Rob Wilson - driver coach?

[speedsense]

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:

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: http://www.f1technical.net/forum/viewto ... =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:

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?

[/b]

Two things that are major amongst a lot of things that make up a fast lap. The time or percentage of a lap, spent at full throttle AND the least amount of steering needed to complete the lap.
On the steering part, every time you turn the steering wheel, the car is slowing down. If you think about it, the only way to slow a car without brakes, engine compression or aero drag would be to turn the steering wheel. Lessening this over a lap maintains maximum acceleration. So by shortening the corner, he means achieving the soonest possible point of full throttle WITH the least amount of scrub from the steering.
A road course is nothing but a bunch of drag strips connected by corners. Less of the corner and more of the drag strip, net gain in laptime.

[raymondu999]

Two things that are major amongst a lot of things that make up a fast lap. The time or percentage of a lap, spent at full throttle AND the least amount of steering needed to complete the lap.

Agreed.

On the steering part, every time you turn the steering wheel, the car is slowing down.

Agreed - conversationally referred to as tyre scrub.

If you think about it, the only way to slow a car without brakes, engine compression or aero drag would be to turn the steering wheel. Lessening this over a lap maintains maximum acceleration.

Given the context of your statement, I assume you mean *forward* acceleration here - because your lateral acceleration will increase (centripetal acceleration).

So by shortening the corner, he means achieving the soonest possible point of full throttle WITH the least amount of scrub from the steering.

Of course - you have to concede that you have more "peak" scrub - because at the apex you'll be turning the wheel more (in the attempt to shorten the corner). However, I concede that the net effect could be less (if you do a "cumulative total" of steering)

Also, don't forget you carry less speed through the corners, meaning you have to be on the throttle longer to build speed back up (effectively, if you shorten the corners, you start the straight having put on "less throttle") and you'll have to brake more (decreasing your on throttle time).

If such "shortening of corner" is truly faster - we would just see a bunch of guys driving completely straight lines and driving the inner radius of every corner - completely short corners and all straights otherwise. Going by that same logic, flat-out kinks in the middle of straights (such as Blanchimont, Turkey Turn 12, etc) will just be done by drivers hugging the inside line, rather than using up all the road - because you'd have more scrub from steering, as you put it.

[speedsense]

If such "shortening of corner" is truly faster - we would just see a bunch of guys driving completely straight lines and driving the inner radius of every corner - completely short corners and all straights otherwise. Going by that same logic, flat-out kinks in the middle of straights (such as Blanchimont, Turkey Turn 12, etc) will just be done by drivers hugging the inside line, rather than using up all the road - because you'd have more scrub from steering, as you put it.

IMHO, Mr Wilson is speaking of "time spent cornering" rather than distance (semantics though not quite the same). Shortening the corner would require a car to be rotated early, whether by setup or by driver intervention, thus increasing momentarily the lateral G, scrub and continuing the rest of the corner with much less of both with resulting less steering, more throttle and hopefully full throttle earlier.

[Anon123]

"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."

Vettel went for a very high downforce setting so he could afford to hug the inside of the corner, if you have enough grip to hug the inside of a corner (shortening it) and still get good traction and get the throttle on early then do it. As the OP said techniques differ from corner to corner and from car to car.

[raymondu999]

IMHO, Mr Wilson is speaking of "time spent cornering" rather than distance (semantics though not quite the same).

I don't see how you're making the distinction. Also note that he does specifically say to take a "soft vee" line through corners, and slowing the car more to take a shorter, sharper radius. I don't remember if he said as such in the thread opening video, but he does say to take a shorter, sharper arc. For all intents and purposes, I *do* think he means a sharper arc - hence a V-corner. If you look at the magazine scans I posted several pages back - and some of the videos with him in it, he specifically says to put more lock on at the apex, so you can have a flat car on entry and exit, or at least a flatter car. Flat meaning a car without weight transfer laterally.

[raymondu999]

Rob appears at 14:48
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKoowtI2ZJU[/youtube]

The more I hear him - the more I think that his technique is primarily a method of error reduction, rather than an outright speed boost.

[raymondu999]

Here's that snippet
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrgmZyMHzrw[/youtube]

[timbo]

The more I hear him - the more I think that his technique is primarily a method of error reduction, rather than an outright speed boost.

IMO it gives both. When we talk about F1 level drivers it's about tiny nuances which differ between people, between teammates there's usually less than a second and over 90 second lap it's really a tiny difference. So the one who makes less mistakes and closer to optimum would have an upper hand.

