When will racing catch up?

[Engguy]

All of motor sports has gone down hill as far as I'm concerned.
Too many nonsense rules, there has been a moving away from engineering in motor sports and making the focus on strictly the driver, they are making it just like a foot ball or other ball sports type deal, forget the car or the powerplant, just focus on the person doing the race.
Like the last Indy 500 all Honda engines all the same build. Wow some great engineering there. I just don't see the excitement in all the same build powered back engines. The fun is seeing who's engine build will last and not blow, thats the race to me anyway.

[David Redszus]

I know a couple Late Model dirt racers that say Traction Control isn't all it's cut out to be. As far as ABS, it is far from smooth and smooth is fast.

Both comments are part of racing folk lore regarding technology.
When traction control is properly engineered for the application, it will outperform any Hall of Fame driver.

Street based ABS cannot be compared to racing ABS. All really high performance cars use ABS (and depend on it). F1 cars have multiple ABS programs, selectable by the driver to adapt to road conditions, fuel load, weather, tactics, etc.

Evaluating poorly or inappropriatly engineered systems and then pronouncing the technology to be bad is simply wrong and does a disservice to everyone.

Are you really sure that smooth is fast?

[Brian P]

As a motorcycle roadracer, I am absolutely sure that smooth is fast! If I am trail-braking the front brake going into a corner, the last thing I want to have happen is for some computer to decide that I shouldn't be using that much brake while leaned way way over. That would be a recipe for an instant crash.

F1 cars don't have ABS (but only because the rules prohibit it.)

It's true that there can be ESP programs or ABS strategies designed for performance applications that are different from the traditional (and often built-to-a-price) OEM applications that are not smooth at all in the way they work. I've not seen one, but then I've not driven anything that says Porsche or Corvette on it. (I have two-wheeled toys; a car is pretty much just a utilitarian cage to me ...)

[David Redszus]

As a motorcycle roadracer, I am absolutely sure that smooth is fast!

Do you have any data to support that view? I know it is conventional wisdom (I once taught that myself) but might not be correct. The limit is not a smooth line, but rather a constantly changing ragged ceiling that you can't see until you've hit it. A driver that is smooth cannot quickly respond to the peaks and valleys of the jagged limit. To drive very close to the limit requires low amplitude, high frequency corrections, which when measured with data collection, are far from smooth.

F1 cars don't have ABS (but only because the rules prohibit it.

Sadly that is true. But once upon a time F1 cars had ABS, traction control, even active suspensions. Cars were getting faster and faster. After Senna's death, steps were taken to slow the cars down. Much of the technology was outlawed; even racing slicks were to be replaced by grooved tires. No more turbos, and smaller engines, less aero forces, etc, but the cars get faster anyway.

As with any automotive technology, there are high level products and there are low level products for street machines. They cannot be compared in execution although they may share the same principles.

By the way, look for energy regeneration in F1 using high speed flywheels (64,000 rpm) that can add 100 hp to performance. It makes the Prius look like a Conestoga wagon.

[Bubstr]

Well I'm pretty sure smooth is fast. When you see a driver sawing at the steering wheel or treating the go pedal like a go button, it induces tire wear and heat. Both are bad for going fast the whole race.

[n2xlr8n]

As a motorcycle roadracer, I am absolutely sure that smooth is fast!

Do you have any data to support that view? I know it is conventional wisdom (I once taught that myself) but might not be correct.

From Keith Code:

"Throttle control must be looked at from the angle of a fluid and continuous maintenance of the bikes attitude in the turn, i.e., enough weight transferred off the front and onto the rear of the bike to maintain its best and most neutral handling attitude, not too much or too little. And more importantly, maintaining the suspension in its optimum stroke-range with the throttle. This requires a continuous roll-on."

Everything I've learned about going fast safely in a car has been in a motorcycle application, using KC's "Twist of the Wrist" I & II. I believe (as well as many others much faster than your above-average club racer) that smooth is fast.

As far as ABS, I've never come across a road racer that states standard ABS programming will enable them to go faster, but that doesn't mean different programming wouldn't. Some interesting albeit dated material:

http://www.ibmwr.org/prodreview/abstests.html

I'll take my ABS-equipped C14, thank you.

Steve

[David Redszus]

I believe (as well as many others much faster than your above-average club racer) that smooth is fast.

I have a great deal of respect for Keith Code and used his books when my daughter bought her Ninja. But keith did not have access to sophisticated data collection that can accurately measure what is really occuring on the track. If he could review actual data, I'm sure he would revise his views in some areas.

There is a wonderful video called, "Yellow Bird", with footage of a Ruf Porsche being driven around the Nurburgring. From the helicopter view the car appears as smooth as glass. But the camera focused on the driver shows just how hard and furious he is working to keep the car at the limit. Limit driving is not smooth at all.

As far as ABS, I've never come across a road racer that states standard ABS programming will enable them to go faster, but that doesn't mean different programming wouldn't.

It may be of some interest to know that Bosch at PRI, introduced a retrofitable ABS system for race cars that is fully programmable. If it is too slow, they have made a very big mistake. If it is too fast, it will be banned. Bet on the later.

[Bubstr]

I do believe that new innovations are good, but just not good for all venues of racing. I really believe where you still have a Pro/AM type of competition. It should be held on to even if that means ruling out any expensive tech.
Put it in the higher corporate team dominated type racing. The two things you have to have to have a successful racing series, is someone to race and someone to pay to watch them. In this country it seems the people want to watch the guy like them race. It's fulfilling a dream threw the guy down the block. This is why there is no longer an F1 race in this country and why Indy league and kart is in trouble. Did you ever notice how much more interest there was in the Indy 500 when most of the racers ran the local dirt tracks with USAC all year. When the AJ Foyts Billy Vokavich and Jim Hertebese ran at your local track, it formed a bond. You went to the 500 or listened on the radio and yelled for them even stomped the gas pedal in the stands for them. Now you can yell but they need a translator at the flag stand for them to understand. Nascar is on the road to this. There are already a lot of Sunday afternoon yawners. I'd like to see a Bill Eliot shake the hay seeds out of his cuff to kick the big boys fanny, but they have priced him out of the game. If you don't have a 4 car team and big budget you don't have much chance at a lot of different types of racing. The bad part is we are all guilty of making it this way.

