50 replies to this topic

[RSNS]

I hope this issue has not yet been addressed as such in this BB. If it has and if I have overlooked it, please fell free to close tis thread.

I have watched Hamilton's style of driving with great interest. What I am going to say about is driving style is based chiefly on his Monaco performance. Alonso's style has been commented before. Raikkonen and Massa's styles are less evident to me.

It seems to me that the cornering technique Hamilton showed in Monaco consists of pointing the car very precisely and then actually powersliding it through corners. This is arguably the best technique for hairpins and tight corners. In fast circuits it is perhaps best to have a slightly understeering car.

This is actually what Hamilton did over and over again: it is a beauty to watch, and it is undoubtedly fast. Evidence for it is the Rascasse complex, the Hotel hairpin and even Sainte Dévote. That is perhaps the reason he crashed there: he lost the rear, corrected, and wad forced to go forward; in Q3 it happened in the Hotel hairpin (the cars are really slow there, so I do not think Hamilton was hindered by traffic airflow there). The same happened, in the race, in the Rascasse complex, if I am not mistaken.

Alonso's style I cannot really make out. He seems to throw the car into the corner; I am certain the front wheels lose grip, but this is actually the way to powersteer a car: brake and turn in releases the rear end; you then proceed to powerslide. However, this is not what I watch in TV replays (perhaps seeing it done on the spot or in wide angle films shows what he really does). What I see in TV is that his car seems glued to the road.

Massa seems to chuck his car into the corner; perhaps this is due to the fact that his car was perhaps less effective in Monaco and he was forced into 'daredevil driving'.

Raikkonen always seemed rather ragged. There are many corrections and his trajectory is somewhat irregular. I am not talking only of Monaco: he always seems somewhat ragged even if very quick.

As this is a rather superficial impression - based on TV footage only - I would be interested to be corrected by someone who has actually seen the drivers in action in a particular corner. I therefore invite people to criticize me, but also ask them not to troll or behave fanboyish.

[Juan Kerr]

I noticed Raikkonen waiting a long time to come on the power, Alonso looked much less fluid than Lewis and Massa but obviously he's not loosing speed.
The most significant thing is that Hamilton does seemed to have found a trick style that is slightly faster than Alonso, obviously Fernando is going to take some beating in his experience and confidence but I'm convinced Lewis will fundamentally have a faster car too often for Fernando in the end.
Hamilton's oversteer is wild, more than Senna more than Hakkinen and early Raikkonen and nothing like Schumacher's loose braking-pivot thing from that tighter line.
With big oversteer there's the point when you're turning into the corner and there's another point when you have to opposite lock as the back steps out. Hamilton manages to guess when that transition in steering input is about to take place and holds the wheel at the midpoint of that in a slide balance.
Its clever and skillful and there's not much time to do it so it must be something he's used to by now but it allows the car to slide into pointing in a different direction (like driving a forklift !?) Its great for the slow corners when there's time to do it and that's where more time can be made up but Hamilton does it on medium ones also at normal tracks.
It'll work best at the next two tracks and places like Silverstone and Monza, by default the style is less rear downforce for a start and there's perfect corners there to use the technique to great effect. Hamilton would've been miles away from Alonso if they were driving last years Renault though and he's lucky he's driving on Bridgstones too, but he is a rookie so I'll give him that.

[prty]

PDLR talked about Kimi's style during the Monaco race. He said that he likes to enter the corners sliding the rear, he needs a very specific geometry suspension to do that, and that's why he was the only McLaren driver using an special geometry which the rest of them didn't like.

[Yellowmc]

This video has been around for a while but enjoy:

The way Kimi and Hamilton drive requires an extra edge to be able to react quickly enough, which is why I love seeing their on board shots.

[COUGAR508]

There is no doubt that Hamilton's style is entertaining to watch, but I must admit that at Monaco at least he seemed to have less margin for error than Alonso and some others. The on-board shots were fascinating - he seemed to be really fighting the car at some points.

[Mauseri]

Oversteer in Monaco is hard, but it actually makes the track wider and is ideally faster. You dont hit inside barrier with reartyre or outside barrier with front tyre. It's basic geometrics.

[RSNS]

1. HAMILTON. So I seem to have gotten Hamilton's style right;
Concerning Hamilton's straight position of the wheel: that is waht I called powersteering. I mean, you steer with the throttle, and less with the wheel. It is very elegant driving, even if perhaps a bit risky. He must rely a lot on TC: with 800 plus HP under the throttle you cannot really drive that way without TC. I recall that we tried to do precisely that - 'straight wheeling' - with karts (I mean racing karts, not the sort of slugs you can rent); it was comparatively easy because the power was not huge, but in the rain it was very tricky.

