FIA Thread

[Zynerji]

But they aren't infallible, which is the point being made.

Every Amazon distribution center in America is 30% line following robots. That's millions of hours per year of infallible usage (failures of the systems are mechanical, not software).

There is a big difference between a well controlled warehouse space and an f1 track where a lot more unknowns can pop up.

for example.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3070 ... -messages/

I'm taking about a stationary camera focused on a stationary line, not self driving autonomous vehicles. We need to keep this in perspective.

[MadMax]

But they aren't infallible, which is the point being made.

Every Amazon distribution center in America is 30% line following robots. That's millions of hours per year of infallible usage (failures of the systems are mechanical, not software).

There is a big difference between a well controlled warehouse space and an f1 track where a lot more unknowns can pop up.

for example.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3070 ... -messages/

An AI wouldn't put such Godawful music on a video, however. What do these people think it achieves?

[GrizzleBoy]

Anything designed and made by humans, even AI, will have human failings baked in to it. Humans can't make perfect systems.

And yet, the world is running on human built systems! What's more, we have even reached Mars with such imperfect systems!

The world goes wrong quite often. You might see it in your favorite evening news bulletin.

Mars missions have something like a 70% failure rate, either in the launch phase (rocket fails), the cruise phase, or the landing (usually in the entry and descent phase). Some even get to the surface safely and then fail to deploy successfully.

Any AI system is only as good as the programming and the teaching it's given. Both of those are prone to human bias and error. And if you use an AI to design and teach another AI, you'll still have the original errors and biases baked in to the original and these will be inherited to some degree by subsequent systems.

Humans aren't God. We can't do perfect.

Talking about not having a high success rate of landing robots on literally other planets as justification for why computer aided penalty systems can't work is very strange lol.

And to be honest China, India and Nasa are doing quite well at the moment with rovers and orbiter in amd around Mars.

Anyway, the penalties don't even need to be given out by AI.

If some sensor reads that a car lef the track, it can just throw up a flag for stewards to review.

All decision making doesn't need to be taken away from humans.

[RZS10]

Check out the offside system which will be used for the world cup, it tracks every player (all joints and limbs) and automatically calls offside positions.
It removes the reliance to place the line by hand, something which has been questionable many times since the introduction of the VAR.

[MadMax]

And yet, the world is running on human built systems! What's more, we have even reached Mars with such imperfect systems!

The world goes wrong quite often. You might see it in your favorite evening news bulletin.

Mars missions have something like a 70% failure rate, either in the launch phase (rocket fails), the cruise phase, or the landing (usually in the entry and descent phase). Some even get to the surface safely and then fail to deploy successfully.

Any AI system is only as good as the programming and the teaching it's given. Both of those are prone to human bias and error. And if you use an AI to design and teach another AI, you'll still have the original errors and biases baked in to the original and these will be inherited to some degree by subsequent systems.

Humans aren't God. We can't do perfect.

Talking about not having a high success rate of landing robots on literally other planets as justification for why computer aided penalty systems can't work is very strange lol.

And to be honest China, India and Nasa are doing quite well at the moment with rovers and orbiter in amd around Mars.

Anyway, the penalties don't even need to be given out by AI.

If some sensor reads that a car lef the track, it can just throw up a flag for stewards to review.

All decision making doesn't need to be taken away from humans.

Previous poster said that human made systems got to Mars. I just pointed out that the success rate of that isn't great and so not a good advert for selling a technological solution. Heck, if you wanted to show more success, use the example of modern precision-guided munitions. At least they do actually work most of the time.

If the AI throws up a flag and leaves it to humans to decide what to do, that's absolutely no different to the current system in terms of outcomes. You've just spent some money on shiny things on top of whatever is already being spent.

Any decent system will be self-enforcing and won't need any external influence. That brings us back to a surface the drivers absolutely don't want to drive on - they'll stay within limits because the alternative is an automatic time loss that they can't argue about.

We hear commentators and others say things like "if there was a wall there, they would stay on the track". We can't realistically put walls everywhere so we need a similar, safe, alternative. Good old fashioned gravel works well but it does get dragged back on track and so potentially disadvantages others.

[johnny comelately]

You have to be kidding! can we channel Charlie??

The Alonso penalty analysed by Peter Windsor.
"After one of the greatest recovery drives you'll ever see in F1, Fernando Alonso's race time in Austin was fattened by 30sec post-race, dropping him from an epic P7 to P15. This penalty was applied as a result of a protest made by the Haas team regarding an unsafe mirror on Fernando's Alpine. Alpine have since appealed the penalty. In this video - a clip from his Twitch livestream after the race - Peter Windsor talks about the imbalance between the penalties given to George Russell and Lance Stroll and that imposed on Alonso; and the dangers in general of "defending" when travelling flat-out in a straight line."

[langedweil]

There is a big difference between a well controlled warehouse space and an f1 track where a lot more unknowns can pop up.

for example.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a3070 ... -messages/

Interesting ... thnx for that link !

[Vanja #66]

Another race with FIA mega-joke penalties during the race. Max penalized while being squeezed out of the corner and Norris getting only 5s...

[mendis]

Another race with FIA mega-joke penalties during the race. Max penalized while being squeezed out of the corner and Norris getting only 10s...

Bad decision by FIA to penalize Max there where Lewis closed the door while alongside.

[Vanja #66]

Exactly

[dans79]

More likein typical Max fashion,he thought he could just scream up the outside and push the other driver out of the way.

[GrizzleBoy]

Another race with FIA mega-joke penalties during the race. Max penalized while being squeezed out of the corner and Norris getting only 5s...

Video game divebombs are not valid overtaking manoeuvres.

Max couldn't make the corner. It doesn'tatter if you're side-by-side if there's no actual path for you to make the corner without the car you're overtaking parking up and waiting for you to begin going in the correct direction at some point.

He was going way too fast to even rotate the car at the apex (hence essentially going in a different direction to the racing line, hence the contact) and was on track to "understeer" right across the entire track, probably with the intention to shove Lewis off on exit.

It was a BS tactic in Monza last year, Jeddah last year, Brazil last year, Abu Dhabi last year etc etc etc and it was a BS tactic today too.

[Vanja #66]

Yeah, he couldn't make the corner - because he was hit by a Mercedes. He intentionally overshot T1 and slowed down enough by T2. If he hadn't slowed down enough, Mercedes car would not have been side-by-side.

[GrizzleBoy]

Yeah, he couldn't make the corner - because he was hit by a Mercedes. He intentionally overshot T1 and slowed down enough by T2. If he hadn't slowed down enough, Mercedes car would not have been side-by-side.

No, he had no chance of making the corner at the speed and angle he was travelling at.

Simple as that.

[RZS10]

just watch the replay ... Max was later on the brakes than Lewis into T2 when he should have been slower in order to make the corner safely, he did not slow down enough ... even with more space they would have come together ... in this case the decision doc is really a great summary of what happened