55 replies to this topic

[Chan]

1. F1 cars are designed for a particular drivers style

2. F1 cars are designed to deliberately interfere with the aerodynamics of a following vehicle

I've seen these 2 ideas being used by various posters and both of which I think are completely false. I've started this thread to rationalise why anyone comes to these conclusions. My thoughts first.

On 1, I don't see how it is possible to design a car to favour a particular driving style. Cars are designed to be quick. That is it.

On 2, How do you quantify the lap time gain by making someone else slow? If the teams spend their time on increasing downforce then they know they will go quicker and it doesn't make sense to devote your resources to a situation that may or may not happen. Also, it is easier to pass when you are in the slipstream; if aerodynamicists do have downstream interference as a design goal then they have not been very good at it.

[Paul Prost]

Chan, with regard to point 1) - you are assuming that there is only one way to drive a car fast.

In my limited experience, it seems to be that vehicle dynamics is a hugely difficult puzzle to solve, and there are many, many ways to skin that particular cat.

Additionally, drivers are not human. They have their own particular idiosyncrasies and preferences.

This is why some drivers (e.g. Keke Rosberg) go from hero (at Williams) to zero (at McLaren). Did Rosberg suddenly become rubbish? I posted these comments in an earlier thread and I will repost them here.

In Christopher Hilton's biography of Alain Prost, he has extensive interviews with John Barnard, Keke Rosberg, and of course, Alain himself. When discussing the 1986 season, a couple of interesting points are made.

1) Rosberg regarded himself as 'the fastest driver in the world' when he arrived at McLaren in '86. Rosberg suffered from car setup issues all year and only twice managed to get on terms with Prost all season. They were at Hockenhiem and at Adelaide.

2) Rosberg's driving style was completely different to Prosts. Rosberg's braking was very linear.. and he basically braked in a straight line.. then flung the car into the corner. Prost on the other hand.. continued braking right up until the apex. A more gentle.. 'softly - softly' approach.

3) John Barnard fundamentally disagreed with the way in which Rosberg drove a racing car! From memory, he used phrases such as 'his style completely upsets the dynamic centre-of-pressure during corner-entry'

4) Rosberg states that twice he and John managed to cure his understeer issues. At Hockenhiem (when he put the car on pole) and in Adelaide, where he blew everyone away before his tyre delaminated. At the time, people presumed that Keke had just turned up the boost and was going for a joy-ride... and there was no way he would have enough fuel to make it to the finish line. In the book, Keke maintains that the car handling was so spot-on that it would have been the easiest win of his life. He also says that he would have moved over for Prost on the last lap if the championship required.

So I think it is important to realise it isn't just a matter of saying 'Prost is a better driver than Keke'. Overall.. in terms of his record and achievements.. yes Prost probably was better. But it is important to realise such issues as car set-up preference as well as the ideas that the chief designer is trying to implement (and how compatabile they are with the drivers own characteristics) are also relevant.

I also recall a comment made by John Barnard during his time at Ferrari with Gerhard Berger and Michele Albereto. Berger was consistently faster than Michele, and John put it down to 'Gerhard is more adventurous in his approach to car set-up. Often at the end of a Friday we sit down and together we try new ideas and methods. Trying to get Michele to try new things is a bit more difficult'

I would never underestimate the bond between the driver and the engineers who design the car. That is why I always view Schumacher's impressive record in the context of every car he was won a race in (except two or three) was designed by Ross Brawn and Rory Byrne. Other greats such as Prost and Senna drove for many different designers in many different sorts of cars (e.g. turbo/non-turbo, ground effects, active suspension etc.).

A more recent example is Jensen Button. When he went to Benetton (after a very impressive display at Williams), he was often overshadowed by Fisichella. But since his move to Honda, he can do no wrong and his stock has skyrocketed.

Again.. the link between a driver and their designers is a human relationship, and thus is subject to all the vagaries of ego, understanding and other qualities that effect us all.

[mini696]

I dont know about number 2, but number 1 is definately NOT a myth.

Certain drivers like different handling characteristics so an oversteering car wont suit a understeering driver.

[GerardF1]

I think you are completely correct on myth 2. The amount of time that would be spent on CFD to work out how to disrupt the air for the car behind AND get the most downforce at the lowest possible drag for your own car would be astronomical.

Myth 1 is a different story.

McLaren last year was a great study in different driving styles. Juan and Kimi attach corners differently. Kimi was usually faster, until Juan could get the car to his liking. He had to change the car, not the way he drove it.

Everyone has a preferred method of driving quickly. In my own very limited world I prefer a car that oversteers to a car that understeers. Some would say that I prefer to crash backwards than forwards. The point is that I would make changes to get the car as close to neutral as possible, but that if either end would let go it would be the back. I have a better feel for rotation than for plowing.

I am not in any professional drivers league, and I think a modern F1 car would probably kill me.

But if I were to sit in one and talk to my race engineer the first thing I would ask is how do I get neutral handling with back end slide at the limit. If he said you can't have that I would be at a loss to explain to him what was happening other than to keep telling him that the front won't bite.