2. RAIKKONEN. His style is somewhat similar from the descriptions of it: as he turns in he unbalances the rear. His ragged style might, therefore, be akin to Schumacher's: there is a lot of correcting to be done while the rear is sliding. The differences could be: a) Raikkonen uses more driving wheel input to correct the car; b) Hamilton uses more throttle control? Might that be right (even if oversimplified)?

2. ALONSO. Let me see if I understand what Brundle said about Alonso: he understeers the car into corners while his rear is glued to the ground and compensates with driving wheel input. Yes, but in that case his front tires ought to be destroyed by the end of a stint. And also: How can the rear be stuck with such a violent entry? I still do not get Alonso's style.

On the face of it, Alonso and Hamilton have actually opposite techniques; quite a challenge to MacLaren engineers...

3. OTHER DRIVERS. Nothing has been said about Massa. Any comments on Senna, Prost, Schumacher, and so on are welcome. As far as I recall, Shcumacher heavily relied on both driving wheel and throttle corrections and, when he first appeared, he looked always to be on the verge of disaster: rather ragged trajectories but, as Prost said: "he makes a lot of tiny mistakes but just look how fast he is going".

[wingwalker]

uhm, no. hamiltonm slide's were great to watch but he did has fastest laps on non-sliding ones. he seems to like have a touch of oversteer in car which makes the car slide very easily.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by micra_k10
Oversteer in Monaco is hard, but it actually makes the track wider and is ideally faster. You dont hit inside barrier with reartyre or outside barrier with front tyre. It's basic geometrics.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by wingwalker
uhm, no. hamiltonm slide's were great to watch but he did has fastest laps on non-sliding ones. he seems to like have a touch of oversteer in car which makes the car slide very easily.

Yes, you are right: when he overslid he lost time. I only meant that he usually controls the slide (because even when this is not evident from TV images every F1 slides a great deal) 'as if from the rear'. This was very evident in the chicanne.

[inaki]

Originally posted by RSNS
2. ALONSO. Let me see if I understand what Brundle said about Alonso: he understeers the car into corners while his rear is glued to the ground and compensates with driving wheel input. Yes, but in that case his front tires ought to be destroyed by the end of a stint. And also: How can the rear be stuck with such a violent entry? I still do not get Alonso's style.

I read an article a while ago in which Alonso himself said that it was a plain imported karting technique.

The kart is by definition an oversteering machine. Apparently, good kart drivers have a technique to transfer weight before cornering from the back to the front, one of the ways to do it is to put his chest closer to the steering wheel and sit themselves forward by moving his butt closer to seat's edge. So they get this result by moving forward his own body weight.

Well, then the article said that Alonso got better laptimes in the Renault by simulating this same behaviour. How ?? You simulate this weight transfer by braking later and more violently an instant before turning. This makes the rear to transfer weight to the front axle and suspension. Then you have to "throw" the car to the apex, but at this precise moment, the car is not oversteery, it is almost neutral or, if you want, it is less oversteery than other drivers' cars. The understeer happens because the front axle has this "push" from behind towards the outside (centrifugal), sliding a bit. The rest are the additional corrections by accelerator, brakes to look for corner's exit.

Just to point out that Alonso did not drive this way before his Renault period, for example when he was at Minardi.

Regards

[Gecko]

Alonso's driving style is the most intriguing one in that it's constantly changing. The way he drives the McLaren is absolutely the opposite as to what driving the Renault was. The only constant thing appears to be that he tries to keep the back end under control at all times. If he looked ragged in the Renault he seems almost like a perfect example of a classical driver these days. I expect he has a great feel as to exactly how much grip is coming from the front and keeps the steering there. The Michelins seemed to grip more the more they were turned, but Bridgestones appear to have an optimum angle. Not getting the back end out helps with the consistency which is also Alonso's biggest strength.

Lewis is the complete opposite, as others have pointed out he wants to drive such that the steering wheel is straight at all times. It's quite mind boggling how much the car slides compared to how little steering input is coming from Lewis, not even corrections. Someone like Karthikeyan is also very happy to stick the back end of the car out but he also seems ragged while doing so (but just recall his amazing lap in partly wet Melbourne qualifying!), but Lewis appears in control all the time, and this is the most fascinating aspect of his style. In terms of car control, no driver seems close. He drove the same way in GP2 and there is no TC there yet still plenty of power, so it is not due to TC that he is getting away with it. This way Lewis gets the most out of the rear tyres, probably more than Alonso, but if the tyres are not heated up yet properly his style is also more susceptible to graining.

I don't really know what to think of Kimi's style; in the McLaren he seemed not too dissimilar to Lewis but with a bit more understeer, in the Ferrari he doesn't seem to have a distinctive style at all which is likely because he isn't hooked up with it fully yet. On the other hand, Massa has evolved from someone with very sudden inputs to a much more classical style, probably quite close to Alonso these days.

