69 replies to this topic

[CodeRacing]

I was wondering if some technical guru could cover the driving styles of the top drivers in F1. This may have been covered before, but I did a search and it yielded nothing really substantial.
If one of you guys can cover this in detail and maybe add after that which you think is better, Itll make for very interesting reading

Who I consider top drivers now:
Lewis Hamilton
Fernando Alonso
Michael Shumacher
Robert Kubica

I know Lewis prefers oversteer, but his kind of 'oversteer' seems different from other drivers....such as Raikkonnen(I may be wrong but I read somewhere that's what he prefers). I wonder sometimes whether he 'loses time' when the back-end dances around on entry/exit as he seems to prefer.

[Tony Matthews]

I know Lewis prefers oversteer, but his kind of 'oversteer' seems different from other drivers....such as Raikkonnen(I may be wrong but I read somewhere that's what he prefers). I wonder sometimes whether he 'loses time' when the back-end dances around on entry/exit as he seems to prefer.

I was under the impression that both Hamilton and Schumacher like a set-up that has no understeer - the philosophy being, give me a car with a planted front end, and I'll handle the back end.

Edited by Tony Matthews, 09 January 2011 - 22:30.

[CodeRacing]

I was under the impression that both Hamilton and Schumacher like a set-up that has no understeer - the philosophy being, give me a car with a planted front end, and I'll handle the back end.

That obviously speaks to exceptional amount of feel in a car. Does this then mean that these drivers have better car control than the 'understeer' guys, such as button? Is this where they gain their speed?

[cheapracer]

Impossible question to answer I think because of the complete opposites and contradictions involved and the impossibility of actually feeling what the driver is really doing.

Just as very loose examples, a driver who's technique creates oversteer may unwittingly prefer a chassis that understeers to counteract his technique without knowing it believing it's a 'neutral' chassis setup and vice versa - yet another driver who also has a technique that creates oversteer and actually likes to oversteer a car on throttle with a 'squaring off' cornering style will appreciate a setup that he believes is an oversteering chassis.

Interesting to here Fat Boy's view's on it and the headaches of developing the same car for different drivers.

[Fat Boy]

Cheapy, you answered the question as much as I could.

We really have no idea what each driver prefers. Hell, I bet each of them have engineers that aren't completely sure of what they want. Without a lot of experience with an individual, trying to say "A likes B" is pretty much meaningless.

There are some trends that are pretty common.

Drivers generally like:

1. A car that follows their hands. By this I mean that the angle and load of the steering wheel has a relatively linear relationship with the amount of lateral acceleration.
2. A rear end that is relatively stable under braking and turn-in. If a driver has to 'catch' the car at turn-in, it causes a series of problems that generally out-weigh any 'point' advantage.
3. A front that takes a consistent arc across the center of the corner and has a limited, yet linear, balance change with throttle application. Applying the throttle will increase understeer while lifting will reduce it.
4. A rear end that is planted upon throttle application. If you can't put the power that you have to the ground, everything else is for naught. Keep in mind that a car that understeers on corner exit will often have as many (although somewhat different) wheelspin issues as a car that oversteers on corner exit. Killing the front end of a car does not equal making the rear work.

Don't take what drivers say in the press for anything. They just can't be trusted. It's not that they are intentionally misleading, just that we don't have a language built with this driver to know what the hell he's talking about. When Michael or Lewis says that he prefers a car that oversteers, it's too broad of a statement. I can guarantee that he's not looking for a car that acts like it has a trolley caster under the back of it. He may mean, with respect to his teammate, he prefers a car that has less understeer, but that is a different statement all together than "I like a car that oversteers". We just cannot know the real answer.

I used to try to make a car that can deal with whatever a driver does. I've stopped doing that. I have to get him to meet me 1/2 way. I know what I can and cannot make a car do. There are some 'car' problems that I just can't fix. I have to get the driver to drive in a manner that I can work with. This doesn't mean that I try to make each driver a carbon copy of each other, but I do nudge them towards an approach with their driving that makes both of our lives much easier. If you have 2 or more drivers for the same car, you'll always find that they have different preferences. Having said that, they will almost always come to a 'happy medium' between them. When you get it close enough, then a small bar adjustment and/or a tire pressure difference will generally be enough to make them happy.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I forget where I read it, and I think it was in reference to the 2008 season/car, but I recall a McLaren fella saying with Hamilton they found stiffening the front and softening the rear made him happy. The nose went where/when he wanted and the tail followed along waiting to be asked to do something.

[Fat Boy]

I forget where I read it, and I think it was in reference to the 2008 season/car, but I recall a McLaren fella saying with Hamilton they found stiffening the front and softening the rear made him happy. The nose went where/when he wanted and the tail followed along waiting to be asked to do something.

Probably provided a bit of #1, #2 and #4. Keep in mind, conventional wisdom would say that this change would tend to increase understeer, at least in a mechanical sense. However, it would also tend to reduce the front ride height variations, which make for a more consistent aero platform (less ride variation with speed and/or throttle application) which could potentially help #3 as well.

The flip side of the coin is that if you get the front too stiff, it can tip it over on all of those accounts as well. There are no universal truths.

[CodeRacing]

I also read somewhere, I forgot where, that Lewis had changed his driving style and car characteristics a bit..and I noticed from the onboard shots this year as compared to last year(even on low-fuel Qualifying) that the rear of his car doesnt 'dance' as much as it used to. He apparently has evolved his style so as not to correct so much, thus taking a bit more out of the tyres, while still maintaining his speed, and maybe maximizing his exits?