I think my preference for oversteer comes from the fact that I live in a place that gets lots of snow in the winter and oversteer is just what I grew up with. and contary to popular belief you can get a front wheel drive car to oversteer. It just takes more work.

Just my $.02 worth

GerardF1

[RDV]

mini696-I dont know about number 2, but number 1 is definately NOT a myth.

Indeed... there are many ways to drive a car, and design and setup can make them equaly fast... not necessarily the ultimate physics derived car ( that wouldnt be driveable maybe).

Better a 80% car car driven a 100% than a 100% car driven at 70%.

Different drivers can direct car design down particular blind alleys... and the design team will follow the quickest or estabilished driver to the detriment of an altenate style of driving by new/ unproven or second driver.

Schumachers driving style has produced cars that other drivers find difficult to drive, and the Keke -Prost example is spot on... they require very different setups.

Keke's hard time at McLaren was more due to teams pig-headedness in not changing car to his requirements... as far as I'm concerned Keke can walk on water....

[dominick]

Originally posted by angst


An interesting thought, and perhaps the top two constructors in this year's championship showed the two almost diametrically opposed strategies on that front. Renault seem to have designed the car and, as you suggest, told the driver to just drive the damned thing - where McLaren produced driver specific suspension upgrades through the year.

http://forums.autosp...?threadid=83900

I already agreed with Angst qouting McGuire, it also depends on the team.

[zac510]

Interesting discussion. Now let me ask a question

Is it too much of a compromise for an engineer to design a car that is versatile enough in setup to be able to accomodate different types of drivers?

[benrapp]

Originally posted by Paul Prost
Additionally, drivers are not human.

Raikonnen in Area 51 shock photos -- full story p94.

[BRG]

Originally posted by Paul Prost
Additionally, drivers are not human.

A bit unfair, although in the case of certain German and Finnish individuals, there may be something in it.

I find it very hard to believe that any designer can really quantify a particular driver's style sufficiently accurately to be able to include it in his design parameters. The amount of work it would take would mean there was no time or capacity left to actually do the rest of the design process. Surely, a car is designed to be basically well-balanced, and with adequate adjustment potential to accomodate differing needs. So my feeling is that #! is a myth.

As for #2, I can see that it might well be possible, given the massive aero and windtunnel resources available to the bigger teams. Whether any have actually done it, and whether it is a practical proposition is another matter. Everything is a compromise, and you might be able to make your car hard to follow, but only at the expense of losing downforce and/or increasing drag for your own car. Is there any evidence that anyone has ever done it? I do not recall anyone ever claiming that a particular car was harder to follow than the rest.

[Chan]

Thanks for your comments so far.

I am very much in agreement with BRG on car design. I don't see how it is possible that car designers can make a car suit a driver's requirements. The example of MS influencing the Ferrari design so that other drivers find it hard to drive I find difficult to believe. Sure, MS carries weight around Ferrari but how did he influence the design? Did he go up to Rory and say, can we have the suspension like this .... next year? What does he know about car design? What specific parameters would he have changed? Anything like centre of aero pressure, suspension stiffness, weight distribution, wheel setup etc are all part of standard adjusment. What is there left to adjust?

Regarding myth 2, it was widely reported that the Sauber wind tunnel was large enough to test 2 models following each other though I suspect this to be PR talk and would doubt it has been used for such. Does anyone know who carried out the work for the FIA on the CDG wing? and was this verified experimentally?

[rhm]

The CDG wing concept was blue sky research and had only been tested with CFD (sponsored by AMD) when the FIA not only proposed it, but insisted it would be used from 2008. I guess the FIA could have asked to borrow two retired wing-tunnel models from teams, pay to have them modified with the CDG wing and then run them in a commercial tunnel like Fondmetal. But this is the FIA we're talking about here. God knows where their share of the FOM money goes but they're not spending it on idependent research for F1 - they're hoping the teams will tell them if it works or not.

I don't know if any team has tested CDG in a wind-tunnel. There was talk that Adrian Newey had been working on it before he quit McLaren, but whether that means he was testing it or just thinking up reasons to tell the FIA that it would work it unclear. It seems unlikely anyone would devote resources to it in the off-season when they had new cars to optimize. A team that had an older generation tunnel with a different model size that they don't use as much, having built a new one (like Williams) might look into it. Thing is you need two models and you need to modify both of them. You need a test section long enough to run both of them (including the rolling road). And if you're going to be realistic about the effect on overtaking you need to be able to run those models yawed and/or offset from eachother to see the true effect (the FIA's study glosses over this aspect). My feeling is that teams are giving the CDG wing a cautious welcome in public while in private hoping that the idea just goes away.

As for teams deliberately designing their cars to prevent overtaking - they don't need to. First of all the best defense is offense: making your own car faster is the most important way to stop people overtaking you. Secondly, with the rules define a cars that are both difficult to overtake and difficult to make overtaking manouvres in. The narrow track and restrictions on wing elements mean the cars make far less drag than they used to which reduces the 'tow' that would normally help a closely paced car catch up on the straight. Then the restrictions on the front wing prevent the following car getting close in the corners.