[derstatic]

Kimi is an interesting subject. The Ferrari people have told the press that they were surprised to see how much oversteer they could put on Kimi's ferrari and still he would go quicker. This even after 10 years with Schuey. It has also been stated that the problem Kimi has had in Qually is understeer, due to less heat in the front tyres. Fine, that makes sense, if it weren't for the Montoya comparison. He always stated his problem with the McL to be it's understeer, he hated every bit of it and couldn't be comfortable with the McL just because of understeer. That same understeering McL is the car Kimi drove to perfection and built his reputation as an extremely quick driver. So it seems he could handle the McL understeer, but he detests the Ferrari understeer.

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld

It's true. With oversteer you can put front close to apex without hitting it with rear, in slow corners. And with oversteer you can get support for rear from the walls. Try GP4 and you will see.

[Levike]

Originally posted by micra_k10

It's true. With oversteer you can put front close to apex without hitting it with rear, in slow corners. And with oversteer you can get support for rear from the walls. Try GP4 and you will see.

I'm sure Ross really appreciate your lesson of driving..

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by micra_k10

It's true. With oversteer you can put front close to apex without hitting it with rear, in slow corners. And with oversteer you can get support for rear from the walls. Try GP4 and you will see.

F1 cars have equal front and rear width, iirc, so if the front tire makes it past the wall so will the rear tire.

It was always fun to watch Indycars at Long Beach because the rear width is wider so sometimes they'd 'hook' the back tire and get spun around.

[kismet]

This may be a stupid question but I don't reckon I have much reputation at stake so here goes: is the definition of oversteer/understeer subjective or objective?

[Jerome]

Originally posted by kismet
This may be a stupid question but I don't reckon I have much reputation at stake so here goes: is the definition of oversteer/understeer subjective or objective?

Aha! A very interesting question. I think it's subjective, but most posters here (I know because we had that discussion before) think it's objective.

My take: if you brake early and before a steeringinput for a corner, the car will oversteer. All the weight will have been put on the front axle, so if you steer, the effect of the angled front wheels will be all the greater.
If you brake late, and during or even after a steeringinput, the car will understeer. Because the weight of the car will still be on the back-axle, and the push of the angled wheels against the ground will be smaller than when you brake early.

This also means that understeer and oversteer depends on the particular combination of braking and steering of a certain driver. If you brake very late and, specifically TOO LONG, the car will - according to that driver - understeer. While another driver who brakes at exactly the same place but who brakes considerably shorter, the car will not understeer.

So, yeah, understeer/oversteer is in a way subjective.

[jb_128]

Originally posted by kismet
This may be a stupid question but I don't reckon I have much reputation at stake so here goes: is the definition of oversteer/understeer subjective or objective?

Now you've opened a can of worms.

There is an engineering definition (front vs rear slipangle) but this isn't the same thing that a driver feels when he is at the limit. i.e a car that one driver thinks is oversteery does not necessarily feel that way for another driver.

[ExxonValdez]

One or two years ago, someone in F1Racing Magazine dedicated a full article to Alonso's style and created a new word for him: "neutralsteer" or "neutrosteer"...

[BunnyK]

I didn't see Alonso driving as usual at Monaco, at least he wasn't pushing the car to the apex like he did last year, I think the had a car this weekend to be able to push the gas pedal as soon as he exits the corner, while Hamilton likes to corner and exit with the throttle smoothly, so Fernando only has to point the car where he wants and accelerate. You could see in the slow part of the circuit Lewis correcting with the sterring wheel, especially Portier.

s!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen


Aha! A very interesting question. I think it's subjective, but most posters here (I know because we had that discussion before) think it's objective.

My take: if you brake early and before a steeringinput for a corner, the car will oversteer. All the weight will have been put on the front axle, so if you steer, the effect of the angled front wheels will be all the greater.
If you brake late, and during or even after a steeringinput, the car will understeer. Because the weight of the car will still be on the back-axle, and the push of the angled wheels against the ground will be smaller than when you brake early.

This also means that understeer and oversteer depends on the particular combination of braking and steering of a certain driver. If you brake very late and, specifically TOO LONG, the car will - according to that driver - understeer. While another driver who brakes at exactly the same place but who brakes considerably shorter, the car will not understeer.

So, yeah, understeer/oversteer is in a way subjective.

If you have brake balance very back, will the car understeer in braking?

No. I think we could make a distinction between active and passive balance.

[kismet]

OK, so using that Kimi/Ferrari example... Chris Dyer might be shaking his head at the insane amount of oversteer on the car but Kimi Räikkönen could still legitimately feel the damn thing is actually understeering? And they'd both be correct in their own ways?