[raymondu999]

That it gives an error reduction rate I will not dispute - cornering slower and in such a short, sharp apex would definitely leave more margin of error on entry and exit in case you go too fast.

But I don't think there has been any undisputed proof that it is the quicker "style" at all, other than ad hominem from Rob's words.

In fact looking at that video, saying how you rotate in a "point" before the normal apex - makes me wonder why the hell he doesn't just say "late apex."

[mike]

ignore the music
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFxlAL2d0vc[/youtube]

[Kansas]

Rob appears at 14:48
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKoowtI2ZJU[/youtube]

The more I hear him - the more I think that his technique is primarily a method of error reduction, rather than an outright speed boost.

what do you mean by outright speed boost in the first place???

Speed that came from nowhere?? driver talent?? bla bla bla???

If you can do 1 lap with the minimum amount of error, you will ended up as quickest as easy as that.

I don't think it's appropriate for armchair fans to doubt Rob Wilson. A guy that has been in this field since the 80s and taught 2000++ drivers that came to him automatically. Half of the F1 grid today still attend his lesson voluntarily.

And most drivers find difficulty in beating his lap time in a normal road car. The welcome gift from him to all his pupils.

[raymondu999]

what do you mean by outright speed boost in the first place???

Laptime

Speed that came from nowhere?? driver talent?? bla bla bla???

From different lines and techniques

f you can do 1 lap with the minimum amount of error, you will ended up as quickest as easy as that.

I (and you) could step in an F1 car, make absolutely no errors, and still end up seconds off. I don't think Button did any errors in his china q3 lap either. There are times when certain drivers will sacrifice a tenth or two of laptime, if it's a line that has an easier rhythm.

A guy that has been in this field since the 80s and taught 2000++ drivers that came to him automatically. Half of the F1 grid today still attend his lesson voluntarily.

So the question is - if he really is that good, why did he never make F1? Either he didn't do what he preached, or he did do what he preached - in which case, that would mean he's been teaching bogus theories.

Obviously he did not have a 100% career win rate. There would have been times when he couldn't beat other drivers in equal machinery. Obviously, on those days - someone else's technique was quicker.

And most drivers find difficulty in beating his lap time in a normal road car. The welcome gift from him to all his pupils.

Have you considered that the car could be a perfect match for his driving style? And that he knows his track better than drivers? Or that some drivers came in, blitzed his time, and he had no answer? (In Rob's own admission - Kimi and Lewis) have you also considered that in road cars (ie lift-generating cars) his technique of a slower, sharper corner *would* be quicker - because you're driving the corner slower, closer to the car's peak grip state (ie less lift at lower speed) - but you have to remember that cars that produce downforce will be at low-grip state in slow cornering speeds

I don't think it's appropriate for armchair fans to doubt Rob Wilson.

Am I calling him a fraud? No. But I'm not going to take everything as spoonfed. Why, for example, did he see Pastor Maldonado sticking to the left of the circuit, before swinging right for the braking, which no one else saw? I *want* to believe him - because it's nice having an authority to listen and learn from in car manipulation. But so far a lot of what I've read just seems to be ipse dixit.

[Jersey Tom]

ignore the music
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFxlAL2d0vc[/youtube]

Eh... his bit on maximum cornering force coming where you have the most steering resistance isn't correct, but fundamentally what he's saying about having an appropriate amount of hand wheel effort is spot on.

As for these Rob Wilson videos.. I think you could sum it all up in fewer words. Ultimately there's not just one racing line. There are many, an infinite amount. Best line varies with types of cars, condition of tires, and race traffic. I'd go so far as to say the best line isn't always necessarily the technically fastest one. Good driver has to be cognizant of all of this and able to adapt.

[Ral]

A guy that has been in this field since the 80s and taught 2000++ drivers that came to him automatically. Half of the F1 grid today still attend his lesson voluntarily.

So the question is - if he really is that good, why did he never make F1? Either he didn't do what he preached, or he did do what he preached - in which case, that would mean he's been teaching bogus theories.

Obviously he did not have a 100% career win rate. There would have been times when he couldn't beat other drivers in equal machinery. Obviously, on those days - someone else's technique was quicker.

Your question is of course a valid one, but I don't think the two options you list as possible conclusions are the only ones. For example we all know that getting to F1 has always been expensive and plenty of good drivers never even made it there, let alone managed to stick it out.