[GregorV]

I don't think #1 is a myth. While I agree that, when the basic design of the car is done driver preferences are not a factor, it has to be taken into account that F1 design is an ongoing project. Drivers will, in testing and then the races, give their feedback on the car characteristics, and when some of the negative ones aren't simply a matter of adjusting a setup, some basic design parameters will get altered as well. Very often the basic chassis concept is carried over into the next season and so the driver input can be quite persistent. If a team therefore takes into account one driver's opinion over another they might, over the course of a season or longer, end up with a car that favours one particular driving style.

[Kimi on nopein]

Originally posted by benrapp
Raikonnen in Area 51 shock photos -- full story p94.

It's Räikkönen. Sorry I had to.;)

[J. Edlund]

#1 is not a myth. It doesn't matter what performance physics indicate that the car can give if the driver doesn't like how the car is behaving.

As for #2 I don't think anyone has built a car like that. Regarding upwash that is just a natural result from the downforce created by the car. As stated by Newtons third law; "All forces occur in pairs, and these two forces are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction." Air pushes car down -> car pushes air up.
If FIA want to reduce the upwash I would recommend allowing bigger wings, this with limitations in angles and number of elements used in a wing or a limit in downforce allowed should reduce upwash.

[Paul Prost]

Geez.. you guys sure are quick off the mark with a typo aren't you

[Chan]

I think we should clarify what we mean by design and setup. To me setup involves adjusting the aero balance, downforce level, weight distribution, tyre pressures, wheel camber, roll stiffness etc. The design parameters that I am are aware of are chassis stiffness and suspension geometry. I'm assuming the stiffer the chassis the better and I guess suspension geometry is chosen to maximise the tyre contact patch, both of which have preferred targets and you either achieve them or you don't. What can the driver say that would influence this design?

I may be missing some design parameters here, can anyone expand?

[Paolo]

Originally posted by Chan
I think we should clarify what we mean by design and setup. To me setup involves adjusting the aero balance, downforce level, weight distribution, tyre pressures, wheel camber, roll stiffness etc. The design parameters that I am are aware of are chassis stiffness and suspension geometry. I'm assuming the stiffer the chassis the better and I guess suspension geometry is chosen to maximise the tyre contact patch, both of which have preferred targets and you either achieve them or you don't. What can the driver say that would influence this design?

I may be missing some design parameters here, can anyone expand?

Weight distribution and subsequent ideal aero balance.
Choice between pitch sensitivity and decreased aero efficiency.
Gearbox reliability vs weight
Suspension geometry can be chosen to be better suited to hard or stiff springs.
Etc.

[Oho]

I dont know of other teams but to the best of my knowledge at least McLaren has twice in rather recent history ran two cars with essentially differing chassis. In 00 they altered suspension gemoetry to suit Häkkinen mid way through the season after the changes in response to electronic rule changes were deemed as detrimental to Häkkinen's performance, and last season when Montoya and Räikkönen ran different front suspension geometries. I would think it rather strange if driver attributes were not included in the chassis design.

[Deepak]

I would like to use reverse psychology in case of point 1.

If it were true that cars are designed without any particular driving style in mind then simulating the driver in studying vehicle dynamics would have been very easy.
But then this is not the case. Simulating driver reaction is very nearly impossible because different drivers react differently to same situations. Every driver assimilates & processes data in a different way.

[GeorgeTheCar]

I have a question about the first issue.

Given that the majority of testing at Ferarri is not done by MS how does the car end up being perfectly suited to MS?

Are the test drivers MS clones?

I know that suspension design is optimized for the tires or is it the other way around?

[Greg Locock]

Suspensions are optimised for tires. The entire purpose of the suspension is to maximise the suitably averaged shear force developed at the contact patches of the tires.

[tifosi77]

Hmmmm, very interesting topic.

I do not think #1 is a myth at all. Whether it's something as basic as designing a car with a small cockpit that one of your drivers cannot comfortably be sat in, or designing a suspension geometry to suit particular handling characteristics, or even the position of the mirrors. Some teams do indeed design their cars to suit a particular driver.

But I think #2 is a but trickier, and depends on how you want to define 'on purpose'. I don't think teams set out to design aero devices that create problems for following cars, but if presented with two options that offer equal performance benefits, but one creates more wake turbulence, then they'd be silly not to opt for the dirtier option. I've heard that most of the top teams actually test their cars in the wind tunnel behind models of other team's cars to see the effects, so it's not much of a stretch to think they simply swap positions of the models every now and again.

[tifosi77]

Originally posted by Greg Locock
Suspensions are optimised for tires. The entire purpose of the suspension is to maximise the suitably averaged shear force developed at the contact patches of the tires.

But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Two drivers might approach a corner in completely different way, but each extract 99% of the tire's theoretical grip. But if you have a guy who runs the brakes all the way to the apex, he could (should) have very different demands from the way the suspension does its job than a driver who threshold brakes only up to the turn-in point. The suspension is achieving the same thing, but it's being asked to do it in two different ways.

