New AI track limits system demonstrated at Italian track

45 comments on “New AI track limits system demonstrated at Italian track”

1. 

   Roberto Fratelli (@rfratelli)
   16th March 2024, 2:15

   Apart from AI, there´s another breakthrough technology that can be employed to enforce track limits. It´s called G R A V E L.
   1. 

      An Sionnach
      16th March 2024, 4:14

      Yes. It shouldn’t be possible to gain an advantage off the track as it should be the fastest way around. Those who force someone off the track should be put behind them or black flagged if it ends their race. There will always have to be some sort of artificial intervention, unfortunately, as the innocent party often ended up in the gravel trap and possibly out of the race entirely back in the day. The offender may have gotten a ten second stop-go penalty. What is a suitable penalty? The rules have gotten far too complicated when it comes to overtaking, too. It was simpler when the one in front had the racing line. Why should those who dive up the inside be given space, when they may not even make the corner? How is a driver supposed to be able to calculate the exact point at which their adversary is sufficiently alongside that they should do this when it’s sometimes hard to do this with a slowed-down replay? The onus should be on the one making the move to get it right.
   2. 

      Jere (@jerejj)
      16th March 2024, 5:52

      @rfratelli Or another physical material that slows down.
   3. 

      S
      16th March 2024, 7:28

      Or just enforce the rules as they are written – no need for any device or material at all.
   4. 

      d0senbrot (@d0senbrot)
      16th March 2024, 10:50

      Someone should form a startup and develop AI generated and 3d printed gravel. Slap a ridiculous price on it, laud it as the hottest thing since sliced bread and FIA will be all over it
   5. 

      pcxmac (@pcxmac)
      16th March 2024, 11:17

      Give the FIA enough time mate, they need to figure out the circuit to cut the engine performance for every car for every limit broke, a power penalty. who need gravel when you can have virtual gravel.
   6. 

      grat
      16th March 2024, 22:01

      Brick walls. Destroy the cars.

      Or, put explosive devices in the wheel hubs! That’ll teach those idiot drivers in their snazzy aero dependent cars!!!
2. 

   Tristan
   16th March 2024, 3:19

   I would come back to F1 in the future, but it needs to be the right project, done right.

   This from Steiner is a bit funny, I mean, he was running the project, it’s not as if he was stuck at a second or third tier of management or in a complex structure. He had all the tools to be able to do the project right, but couldn’t. I can only assume what he really means, between the lines, is that he’d need the right partner(s) and Haas wasn’t it.

   AI being a buzzword there for what I can only assume is video geolocation. Anyway, good to see, now they’ll just need to fix up the penalty side of things to give places back rather than these silly time penalties and track limits can finally be a non-issue.

   Eye of the storm for Horner then…
   1. 

      EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
      16th March 2024, 4:08

      AI being a buzzword there for what I can only assume is video geolocation.

      Not an entirely unreasonable assumption given the information provided. But it could also be assumed that actual AI is used to process the data from the otherwise available data from video, sensors, etc, where that information is otherwise inconclusive.
   2. 

      Riccard
      16th March 2024, 8:12

      There is probably a machine learning program judging whether the thing in the picture is a car, and where the edge of the car is.

      Machine learning is what’s normally used for visual recognition, and it is normally described as AI.
      1. 

         Tristan
         16th March 2024, 8:35

         Motion tracking is not machine learning.
         1. 

            J765
            16th March 2024, 9:12

            Motion tracking is not machine learning but you can use machine learning to learn of the outputs of motion tracking and provide better and faster results than current judges give
            1. 

               Tristan
               16th March 2024, 9:18

               You don’t need machine learning for that… That’s just an algorithm. Machine learning is prediction, as EffWunFan says, it would be predicting the position of the vehicle from the sensor data for example. Machine learning requires training.

               Geolocating the position of the car on the track from video footage requires no learning, youtube content creators are doing it to make fancy 3d renders from the onboard footage, not in real time but the tech is the same. You don’t need AI or machine learning for any of that.
3. 

   Dex
   16th March 2024, 5:13

   How do you know the appellant self-identifies as a woman? Since that’s all we know about that side of the story, that it’s a woman. All joking aside, we know nothing about this at all, yet so much bla, bla, bla… There are so many articles, podcasts and whatever else about the implications, how it will change the team or even Formula 1, there are projections where Verstappen leaves the team because of this (indirectly), how the whole team or even the company that owns it falls apart or I don’t know…
   I don’t know who handles this worse, the team, the media, “the woman”, the drivers or Horner himself.
   This world is a crazy, ugly place.
   1. 

      Mayrton
      16th March 2024, 9:21

      Totally agree
   2. 

      MichaelN
      16th March 2024, 9:24

      No, part of the problem with the leaks is that it’s quite clear who the woman is. It’s a big privacy issue.

