rbahr

I agree that it is not the easiest to use - the more options things have, the faster the complexity grows.

I seem to get myself into that situation far to often. :-)

Ray

Cloud9...68

I have a slightly different twist on this. I'm a happy HLT user - the biggest improvement I've made to my driving was to let a pro put in a few laps in my car with Harry's recording, and then using his best lap as my reference lap. I was able to see where I had opportunities to improve (pretty much everywhere!), and have been chipping away and steadily closing the gap between my laps and his. But Harry's and similar products only tell you what the car is doing - how fast it's moving at any instant, and what level of g-forces it's generating in all directions. Mine is a pre-ODBII 1992 track-prepped 968.

The thing that would really enhance my experience would be to somehow overlay MY inputs - specifically throttle position, brake pedal pressure, and steering angle, with the car data Harry's records. Aftermarket analog sensors for the three mentioned inputs are readily available - heck, they're so simple, I could potentially build my own. The question I have is: Is there any way to overlay the data from these external sensors with the speed and g-force data Harry's records? I assume it would be through a third-party software. Anyone know if such a thing is possible? It would potentially be a lot cheaper than a stand-alone system. Thanks.

Tom W

Maybe a different way to look at the question ... (and my $0.02)

Ask yourself what's the main goal - getting better or having video to show friends. I would argue that the 'squiggly lines' are more important than the video. You can do both, sure, but if I had the choice of a good data logger and more sensors or a not very good logger with video and fewer sensors, I'd go with the better logger and no video. So, decide upon your main goals and determine your budget then look at the alternatives.

I come at it from the perspective of been there, done that - two or three different times over the years. And the tools to use to accomplish the goals have changed over the years too. I started 10-12 years ago with the original Traqmate. I wanted to see if I would be dedicated enough to use it and learn from it. I found the closet geek in me and learned a lot that first year. I then replaced it with a MoTeC dash & logger to get more. I added in the original ChaseCam too. I struggled for years with getting good video and a data overlay that was sync'd. I tried lots of different video options and video has come a long way in the last couple years. But over the years I've developed the strong opinion that the sensor data is 90% of the battle and learning to use it will help with driver improvement much more than the video. Throttle position, brake pressure and other sensors, IMO, help a lot more than a video without the sensors.

That said, I recently felt I was on a plateau and wanted to do more so I invested in the RaceKeeper system that sync's nicely with my MoTeC and I'll be getting some data from pro coaches to help refine my car control. At a track I'm very familiar with, Sears Point, Johannes van Overbeek is 1-2 seconds faster than I am when he drives my car. From the data only, it looks like he gets on the throttle about 0.5 seconds sooner than I do in two key corners. I'm hoping the video will show me how he's controlling the car differently to be able to do it.

Matt and Peter have more experience than I ever will but I do know what I've found helpful and what was a waste of money.

And Cloud 968 - you could probably do it piecemeal, but how much is your time worth? It would take a heck of a lot of time to try and do a DIY with different components and it's unlikely to be that much cheaper than an Aim system or some others (almost anything is cheaper than MoTeC but MoTeC works really, really well and doesn't break).

Matt Romanowski

I think Tom hit the nail on the head. First, it's important to have everything combined into one source that is easy to use. Second, it has to be able to happen nearly automatic after a session - there just isn't the time or motivation to do long, laborious work. Finally, I completely agree that the final details are in the data, not video. Video an get you the lowest hanging fruit, but the small, detail driven analysis and improvement is too fine to be seen in the video.

I've worked in situation where we were looking for consistent differences in throttle pickup of 10' and other small changes. Graphs on a video can't show that kind of detail.

ProCoach

No, but synchronized video and data, whether it be in i2 Pro or Standard, Comparo, Circuit Tools 2, Cosworth Toolbox or Traqview is a million times more valuable than just squiggly lines. You MUST have synced video to provide context WHY throttle moved 10'...Otherwise, it's just a guess. And side-by-side video, with synced data that includes the three driver inputs, is peerless in its power to compare.

Matt Romanowski

I wouldn't agree and I doubt all of the engineers in series like DTM, Australian V8 Supercars, and other series where they are not allowed to have onboard cameras would agree. But, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat, so you have to do whatever works for you.

Depending on the drivers level of performance, different things will help. For some folks just video will significantly improve their performance. Other drivers will need video with overlaid info, and other will need to dig into the data.

twk63

I have two separate systems for sale right now, either will satisfy your needs, depending on your price point.

https://rennlist.com/forums/for-sale...system-fs.html

https://rennlist.com/forums/for-sale...2-cameras.html

ProCoach

Again, nearly all the folks I work with or supply equipment to do not have access to, resources for or the need for "all the engineers..." And I know in testing for all of the series that you mention, video is used. We're talking about ways HPDE or club level racers, of which there are tens of thousands, can coach themselves. The top of the pro pyramid can take care of themselves!

