In-Season Testing: The Missing Link

Photos

In-Season Testing: The Missing Link

see larger image

uploaded by Motor Sports Unplugged

• 

  uploaded by Motor Sports Unplugged | add comment

• 

  uploaded by Motor Sports Unplugged | add comment

Artificial intelligence has taken its place at the table of human beings being to operate with efficiency in our every day lives. Blackberry’s, iPads, computers, the automobiles we drive everyday rely on artificial intelligence to power them and, in turn, power us. What seems like the answer to cost savings lies in a microchip. In the real world, flesh and blood, we humans, actually appear to be diminished. I beg to differ. Appearances can and are deceiving.

Outside of the world’s various military government machines no place exists where more is put into achieving human results through the use of artificial intelligence than Formula One. The beauty of the machine is sometimes breathtaking to behold. The question is: Can the machine replace the human in competition?

Of course it can, if you’re willing to watch an event that has no primal aspect of competition to it. Personally, watching a remote controlled event is fascinating, but not one where I would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to attend.

So now we get to the heart of the matter. In 2009 the in-season testing of Formula One cars was banned in an effort to cut costs. The cold hard truth is that in any form of racing, whether it’s bicycles, airplanes or cars the computer can’t add that minute, uniquely human input that can sense variables with such deftness and intensity.

Testing with humans is expensive. Arguably it costs as much to test as it does to attend and compete. Alternatively, running a rolling wind tunnel 24 hours a day and relying on Computational Fluid Dynamics hasn’t been all that cost efficient either. Simulators that rival those of many of the world’s sophisticated aircraft have taken the place of actual human driver testing. On paper or screen it all makes sense, it should add up and reduce the bottom line. In reality, it does nothing of the kind.

Collectively these technologies are brutally expensive, but still necessary. However, without the human who actually is in the arena they all become nothing more than sim games, even though those games are magnificent tools for training. It certainly isn’t the same if someone is shooting back in real life. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The Formula One teams have now begun to fall like dominoes towards the rethinking of an in-season testing ban. Thank God. Would Ferrari have dominated so heavily in the Schumacher era without his unshakable spirit and input? No.

The first trial balloon floated was that of giving young drivers a chance to experience a Formula One car. Now we hear that one by one the teams are falling into lockstep with the idea. They would like for us to believe it’s a benevolent outreach for the young drivers. The underlying reason is to stop throwing good money after bad with parts and systems designed in a vacuum.

Whether it’s NASCAR, Formula One or an F-22 Raptor, the only way to really know what your getting and are going to have at the end is to have human input. Why? Humans do things that aren’t supposed to be done. Proof of that statement can be found by asking any professional racing driver or fighter pilot who is tasked with operating their respective machine. The computer says it can’t be done, but we do it.

Limited in-season testing for Formula One should be on the table, on the drawing board and top of mind to implement immediately. Whether it’s a trade off with a winter test or a fly away series of races, they have to make it happen.

The quality of the cars will improve, the drivers will improve and the artificial intelligence used to get the machines to an operating point will go far beyond what it is now. Unbridled testing isn’t the answer, but limited testing would at least give the driver proof of concept as opposed to picking carbon fibre out of his or her bum.

Is there anyone out there who thinks that Ross Brawn is now a proponent of the in-season testing just to help the young drivers? Who better than Schumacher to give that experienced feedback that the machines deliver in an infinite number of situations? What about Alonso?

The cost of throwing parts at a Formula One car makes as much sense as me showing up at Monaco with money in my pocket standing in a casino.

It’s time to release David from the stone.

http://motorsportsunplugged.com/f1/?p=538