With driverless cars quickly advancing, and the companies behind them seeming to ever expand their ambitions, it won't be long before see a driverless version of the sport. We take a look at the autonomous racing championship, Roborace, and its plans to make a more epic and daring driverless F1

If driverless tech does make its way to F1 is that a prospect we should look forward to? After all, Formula One is defined as much by the adaptive skill of its drivers as the technical specifications of their cars.

While the plan to automate F1 is definitely very much still in development, and we won’t necessarily be seeing driverless version for a few years yet, with companies already working on developing tournaments for autonomous cars, it’s right that we start considering whether or not software alone can really compete with the instincts and reflexes of a real driver, and whether driverless F1 will be something that draws the same crowds anyway?


One of the companies at the forefront of turning F1 driverless is Roborace, developers of the Devbot and Robocar vehicles. In December of last year, they performed the first ever live demonstration of two driverless cars on a track at the same time and they are more broadly looking to develop a racing series for autonomous vehicles.

Featured image courtesy of Roborace. Image courtesy of Roderick Eime

Developing out of Formula E, a racing series using only electric-powered cars, the intention is for teams to compete in the Roborace series using equal cars, each with their own individual real-time computing algorithms and artificial intelligence technologies. Presumably, the inaugural series will act as a sort of proving ground for just what can be done with driverless programming in a race setting.

Bryn Balcombe, CTO Roborace, explained to Factor how he sees the future of the sport. “Formula One will always be the pinnacle of human drivers and powertrain technology. Roborace will always be the pinnacle of AI Drivers and autonomous technology,” says Balcombe. “In fact, Roborace provides a platform to develop vehicle intelligence. In the future that intelligence can be used to make traditional motorsport safer, for example by increasing 360 degree awareness.

“Traditional motorsport is dropping from the mainstream in both audience and awareness whereas Roborace has the ability to reconnect with the public because the same technology will be driving them and their families around in 5 years time. Roborace will introduce competition formats that are exciting to watch, but also represent extreme challenges that would be too risky for human drivers. For example, the introduction of traffic (trucks, buses, vans etc) into the racing environment could introduce closing speeds of over 100mph between vehicles.”

Autonomy versus Instinct

Perhaps the most difficult part of replacing Formula One with a driverless version is that autonomous vehicles, at least in their current form, are unable to replicate human instinct. Their sensor arrays can tell them every detail of the track they are on, and what is around them, but without true artificial intelligence, any reaction must be pre-programmed.

Machine learning will no doubt be able to play a part in teaching the vehicles a vast array of responses and possible choices, but the question remains as to whether or not a car could ever learn enough, and be smart enough, to replicate the split-second decisions that a human makes purely off experience and instinct. Would a car see such decisions too far outside of the norms they are programmed with?

To truly evolve the sport, the vehicles will need to be able to surprise spectators; they’ll need to act in ways that may initially seem counterintuitive

“We refer to the driver of our autonomous vehicles as the AI driver. The AI driver, just like a human driver, uses all of the information available to it from its large sensor suite of Lidar, radar, ultrasonic sensors, GNSS and machine vision cameras, to make decisions about how to drive and react,” says Balcombe. “The primary focus is on the ability of the AI Drivers to perceive and act within the dynamic environments that we create. If an AI Driver is more accurate in perception it has a better chance of taking the correct actions.

“However, actions also require judgement – of intent, of other competitors and prediction. It’s the ground based equivalent of a military dogfight with AI Drivers continually engaged in an OODA Loop (observe, orient, decide, and act). The key challenge is to get inside the OODA loop of a competitor to gain an advantage.”

For now, the question is somewhat moot. The technology isn’t yet where it would need to be to stage a racing series that can compete with the F1 establishment. At the most basic level, it would be relatively easy to programme the vehicles with an ideal driving line and have them follow it. The trouble there is that you would then just end up with a queue of cars that are all unable to adapt and work out a way to get ahead that doesn’t use the line handed to them. To truly evolve the sport, the vehicles will need to be able to surprise spectators; they’ll need to act in ways that may initially seem counterintuitive.

