Bobby Unser on data acquisition

[Enjun Pullr]

This is a great interview with Bobby Unser just published by Gordon Kirby, and the subject of telemetry is one of many discussed:

http://gordonkirby.com/categories/columns/theway/2010/the_way_it_is_no263.html

If IndyCar is truly interested in managing costs and preventing the unfair advantage established by the wealthier teams, cutting the data stream is the answer.

After reading in the 2009 rulebook that 21 telemetry sensors were permitted on the race car, asking questions about this topic didn't get much response. Data acquisition is a cottage industry that dramatically increases costs, requires significant staff increases, and provides no value to the fans.

Any sensors that store data to analyze crash information should be retained in an ECU for download. Teams and drivers should have to set up their cars with out strain gauges and laser ride height sensors, and without engineering staffs to exploit the data.

[anthonyvop]

Cut one thing and the better funded teams will just spend their money on something else and continue to win.

The only real way to contain costs is to cap the budgets and nobody is going to do that.

[Enjun Pullr]

Simplistic and inaccurate response.

[anthonyvop]

Simplistic and inaccurate response.

Simplistic yes but is the simple solution,

Inaccurate? Not at all.
Has any of the cost saving rules caused Penske or Ganassi to cut their budgets?

[Enjun Pullr]

One simple way to illustrate the point for you is this:

Penske and Ganassi have shaker rigs in-house. Can the Series regulate team expenses for off-track testing equipment and personnel? They can try, and fail.

Without the ability to create track maps and scrutinize vehicle dynamics with data acquisition, the picture changes. The advantage of having the best engineering staffs and facilities is neutralized if they have no data to exploit.

Removing data access from on-car telemetry is the answer. Exploiting wind tunnel testing relies on maintaining consistant ride height and pitch/ yaw control; optimizing the chassis dynamics for that purpose relies on shaker rig testing; the benefit of shaker rig testing is greatly reduced without specific information to input which is acquired from on-track telemetry.

Cut the cord, you cut the benefits and expense of what you can pull with it.

[Hoop-98]

IMO, as posted earlier, if you take away one expense, they will find another area spend. he with the best people and most money will win the most.

Not sure how many tech genies you can stuff back in the bottle. Years ago in F1 they were recording the competitors cars and using high speed cameras to get RPM, acceleration, and other data they so they could have "telemetry" from their competitors.

"Apart from placing a "mole" in each of one's competitors' teams, who then passes out data files on lap speeds and other information, there are few methods of obtaining another car's speed plots. It could be possible using a helicopter hovering above the circuit, and digitising a video of the cars lapping the track, but this approach would be very expensive and time consuming.

A more viable alternative would be to adapt a technique developed by P.Azzoni and D. Moro (University of Bologna, Italy), and G.Rizzoni (Ohio State University, Columbus, USA), presented to the 1998 SAE Motorsports Engineering Conference as a paper titled "Reconstruction of Formula1 Engine Instantaneous Speed by Acoustic Emission Data". Strangely, the authors did not put forward the speed profile of a competitor's car as one of the variables that could be analysed by using the technique. From the proximity of Bologna to Maranello, it is possible to surmise that Ferrari funded the work, and that they did not publish this application as that is exactly what Ferrari uses it for!"


Now that was stuff they were doing 13 years ago, imagine what they could do now.

Not sure i want Dirt Karts (we had Pi) to be more techie than IndyCars, jmo, or sat nite stockers, or NASCAR , or NHRA et.al..

rh

[garyshell]

One simple way to illustrate the point for you is this:

Penske and Ganassi have shaker rigs in-house. Can the Series regulate team expenses for off-track testing equipment and personnel? They can try, and fail.

Without the ability to create track maps and scrutinize vehicle dynamics with data acquisition, the picture changes. The advantage of having the best engineering staffs and facilities is neutralized if they have no data to exploit.

Removing data access from on-car telemetry is the answer. Exploiting wind tunnel testing relies on maintaining consistant ride height and pitch/ yaw control; optimizing the chassis dynamics for that purpose relies on shaker rig testing; the benefit of shaker rig testing is greatly reduced without specific information to input which is acquired from on-track telemetry.

Cut the cord, you cut the benefits and expense of what you can pull with it.

Not often I agree with anthony, but in this case he's right. Cut the data cord and Roger still has millions of dollars to spend. Do you REALLY think he won't find some other way to spend that money to gain an advantage. You are suggesting a high stakes game of whack-a-mole.

Ok, so you pull the telemetry from the cars. Roger then outfits a Saturn with sensors, rents the same track and uses the Saturn to get all the data he needs about the track. He puts the car on his shaker and full instruments it. He then uses that data in a sophisticated simulator to do the same sort of testing he could do with telemetry at the real track.

Did the elimination of testing days do ANYTHING to F1? Not really, it just moved the testing off the track onto virtual tracks. Your proposal would do exactly the same thing and in the process drive UP the cost.

Gary

[Enjun Pullr]

The subject doesn't have anything to do with comparing performance to the competition.

Photos and video were always effective tools for studying vehicle dynamics, I don't see a problem there.

What do you create with data from an angular rate sensor and gyro on a spec car? Nothing. You can't improve chassis dynamics by designing new suspension systems, all you can do is polish the turd a little better than the next guy if you have better test equipment and a bigger engineering budget.

And the fans get what? Better racing? Faster racing, maybe. But the dominition of high budget teams is reinforced. More expensive and less competitive racing is the result.

Reading an old article about the expense of running at Surfer's, there was a quote that said each entry required a staff of 20. Huh? To run one car for two days, when they have a complete T car and crate engines at their disposal?

Probably five of them are data acquisition engineers. So all the teams have to emulate the big boys, or fall farther behind.

[Enjun Pullr]

"You are suggesting a high stakes game of whack-a-mole. "

That's a comment from an asshole.

[Hoop-98]

The point was there are many ways to gather data on "your" car without telemetry. these ways will likely be more expensive and rare.

A low tech example, who knows what real race engineers will dream up when you remove the obvious ways.

Acoustic Driving Trace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuTh6G0HZl4&feature=player_embedded)


rh

[Enjun Pullr]

Ok, so that indicates rate of acceleration, gearing, throttle response, and you could calculate a lot of other parameters from that.

This is what I am talking about, listen to the engineer and compare it with Unser's views.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTx9ECUjHZM

[Hoop-98]

NASCAR probably spends 100 times as much on Wind tunnel and Shaker than Indycar. Sprint cars, late models, Atlantics (RIP), Indy Lights, motorcycles use motion simulators it is a part of racing at the semi-pro and up level.

The trick would be to tell someone, you can have X people and X dollars, now go race. If a person has 12 million and you eliminate 3 million of his costs he spends it on something else.

You may argue the "other" has less return, which you cannot possibly (or I) know, but history has shown that often the new area they find is more productive until it is tamed. Then we start over.

Hence i do see a wacamole analogy in there.

rh

[Enjun Pullr]

This is far from empirical evidence, since there are not many "new" racetracks for the Indycar Series. Barber doesn't count, due to all of the testing that was done there.

Will Power wins the 2010 IndyCar Series opener in Sao Paulo
1. Will Power Penske 61 laps
2. Ryan Hunter-Reay Andretti Autosport 61 laps
3. Vitor Meira AJ Foyt 61 laps
4. Raphael Matos de Ferran Luczo Dragon 61 laps
5. Dan Wheldon Panther 61 laps
6. Scott Dixon Ganassi 61 laps
7. Dario Franchitti Ganassi 61 laps
8. Mike Conway Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps
9. Helio Castroneves Penske 61 laps
10. Tony Kanaan Andretti Autosport 61 laps

11. Justin Wilson Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps
12. EJ Viso KVRT 61 laps
13. Ana Beatriz Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps R
14. Ryan Briscoe Penske 61 laps
15. Danica Patrick Andretti Autosport 60 laps
16. Simona de Silvestro Stargate Works/HVM 58 laps R

17. Mario Romancini Conquest 46 laps R
18. Alex Lloyd Dale Coyne 30 laps R
19. Alex Tagliani FAZZT 28 laps
20. Hideki Mutoh NHLR 27 laps
21. Milka Duno Dale Coyne 20 laps
22. Takuma Sato KVRT 0 laps R
23. Marco Andretti Andretti Autosport 0 laps
24. Mario Moraes KVRT 0 laps

No track map, at least not until the first session was over. Everybody rolls off the truck with the same basic idea, and had no opportunity to optimize tuning beforehand.

