Belatti wrote: Jersey Tom wrote:
marcush. wrote:Paul Hembrey was stating in Racecar engineering some time ago their Toyota Test mule was effectively a tyre characterisation machine equipped with 150or something data channels solely tyre related and all these data are fully avaialable to all teams if i rememeber correctly.
I don't think that would be remotely sufficient to even start characterizing the tires. It's something nice to have down the road, but not to start with. In my opinion and experience anyway.
And what is, in your opinion and experience, sufficient to characterize tires?
I dont what to be rude Tom, but your constant halo of mystery... its like you are a hostage and we need to punish you with stupid questions or opinions for you to speak.
Well, I'm a big fan of keeping my job and of winning races... so until I retire or if I end up in a different line of work, I'm not giving anyway anything other than public domain information or what's IMO exceedingly basic.
With regard to tire characterization... there are reasons why you ideally create aero maps from wind tunnel data, not on track. There are reasons why you ideally create an engine map from engine or chassis dyno data, not from the track. Damper curves are measured on damper dynos, not on track.
Tires? No different. To a degree it doesn't even have anything to do with the thing you're trying to examine. Doesn't matter how many sensors you sling on a car. Now to be fair, COULD you create an aero / engine / damper / tire map from track data? Sure. You could make something. Just like I COULD make an ice sculpture using a sledgehammer.
All that said... the track data Pirelli collected and made available - don't assume that's the ONLY data Pirelli supplied the teams. Even FSAE teams can get more data than that.
Grip is a four letter word.
2 is the new #1.