The Mother Lode- Road Amercia

[TimW]

Actually I believe it is bit of both social and engineering phenomena to have a successfull racing program.

Which is why I said it is more social instead of saying it is solely a social engineering solution to the problem...

An Oval is a different animal all together. When you start to involve banking especially. All dynamic movements are greatly enhanced and even small handling problems are big ones. The setups for an oval are so far removed from a road race car that a comparison isn't even fair.

I thought we're talking about the carousel at Road America? That corner is (or should be) flat all the way around in most formula cars, all the way to champ cars. It is as close as you get to steady state on a road course and as you say how setup problems are amplified on an oval, the carousel is also a good place to assess the balance of the car as the driver inputs are mostly taken out of the equation by mid corner. Since as you say drivers talk more about the transients getting good feedback on steady state balance at a point of amplification will give you the most unbiased knowledge about the setup of the car and likely uncover similar shortages that are covered up by the talk of the transients everywhere else around the track. So, when you talk about the carousel the questions, the driver feedback and the car's feedback are very similar to how you analyze getting a car around an oval. Yes, on an oval the car is predisposed to turn that direction with a specific setup (which includes the all fundamental yaw damping in that configuration), but the fundamental physics and analysis is the same.

Without argument, though only with respect to the car maintaining grip within it's slip angles and not above them. I guess that's what you mean by "Doc Hudson".
It is unavoidable to have a car not achieve a larger slip angle on the rear tires over the front on a full throttle exit of the corner (a very well setup car). So having said that, adding any oversteer as result of "over driving" the exit is less desirable and slower than the car acquiring a slight understeer as the result. The U/S condition takes less time and thus less time loss to correct as a driver. And is more likely to be managed with more confidence and most importantly, can easily be attempted lap after lap, and keep the car on the track.

Again, I think this depends moreso on the driver. A great driver will drive a bad car as fast as anyone else that day by driving around the car's shortcomings, at least on a road course. A good driver can take a good car and drive it as fast as the rest of them. But in steady state you hopefully are removing the driver from the equation provided similar sized gonads. Anything the driver has to do to adapt to the car not being neutral will slow him down. But I still argue a O/S steering correction at full throttle, provided the yaw angles are small, will be faster than rotating the car by trail braking or inducing trailing throttle oversteer to drive around U/S. But you are correct, for this to work the cars must remain within their working slip angles as if one end fully falls over the cliff the corner is done and the driver is back in the equation way beyond any minor steering corrections.

[jim morgan]

From personal experience teach a kid to drive a loose car he will be faster than the driver who always got to use a push as an excuse. You can drive around slight loose with better results than driving around push. Beginning drivers today get to hide behind data before they know what the car is really doing.

[George Main]

george,
a question.
i know that you were a pretty accomplished data guy working in FA with DSTP.
but have you ever spent much seat time in a formula car?
just wondering.


mark d

Never worked for DSTP in FA or FF2000.
Worked for Lynx 1996 (Jim Griffith, team manager for DSTP., engineered) RT41's
. Also worked for Genoa/DelaPena with Vasser/Jamie Galles, DB4's (Mike Cannon and Tom Knapp) then again with just Jaime Galles
John Marconi, Reynard 92H,
Engineered/data for Sandy Dells (Dave Cutler and Case Montgemery), later that year under Carlos Bobeda' s tent. RT 41
Engineered/data for Micheal David (later with Elton Julian driving) RT41 then Swift 008's
Off and on with Carlos and Condor, 010.-012. (In between Trans Am and Alms races)

In FF2000, always raced against DSTP with Jeret Schroeder, Howard Katz, Johnathan Clues, Lance Norick, Bill Shrearer but not with them.

No, I don't have much seat time in most of the cars I've engineered, analyzed data (which is almost of them) or/and driver coached. My lessons/education have come very backwards from most people, I learned to read data before I knew anything about how the dynamics of a car worked or how they were being driven.
All of my seat time has been by analyzing data or observing (around the race track) the cars/drivers I worked with.
It is because of data, that I understand what I do about driving and there's very little that data (no matter what you've heard) doesn't reveal about a drivers technique, the track learning process and even driving theories such as which is better- ie: left foot braking or right foot braking, trail braking or not or which corners are really the most important or the fastest lines at most race tracks. Even things that driver's wouldn't have knowledge of like how the bumps change in turn 10 at Laguna Seca from year to year, as example. After some 425 races in 19 years both in Club and Pro racing, it doesn't take a hammer on the head to learn a few things that work.
It also helps, when your self taught like I am, that you have a mentor that was a successful driver that you can pick his brain for nine years, that mentor for me was Bob Lobenberg who was responsible for corrupting my brain into data and this business.