[Ross Stonefeld]

If you give 22 F1 drivers the same amount of sliding angle, that is oversteer, they'll all have different opinions of it. But no one is going to say an oversteering car is understeering. They may say it's neutral, but I can't imagine they'd say its oversteering. The feeling behind the wheel is so completely different.

[kismet]

OK, I figured my example might be a bit extreme, but to continue on that tangent... In driver parlance, is 'neutral' basically when the car feels good and handles the way the driver wants it to handle? Are understeer/oversteer always problems? I'm asking because no one ever says they had just the perfect amount of oversteer here and there, but everyone's always complaining how the car over-/understeered and that's bad bad bad.

[SphereTL1000S]

This is interesting:

http://www.autosport...cle.php/id/1033
by editor Mark Glendenning

Chris Dyer:

The first day Kimi drove the car, it was very clear for me, and for the other people who are working with him, that he is a very, very different driver.

Not just from Michael, but from anybody we've had. And I don't mean that Kimi doesn't talk, Kimi doesn't smile! [nice fella to work with, huh?; ed.] I mean the way he drives the car is very different. Just the way he uses the car, the way he uses the steering wheel, the way he uses the throttle, the way he uses the brake, is completely different to anything we have had before.


You get used to a certain way of working, and all of a sudden you are given something completely different.

And to be honest, the first thing for us is really to step back and let Kimi do what he wants to do. We can't react to every problem with, "this is what Michael would have done". You can't do that. He's not Michael, he's different. Not just in personality, I mean, the way he drives the car is very different.

It's very much a two-way street, because not only has he had to learn the way that we work, but we have to learn the way that he works, and we have to learn how he wants to drive the car, how he needs the car, and what we have to do to make him fast. So that has been a continual process.

We had to adapt the car to him, which I think is a very important first step. We have to make him comfortable, and we have to make him happy, and then perhaps in the future if there are particular problems that we need to deal with, maybe then we can start to introduce more of our philosophy and our way of working.

[Edit] I take Kimi's engineers words as putting to rest the myth that Schumacher and Kimi had a similar driving style. As far as Dyer is concerned, they do not. Or could be that Kimi should change his engineer ang bring back Slade from McLaren? With his salary, I think he could afford that, if Ferrari would not be willing to do it...that's an idea.

As for Massa. Nobody in the press seems to know (or at least do not care to write about) very much about Massa's style. Most of than are fond of Kimi and are more concerned about him, for that matter. For Massa's perspective, in more than a paragraph, I quote Louie Massacesi : As far as I know, just a reader's comments, but I find it informative, for what it is worth.

When I first spotted Felipe testing with Sauber, I immediately saw how massive a RAW talent he was, he immediately reminded me of the late great Gilles Villenueve by the way he muscled the car around to the extreme. I told all who would listen that he was a potential winner and a very exciting driver to watch. Whats more, I pointed out to my many Tifosi friends at a Ferrari centric forum that he was EXACTLY the type of Classic, throw the car through the corners and muscle it back out again kind of driver that Enzo Ferrari and Luca Di Montezemolo adore so much(as do I).
(...)

So what exactly is it that I see and saw that many like yourself could not?!?! For one, His total commitment and Fearlessness when attacking corner. So whats changed now you might ask? He still attacks the corners as hard as ever, but Now, with Maestro Michae1’s tutelage, he has discovered the secrets of the virage. And with that knowledge he has become a tighter and even more polished kind of tiger.

On close first hand observation by a pal in Malaysia who spend an entire session focusing on Felipe lapping Sepang. This friend was also experienced at driving on this, his home track, to which he said…
“Nobody attacks corners like Massa. AND he tries every conceivable angle of entry and exit as though measuring as many possibilities for angles of attack for passing and defending on every inch of track.
So much so that once fully acquainted with said corner, he becomes virtually impossible to attack there, or to resist his will to pass you.

Some might recall his pass on Alonso at Imola in an impossible location.
It should also be observed that last year he passed more cars than any driver including Michae1. He even has the distinction of having passed the most cars on the first lap all season long. So this makes him both a Superior Starter, Passer and Defender of his position.
And best of all is that he’s still very much on a very steep learning curve…. and even better, he has total humility and lacks the big headed ego of many less talented driver.

[Edit] To kind of confirm this, I say that Jean Alesi was the first I recall on F1-Racing mag. that said Massa attacking corners was crazy fast, that he relied on the intimate knowledge of what the car would do at that speed in that particular corner. At Fiorano, he said, nobody could match him, so much he tested on that track.

Hope this helps.

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
If you give 22 F1 drivers the same amount of sliding angle, that is oversteer, they'll all have different opinions of it. But no one is going to say an oversteering car is understeering. They may say it's neutral, but I can't imagine they'd say its oversteering. The feeling behind the wheel is so completely different.

