Rob Wilson - driver coach?

[raymondu999]

Hey folks.

I just am very curious as to what people think about Rob Wilson the driver coach. He's situated in Bruntingthorpe as I understand it. Why exactly did he never make the big time? Anyone know?

I watch Peter Windsor's weekly webcast, "The Flying Lap." I don't really pay much attention to Peter, but his guests are top-calibre.

Peter is good friends with Rob, and Rob has been on the show several times, either as pre-recorded, or live via Skype, or live in the studio.

I'm curious because some of the techniques he teaches seem (to me) somewhat unorthodox. Here's one of his better appearances:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyr2okX-kQw[/youtube]

Note that I say better because Rob here is talking the whole time, rather than just a half-hour Skype call or a 10 minute recorded conversation.

There are a few things that I'm confused about. One that is constantly of contention by myself is when he tells drivers to only diagonal the straight at the last possible comfortable moment, so that you don't kill some speed off at the start of the straight through tyre scrub. It's been debated hotly in another thread I created here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12636

Another thing I don't quite get is he tells drivers to, whenever possible, create what he calls a "flat spot." Basically this is saying to have a section of track, no matter how short, to have all four tyres pointing dead straight, as the car accelerates and brakes better in the absence of any lateral scrub from the tyres. He says Kimi is very good at this, and he says that Kimi, in the tiny straight between T1 and T2 at Bahrain, will have a moment where the car is just dead square.

Yet another is that he tells people to "shorten" the corner. I never really understood what he meant by shortening the corner at first, but then I looked at Pastor's Spanish GP Pole (yes, that leaves a bad taste in my mouth as he technically qualified P2 and was gifted pole, rather than qualifying a pole lap) lap and You could sort of see what is meant by "shortening" the corner and putting in a "flat spot." Shortening the corner is basically, the way I see it, shortening the distance traveled by decreasing the radius. ie pump in a lot of steering mid-corner.

Pastor pumps in a lot of steering at the apex of T1, and there is a moment - where for just 2 tenths or so where Pastor's wheel is straightened out, before he turns into 2. Here is said lap for reference:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoMn51lt14g[/youtube]

The theory, as explained by Rob, is quite sound. Basically the car is slow anyways at the apex, and it can't do much in terms of braking and accelerating, so just do more rotation of the car at the apex, rather than having that angle hampering the car later on.

If you do such a technique - shortening said corner and straightening out when possible, yes, you do get a shorter time of rotation of the car, then better acceleration and braking as the car is just dealing with longitudinal loads and not lateral. But surely then you would have to sacrifice the apex speed in order to do this, and as such you carry less speed across. Does it have advantages? Yes - but I don't think it's a clear cut "better" technique.

He says that Jenson - who drives in his smooth, long arcs, is slower because of this - he spends too much time in the corner and "lengthens" the corner, and says that ultimately, getting the car turned more mid-corner is better. He was also praising Vettel's Monza pole lap last year (relative to Lewis' P2 lap) where in Parabolica, Vettel turns the car more at the apex and has a straighter exit, rather than Lewis, who uses the more conventional line through Parabolica of gradually drifting wide to the outside of the turn. ie "shortening" the car and creating a straighter exit line.

I'm not sure I entirely agree with this - I think it has to differ corner by corner. Or at least by categories of corners. I don't think tackling every corner on the circuit that way is the answer either.

Another issue I'm struggling to understand is that he seems to contradict himself. If you, as he calls it, "shorten" the corner, then surely that's a lot more lock mid corner, which would give you a slightly slower exit speed. But this would hurt the car just the same as turning the car early at the start of a diagonal line, would it not? His two lessons of only moving across a diagonal racing line near the braking zone seems to contradict his "shorten the corner" somewhat.

Thoughts, peeps?

I would like to kindly and respectfully ask that any and all driver examples and comparisons have their names substituted as "Driver A" and "Driver B" so as to keep this thread clean of the more comparisons more towards the technical aspects of the driving styles and lines rather than comparison of the drivers themselves

[f1316]

Yes, I've always wondered about all this too. I'm afraid I don't have anything particularly constructive to add - other than more questions!