I thought that was fascinating, perhaps he learned a bit from Button.

[Fat Boy]

I also read somewhere, I forgot where, that Lewis had changed his driving style and car characteristics a bit..and I noticed from the onboard shots this year as compared to last year(even on low-fuel Qualifying) that the rear of his car doesnt 'dance' as much as it used to. He apparently has evolved his style so as not to correct so much, thus taking a bit more out of the tyres, while still maintaining his speed, and maybe maximizing his exits?

I thought that was fascinating, perhaps he learned a bit from Button.

That happens if a driver's career lasts long enough for him to mature. At some point they realize there's a difference between feeling fast and what the watch says. If he did change his approach in this manner, then he probably found time on both sides of the corner.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think a season in a relatively ill-handling car(at times) contributed a lot towards that. His first season he could rag it around like a kart. Overtime he's learned to drive a car.

[MatsNorway]

Amazing reading guys..

I was out driving my RC touring car last Sunday and i did just the same as the engineers stated that Hamilton had done.

I have had issues with a lose rear on my car. So i chanced the front springs to harder ones and went for softer springs in the back.. there is also some softer oil on the rear dampers.. Not sure if its enough tho as the dampers in the back is mounted further out on the wishbone.

Im still looking for some more rear grip on throttle.

i also noted that with softer front and harder rear springs i got more front grip during left right flicks. say in a S combo.. it made the rear unstable. Its all about the balance.

Got any tips?

and during coasting/of throttle or say mid corner.. i had some understeer. I had to go on the brakes and then nail it to make it turn sometimes.. im working those tires hard.. I also have some squat in the rear wishbones to make it "sit" more to get grip..

Edited by MatsNorway, 26 January 2011 - 20:26.

[gruntguru]

Does it have a differential or spool (locked)?

[Fat Boy]

Amazing reading guys..

I was out driving my RC touring car last Sunday and i did just the same as the engineers stated that Hamilton had done.

I have had issues with a lose rear on my car. So i chanced the front springs to harder ones and went for softer springs in the back.. there is also some softer oil on the rear dampers.. Not sure if its enough tho as the dampers in the back is mounted further out on the wishbone.

Im still looking for some more rear grip on throttle.

i also noted that with softer front and harder rear springs i got more front grip during left right flicks. say in a S combo.. it made the rear unstable. Its all about the balance.

Got any tips?

and during coasting/of throttle or say mid corner.. i had some understeer. I had to go on the brakes and then nail it to make it turn sometimes.. im working those tires hard.. I also have some squat in the rear wishbones to make it "sit" more to get grip..

Well, I know jack-squat about an R/C car, but let's just say you have a real car and we'll bench race it a little.

OK, so your issue is a loose rear. You stiffened the front and softened the rear. I didn't understand if you softened the rear dampers or that was just an option. Anyway, you have better rear grip on acceleration, but now you've picked up some mid-corner understeer. Here's the question I have for you. Did you go faster? Are your lap times better?

With some high HP cars, you'll improve rear grip, induce understeer and make a car that isn't as balanced as before; however, you'll go faster. In this scenario, you may find that again adding rear grip and making the car understeer even more mid-corner will make it go faster yet. It's a paradox, but remember what we're after. We aren't after the perfect handling car, we're after the one that gets around the track the fastest. Those two aren't always the same thing. What do you do about the mid corner understeer? Well, slow down for one. If you over-charge the corner, you just make things worse. That's what I mean when I say that drivers must have patience. Don't go smoking down into the corner expecting the front to work. You've made a compromise, and that compromise means the front is not as good mid-corner as it was. The upside of your compromise is that now you have a better launch off slower corners. Right now it sounds like you are flicking the car around to make it turn, and I doubt if that is any faster with an RC car than with a real one. Sometimes you just have to chill out and let it turn.

You also have found out that adding front spring can actually make the front end work better in some situations, like a quick left-right S. Right now you have a front end that responds quickly and a rear that is slower. Softening the rear damping will tend to make it react slower yet. Instead of increasing rear grip, you're likely to make your problem worse. In this situation, I might be prone to softening the front damping to try and slow the response of the front a little. I don't know what your options are, but softer front rebound might be a good start. On the rear you could try increasing the compression to quicken it's response a little, especially if that allows you to lower the rear spring rate again.

So, what would I do to fix your issues? First, I'd see if softening the rear and/or stiffening the front seemed to improve things again. Do one end at a time. Keep doing that until it stops helping or it makes the 'S' transitions a real problem. Later, maybe move weigh (ballast) rearwards. I would also probably play around with rake a little.

Again, I know nothing of R/C cars, so YMMV.

[MatsNorway]

Does it have a differential or spool (locked)?

yes. I fought i said that.. The rear diff is a balldiff and is endlessly adjustable without taking it out of the car. The spool is a multi diff. it can be rebuildt into a oneway and a oneway spool (F/R is allways locked but does not brake, its to improve steering if you drive foam tires on a narrow track.) I run rubber tires and they have less grip.

I have been thinking that a front diff would be something for me but its rather expensive and im trying not to waste to much on this..

I didn't understand if you softened the rear dampers or that was just an option.

Anyway, you have better rear grip on acceleration, but now you've picked up some mid-corner understeer. Here's the question I have for you. Did you go faster? Are your lap times better?