You are right, Ross. When a car is oversteering for some, it would be neutral for others. I don't think the opinion would be completely reverse. But I do know (from racing literature, not from own experience) that when you think a car is understeering (but it is actually neutral) and you would dial softer bump dampers on the front, the problem would suddenly reverse totally. From (suggested) understeer, to real oversteer.

I know you have raced cars yourself, so here's a question. Suppose you have entered a corner with too much speed, you miss your apex. You could say that the car understeers right? But suppose in that same situation, you turn in dramatically to the apex (while you are actually past the turn in point). The angle of the steering wheels in relation to the car will be too dramatic, the car will turn in too much, and you would seem to have oversteer. No?

[512 TR]

Originally posted by RSNS
3. OTHER DRIVERS. Nothing has been said about Massa. Any comments on Senna, Prost, Schumacher, and so on are welcome. As far as I recall, Shcumacher heavily relied on both driving wheel and throttle corrections and, when he first appeared, he looked always to be on the verge of disaster: rather ragged trajectories but, as Prost said: "he makes a lot of tiny mistakes but just look how fast he is going".

IMHO the things I've noticed about Felipe is that his driving is very similar to Prost's style. Which means he takes each corner as it was designed to do. Much like Button in that youtube film. They all tried to hit the apex at the perfect moment with a car angle suited to that specific corner. Much less violent to Fernando's style and a bit more controlled to Kimi's style. Although I can't understand what Brundle was saying when he said Kimi and Michael were similar. IMHO, Michael's style was very similar to Alain's and Felipe's. Patrese style was also very controlled and corner-suited.

[512 TR]

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S
This is interesting:



[Edit] I take Kimi's engineers words as putting to rest the myth that Schumacher and Kimi had a similar driving style. As far as Dyer is concerned, they do not. Or could be that Kimi should change his engineer ang bring back Slade from McLaren? With his salary, I think he could afford that, if Ferrari would not be willing to do it...that's an idea.

As for Massa. Nobody in the press seems to know (or at least do not care to write about) very much about Massa's style. Most of than are fond of Kimi and are more concerned about him, for that matter. For Massa's perspective, in more than a paragraph, I quote Louie Massacesi : As far as I know, just a reader's comments, but I find it informative, for what it is worth.



[Edit] To kind of confirm this, I say that Jean Alesi was the first I recall on F1-Racing mag. that said Massa attacking corners was crazy fast, that he relied on the intimate knowledge of what the car would do at that speed in that particular corner. At Fiorano, he said, nobody could match him, so much he tested on that track.

Hope this helps.

Interesting 2nd half of that post.

[Ross Stonefeld]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen


You are right, Ross. When a car is oversteering for some, it would be neutral for others. I don't think the opinion would be completely reverse. But I do know (from racing literature, not from own experience) that when you think a car is understeering (but it is actually neutral) and you would dial softer bump dampers on the front, the problem would suddenly reverse totally. From (suggested) understeer, to real oversteer.

I know you have raced cars yourself, so here's a question. Suppose you have entered a corner with too much speed, you miss your apex. You could say that the car understeers right? But suppose in that same situation, you turn in dramatically to the apex (while you are actually past the turn in point). The angle of the steering wheels in relation to the car will be too dramatic, the car will turn in too much, and you would seem to have oversteer. No?

As that is where experience comes in! A good driver knows that understeer is when the front wheels are sliding, not that you've simply gone too fast for the corner!

[Mauseri]

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S
[Edit] I take Kimi's engineers words as putting to rest the myth that Schumacher and Kimi had a similar driving style. As far as Dyer is concerned, they do not. Or could be that Kimi should change his engineer ang bring back Slade from McLaren? With his salary, I think he could afford that, if Ferrari would not be willing to do it...that's an idea.

Was it Brundle who in the driving stlye video said Michale and Kimi are similar? I wondered about it, because the onboard rythm of Michael and Kimi usually looked quite different.

Schumacher IMO has been the most impressive driver of last years exiting long slow corners. For example the likes of 180 at Magny Cours or last corner of Hungaroring. He can accelerate earlier than the others and his nose point to the straight more than others.

Also fast corner like the first of Silverstone. Schumacher gives fast steering impulse, while others carefully turn their wheels.

Despite being 'oversteer driver', Schumacher never liked to use efficient front wings, like Kimi for example.

[SphereTL1000S]

Originally posted by micra_k10

Was it Brundle who in the driving stlye video said Michale and Kimi are similar? I wondered about it, because the onboard rythm of Michael and Kimi usually looked quite different.

Schumacher IMO has been the most impressive driver of last years exiting long slow corners. For example the likes of 180 at Magny Cours or last corner of Hungaroring. He can accelerate earlier than the others and his nose point to the straight more than others.

