seatbelts, little or no thought given to crash structures in vehicle development and very poor driver protection (I'm thinking in particular of open wheel racing here, with leather helmets). To some people, the lure or danger attracted them to racing, but for me it's not part of the attraction. Therefore, I've got to say that improvements in driver safety (things like 6 point harnesses, helmets with extremely strong visors, impact protection, HANS devices et al) do not detract from racing at all. Some would argue that a driver might push a little bit more now than he/she would have done 10 years ago due to improvements in safety and the (thankfully) very low death rate now in comparison to what it used to be, but if that's true then I'd say it applies across the board and not only to one team, so it's not detracting from the actual racing, just arguably increasing the bravery/stupidity of the driver.

Then, of course, you have what I'd class as the other type of technology involved in racing - the one that serves to attempt to continually decrease laptimes. This is the kind of technology I think you mean, John, and it's the one that I'd imagine would bring about the most debate.

There are a number of series across the world that consist of a field of identical or very similar cars. Some of these are what I'd consider high tech (e.g. A1GP) and some which I'd consider to be low tech (I'm gonna use Nascar as an example here but I'm sure I'll get shouted at because of the tiny differences in Nascar I don't know about). Now, you could say that the relative technology in these race series is zero, because all the teams have the same amount of technology at their disposal, so no-one's at a significant advantage because they have larger engines, more power, more downforce etc than anyone else, but does the actual level of technology actually make a difference to the racing, rather than just the relative level of technology between the competitors. I'd say it doesn't, because any racing driver worth his/her salt should be able to extract the maximum from their car, whether it be a fundamentally antiquated design or a brand new one. In a racing series which has a level playing field, allowing for reliability problems and freak accidents, the best driver should always win. Thus, in racing series which use identical or very similar cars, I don't think technology takes away from racing.

However, in a racing series which does not contain a field of identical or very similar cars, I'd argue that technology can take away from the racing. Formula One is the motorsport I'm most familiar with and it makes a great example to use here, but the same applies in a lot of other racing series which I'd consider not only to be high tech but also to have a large spread of technology throughout the field (WRC & MotoGP would do just aswell). F1 cars are the most technologically advanced circuit racing cars in the world, but not all the cars are the same. Even though all the teams work to the same basic specfications, there can be differences in laptimes up to several seconds a lap throughout the field. Driver talent does, of course, play a part in this difference, but in F1 I think technology can make a greater difference than driver talent. This is where you could argue technology takes away from the racing. Look at Ayrton Senna in the 1992 F1 season. He was arguably the greatest driver of the period but because his car wasn't as good as the Williams of Mansell & Patrese he never got a sniff at the World Championship. This was due to the relative difference in performance of Senna's McLaren and Mansell's Williams, which was caused by improved technology in the Williams car in comparison to the McLaren. This, you could say, detracted from the racing and deprived the best driver of winning the championship, but I think this relative difference in technology and its huge impact on car performance is an integral part of F1 and far from detracting from racing it actually improves it. As a Michael Schumacher fan, I watched him during the 1997 season battling against the clearly superior Williams of Villeneuve. I don't think anyone could honestly say they though Villeneuve was the quicker of the two drivers back then, but because the Williams was better than the Ferrari, Villeneuve took the championship. The relative technology difference between the cars arguably cost Schumacher the championship. It's this difference in relative technology that pushes F1 forward, though. Without the technology race the grid would stagnate and F1 just wouldn't be F1 any more.

edit:

Well, I'm all for new technologies in motorsports but when they are to aid the driver such as traction and launch control I think that takes away from some of the skill of being a race driver. The driver should have more control over a car rather than computers interupting to aid them although safety measures that are computer controlled should be kept (like ABS).

I think you're contradicting yourself here. ABS does, as you say, improve driver safety in that it allows drivers to maintain steering control whilst braking hard and to improve stopping distances in the wet, but it's also a big driver aid. Due to the fact that modern F1 cars can generate thousands of kilos of downforce at speed, the amount of grip they have at that speed is obviously very high. This allows the drivers to stand on the brakes as heavily as possible without locking their wheels. However, when the car starts slowing down and loses most of the downforce, the grip of the tyres also falls and so it's much easier to lock the wheels under braking. This means that the drivers have to start easing off the brake pedal when they start to slow down, to avoid locking their wheels and flatspotting tyres. This modulation of the brake pedal is a crucial aspect of F1 and is partly responsible for the (small amount of) overtaking we see. With ABS, the drivers wouldn't need to worry about modulating pedal pressure, they'd just slam their foot down and wait for the car to scrub off speed. This would arguably detract from the spectacle as driver skill is being removed from the braking equation.