Absolutely! Im not even at the point where i have to jugde by laptimes. The car was a mess to drive, now we are getting somewhere. Last time 40% power was my setting now i was at 70% on the "ECU"

the rear dampers are softer than the fronts but they are mounted differently and are not by feel any softer/faster. i did not chance anything on the dampers during the session. (these needs to be rebuildt)

With some high HP cars, you'll improve rear grip, induce understeer and make a car that isn't as balanced as before; however, you'll go faster.

Thats what im after.. Problem with rc cars is that they are so much more nible, fast and small and you don`t sit in it so to counter a slide you first have to see it. Also a understeery car is easier to drive with a slide as is not so quick. I think a bit more front heavy car is a bit less nervous during slides. (4WD)

And i defintely am driving a high power car. 1200-1300grams and 500watts available. Wheelspin was achieveable at any point on the indoor track im racing.

Right now it sounds like you are flicking the car around to make it turn, and I doubt if that is any faster with an RC car than with a real one. Sometimes you just have to chill out and let it turn.

Absolutely. i would not mind some understeer at all, its predicable and easy to drive. But i feel that the full potensial is not achieved yet. Im going to play around with spring tension first. that is also easy adjustable.

You also have found out that adding front spring can actually make the front end work better in some situations, like a quick left-right S...................

We need to go in detail there to avoid missunderstandings.. Im with you on the first part but then i got confused somehow.

The dampers at the back is faster reacting than the front. Thinner oil. They have just a piston with holes in it. No adjustment on bump rebump on those.. the only difference is due to piston rod. I made a proto to a friend with a valve but he did not pursue it.. you can buy it now for RC cars tho...

The tires and surface think is the biggest differense from full size cars. We run tires with foam inserts. and the surface is a carpet for me know. we also run tarmac. The normal idea is that you get more grip with more roll. I think thats why i gained control with softer rear and harder front springs.. The rear got planted before the front hooked up.

of course there is a sweet spot but i have rarely found the negative extreme in grip as i rarely put on grip adhesive on my tires. To much grip and the car simply traction rolls. i have had it on a few occations when i had other tires and higher ride height.

Im thinking that my problem comes from a faster reacting front, so i get oversteer. I now need to chance all four damper pistons to ones with more holes so i can go to the middle spectrum of damper oils again. Right now im using the thinnest i have to get the rear dampers working fast engough. (weak if you like i call it soft)

A backside with thin oil is that it leaks out as well. in time it will possibly create air in the rear dampers.

I have no roll bar mounted but i have one available for the front.

Edited by MatsNorway, 27 January 2011 - 11:34.

[gruntguru]

And i defintely am driving a high power car. 1200-1300grams and 500watts available. Wheelspin was achieveable at any point on the indoor track im racing.

555 hp/ton - not bad! With a tyre coefficient of friction of 2.0 you can spin the wheels all the way up to 76 km/h (48 mph)

[Tony Matthews]

555 hp/ton - not bad! With a tyre coefficient of friction of 2.0 you can spin the wheels all the way up to 76 km/h (48 mph)

It's a wonder man can live at such speeds!

[Fat Boy]

And i defintely am driving a high power car. 1200-1300grams and 500watts available. Wheelspin was achieveable at any point on the indoor track im racing.



We need to go in detail there to avoid missunderstandings.. Im with you on the first part but then i got confused somehow.

The dampers at the back is faster reacting than the front. Thinner oil. They have just a piston with holes in it. No adjustment on bump rebump on those.. the only difference is due to piston rod. I made a proto to a friend with a valve but he did not pursue it.. you can buy it now for RC cars tho...

The tires and surface think is the biggest differense from full size cars. We run tires with foam inserts. and the surface is a carpet for me know. we also run tarmac. The normal idea is that you get more grip with more roll. I think thats why i gained control with softer rear and harder front springs.. The rear got planted before the front hooked up.

of course there is a sweet spot but i have rarely found the negative extreme in grip as i rarely put on grip adhesive on my tires. To much grip and the car simply traction rolls. i have had it on a few occations when i had other tires and higher ride height.

Im thinking that my problem comes from a faster reacting front, so i get oversteer. I now need to chance all four damper pistons to ones with more holes so i can go to the middle spectrum of damper oils again. Right now im using the thinnest i have to get the rear dampers working fast engough. (weak if you like i call it soft)

A backside with thin oil is that it leaks out as well. in time it will possibly create air in the rear dampers.

I have no roll bar mounted but i have one available for the front.

So you've got about the same power to weight ratio as a endurance prototype. The difference is going to be your tires and downforce, among others.

When talking about dampers, we must think in terms of velocity and force, not travel. Your rear dampers may move alot, but since you have thinned the oil, they are producing less force and have less reaction to chassis movement. The fronts are reacting faster because they are stiffer and trying to counteract the motion of the chassis. That's what I mean by your need to reduce the reaction of the front dampers. Make them develop less force.

Try water in your dampers before drilling holes. You might learn you don't need to drill anything.

[Paolo]

Mats, if you have a front roll bar available, I suggest try and use it. It will allow you using softer springs at the front and increase front grip for the same balance.

Also, the notion of "more roll = more grip" is strange, unless you don't have a peculiar camber setting.

[MatsNorway]

Also, the notion of "more roll = more grip" is strange, unless you don't have a peculiar camber setting.

yea i can`t really grasp that either.. But the more experienced drivers keeps saying it.. The usual suggestion is to add a roll bar once the grip gets to high. to much grip = traction roll.