      And outlets nor daring to cite the leaked messages isn’t the same as not knowing what that was all about. There are good summaries on YouTube for those who care to get some details of Horner’s sleazy antics, where the same kind of qualms and fears are less apparent.
      1. 

         grat
         16th March 2024, 22:02

         You imply that you’ve read the messages.

         Yet you’re still completely blaming Horner.

         You’re involved, aren’t you?
4. 

   Jere (@jerejj)
   16th March 2024, 5:54

   I don’t think all things mentioned in the COTD are necessarily a bad thing or even wholly true, & as an example, in-race refuelling is something I haven’t missed at all & neither have most people, as it was detrimental to on-track overtaking.
   1. 

      Sham (@sham)
      16th March 2024, 6:32

      When the only on track overtaking is by DRS, I’d take refuelling as an alternative all day long.

      There is no chance of anyone taking the challenge to Red Bull this year because the rules prevent it, as I’ve mentioned before and as COTD correctly says.

      And there is no internal challenge at Red Bull.

      This will continue until the end of 2025 at least. There is no competition for the championships, at all. Which makes this period the dullest of all that I’ve witnessed since the mid 80’s.

      All the rules to make the competition more even have done is to prevent the other teams from catching one that has managed to do a better job initially. Which has never happened before.
      1. 

         frood19 (@frood19)
         16th March 2024, 6:44

         I think the only benefit of refuelling was that it meant the cars were lighter during the race, which meant drivers were closer to the limit. In addition to the amazing reliability we see these days, we also see very few mistakes – this is because drivers are nowhere near the limit in the races, which is down to massive fuel weight and stupid tyres.

         F1 will never go backwards on reliability but it a new set of regs should aim to make the cars harder to drive and make it so the drivers are on the limit more often. I want to see more errors – removing the acres of tarmac run off would also help in this regard.
5. 

   SteveP
   16th March 2024, 7:34

   As a demo of the astounding abilities of the position recognition system tagged as AI, that photo is hilarious.
   You would need severe visual impairment to fail to see that as a breach.

   Why not just move the track limits to a convenient point, put simple pressure sensors in the line and tell the drivers touching the line is a breach
   Give the drivers (and team and FIA) a nice “beep” to notify them within fractions of a second.
   Simple system, using reliable 50+ year old tech, that you could probably fit on 24 tracks for the price of one corner on the so-called AI.

   As to the previous attempt by the FIA: Yes, of course the detection loops were not accurate, that tech is designed to detect proximity not contact
   1. 

      Mog
      16th March 2024, 8:15

      Exactly. We havn’t needed AI to police it, the tech is there. Its just that nobody really wants an accurate and reliable system.
   2. 

      S
      16th March 2024, 8:21

      You would need severe visual impairment to fail to see that as a breach.

      And yet F1 has been calling this exact scenario “In” for decades…

      Why not just move the track limits to a convenient point, put simple pressure sensors in the line and tell the drivers touching the line is a breach

      Why? The track limit is already defined by a white line. It’s a visual reference that only need be judged by the human eye.
      The problem is that the FIA have been coerced into turning a blind eye to it by the competitors and commercial aspects of the F1 business. It’s not a good look to have the supposed ‘World’s Best Drivers’ being penalised for the most basic breach of rules that even junior go-karters can get right – on global TV, no less… It’s a massive embarrassment to all involved.

      As to the cost of an ‘AI’ system – it would need as few as two or three cameras at each detection zone and a PC with some software on it.
      No permanent installations necessary, and no cost to the circuit owner.
      1. 

         pcxmac (@pcxmac)
         16th March 2024, 13:01

         yeah, say you have 20 corners on a track, so you are looking at probably 60 video feeds, which might require 4x4U server appliances with a few GPUs and some decent processors with some nice ram. There are also FPGA accelerators that might beable to do the same thing for a fraction of the cost. But its only going to require maybe 4x8U containers for shipping.

         The best case is the system is used to trigger an audit, and a human decides whether or not an advantage was gained, and move on to tag the car with a penalty point, totaling to some limit, probably determined by each track perhaps.
6. 

   Brell-9W
   16th March 2024, 7:47

   Haha, the fact people spend most of the time talking about track limits penalties, a certain team principals private life and silly season 2026, after two races this year, tells you just how exciting F1 is at the moment.
7. 

   S
   16th March 2024, 8:11

   I’ve missed refuelling greatly.
   Refuelling never replaced overtaking because many/most of those overtakes would never have happened at all otherwise. F1 cars have never been good racing cars, especially since aero became a big factor.
   Trains happen in F1, and as great as the potential is that they create – they rarely fulfil it in reality.

   The benefits of refuelling far outweigh the drawbacks. Worst case is that it makes no change at all – nothing is lost.
   The banning of refuelling was a terrible decision IMO, and the current antipathy for F1’s on-track product is the natural conclusion. It’s just bland and beige.
   1. 

