Should bi-directional telementry be banned?

[Yoong Montoya]

I know McLaren used it to fix DC's car in Monaco, but teams could hack into their rival's telementry and blow up their engines. We've not seen proper evidence of this yet, but if it is true, Ferrari could take race rigging even further by blowing up the engines of MS's championship rivals during the races. They wouldn't blow up RB's engine because they need the constructor's championship points and it costs a lot to make those engines. They would just ask him to move over, as they did in Austria last year and this year.

Sorry if I sound a bit paranoid, but I want F1 to be exciting with overtaking and proper racing in general.

[paulzinho]

Ban electronics, bi directional telemetry,TC, LC , bodywork flaps, chicanes!

Bring back slicks, manual gearboxes, fat rear tyres, turbos, decent tracks, lower noses, not the raised ones.

Then we may see some proper racing with drivers driving the cars!!!

[neilap]

Think about this. Should a car suddenly runs lean and puts a piston through the block the team can trace each step leading up to the catastrophic event. If a Williams was hacked I don’t think it would be difficult to find out that it was done. It may be harder to find out who did it but whoever did do it would probably be banned from F1. I don't know if that is a chance that anyone would want to take. Also it would take a lot of work or a spy to allow Ferrari to be able to communicate with a Williams car. The resources spent there could go somewhere a lot more constructive.

[freud]

Originally posted by Yoong Montoya
I know McLaren used it to fix DC's car in Monaco, but teams could hack into their rival's telementry and blow up their engines. We've not seen proper evidence of this yet, but if it is true, Ferrari could take race rigging even further by blowing up the engines of MS's championship rivals during the races.

Hmm.. very interesting. So you're saying that there is a probability (however minute it may be) that JPM's engine at Monaco was blown up by Ferrari???

[Bibendum]

I think you'll find that the standards of encryption in use are extremely robust; the strength of these things is measured in the amount of premium computer time it would take to hack the code, and as I understand you're looking at (say) Ferrari's ability to disrupt this year's Williams engines in...oh, about 2150. Maybe one could disrupt a signal on purpose, but not effect a specific change in a car. Either way, I agree with neilap that the scenario is unlikely simply because a sudden uncommanded change in program would attract suspicion, to say the least.

[f1truestory]

Originally posted by freud


JPM's engine at Monaco was blown up by Ferrari???

coz' he blocked MS for so long

[RT]

Originally posted by paulzinho
Ban electronics, bi directional telemetry,TC, LC , bodywork flaps, chicanes!

Bring back slicks, manual gearboxes, fat rear tyres, turbos, decent tracks, lower noses, not the raised ones.

Then we may see some proper racing with drivers driving the cars!!!

Paulzinho, I am 1000% percent with you. The problem is that going back to the good old great ways, specially where technology is concerned, is a bit like restoring virginity...

As they say in portuguese. "God writes straight in twisted lines" (or something to that effect). In this spirit, we can hope is that there is some sense to the onslaught of technology and somehow the driver's skill will once again be the limiting and deciding factor. For now, the real heroes may be the software guys and I'm not happy to say it.

RT

[Jukebox]

This surely have got to be the most lamest excuse someone could ever think of

Hacking into other team's telemetry?...LOL come on.. come up with better excuses will ya all

Yeah..when other team's cars blows up, Ferrari as usual is the scapegoat. There are many reasons and those are technical reasons as to why these things happens and those reasons only the pit crews knows.

[Valve Bounce]

I think that I posted a thread along these lines about a year agon, and this was discussed by Laxman and somebody else at great length, with extremely complicated jargon that I couldn't follow. :confused:

However, it would not be difficult for The Toad to make Rubens' engine leaner, (or fatter by 10 kilos ) and allow MSch to post the faster quals time or simply make a move and pass Rubens.

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[Glen]

Originally posted by paulzinho
... lower noses, not the raised ones.

What would that give us exactly?

[ljakse]

Couple of years ago Benetton developed sensors that were tracking sensors on track wich controlled cars for jump starts. It worked very simple - the sensor on track turns off when the red lights are out, and the sensors in car would turn the LC on. That was something that didn't interrupt with anybody/anything outside their cars, but, eventually, it was discovered and banned.
Now, how exactly could you make something that would mess with somebody else's engine and not get detected?
BTW, criminal forensics have a saying 'contact leaves trace'. I don't think this could be an exception.

[Glen]

The very fact that the idea of hacking engine management control is associated with Ferrari by the instigators of this conspiracy theory betrays the credibility of the idea. Why would it be Ferrari? And, as has been pointed out, it is a virtual non-starter technically. And - I also take exception to the idea that any team would spike another's car. I don't believe they would do it even if they could. (Read the data, sure, but sabotage, no way.)

[DNQ]

The bidirectional telementry suits me far better than grooved tyres...

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by Glen
What would that give us exactly?

Well the lower noses look better!!

And if you want to dig deeper, when did overtaking stop, when did F1 become more boring.... with the introduction of higher noses!!

