If i was to offer you a bank account where your employer matched what you could afford to pay in and the taxman added 20% to what you paid would you take it out? Not only that you get interest on the money and if you want to you can even invest a bit.
So whats the catch - well there is one. You cant touch the money till your 55 and you can only take 25% of the fund out straight away. The rest gives you some money to live on. Still interested?
If so then i can let you into another secret, it already exists and even though it does 40% of the workforce wont take it. They dont "believe in it" or they dont need it. It of course if you hadnt guessed, a pension.
Pensions maligned, misunderstood and a catch all word for a myriad of savings vehicles that bear as much resemblence to each other as chalk and cheese but nevertheless are lumped together by the media. This of course means theres more misunderstandings than at the hard of hearings annual dinner & dance but until the media comes up with a snappy replacement its somethingwe're stuck with.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Monday, October 27, 2008
System 1 Vs System 2 F1 Driving Styles
This article will look at F1 driving styles and try to ascertain whether the protagonists drive instinctively or through learned behaviour. Or more to the point which drivers use which technique. I believe there is a clear difference with of course exceptions.
Before we do that we first need to look into that element of how the brain works. There are two areas of the brain responsible, the instinctive brain located deep in the base - lets call it system 1. And the rational brain, the frontal lobes that we will call system 2.
System 1 is our primitive brain, it makes decisions based on instinct, whereas system 2 brain evaluates using experience and probability. It is necessarily a slower process but perhaps more in line with the current demands society places on us. The trouble is we tend to flit from system 1 to system 2. Relative to the mass of networks our brain contains, system 1 and system 2 are not well connected to each other so we either react or we pontificate when somewhere between the two would be optimum. However in high stress situations we tend towards one or other of the systems
How does this relate to driving an F1 car? Quite substantially i believe. The modern grand prix driver has an almost unique position of requiring both intellectual and instinctive responses to his surroundings during a race and in the weeks between races where feedback from the driver is key to achieving a set up that maximises the cars potential. But perhaps more fundamentally, during a race, is the driver "in the zone" - using system 1? - Or is he consciously responding to his circumstances -system 2- ? It is clear to me that evaluating a drivers behaviours and decision making can help us understand what system is prevalent and therefore his potential, his shortcomings and even what he will achieve in his career under certain conditions.
Let us look at two drivers who are considered amongst the greats but who are chalk and cheese. Giles Villeneueve was probably best described as outrageously gifted and for the spectators a joy to watch as he pushed the car up to and over its limits and yet he never won a championship. Indeed he lost his life in a fit of pique the race after being double crossed by his team mate, Didier Pironi. Villeneuve was a system 1 driver and limited by this win or bust mentality as much as he was set free by its lack of requirement to evaluate situations rationally.
Alain Prost on the other hand although devastatingly quick would almost appear slow as he forever kept the car at 99% of capacity without ever hitting, or needing to hit, the mythical 11 tenths. He won 3 world championships because he lacked the seat of the pants chutzpah system 1 drivers had, not in spite of it. He was at that time and until the arrival of Michael Schumacher the greatest exponent of system 2 driving the sport has seen.
Which brings us neatly to our exception, the red baron. Quick, Machiavellian, tactically brilliant and able to drive at whatever pace required to win. He was both system 1 and 2 using what ever method gave him most advantage. Some of his greatest drives were system 2 drives, the 2nd place stuck in 4th gear is a great example of a man who could drive round a problem that would've forced lesser men to retire. His last race, spent trying to reel in Alonso from an unpromising grid position was as astonishing a display he ever gave in the art of the overtake as he danced round car after car regardless of the corner or difficulty. Of course he never got much credit, for by then the sport had largely turned against him after his antics at Monaco where he parked his Ferrari on a corner in qualifying to prevent Alonso from being able to beat his time. But even this was an example of system 2 taking over when system 1 had run out of answers.
Next we must look further back to see legendary system 1 drivers Fangio and Clark. There is some great in car footage on youtube of Fangio on a demo lap in a Maserati. Watch his steering he turns into the apex, corrects once and hes out. Clark was the same steer, correct, power. Geniuses who knew the optimum line, could hit it and required only one correction to get the car set up for the straight. Even the correction was a deliberate if unconscious act as it allowed more speed to be carried into the corner but scrubbed enough to get through without the destabilising effect using too much brake would have.