For example, in one episode he talks about what he did with Maldonado to try to compete with Rubens at Williams. As you point out, he talks about "shortening the corner", but this is because he says that Pastor will not be able to compete with Rubens on "minimum speeds" through the corners. It strikes me that what he is sugesting is another way to approach things, but not necessarily a better way, since the higher speeds Rubens would carry through could surely benefit him all the way down the next straight.

And he also makes comparisons, such as the way Maldonado would shorten corners in Spain as opposed to Alonso's more "conventional" line. But whilst I see that Pastor did well in that race, I don't necessarily concede that he got more from his package than Fernando - in fact, quite the opposite. So surely Alonso's approach is preferable given the skill set necessary to achieve it?

I think the point is that he has developed an approach that allows certain drivers to improve their lap times. But I think this only works in certain circumstances and for drivers who are less able to drive the "conventional" line than some others. For all the times the Vettel/Hamilton Parabolica example shows the benefit of his technique, equally there will be many that show that Hamilton's natural ability to carry speed through particular corners makes him extremely quick.

[raymondu999]

Yes, I've always wondered about all this too. I'm afraid I don't have anything particularly constructive to add - other than more questions!

That's why we're here mate - to learn from each other! Feel free to jump in on the questioning

For example, in one episode he talks about what he did with Maldonado to try to compete with Rubens at Williams. As you point out, he talks about "shortening the corner", but this is because he says that Pastor will not be able to compete with Rubens on "minimum speeds" through the corners. It strikes me that what he is sugesting is another way to approach things, but not necessarily a better way, since the higher speeds Rubens would carry through could surely benefit him all the way down the next straight.

Yes - he talks about it in the Spanish GP debrief IIRC. His words were (off memory) something like, "Well you're not going to be quicker than Rubens - Rubens has a very high minimum speed. Well, you know... why not shorten the corner?"

And he also makes comparisons, such as the way Maldonado would shorten corners in Spain as opposed to Alonso's more "conventional" line. But whilst I see that Pastor did well in that race, I don't necessarily concede that he got more from his package than Fernando - in fact, quite the opposite. So surely Alonso's approach is preferable given the skill set necessary to achieve it?

Sort of agreed.

I think the point is that he has developed an approach that allows certain drivers to improve their lap times. But I think this only works in certain circumstances and for drivers who are less able to drive the "conventional" line than some others. For all the times the Vettel/Hamilton Parabolica example shows the benefit of his technique, equally there will be many that show that Hamilton's natural ability to carry speed through particular corners makes him extremely quick.

Agreed again.

What particularly nagged at me was that he keeps saying how one is definitively faster. Like when he was talking of Canada - I think in that very episode I posted - he says, "Ultimately, the Lewis Hamilton/Fernando Alonso style of getting a quicker direction change at the apex is quicker." He keeps on bigging up his techniques too. He says things like, "You shorten the corner - it's faster. You put in a little flat spot, rather than following an "s" shape - it's faster." I don't believe for one moment that you can talk in absolute terms in any such situation.

Also, it rather neglects that some cars prefer being driven a certain way. If I had a car that was fantastic at holding lateral loadings, but was rubbish on traction and braking - I wouldn't go for his "shorten the corner" style any day, as it would be reducing my lateral capability advantage while relying a lot on my traction/braking weaknesses.

However the guy can't be all bad. He does coach Pastor - and as some people have said, Pastor is, though boneheaded - a very fast driver. I remember Coulthard couldn't really build himself up to really have the commitment through the lap for qualifying in Suzuka back in the McLaren days, and they flew him out for a day of coaching DC.

For what it's worth - he's going to be on this week's episode, though I don't know if it's via Skype, or pre-recorded, or if it's going to be live. If it's Skype or live in the studio, I suggest prepping questions

[GrizzleBoy]

In terms of getting more turning done and having a "flat" spot, would you say the difference between how I take the hair pin at 1:10 and 4:05 in this video are related to this discussion?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMvLu1y0Y_0[/youtube]

First time was getting in aggressively, swinging the back out to get the car pointing in the right direction (even though that right direction happened to be the edge of the track on the exit), straightening out the steering mid corner and gunning it even though the car wasn't point straight in relation to the track.