Fat boy.

I got other pistons types available.

I think im going to play around with spring rates and damper positions for a while to get more input and better feel for it.

Edited by MatsNorway, 28 January 2011 - 10:45.

[MatsNorway]

Also, the notion of "more roll = more grip" is strange, unless you don't have a peculiar camber setting.

I went on with the same settings as last time but with better tires after a tire prep.

Lap times did improve due to increased grip, but the car was now too wobbly in a way, to much sledge like. Went on tightening the spring rate front and back. And the lap times dropped down even further. Mostly due to a more sharp and presice car. But i also think i got more steering into corners.. I guess a too soft front gives understeer after all..

Best now is a low 7.4 I was able to turn the power setting to full. 500watts! Motor reached probably 80degrees+

Im now within the sensible zone setup wise.

Edited by MatsNorway, 30 January 2011 - 18:21.

[gruntguru]

I guess a too soft front gives understeer after all..

The general rule is grip increases at the end you soften. This usually continues as you further soften that end unless one of the following starts to occur:
- The inside wheel at the stiff end starts to lift
- You start to run out of suspension travel at the soft end
- Camber or toe becomes sub-optimal at large travel
- Bodywork interferes with tyres or track at large travel

Edited by gruntguru, 30 January 2011 - 23:43.

[DaveW]

Try water in your dampers before drilling holes. You might learn you don't need to drill anything.

A good tip in general, but not necessarily helpful. Here are two reconstructed rear damper trajectories from rig tests of an old champ car. The only difference between the two was the damper fluid (water, actually water wetter, for the one shown in red, normal high spec damper fluid for the green trajectory). The dampers were Multimatic DSSV's, that are intended to be stable with changes in fluid temperature. The plots demonstrate that stability - the difference in damping coefficient was rather less than 2 percent. Note the apparent increase in damper stiffness (Ki) caused by switching to water. The hiatus at low velocities was probably caused by friction external to the dampers.

[MatsNorway]

The general rule is grip increases at the end you soften. This usually continues as you further soften that end unless one of the following starts to occur:
- The inside wheel at the stiff end starts to lift
- You start to run out of suspension travel at the soft end
- Camber or toe becomes sub-optimal at large travel
- Bodywork interferes with tyres or track at large travel

- Camber or toe becomes sub-optimal at large travel
- The inside wheel at the stiff end starts to lift
Its likely that i those things occured.


Hmm so i might need to just start all over with minor chances on the springs.. I did not after all do one thing at a time.
Some more experienced driver came over when i had the car on soft setup and was all nononono.. did some fidling and of i went.
And then the track closed.

Is rake and caster the same? i can only tilt the front suspension arm to get something like caster. But then i also get more dive on braking.
As a bonus i should get more weight transfer backwards during acceleration as the front wheels will try to "crawl" forward because of the angle of the suspension arms. I might try that once.

Bu since the car is somewhat sensible im going to play around with springs for a while and observe its strong and god sides.

Does it make sense?

[Fat Boy]

A good tip in general, but not necessarily helpful. Here are two reconstructed rear damper trajectories from rig tests of an old champ car. The only difference between the two was the damper fluid (water, actually water wetter, for the one shown in red, normal high spec damper fluid for the green trajectory). The dampers were Multimatic DSSV's, that are intended to be stable with changes in fluid temperature. The plots demonstrate that stability - the difference in damping coefficient was rather less than 2 percent. Note the apparent increase in damper stiffness (Ki) caused by switching to water. The hiatus at low velocities was probably caused by friction external to the dampers.

I was being serious with the recommendation. I've done it before and it shows up on the racetrack. For the record, I first did it in the middle of the 2000 season. It wasn't my idea, the credit goes to Mats H. I was the one who stuck it on the car, though, and the Water Wetter mix _was_ my idea. It tends to be a little hard on internals. After we got thinner shims and different pistons, we went back to a very thin oil, but it was still a fun experiment. We were hoping for a decrease in hysteresis due to water having a higher bulk modulus than our oil. Care to comment on that? I was never able to get it on a rig or a hydraulic dyno to really know if it changed anything.

[DaveW]

[

I was being serious with the recommendation. I've done it before and it shows up on the racetrack. For the record, I first did it in the middle of the 2000 season. It wasn't my idea, the credit goes to Mats H. I was the one who stuck it on the car, though, and the Water Wetter mix _was_ my idea. It tends to be a little hard on internals. After we got thinner shims and different pistons, we went back to a very thin oil, but it was still a fun experiment. We were hoping for a decrease in hysteresis due to water having a higher bulk modulus than our oil. Care to comment on that? I was never able to get it on a rig or a hydraulic dyno to really know if it changed anything.

Apologies for this, FB, but at least in theory, a laminar flow metering valve will have a relatively linear pressure/flow characteristic (good), but the relationship will depend upon fluid viscosity (which will make the damper sensitive to fluid temperature, so not so good). On the other hand a turbulent flow metering valve will have a square law pressure/flow characteristic (not so good), but the pressure/flow relationship will not depend upon fluid viscosity (good). In the damper world, needle valves are likely to be laminar flow devices, whilst the flow through sharp edged orifices is likely to be (mainly) turbulent. For more details consult, for example, John Dixon's "The Shock Absorber Handbook" (especially Chapter 5).