Now watch a decent and competent, but no genius, driver like Rene Arnoux tackle a corner. In he goes wheel moving left and right as he meanders across the optimum line. Maybe 3 turns in, 3 out, and the same again on the exit. No telemetry exists but i suspect we would see a throttle that trailed and was picked up in steps rather than a steep and steady curve. Arnoux was a system 2 driver who maximised his talent by realising he could not turn into the apex consistently enough with one steer for him still to be quick. He was therefore necessarily slower than our 2 geniuses and had to drive at HIS ten tenths ability rather than THE ten tenths ability of the car.
So where does that leave our current crop of F1 drivers? Let us take the main protaganists briefly in turn:
F Alonso - system 2. A great racer with race craft to burn, a difficult call but ragged on the edge and overtakes can be messy means i feel he is system 2 but with system 1 moments.
M Hakkinen - system 2. No racer, hes quick but fails to react quickly enough to overtaking opportunities
L Hamilton - system 1. An outstanding taker of opportunities and unbeatable in the wet, his impetuosity may lose him more World Championships than it gains but he will always be in the hunt
F Massa- system 2. Poor in traffic and mistake happy in the wet he has though improved more than anyone in f1.
R Kubica - system 2,. Metronomic but not a gambler. Hamilton irks him with his aggression on the track. He could nevertheless win more titles than Hamilton due to his ability to "know when to hold em and know when to fold em."
Nick Heidfeld - system 2 - Probably the clearest example of a system 2 driver. Devastatingly slow in qualifying he more than makes up for it with his race savvy. A much under rated driver.
N Vettel - system 2. Could be system 1, time will tell after his astonishing drive in the wet at Monza but in all probability he will turn into system 2 if he isnt already.
So there we have it, F1 is dominated by intelligent but cautious drivers who are not wont to give their team principles and sponsors heart attacks every time they race. One can also begin to understand the fuss made of Hamilton and also the dislike, maybe even hatred, that increasingly stalks him.
F1 needs its system 1 drivers. In the 80's we had Jones, Villeneuve, Rosberg, the incomparable Senna, Mansell and potentially the best of them all Stefan Bellof who died at Spa in a quite audacious but ridiculous attempt to overtake through Eau Rouge in a sports car race in 1985. But since those heady days they have all but disappeared. A F1 season without Lewis, whether you are a fan of his or not looks a bleak prospect indeed.
Before we do that we first need to look into that element of how the brain works. There are two areas of the brain responsible, the instinctive brain located deep in the base - lets call it system 1. And the rational brain, the frontal lobes that we will call system 2.
System 1 is our primitive brain, it makes decisions based on instinct, whereas system 2 brain evaluates using experience and probability. It is necessarily a slower process but perhaps more in line with the current demands society places on us. The trouble is we tend to flit from system 1 to system 2. Relative to the mass of networks our brain contains, system 1 and system 2 are not well connected to each other so we either react or we pontificate when somewhere between the two would be optimum. However in high stress situations we tend towards one or other of the systems
How does this relate to driving an F1 car? Quite substantially i believe. The modern grand prix driver has an almost unique position of requiring both intellectual and instinctive responses to his surroundings during a race and in the weeks between races where feedback from the driver is key to achieving a set up that maximises the cars potential. But perhaps more fundamentally, during a race, is the driver "in the zone" - using system 1? - Or is he consciously responding to his circumstances -system 2- ? It is clear to me that evaluating a drivers behaviours and decision making can help us understand what system is prevalent and therefore his potential, his shortcomings and even what he will achieve in his career under certain conditions.
Let us look at two drivers who are considered amongst the greats but who are chalk and cheese. Giles Villeneueve was probably best described as outrageously gifted and for the spectators a joy to watch as he pushed the car up to and over its limits and yet he never won a championship. Indeed he lost his life in a fit of pique the race after being double crossed by his team mate, Didier Pironi. Villeneuve was a system 1 driver and limited by this win or bust mentality as much as he was set free by its lack of requirement to evaluate situations rationally.