The second time was much more tame, letting the car "run" through the corner and being progressive on the throttle through the exit to keep a more consistent speed, then jumping back onto the power once the whole turn was completed.

[raymondu999]

Sort of along those lines - he describes the shortening corner thing as drivers taking either a "long U shape" (a la geometric line Jenson) or a "soft V shape) which is basically a "short corner" followed and preceded by straighter braking and traction phases.

The sharp end of the V would be mid-corner at the apex, which, to be fair, if you were to trace the line a trail braking driver took through a corner, it would be something similar, like a shallower version of this:



I do apologise for bringing in an absolutely irrelevant graph into the discussion - but I felt it described the line really well.

[GrizzleBoy]

It explains it perfectly imo.

To get that shallower line through many corners, you'd need to be more aggressive in your entry in terms of braking and attacking the steering, probably with more slip angle on your rear tyres than usual too.

[f1316]

Also, surely one also has to think about tyre usage? One approach may or may not be better for that, in certain conditions, on certain cars, etc. etc.

Definitely be interested to hear some of these questions being put to him...

[gato azul]

nice topic RM999 !!
I hope it does not lead to an "my driver is better then your driver" bickering match.

Now, my 2cent on the topic.
I think, if you look at some tyre data (any) you see where is line of thought comes from.
You will see that a tyre has his highest longitudinal traction capacity in the absence of any lateral
loading, and vise versa.
Therefore he tries to encourage people, to "straighten" there car under acceleration and braking.
But acceleration, especially out of slow corners ( no or little downforce) is the important point - IMHO.

Now, different people, will use different terminology for this technique.
Shorten the corner is a bit odd/a misnomer IMO - but that's just me, shortening the cornering phase (phase/time with lateral G loadings) is maybe a better term, to understand.
As RM999 said, some people calling it V-shaping the corner or "squaring off" the corner.

IMO, as others said, while it has some sound foundations (tyre behavior), it's a bit "horses for courses" and is especially beneficial for cars who have high acceleration and braking potential. So, that you can "win back/win more" time you lost by a lower apex speed on the next straight. Now, this is for sure true for an F1 car, but maybe less so for an Formula Ford.
In short, I would look at the tyre vs. car relationship, to see if this technique is beneficial or not.
One prime example for this technique (V-shaping) is V8Supercars. which are massively "under tyred" in relation to the power and weight they have. These cars/tyres don't support any lateral loading well, therefore you try to rotate the car as
fast as possible, and the smallest length of track (apex) to lengthen the braking and acceleration phases (straights) which play to the strength of these cars - massive amounts of power.

On the other hand if you have a car which is "over tyred" for the weight and power it has, e.g. you are not at no much over/on the traction limit of the tyre in acceleration, you are better off to "carry more speed" onto the nest straight, as you will struggle (with low(er) powered cars) to gain the speed back, when you once have lost it (low power FWD touring cars , Formula Ford etc.)
So it's not complete "cut & dry", but the thinking behind the technique is sound IMHO.

In this context it is perhaps worth to keep in mind, that there was a load of talk last year about the characteristic of the Pirelli tyres (especially the rears). Apparently, it was said, that theses tyres don't work well under combined loadings (lateral and longitudinal). If this was/is the case, a driving technique which separates this conditions will have it's benefits.

But IMHO, you will have to see it in context to the car/tyre used, before you can make your final call, if this is the "holy grail" of driving o not - horses for courses.

P.S.: as a side note the term "v-shaping" reflects for on the shape of lines in the data, then it does to the actual driving line
on the track.
In general, I would say, that these technique comes more into play at corners of >= 90° angle, not much you can do in a 45° corner in terms of this technique, as there will be not much braking/acceleration in this kind of corner.
Therefore it is more an "slow" corner technique.

