39 replies to this topic

[YKTS]

ive always wondered when people talk about designing more mechanical grip into a car. what exactly does this mean? ive understood it as building certain characteristics into the suspension, eg: allowing more movement in the suspension and better camber compensation.

is this correct? if it is along the right lines, could someone explain it in a lot more detail cos i'd like to know more!

[Ali_G]

In general its just means that for overtaking to be easier, people want to see the amount of downforce on cars cut, and then have larger more grippier tyres to give the car more mechanical downforce.

NIall

[perfectelise]

All grip is mechanical at the end of the day, think of it as "useful friction" between the tyres and the asphalt. Aero grip is the increase in mechanical grip resulting from aerodyna=mic downforce pressing tyres and ashalt togehter as if the car were heavier.

[Yelnats]

Mechanical grip, as mention earlier in this thread by Ali, is usually refferenced to Areodynamic grip as though the two were different items when ultimatly all grip is from the same source, the tire and road interface. So any improvement in the mechanical grip will benifit 'aero grip' at the same time. One way to define mechanical grip would be the amount of lateral grip generated at low speeds when aerodynamic forces are insignificant. The term aerodynamic grip is essentially interchangeable with aerodynamic downforce and both term are somewhat misleading.

For instance it is quite possible to have a car (such as the McLaren David won in Monaco 2002) that is capable of competitive lap times at a slow track like Monaco where mechanical grip is predominant but is uncompetative at Spa where aerodynamic grip predominates. The McLaren may be capable of generating every bit as much downforce as the fastest car at Spa but does it less efficiently and has higher drag for a given amount of downforce so the car could be said to work better on tracks where mechanical grip is predominant.

As for improving mechanical grip, this is the aim of every suspension and tire designer and is in no way independant from aero grip. The two terms came about to describe the difference in emphasis in the rules if wings and diffusers were reduced in effectiveness to effectivly increase the importance of 'mechanical grip' over aerodynamic grip (downforce) to improve passing opportunities on faster corners which is an entirely different story!

[Pioneer]

I like to think of "mechanical grip" as a variable in a very rough formula for total grip.

grip = (downforce * speed) + mechanical grip

The distinction being that grip is directly related to speed, whereas mechanical grip is a constant.

[perfectelise]

Originally posted by Pioneer
I like to think of "mechanical grip" as a variable in a very rough formula for total grip.

grip = (downforce * speed) + mechanical grip

The distinction being that grip is directly related to speed, whereas mechanical grip is a constant.

so mechanical grip is a variable and a constant ?! :

try this

grip = mechanical grip only

which varies considerably due to varying downforce, and changes in the distribution of weight between the four corners of the car as it accelerates, brakes and corners. If a car does not grip well mechanicaly then valuable (and costly due to drag) downforce is wasted.

[Ben]

The tyre sees a normal load. It can't tell what created it - mass or aero force.

The force on the tyres is m*g + 0.5*Cl*A*rho*V^2

Multiply this by friction coefficient (before anyone nit picks I am aware that this isn't a constant) to get the lateral force.

The view I would take on mechanical grip vs. aero grip is that the suspension requirements to maximise tyre performance are different from those required to optimise the aerodynamics.

A tyre generates grip a lot better if the normal load on it doesn't fluctuate. In simple terms this is quantified by measureing the root mean square load on the tyre (R.M.S contact patch load). Now if we set the suspension up nice and soft, the tyre ride bumps well and maintains a high R.M.S load.

Problem is this nice soft suspension is crap for controlling the aero platform and we loose aero downforce. If we stiffen the suspension to get the aero back we lower the R.M.S contact patch load and reduce the car's ability to turn that downforce into lateral force

So what we actually mean about mechanical vs. aero grip is that the suspension settings to optimise the aero subtract from the ability of the tyre to generate grip. This means we have to find the point at which a stiffer suspension begins to detract from the grip more than the grip we're adding from the downforce.

This is also why low pitch sensitivity is desirable, because you can maintain the aero with softer suspension.

Ben

[MattPete]

Originally posted by Yelnats
Mechanical grip, as mention earlier in this thread by Ali, is usually refferenced to Areodynamic grip as though the two were different items when ultimatly all grip is from the same source, the tire and road interface. So any improvement in the mechanical grip will benifit 'aero grip' at the same time.