 

[Scaff]

Well, I'm all for new technologies in motorsports but when they are to aid the driver such as traction and launch control I think that takes away from some of the skill of being a race driver. The driver should have more control over a car rather than computers interupting to aid them although safety measures that are computer controlled should be kept (like ABS).

ABS removes the reqirement for one of the most difficult areas a driver must learn, that of controlled threshold braking. ABS removes a huge amount of feel from the brak pedal at just the time its needed in racing. Don't get me wrong ABS is one of the single most important road car safety advances made in recent years, but on the track its more of a problem than a benefit.

Passive safety improvement (roll cage, safety cells, etc) will do more to protect drivers that active safety devices (ABS, Stability control).

Its also not just the technology itself (which in my opinion is linked so closely to Motorsport that it could not be removed), but how it is implimented. Take tractoin control as an example, its not just its presence, but rather a case of how it is allowed to be used. What level of assistance do the regulations allow it to be used at and how well can it be policed.

Good topic John, +rep.

Regards

Scaff

 

[Tom_IW_Racer]

Oh my bad about the ABS, I seemed to remember seeing it somewhere but must have been wrong

 

[Scaff]

Oh my bad about the ABS, I seemed to remember seeing it somewhere but must have been wrong

Some production car class racing does allow ABS, but very few drivers actually use it.

WRC is a good example, the relevent FIA regulations state that if the original homologation car has ABS fitted then the WRC car must also have it fitted. However it does then say that while it must be fitted, it does not have to be active.

👍

Scaff

 

[Tom_IW_Racer]

Ok thanks for that Scaff, wasn't comletely sure but thats cleared it up 👍

 

[YSSMAN]

Well as a NASCAR fan and someone who likes vintage racing, I'd say that although technology has done a lot to make the sport more safe and indeed faster, but now it is more of a car thing than a driver thing.

In the old days, drivers like Jackie Stewart and Carol Shelby defined motorsport because they could drive the wheels off of anything. They didn't need the best cars to be able to beat the other folks, it took hard work and plenty of training to be fast, and thus they have become to of the biggest racing legends in America and in Europe.

Technology has also to some extent killed competition. Remember how long Ferrari dominated F1? Now that F1 racing has become a lineup and go type thing, more people are becoming interested in the lesser NASCAR because it is more compeditive given the lack of computer-aided everything.

There is a balance at which I think can be struck, and you would find that in GT racing, IMO. Given that the cars still have to be street-based vehicles, it pushes the boundries forward not only for racing, but for cars on the road as well.

But hey, what do I know. I'm just some backwater redneck who enjoys a little NASCAR racing on Sunday...

 

[Roo09511]

Must Love Nascar.

End of story. F1 is beyond boring to me because the cars don't look like... well... anything. ALMS is exciting though, and it's nice to see the C6R's kick ass at everything. lol

 

[JohnBM01]

So would you agree that if you could have a non-technologically-advanced race car, you can race anything? Do you still give credit to those who can pilot a high-tech race car to victory about as much as a driver who pilots a low-tech car?

 

[Blake]

I give more credit to someone who wins in an F1 car, than to someone who wins in F3, for example. Why? Because they had to get to F1 first! They have driven open wheel cars without traction control, without wings, without power steering, without automatic gearboxes etc.

I have not heard anyone that’s just driven an F1 car for the first time say that it was easy. Even with all the driving aids, driving an F1 car is not easy.

That said, I do not like the fact that active driving aids are used in F1 cars. I think that they detract from the racing, and that they limit the drivers ability to use their skills, and showcase their talent.

Aerodynamics do not bother me. I see no problem with teams trying to find every last tenth through aerodynamic development. In fact, it is one of the things that makes F1 so interesting to me. I enjoy studying the lines, and figuring out how subtle changes will affect the race car. But come Sunday, it doesn’t really seem important.

