When will racing catch up?

[David Redszus]

But, the rider's perception of the event is very unlikely to mirror a high-rate trace of that event.

Man, is that ever true. What a driver (or rider) feels or experiences is almost always quite different from actual measurement.

As is often stated in Human Factors Engineering course, "The driver is an excellent sensor, but a very poor data logger."

[Brian P]

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

That's a good way to put it ... I'd been thinking along the same lines but didn't know how to express it.

[Bronze66]

I'm an ex MC endurance roadracer and have to agree with Brian on this one

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

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

I guess it all depends on what you consider smooth. Ron touched on it somewhat. Are you referring to the vehicle only? I consider smooth as having my brain 50-75 yards in front of the bike. Once there and stable all my inputs to riding are smooth and fluid like. The minor or major actions needed now are just adjustments, instant reflex of feel. Some of my fastest lap times have been sedate in my head and just the opposite when slow. The bike may look the same to a spectator as being smooth whether or not compared to what's going on in my head is or not. So how can you measure smoothness when comparing to ever changing track and rider conditions. You're ALWAYS making changes. It's how you make those changes makes you/vehicle smooth or not.

Technology is great but not for all things. As was said I don't want a computer making changes to my braking or lean angle. Especially if I'm sliding the front,rear or both tires. Sometimes that's the fast way around a corner and sometimes it's not even planned. But I can make adjustments according to seat of the pants feel. I believe it's called being in "the zone". Some technologies are good and some will set you back if used for the wrong application. Like making changes for the sake of making changes.

I think it's a good thing not to use some of the technologies out there just because of the cost it will eventually create. Teams with unlimited budgets will basically prevail only and hurt overall competition. I believe it will in some instances take out the only variable left in some racing and that's the driver/rider. Which kind of kills the enjoyment of competition of racing.

[Bronze66]

I got thinking about this more on the drive home. Going back to the original question
"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?"

Some of the technology you speak of will increase hp/speed. Is that technology worth the cost when the sanctioning bodies implement restrictions to keep speeds down to a semi-sane level in most . Look where Can_Am went. Light cars,big hp and the drivers were even concerned for thier safefty. So why engineer/invent something more costly to end up with the same result.
Look at the new technologies in saftey. The Hauns(sp) apparatus, fire/cooling suite combos & helmets. How many g's can the human body take. F1 cornering & braking, TF acceleration, off roadracing beatings.
Innovations like Roof flaps, suspensions on monster truck and off road vehicles. Screw blowers, Data. Active suspensions. Are these not new technologies being using? Well some are innovations I guess.
Some of the old technologies like magnetos may not be bested because of their simplicity and they get the job done.


Yes I think racers are capable of grasping advanced technologies. They always have. There are those that will be on the bleeding edge, those that will catch up and those that will wonder. Just like they are today.
But cost I think is the biggest part as to why we don't see super technology in racing. How many racers/teams are just making it now? Not many people can just walk in to racing with a pocket full of money and do well without coming up thru the ranks so of speak. If those ranks get to costly also will we see good talent start to go by the way side because the learning curve gets to costly?
Very possibly the human factor. How much stress and forces can the standard racer take before losing control in someway.

I think another question that goes along with your's is "Can these new technologies withstand the rigors of racing and still be safe?"

[iadr]

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.

David, I am a day or two late in finding time to reply. I am going to say this will be my version of the stereotype "conventional wisdom" belief.

I imagine you are refering to this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLudkJwx6A

For the first few seconds, I thought, "what a hack", then began to acknowledge the speed at which it was happening. Bottom line is that the driver is catching/saving a car which is badly set up.
There is essentially no difference between that video and either of these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XRXuiru_GI
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... &plindex=8

An unstable car and sawing at the wheel are a bad combination.


FWIW, here are a couple that seem to be combining a well set up car with a great driver.

//edit first one seems to have been removed. In it's place I will post what I think is my all time favorite road race vid:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=glennbunch
Back on topic, here's a nice smooth drive. Effective, too.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid= ... &plindex=0

[David Redszus]

Look at the new technologies in saftey. The Hauns(sp) apparatus, fire/cooling suite combos & helmets.

Good point. There have been NO new technologies in safety. The HANS device is not part of a car and many racers resisted even that. #3 comes to mind. Do we see racing air bags, deformable crush zones, better fire protection, improved chassis designs, fresh air breathing systems? No.

Yes I think racers are capable of grasping advanced technologies. They always have.

Yes they can and have. When good thinking is not restricted by the rules or a flat earth racing culture.

But cost I think is the biggest part as to why we don't see super technology in racing. How many racers/teams are just making it now?

Better by far to spend the money on great BIG salaries, great BIG transporters, VERY fancy garages, private jets, drugs and party girls. And now there is no money left to hire a young engineer who can bring in some new and better ideas. Woe is us.

Not many people can just walk in to racing with a pocket full of money and do well without coming up thru the ranks so of speak. If those ranks get to costly also will we see good talent start to go by the way side because the learning curve gets to costly?