Not necessarilly, at least as far as setup goes. For example, to increase mechanical grip at the rear for accelerating out of low-speed corners, a good thing to try is to soften the rear springs and dampers. However, this could decrease grip at high aero loadings if the downforce causes the rear suspension to rest on the bumpstops.

[Ali_G]

Originally posted by perfectelise


so mechanical grip is a variable and a constant ?! :

try this

grip = mechanical grip only

which varies considerably due to varying downforce, and changes in the distribution of weight between the four corners of the car as it accelerates, brakes and corners. If a car does not grip well mechanicaly then valuable (and costly due to drag) downforce is wasted.

Well I guess you could say its constant at rest and increases as speed increases.

And a simple equation would (very simplised) wouldn't equal downforce x speed it would be
downforce x speed (squared)

Niall

[MoMurray]

I'm no scientist but to put it in very simple terms, mechanical grip is the amount of grip or traction (lateral) a car would have if you removed the front and rear wings, the diffuser and any other component which increases the "weight" of the car relative to speed. Hey, wouldn't that be an interesting race!

[Manson]

Originally posted by MoMurray
I'm no scientist but to put it in very simple terms, mechanical grip is the amount of grip or traction (lateral) a car would have if you removed the front and rear wings, the diffuser and any other component which increases the "weight" of the car relative to speed. Hey, wouldn't that be an interesting race!

cough...NASCAR...cough

[Viss1]

Are TC and differential bias considered part of the "mechanical grip" category?

[Ben]

Originally posted by MoMurray
I'm no scientist but to put it in very simple terms, mechanical grip is the amount of grip or traction (lateral) a car would have if you removed the front and rear wings, the diffuser and any other component which increases the "weight" of the car relative to speed. Hey, wouldn't that be an interesting race!

Yeah - I think that simplistic point of view is reasonably obvious. Personally I think the interdependance between the two, which my post above attempts to touch on is the key factor in terms of F1.

A very sensitive aero package detracts from the mechanical grip and a compromise position must be sought. That is much more subtle than saying "mechanical's tyres, and aero's wings".

Ben

[MoMurray]

Ben, I disagree with you. Yes when considering the total grip available to the car both aero and mechanical grip are intertwined but in my opinion, the only way an aero package can detract from mechanical grip is if the wings create lift. Mechanical grip can negatively affect aero grip though...or rather the measures taken to increase it. Soft suspension equals mechanical grip but it also allows a car to roll and pitch which are horrible conditions for an aerodynamicist. The Lotus 88 was an excellent example of compromising both but it was too clever for the powers that be to understand. Mechanical grip is what formula ford cars corner with. Yes it is a simplistic view, clarity is my forte, but I believe they are completely different concepts.

And Manson, actually NASCAR race cars are very aero sensitive in that they are like upsidedown cups, creating a huge low pressure area under the car. Hence their propensity to "fly" when the travel backward at high speed, that is until the roof flaps were added. Don't get me wrong though, I can't stand watching NASCAR...like watching paint dry.

[Ben]

I beg to differ I'm afraid. Some aero packages dictate suspension settings that detract from the tyres ability to generate grip.

You agree that when considering total grip available to the car this interdependance matters. The system level interaction that affects the car is all that matters as far as I'm concerned does it make the car go quicker or not?

Ben

[AndreasNystrom]

Nothing interesting really, but Ross Brown in Auto & Motorsport said that they wanted aero-downforce since the wear on the tires become less then with mechanical. Not sure what he meant really

[desmo]

Ben I really liked your succinct explanation you posted. I don't see where you and Momurray are in disagreement on the facts, merely the semantics of describing them. When he says, "Soft suspension equals mechanical grip but it also allows a car to roll and pitch which are horrible conditions for an aerodynamicist." isn't he describing the same compromise between set-ups optimised for a stable aero platform v high RMS load in different terms?

[Ben]

I see your point. The bit I really didn't think was helpful was in Momurray's post where it says "the only way an aero package can detract from mechanical grip is if the wings create lift".

Fully considering what I posted earlier would see that rephrased as - "the aero package can detract from mechanical grip is if the wings create lift or if it requires compromises in the suspension to ensure adequate control of the attitude of the car".

