Driver styles/preferences

[Tim.Wright]

Well now we are talking about differnt things. There is nothing wrong with my definition, I also know what I'm talking about.

I see what your saying about a driver inducing OS/US with his interactions. I also agree that in dynamic conditions, one driver can have the tail loose while another driver of the same car could have the front loose. This comes back to what we were saying before, that you need a context (ie what speed and driver inputs) if you want a term like OS or US to be valid.

I am talking about the steady state OS/US response of a car. This is driver independant and can most definately be demonstrated using data aquisition.

Tim

[luca]

In this interview Button said:

[...]

"I like the feeling of the tyre," said Button after his first day of testing Pirelli's tyres at Valencia on Thursday.

"It has a stable rear when you enter high-speed corners, you have a stable rear when you brake for low-speed corners, and that is something that I really do need with the car. I am happy with that step.

[...]

"One area I think is that with Pirelli we have a tyre that maybe suits me more than the previous tyre we had. We have to wait and see, but I think that may be the case."

[...]

In this interview Sutil said:

[...]

"They are very oversteery, very low grip, so it is very easy to make mistakes."

[...]

Then I remembered all the various discussions about how Schumacher (and Hamilton) prefers a loose rear end but a stable front end, while Button does need a stable rear end (as he says himself in the interview). Then all the other discussions about how last year's Mercedes (W01) was built around Button, who left at the last moment for McLaren, and they got stuck with that car, and how Schumacher (and to a certain extent Rosberg as well) was struggling with understeer all year.

[speedsense]

Well now we are talking about differnt things. There is nothing wrong with my definition, I also know what I'm talking about.

I see what your saying about a driver inducing OS/US with his interactions. I also agree that in dynamic conditions, one driver can have the tail loose while another driver of the same car could have the front loose. This comes back to what we were saying before, that you need a context (ie what speed and driver inputs) if you want a term like OS or US to be valid.

I am talking about the steady state OS/US response of a car. This is driver independant and can most definately be demonstrated using data aquisition.

Tim

I have seen drivers, make a data acquisition system handling gradient look prefect when the car wasn't. A great driver can make steady state, seem steady state and complain about it all day long on how bad the car is.
What's up with that?
Steady state ain't steady state, but the data says it is? Drivers, always throwing a wrench into things....

[timbo]

IMO what driver do with the wheel and pedals can promote u-s/o-s. So the car that is understeerey for one driver may feel oversteerey for another.

[raymondu999]

Yes, undoubtedly, a driver's input will affect the handling, I guess. A car with Setup X, and driving style Y might produce oversteer, while Setup X and driving style Z produces understeer.

rotate past the understeer to make the car neutral. In high speed corners with Oversteer, the driver would have to be an idiot to push harder...or have lots of money to pay for the damages.... At least from the driver's point of view, if he's sharp, oversteer is a limiting factor, once you have it, you aren't going any faster (at least in that corner). Understeer on the other hand, press on.. "the cars neutral now"...press on.

Why would pressing on reduce understeer?

[Jersey Tom]

Kind of depends. If the car's limit cornering trim is U/S and the driver cranks more and more wheel into the thing every turn, I'd say the tendency is to overwork the fronts and promote more and more U/S.

On the other hand, if said driver tries using generous amounts of throttle (RWD car) to try and rotate the car, it might work over the rears a bit more and balance the car out.

In any event, with regard to Tim and S/S's discussion... sounds like Tim is talking more about what objective measurements can be used to quantify balance - which indeed should be independent of driver. I get the impression S/S is more talking about how each individual driver interprets the response metrics. Under what combination of parameters 'A' , 'B' , and 'C' does a car feel too free, or too tight, and with what resolution can the driver pick out those differences. Almost a fuzzy logic problem.

In any event, this is why I like working more in relatives than absolutes.

[mariano]

To Ciro Pabon

Do you speak spanish? Me yes.

Excellent post. Can you write more?
Thank you.

I saw in a video (that I can´t find) that Alonso´s turn-in was more agressive than other driver´s. Fernando had an apex before the geometrical apex and accelerated before other driver´s. The video was from 2005/2006.