[raymondu999]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said there, Blue Cat.

So the disconnect I'm getting is, when there are times that his technique isn't the quickest way around a track, or even a corner, why is he touted as one of the best driver coaches in the world? Why is he used and trusted by so many F1 teams and drivers? Is it perhaps that "conventional" or "orthodox" knowledge of racing lines is all rubbish, and he's actually correct? That's what I don't get.

[mike]

I think he way is correct in a way that you should always do most the turning at the point when you are slowest at the point of speed which is also the minimum oversteer gradient that you need for the corner, thus you can brake later and be on the throttle earlier. this driving style certainly doesn yield the fastest apex speed of the corner but is all round faster in terms of average speed.

F1 cars are always developing and needs the drive to work with the car. this driving style I can see in terms of tyre forces are the greatest. however when you are hit with mid corner understeer they have to slow the car down even more to as there is very little steering in the initial part of the corner. say if you add some downforce to the rear of the car this style will have to extend the braking to make the corner at a lower speed and the traction advantage is lost as the extra downforce is wasted in a way, but if you get more downforce the right setup the car is always faster technically. if more downforce is added to the rear a driver who is able to slide the rear into the corner will be able to slide the rear at a higher speed and a driver that pumps in huge amounts initial steering angle can benefit as the rear as less likely to lose control

if we look at the design of an open wheeler car the diffuser and the front wing is the most efficient parts of the car and mechanically the weight distribution is in the rear, this driving style is probably the best style to handle instability or the rear end as they give as much rear tyre forces as they can get without spinning out.

this is evident in 2008 when kimi used a low downforce rear wing while massa used a higher downforce 1. looking at all the schumacher's pole laps you can see this mid corner slide the same way kimi pumps in that secondary steering input. it is fast if the car is build a certain way or a "specific setup". basically they are faster if traction is limited but if the mechanical drive is limited they could be much slower.

[raymondu999]

this driving style certainly doesn yield the fastest apex speed of the corner but is all round faster in terms of average speed.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. Nor do I agree with the conclusion. There are always corners where a greater apex speed - which means speed carried through to the next straight - is the quicker way.

this driving style I can see in terms of tyre forces are the greatest.

It's not the greatest in putting lateral loading on the car - it just maximises the longitudinal loads

if you add some downforce to the rear of the car this style will have to extend the braking to make the corner at a lower speed and the traction advantage is lost as the extra downforce is wasted in a way

You get better traction from the rear downforce too, don't forget.

but if you get more downforce the right setup the car is always faster technically.

that's the case with all driving styles/lines/techniques... not just this.

[mike]

this driving style certainly doesn yield the fastest apex speed of the corner but is all round faster in terms of average speed.

I don't understand how you come to that conclusion. Nor do I agree with the conclusion. There are always corners where a greater apex speed - which means speed carried through to the next straight - is the quicker way.

Apex speed does not measure angle or position some drivers still needs the car to steer longer than other drivers and they need to wait longer to put on more throttle

this driving style I can see in terms of tyre forces are the greatest.

It's not the greatest in putting lateral loading on the car - it just maximises the longitudinal loads

it maximise the lateral grip of 4 wheels when they pump in that steering input, the speed might be lower at that point but the yaw rate is higher (ie shorten the corner). other drivers with same grip available either turn in too early with brakes (not maximising lateral nor longitudinal forces) and does not achieve the same yaw rate and has to stay on the steering for longer, (webber vs vettel)

You get better traction from the rear downforce too, don't forget.

Yes you do, but put it in the context of this driving style, if there was not enough power to break traction then no1 will drive like this right? so if a car as good traction the driver with this driving style will suffer because it is no longer the best way to drive. however all race cars are traction limited just to a different degree. if a car with better rear traction and a weak front end this driving style will have to be changed to slow down the car more or take a later apex

that's the case with all driving styles/lines/techniques... not just this.