That may seem anal - but I really feel the difference is that important.

Ben

[YKTS]

Originally posted by Ben
The tyre sees a normal load. It can't tell what created it - mass or aero force.

The force on the tyres is m*g + 0.5*Cl*A*rho*V^2

Multiply this by friction coefficient (before anyone nit picks I am aware that this isn't a constant) to get the lateral force.

The view I would take on mechanical grip vs. aero grip is that the suspension requirements to maximise tyre performance are different from those required to optimise the aerodynamics.

A tyre generates grip a lot better if the normal load on it doesn't fluctuate. In simple terms this is quantified by measureing the root mean square load on the tyre (R.M.S contact patch load). Now if we set the suspension up nice and soft, the tyre ride bumps well and maintains a high R.M.S load.

Problem is this nice soft suspension is crap for controlling the aero platform and we loose aero downforce. If we stiffen the suspension to get the aero back we lower the R.M.S contact patch load and reduce the car's ability to turn that downforce into lateral force

So what we actually mean about mechanical vs. aero grip is that the suspension settings to optimise the aero subtract from the ability of the tyre to generate grip. This means we have to find the point at which a stiffer suspension begins to detract from the grip more than the grip we're adding from the downforce.

This is also why low pitch sensitivity is desirable, because you can maintain the aero with softer suspension.

Ben

nail on head! this was the answer i was looking for. maybe i should have phrased my question differently and said completely ignoring any aero influence whatsoever.

anyone care to elaborate on this anymore, ben perhaps?

so reading this, im getting: a soft suspension ultimately allows more grip cos it allows the tyre to move round more,

BUT:

from my point of view, if you allow the suspension and hence tyre to move around too much, you get less than ideal wheel angles, so you build more camber compensation intot he geometry to overcome this.

or does this last statemnt make not much sense and have i missed something

answers gratefully anticipated................

[Ben]

You're correct in talking about adverse camber angles as a result of overly soft suspension. This is one reason why you'd go stiffer.

The other reason you'd go stiffer is response time. A race car needs a high yaw frequency to allow it to turn in quickly, but not too high that the driver can't react to it. This means the upper limit is 4-5 Hz. A soft suspension will decrease the response time of the car because the rolling weight transfer through the springs and dampers (as opposed to the non-rolling weight transfer through the suspension links) takes longer to occur.

Digressing slightly - I was once told by an ex-F1 technical director (of a now defunct Norfolk based F1 team) that "Humans are 5Hz machines - Michael Schumacher's a 6Hz machine". It isn't bullshit when MS's teammates say they can't live with his setups. He can simply control a car with a higher natural frequency in yaw. This allows more performance to be extracted at the expense of stability.

Other driver's can't operate at these frequecies and therefore go slower - it isn't specific to any one car or team mate - the man simply has innate ability over and above his peers. If you take a control systems analogy, MS simply has a higher bandwidth than other drivers.

Anyway - back on topic - This response time issue is why you often see cars without down force such as Formula Fords run preloaded front ends. It allows the load transfer to occur quicker at the expense of some increased mid corner understeer.

This debate indicates the important point that you have to take a systems level approach to the design of any complex vehicle such as a race car or helicopter (that's my areas of experience). It is no good looking at benefits in issolation without summing the effects (positive and negative) of all the systems to get the overall vehicle performance.

Ben

[YKTS]

Originally posted by Ben


This debate indicates the important point that you have to take a systems level approach to the design of any complex vehicle such as a race car or helicopter (that's my areas of experience). It is no good looking at benefits in issolation without summing the effects (positive and negative) of all the systems to get the overall vehicle performance.

Ben

by this do you mean like computer modelling of the car? ie modelling response times of dampers etc?

i was thinking about doing this when i go back to uni.
we have a program that models control systems, so far we have only done 1st and 2nd order systems, simplified autopilots etc

i was thinking about doing one for a race car. it is pretty easy to work out weight transfer in cornering and what percentage of that is put throught he springs and dampers. i'd like to be able to put in say a specific damping rate(? im on a year out so ive kinda forgot about it!), and analyse response times, critical damping etc, although i read somewhere that all racecars are massively overdamped to eliminate oscillations?

just wish our lecturer wasnt an aerospace engineer, all of the problems were flight based and I couldnt grasp the concepts, i think its an interesting subject, as in Paul van Valkenburgs book, and just want to create as much of an understanding while ive got the opputunity at uni

[MattPete]

Originally posted by Ben
...