BTW, I noticed you said "were a successful data person". I'm not dead or retired yet and haven't stopped working as a full time consultant in racing. Still managing to stay on the sharp end of the stick after all these years. Though I haven't been full time with OW for a few years, but rather in WSC, Trans Am before it's downfall, ALMS, Grand Am and World Challenge, Porsche Cup GT3.
And recently a lot more club racing (OW, yahoo!) once again up here in the SF region and Southwest regions. I miss OW with a passion (though looks like that may change next year), but got to keep working...name a race track in the US, and I've been there 25-30 times for races and or test days, a majority of those times on the podium and observing track records being set.
I still represent CDS, though operate and analyze AIM, Motec, Pi, Stack, Racepak, EFI and a few others, equally well in my consulting business.

[mark defer]

so sorry, i meant lynx, not dstp that you were a data guy with.
that you have a vast wealth of experience is quite apparent. most of your discussion goes right over my head which wouldn't surprise anyone that knows me, and how little i understand about vehicle dynamics. that being said, even i could tell you didn't have much seat time. and yes, it does make a difference.

mark d

[George Main]

[quote=TimW;227509]Which is why I said it is more social instead of saying it is solely a social engineering solution to the problem...

I thought we're talking about the carousel at Road America? That corner is (or should be) flat all the way around in most formula cars, all the way to champ cars. It is as close as you get to steady state on a road course and as you say how setup problems are amplified on an oval, the carousel is also a good place to assess the balance of the car as the driver inputs are mostly taken out of the equation by mid corner. Since as you say drivers talk more about the transients getting good feedback on steady state balance at a point of amplification will give you the most unbiased knowledge about the setup of the car and likely uncover similar shortages that are covered up by the talk of the transients everywhere else around the track. So, when you talk about the carousel the questions, the driver feedback and the car's feedback are very similar to how you analyze getting a car around an oval. Yes, on an oval the car is predisposed to turn that direction with a specific setup (which includes the all fundamental yaw damping in that configuration), but the fundamental physics and analysis is the same.

I look at the carousel in three parts. The first part being uphill, a crest, then downhill for the major portion of it. From a car at speed, this isn't obvious. So there are two types of "static" in the corner. One is slightly off camber (on the downhill). To complicate it further, there is a succession of bumps on the uphill side that will throw an over damped and/or stiffly sprung car into an objection with it. Also makes it difficult to pull wing out successfully.
You are correct in associating with an oval type of corner, and there are in fact multiple lines that work and (just like an oval) that are possilbe, though the three parts I mention don't occur on any oval I've had experience with.

Quote the bold lettering- a flat oval, like New Hampshire or Milwaukee are close but still banked. In terms of dynamic movements, banking tends to heighten those, as it does any driver inputs. For instance, from a driver's stand point, it's not "safe" to correct an O/S condition but rather point the wheels straight (mainly because the if the car hooks up, and in a lot of cases it will very rapidly, you are going where the fronts are pointed). If you corrected and this happens...Harvey Wallbanger meet Harvey.
In relation to correlating the carousel to an oval, maybe the uphill side (with the increased grip) though the crest and the downhill wouldn't apply in my mind.
The physics aren't different but the fundmental setup "approach" in thinking and how it's driven, is very different.

Again, I think this depends moreso on the driver. A great driver will drive a bad car as fast as anyone else that day by driving around the car's shortcomings, at least on a road course. A good driver can take a good car and drive it as fast as the rest of them. But in steady state you hopefully are removing the driver from the equation provided similar sized gonads. Anything the driver has to do to adapt to the car not being neutral will slow him down. But I still argue a O/S steering correction at full throttle, provided the yaw angles are small, will be faster than rotating the car by trail braking or inducing trailing throttle oversteer to drive around U/S. But you are correct, for this to work the cars must remain within their working slip angles as if one end fully falls over the cliff the corner is done and the driver is back in the equation way beyond any minor steering corrections.

