Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Back in the days when I worked prepress for a living, one of the jobs I worked on was a magazine called Vinage Motorsport magazine. It appears the quality of their design has gone downhill from those days, if the ugly layout of their Web site is any indication, but I digress.

Anyway, one of the issues of Vintage Motorsport I worked on was dedicated to a race car driver named Jim Hall and a race car production house called Chaparral Cars.

Chaparral was kind of the Scaled Composites of the auto-racing world, turning out radical, weird-looking vehicles that resembled nothing else on the race track. I've never been much into sports in general and I particularly detest automobile racing, but the story of Chaparral Cars is really interesting nonetheless.

This is actually a post about transhumanism, not race cars. Bear with me, I'm getting there.

Jim Hall and Chaparral Cars competed in an old, now-defunct racing circuit called the Can-Am Challenge Cup. The Can-Am series was quite different from other race car series, such as the Formula 1 series, in that it had a no-holds-barred, "anything goes" approach to race car designs.

Cars entered in Can-Am races had to have four wheels, the wheels couldn't be totally exposed, they had to have two seats, and they had to bedriven by an internal combustion, reciprocating engine--no jets or rockets.

Other than that, anything went. There were no limitations on the size of the engines or the cars, the technology used by the cars, or pretty much anything else. If it had two seats and an internal combustion engine, and met basic safety requirements, it was legal.

Which I think is pretty interesting.

Back in the mid-60s, when the Can-Am first started, the state of the art in race cars wasn't particularly advanced. Little was known about aerodynamics, and many of the design elements we now take for granted in race cars (high spoilers, for example) didn't exist.

The Can-Am was a playground for radical new automotive designs, and the Chaparral team went nuts. They were among the first car designers to include elements for aerodynamics; the Chaparral 2E was the first car to introduce a high spoiler and a nose designed for aerodynamic downthrust, both of which are now standard parts of nearly every race car in the world.

The problem with race cars isn't necessarily in raw horsepower, so much as it is in getting that power onto the ground. Cars vaguely resemble airplane wings, and they generate lift as they move. The faster they go, the more lift there is; the more lift, the less force holds the wheels to the ground; the less force holds the wheels to the ground, the more the wheels tend to spin out and the car ends up all over the road. It does no good to have a 700 HP engine if the wheels are just spinning when you step on the gas.

The Chaparral designs all aimed not to improve horsepower but to make the cars stick to the road better. After the success with adding wings and dams to help guide airflow and keep the car stuck to the road, the design team got more and more radical (and weirder and weirder); later cars featured moveable wings bolted right to the axle rather than to the car's body, which would tilt up to increase downward thrust when the car was cornering and tilt down to decrease drag on straightaways.

These cars look pretty ordinary to modern eyes, but back in the day, they were radical--nothing else like them existed. The designs succeeded very well. Rather too well, really.

In the late 1960s, the Can-Am body started to turn away from its "everything goes" philosophy, and outlawed the use of moving aerodynamic structures and the use of wings affixed directly to the rear axles rather than the car's body.

Chaparral rose to the challenge with the 2J, which had no wings or spoilers at all and is arguably one of the weirdest race cars ever built:

You'll probably notice the weird jet-engine-looking thing sticking out the ass end of this car. What you're seeing is a pair of powerful fans powered by a snowmobile engine. The fans suck air from under the car, creating a suction so powerful that when they're going at full blast, the car can actually stick to the ceiling.

Needless to say, the car didn't need wings or spoilers or other tricksy features. It could corner so fast the driver's head tended to get whacked up against the roll bar on the inside of the cockpit. It set a record at the Chaparral test track that's never been broken.

In fact, it was so successful that Formula 1 designers took note, and applied the same concept to a Formula-1 car, the BT46B:

And then something predictable happened. Rather than competing on innovation and engineering, other race teams complained to the various racing bodies about these designs. The BT46B raced once (and won handily) before being outlawed by the FIA. On the Can-Am side of the circuit, the other drivers--apparently forgetting the entire point of the Can-Am circuit-- complained that if the Chaparral 2J design wasn't outlawed, Chaparral would dominate the series and nobody else would be able to compete. The Can-Am body outlawed the 2J design shortly thereafter.