Other driver's can't operate at these frequecies and therefore go slower - it isn't specific to any one car or team mate - the man simply has innate ability over and above his peers. If you take a control systems analogy, MS simply has a higher bandwidth than other drivers.
...

I've been thinking about that a lot (since I'm kinda in the biz of human performance), and I imagine that Michael's abilities lie in his abilitiy to predict what a car will do *sooner* than other drivers. 4Hz (250 msec) is really pushing it for a complex decision like driving -- 3Hz would be more like it.

Another way to think about is to think about the distance a driver travels at Indy in the time it takes to read the situation and make a response. Let's be optimistic and say that a driver can perform that in 250 msec. If my calculations are correct, at 200 mph,he will have travelled 73 ft before he can respond. So, I would imagine that most (successful) corrections that occur on an oval like Indy are not triggered by the car actually get loose, but rather are triggered by environmental signals that the [expert] driver senses suggesting that the car is about to go loose.

Whew! Enough of my blabbering!

[Ross Stonefeld]

Matt's explanaton sounds more probably. I once saw something (and its only a vague recollection) that Michael Schumacher, when tested on his reactions, didnt respond noticeably quicker than other drivers and that drivers in general werent superior to 'normal' humans. In fact in some of the tests Michael was downright bad. So im gonna go with proactive sensations. People think great car control is when your car is sliding all over the place and you're just catching it, but real car control is so good that you dont even see it (think Prost). Its not about responding to the car, but making the car respond to you.

[Ben]

Originally posted by MattPete


I've been thinking about that a lot (since I'm kinda in the biz of human performance), and I imagine that Michael's abilities lie in his abilitiy to predict what a car will do *sooner* than other drivers. 4Hz (250 msec) is really pushing it for a complex decision like driving -- 3Hz would be more like it.

Another way to think about is to think about the distance a driver travels at Indy in the time it takes to read the situation and make a response. Let's be optimistic and say that a driver can perform that in 250 msec. If my calculations are correct, at 200 mph,he will have travelled 73 ft before he can respond. So, I would imagine that most (successful) corrections that occur on an oval like Indy are not triggered by the car actually get loose, but rather are triggered by environmental signals that the [expert] driver senses suggesting that the car is about to go loose.

Whew! Enough of my blabbering!

Interesting - I have no Human Performance experience (other than as a lab subject) I think the example of an oval may be slightly off the point because in road racing you going considerably slower than 200mph most of the time so surely that makes the situation different?

I'm not really talking about responding to the track, but the car. If you make the car turn in it will tend to oscillate in yaw and the driver must respond to this otherwise the car is likely to spin (I'm not talking about big opposite lock here) if that yaw frequency is outside the frequency range the driver can respond to he won't be able to adequately control the oscillation and the system as a whole will be underdamped and that's when pilot induced oscillations come in. This aspect of MS's ability consistantly comes up when speaking to engineers and other drivers so I'm convinced there's some truth in it.

I'd be interested in reading about the tests they did on MS and the conclusions drawn - are there any papers Ross?

YKTS: In most cases these days - yes - it means computer modelling. In general though all this approach means, is looking at the effect of changes in subsystems on the overall system. It's just the case these days that you need a computer model to do this.

A perennial systems integration problem in the helicopter industry is when the rotor systems group come along and say they've improved the hover efficiency of the main rotor, which means we can hover for longer making the aircraft more versatile - great you may be thinking? Wrong.

Improving the rotor efficiency generally results in vibration problems which translate to an airframe redesign to ensure the correct modal properties. Sometimes this means adding material to the frame, increasing mass and reducing hover efficiency.

Systems engineering would quantify the improvement in hover efficiency from the rotor and the negative effect of the mass increase. If a net gain was found the change would be made to the rotor, if not the change wouldn't be made despite a subsystem level performance gain.