Everybody walks into racing with a pocket full of money. Those without money need not apply. Racing does not care if it is your money, your wifes money, or your sponsors money. Racing runs on money; always has, always will. The talented newcomers soon learn the first rule of racing: "Money talks, BS walks. Go get some money kid, then we'll see about a ride." There are hundreds of very, very talented young drivers who will never get a seat in a good ride. Because driving talent is not what matters. And never has.

How much stress and forces can the standard racer take before losing control in someway.

That is the real crux of the matter. Standard racers have no place in racing any more than "standard" NBA, or NFL players have in their business. Racing should be about the best and the brightest, not the standard, any old mope will do racer.

I think another question that goes along with your's is "Can these new technologies withstand the rigors of racing and still be safe?"

First, these are not new technologies we are talking about. They are already available on street machines. And some have been for many years. The only reason they are not on race cars is because they are outlawed. And what better place to test new technologies than on the race track? Then, maybe we will see the mfgs get back into racing in a serious way, not just in a marketing way.

[Ron E]

There are hundreds of very, very talented young drivers who will never get a seat in a good ride. Because driving talent is not what matters. And never has.


That is the real crux of the matter. Standard racers have no place in racing any more than "standard" NBA, or NFL players have in their business. Racing should be about the best and the brightest, not the standard, any old mope will do racer.

The two above quotes seem to be making conflicting points. Then again, life can be like that.

The scope of this discussion seems to be broadening out. David, please clarify your point, or position for me. If we're talking about what "always was and always will be", then why?

The term "standard" is fluid. Take the best team in any sport like football,track-n-field, or whatever, magically pit them against the same from 100 years ago, and it would be a slaughter. The standard is always moving upward. You know this, so, once again, clarify please.

[David Redszus]

Ron
I am often asked by young drivers,"How do I get started in professional racing?"

My answer.
First, get a million dollars (or more if possible).
Second, hire a very competent race engineer and crew chief.
Third, build a fairly competitive car. Cheat if you must.
Fourth, learn to drive.

Steps one thru three are mandatory, step four is optional.

AJ Foyt was once quoted as saying, "There are probably over 500 guys sitting in the stands here at Indy, who can drive better than we can. The difference is, we have the cars, they don't."

My attempt at clarification goes something like this.

At the top.
Racing has become increasingly more focused on the task of raising the funds required, and not on real talent, either to design, build or drive race cars at the highest level. Rich kids from around the world get into racing using family money while waiting to inherit the family business empire.

At the bottom
Fans are encouraged to become racers, even though they have neither the brains, talent or the money necessary to effectively participate in the sport. Then they yelp that racing is too technical and too costly and that it should be dumbed down to accomodate "everyman" racer.

In the early days, budding young car builders raced their own products to prove their worth: Henry Ford, Ransom Olds, Dodge bros, Louis Chevrolet, Porsche, Enzo, are but a few examples.

The popularity of racing, in various forms, exploded after WWII as technically trained servicemen returned to civilian life. They built wild things in their garages and backyards, using little more than their imagination and wits. Over time the backyard sport became a large industry with a new and different style and culture. Making technical progress was replaced by making money. Track owners, promoters and parts suppliers made money; all on the backs of the racer.

Today, we have very few folks who could build the likes of "Old Yaller", much less design, build and drive their own creations. Gone are the Foyts, Gurneys, Halls, Smiths, Yunicks, Donohues, Garlits and Grumpies, McLarens, Millers, and dozens of other racing legends. Who will replace them? A rules committee? A TV promoter looking for another trash sport?

Or a bunch of uninformed pretenders participating in fantasy racing?

[David Redszus]

There is essentially no difference between that video and either of these:

I think there is a considerable difference; the Ruf Porsche did not crash, is very well set up and must be driven aggressively.

The other videos consist of very low level drivers, driving far below their vehicles limits and should in no way be considered a model of driving form.

Driving videos, while entertaining have proven to be of almost no use to evaluate driving performance. Neither do driver opinions. The only useful tool is on-board data collection, downloaded to a computer for analysis.

[RW TECH]

AJ Foyt was once quoted as saying, "There are probably over 500 guys sitting in the stands here at Indy, who can drive better than we can. The difference is, we have the cars, they don't."

A lot of truth in that. Short-course off-road racing is very much like this, where 2 out of the 10 or so drivers in the entire series that actually have real talent are in lower sportsman-level classes. In one specific case I notice a flock of guys from the pro classes running to the fence to watch a sportsman guy practice because they know the sportsman guy will find the fastest lines on the track within a couple of laps.

At the top.
Racing has become increasingly more focused on the task of raising the funds required, and not on real talent, either to design, build or drive race cars at the highest level. Rich kids from around the world get into racing using family money while waiting to inherit the family business empire.

At the bottom
Fans are encouraged to become racers, even though they have neither the brains, talent or the money necessary to effectively participate in the sport. Then they yelp that racing is too technical and too costly and that it should be dumbed down to accomodate "everyman" racer.