And in my opinion, racing got a whole less interesting.

But all that is just the prequel. It isn't what I really wanted to talk about.

What I actually came her to talk about is the Olympics.

The Olympics is this sporting thing that's supposed to be all about testing the limits of human athletic achievement, or something like that. Every two years, the world's most accomplished athletes gather together to compete in sports like running, swimming, swapping votes for figure skating, bribe-taking, ping-pong, and sweeping ice with a broom. (There's also the competition to see how fast a bunch of world-class athletes can go through a pile of 50,000 condoms, but they don't award medals for that, apparently.)

Human society, technology, and culture change, and the Olympics strives to change with it. That's why athletes no longer compete naked, the games are open to professional athletes, the sacrifices to the god Zeus have been phased out and replaced with burnt offerings to the gods of Marketing and Branding, and sports like Tae Kwon Do, Vollyball, Piss Into a Cup, and the popular Prove You're Really a Woman have been added to the roster.

In 2008, the International Olympic Committee showed there were limits to how far it would go, when it took time off from accepting bribes from host cities to rule that amputee Oscar Pistorius could not compete in the Games on the grounds that having no legs gave him a clear advantage over his less-advantaged fellow athletes.

I've talked a couple of times before about how I feel about the intersection of ability, disability, transhumanism, and body modification, but never directly in the context of sports before.

I've been thinking quite a bit lately about the old Can-Am races. Before they disintegrated into cries of "We aren't as clever as our opponents; someone make rules against their cleverness!" they were a very interesting playground for motor sports, the one place in all of racing where people could really explore the question "How fast can be make a race car go, anyway, if we really put our heads to it?"

Nominally "disabled" athlete Aimee Mullins, who mentions in her brilliant TED talk that a friend of hers said "that's not fair!" when confronted with Ms. Mullins' interchangeable legs, discusses some of the issues around turning a disadvantage into an advantage. I'd like to take that idea and run with it.

What would happen if someone were to do to the Olympics what the Can-Am did to motor sports?

The way I picture it is something like this: Wheels are not allowed. Assistive power devices are not allowed; all the energy used by an athlete must be generated by his or her own body, and powered by his or her own muscles. Other than that, anything goes.

A runner wants to run the 250-meter dash on six-foot carbon-fiber stilts with springs built in? Have at it! Another runner comes up with an implant that superoxygenates her blood? Sounds good to me! Let's see what the human body is really capable of, when we start pushing the design limits.

As it stands right now, new world records are usually set by fractions of a second. The old world record for the 100-yard dash is 9.0 seconds? Pish-posh! Let's see if we can cut that down to 7.2. As long as you do it with human muscle power, sans boosters or wheels, it's all good.

When I first mentioned this idea to zaiah, her concern was that athletes competing in such a game might do things like use steroids or remove their limbs to replace them with upgrades, and she was worried about the damage that otherwise healthy people might do to themselves competing this way.

Which, to be honest, I don't see as a problem.

Professional NFL football players, who tend to be quite wealthy and arguably have access to some of the world's best health care, have a nominal life expectancy of between 52 and 55 years. Playing football, in a literal way, cuts 20 years off their life span. Yet we as a society, and the players themselves, see this as perfectly acceptable.

Football and hockey players live with the long-term effects of repeated concussions, which lead to high rates of dementia later in life. Pro boxers even get their very own form of brain damage.

I think it's interesting that we, as a society, find these consequences of professional competition hardly worth a second thought. There are risks in any sport; people make choices that can have negative consequences all the time, and not just in the arena of sports.

The advantage that I see to something like a Can-Am of Olympic sports, though, is that the playground of technology that such an event represents can and probably would have significant benefits for people who aren't athletes. Technologies, drugs, and implants that might make better athletes, might also have applications in everything from reconstructive joint surgery to treating angina. The shape, and fuel economy, of your car can probably trace its roots back to some of the Chaparral design experiments.

Besides, a 7-second hundred yards would be pretty cool. And it would blur, even more, the fuzzy and sometimes arbitrary definitions of "normal" and "disabled."

