Driver styles/preferences

[Sevach]

That was because he had a half second gap between lifting off the throttle and getting on the brake pedal which is quite a lot of idle time.

The guy did emphasize straight away, but ok.
Even if that is a bad example, nowadays we've been told that because of aero the initial braking input is quite violent to take advantage of the extra grip at high speeds, and then gradually lift it as the car slows down.

In other words the huge downforce of the cars changed how you brake.

[timbo]

In other words the huge downforce of the cars changed how you brake.

Yep. The braking profiles of a modern F1 car/driver is always something of a _|\_ curve.
I remember reading interesting thing though, the carbon brakes only grip fully when red-hot, so you have some delay between you hit brakes and when they start to fully work, so some drivers actually apply a tiny bit of brakes at the end of the straights just to heat them up before main braking.

@ jamsbong Good point, I don't think he specifically mentioned. Anyway, it's amazing hearing that modern cars are so stiff from the guy who drove those early-90s cars.

[raymondu999]

An excerpt from the latest Autosport. It's Mark Slade talking of Raikkonen (Slade was Raikkonen's engineer at McLaren and at Lotus now)

Kimi has always had a different style to many other drivers. Ideally, he would like a certain degree of feedback and a certain degree of sensitivity that allows him to react as quickly as he would like to. He has particularly fast reflexes and likes to drive on those. The most obvious comparison I can make is with Juan Pablo Montoya, who was incredibly aggressive with the wheel. Someone who drives like that doesn’t necessarily require much feedback in the corner. For Kimi, it’s a more reactive process, so if the steering is giving him either insufficient information or inaccurate information, it causes a little reduction in his ability to respond.
With power-steering, if you get a huge amount of phase lag in it, you can give completely the wrong message. If the driver is holding onto it through the corner, not anticipating to be as close to the edge on front grip, he doesn’t necessarily need that sort of response, but Kimi does. That’s the way he has driven from day one and it has always been a difference between him and his team-mates.

[Sevach]

Something i always wondered about the Kimi Ferrari days, he went from a Mclaren who had a very short steering rack, really small movements, to a Ferrari who had a loooong steering rack (to this day they still swear by it).
I wonder if that was part of the "problem".

[Nando]

One thing was recently caught my attention was a comment of Alain Prost about a RedBull car he drove -- he said it is very stiff.

Did he meant the ride being stiff or the chassis being stiff? Having a stiff chassis means you can turn more sharply even with soft suspension. Road cars like Zonda actually have a soft-like set up but turns in beautifully without aftermath reaction. The stiff chassis allows such behaviour.

Stiff as in the car he drove would be considered a boat by today´s standards.

[jamsbong]

@Nando, I'm even more confused by your msg. F1 car like a boat? Do u mean it understeers?

On a side note, I'm quite surprised that Sebastian Ogier gotten nowhere with ROC 2012. In 2011, he had beaten Tom Kristensen and Ekstrom (two top guns). Moreover, looking back Grosjean was nowhere in ROC 2011 but a winner this year.

I've a theory...

These boys (err.. Professional racing driver), needs to be in full competition with strong teammate to keep their skills sharp. Ogier was the teammate of Sebastian Loeb in 2011 and that was a dramatic year for both of them. They pushed each other to the limit and other drivers in the WRC field was nowhere. Such pressure was also seen in the Hamilton vs Alonso year (2008) and it ended up quite messy. On the upside, it really made Hamilton and Alonso perform.
In MotoGP, Lorenzo vs Rossi when they were teammates. They were always so fast in the race that they look like they have a different class of machinery. It is amazing to see the risks they take just to be that little bit faster.

I suspect, Romain has gotten a lot of pressure from Kimi to drive fast and could explain the really good performance in ROC2012. He won it twice now. That is not an easy thing to achieve. Hope Romain will retain his seat, and stop being a crashkid. haha.

[marcush.]

crucially Grosjean did need more time to realise his potential.on day one he got beaten by Schumacher but on day two he was able to get all out of the car when schumacher had not as much potential for improvement left over.

[zorog]

@Nando, I'm even more confused by your msg. F1 car like a boat? Do u mean it understeers?

Think he might be referring to body roll.

[raymondu999]

To ease any and all confusion, Prost's exact words...

It must be very difficult with so little testing. The car is very stiff now; it's much more difficult to get the right feeling. You cannot see it moving and pitching; you just have to believe in it. That must be very hard in race conditions.

[jamsbong]

Understand. Thanks Raymond.
The car suspension set up is stiffer than the old days. So the car would hardly bob or roll. This way of sensing the limit of the car is very different to what Prost is familiar with.

It is common to tune a car so that it pitch and roll to allow driver to react to these movements. However, these movements takes time to take action (it takes time to roll from left to right or vice-versa). In the quest for better speed, they've made the car set up as stiff as possible so there is nearly no perceivable movement. So the only thing drivers are left with is the steering feedback and the G-load that they can feel with their butt. Rather than the rolling sensation from the inner ear.

[raymondu999]

Yes. Prost makes it sound weird though - as if he never did seat of the pants feeling and was more about judging based on visual feedback. That's how I saw it, at least through his description of seeing the car moving and pitching. If my conclusion is correct - it could explain why Prost wasn't as good in the wet

[timbo]

Yes. Prost makes it sound weird though - as if he never did seat of the pants feeling and was more about judging based on visual feedback. That's how I saw it, at least through his description of seeing the car moving and pitching. If my conclusion is correct - it could explain why Prost wasn't as good in the wet

Feeling a car moving around is all about gut instinct.

[the user]

Yes. Prost makes it sound weird though - as if he never did seat of the pants feeling and was more about judging based on visual feedback. That's how I saw it, at least through his description of seeing the car moving and pitching. If my conclusion is correct - it could explain why Prost wasn't as good in the wet

I don't know if you can say if he wasn't as good in the wet. He himself has said numerous times that after Pironi's horrible crash in '82 he wouldn't take any more unnecessary risks, especially in the wet. It means that it was only a couple of first F1 seasons in which he always pushed to the limit so it's difficult to judge.

[raymondu999]

Yes. Prost makes it sound weird though - as if he never did seat of the pants feeling and was more about judging based on visual feedback. That's how I saw it, at least through his description of seeing the car moving and pitching. If my conclusion is correct - it could explain why Prost wasn't as good in the wet

Feeling a car moving around is all about gut instinct.

Yes, but Prost is very clearly talking about seeing the car move:

it's much more difficult to get the right feeling. You cannot see it moving and pitching; you just have to believe in it.

I don't know if you can say if he wasn't as good in the wet. He himself has said numerous times that after Pironi's horrible crash in '82 he wouldn't take any more unnecessary risks, especially in the wet. It means that it was only a couple of first F1 seasons in which he always pushed to the limit so it's difficult to judge.

I get what you're saying - but obviously, in the wet he will still push to a pace that he feels is safe, to X% level of confidence. If he was better in the wet, he wouldn't need to slow down so much, because he'd have enough confidence that the car will stick at higher speeds.

[timbo]

I get what you're saying - but obviously, in the wet he will still push to a pace that he feels is safe, to X% level of confidence. If he was better in the wet, he wouldn't need to slow down so much, because he'd have enough confidence that the car will stick at higher speeds.

In the wet it's not only about the car. With limited visibility you're always taking chances.