[speedsense]

Yes, undoubtedly, a driver's input will affect the handling, I guess. A car with Setup X, and driving style Y might produce oversteer, while Setup X and driving style Z produces understeer.

rotate past the understeer to make the car neutral. In high speed corners with Oversteer, the driver would have to be an idiot to push harder...or have lots of money to pay for the damages.... At least from the driver's point of view, if he's sharp, oversteer is a limiting factor, once you have it, you aren't going any faster (at least in that corner). Understeer on the other hand, press on.. "the cars neutral now"...press on.

Why would pressing on reduce understeer?

It won't, only the driver technique will. The point being that O/S is a limiting factor especially in confidence. U/S can be driven around and pushed harder until... oversteer is reached. Of the two evils (O/S vs U/s) U/S is less limiting factor and the driver can enact many changes to technique to make the car respond to his will and do so with more confidence, than with O/S. IMHO

I have "heard" many times that "loose" or O/S is fast, I disagree with that thinking, as a slight understeer can be "pushed" harder by the driver where slight O/S will limit the driver's aggression.

IMHO, this is what makes the definition of Understeer a moving target and a "non-absolute", cut and dry condition. It is in an engineering sense, an absolute number, that can be found quite simply through the various tools available. Though it's the driver who makes the number relative rather than absolute.

IMHO, I contend that understeer will never be absolute in the driver/car package, as long as driver technique varies from driver to driver. And is the "major" difference in techniques.
Driver techniques vary and there's a lot of reasons one driver is faster than another and wins more often. But there is two reasonable classes you can put driver's in, 1) those who can ROTATE the car (beyond understeer) and prefer to do so and 2)those who NEED the car to rotate for them.
Two completely different set up approaches for either and almost in opposite directions. Both approaches are capable of winning, though the first one is much more adaptable as the tires/handling changes in the course of a race. Surely most of the great ones in F1 are from the first description....

[Ciro Pabón]

Soy español, Mariano, así que, claro, hablo español, como muchos otros en el foro. Gracias por tus palabras sobre mi "post".

(I'm Spaniard, Mariano, so, yes, I speak spanish, as many people in the forum. Thanks for your kind words about my post).

[raymondu999]

It won't, only the driver technique will. The point being that O/S is a limiting factor especially in confidence. U/S can be driven around and pushed harder until... oversteer is reached. Of the two evils (O/S vs U/s) U/S is less limiting factor and the driver can enact many changes to technique to make the car respond to his will and do so with more confidence, than with O/S. IMHO

I have "heard" many times that "loose" or O/S is fast, I disagree with that thinking, as a slight understeer can be "pushed" harder by the driver where slight O/S will limit the driver's aggression.

IMHO, this is what makes the definition of Understeer a moving target and a "non-absolute", cut and dry condition. It is in an engineering sense, an absolute number, that can be found quite simply through the various tools available. Though it's the driver who makes the number relative rather than absolute.

IMHO, I contend that understeer will never be absolute in the driver/car package, as long as driver technique varies from driver to driver. And is the "major" difference in techniques.
Driver techniques vary and there's a lot of reasons one driver is faster than another and wins more often. But there is two reasonable classes you can put driver's in, 1) those who can ROTATE the car (beyond understeer) and prefer to do so and 2)those who NEED the car to rotate for them.
Two completely different set up approaches for either and almost in opposite directions. Both approaches are capable of winning, though the first one is much more adaptable as the tires/handling changes in the course of a race. Surely most of the great ones in F1 are from the first description....

I beg to differ. Not all drivers gain confidence from a stable rear end. Some gain confidence, instead, from the front being stable and getting a good turn-in. In an understeering car, those drivers might be slowing down to speeds where they can avoid any and all understeer at a particular corner.

[speedsense]

I beg to differ. Not all drivers gain confidence from a stable rear end. Some gain confidence, instead, from the front being stable and getting a good turn-in. In an understeering car, those drivers might be slowing down to speeds where they can avoid any and all understeer at a particular corner.

Well, I didn't specify the location of the understeer or the oversteer. A slightly understeering car can have the same good turn in as the oversteering car... you don't need oversteer to get a car to turn in...