After the first session, everybody is throwing shocks and springs at the car and probably making big downforce changes. Too bad they had fresh telemetry to help them, the input should come from the driver and the engineer responsible for setting up the car. With just the basic data to rely on...skid blocks, shock travel, tire temps, trap speeds, revs.

Limiting the information limits the possibilities to exploit the data. That's the point. You don't have to rent shaker rig time for every circuit if you don't have a telemetry map. And you don't lose out to guys who have their own rig and a staff of engineers to optimize the testing results.

[Enjun Pullr]

"Hence i do see a wacamole analogy in there.'

Yeah, that's a real shocker.

[Hoop-98]

This is far from empirical evidence, since there are not many "new" racetracks for the Indycar Series. Barber doesn't count, due to all of the testing that was done there.

Will Power wins the 2010 IndyCar Series opener in Sao Paulo
1. Will Power Penske 61 laps
2. Ryan Hunter-Reay Andretti Autosport 61 laps
3. Vitor Meira AJ Foyt 61 laps
4. Raphael Matos de Ferran Luczo Dragon 61 laps
5. Dan Wheldon Panther 61 laps
6. Scott Dixon Ganassi 61 laps
7. Dario Franchitti Ganassi 61 laps
8. Mike Conway Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps
9. Helio Castroneves Penske 61 laps
10. Tony Kanaan Andretti Autosport 61 laps

11. Justin Wilson Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps
12. EJ Viso KVRT 61 laps
13. Ana Beatriz Dreyer & Reinbold 61 laps R
14. Ryan Briscoe Penske 61 laps
15. Danica Patrick Andretti Autosport 60 laps
16. Simona de Silvestro Stargate Works/HVM 58 laps R

17. Mario Romancini Conquest 46 laps R
18. Alex Lloyd Dale Coyne 30 laps R
19. Alex Tagliani FAZZT 28 laps
20. Hideki Mutoh NHLR 27 laps
21. Milka Duno Dale Coyne 20 laps
22. Takuma Sato KVRT 0 laps R
23. Marco Andretti Andretti Autosport 0 laps
24. Mario Moraes KVRT 0 laps

No track map, at least not until the first session was over. Everybody rolls off the truck with the same basic idea, and had no opportunity to optimize tuning beforehand.

After the first session, everybody is throwing shocks and springs at the car and probably making big downforce changes. Too bad they had fresh telemetry to help them, the input should come from the driver and the engineer responsible for setting up the car. With just the basic data to rely on...skid blocks, shock travel, tire temps, trap speeds, revs.

Limiting the information limits the possibilities to exploit the data. That's the point. You don't have to rent shaker rig time for every circuit if you don't have a telemetry map. And you don't lose out to guys who have their own rig and a staff of engineers to optimize the tsting results.

Most of the "new tracks" I can think of in Champ/Indycar were won by the "usual suspects" like SP (Penske).

I realize you are strongly convinced of your belief but history disagrees with you. Roger Penske, Bud Moore, didn't have any shaker or telemetry in TransAm, but the performance disparities were even greater then.

I am not sure that any more he said she said will be productive so I will wait until we have an objective point to comment further.

rh

[Enjun Pullr]

There is no question that money buys speed, as anyone with a $50,000 go-kart can attest to.

The question is how to equalize the playing field in an equitable and enforceable manner. You can't do it by imposing a spending cap, staffing maximums, or anything else. People will find their way around it.

So you tech the cars before every on-track session, all of which are currently regulated. No chassis input sensors other than those which feed the data recorder for crash analysis, and that is hardwired and sealed.

Now go set up your cars, boys.

[garyshell]

Please explain to me how eliminating one avenue of spending and having the teams then spend the same amount somewhere else is not a high stakes game of whack-a-mole?

Gary

[Enjun Pullr]

Tell ya what moleboy, go punch in Bobby Unser on Facebook and tell him what's up.

[Enjun Pullr]

Real panel of experts here.

Tell ya what shelly, punch in Bobby Unser on Facebook and tell him how he's got it all wrong.

[garyshell]

Real panel of experts here.

Tell ya what shelly, punch in Bobby Unser on Facebook and tell him how he's got it all wrong.


I never claimed to be an expert, but I see you have no answer. You don't know how to keep them from spending that money somewhere else to gain an advantage, do you?

Gary

[Enjun Pullr]

So you missed this?

"The question is how to equalize the playing field in an equitable and enforceable manner. You can't do it by imposing a spending cap, staffing maximums, or anything else. People will find their way around it."

Which already acknowledged that there is no good answer to your question:

"You don't know how to keep them from spending that money somewhere else to gain an advantage, do you?"

When Hoop says: "You may argue the "other" has less return...", well yeah, it sure does. I think there is only one team in Indycar racing that has an underground straightline testing tunnel. I think you call that money spent "somewhere else to gain an advantage".

Did that give Ganassi's cars a superior advantage on oval tracks?

The thread addresses the issue of reducing costs and performance advantages, and experts like Bobby Unser and Parnelli Jones made the case. Pointing to a reduction in data acquisition is a great example of equalizing the playing field with an actionable strategy.

The reaction of people here is to criticize me. Good thinking.

[garyshell]

Not often I agree with anthony, but in this case he's right. Cut the data cord and Roger still has millions of dollars to spend. Do you REALLY think he won't find some other way to spend that money to gain an advantage. You are suggesting a high stakes game of whack-a-mole.

Ok, so you pull the telemetry from the cars. Roger then outfits a Saturn with sensors, rents the same track and uses the Saturn to get all the data he needs about the track. He puts the car on his shaker and full instruments it. He then uses that data in a sophisticated simulator to do the same sort of testing he could do with telemetry at the real track.

Did the elimination of testing days do ANYTHING to F1? Not really, it just moved the testing off the track onto virtual tracks. Your proposal would do exactly the same thing and in the process drive UP the cost.

Gary


The reaction of people here is to criticize me. Good thinking.

Ah yes, out comes the "oh poor me, I am the victim" card. My original post in this thread is quoted above. I made a comment about the original premise only. I didn't criticize you in any way until you called me an "expletive deleted". And I see that that message has now been deleted, I assume by a moderator.

Gary

[Enjun Pullr]

It's clear to see where your expertise and interests lie, in both public and private correspondence.

[SarahFan]

How hard would it be to institute a cap?

[Enjun Pullr]

It becomes a question of enforcement, doesn't it? That seems impossible to me.

For instance, Penske runs a facility for all of his motorsports activities on a combined budget of $100M per year (according to Cindric). You can't monitor who is working on what, if the idea is to limit the IndyCar team budgets.

Or tell each team they can only have two DAG's at the track, and that won't mean much. They can stream real-time data to Cambridge and await the analysis of the outsourced engineering.

[beachbum]

The first rule of economics you learn in racing it that racing costs whatever you have to spend. There is never enough money to do everything that can be done. As accurately pointed out, if you limit one area, the teams spend in other areas.

For most teams, the main limitation is available sponsorship. One of the ironies is that increasing the sports visibility and value increases sponsorship value, which increases funding, which inevitably increases costs, and the result is the same status quo, just at a higher cost to everyone. The downside is that it is harder to make the "entry fee" for new teams, so the teams with the best funding become even more dominant.

