year1987The first commercial data-logging system to be run during Formula 1 and Indycar races.
How could I forget TAG and Magnetti Marelli?Jersey Tom wrote:TAG and Magneti Marelli would come to mind, the former before being brought into Mclaren Electronics (or so I believe?)
Anyone with enough time can design a race car on their computer, or simulate one on their computer. But the greatest excitement comes from actually coupling the computer up with a real race car to take real data on a real track. Race car development usually requires flexible general-purpose equipment, in the number of channels, types of transducers, sampling intervals, and total capacity. Electronic race car data acquisition started in the late 60's, although it was limited to analog tape recording systems, as described in my first book, "Chevrolet -- Racing?"
Computerized data recording is common in engineering. There are dozens of such systems available; dedicated multi-user, multi-tasking systems that can even use the analysed data to automatically control subsequent test procedures. On a smaller scale, anyone with a PC can gradually build their own small system out of commercial modular components such as a plug-in board and general purpose off-the-shelf data analysis software. However, the best of these are seldom adequate for the in-the-field race car requirements of vibration, noise, and heat resistance, and cost, portability, and size restrictions, the reason for development of dedicated race systems.
BMW may have been the first with digital race data-taking, in their engine development for Brabham in 1983. Working with the Bosch computer-controlled injection system, they already had digitized engine signals such as rpm, temperatures, and pressures. So it required little extra electronics to temporarily store a sequence of such figures in an onboard data buffer. When I first saw the system, they had a separate circuit board in the shielded engine control module, with a 16K RAM that could store up to 1000 data points from each of 16 channels - which seems amusingly primitive today. Then in the pits they would download the data for analysis. As it was primarily an engine project, however, they probably didn't use the system for much chassis development.
About the same time, Honda racing engineers asked me to come in and discuss systems that might be useful in their new F1 activity. After a two hour monolog on my part, they asked some questions that indicated they knew a lot more than they were telling. As it turned out, they were about to sign with the Williams Team, where Frank Dirney was already using a 4-channel tape recorder on his cars to gather data for later computer analysis.
Eventually, Williams/Honda made a deal to share computer technology with an American CART team headed by Ian Reed, a former March engineer with a strong background in computer applications to simulation and design. So Reed brought in a hardware expert, Kurt Borman, who spent a couple of years developing a data-taking and analysis system, later marketed as the Motech. It started with 4 channels, taking data at 1/2 second intervals, analyzing them on an Apple, and worked up to a portable computer, analyzing at least eight channels simultaneously.
Although drag racing seems like a low-tech sport which contributes little to circuit racing, it's interesting to note that their data recording requirements may be even more demanding, where things happen so fast -- sub-5-second runs over 300 mph -- that only a computer can handle them. As early as the 1983 season, the Kenny Bernstein team was developing a system that could take 32 channels of data at 100 samples per second. Eventually Bernstein's engineers came up with a simpler and more marketable system called Racepak, which will be described later.
In 1985, Harry Gant's NASCAR Chevrolet had an extremely sophisticated telemetry system. The onboard data acquisition system was a 40-pound box that could continuously monitor 24 different sensors at a rate of 55 samples per second. The data was then transmitted to a receiving and analysis console via a 4-watt transmitter, and a 30-foot receiving antenna. However, at the end of that season, NASCAR officials became wary of such systems actually being used to monitor a car during a race, and outlawed them.
Incidentally, data telemetry will not be covered in great detail here, even though it sounds exotic and is commonly used in Formula One and CART teams. My own experience with it convinced me that it was seldom worth its development and maintenance problems unless there was someone on it full-time. When you get down to reality, not that many applications outside of engine development and "maybe" oversteer/understeer balance demand instantaneous real-time observation of data while the car is on the track.
Over the last couple of decades, computerized DAS has evolved along with advancing computer technology, driven by many overlapping commercial interests: (a) Factory engine development engineers need faster and more precise control systems, especially in telemetry, and they can afford the best. (b) Chassis development engineers can count on the DAS manufacturers to continually provide them with just a little more capabilities that they can apply. (c) The dash gauge and instrument manufacturers increase their product sophistication by incorporating memory that can also be downloaded for later analysis.
It did, amongst other things.autogyro wrote:Didnt the Lotus/Cranfield system use a pitot tube for airspeed and a sensor to measure suspension deflection Dave?
Channels were (if a recall correctly), 4x strut loads (our manufacture), 4x strut positions (LVDT's), 4x wheel speeds (inductive), 4x spares (for future use), 2x drive shaft torque sensors (SaRo), Lat & Long acceleration (force balance), 1x rack position (LVDT), Brake Pressure (strain gauge), RPM (inductive) & Dynamic Pressure (strain gauge).Belatti wrote:Can you tell us Dave what were the 24 channels recording? And wich sensors did you use?
I guess the work of processing and analising the data recorded with that kind of software and computer was an effort of its own.