Champcar is another series that I really enjoy watching. The racing is usually very competitive, and they definatly prove that street circuits do not produce boring racing (a discussion for another day). They are very fact cars, and in absolute terms, are not a whole lot slower than F1 cars.

What makes them so great to watch? The driver must control everything in the car. Sequential gearboxes, no traction control, no power steering, no ABS, not anti-stall devices. It is all up to the driver to getthe most out of what they have, and it produces great racing up and down the field. From battles between drivers such as Tracy and Bourdais, through to battles between rookies like Legge and Clarke.

Yes, some of that has to do with the almost spec chassis, but I really think that it’s because the drivers must get it right every time. They can’t assume that the computer is going to catch it for them if they overcook it.

So, in the end, I think that technology does not detract from racing. Rather, it is driving aids that do.

 

[VNAF Ace]

So, in the end, I think that technology does not detract from racing. Rather, it is driving aids that do.

Agreed. That's why I think the CCWS still has the best open wheel racing in the world.

 

[YSSMAN]

So would you agree that if you could have a non-technologically-advanced race car, you can race anything? Do you still give credit to those who can pilot a high-tech race car to victory about as much as a driver who pilots a low-tech car?

Well, this makes me think of the time Jeff Gordon drove the F1 car at Indy while the F1 guy (don't remember his name) drove Gordon's Monte Carlo. They both came away with a smile on their faces, but both of them seemed to prefer their own cars in that situation.

Quite frankly, I'd consider someone like Boris Said to be a better driver than anyone else because he can drive the wheels off of anything. Schumacher may be the "best driver in the world," but thats because he is driving an F1 Ferrari and not some stock-car here in the US. Said does NASCAR, ALMS, Trans Am, etc all year long and the best thing is that he is someone who can win in every sport. Most of the cars he drives aren't technological marvels like the F1 cars, and that requires talent to drive all of them quickly and have consistant performance in those rides.

...So yes, glory goes to those who have less computer involvement in making them a great driver. I'd say the racers of the past are far more talented than the racers of today. People like Dan Gurney, Jackie Stewart, Richard Petty, Carol Shelby, Dereck Bell, etc take the cake in most circumstances.

 

[amp88]

Well, this makes me think of the time Jeff Gordon drove the F1 car at Indy while the F1 guy (don't remember his name) drove Gordon's Monte Carlo. They both came away with a smile on their faces, but both of them seemed to prefer their own cars in that situation.

That'd be Montoya - Short video here

Quite frankly, I'd consider someone like Boris Said to be a better driver than anyone else because he can drive the wheels off of anything. Schumacher may be the "best driver in the world," but thats because he is driving an F1 Ferrari and not some stock-car here in the US. Said does NASCAR, ALMS, Trans Am, etc all year long and the best thing is that he is someone who can win in every sport. Most of the cars he drives aren't technological marvels like the F1 cars, and that requires talent to drive all of them quickly and have consistant performance in those rides.

As I said before, I firmly believe that any decent driver will be able to put in very high level performances across different platforms and race series. I'll plead ignorance and say I've bever heard of Boris Said before, but there are a number of drivers who do well in different arenas. Forgetting the exceptional cases like Ayrton Senna and Michael Schumacher (Ayrton Senna could, and did, drive many different cars at their absolute limit including karts, saloon cars, sportscars, lower formula single seaters, CARTs and F1 cars), there are plenty of F1 drivers who've gone on to other series and done well (Larini, Nannini, Hakkinen, Alesi to DTM) and Salo to GT lately. I'd say there are very few drivers who are only good in one particular class and poor in the rest, it's just that time constraints, contractual obligations and desire stop them from showing this.

...So yes, glory goes to those who have less computer involvement in making them a great driver. I'd say the racers of the past are far more talented than the racers of today. People like Dan Gurney, Jackie Stewart, Richard Petty, Carol Shelby, Dereck Bell, etc take the cake in most circumstances.

I'm partly in agreement with you here and partly in disagreement. I think that in the past there have been many exceptionally skilled drivers who you could argue were more talented than the drivers of today (but we don't need another thread comparing Fangio, Moss, Clark, Stewart, Piquet, Prost, Senna, Schumacher et al again), but I'd argue that the percentage of drivers I'd consider to be seriously talented is higher today than it was in the 60s through to the 80s, partly because drivers are starting off younger and partly because driver training and sponsorship is a lot more widespread.