There are only limited methods to put any constraint on costs.

One is to limit the cost of the basic equipment. Here is one area where NASCAR once did a pretty good job, as the low budget teams could pick up very good used equipment. The 2012 Indy Car rules help by limited the basic cost.

A second method that is already in place is to limit the big ticket expenses like unlimited on track testing. There is no cheap way to test, so limiting testing saves a lot of money for everyone.

Beyond those limitations, teams will find a way to spend their budgets. But many of these activity's have a rather poor cost to benefit ratio, the teams may spend a lot of money for little benefit, and the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" will be a bit less than it might be otherwise. There will still be a gap, but the advantages may be small.

Another cost savings is rules stability. The current Indy Car cars have been around long enough that even the little teams know most of the "tricks" and has accumulated equipment and knowledge of the equipment. The big teams spent big money to find advantages that the other teams then copied at a much lower cost.

You are never going to limit expenditures to an extent that it "levels the playing field". Never going to happen. The best that can be done is apply ideas that limit the disparity between the top and bottom of the grids, and even that is very difficult.

[anthonyvop]

Real panel of experts here.

Tell ya what shelly, punch in Bobby Unser on Facebook and tell him how he's got it all wrong.

I like Bobby Unser. He was a great driver and is a good guy.


But

That does not make him an expert in the economics of motorsports.

The ICS is basically a spec series with limited testing. Both are considered ways to cut costs and yet the cost of racing keeps going up. Teams will spend money to get the edge no matter how slight.
I remember reading somewhere that some F1 teams have spent upwards of $5000 per wheel-nut just to save a few grams.

[wedge]

I'm all for it.

Not for flimsy cost cutting but please correct me if I'm wrong would it add an extra dimension to managing races by going back to data acquisition instead of real time telemetry?

How long does it take to plug in a laptop to the car, download data/adjust parameters?

[Hoop-98]

I "think" the real time telemetry is quite limited in Indycar compared to say F1. testing data acquisition is much more sophisticated.

The thing about many of these scenarios, taking off the down force say, is that they require "a willing suspension of disbelief" to get into.

I think the 2012 season is bringing about as much change in 1 season as you can expect.

Champcar in the post 2003 years went through some very draconian cost cutting measures (spec shocks for example) yet still Newman-Haas dominated.

I have a ton of respect for the 'old-guys" but I would think the folks with current skin in the game would be the ones to talk to. Your biggest expense drives to work each day.

Penske and Hendrick dealerships are customers of mine, and they play unfair with higher standards of professionalism in that world too!

[garyshell]

How long does it take to plug in a laptop to the car, download data/adjust parameters?

How much money do you want to spend? It's no different than geting more speed out of the car. More $ = more speed.

Gary

[SarahFan]

How much money do you want to spend? It's no different than geting more speed out of the car. More $ = more speed.

Gary

so if budgets increase will we see a new track record at Indy?

[SarahFan]

It becomes a question of enforcement, doesn't it? That seems impossible to me.

For instance, Penske runs a facility for all of his motorsports activities on a combined budget of $100M per year (according to Cindric). You can't monitor who is working on what, if the idea is to limit the IndyCar team budgets.

Or tell each team they can only have two DAG's at the track, and that won't mean much. They can stream real-time data to Cambridge and await the analysis of the outsourced engineering.

doesnt seem that it would be that hard to me....would it require some serious time and effort?... sure

but it could be done...

set a $6 mil per car cap (not including driver salary).....you can spend more, but if you do for every dollar you spend over the cap you have to pay a dollar into a slush fund that gets distributed evenly amongst the other cars (teams) on the grid

sure penske and gannassi operations would be a bit tougher to decipher, but thats they just the way things are, so you you keep a closer eye on them.....

[anthonyvop]

so if budgets increase will we see a new track record at Indy?

Different issue. Rules attempting to cut costs don't necessarily mean slower speeds.
The Indy Car Series can make a rule were all cars at Indy have to pull a 5000lb trailer with a 100hp motor and the better funded teams will be up at the front.

Look at F1 and all their rules to slow the cars and contain costs. Smaller engines, No Ground Effects, restricted aero, smaller tires.....and yet the F1 grid is as fast as ever.

[SarahFan]

Not sure I understand ... Perhaps you can elaborate and enlighten in more detail

[TURN3]

I haven't read every post to forgive me for taking this in a different direction if that is what I'm doing. But, I for one am in favor of making the driver the primary factor in a fast car. Obviously data collection and engineering has progress to a point that even below average talent can compete on a mediocre level. That being said, I'm also for auto racing pushing the edge of technology and creating useful consumer products. My favorite example is that after Tracy was 2 laps on in Phoenix one year he crashed out. Emmo, who was in 2nd still 1 lap up on 3rd ended up crashing from a puncture when they went back to green. Penske subsequently developed the pressure gauges which ultimately led to being on virtually every passenger car these days.

We can't have it both ways, so several solutions are being suggested in this thread. What about this...Indycar mandates all data be published for the teams. Forget governing it for now because that CAN be done in numerous ways. To me this would be similiar to the days when the series issued the pop-off valves, or how the aero kits in '12 are to be sold open market as is (i.e. Penske can't make an aero kit, sell it, then modify it for himself). This puts data acquisition secondary to data ANALYSIS. To each their own with the analysis.

Why wouldn't some derivation of this work?

[Enjun Pullr]

"...but I would think the folks with current skin in the game would be the ones to talk to. Your biggest expense drives to work each day."

Credit to you for recognizing one of the points I made above. In correspondence with the only person who had direct experience and was willing to discuss this topic, that was the focus of his argument: "What about the jobs?"

Exactly, this is one major area where team budgets could be reduced without a negative effect to the competition, and quite possibly with a positive effect.

2009, 13.21 Chassis Electronics
A. Only IRL-approved data acquisition systems may be used
B.The following chassis input sensors are permitted:

(1) Wheel Speed (1 per wheel)
(2) Steering position
(3) Wheel position (1 per corner) (limited to potentiometer or LVDT type)
(4) Transmission pressure
(5) Tire pressure
(6) Brake pressure
(7) Brake pedal position
(8) 3 axis of acceleration (limited to 1 sensor in each axis)
(9) Strain gauged push rod or pull rod (1 per corner)
(10) Strain gauged steering tie rod
(11) Strain gauged steering shaft
(12) Beacon receiver
(13) Laser ride height
(14) Angular rate sensor
(15) Gyro
(16) Roll bar(s) positions
(17) Weight jacker position
(18) Clutch position
(19) Any chassis pressure (pitot, underwing, etc.)(limited to diaphragm-type sensors)
(20) Any chassis temperature (underwing, etc)
(21) Fuel level

Note that these chassis sensors are in addition to the engine management ECU data.

Coupled with the video previously posted, most of you who are arguing Mr. Unser's opinion on this topic now have scant knowledge of the subject.

Much of the data recorded by these sensors is invaluable for crash analysis: those must be maintained, but that doesn't mean the team engineers must therefore have access to it, and be able to tune their cars with it.

For insuring safety on-track, the tire pressure transponders and fuel level sensors provide the only relevant data. Apparently the fuel level information is sometimes inaccurate or disregarded (Indy, 2010).

EDIT: Credit to Turn3 for pointing out this issue while I was still writing.

This list is a battery of test equipment that I would expect to read about when a new spec chassis is being road tested for the first time. Engineering calculations used for projecting the loads experienced by tie rods, steering shaft and pull rods can be tested to verify suitability and durability. Fine.

I could name off the top of my head at least a half dozen Dallara rear suspension failures that caused serious accidents during the last 14 months. I never saw a car pulled off track because engineers warned a driver of an imminent failure. Same for brake system malfunctions.

