Why? To increase chances of crashes that produces more views?

duskwuff 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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: https://www.f1-forecast.com/pdf/F1-Files/Honda/F1-SP2_25e.pd...

▲

nucleardog 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> 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 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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 the safety measures (in other words, FIA is historically not the ones blocking safety measures).

▲

usefulcat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

stingraycharles 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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

▲

johannes1234321 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Then why not have standardised vehicles and have the driver be the only variable?

▲

bruce511 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	oarsinsync 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I mean that's pretty much the IndyCar spec ... but none since Mansell have really came over and dominated, not even Alonso. Didn't Alonso's first attempt at the Indy 500 (with McLaren?) result in him making it into the final qualification category, and see him leading the race until his car blew up, forcing him to retire? On his first attempt?

▲

piva00 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Because then it's not Formula 1 anymore, Formula 1 is about the prototype engineering competition paired with the driver's competition. Without one of them it's a different motorsport.

▲

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's called normal race?

F1 seems to be the result of a tension between normal people wanting to see the driver in control, and engineering teams wanting to one-up each other in tech. The two ideas don't actually mix, but like with two fluids that don't mix, you can still pretend they do if you keep stirring.

▲

scott_w 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

usefulcat 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

__m 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They have that, it’s Indycar.

F1 has always been about the combination of excellence in driving and in engineering.

▲

6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

ActorNightly 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Generally, the way F1 was originally supposed to work is that manufacturers develop tech to skirt regulations, which then means that tech makes it eventually into consumer cars. A lot of the core technology in modern cars (TC, ABS, Turbo control, e.t.c) got properly developed in F1 before it was brought to the masses.

▲

pertymcpert 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Traction control removes of the most fundamental skills of a driver. It’s like allowing ABS.

▲

djriley 4 hours ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	NorwegianDude 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		As you say, the driver skill is very different between F1 and GT3. If traction control was allowed in F1, the teams would not settle for something like in GT3, it would become an arms race. In the end we might end up with racing determined by who has the best control algorightms, and not who has the best dirver/chassis.

▲

stackghost 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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.

▲

vel0city 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.