Hence, a conventional shimmed damper with needle valves to control low speed flow & preloaded shim stacks to control high speed flow (e.g. a TT44) would be expected to be viscosity-sensitive at low speeds, but not (so much) once the shims have opened. The sensitivity to viscosity is thus likely to depend upon the build (i.e. when the shim stacks open). As an aside, the TT44 had (has) a better than average temperature sensitivity. I understand that is because Ohlins deliberately designed the needle position to vary so as to compensate for the expected viscosity/fluid temperature relationship, at least to a first order.

A DSSV uses turbulent flow controls & manages the intrinsic square law characteristic by port shaping (a "good" one does, anyway). This implies that its characteristics are essentially independent of fluid viscosity, & hence temperature, as demonstrated by the example I posted earlier.

Hence I would contend that modifying damper characteristics by changing fluid viscosity is likely to be something of a hit & miss exercise. Success or otherwise is likely to depend upon both the damper architecture & its valve specifications.


"Hysteresis" is a term used to cover a multitude of sins. The main contributors are fluid compressibility (pressure/volume), housing compliance, and valve time lags. The fluid contribution depends upon fluid bulk modulus, gas dissolved in the fluid, and how "hard" the fluid is worked (i.e. the relationship between external force & fluid pressure and shaft velocity & fluid flow rate). Housing compliance is normally small, unless long flexible hoses are used to connect the damper body to a remote "working" reservoir. Valve time lags yield negative "hysteresis" & have (I'm sure) been used by some manufacturers to make their dampers (appear to) perform "better".

The first two contributors to hysteresis listed above can be modelled (crudely) by placing a spring in series with a "pure" damper. It follows that the equivalent "pure" damper trajectory can be reconstructed from a measured trajectory by replacing measured displacements (Zm) by (Zm - Fm/Kis), where Fm is the measured force and Kis is the damper series stiffness. An estimate of Ki can be obtained most simply by trial & error, working to overlay the outbound & inbound segments of the corrected load/velocity trajectory. This is what I did to obtain the trajectories I posted. My estimates of Kis are shown in the legends. Crude, but slightly better than nothing, perhaps.

The bulk modulus of oil-based damper fluids is (somewhat) lower than that of water, and water appears to be rather less prone to absorbing gas. Substituting normal damper fluid with one that is water-based would, therefore, be expected to reduce hysteresis. My estimates of series spring stiffness for the trajectories posted were 2.5 KN/mm for normal damper fluid & 3.5KN/mm for water wetter fluid. I hope that goes some way to answering your question, FB.

[MatsNorway]

Was out practising and experimenting with setup this weekend.

I found that what i allready knew from Playing games like grand turismo is true. Stiffer springs at the back compared to front does help corner entry stability.. I could go all kamikaze, bombing into the corner and the car was simply understeering/stable.

its not actually that much of a difference from the front to the back but its engough. i would say the damper/spring setup is balanced. being slighty harder at the back and that might be why its balanced because the car is rear heavy.

Before that i gave it more toe out and a little bit more camber before that. It remained in the setup.
But im going to tone down the camber as the wear is clearly visible on the tire inside. It also gives a bit of "hopping" when the car dives inn and the full front tire contact patch simly gets to much grip-> tire hopping..(according to a dude on the track) It might be reduced with less freeplay in the suspension joints but i don`t think so.


I have kept the squat at the back but i think i need to look into it if im unable to find the balance with pure damper/spring and camber adjustments.

Still have a midcorner push. but i think i can fix it with slightly harder front.

I have little to no droop at the back. And a bit more in the front.

But first.. new tires..

Edited by MatsNorway, 14 March 2011 - 08:47.

[Paolo]

Back to full size racecars:

I have read several times lately, on Autosprint, that Alonso likes to brake late and hard, thus inducing understeer in corner entry , while Massa brakes more gently and has therefore less understeer.
This was pointed at as the reason why Alonso was better off than Massa on 2010 tyres, which had a "weak front", probably meaning not much stiffness and-or cornering power on front tyres.

There are several things that puzzle me in this.

First, why should a driver brake less hard than the maximum allowed by tyres? Ok, maybe in a race if he wants to preserve the car, but why on a fast lap? I can see no other effect than losing time.

Second: why should late braking necessarily induce entry understeer? Imho this would happen if the driver is trail-braking, i.e. trying to steer the car with brakes still on; but if he brakes on the straight and then releases brake and steers, harder braking will induce more entry oversteer, due to the front springs still being compressed and rebounding and remaining so for a slightly longer time.

Third, provided that what Autosprint says its true, i.e. that Alonso 's late braking induces understeer: it seems to me that the last thing you want with a weak front end is even more understeer: why should he be faster than Massa this way?

Any experiences-opinions on these?

Edited by Paolo, 21 March 2011 - 10:54.

[OfficeLinebacker]

Back to full size racecars:

I have read several times lately, on Autosprint, that Alonso likes to brake late and hard, thus inducing understeer in corner entry , while Massa brakes more gently and has therefore less understeer.
This was pointed at as the reason why Alonso was better off than Massa on 2010 tyres, which had a "weak front", probably meaning not much stiffness and-or cornering power on front tyres.

There are several things that puzzle me in this.

First, why should a driver brake less hard than the maximum allowed by tyres? Ok, maybe in a race if he wants to preserve the car, but why on a fast lap? I can see no other effect than losing time.

Second: why should late braking necessarily induce entry understeer? Imho this would happen if the driver is trail-braking, i.e. trying to steer the car with brakes still on; but if he brakes on the straight and then releases brake and steers, harder braking will induce more entry oversteer, due to the front springs still being compressed and rebounding and remaining so for a slightly longer time.