[GeorgeTheCar]

Still another side to the story is when the tire companies work with a prime team, Bridgestone Ferarri, and the others have to take what they get and adapt

[Wuzak]

Originally posted by tifosi77


But there is more than one way to skin a cat. Two drivers might approach a corner in completely different way, but each extract 99% of the tire's theoretical grip. But if you have a guy who runs the brakes all the way to the apex, he could (should) have very different demands from the way the suspension does its job than a driver who threshold brakes only up to the turn-in point. The suspension is achieving the same thing, but it's being asked to do it in two different ways.

But isn't that a matter of just tweaking the springs and dampers, and some aspects of the geometry?

F1 cars are designed with this tunability in mind.


A question, back when Ralf Schumacher and Montoya were both in Williams, it was said that they would come from completely different directions and arrive at almost the exact same car set-up, sometimes identical. And one would often complain of understeer, and the other would complain of oversteer. The only difference was in the way they drove.

[Greg Locock]

One problem is that understeer is a pretty flaky concept. The SAE definition is unuseable for a racing car, except as a theoretical device.

For instance - if I fit a variable ratio (ie mm/rev changes as it approaches full lock) rack to a car, does that change the understeer?


Decoding what the driver is calling understeer is a big part of the problem.

[RDV]

Greg Locock- Decoding what the driver is calling understeer is a big part of the problem.

Spot on....Good example was when Pace shared a 312 Ferrari with Merzario... he'd come in complaining of undrivable understeer when Arturo was saying the rear was a bit loose.... ( mmm... Prost- Keke?)

Changing the size (dia.) of the steering wheel can change a drivers perception of it , as does rack ratio.. and anwering Greggs question re variable ratio, no.... you will get to a point where at a given throtlle input the car will have a defined trajectory for a given speed, and turning the steering wheel will not change it an iota...I'd call that understeer.... come back Arturo, all is forgiven....we have a car for you.

A bit OT = Tire characteristics can also change the equation... after Donohue's accident in Austria , tire construction changed radically, and severall cars that had been competitive were suddently also-rans as weight distribuition and geometry requirements changed. As the new tires had been mainly developed by Mclaren and Ferrari (who had the testing contracts) any car not in their range suddently wouldnt work....


ps . maybe this should be in TNF, but is a propos the 312 Ferrari=

http://video.google....01573&q=ferrari

[Greg Locock]

9.4.9 UNDERSTEER : A vehicle is understeer at a given trim if the ratio of
the steering wheel angle gradient to the overall steering ratio is greater
than the Ackerman steer angle gradient.

9.4.5 STEERING WHEEL ANGLE GRADIENT : The rate of change in the steering
wheel angle with respect to change in steady-state lateral acceleration on a
level road at a given trim and test conditions.

9.4.6 OVERALL STEERING RATIO : The rate of change of steering wheel angle at
a given steering wheel trim position, with respect to change in average
steer angle of a pair of steered wheels, assuming an infinitely stiff
steering system with no roll of the vehicle (see Note 15).

9.4.2 ACKERMAN STEER ANGLE (Sa) : The angle whose tangent is the wheelbase
divided by the radius of turn.

9.4.3 ACKERMAN STEER ANGLE GRADIENT : The rate of change of Ackerman steer
angle with respect to change in steady-state lateral acceleration on a level
road at a given trim and test conditions. (See Note 14.)

Hmm, having re-read that it looks like they've got around the variable rack ratio problem. Bugger

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Wuzak


But isn't that a matter of just tweaking the springs and dampers, and some aspects of the geometry?

F1 cars are designed with this tunability in mind.

At what point have you stopped making tuning changes and started making design changes?

Each track takes a different combination. If you're belting your driver in and say "This is the same car as we tested with except for different dampers, springs, anti-roll bars, wings, weight distribution, and front and rear suspension geometry.", then what have you actually said? It's a completely different car.

There's a fuzzy line between race engineer and design engineer a lot of times.

And _for sure_ what one guy feels as understeer another can feel as oversteer. It all depends on what they do with their feet and hands. For instance, when and at what rate a driver releases the brake pedal can have a massive effect on car handling.

[Deepak]

Driving styles are critical in examining understeer & oversteer.

An early turn in driver who goes on the brakes later at the apex may experience oversteer but the same car to a driver with a more straight lined braking approach before turn in might feel its neutral.

The race engineers understanding of his drivers feedback ability & driving style are essential to know what changes have to be made to the vehicle.

IMO one of the simplest methods that could be used to change car behavior is moving ballast around i.e. moving CG.

