I don't post much but I do read many of the threads in the F1 forum. In reading these threads, I frequently come across that a particular driver is or not good at "developing a car". For instance, Kimi Raikonnen is not good at "developing a car". Fernando Alonso once claimed that he was responsible for a few tenths of speed for McLaren in 2007. What does this mean? How does a driver "develop a car"? I know that drivers can give feedback on whether there is understeer or oversteer but how does that translate into actually "developing a car" other than setup of the suspension and changing tire pressures? What other aspects in a driver input are there in "develping a car"?
Certain drivers understant the physics of the situation and can relate back to the chief engineer things like: The rear roll center feels like it is wrong in T3 as you roll on throttle The car takes a set in T4 and then rolls over on the sidewalls of the tire The transitiion between mechanical grip in T3 and the aero grip in T4 moves the center of traction In effect, certain drivers can 'fee' the geometrical effects/locations of instant centers, roll centers, roll axes,... better than others--similar to how certain musicians can hear tonality better than joe-random band members.
Certain drivers, like MS, also have a superior ability to sense the edge of adhesion and are able to translate this innate sixth sense into feedback that engineers can use.
Something close to an MS quote: "In the dry, the car talks to me. In the wet, it whispers"...... "Feeling" what the car is doing is something I suspect all these guys do - Translating that into "how can we improve the thing?" is a whole other can of worms..... Having said that, with the data that's streaming off the cars today the engineers can tell a lot more without input from the jockey - IIRC it was Monaco last year where Felipe's engineer *told* him the car would go thru turn 1 flat out - He kept lifting, but had sufficient faith in the data and his engineer that he subsequently did it flat..... Cheers, Ian
A really great techincal driver can give input on numerous issues. For instance: This season we have been hearing a lot about Brembo vs. Carbon Industries brakes, a driver gives significant feedback on how the brakes grab, stop, react and "feel." They also give input into how rear and front wing settings and adjustments work (i.e. downforce or the lack thereof). As well as the effectiveness of different tire compounds (not just tire pressures). Also, I think that experienced drivers bring along alot of what they learned when they move from team to team. Look at Ross Brawn (yes, of course, not a driver) but he brought years of trial and error work from Ferrari to Brawn GP. Undoubetedly Rubens did the same.
Is this really possible? Shouldn't grip be grip whether it is mechanical or from aero. Shouldn't all F1 drivers be at this level? At what can be done to "develop the car"? Isn't all this information used for setting up the car rather than actually changing the aerodaynamics or mechanical designs of the car?
BS, 99.7% of the time. It is used most often by posers who would get beat 99.99999997% of the time by those very same F1 drivers.
IMO It comes down to having an awareness of what is going on with the car and being able to adequately translate that to the engineers. Mark Donohue explains it nicely in "The Unfair Advantage". Attributed as one of the best developers of all time. An awesome read for any Road racer or techno-geek yet easy to digest. In the old days, without data acquisition, it was imperative to have a smart cognisant driver. Sometimes the response is counter intuitive as the car may feel more unstable when actually one is going (lap wise) faster. Sometimes everything aligns and the car feels stuck and is indeed fast. Vettels last victory was an example.
Some are talented Some are brave Some are intelligent The best are all these and more. People like Andretti (before data acqu) would break down a whole lap. Entry, middle and exit for every corner. He could give the numbers, revs in, revs out, throttle position, throttle on/off etc., etc. Amazing, recall. When I worked with Mike A he was the same way. Nowadays upcoming drivers think the data systems should have the answers, not so, it still has a pucker factor. the ones with that type of recall, along with the engineers data can improve the whole product. Sometimes the answer is the opposite of common logic, they can accept that.
Are you saying that not all drivers in F1 have that kind of recall? I can't imaging driving, espeically at the speeds that they do, lap after lap and not have the ability to remember all the "numbers".
I was thinking the same. That is why I posted this thread to see if there really is something to this "developing a car".
Absolutely not all. I remember talking to a minor Formula car series champion about his braking and turn in marks and his response was; "what are you talking about ? I brake and turn in when its time". I can imagine driving one of these monster F1 cars as an exercise in "hanging on" for many. IMO squeezing speed and remembering numbers are two different attributes today. Data acquisition is much better than any human mind at accumulating the important #s allowing the driver to concentrate on driving. And that pesky guy in the mirrors. Development now IMO is more translating how the car is feeling/reacting and in changes to those settings than in numerical memorization.
I believe the very bestdrivers like MS, Senna, Clark, to name a fewhad a certain undefinable quality apart from the trait listed above. Maybe it was vision-related, or some other genetic/physical edge, maybe it had to do with character. Something that enabled them to touch 100%, and then go beyond. Stirling Moss talks about this, and a great example is MS' ability to push and control his pace before his pit stop or after an opponents'. Its like a heightened awareness. Senna had it; Clark was a nervous wreck before a race but zen-like in the car. The best can translate this undefinable advantage into words and numbers that non-drivers like engineers can understand.