Third, provided that what Autosprint says its true, i.e. that Alonso 's late braking induces understeer: it seems to me that the last thing you want with a weak front end is even more understeer: why should he be faster than Massa this way?

Any experiences-opinions on these?

The prevailing theory is that front tyre grip is available either for braking or for turning. Presumably Alonso is turning in while still on the brakes and is asking the tyres to provide lateral grip while they're still too busy providing longitudinal grip.

[Paolo]

The prevailing theory is that front tyre grip is available either for braking or for turning. Presumably Alonso is turning in while still on the brakes and is asking the tyres to provide lateral grip while they're still too busy providing longitudinal grip.

Yes I know, that is what I was referring to as trail braking. I am not surprised it happens, I am surprised at it being an advantage (the understeer, not the trail braking).

[OfficeLinebacker]

Yes I know, that is what I was referring to as trail braking. I am not surprised it happens, I am surprised at it being an advantage (the understeer, not the trail braking).

Trail braking means letting up off the brake enough as you slow to have the necessary lateral grip to turn the car in.


The point being that Alonso doesn't trail brake, or rather, doesn't trail off the brake "enough" to have full lateral grip available for the tyres when he turns in (presumably on purpose).

[munks]

Alonso's technique may have the consequence of heating up the tread more than other drivers do. Perhaps in most cases this will reduce the standard mid-corner understeer that most F1 cars exhibit, leading to a faster overall corner for Alonso.

I'm coming at this from the point-of-view that the contact temperature is critical to rubber's grip, and the contact temperature varies widely around the track, even within parts of a single corner. I think typically, when people in F1 talk about the tire working in the correct temperature range, they mean the overall optimum temperature. Tires are going to typically be too cool for optimum grip at the end of a straight, and too hot after a (long-ish) corner. Alonso may be better than others at getting the best temperatures at the best times.

IIRC, Alonso used a VERY sharp turn-in years ago, I think during one of his championships with Renault & Michelin. Meaning, he would basically apply full lock at turn-in, which must have heated the tread up quickly. Last year he had different technique calibrated for the Bridgestones. Perhaps we'll see something entirely new this year, as the Pirellis apparently have a very peaky slip angle curve, so he won't be able to steer too far.

Edited by munks, 21 March 2011 - 17:34.

[Ross Stonefeld]

That's funny, because I remember in 2007 people were saying Alonso braked lighter and earlier than Hamilton so had better turn ins...

[munks]

That's funny, because I remember in 2007 people were saying Alonso braked lighter and earlier than Hamilton so had better turn ins...

I don't think anyone said he didn't. Part of my point was that he adapts his style appropriately to the tires. Perhaps that's his great strength.

[Gold]

My 2c from 20 years reading F1 magazines:

Hakkinen: Oversteer driver, late turn in.

Mansell: Early turn in driver, a bucket of dripping paint on the back of Mansell's car would draw the shortest line around the circuit. Sorts the car out at apex using the throttle. Ballsy driver at high speed. Weakness: tempramental.

Prost: Very technical understeer driver. Unbeatable when the car is 100% to his liking. Very smooth throttle application. Had preference of sitting on the tub of the car in the 80's (not in seat), for better feel. Weaknesses are high speed unstable handling, physical driving (throwing the car around). Driving manual cars was known to always double declutch.

Alesi: Oversteer driver, late turn in. Tempramental and prone to mistakes.

Schumacher: Very similar to Mansell, early turn in driver. Able to keep car on limit from entry to exit closer to the boundary of the friction circle principle than other drivers. Sorts car out at apex after early turn in using feel for grip. Minimal braker. Very adaptive driver able to overcome chassis deficiencies notably driving using only 5th gear in Barcelona '94. Driving manual cars notably preferred to slot the gearbox straight into the gear needed during downchanges, not going through all intermediate gears. Revved notably high during heel and toe.

Patrese: Physical driver, very active on the wheel, needs to "feel" the car. Jerky movements on steering wheel. Weakness: Car with reduced feedback: active cars, distractions when driving: warning lights, etc.

Senna: Classical but visually "messy" driving style. Staccato throttle usage from apex to exit to induce oversteer or steer the car on the throttle. Very adaptive driver able to drive around chassis deficiencies notably driving using only 6th gear in Interlagos '91. Late and minimal braker. Strengths were a.o. salvage type driving style of advancing the apex on hairpins and slow corners. Superior feel for grip in e.g. rain. Revved notably high during heel and toe and had preference for throttle setup with a high return. Driving manual cars was known to go through all gears when downchanging and double declutching. Weaknesses: ?

J. Villeneuve: Classical driving style. Preferred on or off throttle (pedal movement range was 2cm for 800hp).

G. Villeneuve: Oversteer driver.

Lauda: Classical driving style. Prefered gear lever to be slanted right over.


Thats what I remember, if anyone can copy & paste and add what they know about these, or add drivers please do so.

Edited by Gold, 13 May 2011 - 06:19.

[gruntguru]

Senna: Classical but visually "messy" driving style. Staccato throttle usage from apex to exit to induce oversteer or steer the car on the throttle.

The amazing thing was you could never tell - unless you could hear the engine. His classic qualifying battles with Prost in identical cars were highlights for me. In spite of going (ususally) faster, Senna looked almost as smooth as Prost.

