Originally posted by desmo
There seem to be at least a couple of unsupported assertions present. Firstly that effectively banning TC will have any substantive effect on the spectacle of racing, and secondly that TC will reduce the influence of the driver in the performance equation. The first makes little sense to me and the second assumes that the whatever cognitive resources might be devoted to throttle control in the absence of TC won't be used for another purpose given TC.
I think as it stands the arguments against TC appear to be emotional moreso than rational in their motivations. And it appears you really have to emasculate the powertrain technology level to antediluvian levels to effectively disallow TC.
The argument against TC is as much of an emotional one as the argument in favor of it; either side is supporting their view of a racing formula that they would prefer to see. Not that anybody has expressed any support for it, it's been more along the lines of 'just embrace the change'. Anyways, we have to keep in mind that since a ban on TC is impossible in reality, this discussion can only be about our fundamental view of TC (and driver aids in general) and how it affects the sport.
On this subject, TC evidently does have
some affect on the spectacle as there are no longer any standing starts filled with tire smoke, and fewer hair-raising dashes to the first corner. There are no more on-board shots where the engine revs up with no corresponding increase in the car's speed, no more 'tank slapping' exits out of corners. These tell-tale signals have all been eliminated by the microchip. There used to be a time when I would take pride in spotting drivers' efforts or errors before anyone else did, by watching for just such tiny effects during a race. Now it's not even worth paying attention. Hmm, that may explain why even the announcers seemed to take forever to notice when MS blew his engine in Japan, or when he lost power (both times) in Brazil.
Anyways, it doesn't particularly matter if you believe that TC visually impacts the racing. The mere knowledge that the system's purpose is to usurp some control from the driver is enough to compromise the spectacle as far as I'm concerned.
Because it reduces the driver's control, it
must have the effect of reducing the influence of the driver in the performance equation. I don't see how it could be interpreted otherwise. The fact that TC enables the driver to focus on other aspects of the car's handling, or on which position he will take with his supermodel girlfriend that night, is of no consequence. In the end all the driver's focus must be acted through his inputs to the car and once any of those input systems is mediated by a control system, his control is correspondingly reduced.
Consider two extremes whereby drivers have either 100% or 0% control of their car. In the first instance they would race much like they had up until the electronic age, with 100% control of the car giving them maybe 25-50% influence over the outcome of their race, the rest influenced by the car's performance package. Obviously, with 0% control of the car they have no influence whatsoever on the outcome. The performances would be guided entirely by indistinguishable control systems and the results would almost perfectly mirror the performance capabilities of the cars, from the very first lap to the last. I can appreciate that there is
some appeal to such a scenario, but we must remember that the 'Robot Wars' fad has already come and gone!
The point of that intellectual exercise was that it allows us to draw the conclusion that there is no downside to giving more control to the driver, but each increment of control that is ceded to computers necessarily worsens the spectacle. Unless, of course, one is of the opinion that the human element only adds chaos to the results. I can't disagree with that viewpoint but I do find it sad.
The conclusion for me is that human fallibility is an important part of what makes competition interesting (even if it is the least fallible drivers that we idolise).