As to your assertions about his career win rate, again, I think you're being a bit harsh. Just because he's good at explaining this stuff to drivers (not to us, perhaps, but to drivers certainly he must be, because they keep going back to him and he keeps being recommended for other drivers), doesn't mean he's a perfect machine when it comes to implementing it. He is a human being and makes mistakes, just as Schumacher did.

Anyway, there is some more information about him and his endeavours here and quite a lot more here.

Bottom line though, while it's always a good thing to question information, I think it's hard for me to judge him on things like the validity of what he says because of several reasons (feel free to apply to yourself or not as you see fit):
1) I'm not immersed in the lingo he uses. I can try to extrapolate because they're English words he uses, not acronyms, but the finer nuances are most definitely lost on me because the context of experience (ie. racing a car lots and racing at least once a week for years on end) is missing and I have to infer it which adds another bit of uncertainty.
2) The things he talks about can't be measured by me. For one because they are principles as opposed to concrete points at a corner where he says to brake, turn in, open steering etc. If he did that, you could start saying when you were braking here you gained a tenth and when you braked there you lost two. But with principles all you can say is "Hey, that felt a bit easier to maintain a higher speed through that corner" or "The car was definitely less twitchy when I did it like that" - and well, I can't tell those differences over TCP/IP. But they also can't be measured because, well, how do you measure someone's teaching? Personal success in the field certainly has no bearing on the validity of someone's teaching. I mean, can you show me any golf masters trophies with Sean Foley's name on it? And since you can't because there aren't any, why would someone like Tiger Woods agree to learn from him? And even more, how could someone with no major titles to his name help Tiger Woods get back to no. 1 in the rankings?

I guess what I'm saying is, the quality of a teacher and his teaching can't be gauged by the answers he gives in an interview about a 3d person's performance from the confines of one's living room. On the other hand, poking holes in what someone says in an interview is easy and poking holes in someone's teaching is even easier. I know, I teach kung fu and tai chi and whenever we are going over how you would use a certain technique in a fighting situation, there is always some smartass who says "but what if I did this instead", completely forgetting that we're essentially working backwards, starting with our reaction and working out what action from our imaginary opponent that could be used on. Rob Wilson in these interviews is a bit like that: they start off with what's already happened and he's trying to explain in layman's terms how that could have happened and why and what principles apply and what driver X might have been thinking - but without the benefit of actually having been in the car - and we're going "but what if this is what driver X was thinking instead?" thinking ourselves thorough and scientific and forgetting that our "what if" is irrelevant to the point Rob Wilson was making.

[Sleepy Drifter]

Hi everyone!

I am a racing driver currently competing in one of the major Formula 3 championships in Europe. I came across this topic by mistake, actually googling-up Rob

To be honest I try not to participate in discussions on the internet, but you have a very interesting topic here and I'm amazed of how detailed and technical you guys are, lots and lots of respect to you all.

I do not know Rob personally, however heard a lot about him from other drivers, coaches and engineers. I plan to do a day a two with him when I'm in UK later this summer, provided he’s still able to get a rental car in UK

There's number of things I'd like to comment on, let me start with these first:

V-shaping corners
… meaning lower min speed and more steering at where the min is (usually not the apex, as apex is late). To be honest there are so many opinions on this one, that I would struggle to black & white it for you so I won't. One thing's for sure: it's track conditions, corner, car and setup dependent Generally I v-shape a lot in the wet, however in F3 car even when you are "driving over a poodle", some stuff is still of U shap. Some very long corners can be broken into double-apex ones with the min (v-shape) between the apexes. Other than that, I think the more your car is balanced towards grip, rather than power, the more you will tend to U-shape cause grip allows you have higher min without sacrificing anything on entry or exit. F3 is massively underpowered for the amount of grip it has.

For the speed at the end of straight not only the min @ apex is important, but when you go to full throttle. You want your min be as high as possible but also to be on 100% power soon as possible. Obviously you can trade one for another, but in an underpowered and balanced (setup) car I'd rather keep my min up.

Diagonalling the straight
Personally, in most cases I do nothing at all to diagonal the straight. It comes naturally by the way I ride the exit kerb which is when I'm off the kerb, my car is already pointing slightly to the inside of the track relative to the turn just taken, which is also a diagonal across the straight.

Then obviously on the straight, I don't put any load on the steering wheel, I'm actually barely holding it to give my hands some rest and also make sure the car is "free".