 

[Blake]

I'd say the racers of the past are far more talented than the racers of today.

I can’t disagree more. How can you say something like that? You’ve never seen drivers of the past race with drivers of today!

I think that F1 drivers of today have less of an opportunity to use their talent, than F1 drivers of the past. That’s not to say that they’ve got any less, or any more talent.

 

[Layla's Keeper]

Really, what interests me is that two of the world's most similar racing vehicles - as far as their dynamic - are two of the most disparate.

On one hand, you have the modern day F1 car. An F1 car, despite every traction-this and sequential-that, is still a violent brute to drive. The way it changes direction, the way it brakes and accelerates, the way it uses every conceivable technology to transcend what we think is possible from a motorcar.

On the other hand, you have the modern day asphalt sprint car. A sprinter is basically a birdcage of steel sitting on mile-wide slicks. There's NO transmission, it's direct drive. The suspension is solid axle front and back, in the interest of lightweight. The engine is 410ci of methanol burning, mechanically injected, magneto fired insanity that responds instantly to the driver sitting inches behind it.

Heck, the steering is still performed by a drag link!

But, when you start looking at the stats, both cars are about 900hp in about 1100lbs of car. They're both tiny compared to other race cars, even of their type, and they're both ridiculously hard to control, and even moreso to get every tenth from.

There's a violence inherent to either end of the spectrum, and in these cars is a common thread - demands on the driver. So long as it's up to the driver to come up with that last tenth, then let the cars evolve how they will. An F1 car needs every winglet, every bit of unobtainium, and every programmable widget possible to raise the bar higher. A sprinter needs that light touch on the torsion bars, that little bump on the magneto, or that extra gram milled off the hubs to raise the bar higher.

And both need a driver with absolutely no fear and all skill to find their true potential. Is technology taking away from racing? No, because racing is always, no matter what we come up with to race, in the hands of drivers.

 

[YSSMAN]

I can’t disagree more. How can you say something like that? You’ve never seen drivers of the past race with drivers of today!

I think that F1 drivers of today have less of an opportunity to use their talent, than F1 drivers of the past. That’s not to say that they’ve got any less, or any more talent.

Maybe it would have been better to say they had twice the balls of drivers today? Granted the models go much faster now than what they did back then (NASCAR not included), but when you look at how dangerous it would have been to drive those cars as fast as they do today, it's a combination of balls and talent that made those drivers great.

I seem to recall in an interview with Car and Driver that Shuey said that he was actually afraid to drive one of the older Ferrari F1 cars on hand. It was too dangerous for him, and I still find that funny.

Back when my Grandfather raced on dirt tracks here in Michigan, he did it without rollcages and without seatbelts. Cars back then took talent to drive as well, given their size and their power, and the lack of safety equipment would be a no-no today. But that was the norm, and people were great at it. Richard Petty was good both on dirt and on pavement, and that right there took talent...

I'm not saying that drivers today don't have it, maybe it would be more of a situation in which they haven't been able to proove that they have it. Boris Said, like I said (ha-ha) tops my list of current drivers given his ability to do anything in damn near any car.

 

[JohnBM01]

Yeah, but consider this. Cars back then probably weren't as safe and didn't have as much technology to fool around with. I grant you that a 1965 Ferrari F1 car is much different from a 1995 Ferrari F1 car. It's much different in terms of technology and safety. Can you really say that an older race car was a "character" race car simply because it's not as high-tech as some of today's machines? Taking away the different technological tidbits and just making them "character" race cars would mean that it's much tougher to race with confidence and in being safe. Or let's look at this from a video game perspective. I usually play with TCS on since I'm always skeptical of having spinouts in high-powered RWD vehicles. Does it mean that I'm lacking characeter for not racing with any driver aids? And should I think that I'm actually not racing with that life or death instinct instilled in me when I race?

I always think that Le Mans prototypes and Formula One cars are the finest race cars in the world. They are not your average race cars especially with all sorts of gadgetry per the driver's and team's request. So I think auto makes and race teams are free to make an already-capable race car even more capable. I think it's more of a team maxing out a car's potential with technolgy and high-dollar engineering for them rather than innundating a car with technology so that the driver could basically race in his/her sleep and still win the race. I still think that as the automobile evolved, so did automotive technology, and so did race car technology. I think bigtime teams can spend all that money especially for those who are building cars where they are trying to win races and incorporate technologies into production cars. I can probably say that the innovations of Honda's NSX and S2000 were the result of racing technology inbued into production cars. Factory automobile teams should have that sort of money for whatever it is they want to do. It was hard for me to notice, but almost every F1 car is different. Compare the Ferrari to the BMW Williams. They look dramatically different perhaps in internal and external context, yet they are still as advanced of race cars you'll find anywhere in the world.