I believe the very bestdrivers like MS, Senna, Clark, to name a fewhad a certain undefinable quality apart from the trait listed above. Maybe it was vision-related, or some other genetic/physical edge, maybe it had to do with character. Something that enabled them to touch 100%, and then go beyond. Stirling Moss talks about this, and a great example is MS' ability to push and control his pace before his pit stop or after an opponents'. Its like a heightened awareness. Senna had it; Clark was a nervous wreck before a race but zen-like in the car. The best can translate this undefinable advantage into words and numbers that non-drivers like engineers can understand.
I'll try to apply something I learned regarding a whole different expertise Take these six levels: 1. Consciously incompetent (not good and knows it) 2. Unconsciously incompetent (not good and doesn't no it) 3. Consciously competent (learning the craft) 4. Unconsciously competent (lucky) 5. Consciously great (had to work at being great) 6. Unconsciously great (a natural) A great driver can be a #5 or #6, but, it takes a #5 to be great at developing a car
Exactly, well put. It was said of many great drivers that they almost thought ahead of a situation. One thing they must have total belief in themselves, I think some like Peterson, GV, Tom Pryce could drive spectacularly and quickly, but it was not the ideal mechanical limit. Moss never did figure Fangio out, they drove identical cars but JMF would be quicker. Modern data just covers most drivers shortcomings in total awareness of a situation. A driver should be able to look over the readout and put 'human feeling' to the data.
There is a clip of Senna doing an installation lap around a track (I can't remember which, but he was driving for McLaren when the film was put together). The engineer was telling about how Senna would approach his qualifying lap. He would do 1 lap then pit and go back to his engineers and talk about how the car felt in all the corners that stood out. He would state what the car did and what he wants it to do the next time out. He'd also give an estimate to how much time those changes would take away from his lap time. I think he set P1 the next time he went for a flying lap after the changes. There's another clip where Senna had complained that his engine didn't sound right. He felt something was wrong. The engineers looked at all the data and the engine was fine. On a hunch, Ron Denis told the mechanics to replace the engine to make Senna happy. Later on when they dismantled the engine they found a tiny fracture in one of the cylinders heads (I think. Not sure about which part exactly was off).
A lot of drivers are good at communicating feedback on what the chassis is like around the circuit... The great ones are the ones that are ALSO able to suggest changes that will result in a faster package. IMHO this is the difference between the average driver and the great development driver. Your great development driver through his extensive experience and greater technical knowledge will be able to better communicate with his engineers and be able to propose working solutions that will produce a faster car. A driver that merely gives feedback and/or makes suggestions that are more often that not hit-or-miss does not provide the same value as a driver that gives feedback AND proposes alterations that usually result in a faster package... I believe this is what most are referring to when they label a particular driver a good car developer. This is why many teams are willing to take on a "development driver" that may not have the outright speed of his teammate... his efforts on improving the package results in better performance for BOTH cars, not just one...
From reading the posts in other threads, I was under the impression that a driver that is good at "developing a car" is able to communicate to the engineers/designers which somehow results in change in the actual design of the car. From these vague answers, what I am understanding is that most of you guys are equating "developing a car" to setting up the suspension, diff settings, tire pressures or what have you that you can adjust on a car to make it go faster. Am I understanding corretly?
Specifically, what could they suggest changing? Shape of the body work? geometry of the suspension? weight distribution?
Excellent question. Someone like a Lauda or a Prost will suggest suspension alterations among other items, they will also suggest paths of development. Many drivers do not have the combination of technical knowledge and/or experience to make input that will make a car have faster lap times. With these drivers the team will make alterations based on THEIR decisions and his resulting lap times will tell them whether they are going in the right or wrong direction. The truly great ones are like an engineer in the car. In addition to having the feel and competence of a racing driver, they possess an intimate knowledge of each item on the car and it's effect on performance. ( IIRC at the start of the season Prost would go through each item on the car and experience each option to determine its effect). These drivers are usually the ones making the suggestions that, when followed, result in faster lap times. The truly great ones also have the vision to suggest new possibilites (not just exhaust the existing ones by trial and error under engineer supervision).
I guess the main difference is that a good development driver is not only able to maximize what the car is currently. He is also has the vision to suggest possibilities to the design itself that will improve the cars performance (for ex. suggesting going to a shorter/longer wheelbase for the chassis ,alterations to the design, i.e. not just selecting different settings that are available). They are more vocal and suggest different items and possible improvements in different areas (they bring something extra to the table) as opposed to merely going through the different settings and giving feedback.