Can we convince people there’s a real driver behind the wheel

In October of 2016, the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) updated their defined levels of autonomous driving to reflect the levels outlined by SAE International’s J3016 document. According to the SAE document, at level 5, an autonomous car should be able to equal a human driver in every scenario.

This Level 5 scenario is where driverless vehicles are going to need to be to truly compete with F1, from both a technical and entertainment perspective. For all intents and purposes, a spectator should be convinced that the vehicle is driving as if there was a human behind the wheel. However, the advantage they may hold is their freedom from the somewhat important physical safety of human drivers.

The element of risk involved in sports like F1 is in no small part of the appeal, drawing crowds to witness drivers defying death at high speed. There are of course, however, myriad structures and regulations put in place to try and ensure that those drivers stay as far away from death as possible. Perhaps the greatest strength of a driverless Formula One is that there is no need for such structures because it is only vehicles at risk.

With safety regulations, largely, thrown out of the window is it possible that driverless Formula One could assume a form far greater than the traditional format? Admittedly, providing a car with programming telling it to disregard safety concerns may lead to something closer to rally racing than the perhaps more refined F1. At the same time however, it could prove to be a far more exciting prospect as, free from the frailty of their human masters, the cars are able to work to their full potential. And if it results in a car or two going out in a fireball of glory, it would at least make for a grand spectacle.

With billions of dollars being invested in building Disneyland-style, IoT connected stadiums, operators and sports clubs are entering a technologically enriched era, but can these sporting wonderlands tempt fans to give up their armchairs?

There’s nothing quite like the atmosphere inside a stadium during a sporting event: the roar of the crowd, the smell of overpriced fried food, the chanting, giant hats and foam fingers. The live spectator experience is a well-established cultural pastime that has been surprisingly resilient to social and economic changes, with fans travelling far and wide to watch their favourite players and athletes perform. But, the appeal of watching live, in-the-moment events is slipping.

Thanks to surging ticket prices and improved TV quality and camera options for home-viewing, stadium attendance is falling as even the most dedicated fans struggle to justify forking out their hard-earned cash for a sub-par view of the game. While technological developments have changed the way that sport is played on the ground, in the grandstand, digital improvements have been sorely lacking. Until now.

With billions of dollars invested in building Disneyland-style, IoT connected stadiums, operators and sports clubs are finally entering a technologically enriched era. However, in order to provide a stadium experience like never before, venue owners are asking fans to hand over large amounts of personal data. And with sophisticated surveillance systems following their every move, are connected stadiums forcing fans to sacrifice more than just their hard-earned cash for a heightened stadium experience?

If we build it they will come

When Japan announced its bid for the 2022 World Cup in 2010, it promised 200 HD cameras that would record 360° coverage of games and broadcast them live in 3D, with holographic projections allowing players to appear in stadiums around the world. The whole premise seemed a bit more sci-fi than reality. But in 2017, that holographic dream isn’t too far off.

Rapid technological developments have changed the way fans watch sporting events. From smartphones to high definition pause and play TV systems, advanced technology is now a ubiquitous part of modern life and the range of options available to modern spectators has grown. Armed with their devices, sports fans have become accustomed to receiving immediate game updates, play-by-play action and multiple camera angles. In contrast, the technology available inside stadiums felt outdated and compared with the multi-angle, on-demand coverage provided by live TV coverage, the glamour of the single-seat experience is fading.

While the live experience of in-stadium viewing cannot be replicated, even the most dedicated fans are struggling to justify paying the surging ticket prices for a subpar view of the game. To counter the threat from on-demand TV streaming, stadium owners are investing billions to transform outdated sporting venues into high-tech wonderlands. While bigger may have meant better in the past, stadium operators have entered an arms race of technological innovation as one by one, a steady stream of advanced and connected ‘smart’ stadiums are unveiled.

The technology used to run these stadiums is a far cry from the introduction of electronic scoreboards in the 1950s. Nowadays, clubs avidly boast about the Wi-Fi connection available inside stadiums that look more like Las Vegas casinos than sporting arenas. Gargantuan structures, such as the Sacramento Kings Golden 1 centre in the US or the design for the new Tottenham Hotspur ground in the UK, place increased focus on expanding the live event by connecting fans with an experience that it’s worth leaving home for.