So what do Indycar teams do with all of this data? Everything else. They use it to coach drivers, optimizing their racing lines, brake modulation and throttle control.

They use it to replicate the loads which are exerted on the race car at every point on every track, and thus have the data required for unlimited off-track testing of components and setups.

And we get what? Lap times that are lower, particularly for the teams who have the budget and personel to best exploit the data. That's not why I buy a ticket.

We get a cottage industry of shaker rigs and active testing dampers, IT equipment and technicians, and chassis dynamics engineers. If the budget for these expenses was equalized between all competitors, we would have no problem.

Instead, we have a big problem. Do Vitor Meira or Rafa Matos receive the same advantages as Will Power when engineers are preparing their cars for a race? They were a bit better able to keep up at Sao Paulo, when the availability of preparation data was limited.

If access to the telemetry is denied, so is the utility of much of the off-track testing currently being done. You can't take away Ganassi's shaker rig, but you can render it far less of an advantage than Eric Bachelart can afford.

So what happens to the money saved? Teams like Penske and Ganassi will spend it on R&D to reduce rolling resistance coefficients, or to scrutinize drag reduction. Just like they do now.

With less accurate chasis tuning, they couldn't perfect ride height and pitch control to the same degree. Gains made in the wind tunnel would have less of a direct relationship to performance on the race track.

What this topic exemplifies is the over-engineering of spec cars. What is clearly acknowledged is that teams will use any tools they can afford.

What has been suggested by Unser and Jones, and raised in a previous thread here, is that the cost of these tools does nothing to improve the racing. It does nothing to improve the design of cars which are permitted no major deviations from the spec.

Chassis sensors and telemetry collection is an expensive set of tools, utilized by teams of expensive engineers, and it was never an imperative for good racing for you and me to watch. It still isn't.

This is not a reactionary argument against technical development. It is a practical example of imposing regulated limits: that is what cannot be verified by instituting budget caps. It is an R&D cap.

As for relevance to F1, look no farther than the front wing assembly. Teams of engineers spend unlimited hours on CFD and wind tunnel models to develop low drag, high downforce, frail and expensive little masterpeices. That creates better racing? That produces relevant technologies?

In F1, it creates a cottage industry for aerodynamicists and their tool suppliers. Write a rule that limits each front wing to two horizontal and one vertical surfaces, and watch what changes. It won't have a bit of negative effect on the racing: just a technology cap that eliminates unproductive expense. Same as cutting the telemetry cord in Indycar.

If you think that reducing data acquisition is an unreasonable limitation, then you must have a fat book of complaints for IndyCar to read. Why is tire competition excluded? To prevent an arms race. Why is chassis competition not considered as a viable option? Because it will re-create an arms race.

And with the same realistic concerns, engine contruction and aerodynamic kits will be regulated to fit within a narrow set of performance parameters. That's an R&D cap which imposes a cost control.

Re-establishing variables is what will improve Indycar competition in the future. Even slight differences in torque curves, fuel consumption, reliability, drag and downforce levels will add variables. Limiting data collection satisfies the same goals.

"You are suggesting a high stakes game of whack-a-mole."
"Your proposal would do exactly the same thing and in the process drive UP the cost."

shelly, those are both ignorant critiques directed at the wrong target. Get in touch with Uncle Bobby and sort him out.

[anthonyvop]

doesnt seem that it would be that hard to me....would it require some serious time and effort?... sure

but it could be done...

set a $6 mil per car cap (not including driver salary).....you can spend more, but if you do for every dollar you spend over the cap you have to pay a dollar into a slush fund that gets distributed evenly amongst the other cars (teams) on the grid



First that would reward under performing teams.

Many Sponsors would balk at their marketing $$$ potentially going to a competitors team. I know I would.

It would encourage some teams to start and park just to get a check.

Personally I would rather see a grid made up of 12-16 financially strong teams and build from that then have a grid of 24-28 cars where half are not serious contenders for a podium and are financially tenuous.

[SarahFan]

First that would reward under performing teams.

Many Sponsors would balk at their marketing $$$ potentially going to a competitors team. I know I would.

It would encourage some teams to start and park just to get a check.

Personally I would rather see a grid made up of 12-16 financially strong teams and build from that then have a grid of 24-28 cars where half are not serious contenders for a podium and are financially tenuous.

I see it as controlling costs

so spend the 6 mil, nothing more

that would be easily enforced wouldnt it

isnt that what we have now

[SarahFan]

Seems everyone agrees costs need to controlled ..... Yet no one thinks it can actually be done

[Hoop-98]

Seems everyone agrees costs need to controlled ..... Yet no one thinks it can actually be done

Costs have been controlled, seriously it is cheaper than ever,in 2010 dollars.

We have the cheapest IndyCar money can buy.

Of course the cost control that has worked was lack of sponsors.

Penske/Ganassi are the equivalent of Target these days in Indycar, some others are Dollar General and the 99Ct store.

Costs are way down in relative dollars we have the cheapest fricking racing in years, yet some want it cheaper?

Invest, build interest, build revenue, racing in it's heyday was never FAIR or EQUAL....was won by the winner

hoop GMAB

[Enjun Pullr]

"...yet some want it cheaper?"

Not me, I want it better. The disparity of resources is the issue, not their overall cost.

The entertainment value of the competition is the issue, not the overall cost.

Is there any way to stop a kid from getting $50K worth of free parts for his go-kart? Nope.

But the series officials can prohibit the use of Pi systems on them, so that all of the other drivers are not at a disadvantage because of a relative lack of resources. Maybe then a kid with a $10K go-kart beats the pants off his more fortunate competition.

[Hoop-98]

"...yet some want it cheaper?"

Not me, I want it better. The disparity of resources is the issue, not their overall cost.

The entertainment value of the competition is the issue, not the overall cost.

Is there any way to stop a kid from getting $50K worth of free parts for his go-kart? Nope.

But the series officials can prohibit the use of Pi systems on them, so that all of the other drivers are not at a disadvantage because of a relative lack of resources. Maybe then a kid with a $10K go-kart beats the pants off his more fortunate competition.

Sorry for giving you a misconception, the Foyts, our local competition, out spent us by 5x or 10x, we were the lil guys. 50K was for a year of racing, people spent 100s of thousands to win. Good news we won a lot, on a budget, ask Anthony or Tony about lil-Hoop. The cost wasn't the 5K sitting on the track at any one given time. We were always the low budget team. We won on 1/4 the budget of other national type competitors. The better budget came after winning not before. We got as Pi after we earned it.


rh

[anthonyvop]

Seems everyone agrees costs need to controlled ..... Yet no one thinks it can actually be done

Actually I don't.
I believe in rewarding success not restricting it. People like Roger Penske and Chip Ganassi worked hard to get where they are. They shouldn't be forced to scale back.

It is up to the other teams to get better.

[Chris R]

At first, I thought this was a great idea - but upon reflection it did not take me long to realize that NASCAR with no telemetry, carbs, pushrods, and various other "low tech" solution is probably significantly more expensive than Indycars at this point and is pretty much dominated by a similar dynasty - actually to an even greater extent - Realistically in any given year you may win a championship if you are in a Hendrick car and one or two of 3 other teams MIGHT be able to challenge too....

oh, and NASCAR racing can be just as boring as Indycar on the track - there are just more cars, more laps, more races, and more hype - if Indycar ran the miles NASCAR does some really good racing is bound to happen there too...

My point is, I do not think that taking away advanced technology such as telemetry will necessarily make racing cheaper or better... It will change the nature of the sport - but not necessarily the cost....