Plain video, with no performance measures either on screen or without concurrent data displayed, is of almost no use. Video with overlaid info is MUCH more valuable and both overlaid video AND data, concurrently and synchronized in the analysis window is the best. The more data (and video IS data), the better!

Matt Romanowski

Of course people can self coach with the squiggly lines. Often faster than video. If we agree that good driving is the best execution of fundamental skills, we can also say that the fundamental skills have a specific pattern and look in the squiggly lines. Then it's just looking at the data for pattern recognition. Just like on the cards that I share with people.

You can't quantify things in a video either. How much coasting did someone do? How fast did they apply the brakes? How long were they at full throttle?

The whole reason we use data is to quantify things, record what actually happened, and be able to use these metrics to improve ourselves. With the squiggly lines, you can put real measures on someone's performance and chart their improvement.

Maybe this is better for it's own thread?

ProCoach

Those cards are great, Matt. Very useful for folks looking to see what "looks right," and another example of the power of visual learning.

The popularity of Apps like HLT, Track Precision and GM's PDR, as well as the sheer number of "intelligent video" cameras I sell, be it MoTeC V2, AiM SmartyCam, Racelogic VBOX Video HD2 or Race-Keeper HDX2, tells me that only a small fraction of our target market users choose to limit their collection and analysts to just squiggly lines.

Surprisingly, the greatest resistance in the last ten years, that I've had to adding video to the analysis methodology, has been from old-timey, top level pro engineers, steeped in MoTeC and Pi Research and dismissive of video as "entertainment for the driver."

However, that has changed markedly in just the last few years, reflecting new technologies and ease of use particularly, all across the market segment, from pro teams to HPDE. The fact that video can (in almost every system ) be integrated in the data analysis window makes it a no brainer.

With the study of inverse corner radius, establishing accurate geometry review and control input timing and amplitude AT THOSE POINTS, video can be the easiest way to validate the squiggly lines!

Slakker

I find it hard to believe that if AIM integrated their video and data that people wouldn't use it.

For me, the biggest advantage is being able to see exactly where I am at on the track when reviewing specific data points. This just seems much more intuitive than trying to translate a spot on the gps map and remember what it looks like while actually driving. In addition, being able to see the visual cues used for braking, turn in and exit backed up by the data showing its effectiveness makes it much easier to remember and apply.

From there, having synchronized video takes it to the next level. Watching the different line taken or smoothness of inputs can make figuring out the difference between a good and a great section quick and easy.

As an entry level club racer, I love my AIM dash and have been very pleased with the real time information it provides. But after spending a fair amount of time learn both Race Studio and Circuit Tools, CT is much easier and quicker to analyze and process what's working and what needs to improve.

ProCoach

Bingo! My experience (and many others) exactly!

dbbarron

I started with Harrys, an external GPS and a GoPro.

At my last DE of last season, I used the Harry's data at the track. It was somewhat useful; but very hard to get into the data on the small screen and within the limits of its calibration and UI.

So, I exported the data into CT offline and started to work through the squiggly lines (as I didn't have synced video). This was better, I started to see all sorts of areas of improvement.

Then I used RaceRender to overlay my Harry's data onto the goPro video. Another step up in feedback; I.e., why was I so late on throttle there, did I really coast that long before braking, etc.

Then, using online information, I hacked the CT data file to include a link to the video file and synced it all up; essentially emulating a VBOX HD2 and CT (albeit with lower accuracy sensors and less data). This was the best combination. Now I could see, e.g., where I was nowhere near the lateral g limits, but still tentative on the gas. I could even see why as the wheel was slightly turned; maybe a different approach next time, maybe roll on throttle a bit earlier, etc. If I didn't have the video, I could probably get to the same place, but not as easily.

ProCoach

Glad you see the value. Would know how much time inventory it takes to do all that.

I think you've emulated the function of the now obsolete HD within CT2, but not the accuracy or the most important comparative feature, particularly with regard to GPS position, heading and altitude.

If you've gone through and encoded the data onto the HD video, plus added 1080p picture in picture, THEN hacked this to display side by side (and then how many can you do?) within CT2, you're getting closer.

But the drivers I supply generally find this level of time required and work to do what you've done to be beyond what they're willing to do, especially when all those steps are automated with the hardware and additional accuracy and valuable features are enabled by doing so in the software.

Interesting project, for sure. Have you had a chance to try a complete system, either the standard definition Lite, single camera (discontinued) HD or the HD2, itself?

dbbarron

Took way too much time and effort and not perfect results either. Sensor latency was another issue with HLT.....and no PIP. No way this can be done trackside.

I plan to buy an HD2 this season with the great discount you will give me for being an enthusiastic advocate.