Ben

[DOHC]

Originally posted by Ben
I'm not really talking about responding to the track, but the car. If you make the car turn in it will tend to oscillate in yaw and the driver must respond to this otherwise the car is likely to spin (I'm not talking about big opposite lock here) if that yaw frequency is outside the frequency range the driver can respond to he won't be able to adequately control the oscillation and the system as a whole will be underdamped and that's when pilot induced oscillations come in. This aspect of MS's ability consistantly comes up when speaking to engineers and other drivers so I'm convinced there's some truth in it.

What I don't quite understand is the statement that the car will "tend to oscillate in yaw." It's clear that you have oscillations in pitch and roll, controlled by springs and dampers. About yaw, however, the situation is different. I think there's some confusion between "oscillations" and "response time" (or "time constant" if you will).

The point is, of course, that yaw is controlled by driver input (via the steering wheel). If the car is "unwilling" to turn (understeer) little will happen; if it "overreacts" (oversteer) the driver may have to compensate. How much will depend on speed and grip*. As I understand it, the stability in yaw depends on the location of the poles of the system's Laplace transform.

In understeer, the pole is real and negative, in oversteer real and positive, but small. The latter case corresponds to directional istability (hence faster turning), but it cannot be characterized in terms of a frequency, only a time constant or response time. As always in unstable systems, the driver (or a computer if a driver's reactions are too slow, like in some unstable aircraft) is stabilizing the system through his reactions, and human reaction time is pretty much the same for everybody.

However, what is not at all the same is the ability to sense what is a correct action, or how to execute that action, for example in a smooth way. I like Ross's characterization

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
real car control is so good that you dont even see it (think Prost). Its not about responding to the car, but making the car respond to you.

I believe this is correct, both scientifically and from the point of view of the art of driving. It may very well be the explanation why some drivers excel where others have to struggle.

Compare it to when you learn to bike. A bike is unstable, so you have to learn to master it, how to control it. It takes a few days, and you gradually become better at it, increasing your stability margins and your proficiency to control the bike dynamically, without excessive steering or leaning input. And if you are really good at it, you can start riding mountain bikes in very rough terrain. Perhaps even more challenging is to ride single-wheels (are they called "bikes"?), which are more seriously unstable.

You can learn to do those things, but while some will never manage mountain bikes in rough terrain, others can show a fantastic skill in managing such systems. Those poeple don't have any remarkable reaction times, but they know exactly how to balance their system, they know precisely what's going to happen for a given input, so they can produce it by controlled measure. They have a "feel" for the system's state, and they integrate their input in a seamless fashion into the overall system dynamics.

I think that's what Schumacher does. And I think that's why you don't see it. If you know the system dynamics, you can make the system do it for you with small inputs. You're in control.


* My take on grip is a version of Ben's:

available grip force = mu * (downforce + normal force)

where mu = friction coefficient
downforce = speed dependent, essentially proportional to v^2
normal force = m*g in a simple static model, but dynamically, during cornering with load shifting it may be quite different. In addition, the road's vertical curvature will add vertical inertial forces, as will a slight banking of the road in the case of horisontal road curvature, so it is by no means clear that m*g is an adequate model for the normal force.

[MattPete]

Originally posted by DOHC



You can learn to do those things, but while some will never manage mountain bikes in rough terrain, others can show a fantastic skill in managing such systems. Those poeple don't have any remarkable reaction times, but they know exactly how to balance their system, they know precisely what's going to happen for a given input, so they can produce it by controlled measure. They have a "feel" for the system's state, and they integrate their input in a seamless fashion into the overall system dynamics.

I think it's even more than that. They not only have a feel for the current state of the system, but they are also able to predict future states. A good example of this is the motorbike hopping that they occasionally show on Motorsport Mundial. I'm not sure about the name of the sport, but these guys hop their motorcycles up boxes and such as if they were stairs. So, for these guys to be good, they need to do more than be able to balance the motorcycle at that given second, but they also need to be able to predict and anticipate how the motorcycle will react after it lands after doing one of their hops.

[DOHC]

Agree.

[Ben]

Originally posted by MattPete


I think it's even more than that. They not only have a feel for the current state of the system, but they are also able to predict future states. A good example of this is the motorbike hopping that they occasionally show on Motorsport Mundial. I'm not sure about the name of the sport, but these guys hop their motorcycles up boxes and such as if they were stairs. So, for these guys to be good, they need to do more than be able to balance the motorcycle at that given second, but they also need to be able to predict and anticipate how the motorcycle will react after it lands after doing one of their hops.