Agree with this too. In drag racing, there is a definite correlation between class/heads-up racers where they either have a lot of money to spend or they're willing to force their families to sacrifice in order to go balls-out on a racing project.

It entertains me to no end to hear statements made that imply how "stupid" regular weekend warrior racers are vs. those who can or will spend all their time & money to put a number on the board.

Interestingly, the weekend warriors are often far better at racing & winning rounds than the guys who spent the loot to go fast.

As far as big-time smarts are concerned, I have trouble convincing myself that a guy who ignores his family and spends his kid's entire inheritence is smarter than a guy who keeps it cheap & easy so that he can get his kids through college and spend time with them while they're growing up.

[David Redszus]

As far as big-time smarts are concerned, I have trouble convincing myself that a guy who ignores his family and spends his kid's entire inheritence is smarter than a guy who keeps it cheap & easy so that he can get his kids through college and spend time with them while they're growing up.

I agree completely. Jack Roush is quoted as saying, "The trouble with most racers is they can't or won't race within their budget."

But smarts and cost are not mutually exclusive.
In fact, real smarts can help reduce costs.

[Brian P]

Look at the new technologies in saftey. The Hauns(sp) apparatus, fire/cooling suite combos & helmets.

Good point. There have been NO new technologies in safety. The HANS device is not part of a car and many racers resisted even that. #3 comes to mind. Do we see racing air bags, deformable crush zones, better fire protection, improved chassis designs, fresh air breathing systems? No.

I would dispute that to a point. Safety in racing considers not only the vehicle but also the track, the surroundings, the way the event is run, etc. When one is talking 180 mph, it's not appropriate to consider the vehicle in isolation. If you look at the life expectancy of a F1 driver (or Grand Prix motorcycle roadracer) in the 1960's and compare it to today, there is a world of difference. The "safety system" used in a race vehicle is different from the "safety system" used in a street vehicle. The average street driver would not want to have a roll cage and wear a helmet and 5 point harness on every drive - it's hard enough to get them to wear seat belts! - but those are the things that take the place of air bags (and are more effective in a multi-hit impact that is more likely to happen under racing conditions - airbags are only good for one hit). We now have deformable barriers (NASCAR), better sand/gravel traps with engineered run-off conditions (MotoGP, F1, etc), better separation of spectators from the track (spectator safety was not always considered - witness various disasters from the 1950's!), better protective gear (and that includes the HANS device). And many race cars DO have deformable crush zones! The nose cones of F1, Champ car, etc are subject to crash testing. Don't forget also that modern race car passenger compartments in general are far more resistant to intrusion or blowing apart than they were in the 1970's or 1980's.

[Bubstr]

I looked at the yellow car. This was a foul handling POS. The driver may or may not be good enough. If he came in and didn't say anything about severe under steer and lack of side bite, I'd dump him after seeing front tires and reading Pyrometer. That may be fast for one lap. The first lap, trouble is race is won on the last lap. I can tell how well the car is handling by how bad the driver is sweating when he comes in. Nothing easier than winning and nothing harder than trying but can't.

Are there ways to make an automated suspension work very well? I thought about ways, Yes. Can you get perfect lights every time? Yes at least one of NHRA pro stock drivers knows how in the past. Are they good for our sport? I think not.

Tech for sale has devastated a lot of different racing venues. It has turned a lot of them into hobby sports. Most all of them are headed that way. I would call any racing venue a hobby sport when the only profit comes into it is from other than racing sponsors. It is then Budweisers hobby or Some hardware stores hobby. Anytime you can't maintain a good competitive field of cars and plant fans in the stands to pay for it, you are putting your passion in the hands of a non racer who will dump you with the loss of a TV rating point.

I don't think anyone wants to see a Monkey driving a robot. But yet that is exactly what we strive as racers to do. We have over the years shot our selfs in the foot.

[Ron E]

idar, the video you describe as your all time favorite was fun to watch. Talk about a car looking for a straight!, He had, maybe 200 more HP than anyone else?

[David Redszus]

I would dispute that to a point. Safety in racing considers not only the vehicle but also the track, the surroundings, the way the event is run, etc.

Things are not always what they seem to be or what we were told they would be.

A study on race car safety, commissioned by the FIA, revealed that a major cause of driver injury was due to helmets. The weight of the helmet, multiplied by the force at impact, tries to pull your head off of your shoulders and results in severe neck injuries.

Similarly, effective seat belts caused spinal compression injuries.
Roll cages were acceptable in soft lateral rolls but almost useless in end over end rolls and upside down pancake landings.

There is no reason that air bags could not be sequentially triggered, or progressively triggered by force of impact. Crash proof, hardened, driver cages have increased the incidence of brain damage due to impact forces of the brain against the skull.

The list goes on and on. It is only when science is used to examine folk lore and conventional wisdom that we gain insight and make progress.