I don't really buy that technology takes away from racing. I am pretty fascinated with technology. Just not to say that it takes away from racing. A recent example of technological prowess was the Audi R10. It's much quieter than the R8 and still as good of a car as the model it replaces in sportscar racing. And of course, this is Audi. They are the Scuderia Ferrari of sportscar racing. Money's not an object. Sure hate to be an accountant for Audi. And once again, I'll agree with Layla's Keeper, especially with the last sentence to Post #16.

Continue on...

 

[mwoodski]

Great topic, I sit on both sides of the fence here for technology. On one hand, it really takes away the 'character' of the drivers in my opinion. Even though I wasn't even born yet, I've seen videos of older F1 races, and I must say, there was many different styles to driving those beasts, some drivers would be cautious and try to hit their marks every lap, and others would be doing ANY thing they could to go faster. So you would see some cars with the tail hanging out around corners, and others right in check.

Then again, racing needs some technology, I'm a big fan of nascar, but comon, 4-speed transmissions? There are 5 and 6-speed boxes in cars now(7-speeds in the Mercedes) so why can't we give NASCAR stock cars 5 or 6 speed manual boxes?

Another reason about NASCAR is carburation(sp), NO cars nowadays are carburetted, we have better technology, and that has allowed us to have Electronic Fuel Injection(EFI). Why not equip stock cars with EFI? Make them more appealing to fans, since it's more like the car they drive everyday.(Then again, I'm a persn that thinks a NASCAR Cup car should start out as a production model off the assembly line, them modify that.)

Cheers,
Matt.

 

[YSSMAN]

I think part of the reason why NASCAR has stayed so far behind automotive technology is because they want to keep it tied to its roots in the foothills of the Southern states of America, and to some extent to keep it a sport that most people can understand and actually do something similar themselves.

The great thing about NASCAR has always been that it isn't too hard to build a car similar to what the good ol' boys run yourself. Of course by todays standards, the stock-cars that are run by Hendrick and DEI are several hundred thousand dollar cars, but you can build yourself a "Saturday Night Special" for less than $30K. Added to that, you could build a decent one in just a couple weeks if youre good at turing wrenches and know what you are doing.

I think to completely understand NASCAR's "backwards" technological standpoint also requires one to understand the family attitude twards the cars themselves. Back when my Grandfather used to do stock-car racing in the late 1950s and early 1960s, he would work on the car at the garage he owned. His father and his brothers would drop in and lend a hand, and although my Mother was young at the time, she would often be there to hand out wrenches and held turn some screws. Later on down the line, my Dad who was a photogropher for a Midwest-based NASCAR publication would often take me to different races and to the different racer's garages while he and I would watch them work on the cars. I spent quite a few weekends at the Benson household (That would be Johnny Benson, former ASA and Bush series champion, 1996 Winston Rookie of the Year), and many Saturday nights at Berlin Raceway with my Father and Grandfather watching races for many, many years.

...But back the the point...

Things like EFI complicate the process in a sport like NASCAR. There are many, many people who cannot explain how the system works nor how to even work on them, thus EFI would place a choke-hold on the grassroots racing circuit. Similarly, using extra cogs in a stock-car would be useless and it again complicates the process, and generally speaking, adds little to the car's performance. Keep in mind that at the overwhelming majority of oval circuits, most drivers never take the car out of fourth gear, thus defeating the purpose of having more than four.

The biggest problem is that costs would rise. NASCAR is widely known for being a "cheap" sport, and EFI and "better" transmissions would only raise costs for not only development and testing, but just for the parts in general.

Granted, in everyday life I would much rather have a fuel-injected car and atleast 5 forward gears, and in most circumstances I would rather have a fuelie racecar with 5 forward gears. But for NASCAR or drag-racing, I'll stick to the good ol' Holley 4-barrel and the solid Richmand 4-speed manual.