So, an unstable rear end and a high speed, top gear corner. The car's condition is towards oversteer. The driver puts the car on the limit of adhesion and has oversteer at turn in, the apex or the exit or all three. Is this driver going to push even harder the next lap around? If he makes it, will he push to go faster the third time? I would want to have prior knowledge of this , as I would grab a bag of popcorn and a lawn chair, plant myself on that corner and watch with great interest as the confidence unfolds.

[raymondu999]

I'm not saying that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC by definition, understeer means the fronts are sliding, and you're not getting the same level of turn in.

[speedsense]

I'm not saying that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC by definition, understeer means the fronts are sliding, and you're not getting the same level of turn in.

You are correct, understeer at entry is not the same level of turn in. However, it's not "automatic", understeer=lack of ability to get to the apex or suffers at turn in. The car could be perfectly fine at turn in, and even all the way to the apex, but suffer understeer from a "throttle on" cause, onward to the exit. Same could be said about a car with slight O/S problem. May be perfectly fine at turn in, and O/S with throttle....
It's just too general to say understeer or oversteer effects turn in ability, not always true. There are three parts to every corner, entry, apex, exit. A handling problem could occur at one, two or all parts of them

As far as the confidence matter, as a driver attempting to go over the limit, and be the "first" to go flat out in a corner, of the two evils to encounter, understeer or oversteer, and the driver pressing and over cooking it, being left with the "choice" of exiting the track backwards or spinning, due to oversteer or forwards sliding the front end due to understeer. It would be understeer that would be more desirable, and much more likely to be brought under control, with less chance of wrecking the car. Hence, a more confident way of approaching the unknown...
And also, Raymond, the driver you mentioned that doesn't want the back to be so stuck, is the second type of driver I mentioned, that needs the car to rotate for him and will tend to have a car that heads towards oversteer,thus rotation is achieved because of the car not because the driver caused it to do so.

[raymondu999]

Ok fine. But in a situation where it understeers on the way in to a corner, that might take away a lot of confidence from the driver as he might not feel the nose wants to go where he wants it to. So saying that understeer can be pushed harder isn't always true either. Heck, it could even increase the understeer.

[Ciro Pabón]

I apologize in advance is this is too basic. I do not want to sound patronizing.

In cars with over 200 or 300 hp all under steer (well, most under steer) comes from acceleration. Weight transfer leaves your front wheels without...well, weight. You have to squeeeeeeeeeeeze the throttle.

Even in a Camaro or a Mustang, when you accelerate you are left almost without traction on frontal wheels. That's the reason why dragsters have those ridiculous thin frontal wheels: you use them very little, the weight is all in the rear.

Larry Dixon, 1969: look, ma! No steering!


You must have felt it when taking a curve to the limit: at the exit, you see the edge coming towards you and you instinctively release the throttle. It's not the speed, is the lack of grip.

That's why I mentioned that some drivers tap the brakes on exit, even when accelerating, to "settle down" or "force down" the front axle a bit to diminish oversteer.

Same goes for braking and over steer: you brake too much, you have no grip on the rear axle. The cause is the transfer of weight. I apologize again if this is too basic:



At most racing schools this is the first lesson.

A way to counteract effectively this tendency is to get a lower car.

Of course, acceleration also causes extra torque, like this, but this is kind of secondary.

Acceleration torque: it helps a bit


The reason why in racing you want lower cars, ballast, pull rod suspensions, smaller drivers and down force is NOT to avoid the car from flopping, but to brake and accelerate in a better way in a curve.

That's the reason why SUVs suck at safety: they brake poorly. You brake mostly with your front wheels, because the CG is high. The higher the car, the worse it brakes.

Next time you see the skids in an accident, notice that rear wheels do not left marks in the pavement (or they are interrupted, when the car rear axle "jumps" in short jumps when you have old ABSs).

I've never raced a car that suffers of under steer in the entrance of a curve, most cars have more weight in the front. That is, I've never racing a car with a rear engine (perhaps a VW?).

So, if your car suffers from under steer in the entrance, well, it's easy to recover confidence: brake, and you'll get all the over steer you could wish.