My solution to controlling costs is to limit the resources any team can deploy AT THE TRACK. You can devise all kinds of interesting solutions but if you are not able to implement them on race weekend, they are useless.... This could include limiting the number of personnel who can work on the car, limiting tires or fuel... Perhaps requiring all teams to use only league issued spec computers at all race events.... Another interesting way to mix it up would be to have a wildcard variable for each race weekend that the teams do not know about until they arrive (i.e. - less gas this week, all cars must run this wing, only two sets of tires for the race, must use a less than ideal final drive ratio...whatever - little things that the team cannot plan for and therefore might mix things up a bit.... Kind of like Iron Chef - the mystery ingredient this week is....

[anthonyvop]

"...yet some want it cheaper?"

Not me, I want it better. The disparity of resources is the issue, not their overall cost.

The entertainment value of the competition is the issue, not the overall cost.

Is there any way to stop a kid from getting $50K worth of free parts for his go-kart? Nope.

But the series officials can prohibit the use of Pi systems on them, so that all of the other drivers are not at a disadvantage because of a relative lack of resources. Maybe then a kid with a $10K go-kart beats the pants off his more fortunate competition.

There already is a major series which prohibits telemetry and severely restricts track testing as will as wind-tunnel and shaker rig testing. All parts must be approved and costs approved as well.

It is called NASCAR and guess what?
It is still the higher funded teams that are the ones that win.

[Enjun Pullr]

No Hoop, the view of capping technology to contain costs isn't a misconception, whether it was to your benefit or your disadvantage.

One day I got pulled off to run Robbie's go-kart engine on a proprietary dyno in the shop. Was he not supposed to be allowed to race because of who his Dad was? Were the karting officials supposed to go to everybody's shop to see if they had access to the same equipment and manpower?

Impossible, just like enforcing a spending cap on Indycar owners. Is the Series going to go out and look for secret test tunnels too, along with conducting accounting audits on everybody?

If the rulesmakers wanted to limit go-kart engine output, they could do something as simple as a claiming rule. In IndyCar, they can test and equalize output of reference engines, and insure that supply from each manufacturer is random.

Those safeguards eliminate the ability for teams who have the facilities and manpower to bludgeon the competition. Limiting data acquisition caps R&D cost and benefits in a similar manner.

[Enjun Pullr]

"It is called NASCAR and guess what?"

And in this example, is private track testing allowed? And does that mean the series prohibits use of active damping systems to generate track maps, and inspectors are present to tech the cars and enforce the restriction?

Better get back to me on that, pressdude.

EDIT: Here's a head start for you. Wait 'till you read the patent submission for these babies, your eyes will bug out.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/other/274869/nascar-the-chase-comes-to-kansas.html

Another EDIT: Nascar runs more than twice the number of races, travels more than twice the number of miles to do it, routinely runs on consecutive weekends, routinely writes off their racecars, permits alternate chassis to suit the circuit requirements...gee, that takes a lot more personnel, too. Then they go testing and make track maps with active shocks:

http://jrishocks.com/products/test-systems/cas-vp1

[Hoop-98]

There already is a major series which prohibits telemetry and severely restricts track testing as will as wind-tunnel and shaker rig testing. All parts must be approved and costs approved as well.

It is called NASCAR and guess what?
It is still the higher funded teams that are the ones that win.

Boy Anthony are you misinformed. While there is limited in-race telemetry NASCAR wind tunnel and shaker rig testing bills are orders of magnitude higher than Indycar . ALMS etc. And they while restrict testing on NASCAR race tracks, they test constantly.

Maybe I have been too hard on your motives, perhaps you really just don't know very much about racing.


rh

[anthonyvop]

"It is called NASCAR and guess what?"

And in this example, is private track testing allowed? And does that mean the series prohibits use of active damping systems to generate track maps, and inspectors are present to tech the cars and enforce the restriction?

Better get back to me on that, pressdude.

EDIT: Here's a head start for you. Wait 'till you read the patent submission for these babies, your eyes will bug out.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/other/274869/nascar-the-chase-comes-to-kansas.html

For two years NASCAR has had a private testing ban on tracks where they compete which renders your other points moot.

[Enjun Pullr]

No bubba anthony, saying that Nascar is low tech makes all of your points moot.

Nascar teams would have a lot less dependance on wind tunnel and shaker rig testing if they could not use data acquisition systems for logging track maps during testing. That's exatly what they are doing when they bolt on the CAS-VP1.

Wind tunnels are used for aerodynamic tuning. The benefits are reduced when ride height and pitch control cannot be optimized. That's what the shaker rig is for, and it is far less useful without the data acquired in track testing with active dampers.

Are we seeing a connection here? Or do you think that running a Saturn down the back straight at Mid-Ohio will be a useful tool in calculating vertical loads from downforce generation to select spring rates for a Dallara?

[chuck34]

"...yet some want it cheaper?"

Not me, I want it better. The disparity of resources is the issue, not their overall cost.

The entertainment value of the competition is the issue, not the overall cost.

Is there any way to stop a kid from getting $50K worth of free parts for his go-kart? Nope.

But the series officials can prohibit the use of Pi systems on them, so that all of the other drivers are not at a disadvantage because of a relative lack of resources. Maybe then a kid with a $10K go-kart beats the pants off his more fortunate competition.

Do you honestly think that by taking the data aq off the cars that all of a sudden Penske is going to forget how to turn out a race winning car and Sarah Fisher (God love her) is going to be a serious continder for the championship?

Do you have any clue what is done at a shaker rig? A wind tunnel? A tire test rig? Any clue how a vehicle dynamics simulation works?

[Enjun Pullr]

Only clues, no direct experience. Did you read the thread, or just jump in to take a dump?

Otherwise, if you want to educate me with your knowledge of contemporary data acquisition on Indycars, I'm all eyes.

[chuck34]

"It is called NASCAR and guess what?"

And in this example, is private track testing allowed? And does that mean the series prohibits use of active damping systems to generate track maps, and inspectors are present to tech the cars and enforce the restriction?

Better get back to me on that, pressdude.

EDIT: Here's a head start for you. Wait 'till you read the patent submission for these babies, your eyes will bug out.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/other/274869/nascar-the-chase-comes-to-kansas.html

Another EDIT: Nascar runs more than twice the number of races, travels more than twice the number of miles to do it, routinely runs on consecutive weekends, routinely writes off their racecars, permits alternate chassis to suit the circuit requirements...gee, that takes a lot more personnel, too. Then they go testing and make track maps with active shocks:

http://jrishocks.com/products/test-systems/cas-vp1

How in the world does this support your argument that if they outlaw data aq, the costs will go down and the "playing field" will be leveled?

Looks to me that it supports the counter argument being used against you that the rich will ALWAYS have an advantage. You can't legislate the free market away.

[chuck34]

Only clues, no direct experience. Did you read the thread, or just jump in to take a dump?

Otherwise, if you want to educate me with your knowledge of contemporary data acquisition on Indycars, I'm all eyes.

If that was directed at me, then you would be surprised what I know about the physics of race car engineering. You have given us all an eyefull of your (lack) of understanding of the underlying concepts you are trying to discuss.

As a point of fact, you can get just about all the info you need to set up a car for Mid-Ohio by driving a Saturn around there. Do you think that slow jaunt the Red Bull did at Korea earlier this year was just for publicity?

[Enjun Pullr]

From the acticle link in post #1:

Bobby also believes the computers and data systems that proliferate on today's race cars should be severely restricted. Parnelli Jones is another great driver and car builder who says the rulemakers should throw away all the electronics and put the cars back into the drivers' hands.

"I was just talking to one of the veteran mechanics back in Indianapolis," Unser commented. "And he said, 'Why do we keep computers in these cars? Why do we have telemetry?' Do you know how many computer guys are on Penske's or Ganassi's teams? Eighteen! And the result is that if everybody has it what good does it do? It means that Sarah Fisher, who's trying to run a cheap operation, has to buy all this stuff too. She's got to have at least two computer guys

"So it's a simple question. Why do we have to have computers? Because Formula One has them? Let's spend a little time thinking about this."