[GregorV]

Greg,

those definitions are well suited for the linear regime of tyre performance, whereas in racing this regime is almost irrelevant. On the limit, the definitions of under/oversteer (where the yank definitions of push/loose are perhaps *shock* *horror* more appropriate) are merely to do with which corner of the car hits the limit of available grip first. If this happens at the front any further piling on of the steer angle will create little effect, wheres if this happens at the rear corrective action is required with the front wheels (opposite lock) and it is an unstable situation. Why two drivers may perceive the same car with the same setup to be under or oversteering is because the limiting lateral grip on either front or rear end of the car is also affected by throttle and brakes, as well as transient motion of the car. A driver will therefore create under or oversteer with his or her inputs as well.

One can thus argue either that a blank statement of a car over or understeering is inappropriate, or, if one is more engineering minded, that a car will under/oversteer at the limit based also on the throttle and brakes applied, not just the steering (considering a quasi steady state situation). A different driver will explore different parts of the car performance envelope, and therefore experience over or undesteer depending on which part of the envelope that is.

[Chan]

Oversteer and understeer definitions aside, I still maintain that these characteristics are part of a car setup and the car itself is not specifically designed to a drivers needs. Nobody has posted anything to the contrary yet.....

[Paul Prost]

Chan - my quote from John Barnard states that he fundamentally disagreed with Rosberg's driving style.

I would have thought you can't get it more 'black and white' than that.

Do you want me to dig the exact quote up?

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Paolo


Weight distribution and subsequent ideal aero balance.
Choice between pitch sensitivity and decreased aero efficiency.
Gearbox reliability vs weight
Suspension geometry can be chosen to be better suited to hard or stiff springs.
Etc.

Chan,

Then you've missed what Paolo had to say. The compromise between pitch/heave sensitivity vs. overall aero efficiency is a massive component of the aero package.

You will chose your ride height map off of your data about previous cars and their operating window. If you have a driver that stands the car on it's nose at the entry of every corner, you're naturally going to make different compromises than if you have a driver than is very controlled at corner entry.

What you're trying to do is seperate car and driver. There is no seperation. They are 2 of many components to the same mechanism. You might as well try to design the car without considering the gearbox or tub. The driver is a component of the car. If you ignore that you during your design, you will not produce the best possible total package.

[Chan]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Chan,

Then you've missed what Paolo had to say. The compromise between pitch/heave sensitivity vs. overall aero efficiency is a massive component of the aero package.

You will chose your ride height map off of your data about previous cars and their operating window. If you have a driver that stands the car on it's nose at the entry of every corner, you're naturally going to make different compromises than if you have a driver than is very controlled at corner entry.

What you're trying to do is seperate car and driver. There is no seperation. They are 2 of many components to the same mechanism. You might as well try to design the car without considering the gearbox or tub. The driver is a component of the car. If you ignore that you during your design, you will not produce the best possible total package.

There is no compromise between pitch sensitivity and overall aero efficiency; aerodynamicists design to minimise the former and improve the latter regardless of driver input. Ride height maps are calculated based on all tracks for all driver data, if you took a particular driver on a particular track then you would make a massive compromise to your overall development. If you have driver A that approaches then a corner more aggressively than driver B then you are going to have different setups to obtain their prefered balance but these are setups not designs. I think we have established that there are different driver styles but the performance is maximised in the car setup. How can you design a car that will respond more appropriately to a more or less aggressive driver?

I still haven't heard definite proof of any design preferences that a driver has had.

Paul, Barnard may have disagreed with Rosberg's style but how did he design for it? Did he start the next season's design thinking that he needs to change X parameter to make the car easier for Keke to drive? If so, what is this parameter? What value did Keke want?

[Deepak]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Chan,

Then you've missed what Paolo had to say. The compromise between pitch/heave sensitivity vs. overall aero efficiency is a massive component of the aero package.

You will chose your ride height map off of your data about previous cars and their operating window. If you have a driver that stands the car on it's nose at the entry of every corner, you're naturally going to make different compromises than if you have a driver than is very controlled at corner entry.

What you're trying to do is seperate car and driver. There is no seperation. They are 2 of many components to the same mechanism. You might as well try to design the car without considering the gearbox or tub. The driver is a component of the car. If you ignore that you during your design, you will not produce the best possible total package.

The car is designed to do what it is supposed to do and this supposed behavior is based on certain inputs from the driver. Now this input is definitly going to vary from driver to driver since they are human. Hence feedback from 3 drivers will in most probability will vary slightly. Even if they are asked to give the same input in terms of steering wheel angle, braking distance etc they will react differently based on their individual ability to assess the vehicle condition during the transient phase.
This will lead to 3 different outputs. Even if the deviation is very little...now comes the question of who's assessment is best. Now if a certain driver's feedback is considered most of the time the final design gets skewed towards his style of driving or input.

Well...this is my subjective response to this myth.

[Fat Boy]

Originally posted by Chan


There is no compromise between pitch sensitivity and overall aero efficiency; aerodynamicists design to minimise the former and improve the latter regardless of driver input.

Well, now you're just being argumentative, aren't you. If you already knew the answer to your question, why did you bother asking it?