Also fast corner like the first of Silverstone. Schumacher gives fast steering impulse, while others carefully turn their wheels.

Despite being 'oversteer driver', Schumacher never liked to use efficient front wings, like Kimi for example.

Yeah, Brundle said that Kimi and Michael are similar, but maybe only if we compare them to Alonso and Button, like he did on the video. Either that, or he is flat wrong. I think Kimi's engineer has the final word on that matter for now. If they had at least something in common, he could have pointed that out.

There is a classic you tube video on Schumacher many small corrections when cornering, including interviews with Schumacher himself.

I found it. . Have you seen this one? It is great.

[RSNS]

Masacesi's description of Massa's style seems to be consistent with the 'throw in' technique I described earlier. It seems variabla and that is why it is difficult to describe. Thanks for the quote: really informative.

Raikkonen's obsession with oversteering I do not understand; but then I always felt he was struggling with the car, that might explain why. Coming from karts (which hardly understear at all) this is understandable.

Alonso's Renault style I still do not understand:

I am a bit at a loss with what I have read here. As far as my experience goes, when you break and turn in at the same time, the weight is transfered from the rear to the front; if you do not manage to break smoothly enough, the rear will break contact and you enter the corner sideways. If you turn in very quickly, you will go into a fout wheel drift: both rear and front will be lose. If you do the same but brake so hard as to actually block the front wheels, of course the car will go just in front - that is not understeer, that is plain lack of overall grip. So does Alonso go into corners in a pronounced 4 wheel drift? It certainly seems that he does not. Explanations?

Concerning understeer and oversteer, and apart from what I have said on corner entry:

On corner apex (on tight corners) there is usually a rotation of the car - a four wheel drift - because you are accelerating and the front is therefore light but the lateral force is pushing the car out. In this case your reactions depend on physical inertia - the trajectory of the car and grip - and on throttle and driving wheel input.

On exit, the car is always rear heavy, but as you ar struggling to accelerate the maximum, rear wheels will be on the limit of adhesion and there is almost always a drift. If you have to ease the throttle because the front wheels are not gripping well (which is not rare), it is very easy to oversteer (this is evident even with an understeering car), because of weight transfer to the front.

I would say that the way a driver flours the throttle, turns in and breaks make him prefer certain reactions. But certain cars inherently understeer, and others consistently oversteer. A neutral car spins around its center. I don't think this is subjective.

[Jerome]

According to me, even a neutral car will understeer or oversteer when you push it enough. Don't forget that racing drivers mostly reflect on their driving styles by the stopwatch. Suppose Alonso and Hamilton both drive laps of say 1.18.300. They have the fastest laptimes, they are half a second faster than the competition. They are not going out hells & leather to go even faster. There's no need. I sincerely doubt one of the engineers will have the nerve to come up to them with the telemetry data and say: 'Listen guys, in this corner the data shows you were not on limit of adhesion of the rear tyres. Please go out again and try to reach that limit.'

It is very, very seldom that a driver in a slow car says: 'The car is perfect. Really perfect. But it's just too slow.' Which stands to reason, because when you are too slow, you are going to mess with braking distances, balance the car differently in and out of corners, just to get the mother through the corners quicker.

I can only remember one example of the perfect slow F1 car, and that was the Tyrrell of 1997. Both drivers - Salo and Verstappen - said the car was a dream to drive and adjust. It jus wasn't quick enough.

[RSNS]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen


You are right, Ross. When a car is oversteering for some, it would be neutral for others. I don't think the opinion would be completely reverse. But I do know (from racing literature, not from own experience) that when you think a car is understeering (but it is actually neutral) and you would dial softer bump dampers on the front, the problem would suddenly reverse totally. From (suggested) understeer, to real oversteer.

I know you have raced cars yourself, so here's a question. Suppose you have entered a corner with too much speed, you miss your apex. You could say that the car understeers right? But suppose in that same situation, you turn in dramatically to the apex (while you are actually past the turn in point). The angle of the steering wheels in relation to the car will be too dramatic, the car will turn in too much, and you would seem to have oversteer. No?

The question was not addressed to me, but I think Ross will agree with the answer. In a pronouncedly understeering car, if you miss your apex and turn in abruptly without slowing down, you will probably lose the front. If you ease the throttle a bit, the front will bite in a little, and the car make become slightly oversteering for a moment. Usually a zig zag follows, and you will be totally off line in no time at all. If you miss your apex not because of lack of grip, you can correct (within limits), but otherwise, a car's trajectory during cornering is somewhat ballistic: you turn in and point, the car will go its own trajectory and if you mess to much with it you will only further lose adhesion.