How about a quick "snap" in and out of the throttle, say .3 secs long, as one of a couple of other ways to get around understeer? I agree the two you mentioned would be slower than the O/S in most cases....

[stonebridge20]

[quote]

Engineered/data for Micheal David

George, I would love to see the data from him back in 1996 and if he ever lifted off the throttle prior to piling into the side of me at Trois Riviers or putting me on my lid at Montreal. For your sake,....I wouldn't put him in your resume.

[George Main]

There is no substitute for fundamentals.




Spend some quality time as a driver at the sharp end of the grid, and you'll understand why.

Renn, I do understand, having spent most of my racing career at the sharp end of the grid. Just because it's behind a computer screen or at trackside watching, doesn't mean I don't fully understand what goes on inside a cockpit. Having gotten to the point in data that I can seperate your inputs from your car's or your inputs because of the track, the tracks inputs to the car (regardless of the driver) or the car's inputs to the track (again regardless of the driver). This technique in data is impossible to do, without a full understanding of the driver's actions and the reasons why they are happening.
My comments where made because most debriefs occur this way, and they are because it is the dynamics of the car that are the causes of actions/reflexive responses from the driver and the most remembered.
It is through data where the reality and number of these are far more numerous than any driver, who, no matter how good his recall is, can be dwarfed by analysis as to the decisions that where made as they occurred. And the static states are also included in that analysis. Without proper data anaylsis, those static points may get changed and shortened instead of lengthened purely due to the driver's memory (or lack of memory or in some cases, lack of reality)

For this, I direct you to your own follow-on. Technique applies heavily in dealing with oversteer, and likely to a greater degree even than dealing with understeer:

Yes, though a lot of drivers I've met have more experience/techniques with dealing with oversteer and ways to cope with it than they do coping with understeer. It is a far more complete technique when a driver can cope with both equally well and has a lot more than one or two ways to cope with it. Just like the driver who will only trail brake every corner (instead of straight line braking) or just left foot brake all the time vs one who does both equally well and can call up the technique as it's needed for each instance. My monies on the driver that's explored the different techniques.

[George Main]

[quote=stonebridge20;227536]

George, I would love to see the data from him back in 1996 and if he ever lifted off the throttle prior to piling into the side of me at Trois Riviers or putting me on my lid at Montreal. For your sake,....I wouldn't put him in your resume.

At those races, I was engineering Cutler and Case... the work with Micheal didn't start until 1998, when I took over for Bob Lobenberg who started working with him at the end of 1997. So it wasn't me or Bob in those instances. But boy do I remember it, I was standing in one (montreal) and you got some serious air....

[Rennie Clayton]

At those races, I was engineering Cutler and Case... the work with Micheal didn't start until 1998, when I took over for Bob Lobenberg who started working with him at the end of 1997. So it wasn't me or Bob in those instances. But boy do I remember it, I was standing in one (montreal) and you got some serious air....

Purely personal side note here, but had I been able to scrape together a bit more cash, that would have quite literally been me that you were engineering for at Michael David's outfit in Atlantics.


Cheers,
Rennie

[George Main]

Purely personal side note here, but had I been able to scrape together a bit more cash, that would have quite literally been me that you were engineering for at Michael David's outfit in Atlantics.


Cheers,
Rennie

The David's had a very good outfit, with owning a state of the art machine shop in Riverside (believe he still does). We had great pieces on that car and it was one the last RT41s to run in the pro series when the Swifts came out. The series had to make rules to slow the car down with a 1/2 plank on the bottom and a mandatory wing angle because we were too fast as every one was still figuring out the Swifts...
Funny story to go with that, Mike was sponsored by Water Joe which was caffinated water. I attended a test with them and Bob L. took a couple of bottles of Water Joe and made coffee from it. I think I was awake for two days after, what a cup of coffee.....

[stonebridge20]

Purely personal side note here, but had I been able to scrape together a bit more cash, that would have quite literally been me that you were engineering for at Michael David's outfit in Atlantics.


Cheers,
Rennie

Rennie, It's a shame you didn't put the money together. At least they would have had one driver with the proper talent/budget ratio to work with!