We seem to be getting a lot of people lately that have all the answers and none of the problems. For you, I'd like to describe what this board has been for as long as I've been on it. It's a place where you can discuss a racecar technical issue with some people that have a good idea of what's going on. I've argued with people like Mac on gearing. Having said that, he knows way more than I do on engines in general, so when he writes something, I'm genuinely interested in what he's got to say. We don't bait each other trying to find a fight, just for fighting's sake. We'll both stand up for our opinions, though, should the situation arise. The people, Phantom and Chan specifically, that want to get on board to argue and fight, please take it somewhere else.

[Chan]

Originally posted by Fat Boy


Well, now you're just being argumentative, aren't you. If you already knew the answer to your question, why did you bother asking it?

We seem to be getting a lot of people lately that have all the answers and none of the problems. For you, I'd like to describe what this board has been for as long as I've been on it. It's a place where you can discuss a racecar technical issue with some people that have a good idea of what's going on. I've argued with people like Mac on gearing. Having said that, he knows way more than I do on engines in general, so when he writes something, I'm genuinely interested in what he's got to say. We don't bait each other trying to find a fight, just for fighting's sake. We'll both stand up for our opinions, though, should the situation arise. The people, Phantom and Chan specifically, that want to get on board to argue and fight, please take it somewhere else.

Sorry if your offended. The purpose of this thread is to ask other people to disprove a statement. I don't think you can do that without being argumentative.

I'll try and ask this as straight as I can. Do you know of any design parameters of an F1 car that are specific to a driver? If so, what are they? To make my position clear, I don't think there are any design parameters that are specific to a driver.

[wegmann]

F1 cars are designed for particular drivers, some of the time.

A cheap but simple example of a design parameter would be cockpit size. Alexander Wurz didn't fit in the early McLarens either of the past two years. And I would bet that some aerodynamic or packaging compromise had to be made to make a McLaren that he did fit in.

The tire design and testing feedback loop is often done almost purely based on driver feedback. If this weren't true, then the tire companies wouldn't even bother asking what the driver thought. And yet we know that they do. There were several years where, in my opinion, Michael Schumacher's feedback influenced the design of the Bridgestones more than any other driver.

In fact I believe there are several parameters where ultimate performance is compromised in favor of drivability. Tires are one example, engines are another - would you rather have a relatively linear torque curve or one with more horsepower that looks like a graph of the stock market? Drivers have clear differences in their ability to cope with such drivability issues.

For further evidence in our case, take a look at driver and team statements of people who actually work in F1. It was pretty well acknowledged that last year's Renault suited Fernando Alonso more than Fisichella. And why shouldn't it? Fernando had been there for a couple years already. I believe both Fisichella and Pat Symonds said that this year's car would be better suited for Fisi, and based on very limited information this year, it seems that it might. This is but one of many recent examples where experienced drivers struggled with a new team and people experienced in F1 attributed it to whether the car suited a driver's style.

[Chan]

Thanks for your constructive reply Wegmann. I take the Wurz example on board but didn't he also have some problems finding drives because of his height? That leads to the conclusion that the cockpit design is kept to a minimum and the driver has to someway fit in. I guess we will only know the answer to that one if we get a tall or fat potential championship winning driver.

Tyres I agree with that there is driver input but I don't know of any particular tyre that has been developed for just one driver. From my understanding the tyre companies propose several tyres and they then follow down a direction based on feedback from several teams and drivers. The Schumacher example is probably unique in that he was the dominant runner on Bridgestone and I'm not sure he would have the same influence today.

How do you think that Renault have specifically considered Fisi in the design on the R26? What parameters could be changed in his favour? Do you not think that Symonds was alluding to the fact that Fisi might be now better suited to the R26 from his experience with the R25 rather than the other way around?

I agree that drivers struggle with new teams because of different car characteristics but if they become better after a couple of seasons then surely it is because they have become accustomed to the car? If Fisi is more competitive to Alonso this year then that enforces this view because I don't see why Renault would change a championship winning design philosophy.

[phantom II]

Ignore him, Chan. Unless you like chasing your tail.

Originally posted by Chan


There is no compromise between pitch sensitivity and overall aero efficiency; aerodynamicists design to minimise the former and improve the latter regardless of driver input. Ride height maps are calculated based on all tracks for all driver data, if you took a particular driver on a particular track then you would make a massive compromise to your overall development. If you have driver A that approaches then a corner more aggressively than driver B then you are going to have different setups to obtain their prefered balance but these are setups not designs. I think we have established that there are different driver styles but the performance is maximised in the car setup. How can you design a car that will respond more appropriately to a more or less aggressive driver?

I still haven't heard definite proof of any design preferences that a driver has had.

Paul, Barnard may have disagreed with Rosberg's style but how did he design for it? Did he start the next season's design thinking that he needs to change X parameter to make the car easier for Keke to drive? If so, what is this parameter? What value did Keke want?

[angst]

Originally posted by Chan
Thanks for your constructive reply Wegmann. I take the Wurz example on board but didn't he also have some problems finding drives because of his height? That leads to the conclusion that the cockpit design is kept to a minimum and the driver has to someway fit in. I guess we will only know the answer to that one if we get a tall or fat potential championship winning driver.