What im trying to say is, if I offer any f1 car free downforce without mass, they will take it because it makes the car faster, but it may make webber 3 tenth faster but it will actually only make vettel 2 tenth faster. this driving style is the fastest in the context where the setup is built around it, it controls a nervous car better, but in a car is very stable it is actually slower

[raymondu999]

Apex speed does not measure angle or position some drivers still needs the car to steer longer than other drivers and they need to wait longer to put on more throttle

I realise that. But having a slower apex speed means you start the next straight and traction zone slower. I'm indeed talking of carrying a bundle of speed across, but having a later power on. If there is only a miniscule straight after that, I will bet my bottom dollar that this is faster, for example in Rascasse or in the second Mirabeau in Monaco.

Also, as you carry more speed across, by the time you're starting the traction phase, you have MORE traction, due to downforce.

other drivers with same grip available either turn in too early with brakes (not maximising lateral nor longitudinal forces)

Turning in with brakes helps you to brake later and turn in better actually. You get more yaw by virtue of the braking transferring the vertical load forwards onto the front tyres. In terms of maximising grip you still do maximise grip - just that it's then compound grip and not lateral/longitudinal grip.

You HAVE to - absolutely HAVE to at least have one phase of the cornering where you overlap brakes and cornering. No matter how short the distance or time you take to do it. Otherwise you're leaving spare grip on the table.

so if a car as good traction the driver with this driving style will suffer because it is no longer the best way to drive.

this driving style is the fastest in the context where the setup is built around it, it controls a nervous car better, but in a car is very stable it is actually slower

Yes - we need to acknowledge that different cars need different styles/techniques to maximise the strengths and reduce reliance on the weaknesses of the cars, which means that your initial saying of:

I think he way is correct in a way that you should always do most the turning at the point when you are slowest at the point of speed which is also the minimum oversteer gradient that you need for the corner, thus you can brake later and be on the throttle earlier. this driving style certainly doesn yield the fastest apex speed of the corner but is all round faster in terms of average speed.

[/quote][/quote]

Isn't necessarily true. There are, for some cars, other driving techniques/lines that you have to use to produce the "all round faster" speed.

[mike]

I realise that. But having a slower apex speed means you start the next straight and traction zone slower. Also, as you carry more speed across, by the time you're starting the traction phase, you have MORE traction, due to downforce.

yes you do have the more downforce and better traction but the amount of acceleration is lower because there is more steering angle and hence resistance?? and you cant straighten your steering or else you run out of track

Turning in with brakes helps you to brake later and turn in better actually. You get more yaw by virtue of the braking transferring the vertical load forwards onto the front tyres. In terms of maximising grip you still do maximise grip - just that it's then compound grip and not lateral/longitudinal grip.

You HAVE to - absolutely HAVE to at least have one phase of the cornering where you overlap brakes and cornering. No matter how short the distance or time you take to do it. Otherwise you're leaving spare grip on the table.

brake in a F1 car will always be able to lock the wheels up except the very 1st part of the braking. if you apply alot of lock say more than 5 degrees you will lose the ability to stop the car and you would need to brake earlier. And the idea of moving the load to the front of the car is not really useful in a race car because..... mass times acceleration times cg divide by wheelbase you get 5times the cg/ wheelbase in terms of % of weight moved, for a F1 car it is about 150mm of cg by 2(braking g at 200km/h *turn in speed* ) over 3000mm of wheelbase you get 10% of the weight to the front makes the car 56:44 front and rear in terms of mass but downforce at 200km/h is really about the same as the mass of the car and the balance shift is about 5%, (i.e you get 5% more force front the front wheels at the same steering angle, but since you can only steer so much in trail braking situations the end result is lower yaw rate)
say pastor puts in 15 degrees in the middle of the corner while lewis buts in 10% while with brakes on end result is that pastor has a high yaw rate and lewis has higher apex speed, i do agree that all drivers have some time where the 2 overlap but I think Rob Wilson wants that overlap to reduce to a minimum

Isn't necessarily true. There are, for some cars, other driving techniques/lines that you have to use to produce the "all round faster" speed.