It's called motorcycle trials. Britain has one of the world's best in Dougie Lampkin, the Spaniards are pretty good as well.

Thanks to DOHC for clearing up my confusion on frequency vs. time constants and response time. I have the misfortune of being lectured control engineering by a complete idiot who couldn't teach an alcoholic how to drink. Self study is the only frustrating alternative.

Either way this is turining into a very interesting thread.

Ben

[Yelnats]

Many VERY good points made about driver inputs and car responses. Excellent stuff.

To continue with this slightly off topic discussion, a point could be be made how important the RATE of learning a track under a given set of conditions is. Two drivers could be capable of ultimatley turning lap times within a few tenths of a second of each other but if driver 1 reaches his ultimate limit in a 5 laps and driver 2 takes takes 30 laps to reach the same speed, Driver 1 will almost always be faster in both qalifying and race. This is because conditions seldom remain the same for more than 10 or 15 minutes so driver 2 will usually be chasing a moving target.

Moss and Fangio agreed that the difference between very good drivers and the great was the rate of learning and Moss stated in his excellent biography "All But My Life" that 5 or 10 laps on a circuit was all that he needed to approach his ultimate limit. Of course this was in the days when cars weren't very adjustable so little time was spent setting a car up. This type of skill has more to do with memory and visualisation under exteame stress and is of a far higher order than mere fast twitch muscle reponse time.

Evidently Schumacher has similar skills and these should stand him in good stead in the new qualifying format, unfortunatly for those of us who would like to see a closer competition next year!

[MattPete]

Originally posted by Yelnats

To continue with this slightly off topic discussion, a point could be be made how important the RATE of learning a track under a given set of conditions is. Two drivers could be capable of ultimatley turning lap times within a few tenths of a second of each other but if driver 1 reaches his ultimate limit in a 5 laps and driver 2 takes takes 30 laps to reach the same speed, Driver 1 will almost always be faster in both qalifying and race. This is because conditions seldom remain the same for more than 10 or 15 minutes so driver 2 will usually be chasing a moving target.

VERY good point, and something I've been tossing around in my head for a while. The best example (IMHO) of this is Jaques Villeneuve. My impression of him, when he was in CART, is that he had almost no learning curve. However, my impression was also that JV also peaked earlier than several other drivers, i.e. he reached his ultimate speed sooner, but his ultimate wasn't the fastest out there. That goes with my impression that he was not the fastest driver in CART (MA and PT were faster, just to name a few)....but that also depends where you caught him in the learning curve.


[can I use the word 'impression' in a few more sentences?]

[MattPete]

Originally posted by Yelnats
This type of skill has more to do with memory and visualisation under exteame stress and is of a far higher order than mere fast twitch muscle reponse time.

Yep, memory has got to play a large part of it. Although people can argue about the realism of racing sims, one area where they realistic is in the area of memory. It takes me many laps to memorize a track. When do I need to brake hard? Where can I hang it out a little bit?

What also separates a great racer from someone with great car control is in the area of higher order cognition. A great racer understands how to set a fast lap. It's more than just being able to balance the car on the edge. It's "where should I give up some speed in one corner in order to have a greater exit on the corner leading onto the straight", etc.?


Racing, in some ways, really is a thinking man's sport.

[Bladrian]

An interesting example of degrading grip deliberately, in order to balance the car, were surely the racing cars of the 20's and 30's. The Bugatti T 35, for example, had a BUNCH of positive camber built into the front axle, in order to force the car to understeer - with less camber it was apparently an oversteering bitch!

[DOHC]

Originally posted by MattPete
Racing, in some ways, really is a thinking man's sport.

I doubt it. If you have to think, you're going to spin, have an off, stall, whatever. I believe that you have to feel what is fast, where the limit is, where the trade-offs are, when you turn a fast lap (I bet they know without having to see the actual time), when the car does what you want it to do (we're not talking passangers here, obviously).

[fattogatto]

I would point out that two of the recent greats were nicknamed "the Computer" (Lauda) and "the Professor" (Prost) due to their aplication of thought processes to their sport. Having taught Lauda to fly a certain aircraft, I can testify to the man's thinking abilities and, as has been touched on earlier in the thread, his incredidly steep learnng curve. While "feel" (kinesthetic or intuitional) is important, the ability to rapidly and accurately process the myriad of inputs with the resulting proper response might be the key.