Tyres I agree with that there is driver input but I don't know of any particular tyre that has been developed for just one driver. From my understanding the tyre companies propose several tyres and they then follow down a direction based on feedback from several teams and drivers. The Schumacher example is probably unique in that he was the dominant runner on Bridgestone and I'm not sure he would have the same influence today.

How do you think that Renault have specifically considered Fisi in the design on the R26? What parameters could be changed in his favour? Do you not think that Symonds was alluding to the fact that Fisi might be now better suited to the R26 from his experience with the R25 rather than the other way around?

I agree that drivers struggle with new teams because of different car characteristics but if they become better after a couple of seasons then surely it is because they have become accustomed to the car? If Fisi is more competitive to Alonso this year then that enforces this view because I don't see why Renault would change a championship winning design philosophy.

As an example of design that has been altered to suit a driver's preference - in 2005 Montoya had suspension components fitted specifically to his car, in order to suit his style - and it worked, as he became more competitive as a result. Surely that is exactly the sort of example that you are looking for.

[Chan]

Originally posted by angst


As an example of design that has been altered to suit a driver's preference - in 2005 Montoya had suspension components fitted specifically to his car, in order to suit his style - and it worked, as he became more competitive as a result. Surely that is exactly the sort of example that you are looking for.

Yes that is the kind of example I am looking for. Does anyone know which components were changed and was this design changed at the behest of the driver? or were there 2 sets available and he had a preference?

[Oho]

Originally posted by Chan


Yes that is the kind of example I am looking for. Does anyone know which components were changed and was this design changed at the behest of the driver? or were there 2 sets available and he had a preference?

They ran different suspensions for Räikkönen and Montoya, as they propably did in 00 with Häkkinen and Coulthard. On both occasions modifications were made to suit one of the drivers and on both occasions it probbably largely came down to driver preference which design they wanted to use.

[blkirk]

Here's a hypothetical situation for you. In today's refueling-era F1, if you had Senna and Prost in the same team, they would probably want two very different cars. Prost was legendary for going longer on a set of tires than his rivals. He would want a car with a larger fuel tank so he could run as long as possible. Senna, on the other hand, could extract maximum performance, and wear, from each contact patch. Given the option, I suspect that he'd want to stop more often for fresh tires. Therefore he would not need to carry as much fuel, and would therefore perform better in a car with a smaller fuel tank.

[Chan]

Originally posted by blkirk
Here's a hypothetical situation for you. In today's refueling-era F1, if you had Senna and Prost in the same team, they would probably want two very different cars. Prost was legendary for going longer on a set of tires than his rivals. He would want a car with a larger fuel tank so he could run as long as possible. Senna, on the other hand, could extract maximum performance, and wear, from each contact patch. Given the option, I suspect that he'd want to stop more often for fresh tires. Therefore he would not need to carry as much fuel, and would therefore perform better in a car with a smaller fuel tank.

That I could believe but the question I want to get to the bottom of is would they get their preferences? Do you think in this situation that the designers would design 2 cars with 2 different tanks or maybe 1 design but with a tank size biased towards the better driver (though I'm not sure who). The first option would be extremely costly and the second could compromise your strategy if a driver was unable to drive so do you not think it is more likely that the car would be designed with the optimum tank size based on overall packaging and regardless of driver preference?

[Paul Prost]

This is a full quote from Christopher Hilton's book - with the quotes from Rosberg and Barnard.

pp. 139-141

Rosberg crashed the car in testing in Rio which did not exactly endear him to Barnard. 'I am not' Rosberg says defensively - or as defensively as he will ever get - 'very well known for crashing cars and I hadn't done many laps when it got away from me at the long corner because the car was just so different from what I was used to. If you ask me what my memory of McLaren year was, it was understeer with capital letters. I got the chassis right three times, the Brands Hatch test in June, the German Grand Prix and Australia.

I got on with Prost very well because I was naive enough not to get into politics and look at what was going on. Afterwards I believe - without ever having discussed this with anybody - that I was testing all the management systems for the new TAG eninge. I can't find any other explanation for why I didn't finish so many of the races and Alain did. I know we had some new sensors. I was running second in Austria and the sensors failed.

I finished five races that year out of sixteen. Niki had finished three the year before and Prost wins the Championship both years. That didn't change our relationship because I was so convinced the team were doing the best they could except they wouldn't change the chassis the way I felt I wanted it and I would expected a little bit more, not support, but guidance from Alain.

Everytime I asked him : "Would you go through there with a car understeering so much?", he said "Yes". I didn't do anything about it but he knew it killed me. That's a hard thing to say but every time he would be quicker. Alain is a very clever guy, which I had never been in that way, he did the right thing. I would never have done it. That's my problem.

I was the new boy, he was winning races and when I said they'd got to do something about the understeer they didn't because Alain was still winning races. If Alain had said it they would have done it, so therefore you must be a little bit careful about saying it's hard. It isn't. Alain wasn't listening for it.