well if you read my later points, open wheeler cars are designed a certain way rear bias and and high power with high drag, i would say f1 cars are almost alien with the weight distribution and super high downforce. rob wilson is a driving coach for all so i would assume that this style is best suited for highly traction limited cars. F1 cars are I would almost say the least traction limited cars of all ages in F1 history thus allowing the diverse driving styles today you can say 1 is better than other sometimes but his way is certainly ticks all the boxes in the physics department if any other driver were to be faster they must have design the car to suit their own style. What im trying to say is this driving style is a style that suits the car in *ie controlling a nervous race car* any other driving style were to be faster it would mean the car has to be design to adapt the driver. If a car is extremely stable, than it is not as fast as it can be or not designed properly. We can all agree that a car with higher turning ability is a better car. And if a driver can be on the limit of longitudinal as well as maximum yaw rate of the car it will be the fastest no?

[raymondu999]

yes you do have the more downforce and better traction but the amount of acceleration is lower but cause there is more steering angle and hence resistance?? and you cant straighten your steering or else you run out of track

Yes, you'd have to go on the power MUCH later - sometimes, if you really maximised the apex speed, you can only just about power out when the car is near the exit kerb - but then at that point the traction is big enough and you don't really have to wait before going full throttle.

brake in a F1 car will always be able to lock the wheels up except the very 1st part of the braking. if you apply alot of lock say more than 5 degrees you will lose the ability to stop the car and you would need to brake earlier.

I don't follow. Why would you need to brake earlier? Watch any Massa onboard or Schumacher onboard from the old days. They brake right up until the apex. In trail braking you reduce the braking as you increase turning, such that you're always using the maximum grip, but just moving the direction of the grip demand from fully longitudinal (straight braking) and fully lateral. If you imagine a traction circle - then move along the circumference by 90 degrees, but all the while staying on the circumference in a constant radius. That's basically what trail braking does.

If you brake, roll off, then turn, then there is a point in time (when you roll off) that you're leaving a whole bunch of excess grip.

As Jersey Tom puts it, "you brake later, carry the same amount of speed, and power out just the same. What's not to like?" (I think I paraphrased slightly there)

Here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=11603

i do agree that all drivers have some time where the 2 overlap but I think Rob Wilson wants that overlap to reduce to a minimum

Agreed.

What im trying to say is this driving style is a style that suits the car in *ie controlling a nervous race car* any other driving style would mean the car has to be design to adapt the driver. If a car is extremely stable, than it is not as fast as it can be or not designed properly.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here - are you saying that this driving style suits it when the car is tail happy?

We can all agree that a car with high turning ability is a better car. And if a driver can be on the limit of longitudinal as well as maximum yaw rate of the car it will be the fastest no?

Yes we are agreed on that, definitely. But the question is not whether or not you're at the limit of both. As a driver on the limit you always have to be on the limit of grip at all times, or as close to it as possible. However what is of contention here is how much you compromise in each for the other. Try driving a circuit in all straight lines, just driving apex to apex - where you will get a hell of a yaw moment - but you won't get anywhere racy fast. There has to be a balance somewhere.

If you looked at a circuit on a map, try drawing two lines - one is basically like connecting the apices in straight lines. Now have the other in the more "traditional" racing line - maximising the road and going from entry kerb - clip the apex kerb, and run over the exit kerb. I don't think it's as simple as going extreme in one way or the other.


In other news...

There's another thing that got me about Rob Wilson recently - he says that you'd see in a lot of corners in Barcelona Pastor was missing apexes and not using the full width of the road up to the kerbs, and Rob says this is faster, because the corners become a lot shorter. At this point, I go, "HUH!?"

Any thoughts?

The theory behind his techniques seem sound, however the theory behind the possible disadvantages also seem sound. Therefor I don't think that he's super correct - the balance has to be somewhere in between. For example I have never seen someone, even Pastor - run across a racing line and sticking to the exit side before doing the diagonal at the last possible moment.

I do admit, however, if you had a car that had a very very strong nose, had bicycle-width tyres with not much capacity for holding lateral, and had mighty traction - his style is possibly the fastest way around.