[Brian P]

As a motorcycle roadracer, I am absolutely sure that smooth is fast!

Do you have any data to support that view?

Yep. Not smooth = crash! Generally long before reaching the actual limits of the bike.

To drive very close to the limit requires low amplitude, high frequency corrections, which when measured with data collection, are far from smooth.

It is true that there can be a constant stream of corrections, but the key is "low amplitude". The corrections are normally a small component of a bulk motion, and that bulk motion has to be smooth to avoid upsetting the chassis. Once in a while, when watching top level racing, you will see a large correction - generally because the rider made a mistake or misjudged the amount of grip. Usually those large corrections involve losing time on (or off) the track ...

[af2]

My opinion,
I still like the no electric racing. The driver has to do his or her job to get the car down or around the track.
IMO the lay down cars are quite boring to watch. Take a car that could run 7.60 and slow it to an 8.90 is a shame. Sorry to the one's racing that but it is my opinion as a spectator.

[RW TECH]

I think it's way too premature to speculate on whether ABS, stability control, traction control, etc. will diminish from the competitive/driver skill elements or not.

I say this because for the types of racing that we're talking about, virtually nobody has made any significant investments to:

A) Measure & analyze the parameters of the application correctly

B) Develop hardware that will fully support the application

C) Fully calibrate the existing equipment, which by default means learning to calibrate better equipment would absolutely be more difficult and time consuming.

Some old-timers would agree that almost any time a technology has been implemented into racing there was an opposition to it in the beginning. This was mainly due to the fact that they didn't really understand what they were looking at and were too proud to admit it.

[Brian P]

... or other competitors had it and they didn't (and couldn't get it), and it was easier to oppose the technology than to create their own version of same.

[David Redszus]

Yep. Not smooth = crash! Generally long before reaching the actual limits of the bike.

That is still only an opinion which is not based on facts or data. Based on the old smoothness concept, we should be able to predict the onset of vehicle limits based on measured smoothness. How would one go about measuring smoothness. Actual data shows a great deal of instability, much of which is not recognizable by the driver. Even in road bikes, lean angle and lateral G forces are not correlated accurately, even by very good riders.

The corrections are normally a small component of a bulk motion, and that bulk motion has to be smooth to avoid upsetting the chassis.

If we have a driver that is so clumsy as to upset the chassis, he should be quickly yanked out of the seat before he hurts someone. Driver inputs should never upset the chassis. It is the changing vehicle grip levels that upset the chassis. The driver must react to these changes as quickly as possible. If he is quick to react, he can make corrections. If he is slow to react, he goes out of phase and produces oscillating disturbances. Then crashes.

If we plot driver behaviour against time, we can see how quickly corrections are made. If we take the derivative of driver corrections we can use it as a measure of smoothness. The faster the driver reacts, the less smooth the derivative becomes. Good drivers are not smooth but very quick. Simple physics.

[ausbullet]

In the early days, racing produced a constant stream of innovations and improvements that were later adapted by production cars.

Now , doesn't it seems that racing is falling very far behind production cars in almost all technical areas?

While even modest production cars have ABS brakes, traction control, electronic stability control, electronic adjustable shocks, tire pressure monitoring, aerodynamic aids, electronic fuel injection, diagnostic monitoring, variable cam timing, variable inlet tuning, etc; almost all of the above are either banned or do not appear on race cars. Why is this happening?

Are the rules makers too narrow in technical vision? Are racers incapable of grasping advanced technology? Is the perception of high cost to blame or a lack of technical understanding? Is this trend really good for the sport or is racing no longer a contest between the best and the brightest?

And how can we go about pointing racing back in the right direction?

Looking at this from the engine perspective to begin with and lets look at F1 as the pinnacle of technological racing,
How is anyone going to develop alternate powering technologies when they have to run 'spec' engines and fuel, they are restricted to cylinders, max-min bore etc etc....

Why not allow 'run what you brung', with realistic but a large envelope of max-min weight, track and lenght of vehicle.
The leveling rule is for example, race distance 200 miles, you have a 10 gallon gasoline limit, or a 13 gallon ethanol limit, or a 25 gallon seawater limit or a 150lbs of grass clippings the choice is yours, maybe stop short on allowing nuclear fuel etc.
With the budgets these guys have I am sure something left field will start to develop.

[Ron E]

Yep. Not smooth = crash! Generally long before reaching the actual limits of the bike.

That is still only an opinion which is not based on facts or data. Based on the old smoothness concept, we should be able to predict the onset of vehicle limits based on measured smoothness..

Smooth vs. lo-amplitude quick "unsmooth". David, you're, no doubt aware that many of the (relative to this discussion ) movements can be described perfectly by both. When a specific correction is perceived as smooth to a human brain, which is occupied with many other data-streams at any given moment, how is that exact movement seen by data recorders? Take a trace of any observed dynamic . At 50 samples per second it may appear smooth and organized. At 1000 per, it's can be a chaotic graph of jagged peaks and valleys. What's our recall sample rate? The better trained and practiced a person is, the better the response. It's the so-called second-nature reaction, and/or the mind "slowing down time". But, the rider's perception of the event is very unlikely to mirror a high-rate trace of that event.

The only point is, you and Brian may be describing the same event, just at different sample rates.