Driver styles/preferences

[ringo]

@747heavy.
I think the theory would look at the turning radius of the car. A certain turning radius may have to be chosen to suit the track as a whole. In some turns the chosen setup of the steering may not be ideal. I suppose an oversteering car can artificially reduce turning radius, and call also reset the car's direction of approach to a turn.
Grip is being given up in this maneuver, but reduced radius and shorter distance to get through the turn could outweigh the marginal loss of traction.
I think this only works in slow exiting turns or tightening turns. Neutral is mostly best.

[freedom_honda]

Button likes a well balanced car, that is not too over or understeery. When he has a good car balance, to him the car becomes more predictable and his smooth style shines. When there's under or oversteer however, he has to compensate and can't use his style.

Alonso IIRC likes an understeery car


Look how he throws the car into the corners with very little corrective steering.

This is an amazing clip. I am very impressed by how accurate he is with his style of driving. But wouldn't his style be very damaging to the front tyres?

[747heavy]

I see what you are saying n_smikle, and you have a point.
We need to define/decide what we want to discuss. You can drive any car in a oversteering or understeering way if you like, and if you have the control means (like braking only one axle or generating wheel spin at only one axle).
It depends also on what we discuss, faster through the corner (that was my point) or faster through a lap/stage - as in your point.

As for faster trough a corner, the car which uses the grip on both axles to the max, will be faster then the car who reaches it´s limit on one axle before the other, and therefore can´t use the remaining grip at the other axle.
That´s why you see AWD in the WRC and why AWD will beat a RWD or FWD car under equal conditions.

That it is maybe not possible to make a car "neutral" over a wide range of conditions (speed, corner radius etc.) is a different matter.
And here comes the "driving style" in, it´s (IMO) a way, to try to overcome a characteristic of the car/tyre.
This can yield gains in terms of overall laptime/stage time - no doubt, but if you could make the axle which causes the "problem" to perform better, it would be faster.
I don´t think a driver sets out to drive in an oversteering or understeering way, just because he likes it.
IMHO

[speedsense]

While there are many driver techniques, you can define drivers in two separate groups.
Those that "make" the car attain a wanted attitude (by the driver) in a corner. This is called "car rotation". This technique has a type of driver that will tend to "accept" understeer as the lesser of the two evils as a handling condition.

The other type are drivers that "need" the car to rotate for them, and tend towards oversteer as the lesser of the two evils. It is the cars input,(not the driver's) in handling that causes the car to rotate

This difference in driving styles and the setup that follows it are in two completely different directions.

Consider the driver who rotates the car for his technique, in an oversteering car is not acceptable as no further input from the driver is needed nor can it be applied, as the car's attitude can not be extended any more. However slight understeer would be acceptable as the driver can rotate the car into a neutral attitude.

A perfectly neutral car, would also be acceptable and is the fastest way through a corner, but for the driver who needs the car to rotate, it may not be acceptable as the car will not rotate on it's own.

Both techniques can be equally as fast, but in certain circumstances, it is the "rotation" driver technique that will tend to solve a problem when the setup goes off.


IMHO..

[747heavy]

@ Ringo,

yes IMO you made a good point, if we want to define US/NS/OS we would need to define a conrer radius first.
Now in practice this is difficult as there are not many constant radius corners on a "normal" racing circuit, so the corner radius changes all the time.
The chosen (racing)line, will depent on many considerations (car/tire concept, local grip, state of tires, do we need to defend or want to overtake etc.)
It´s not allways the shortes geometrical line between entry and exit of a corner.
On a given track, for a given corner two cars can have different lines and both can use the "best" lines for them.

In my expirience (which does not include F1), a driver which "likes" or is not afraid of an oversteering car at the limit, needs good front grip, and a very responsive car.
They will say things like. "Give me more front (end grip)- I will take care of the rest".
Because they need the front to control the rear (oversteer), if the front does not provide the grip/feedback needed, they can´t drive/control the OS, they will either just spin, or need to drive slow enough, that the rear does not lose grip.
As long as they have enough control (front grip) they don´t care about the rear, because they can control it.

The thing is, to control OS you need front steering input (assuming we talk a front wheel steered car, and ignoring things like bumpsteer/rollsteer or other factors which would steer the rear wheels,or brake them left to right independently (ESP)).
In the case of US at the limit, you "just" need to go a little bit slower (back off the throttle a bit), and it stops or does not get worse - it´s more "comfortable" and easier to do/control.

If OS happens, you need the front to be able to react to your correction (steering input), if you find out, that your front does not respond, you are in trouble.
This kind of driver (maybe MCS) will struggle big time, with a car that does not respond well/predictable to steering inputs. They either go slow, to make sure the rear will never OS, or they risk it (OS), and maybe spin/crash when the front does not do, what they would like it to do.

[marcush.]

I think your view is valid to a point and I´m not convinced that this trait is really all out oversteer ..the question there is power on or off oversteer ..when the car is stepping out even without throttle application no one can control this situation as there is only one solution: go slower.so in real world terms there is a max of how much oversteer you will be able to live with.
If the car can be controlled with throttle application ..steered by throttle and only the initial input to start rotating the car needs the front end grip you are getting closer to the ball game.
To me the merc for example is just not responding to steering input there is no mementum that builds up so its really dtrimental to that driving style as you said the throttle application can either be late or it gets dogy as the car will be rotated by the rear wheels spinning instead of the fronts doing their job.
Obviously Schumacher is trapped in this ,it his his stile and the car is in no ways able to cope with the loads he´s trying to put into it.