      Tristan
      16th March 2024, 12:17

      Don’t know how much of an impact this has on the decision makers, but the talking heads on broadcast were deriding how “confusing” it made the races, apparantly it was too difficult to explain it to the viewers… Not really sure how they got to that conclusion but that seemed to be the agreed upon take.
      1. 

         S
         16th March 2024, 13:08

         I’d rather they didn’t explain it, to be honest.
         The less people understand what’s going on in terms of strategy, the more they enjoy it unfolding in front of them.
         The element of surprise in ‘sport’ is one of the most desirable and attractive aspects of it.
      2. 

         MichaelN
         16th March 2024, 14:54

         F1 is one of the only top level motorsport series without refueling. It can be explained very easily. If people could keep up with F1 when Murray Walker was doing the commentary and basically no on screen graphics, there is really no reason it couldn’t be done.

         But refueling is mostly pointless as teams naturally gravitate towards the same strategies, and the ‘fuel saving runs’ in Indycar are frequently among the least popular races. Fuel load is just not that important a variable, especially now that DRS has removed the need for the ‘stay out one lap longer on low fuel to pass’ strategy that faster cars would need to resort to in the 1990s/2000s.

         Anyway, as long as F1 is addicted to ultra-soft, ultra-fragile tyres to introduce a certain variation in the performance of the cars, there is no point in even thinking about refueling. It can’t be done. You can’t push these tyres for a full stint.
      3. 

         Asd
         16th March 2024, 16:18

         In the time when refuelling got banned, we had hundreds of discussions about it here on this website. And the majority of us concluded that refuelling was bad for the races. Races with refuelling were some of the worst ever.

         People just like to forget things.

         Most of F1 races with refuelling looked like this: there are 2 cars running together, but they are not racing each other, the first one is on a 1 stop strategy so he is heavy and slow, and the second cars passes him easily because he’s on a 2 stop strategy, so he’s lighter and quicker. There is no emotion in the pass, because it’s unavoidable and we know those two cars are “not really racing each other”.
         Now the entire field of 20 cars is also not really racing each other, because everybody’s on different fuel loads due to different fuel strategies and different tyre wear amplified by running heavy or light.
         Only after the very last pit-stops we know where everybody really is.
         1. 

            S
            17th March 2024, 11:15

            In the time when refuelling got banned, we had hundreds of discussions about it here on this website. And the majority of us concluded that refuelling was bad for the races.

            Are these the same people who still comment here that F1 was ‘better before’ (insert almost any aspect of F1 here)…?
            For me, F1 will never have properly good racing – the least they could do is have as many strategic options as possible, even if nobody chooses to make use of that extra freedom.
            With the quantity and quality of data the teams have now, they will dullify anything and everything to the maximum extent anyway.

            Races with refuelling were some of the worst ever.

            Races without refuelling have also been the worst ever.

            Only after the very last pit-stops we know where everybody really is.

            I fail to see how this could be construed as a negative.

            They ‘aren’t really racing each other’ now either, simply because they know it’s pointless to defend. The faster car will almost always end up ahead either through the pits (even without refuelling) or through a DRS overtake.
            Taking away refuelling has done nothing but remove a variable – and there really aren’t many of those left in F1.
8. 

   J765
   16th March 2024, 9:13

   I’m absolutely sure Steiner would sign Bearman.
   I’m absolutely sure Bearman – nor any other young driver – would never go near Steiner.
9. 

   An Sionnach
   16th March 2024, 9:23

   Excellent comment of the day. There’s more excitement in a change of position due to pitstops than DRS passes. No refuelling makes the heavy cars heavier. It was exciting to see a remarkable driver drive like hell to make an extra stop work, whether it be Fangio or Schumacher. There’s less scope for strategy now, and contrived nonsense like mandated use of two tyre compounds of what are useless tyres by design. If we had tyre competition and decent tyres this would make it less likely that we would end up with only one team with a car that works with the tyres, while the rest tread water the entire race. DRS only being available to those within a second at a line is like something from a video game. What would happen if it could be used at will? Possibly more retirements as the drivers would lose it if they neglected to disable it for corners?

   No testing means nine out is ten teams are scratching their heads as their useless simulations and models cannot predict what they don’t understand.

   Narrow rules strangle innovation. There’s little hope of a team with a large power deficit making it up with a legal
   1. 

      An Sionnach
      16th March 2024, 9:24

      innovation that the rules haven’t anticipated.
10. 

    Mayrton
    16th March 2024, 9:26

    10 years ago today Nico Rosberg won the first race of Formula 1’s V6 hybrid turbo era

    and kicked-off the longest domination streak the sport has ever seen. For 8 years no other team would win anything of significance.
11. 

    Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
    16th March 2024, 9:35

    Catching drivers out more often isn’t going to change a thing.
    Until there is a genuine downside to exceeding track limits, then drivers will continue to cross the line.
    1. 

       SteveP
       16th March 2024, 12:20

       Until there is a genuine downside to exceeding track limits, then drivers will continue to cross the line.

       Quite likely, but first you put in a simple, solid evidence gathering system that also addresses the “I didn’t get told until 5,6,…10 laps later” “how can I correct a mistake that I did ages ago and can’t remember?”

       Tell them, immediately, that they did wrong.
       If they haven’t learned to change their line before the end of FP3, and carry the behaviour into the race, slam them with a heavy race penalty. I’m sure if they get hit hard enough, their teams will look at any aspiring new F1 drivers as a short/medium/long term replacement.
12. 

    Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
    16th March 2024, 13:20

    Thank you for COTD, Will Wood.

    I was not really suggesting that I would like to see the return of any one of the factors mentioned in particular, but I think collectively they have brought us to where we are today. Resulting in a substandard sport. Several could be changed for the better though.
13. 

    AlanD
    16th March 2024, 14:51

    “The FIA revealed the detection loops used previously were not accurate enough”

    They don’t have to be accurate enough, they have to be consistent. It doesn’t matter if they detect a car 1cm beyond the line, or can only do it reliably at 10cm, whatever it is doesn’t really matter. The drivers are supposed to drive to the white line, and if the sensor detects then going sufficiently beyond the white line to trigger the sensor, that should be a slam dunk penalty.

    Personally I’d like to see it linked to the car electronics so that a car triggers a sensor and automatically deploys the pit lane limiter for, say, 10 seconds, to mimic the effect of driving out of gravel. It doesn’t need a stewards enquiry, it doesn’t need a time penalty later on when no-one can remember exactly what it was for and everyone feels a bit cheated, just make it an immediate performance penalty, same as if it was gravel.

    And before people say “what if someone is forced off track?”, “what if someone takes evasive action to avoid an accident”, and I’d answer “and what if it was real gravel there?” Gravel doesn’t care. It doesn’t need a discussion about whether it is fare or not. If you don’t want gravel on the track because the stones could be dangerous, have electronic gravel instead, and deal with any perceived unfairness by harshly penalising the driver who forced someone off.
    1. 

       MichaelN
       16th March 2024, 15:01

       Yeah, this accuracy business doesn’t ring true at all. It’s not like they have to be precise to the millimeter. They can put the loops out a bit so that every time it’s triggered the cars are fully off track, even with the inevitably needed tolerance. Or they’d be at a weird angle which probably means the track limits are the least of their problems. That might mean the track limit is a bit further out than the white line, but that’s a small price to pay for automating the policing.

       An in-car penalty is very dangerous, however. If Leclerc’s car had slammed into a limited mode when Pérez shoved him off, not only would that penalize the victim rather than the offending driver, he’d also become a roadblock for the 16 cars following right behind him. Not a great situation. That might be averted by disabling the system on lap 1, but still – a game like GT7 forces drivers with a time penalty to back off on a straight, which is a safer option.
14. 

    KentHarwood
    16th March 2024, 16:17

    Ugh. This Christian Horner thing is so silly. Instead of all this time-wasting with Red Bull being the judge, token investigations, etc., take it to a proper court-of-law. Anything else is just rubbish. No matter what Red Bull, or any other corporation/governing body decides, the complainant can still take REAL legal action, which could extend all of this melo-drama for another year or two.
15. 

    Tom Baker
    17th March 2024, 9:20

    When are we all going to be able to stop calling X (Formerly Twitter) “X (Formerly Twitter)”?
    How many months and years must pass before are we going to be formally allowed to write simply “X” to deacribe the social media platform which was formerly Twitter?
    Or is “X (Formerly Twitter)” now formally the name of the social media platform which was formerly Twitter?
    And if so, are we permitted to say formally that Mr Musk was a bit of a twit for thinking that the single letter X, which can indicate many things other than the social media platform which was formerly Twitter, was a sensible name with which to formally replace Twitter as the name for the social media platform which was formerly Twitter, if the intention is to use a name which lets it be known clearly, unambiguously and indeed formally that one is referring to the social media platform which was formerly Twitter?

    I think I may have exceeded the character limit there.
    Forget all of the above.
    I will just write X instead.
    Or X, formerly all of the above.
    Clear now?
    1. 

       AlanD
       17th March 2024, 17:48

       How long did we say “the artist formerly known as Prince”?
16. 

    Andre
    17th March 2024, 16:24

    This will be the fate of the driver violating track limits:
    1. 

       Andre
       17th March 2024, 16:25

       … can’t post a link. Just imagine the villain robot from Robocop.

Comments are closed.