For the sake of protecting eyeballs from any more of my lack of understanding, please explain why Mr. Unser has this subject all wrong.

[chuck34]

From the acticle link in post #1:

Bobby also believes the computers and data systems that proliferate on today's race cars should be severely restricted. Parnelli Jones is another great driver and car builder who says the rulemakers should throw away all the electronics and put the cars back into the drivers' hands.

"I was just talking to one of the veteran mechanics back in Indianapolis," Unser commented. "And he said, 'Why do we keep computers in these cars? Why do we have telemetry?' Do you know how many computer guys are on Penske's or Ganassi's teams? Eighteen! And the result is that if everybody has it what good does it do? It means that Sarah Fisher, who's trying to run a cheap operation, has to buy all this stuff too. She's got to have at least two computer guys

"So it's a simple question. Why do we have to have computers? Because Formula One has them? Let's spend a little time thinking about this."

For the sake of protecting eyeballs from any more of my lack of understanding, please explain why Mr. Unser has this subject all wrong.

You have already answered that question. NASCAR does not allow data aq on their race cars, yet dollars are being spent at a rate that makes drunken sailors blush, and the teams with the most money dominate. So how does your solution change anything?

Even assuming I would agree with you, we cut all data aq right now. How does that change anything? The laws of physics remain unchanged. Therefore all the data from wind tunnels, shaker rigs, tire rigs, CFD models, vehicle dynamics models, etc are still very much valid. Since they are still valid, teams are still going to employ engineers to plug in data, interpret results, tweak the programing, etc.

That is unless you are suggesting that teams are no longer allowed to hire engineers? A) yeah right, good luck with that, B) how is that any different that the plans to "cap spending"?

[Enjun Pullr]

To point #1: Nascar uses ""data aq" in testing. With the similarities of many of their circuits, I am guessing that three or four test days at various tracks gives them all the sampling they need.

To point#2: You can't un-ring a bell. If you change the tools available to use when developing a new chassis, the old books have some value but writing the new one becomes a different job. If that job relies on more limited technology and staffing, the downside to competition is not apparent to my eyefull.

To point #3: I don't think you can effectively cap anything at the team level, nor do I advocate it. The topic is about capping the technology, just like IndyCar will be regulating engine and aero kit R&D and the associated costs.

[Hoop-98]

I would guess when that Ecotec powered Delta Wing shows up EP/JT it will be sans DaQs, prolly carbureted with points!

Have a happy thanksgiving, I'm back to reality, even if it is only mine....

rh

[chuck34]

To point #1: Nascar uses ""data aq" in testing. With the similarities of many of their circuits, I am guessing that three or four test days at various tracks gives them all the sampling they need.

To point#2: You can't un-ring a bell. If you change the tools available to use when developing a new chassis, the old books have some value but writing the new one becomes a different job. If that job relies on more limited technology and staffing, the downside to competition is not apparent to my eyefull.

To point #3: I don't think you can effectively cap anything at the team level, nor do I advocate it. The topic is about capping the technology, just like IndyCar will be regulating engine and aero kit R&D and the associated costs.

Point 1. Are you going to confiscate all the teams' notes, books, computers, etc? Also do you think those tests are for new data, or to verify modeled data?

Point 2. Exactly, you can't "unring a bell". All the tools are out there. "Live data aq" is nice, but really not too necessary at this point in time. By taking away data aq in race conditions or even in testing, you are not going to do anything to change the availible technology nor the staffing required. Just as you can't unring a bell, you can't unlearn vehicle dynamics.

Point 3. I also don't think you can cap anything at the team level. So what do you think costs more, the sensors on the cars, or the wind tunnel time, shaker rig time, tire rig time, CFD programs, etc, and the engineering staff to run all that.

It seems that you (and Bobby Unser) don't realize that none of that stuff goes away if you eliminate data aq.

[Enjun Pullr]

OK, let's create a real-world example and you can educate us some more.

You are working for a team who takes delivery of its first 2012 Dallara chassis. On-track testing time is regulated and the cars must be tech'ed by the Series.

If you are not permitted to use sensors for (8) 3 axis of acceleration, (9) Strain gauges for pull rods, (13) Laser ride height or (14) Angular rate sensor, do you have enough data to replicate maps for a shock dyno or a shaker rig?

I think it's obvious that the cost of the chassis input sensors is not the issue.

[anthonyvop]

OK, let's create a real-world example and you can educate us some more.

You are working for a team who takes delivery of its first 2012 Dallara chassis. On-track testing time is regulated and the cars must be tech'ed by the Series.

If you are not permitted to use sensors for (8) 3 axis of acceleration, (9) Strain gauges for pull rods, (13) Laser ride height or (14) Angular rate sensor, do you have enough data to replicate maps for a shock dyno or a shaker rig?

I think it's obvious that the cost of the chassis input sensors is not the issue.

They will just spend the money on something else.

There has even been research done on finding a paint that cuts through the air cleaner.
The best teams will use everything asset they have for even the tiniest edge.

[Enjun Pullr]

That point has been acknowledged by everybody in the discussion. It is a question of degrees.

Since chuck apparently has one, I'll wait for his response. Somehow I doubt the effect on laminar flow characterics demonstrated by alternate paint formulations is as critical a factor as the ones addressed in the question.

[anthonyvop]

That point has been acknowledged by everybody in the discussion. It is a question of degrees.

Since chuck apparently has one, I'll wait for his response. Somehow I doubt the effect on laminar flow characterics demonstrated by alternate paint formulations is as critical a factor as the ones addressed in the question.

That is just one example. You can wish teams to spend less money but you can't legislate and still call the series a top tier series.

Over the years the IRL/ICS has lost it's luster as a cutting edge series. The new chassis with it's multiple aero-packages and engines is an attempt to bring back the shine. Turning back the clock on data acquisition and testing goes against that attempt.

[chuck34]

OK, let's create a real-world example and you can educate us some more.

You are working for a team who takes delivery of its first 2012 Dallara chassis. On-track testing time is regulated and the cars must be tech'ed by the Series.

If you are not permitted to use sensors for (8) 3 axis of acceleration, (9) Strain gauges for pull rods, (13) Laser ride height or (14) Angular rate sensor, do you have enough data to replicate maps for a shock dyno or a shaker rig?

I think it's obvious that the cost of the chassis input sensors is not the issue.

The maps have already been created. Not a problem. If you go to a new track you can create a map by, yes, driving a Saturn (or whatever) around the track. All you are looking for is the geometry of the track. Heck that may even be done with Google Earth now, but I don't know about that. Physics dictates the rest. If you take corner X with a minimum radius of R at speed V, you know the max lateral acceleration; a=V^2/R. From there you can calculate the wheel loads at each corner based on load transfer, aero loads, etc. After that you can get accelerations and loads etc fairly easily.

Now off the track there are many things to be done so that you can feed inputs into your models.

The first is if the tires change they will have to be tested on some sort of F&M machine, that is if Firestone doesn't do it for them. I don't know if they do or not, but even if they (Firestone) do I would imagine that there will still be a few teams that test on their own. This is NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition.

Next is to take the car to a K&C rig. There they will find out how the suspension moves under loads. This is NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition.

Next is the wind tunnel. There they will find out how the downforce/drag numbers change dependent upon chassis heights among other variables. This is NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition.

Then there is the 7-post rig. There they will find out how the suspension reacts to transient loads. These loads could be sine sweeps, white noise, step inputs, or any other thing you can think of. This is NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition.

Then is the shock dyno. There the teams will figure out what sort of damper adjustments give certain damping characteristic. This is usually done with sine sweeps. This is NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition.