There's another thing. Alain's driving style is unique. The way he entered corners, especially in the turbo-charged era, was completely different to anybody else. There was maybe one guy who used a similar technique and that was Niki. The technique was entering very, very deep into the corners, braking into the corners where the classic racing driver brakes on the straight, slows the car and flicks into the corner - you always brake in a straight line - but with his feel and confidence he would brake into the corner. The way I braked you couldn't turn the steering wheel, it woudn't turn. He felt and fed the brakes into the corner, I'd hit them so hard they'd be just before the limit of where wheels lock. I once made a concerted effort to drive just like him but I couldn't, in the same way that I'm right-handed and I just can't write with my left. That's a similar kind of change.

If a car understeers for you it understeers for you. You can try it backwards, forwards, sideways, whatever and it understeers for you. It was so dominant that I would say the whole year I only used 75 per cent of my potential in the car.'

We're back to tensions.

'This', Barnard says, 'is Keke having a go at me. There was a time when we went testing at Brands and I said, "Right, I'm going to do whatever it takes to make it work the way you want." We went up and up and up on the front suspension. What Keke wanted was the front end stiff, not moving, enough bite aerodynamically to make it turn, yank the steering wheel fast and hard and the front goes pop, turns in and your boot is back on the power. It was very, very difficult to do that and keep the back end in. You could get the front to work like that but the back would step out and before you knew where you were you were going backwards into the fence.

On top of all that I never felt it was right. I always wanted the car to drive off the back wheel. The thing that John Watson, for example, liked was a tremendously rearward center of pressure and a car which was completely glued at the back, very sensitive at front so you could come into a corner, turn the steering wheel and the car stayed glued while it turned in off the back wheel. With Rosberg it was the other way around : "I want to come in, brake as hard as I can, yank the front in and the back has got to follow." The way our aerodynamics had derived we just couldn't do it. Prost could drive it like that..

Keke tried to copy Prost, that was the amazing thing. We talked about it and said, "Well you can drive it like Alain because fundamentally I think it's a better racing car the way it is." But Keke could not seem to cope with the careful turn-in. You get a Prost set-up car, a guy comes along and tries to jam it into the corner, jumps on the brakes, down goes the front, whoops, the centre of pressure is immediately thrown to the front and round comes the back.

Alain was able to lead it in, gently bring it in, turn the wheel gently enough. You've got to remember we're talking here about such fine limits, such fine changes that you could stand and watch and you'd have a hell of a job to see any difference on the track - but Alain was able to get it into the corner and then open the throttle, boom, and that's it, he was away, gone.

I suppose the root problem was that I still didn't feel what Keke wanted was right : running a car with that much of a forward centre of pressure just to make the front end work, because you had effectively wrecked the car mechanically.

It ended up with Keke and me in different directions. It's so personal, the whole thing's about interactions between people, driver to engineer, engineer to his engineer, to mechanics, the management, it's all about personal relationships. If a bloke says something has got to be black and you say you understand but it's got to be white, at the end of the day you can like the guy, you can have a good tiime, you can go out to dinner with him but fundamentally you think : that guy is wrong. And he is thinking : you are wrong. A compromise? This is the old problem, isn't it? How many compromises do you make in this business and get away with? The less, the better off you are.'

[phantom II]

Not to be controversial or anything like that, but: Design a car for the numbers and find a driver that can deliver or exceed them. To hell with what the other drivers want or say. Only 6 maestros can play Paganinis first Violin concerto and only 6 pianists can play Chopin's Piano concerto No. 1 finale- rondo- vivace. Only 6 pilots in the world can fly this plane. Without it, you won't win a WAC.



So it is with cars. Do you know anybody who can really drive a 1970 Porsche Turbo in the wet flat? A fast car or an advanced aerobatic plane is and should be very unstable and shoud be operated by a maestro, not a girly man. To hell with the Alesi's of the world and bring on the likes of Senna, Prost and Fisi.

[phantom II]

Prost complained that Senna's car was faster. The Japanes boys at Honda were most offended. He was French after all, you know? Not his fault.

Originally posted by Chan


That I could believe but the question I want to get to the bottom of is would they get their preferences? Do you think in this situation that the designers would design 2 cars with 2 different tanks or maybe 1 design but with a tank size biased towards the better driver (though I'm not sure who). The first option would be extremely costly and the second could compromise your strategy if a driver was unable to drive so do you not think it is more likely that the car would be designed with the optimum tank size based on overall packaging and regardless of driver preference?

[Paul Prost]

Originally posted by Chan

Paul, Barnard may have disagreed with Rosberg's style but how did he design for it? Did he start the next season's design thinking that he needs to change X parameter to make the car easier for Keke to drive? If so, what is this parameter? What value did Keke want?

From the quotes from John Barnard and Keke, it seems that the most crucial parameter was the centre of pressure. Rosberg IIRC only signed a one-year contract (and Barnard himself left for Ferrari before the end of the '86 season) so there was never any question of John modfiying his MP4 series of cars to suit Keke's preferences.