[Bladrian]

You instructed The Rat in a particular plane? Come on, Charlie - you can't leave it there! Tell us the rest of the story, please?

[DOHC]

Yes, I agree, some more details please!

[fattogatto]

OK guys,

It must have been around 1981. I was part time teaching for Flight Safety International. My boss asked me if I'd ever heard of a racer-guy named Loody, or Laddy, or something like that. He wanted to learn the Dassault DA-20 Falcon jet. You can imagine my excitement when I learned it was some racer-guy named Lauda. I obviously asked to have him as my student.

Niki came to Memphis and we spent about a week in training. I must say it was a most memorable time. After introductions, I let him know I was a budding racer (I had a Sports 2000 at the time.) Instead of thinking me a starry eyed fan (which I was) he was most interested in my plans. We made a deal: the first 30 minutes of the hour and a half briefing before each flight we would talk racing. Then I would put on my instructor's hat and he would be the student. It worked magnificently.

I brought my Autocourse annuals and we went over all the races and pictures. (i.e. "That's when that $%&%&**& Regazzoni punted me off the road!") We discussed his time at Ferrari and all sorts of memories he carried.

Then, each day, when it was time, we began the training. I have NEVER known anyone as focused and as adept at learning. Even the most involved emergency procedures were understood in a matter of one demonstration. I remember there was only one procedure that took two demonstrations, and this seemed to irritate Niki, but not to the point of detracting from the performance. He was absolutely incredible. He would watch a demonstration; ask one or two pertinent questions; then briefly nod his head. He had it down! We would then go through the issue again and, more often than not, it was done with a level of proficiency that would easily have passed the FAA check. Not to mention that the physical performance and handling of the aircraft was beyond understanding. The hand-to-eye coordination is truly a gift.

As the Falcon is a two man aircraft, a copilot was required. Niki was attending by himself so a "guest" copilot was recruited. These are usually less experienced pilots looking for some free simulator tiime. We get the warm body for free, they get the box time for free. No harm, no foul. WRONG! Even though this young thing was extremely easy on the eyes, she was somewhat behind the power curve. Half way through the first session Niki turned to me and told me he wanted someone with appropriate skill. (He was not too gentle about it - another trait of this type of individual: they do not suffer fools at all!!) Sorry sweetheart! He expected someone at least as able as himself, and someone that would give him the support a copliot should give. (I was Niki's copilot the rest of the time.)

Needless to say, he completed the training in minimum time and left the building. Did he forget the "little people?" Later, at the Las Vegas GP, and then at Montreal and Detroit, I was able to get his attention. All three times I, & my girlfriend, spent the GP in the McLaren pits. (TOTALLY wasted on her!)

All I can say is that if all students were as capable as he, teaching would be a no-brainer. I have some wonderful memories of that week, and the races spent in the pits, and a signed copy of Autocourse the year he was ranked number one even though he did not win the Championship (the year he almost died - 1976-77.)

[DOHC]

Great story!

That personal account says a lot more about Lauda than most articles (or posts!) you read about him today.

Thanks for telling us!

[Bladrian]

Terrific tale - and extremely well told, Charlie. Thank you!

[Yelnats]

Originally posted by MattPete


..... something I've been tossing around in my head for a while. The best example (IMHO) of this is Jaques Villeneuve. My impression of him, when he was in CART, is that he had almost no learning curve. However, my impression was also that JV also peaked earlier than several other drivers, i.e. he reached his ultimate speed sooner, but his ultimate wasn't the fastest out there. That goes with my impression that he was not the fastest driver in CART (MA and PT were faster, just to name a few)....but that also depends where you caught him in the learning curve.


[can I use the word 'impression' in a few more sentences?]

Yes I agree with the above totally. Jacques is a sometime frustrating mixture. Capable of the most brilliant flashes of genius such as qualifying first and leading his first F1 race in Australia or his fabulous win at Indy from a two lap deficit. But at the same time often awfull in the rain and prone to T-Bone or rear-end at sporadic intervals. I understand he uses a very twitchy and hard setup with his throttle set up almost as an on/off switch. This goes a long way to explaining his driving style.