Plus, they would be less complicated aerodynamically and therefore should allow for increased overtaking.

Oh and I forgot to say earlier, make the front wing endplates flat, not with all these little things hanging off the end of them!

[Glen]

You're perfectly entitled to your opinion about the aesthetics - not sure how many agree about that one, I certinly don't. As far as I can discern, F1 cars keep getting better and better looking. F2002 being the ultimate.

I don't think there's any cause and effect in the high nose/reduced overtaking thing. High noses were introduced relatively gradually, and I certainly don't remember anything about those with high noses having difficulties that didn't exist without.

What's wrong with wing end plate flips?!

Historic formulae exist - F1 is about cutting-edge, for me at least.

Primary reason for lack of overtaking is consistency in the cars. A Ferrari, for example, might be .75sec quicker over a lap - and will carry on with that advantage over the entire race. The next best car is not going to catch him, let alone get past without more mistakes creeping in - and modern F1 is very much all about minimising risks and errors.

The traditional means by which slower cars could get on terms with faster ones was of course slipstreaming. Fair enough in its own way, and at least you get a few passes. But. You can only have slipstreaming on tracks with the right build-up to a very long straight. So the tracks are as much to blame, as a modern layout like Sepang proves.

[Spudgun]

I've posted this before, but this to me is a beautiful F1 car (with low nose). The Ferrari 640.



But on with the subject of the thread, I think bi-directional telemetery is ok.

Although I would love the cars to return to the days when they were less complicated, it's not going to happen.

The teams have been able to monitor the cars previously but were unable to do anything from the pitwall. I found that pointless.

They fixed DC's car from the pits and I'm all for that. It kept him in the race. If the technology is there then I say use it. The teams can't really cheat becuse the cars are running on optimal anyway.

The only downside to this is what was said on the ITV commentary. We'll unlikely see these cars race in historic races in the future because of their complexity, which is a shame.

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by Glen

I don't think there's any cause and effect in the high nose/reduced overtaking thing. High noses were introduced relatively gradually, and I certainly don't remember anything about those with high noses having difficulties that didn't exist without.

I probably agree with you there, its just a bit of a coincidence!!

I've loved the front noses of the last two Ferrari's but I think the best looking F1 cars are from the late 80's to the early 90's. Fat slicks, low noses, et al.

Those were the best days, times change I guess.

[Glen]

Originally posted by Spudgun
The only downside to this is what was said on the ITV commentary. We'll unlikely see these cars race in historic races in the future because of their complexity, which is a shame.

Interesting issue that one - already when one sees F1 cars for sale they very rarely have engine and transmission, and even if they did many of the control systems would need radical simplification for a privateer to run. Just to use an engine with a design-life of 300 or fewer miles (and total loss compressed air valve gear) is a complete non-starter for most enthusiasts I'd have thought.

[Jordi]

To me the 126 C2 is the most beautiful car ever, followed by the Eagle.

Cars could look like this '82 specimen, but without ground effect and with very little wings, so there wouldn't be a lot of downforce. Of course big untreaded tyres.

[Peter Mallett]

Should bi-directional telementry be banned?

I dunno. Who is he and what did he post to get himself banned?

[Valve Bounce]

OK, maybe here is the place to ask the question. Can some illegal programme be installed in the black box which is then deleted from the pits via two way telemetry before the end of the race?

Valve[img]http://www.**************************/smilies/bouncy.gif[/img]

[neilap]

Well people have hacked into the pentagon. I would not put anything past hackers. In fact people have set up “sniffer” programs that basically do all the work. It will break into computers pretty much unaided. Unfortunately for them it takes way longer than a GP. I will also assume that the teams will use or change the encryption of their software periodically to make sabotage even more illusive.
I don’t agree with the notion that teams would not do this either if they could. I am sorry for using Ferrari in my previous post. It’s just that the thought of Minardi hacking into Jaguars software just does not seem worth while.

[steve_r]

Why ban two way telementary? Hacking into other teams cars and destroying them should form part of F1. We could have split screen TV coverage of the drivers and hackers.
James Allen:
"It's Micheal Schumacher 45 seconds ahead of Montoya... but whats this? The Minardi hacker has got past Ferrari's third level security encryption and, oh Yes!!!, Schumachers car has stopped is is going backwards... i do't beleive it..."
Martin Brundle:
"I cannot beleive it, for the third race in row, no wonder the Minardi hacker can demand over one million dollars a race..."

[Jack racer]

Sick but I can see this in the near future, You can do anything with a computer it's not human(has no morals).

[Hugh Jarce]

Hang on, hang on, please, hang on.

Don't you think teams are more interested in making their cars go faster rather than ploughing tonnes of $'s into negative strategies.

And, if anyone got caught trying this, (and no doubt it could be proved somewhow) it would be the end of them as a team. No-one in their right mind would risk that outcome for a few championship points!

In my view remote sabotage of other cars is about as unlikely as Sato finishing an F1 race with four wheels.