I don't know about other people's experiences, but, once the car is curving, there is something 'unnatural' with turning the steering more than a certain point - I think one knows the car is in the limit of adhesion anyway, so in these conditions, the only way is to powersteer the car: if you turn in more you will definitely lose the front and that often is the end of it. I can't explain it any better than this: one feels the grip of the tires. That is why driving a simulating machine is so completely different from actually driving a racing car (or even a normal car).

[RSNS]

Originally posted by SphereTL1000S


Yeah, Brundle said that Kimi and Michael are similar, but maybe only if we compare them to Alonso and Button, like he did on the video. Either that, or he is flat wrong. I think Kimi's engineer has the final word on that matter for now. If they had at least something in common, he could have pointed that out.

There is a classic you tube video on Schumacher many small corrections when cornering, including interviews with Schumacher himself.

I found it. . Have you seen this one? It is great.

Unfortunately: 'The url contained a malformed video id.' was all I got...

[SphereTL1000S]

Originally posted by RSNS


Unfortunately: 'The url contained a malformed video id.' was all I got...

Sorry, you know what it was? The period mark "." in the end of the sentence with the link. The correct link is:

[Jerome]

Originally posted by RSNS


The question was not addressed to me, but I think Ross will agree with the answer. In a pronouncedly understeering car, if you miss your apex and turn in abruptly without slowing down, you will probably lose the front. If you ease the throttle a bit, the front will bite in a little, and the car make become slightly oversteering for a moment. Usually a zig zag follows, and you will be totally off line in no time at all. If you miss your apex not because of lack of grip, you can correct (within limits), but otherwise, a car's trajectory during cornering is somewhat ballistic: you turn in and point, the car will go its own trajectory and if you mess to much with it you will only further lose adhesion.

I don't know about other people's experiences, but, once the car is curving, there is something 'unnatural' with turning the steering more than a certain point - I think one knows the car is in the limit of adhesion anyway, so in these conditions, the only way is to powersteer the car: if you turn in more you will definitely lose the front and that often is the end of it. I can't explain it any better than this: one feels the grip of the tires. That is why driving a simulating machine is so completely different from actually driving a racing car (or even a normal car).

Excellent post, RSNS. And he, on this boards you always assume everybody is reading and has the right to reply! Otherwise it would not be a Forum would it?

[RSNS]

Great video, really interesting. I had read something similar in Autosport, but this is clearer.
Are there more of these 'scientific' analysis around about other drivers?

Very interesting discussions and contributions, thank you all.

[Jerome]

The telemetry comparison between Schumacher and Herbert was a realopener for me. I had my doubts if Schumacher always had the same car as his teammate, and wondered if the rumours were true that he was always driving with tc and his teammates were not. But after seeing the telemetry of Silverstone I knew: this guy is just in another league.

[Juan Kerr]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
The telemetry comparison between Schumacher and Herbert was a realopener for me. I had my doubts if Schumacher always had the same car as his teammate, and wondered if the rumours were true that he was always driving with tc and his teammates were not. But after seeing the telemetry of Silverstone I knew: this guy is just in another league.

I think everyone is jumping to conclusions anyway, who's to say Herbert had a different trace next lap and Schumacher for that matter ? Don't read too much into it, yes Michael was quicker but maybe not as bloody easy as that. Let me see analysis from 100 laps by Schumacher at different tracks at different times with Herbert and other drivers with as similar conditions as possible.

[Jerome]

Sorry, I did not explain myself clearer. From SEVERAL telemetry (not just from S'tone) it was shown that Schumacher used a lot of little steering corrections midcorner, dramatically more than his teammates. The accusations were always that he used TC and his teammates didn't. The accusations and the telemetry didn't match up.

[Spunout]

Originally posted by Jerome.Inen
Sorry, I did not explain myself clearer. From SEVERAL telemetry (not just from S'tone) it was shown that Schumacher used a lot of little steering corrections midcorner, dramatically more than his teammates. The accusations were always that he used TC and his teammates didn't. The accusations and the telemetry didn't match up.

TC doesn´t do much in the midcorner. Certainly doesn´t stop small slides that are caused either by ragged driving or (as I believe it was the case with Schumacher) being closer to the limit. TC helps with throttle application mostly in corner exit by cutting back the power whenever the driver wants to push it too hard.

If you want to seek "traces" of TC from telemetry, checking out throttle application from corner exit is the proper way to go.

Of course, chances are even that doesn´t prove anything. Smooth throttle curve could as well be driver with accurate right foot

[Tenmantaylor]

Originally posted by RSNS
Alonso's Renault style I still do not understand:

I am a bit at a loss with what I have read here. As far as my experience goes, when you break and turn in at the same time, the weight is transfered from the rear to the front; if you do not manage to break smoothly enough, the rear will break contact and you enter the corner sideways. If you turn in very quickly, you will go into a fout wheel drift: both rear and front will be lose. If you do the same but brake so hard as to actually block the front wheels, of course the car will go just in front - that is not understeer, that is plain lack of overall grip. So does Alonso go into corners in a pronounced 4 wheel drift? It certainly seems that he does not. Explanations?