One could reasonably that the American lifestyle, with its high-fructose corn syrup, largely sedentary jobs, poor indoor air quality, and abhorrence of exercise, is an experiment in producing the most pessimal possible physical conditioning. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what could happen if we applied the same principles to the most optimal?


( 33 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 12th, 2010 01:41 am (UTC)
Due to certain "proclivities" I am finding the picture of Aimee Mullins all kinds of hawt.
May. 12th, 2010 06:59 am (UTC)
I know, right? She'd totally be my Internet girlfriend if she knew I existed.
May. 13th, 2010 12:14 am (UTC)
phew, I thought I was being the odd one out. Because really? first impressions: awesome hot.

I asked my friends on facecrack if they would prefer people to think of them as "hot" or "inspirational". It was an even split. The "hot" selectees all qualified their decision with "sure, I'm shallow". The "inspirational" selectees did not qualify that with anything.

Why apologize for wanting to be seen as "hot"?

It was interesting to read their comments.
May. 13th, 2010 12:17 am (UTC)
Embrace the power of "and"!
May. 12th, 2010 02:14 am (UTC)
It's interesting that you mention Aimee Mullins, whose prosthetics cost $5000 a pair. That's exactly what I came here to comment on: Money.

Money is a major factor in the success of an athlete today: World-class trainers, medical staff, and facilities all cost big bucks. But most athletes start out with a comparatively modest (in Olympic terms) budgets. It's when they get noticed by whoever it is that does the noticing and brought into top-level training programs that the real money starts getting spent.

But therein lies the rub: They get *noticed* due to their previous achievements. There is no such gradual evolution with a mechanical system, beyond whatever the user's learning curve may be. Ceteris paribus, an athlete with a superior technology will always beat one with an inferior technology. And since the newest and best technology costs the most money... You've just replaced the growth of personal skill with a rich kid's game.

But suppose we do as you say, and go for an "anything goes" approach to technologies in sports competitions. To my understanding, the purpose of a race track event is to see how fast a human being can travel a certain distance. What would the purpose of an augmented race track event be? No matter how heavily augmented the competitors are, that Chapparal race car design will still beat them. The only difference is the level of interconnection between operator and mechanism -- and MMIs are already here, anyway.

In fact, I predict that as soon as technology permits, the winning augmentation will be to eliminate the squishy, biological element from the equation. Teleoperated bodies of all shapes and sizes will take to the field. What was the purpose of the competition, again?

One other element, crucial to my view, will also be lost in the process: Inspiration. Plenty of people watch professional sports. Many do so and say "I want to be able to do that!" True, most never will, but some special few will get there. The push for endless technological improvements and enhancements will remove that. People may still say "I want to be able to do that!" but will also know without a doubt that with a large enough cheque, they can.
May. 12th, 2010 02:21 am (UTC)
Also, much like in NASCAR, very soon all the runners will be tattooed with the logos of their corporate sponsors.

(Why tattooed? Because the ratings are better when the athletes aren't wearing much)
May. 12th, 2010 04:57 am (UTC)
Also, the tattoos will be sub dermal LEDs.
May. 12th, 2010 06:54 am (UTC)
Ooh! Yes, please. If that technology existed right now, I'd be all over it like white on rice.
May. 12th, 2010 06:49 am (UTC)
Money has always been one of the most important factors in athletic prowess. Much as we like to believe that this is the land of opportunity where anyone who is talented can succeed in spite of their background, the reality is, and always has been, that money matters. In fact, some Olympic sports (such as yachting) are so heavily reliant on money that they are available only to people whose net worth is so high that just thinking about it givs the rest of us great unwashed a nosebleed.

I totally do not accept the notion that with a big enough pocketbook, anyone could be enhanced to the point where he or she would become a world-class athlete. If I were to chop off my legs and replace them with carbon-fiber Cheetah blades, I would still not be an Aimee Mullins or Oscar Pistorius. In fact, thinking that would happen is falling into the trap that Ms. Mullins talks about in the article you link to below--believing that it's technology and not athleticism that matters. When the IOC looks at Oscar Pistorius, they say "He must be so fast because he has an unfair advantage," rather than "He must be so fast because he is a world-class athlete," which is more the truth.

