Skip to main content

Racing Green - Kit Chapman ****

It's a perfectly reasonable assumption that a book about a topic you (and most of the world) have no interest in will be uninspiring - and for me, motorsport is on a par with watching paint dry without the aesthetic content. However, David Sumpter's Soccermatics had proved to me that it was possible to take a similarly boring subject and make an enjoyable popular maths title based on it - so perhaps I shouldn't have been so surprised that I enjoyed Racing Green.

In part, this is down to Kit Chapman's skill as a storyteller. I often moan about a lack of narrative in popular science books - this book oozes with it. If anything, there's almost too much. Where Sumpter gave us quite a bit of detail on the maths of the 'beautiful game', Chapman gives fleeting glimpses of the science and technology involved in this most technical of sports, sometimes with no more science content than a shampoo commercial. Even so, I can forgive that for the range of technologies and their applications explored here.

Along the way, Chapman brings in simulation, safety design, aerodynamics, battery technology, the physics of brakes, autonomous vehicles, new materials and more. Some of it is fairly predictable - carbon fibre technology, for example - in other cases there are real eye-openers, such as the use of flax as a more environmentally friendly substitute for carbon fibres (sustainability and the environment are common threads throughout the book, hence, that 'green' bit).

As someone with an airline background, I was amazed at how late motor racing realised simulators would be useful - but as with most of the technology employed in the field, once they did, they took it very seriously. Another surprise was the sheer amount of data flowing from Formula 1 cars during a race - far more than even 5G can cope with. I knew how much CERN had to juggle data when searching for particles, but not the extent to which it now dominates motor racing.

All the way through, we get stories to put the tech into context. Not infrequently, given the risks involved in the sport, these stories involve crashes, lessons learned and the use of technology to reduce fatalities. It's a dramatic book that is likely to appeal to a good few readers who rarely dip their noses into popular science titles. 

I do need to mention two issues. The smaller one is that Chapman's storytelling drive is so strong that occasionally it warps reality a little. This comes through in the very first sentence. 'Romain Grosjean has 27 seconds to live.' Well, no, he doesn't. But I can forgive that as dramatic licence. What's less forgivable is when Chapman describes the development of graphene. There is no doubt that of the two key players, the life and work of Andre Geim makes by far the best tale. But to not even mention his co-Nobel Prize winner Konstantin Novoselov, is, to say the least, not very nice.

The bigger issue comes through in the book's subtitle 'How motorsport science can save the world.' This is that classic fallacy, justification by spin-off. NASA often does this. Yes, we've spent all these billions, but this amazing everyday technology is a spin-off from our work. Putting aside the fictional ones like Velcro and Teflon, we can allow NASA memory foam, but the claim, for example, that the need for small computers on Apollo led to the microcomputer revolution is a total misunderstanding of how economics and technology work. It was cheap microprocessors for everyday uses like controlling traffic lights that led to the PC, not bespoke multi-million pound computers.

In Racing Green, the claimed spinoffs are an attempt to launder motorsport's reputation as a money-burning, environmentally damaging waste of resources. It's true there have been some interesting spinoffs - but if the money spent on motorsport had been simply been put into R&D to deal with these problems, it would have achieved far more. Spin-offs are not a justification, unless you are already a fan. The ultimate example of the misplaced fan view in the book for me was the claim that Mercedes is a successful brand because of its motorsport successes. No it's not - the majority of Mercedes drivers couldn't care less if they have a racing team. And credulity is stretched to the limit in suggesting racing autonomous cars will iron out the issues they face on the ordinary roads - because those issues are all about the non-controlled, non-standardised environment of real roads, the very opposite of a race track.

The spin-off justification was a constant irritation throughout the book, but it just shows what a good piece of writing Racing Green is that I could overlook it and still get lots out of the experience.

Hardback: 
Bookshop.org

  

Kindle:  
Using these links earns us commission at no cost to you
Review by Brian Clegg
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Antigravity Enigma - Andrew May ****

Antigravity - the ability to overcome the pull of gravity - has been a fantasy for thousands of years and subject to more scientific (if impractical) fictional representation since H. G. Wells came up with cavorite in The First Men in the Moon . But is it plausible scientifically?  Andrew May does a good job of pulling together three ways of looking at our love affair with antigravity (and the related concept of cancelling inertia) - in science fiction, in physics and in pseudoscience and crankery. As May points out, science fiction is an important starting point as the concept was deployed there well before we had a good enough understanding of gravity to make any sensible scientific stabs at the idea (even though, for instance, Michael Faraday did unsuccessfully experiment with a possible interaction between gravity and electromagnetism). We then get onto the science itself, noting the potential impact on any ideas of antigravity that come from the move from a Newtonian view of a...
Post a Comment
Read more

The World as We Know It - Peter Dear ***

History professor Peter Dear gives us a detailed and reasoned coverage of the development of science as a concept from its origins as natural philosophy, covering the years from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. inclusive If that sounds a little dry, frankly, it is. But if you don't mind a very academic approach, it is certainly interesting. Obviously a major theme running through is the move from largely gentleman natural philosophers (with both implications of that word 'gentleman') to professional academic scientists. What started with clubs for relatively well off men with an interest, when universities did not stray far beyond what was included in mathematics (astronomy, for instance), would become a very different beast. The main scientific subjects that Dear covers are physics and biology - we get, for instance, a lot on the gradual move away from a purely mechanical views of physics - the reason Newton's 'action at a distance' gravity caused such ...
Post a Comment
Read more

It's On You - Nick Chater and George Loewenstein *****

Going on the cover you might think this was a political polemic - and admittedly there's an element of that - but the reason it's so good is quite different. It shows how behavioural economics and social psychology have led us astray by putting the focus way too much on individuals. A particular target is the concept of nudges which (as described in Brainjacking ) have been hugely over-rated. But overall the key problem ties to another psychological concept: framing. Huge kudos to both Nick Chater and George Loewenstein - a behavioural scientist and an economics and psychology professor - for having the guts to take on the flaws in their own earlier work and that of colleagues, because they make clear just how limited and potentially dangerous is the belief that individuals changing their behaviour can solve large-scale problems. The main thesis of the book is that there are two ways to approach the major problems we face - an 'i-frame' where we focus on the individual ...
Post a Comment
Read more