Alain Prost on the other hand although devastatingly quick would almost appear slow as he forever kept the car at 99% of capacity without ever hitting, or needing to hit, the mythical 11 tenths. He won 3 world championships because he lacked the seat of the pants chutzpah system 1 drivers had, not in spite of it. He was at that time and until the arrival of Michael Schumacher the greatest exponent of system 2 driving the sport has seen.
Which brings us neatly to our exception, the red baron. Quick, Machiavellian, tactically brilliant and able to drive at whatever pace required to win. He was both system 1 and 2 using what ever method gave him most advantage. Some of his greatest drives were system 2 drives, the 2nd place stuck in 4th gear is a great example of a man who could drive round a problem that would've forced lesser men to retire. His last race, spent trying to reel in Alonso from an unpromising grid position was as astonishing a display he ever gave in the art of the overtake as he danced round car after car regardless of the corner or difficulty. Of course he never got much credit, for by then the sport had largely turned against him after his antics at Monaco where he parked his Ferrari on a corner in qualifying to prevent Alonso from being able to beat his time. But even this was an example of system 2 taking over when system 1 had run out of answers.
Next we must look further back to see legendary system 1 drivers Fangio and Clark. There is some great in car footage on youtube of Fangio on a demo lap in a Maserati. Watch his steering he turns into the apex, corrects once and hes out. Clark was the same steer, correct, power. Geniuses who knew the optimum line, could hit it and required only one correction to get the car set up for the straight. Even the correction was a deliberate if unconscious act as it allowed more speed to be carried into the corner but scrubbed enough to get through without the destabilising effect using too much brake would have.
Now watch a decent and competent, but no genius, driver like Rene Arnoux tackle a corner. In he goes wheel moving left and right as he meanders across the optimum line. Maybe 3 turns in, 3 out, and the same again on the exit. No telemetry exists but i suspect we would see a throttle that trailed and was picked up in steps rather than a steep and steady curve. Arnoux was a system 2 driver who maximised his talent by realising he could not turn into the apex consistently enough with one steer for him still to be quick. He was therefore necessarily slower than our 2 geniuses and had to drive at HIS ten tenths ability rather than THE ten tenths ability of the car.
So where does that leave our current crop of F1 drivers? Let us take the main protaganists briefly in turn:
F Alonso - system 2. A great racer with race craft to burn, a difficult call but ragged on the edge and overtakes can be messy means i feel he is system 2 but with system 1 moments.
M Hakkinen - system 2. No racer, hes quick but fails to react quickly enough to overtaking opportunities
L Hamilton - system 1. An outstanding taker of opportunities and unbeatable in the wet, his impetuosity may lose him more World Championships than it gains but he will always be in the hunt
F Massa- system 2. Poor in traffic and mistake happy in the wet he has though improved more than anyone in f1.
R Kubica - system 2,. Metronomic but not a gambler. Hamilton irks him with his aggression on the track. He could nevertheless win more titles than Hamilton due to his ability to "know when to hold em and know when to fold em."
Nick Heidfeld - system 2 - Probably the clearest example of a system 2 driver. Devastatingly slow in qualifying he more than makes up for it with his race savvy. A much under rated driver.
N Vettel - system 2. Could be system 1, time will tell after his astonishing drive in the wet at Monza but in all probability he will turn into system 2 if he isnt already.
So there we have it, F1 is dominated by intelligent but cautious drivers who are not wont to give their team principles and sponsors heart attacks every time they race. One can also begin to understand the fuss made of Hamilton and also the dislike, maybe even hatred, that increasingly stalks him.
F1 needs its system 1 drivers. In the 80's we had Jones, Villeneuve, Rosberg, the incomparable Senna, Mansell and potentially the best of them all Stefan Bellof who died at Spa in a quite audacious but ridiculous attempt to overtake through Eau Rouge in a sports car race in 1985. But since those heady days they have all but disappeared. A F1 season without Lewis, whether you are a fan of his or not looks a bleak prospect indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