Is it hypothetically possible that some future speculative technology could make me able to beat an unaugmented athlete? Sure. But give that same technology to a champion athlete, and I wouldn't stand a chance. Athleticism matters, and I suspect it will always matter. All other things being equal, an enhancement given to a skilled, talented, dedicated athlete will still allow that person to compete at a higher level than that same enhancement given to a non-athlete like me.

And that's why I think that athletes will always be able to inspire. That's the whole point; it's not just the technology. The raw physical ability will still matter. People will still look for talented up-and-coming athletes, because an enhancement given to such a person will still produce a more capable competitor than the same enhancement given to someone who isn't.
May. 12th, 2010 06:47 pm (UTC)
This is a great article, and your clarification here about money is spot-on.

If other Can-Am competitors had simply lifted the vacuum idea, they would have been able to compete just fine - and even beat Chaparral, if they had better drivers. To a point, creativity is more important than money in competition, but the creatives need to keep coming up with ways to stay ahead, because as soon as a whiff of your innovation gets out, the dumb but wealthy competitors will beat your ass. Given a level playing field, the best athletes will always win.
May. 12th, 2010 02:19 am (UTC)
As an aside, have you seen this article by Mullins?
May. 12th, 2010 09:38 pm (UTC)
Heh, I was going to ask the same question. I like how she writes. :)
May. 14th, 2010 02:35 am (UTC)
Very cool article.
May. 12th, 2010 03:01 am (UTC)
Very interesting post. I loved Aimee Mullin's TED talk you linked to.
May. 12th, 2010 03:05 am (UTC)
Hmmm.. I can totally see it as a variation of an X-games, but I'm not sure I'd like it in the Olympics.
Given, our nation is far from perfect, but I'd always wonder if the athletes from certain other nations had freedom of choice in the modifications...
May. 12th, 2010 03:08 am (UTC)
I have to agree with Icedrake somewhat; while an interesting and worthwhile pursuit on its own merits, this is not something that can, nor in my mind, should compete directly with the Olympics. Have them in parallel, just as Nascar and F1 are competitions in parallel.

Funding will be huge; while the basics of conditioning are something anybody can do, out of their own pocket, the basics of double-amputation and replacement of lower limbs with carbon fiber springs is Not something that anybody can afford.

...and, just to play devil's advocate... Why NOT wheels? With a prohibition on assisted power devices and the requirement that all motivative force be generated by the competitors themselves, what's wrong with allowing a marathoner to coast when they're confidently ahead? Wheels with no power other than that which the competitor provides would be quite an advantage in speed when going downhill, but if the competition has a net change in altitude of 0, that would mean that the wheels would Still be human powered, by the investment of potential energy in the form of altitude gain (or the borrowing of same, if the decent is first).
May. 12th, 2010 03:58 am (UTC)
That's something I did not say in my criticism, but heartily agree with: Competition of this type *should* be permitted and, in fact, encouraged. But why the need for it to replace an existing event?

It strikes me that this type of competition will also be more cerebrally focused, on the designers' part at first but also, as augmentations become easier to swap (a la Aimee Mullins' prosthetics), on the part of the competitors as well. Do you accept the extra 2kg of mass for an enhanced blood oxygenation apparatus? Or do you minimize your load and swap powered limbs for ultra-light carbon fibre ones?

If I'm right in the above, then replacing the Olympics with this type of event will shift the focus from the physical to the mental. I believe there is plenty of room for both, but necessarily in one event.
May. 12th, 2010 06:51 am (UTC)
Ah, perhaps I wasn't clear. I wouldn't like to see sporting events as they exist now replaced; what I'm proposing is something like the Can-Am of physical competition. Competitive events for the unaugmented would still exist, just like F1 racing still existed in spite of the Can-Am.

I think the augmented competition would be more interesting, personally, but I'm not suggesting that sporting competitions as they are now should go away.
May. 12th, 2010 06:53 am (UTC)
I can see competitive events that include wheels, sure.