These new designs offer far more than simply the viewing, they include shops, dining, bars, VR experiences and luxury lounges all in one convenient location. Fans can capture and upload gameplay, use their smartphones to find out which gate has the shortest queue time. They can even order food from their seat. Oh, and there is also sport.

Tracking and targeting fans

Unsurprisingly, the grainy black and white footage captured by old-school security cameras doesn’t quite cut the rug in these supercharged, technology-driven smart stadiums. While spectators may be focused on the novel developments designed to improve the viewing experience inside of these multiplex superstructures, behind the screens advanced data analytics and sophisticated systems are being used to watch a different kind of action.

Stadium operators are starting to pay more attention to who is filling the stands, rather than blindly selling tickets. There are two main reasons for this: security and data collection. Sporting events have always been a prime target for those looking to create as much panic and chaos as possible. The massacre during the 1972 Summer Olympics in Munich, explosions outside of the Bernabéu stadium hours before hours before a European Champions League semi-final in 2002, the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, the 2015 Stade de France attack; each fresh incident has left a significant mark on the sporting world. So, it’s understandable why sports authorities and stadium owners are keen to upgrade the systems used to prevent future incidents.

With access to consumer data through electronic tickets, app logins, social media streams and even fingerprint ID scanning, stadium owners can build a personalised fan portfolio for each individual who enters the ground, before, during and after the event has taken place. However, in order to provide an up-to-date, personalised stadium, you need to understand your fans inside and out.

Bar breaking into their houses and reading their diaries (which I am told is still considered way too invasive) clubs had little access to fans’ personal information

Now, in the past this was a little bit tricky. Bar breaking into their houses and reading their diaries (which I am told is still considered way too invasive) clubs had little access to fans’ personal information. But thanks to the internet, modern stadium owners have access to a mass of data which allows them to track and target spectators. For example, if a spectator is connected to the stadium Wi-Fi or using an official app, a team could use this connection to push out customised content for that user, such as live replays, links to social media channels or targeted adverts.

For obvious reasons, many stadium owners remain tight lipped about the extent of their new internal surveillance systems, but in the US, security firms tasked with monitoring crowd behaviour are increasingly turning to social media to identify potential troublemakers. Specialised and customisable systems, such as Babel Street and Geofeedia, similar to those already employed by police forces and government authorities, allow security staff to scan through posts published on social media outlets including Twitter, Facebook and Instagram. Once fans are inside the stadium, personal identifiers, e.g. smartphones and electronic tickets, eliminate the perceived anonymity. With fans no longer just nameless face in the crowd, multi-angle GPU facial recognition technology can track spectators wherever they go. Any trouble, and they are gone.

Do sports teams care about safety or commerce? 

Sporting events draw in thousands of people, including attendees who don’t always behave – or get on – all packed into one big venue. In some cases, this brings out everything that is brilliant about sport. In others, well, it’s kind of a recipe for disaster. The security challenges facing stadiums are complex. Not only do they have to contend with the rowdy behaviour and general nuisance of disorderly fans, but the capacity and publicity of stadium venues make them a significant target for terror attacks.

So, it should come as no surprise that security is high up on the list of concerns for stadiums, sporting bodies, the police and basically everyone else involved in planning large-scale stadium events. And so far, the smart stadium trend has only increased the demands placed on security services. Hailed to be the most advanced stadium in the Europe, the revamped design of Spurs’ new White Hart Lane ground has gained permission to increase capacity from the original plan of 56,000 to 61,559 seats. While this increase may boost revenue for Spurs, increased security measures can hamper the spectator experience.

Some football clubs have attempted to bypass potential disruptions by introducing fingerprints and iris scanners, which fans can opt for if they want to avoid the queues for security checks. But given that there are very few events where customers would offer this extreme level of identifiable personal information without also passing through security checks to ensure they aren’t bringing dangerous items into the ground, the appearance of these systems seems less safety driven and more to do with tracking fans’ behaviour and purchasing habits.

Heightened safety measures are an understandable upgrade for stadiums tasked with controlling modern crowds. But as clubs explore the potential of advanced technology in live sporting events, privacy concerns are likely to dog invasive developments that use personal data to increase revenue and drive profits rather than ensuring the safety of spectators.