Prost was undoubtedly one of the best ever and would have won even more titles had Senna not intruded into his era.

[abc02]

Senna: Weaknesses: ?

Wasn't he harsher on the car than Prost? Prost had much better reliability than Senna in 1989.


Adding to what you wrote here's Peter Windsor's take on Sebastian Vettel's driving style:

Question for Peter Windsor: Would you offer an opinion on Sebastian Vettel’s driving? Why do you think he is so quick and who does he remind you of?

Peter’s response: I have to confess that I find this quite a difficult question to answer. Seb is just fast. Very fast. Period. I don’t think you would ever hear anyone saying anything other than this – so repeating the platitude of course wouldn’t help very much. Some may criticize Seb’s approach – or praise it. That is immaterial; what I guess you want to know specifically is how Sebastian drives.

Nonetheless, I have had the pleasure of watching Seb-V since he started Friday testing for BMW-Sauber in 2006 and have thus been able to draw some conclusions. I was stunned by the suppleness of his car control over a couple of milliseconds of rapid correction at Degner 1 at Suzuka that year and – like everyone else – was captivated by his fluent, rhythmic style at Silverstone and Suzuka in 2009 – at two circuits that reward the overall lap as distinct from just one or two half-difficult corners. After he won at Suzuka in 2009 I was also impressed to hear that he had sat down and listened to some circuit advice from David Coulthard: it’s always good to hear of drivers who are self-critical and open to new ideas beyond the confines of a laptop and a debrief room. Up through the esses at Suzuka – always an acid test – Seb was metre-perfect both last year and this. And you don’t achieve that unless you’re picturing turn seven as you brake and turn-in to turn two. Unless, in other words, you have great feel not only for the surface of the road but also for the rigid mental structure of the lap as a whole.

Overall, from what I’ve seen and heard (in terms of engine noise) over the past few years, Seb Vettel is a superbly-equipped, reactive driver – by which I mean that he reacts to the car with ultra-fast reflexes a millisecond before anything happens. This puts him in a different category to, say, Lewis Hamilton, Michael Schumacher (at his best) or Kimi Raikkonen, all of whom are (or were) more manipulative of the car and therefore more economical in terms of steering input, brakes and throttle. And that, in turn, generally means that they have a slight edge over the drivers like Seb: they are more able to make the car do what they want it to do for longer periods of time – particularly if grip levels are low – and less inclined to drive with the rear of the car. Sebastian’s style to my eye is closer to Alonso’s and not far from Mika Hakkinen’s. He has great reflexes, but in a very sophisticated sort of way; his constant dance is disguised by the fluidity of his movements. Unlike a Kimi – or a Lewis or even a Jenson Button – he can be inclined to over-energise the car by just going for the throttle in a way that Kimi would never have done – but usually he gets away with it. He is that good and that fast.

http://www.theracedr...es-him-so-fast/

[Gold]

Wasn't he harsher on the car than Prost? Prost had much better reliability than Senna in 1989.

Nice find on Vettel!

Yes Senna was harsher than Prost, but I believe it was more a case of Prost being much more gentle with the car than the other drivers in general. He hated abusing the car.

As for Senna, I remember a quote from Berger saying he kept being amazed at Senna's feel, notably when he mentioned Ayrton could tell that the Honda engine caused more friction on left hand turns versus right hand turns.

Edited by Gold, 16 May 2011 - 07:42.

[faaaz]

Should we get into another conversation about Senna's throttle technique?

[Gold]

Should we get into another conversation about Senna's throttle technique?

If you want to.

But remember it is a thread about comparing the driving styles of different drivers, not just 1.

[meb58]

This works, from my perspective because the ~ higer rear rate helps initial turn-in set-up. By set-up I mean the approach to a turn. The front bar helps plant the rear end at corner exit and that helps to move the car forward - all the power is used. I this setup also keeps us on the throttle...as a general comment, it can cause some off -throttle understeer.

Mats, if you have a front roll bar available, I suggest try and use it. It will allow you using softer springs at the front and increase front grip for the same balance.

Also, the notion of "more roll = more grip" is strange, unless you don't have a peculiar camber setting.

Fat Boy,

Isn't it true that every car comes to a given track with an ideal setup? I know you wrote that you like the drivers to meet you half way, but isn't there some truth to the fact that we play into the lack of driving ability at some level? I'll add, that I like driving almost anything as long as it is predictable. Reads like a silly statement at some level I guess. In any event, feel, is an elusive element that is perhaps underrated.

Edited by meb58, 17 May 2011 - 15:52.

[cheapracer]

Isn't it true that every car comes to a given track with an ideal setup? I know you wrote that you like the drivers to meet you half way, but isn't there some truth to the fact that we play into the lack of driving ability at some level?

Theres a famous incident in MotoGP related by Kevin McGee himself. In a wet qualifying for one race McGee was running in the teens and sliding all over the place getting nowhere and Kenny Roberts called him in and said "We have one experimental wet tyre from Dunlop that Wayne (Rainey) was going to try but since you're so far down we'll let you try it and see if it helps". After taking the bike into the pit and changing to the new tyre Roberts said to McGee "I'm a bit worried, Dunlop have told us it will have more grip but will be knife edge, so don't try to slide it or it will throw you". McGee went out and qualified second to Gardner within 3 laps.