The "no wheels" prohibition would be there, in my view, for things like sprints because wheels change the equation so much. Put me on a bike and I bet I'm probably faster than a competition runner, simply because wheels are so much more efficient than legs.

Now, an augmented equivalent to bicycle racing, in which wheels were permitted...that might be a very interesting sport indeed. I just wouldn't put it in the same class as people who had to use a more conventional bipedal propulsion.

In fact, there might even be three categories: wheeled, biped, and anything goes.
May. 12th, 2010 08:47 pm (UTC)
My beloved mentioned bikes, too, but that didn't occur to me because I imagine "augmented human" to mean that the augmentations were semi-permanent in nature, so if you had your prosthetic legs, for example, were a form of wheelchair, what's wrong with that?

Perhaps the prohibition on wheels should be replaced with a degree of permanence for the augmentation?
May. 12th, 2010 04:23 am (UTC)
Thank you SO much for the link to Aimee Mullins' talk. It was one of the most inspirational things I've ever watched. Really.
May. 12th, 2010 08:44 am (UTC)
Three years ago I wrote a NaNoWriMo novel about a baseball league based on the same principles.
(Deleted comment)
May. 12th, 2010 07:41 pm (UTC)
all the energy used by an athlete must be generated by his or her own body, and powered by his or her own muscles.
And only during the race itself. No winding up the springs beforehand.
May. 17th, 2010 09:40 pm (UTC)
Would you allow the athlete to wind springs after the event had started?
May. 17th, 2010 09:48 pm (UTC)
Sure, that's taking up race time.
May. 12th, 2010 08:11 pm (UTC)
I used to feel similar about racing with technology limitations. After all, I wanted to see how far a race car could be developed. Now as a race driver myself, I really appreciate more how racing is about drivers competing at a human level.

The difference is humans competing with or without the technological competition also factoring in. With racing, it's a balance because otherwise it quickly becomes a very exclusive club among only the highest budgets.

I don't think the technology assisted Olympics wouldn't be any different. It would eventually become a competition only winnable by the biggest budgets.

If you want a real example of this on a smaller scale, look at drag racing. Totally doesn't interest me to see who can spend the most money on something where the driver is almost completely out of the equation.
May. 12th, 2010 11:09 pm (UTC)
Self-induced state change athletes. :)
May. 12th, 2010 11:33 pm (UTC)
The alternative
I've been saying for quite a while that if sports remains strict about enhancements (whether pharmaceutical, implanted, prosthetic, or nanotechnological) then the day will come -- much sooner than we think -- when the average non-athlete "civilian" will have greater performance than pro athletes.

May. 13th, 2010 12:21 am (UTC)
Re: The alternative
At that point some of these enhancements may simply be considered baseline health care.
May. 13th, 2010 12:55 am (UTC)
Re: The alternative
I think that's my point ... what becomes baseline health care for civilians will include hundreds of things that would be "performance enhancing" for athletes and therefore banned. Meaning either the rules need to change for sports, or we face a world where athletes are weaker than regular folk.

We already face weak forms of this today. Many people use caffeine in reasonably large quantities every day as a mild performance enhancer, but it's banned for many athletes.
May. 15th, 2010 10:42 pm (UTC)
Re: The alternative
I suspect that if these things became baseline for the average population they would be removed from the 'enhanced' list - the point of which is not to handicap athletes but to prevent the wealthier few from having an unfair advantage. Athletes ran barefoot in the greek days, I think?

(Not that I necessarily agree with the way these rules are applied in reality, but I doubt that your imagined scenario would come to fruition for that reason)
May. 13th, 2010 01:38 am (UTC)
I would like to take this opportunity to note that it seems like whenever people talk about technology and its potential benefits for the disabled, 90-95% of the time it's about mobility issues. I hardly ever hear about sensory issues anymore. You know, the blind, the deaf, people who can't feel pain, have no sense of smell, whatever. As someone who's permanently lost a lot of their hearing to illness-induced nerve damage, I'm feeling kind of neglected these days.
( 33 comments — Leave a comment )