I'm sure I'm forgetting lots of other "rig tests" that can be done. But pretty much all of them are NOT dependent upon any data collected at the track with data acquisition. The data acquisition data is nice to feed back into these test in order to look at specific examples, but it is not needed. The engineers can take sine sweep data, for example, and model the system's reaction. Then using engineering principals (an educated guess, if you will) they can apply those reactions to the lap time simulation. That will give them a good shot at knowing how the car will react to different changes at the track.

From there, the only data acquisition that is required to verify the models is the driver's feel, a tach, a speedometer, and a stop watch. Are you going to outlaw those things too? All the sensors in a modern data acquisition system do is help speed up the work of correlating model data to track data. Take them away, and you might actually force teams to hire more engineers, buy more computers, develop more computer models, and do more "rig testing".

[Enjun Pullr]

Thanks for the education chuck, more topics to research and learn about.

I was hoping to find out what direct experience you actually have, so that I can take what you write as fact and not have to filter any of it. Presuming it's all fact, I'll now have to retrace my mistakes to understand the apparent contradictions between what you wrote, and what I thought I had learned from other people who have direct experience.

One good place to start is the video link from post #10 in this thread. Henri Kowalczck, Vehicle Dynamics Manager at the Auto Research Center, gives an explanation of shaker rig utility to laymen like me:

"We collect the data at the tracks, so the teams will bring us push rod loads, as well as speed and lateral and inline acceleration and then we can reproduce that on the computer and make a track map."

When I have used Mr. Kowalczck's term "track map", it was not meant as a simple geometric measurement of the course layout. Maybe his term should have been "data map" instead, so I'll use that to avoid any confusion.

You can make a track map from a photo on Google earth or by driving a Saturn around the track. Not a data map for a Dallara.

Kowalczyk continues:

"There's a lot of teams that come and test here, for all the races really, they can bring their data that they collected at any of the racetracks that they go to and we'll replay it back for them."

OK, the ARC Vehicle Dynamics Manager hasn't lost me yet, but there are some comments to add to that statement. I have no idea what the shaker rig time costs, and teams apparently utilize this tool in preparation for every race. And of course the wealthier teams can test their cars 24/7 on in-house rigs.

Kowalczyk summarizes:

"The teams in the Indycar Series can use this data to improve their performance, so they'll come here before a race and come up with an optimal setup that will help them go faster."

While all of Mr. Kowalczyk's information is basic, he has laid out the fundamental requirements and application of shaker rig testing. If the layman's description he gave is incorrect, I apologize for repeating his information and for drawing conclusions from it. Next I'll have to go back and read some of Jeff Ryan's information to see where else I got confused.

The data map required for this dynamic testing requires telemetry logged by chassis sensors, fitted to a Dallara tested on the specific track in race conditions. At least that's what Kowalczyk has implied.

To me, this explains why there were 21 chassis sensors permitted in the 2009 IRL rulebook. It explains why each team has an IT mission control center and a team of data acquisition techs and engineers to capture and interpret the data, and to utilize it for off-track simulations.

When I read your statement, it thus seems to be quite contradictory:
"The data acquisition data (http://www.motorsportforums.com/forums/#) is nice to feed back into these test in order to look at specific examples, but it is not needed."

And this one, from post #58:
"Also do you think those tests are for new data, or to verify modeled data?"

If the expense of this set of tools is incurred at the race track to simply verify modeled data, I will continue to maintain that it is not cost-effective. Kowalczyk certainly seems to say that new data is being collected, as it is required for the data map replication to use on the rig.

That brings me back to the question I asked in post #59. If you are an engineer sorting your brand new 2012 Dallara, and you are not permitted to access data from the bank of chassis sensors fitted, what is your job?

To set up the freakin' race car. Sure, you have baseline data collected from the shaker rig and wind tunnel testing you have done on your new car. Your notebook contains that setup information for the various dynamic conditions you have simulated. Now put them to work...

With "driver's feel, a tach, a speedometer, and a stop watch." And a tire pyrometer, stagger tape, tywraps on the damper pistons, tape on the skid blocks, a setup pad with scales, wool tufts if it pleases you: although I don't know much about using the last tool, so I shouldn't over-reach.

Why is the data acquisition necessary? It is only because the decision has been made to permit it, and everyone has to join the arms race to keep up. It is a set of tools, and the personnel to use them, that provides incredibly precise measurements of vehicle dynamics to optimize performance.

So you take your 2010 spec Dallara to pre-season testing at Barber, and create a data map for this new set of conditions. Now you have everything you need to whittle with, and the teams with the best engineering staffs and best access to simulators have the sharp knives.

My layman's sketch would look like this: armed with a good idea of the downforce required for the circuit, you tune the car aerodynamically for the optimum L/D ratio. Then you load your data map into the shaker rig, and optimize the platform for your aerodynamic settings by tuning the chassis to handle the measured loads encountered at that particular circuit.

If you want to call b.s. on that general outline, please feel free to correct it. It is a layman's understanding from a mechanic who has worked on race cars before access to data acquisition and wind tunnel testing was readily available.

And as a fan, I don't get it. Never mind the cost of the chassis sensors every time some pilot tears off a suspension corner or crushes a sidepod. Never mind the fact that your Dallara can now lap Barber 1.5 seconds faster because of the precise data you acquired and exploited.

I'm there to watch them roll off the truck, and see who can tune to win and get it done. The competition does not benefit from all the whittling that was accomplished beforehand: the ones with the sharpest knives will be at the sharp end of the grid.

Unless you didn't hava a data map, that is. Use your shaker rig, wind tunnel, shock dyno, etc. all you want. Open your laptop full of modeling results and use it. But you don't get telemetry to read anymore. You get tires to read, and the driver's debreif to read, and any other measurements you can gather. Particularly from the stopwatch.

As a fan, maybe I get to see the pecking order change a little bit. Using the narrow snapshot of Sao Paulo, it seemed to change when everyone rolled out with the same relative level of preparation. No data maps.

And as a fan, maybe I get to see more teams able to compete at the sharp end. There won't be much use for half a rig full of IT and a staff of 20 per car...at least that's what John Griffin stated in 2009, when discussing the cost of racing at Surfer's and why the dollars didn't permit it.

How much can be learned applying this technology to cars that have been raced for years? Very little, until you get to a "new" track. What is being created by the application? Nothing, on a spec car. Excruciating, minute, insurmountable refinements. Sharpest knife wins. On ovals, ALLWAYS.

The brightest minds and biggest stack of cash will always find the sharp end, that's racin'. You can't dumb down the minds, monitor and control the cash, or take away the tools. You can write regulations which constrain the benefits of all of them.

No chassis sensor telemetry access at the race track means no data maps. You still have all the tools: if there is no way to prevent teams from using data aq during straighline testing or simulations, no problem. Track testing is regulated today: engine mileage and tire allotment are the controls, aren't they? And authorization to run at specific venues?

So no private on-track testing without a Series official in attendance to tech the car, and no data aq permitted. In a perfect world, maybe teams have budget money freed up to test more and simulate less. More seat time for mediocre drivers who have to figure out optimum racing lines, brake modulation and throttle input without data maps to guide them.

You can read that opinion and slap the label of "reactionary", or "low-tech" on it if you want to, and be wrong as you please. Most racing fans have zero knowledge of any of the information discussed in this thread, they just know who is likely to win.

I look at high-tech and wonder why it isn't used to better effect. Mirror mounts that cost $300K? For fools, maybe. Go to Series sponsor Peak, and ask them to adapt their $150 backup camera system for cockpit monitors at each side of the cowl, and take the mirrors off.

Works for the Bugatti Veyron. And they won't fall off your high tech race car, like the ones they use now. Even after they are tested on a shaker rig.

[chuck34]

EP you are all over the map here. I'm not sure where to start.