Already I'm sure the older hands around racing know what really happened, nothing. They took the bike out back made some banging noises but did nothing. This was simply Roberts way to make McGee ride smoothly in the crappy conditions and prove to McGee that the rider does not always know best. This is not an uncommon thing to be done in racing circles and considerable improvements have been made by doing those nothings.

I'll add, that I like driving almost anything as long as it is predictable.

So if a car savagely snap oversteers every mid corner which falls under "predicatable" you would be happy?

Edited by cheapracer, 19 May 2011 - 06:06.

[Ross Stonefeld]

I think you could certainly live with it better than the occasional bratty F1 car that doesn't have the same balance corner to corner.

If anything at the higher levels, particularly F1, there isn't enough consideration to the nut holding the steering wheel. I think every F1 engineer should do a season in motorcycle racing to understand keeping the pilot happy, and every motorcycle guy should do a season of F3 or higher to understand sometimes you have to slap the driver's helmet and tell him to just deal with it.

The ideal, as always, is somewhere towards the middle.

I've always had the personal theory that the reason guys who did CART/IRL later struggled in F1 was due to mentality and treatment. Because of the circuits, the nature of the racing, and the fact that you didn't have a bottomless budget to redesign the aero every two weeks; Indy-style racing was very 'practical'. You had to deal with what was happening not what was theoretical. You can run insane rake angles that look good in the wind tunnel around a place like Cleveland. So the cars were a little more user friendly and the engineering attitude was more akin to the bike world than F1.

Additionally that attitude meant the driver was engineered psychologically. Don't scare the guy, especially on an oval. F1 is the opposite. If you can't do it we'll find someone that can. Which to be fair to them, they often could.

I don't think a guy like Bourdais or Zanardi lost their skill, but were suddenly in an environment they didn't work well in. They'd come over from being highly respected by top teams, to being 'oh, the rookie' in their F1 teams that weren't listened to as much. You saw the same issues/comments from Villeneuve and Montoya, but their personalities were so much stronger they bludgeoned their way through. And it didn't help that Villeneuve/Zanardi/Montoya all drove for Williams which, urban legend perhaps, has always been regarded as a bit 'shut up and drive!'.

Personally, I always roll my eyes when they repave an F1 track, shave down the kerbs, etc, et al. Bumps are good. Pavement changes are good. They're race cars not airplanes.

[Paolo]

Good point Ross, but then there is AJ Foyt... isn't he known for not letting his drivers do any adjustment to the setup HE decides?

[Ross Stonefeld]

I love AJ for all his madness. He brings random color to dull moments. I'm not sure I could work/drive for him though...

[meb58]

Fair enough, I could have predicted this repsonse. No, I don't consider snap oversteer to be predictable...it's hard to stay ahead of that trait. Should have written controllable or tossable...or has no spooky corners in its handling envelop...perhaps I shouldn't have written anything in hindsight...I hate myself

So if a car savagely snap oversteers every mid corner which falls under "predicatable" you would be happy?
[/quote]



Have we seen a driver with good car development skills? I think I might the input of a driver possing some sound set-up theory, no?

Edited by meb58, 18 May 2011 - 17:57.

[Gold]

I've always had the personal theory that the reason guys who did CART/IRL later struggled in F1 was due to mentality and treatment.

My opinion is that it was simply that the F1 drivers in general were just better drivers than CART drivers.

I remember when Mansell went to CART in 1993 he broke the lap record within 10 laps or so the first time he ever tested an Indycar and then won the championship.
That same year Michael Andretti went to F1 as a teammate to Senna and crashed out of something like the first 9 races in a row.

Its maybe cultural, the pinnacle of motorsports is Europe afterall, and Europeans drive 95% manual cars as opposed to the USA where 95% cars are automatic. That has to play a part in the average driving ability of the population as a whole. And racing drivers are nothing more than a subset of the population.

Hell, the majority of everyday people I know in Europe know how to drive a car with a manual transmission smoothly without using the clutch to change gears (and that includes peoples mothers). In the USA most people still struggle even when using the clutch to change gears.

Edited by Gold, 19 May 2011 - 01:25.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Shifting is a technique, not a skill or a talent so much. And it has no bearing on racing, and racing drivers are the exception to the data pool not the 'average driver'. Though I am amused by this silent majority doing perfect clutchless shifting on their commutes...

The thing is some of those guys started in Europe. Zanardi, da Matta, Bourdais. Bourdais was an F3000 champion. So why would CART/IRL suck the driving talent out of you?

[gruntguru]

Its maybe cultural, the pinnacle of motorsports is Europe afterall, and Europeans drive 95% manual cars as opposed to the USA where 95% cars are automatic. That has to play a part in the average driving ability of the population as a whole. And racing drivers are nothing more than a subset of the population.

Hell, the majority of everyday people I know in Europe know how to drive a car with a manual transmission smoothly without using the clutch to change gears (and that includes peoples mothers). In the USA most people still struggle even when using the clutch to change gears.

Countries with a lot of low-traction driving conditions produce quick drivers. Scandinavian ice, South American dirt . . . .

[cheapracer]

Countries with a lot of low-traction driving conditions produce quick drivers. Scandinavian ice, South American dirt . . . .

I understand why you would say that but I believe it's more to do with what age and what attitude kids have towards and start driving cars. Just so happens that those countries that have those kids also fit your bill.

[gruntguru]

I think also that when kids start driving at a very early age, it is more likely to be off-road ie farm paddock, country track, karting etc. Just plain "driving" as in street driving well within traction limits won't have the same results re racing talent later on.