[747heavy]

..when the car is stepping out even without throttle application no one can control this situation as there is only one solution: go slower.so in real world terms there is a max of how much oversteer you will be able to live with.

Sorry Marcus,
I don´t agree with your first statement here.
IMO you can control this condition (rear tire side slip angle < front tire side slip angle) by reducing front tire side slip angle (less steering input, extreme opposite steer). If you run out of "control input/moment" (max opposite steering lock), then it´s "game over". - yes and I agree with the second part of your statement.

Imagine a car (looking from above) going around a corner, with the centerline pointing more towards the centre of the corner:
like this:

you could still make the corner, following the arc of the corner, but with a car attitude which is "out of shape" --> the intersection of the frontaxle line with the car centreline and the intersection of the rear axle line with CCL are not on the same arc in relation to the(corner)radius.

What would you call this condition?

Which could look like this from the outside.

It´s not always a powerslide, which is causing this.

This is why I ask, at the beginning what our definition of OS/US is, to be sure we mean the same thing.

[marcush.]

we are speaking the same language there 747 ,I fully agree.
you also have to aknowledge that this sort of car behaviour wll not lead to quicklap times as it will first be impossible in quick change of direction and second the car will yaw forever and that is slow as well....plus a F1 car really has not much on offer when it comes to lock + runs with lots of anti ackerman ...wich is not really putting much lock on the then outside counterclockwise turned wheelwhich has to support most of the load ...right?

[godlameroso]

Button likes a well balanced car, that is not too over or understeery. When he has a good car balance, to him the car becomes more predictable and his smooth style shines. When there's under or oversteer however, he has to compensate and can't use his style.

Alonso IIRC likes an understeery car


Look how he throws the car into the corners with very little corrective steering.

This is an amazing clip. I am very impressed by how accurate he is with his style of driving. But wouldn't his style be very damaging to the front tyres?

This depends somewhat on the weight balance of the car, an extreme example would be a Porsche, it's light front end means the front tires don't wear as much as the rears, only problem is that I don't know if due to the chassis or the engine placement, the car tends to understeer at the limit. Which is strange because moving weight towards the rear usually creates oversteer. In the Porsche it usually happens during braking, however there's probably a difference in a mid engine car with mass dampers, traction control and tires tuned specifically for it.

[SiLo]

I remember reading that one of the reasons Hamilton is so quick is because of his car control. Apparently he creates more yaw than anyone else during the corner, thus making the breaking point ever so slightly later and making the straight upon exit longer. Whether this is true or not I don't know, but I do know there is probably nobody better on the break than him, except maybe Schumi in his heyday.

[marcush.]

throwing around the car is not necessarily quick...spectacular yes but not quick.
building up ssideforce is costing speed so you want to spend most of the time going straight.
the steering wheel is a very effective brake ...those who do carting know ..how important it is to release the machine and let it find its way.

[PlatinumZealot]

They (Paddy low?) say Hamilton drives on a "V" path through the turns. I figure that he brakes deep into the turn, then Pivot's the car on a dime, then blast out of the corner.

To exaggerate, similarly to the light cycles in Tron.



Technically, the car travels a shorter distance traveling on a linear path versus traveling on a curved path. To illustrate this, the permieter of an incribed polygon is always less than it's circle:



So Hamilton is literally cutting corners most of the time. A car that oversteers will definitely be more effective at pivoting in the turns to achieve this style.

[Giblet]

Button likes a well balanced car, that is not too over or understeery. When he has a good car balance, to him the car becomes more predictable and his smooth style shines. When there's under or oversteer however, he has to compensate and can't use his style.

Alonso IIRC likes an understeery car
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN9m6Ok5HcM[/youtube]

Look how he throws the car into the corners with very little corrective steering.

Unfortunately, the myth that Alonso's style is what we saw in the 2005/2006 Renault as 'his style' was debunked as soon as 2007 and he no longer drove this way. Sawing the wheel didn't work in the Mclaren.

Alonso does, and always has, driven each car the way it needed to be to go the quickest he could muster. There has never been crying about a car not suiting his style for good reason. Adaptability.

This is why he was not struggling with the 2007 Mclaren, previous Minardi, and current Ferrari.



He drives each car to it's strengths

[747heavy]

it´s maybe a bit more like this:



more extreme V-shape in a 180° corner


It´s not so much "short cutting" the corner, as using the stength of a car, which is maybe better in straight line braking (late braking) and in acceleration. you can be on the throttle earlier with that technique.

It´s a typical technique in cars which don´t can support high midcorner speeds due to maybe weight or/and tires or a lack on downforce.
You see this for example in V8Supercars, and other touring cars with high power and weight.
Done to extreme, pivoting the car on a too small radius, will put excessive stress on the ear tires, as you slide them sideways.
You will be slow at this point (pivoting) of the corner, but if you won time before under braking, and gain on the next staight by being early on the throttle, it can be faster.
It´s typical used in low(er) speed tight corners exiting onto a long(er) straight, or in reverse after a straigh when there is no long stright at the exit, so you try to win time under braking, but are not too concerned with the exit.

It´s not effective in high speed wide corners , because (due to limiting engine power/drag) you can´t gain that much under acceleration.

[raymondu999]

Basically taking a late apex for the racing line, no?