Alonsos Renault style was largely determined by the dynamics of the car in my oppinion. The Renaults of 05 an 06 had very rearward bias weight distribution compared to most teams (i dont have figures to back this up). It was a contributing factor to their great starts and also their great traction out of slower corners (Imola and Hungary the Renault was awesome and at monaco Alonso held off a gaggle of faster drivers for laps on shot tyres in 05). The Michelin tyres also allowed this style with their bigger tyre wall construction I believe. It particularly helped on the fronts the way alonso threw the car into corner fully understeering.

Alonso would throw the car in at high speed and let the tough front michelins scrub off speed then find the point where the car was neutral again then nail the throttle and exit completely neautrally- I very rarely saw him oversteering those renaults at all. It wasnt nice to watch IMO but it was the fastest way to drive that car on those tyres.

At McLaren his style has almost completely changed to suit the bridgestones and the McLaren dynamics. Alonsos thow in understeer technique has completely disappeared. The control bridgestones obviously dont reward high slip and loads, especially the fronts likes the michelins did. As Lewis showed so wonderfully at monaco the mclaren can be drifted and be fast but Alonso was amazingly accurate and just seemed to exploit the cars potential and made it look easy. It was as if they were driving different cars. It was the most schumacher like Iv seen him drive.

[Rubens Hakkamacher]

Originally posted by Tenmantaylor


As Lewis showed so wonderfully at monaco the mclaren can be drifted and be fast but Alonso was amazingly accurate and just seemed to exploit the cars potential and made it look easy. It was as if they were driving different cars. It was the most schumacher like Iv seen him drive.

I thought Alonso looked more ragged in the slow-motion shots going through Nouvelle Chicane. Lewis was sliding through Rascasse but it was (obviously) very precise..

[Jerome]

Originally posted by Spunout


TC doesn´t do much in the midcorner. Certainly doesn´t stop small slides that are caused either by ragged driving or (as I believe it was the case with Schumacher) being closer to the limit. TC helps with throttle application mostly in corner exit by cutting back the power whenever the driver wants to push it too hard.

If you want to seek "traces" of TC from telemetry, checking out throttle application from corner exit is the proper way to go.

Of course, chances are even that doesn´t prove anything. Smooth throttle curve could as well be driver with accurate right foot

I was convinced anyway. The telemetry showed me - like you said - that Schumacher was just way better at balancing at the edge of maximum adhesion midcorner. Exactly the places where neither Herbert nor Verstappen were particularly quick (they bought most time during braking).

[Big Block 8]

Said by Chris Dyer

It's very much a two-way street, because not only has he had to learn the way that we work, but we have to learn the way that he works, and we have to learn how he wants to drive the car, how he needs the car, and what we have to do to make him fast. So that has been a continual process.

We had to adapt the car to him, which I think is a very important first step. We have to make him comfortable, and we have to make him happy, and then perhaps in the future if there are particular problems that we need to deal with, maybe then we can start to introduce more of our philosophy and our way of working.

But where is the "no no, cars are never designed for the drivers, they just adapt" -brigade? What does this guy Dyer know after all, surely he's talking bollocks?

[wingwalker]

i must say i don't buy the "controlled slide" thing. it looked too me like hamilton was struggling heavily in both practice sessions and the race. at one point in practice2 he was no more than 3 inches from catching the wall at the last corner, and he said himself he touched walls many times during the race. i'd say he missed his setup a bit.

[Gecko]

Originally posted by wingwalker
i must say i don't buy the "controlled slide" thing. it looked too me like hamilton was struggling heavily in both practice sessions and the race. at one point in practice2 he was no more than 3 inches from catching the wall at the last corner, and he said himself he touched walls many times during the race. i'd say he missed his setup a bit.

Check any of the last season's GP2 races or the F1 races this season and you will see exactly the same sort of driving.

[as65p]

Originally posted by Gecko


Check any of the last season's GP2 races or the F1 races this season and you will see exactly the same sort of driving.

I must say it's indeed impressive how often LH got out of shape this season and still was able to recover without crashing the car. OTOH I can't imagine that suddenly that has become the most effective way to drive a modern F1 car (would be nice though). I would rather guess he uses this style to get a better feel the for the limit.

What's most intriguing is that his and Alonso's very different styles so far translate into roughly the same sort of laptimes - ATM I'd still give the nod to FA, but not by very much. I believe they both haven't reached their ultimate potential with this car and tyres yet.