Track data is always wanted. It makes ALL model simulations "better", ie easier to calibrate, more effective, easier to extend to conditions that maybe haven't been seen before. But that in no way means that track data, or maps as you call them, are required. There is quite a lot that can be learned from sine sweeps, white noise, step inputs, etc fed into a shaker rig that an engineer can then extapolate to track conditions. If you take away the data "maps", or traces, that does not obsolete any of the off track testing, quite the opposite.

Your question about why is data aquisition needed is fairly simple, engineers want the most data they can get to reduce the amount of unknowns/assumptions in their models. So in "the old days" they did this with a stop watch, tach, wool tufts, and the rest. That was fine, but not as precise as the digital equipment available today. But if we go with your proposal of eliminating the modern data aquisition, this will do nothing to stop teams from using the "old school" techniques. So the teams will still employ all their engineers, if not more, still run all their rig tests, and the rest. So all you have really done is to knock off the price of a few sensors. To you and me those sensors add up to a lot of money, but to Penske and Ganassi, they are barely a drop in the bucket.

You are right though on one thing, most fans don't know the ins and outs of what is being discussed here. But even if you throw it all out, Penske and Ganassi will still end up on top. Sure you may have the occasional "fluke race" such as your Sao Palo example, but that won't be any sort of new status quo. The "top dogs" are on top for a reason, and if you want to knock them off it'll require a boat load of hard work, not contrived spending caps, technology caps, or any other oddball rule changes for the sake of "leveling the field". How many times, in how many different series has that been tried? Penske still wins. Ganassi still wins. Ferrari still wins. Hendricks still wins. And on and on until an upstart with a lot of will and determination comes along and knocks them off that top step. Look into those teams' histories and see where they came from, and how they got to the top. Hint: it wasn't through stupid rule changes.

[chuck34]

One other thing. If you are really serious about learning about vehicle dynamics great, there's lots out ther to help you. I'll do my best to bring you along, and I'm sure there are others here that would be more than happy to help out, and they'd probably be better teachers than me. But starting from the stand point of "I don't immediatly see what data aquisition does, so let's get rid of it" isn't the place to start. Learn about how a race car goes around a track, how to make it faster, and the physics behind what's going on. A good place to start would be the book Racecar Vehicle Dynamics by Milliken (see my quote :) ) There are also plenty of sites on the internet dedicated to this sort of thing, just steer clear of most video clips taken from interviews. Go for technologically based sites with lots of equations, graphs, charts, and the like. You'll recognize a good engineering site when you see it.

[Enjun Pullr]

OK Charlie, in the spirit of jumping all over the map, last things first: Thank you for the additional resources to study, you had already dropped several which were news to me.

I didn't find any direct reference to IndyCar applications of Kinematics and Compliance testing, although one resource suggested it as commonly used technology in F1 as far back as 1998.

I'd wonder if SFR had access to a K&C rig last winter, after watching them flog on an unresponsive (albeit new) chassis at Homestead. Still, there are easier ways to test torsional rigidity. And I would have thought that suspension compliance was also quantified during the vehicle design phase, and only component maintenance would be required to avoid degredation.

"But if we go with your proposal of eliminating the modern data aquisition, this will do nothing to stop teams from using the "old school" techniques."

Amen.

The rest of the debate isn't worth fighting, since it is one that I won't win with you and one that Bobby Unser won't win with the power brokers who run the Indycar Series. I still believe in the validity of the argument that the current R&D expenditures do not add value to the competition, from the fans' perspective.

Best for me to thank you for the education and get busy. Happy Thanksgiving.

[chuck34]

There probably won't be too many references specific to K&C/Indycars as there really isn't anything that isn't covered already by auto manufacturers. Also, the NASCAR boys call them pull down rigs, so there may be some stuff to look at there.

The tortional rigidity test is slightly different than a K&C rig. The chassis tortional rigidity test is testing only the chassis, so the suspension is taken off. The K&C stuff is looking at the entire system. The tortional tests are isolating compliances to the chassis itself. Not sure I'm saying that very clearly?

Yes the kinematics are taken into account in the design phase, but compliances are hard model in theory. As always it's better to physically measure things than to totally trust theory.

Again you are right, this stuff probably doesn't add much to the casual fans' enjoyment. But that does not mean. That eliminating any of it will fundamentally change anything. These things are just tools. Get rid of these tools, or go back to old tools doesn't change the fact that teams will spend tonnes on engineering support/analysis. As you say you can't unring the bell.

Happy Thanksgiving

[Enjun Pullr]

One more question then, since I am not likely to see an IndyCar on a K&C rig:

The chassis gets mounted on the platform, secured at the wheels to allow full suspension articulation. How and where are the rams mounted to the monocoque to apply vertical and lateral loads?

Descriptions of testing for tube frame or steel unibody chassis aren't quite as difficult to picture in the mind's eye. For a Dallara, I can't imagine where the hard points would be on a fully assembled chassis to "pull down". Or is that the answer..the attachments are on the underside of the tub where the skid blocks are located? Thanks.

[chuck34]

I have never seen an Indycar on a K&C rig so I'm just guessing on this. I'm fairly confident that they will take the nose off and use those hard points for the front. On the rear ... maybe the rear wing attach points? Or perhaps they simply pull off the undertray and use points under there. I simply don't know those details specific to that type of car, sorry.

[Enjun Pullr]

Cheers, that make sense if they bolted a honking big horizontal plate on each end at the attachment points you indicated, and then they have torque arms to manipulate.

[Enjun Pullr]

If anybody else is still reading this and is interested in a better fundamental explanation of shaker rig testing, this one was simple enough for me to understand:

http://www.circletrack.com/techarticles/seven_post_shaker_rig_suspension_dynamics/index.html

It's dated feb. '09, and also shows the time rental at ARC and Ohlins as $5K per day. I doubt that gets you much engineering input though, just the monitoring.

The description about coupling was interesting, that's what we see in action every time an Indycar jumps a curb when trimming an apex. It still puzzles me that running this line is the fastest way through the corner when you are giving up traction and grip, but that's how they roll.

[Enjun Pullr]

From Morse Measurements:

"Feed the actual forces and motions experienced on-road (including steering inputs and loads) into the car on Morse Measurement's $3 million K&C machine - an Anthony Best Dynamics SPMM 4000, the same 4 wheel station machine used by OEM automakers around the world. It is the only commercially available test machine in North America that can apply cornering, braking, and tractive forces at the tire contact while acquiring over 300 channels of highly accurate suspension measurements."

[chuck34]

From Morse Measurements:

"Feed the actual forces and motions experienced on-road (including steering inputs and loads) into the car on Morse Measurement's $3 million K&C machine - an Anthony Best Dynamics SPMM 4000, the same 4 wheel station machine used by OEM automakers around the world. It is the only commercially available test machine in North America that can apply cornering, braking, and tractive forces at the tire contact while acquiring over 300 channels of highly accurate suspension measurements."

Again, you can put actual forces into most of these test rigs. But it is not required. If you have the data, put it in as it will give you better results. But if you don't have the actual forces/displacements, it's not the end of the world, and doesn't make the test(s) any less useful.

[Enjun Pullr]

Yeah thanks, I got that, and the bold type was from the source article and not from me.

Morse measurements has in fact run IndyCar K&C testing on their rig, and they're in N.C. Likely that ARC or somebody else in Indy has one, along with a few privateers.

[chuck34]

Yes, but you post like you are trying to prove me wrong or something. All I'm saying is that you are right, but not necessarily knowlegable of the whole truth.

[Enjun Pullr]

Sorry, not my intention. There's quite a lot of truth I am not knowledgeable about, and the preceding posts were intended to answer some questions...like the cost of shaker rig time you asked , and the use of K&C rigs for IndyCar chassis testing.

I don't see where any of your information is inaccurate, and your opinion on the topic was shared by one of your peers at Morse Measurements.

It would still be interesting to hear the rulesmakers' perspective, but latching onto Mr. Unser's argument without good foundation was a mistake of mine that you corrected. Thank you.