Here is some data to amuse everyone
04-16-2004, 12:59 PM
#61
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Houston, Tx
Posts: 2,956
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ColorChange
Thanks, I think your being sincere and I do have a big tendency to "rub people the wrong way". It really is unintenional
Thanks, I think your being sincere and I do have a big tendency to "rub people the wrong way". It really is unintenional
Lee Iacocca said it best when he described how 'doesn't work well with people' was the kiss of death on a performance review. Paraphrasing: 'Because that's all we had at Chrysler... was people. No chimpanzees, or zebras, or elephants to work with; just people. And if you can't work with people, you're pretty much screwed.'
I speak as someone who's come from the absolute dregs of no people skills. Twenty years of hard work later, now at least I'm the slime that floats on top of the dregs.
04-16-2004, 01:02 PM
#62
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Since CC does not seem to be active, I went ahead and checked that calibration of the LatG sensor. It is bouncing between 0.00 and 0.01 g's with the car level as described above.
Nice analysis of the front straight at HPT. Unfortunately CC's information is out of date. The front straight is NOT the drag-strip, rather it is what used to be the hot pits with a new corner in the middle. There is even a bumpy section just beyond track out so most laps were done with a bit of extra steering to avoid that.
I think I am pretty open minded about new ideas, so I even went back and looked at data from half a dozen tracks. Low and behold, almost every one shows the same kind of offset of the center (~0 LatG) data and it is consistent with the direction of the track. Turns out that my laps at HPT have only ~8 seconds where you are under 0.1g.
Finally, as far as the difference between the max g's left and right, the Professor was right. The average speeds for the left handers at that track are about 25mph higher than the right handers. In an aero car, the last thing you would expect is balance in a g-g graph. I do often run asymmetrical setups, but did not in that session - it was first time out with the car and I just wanted to drive it and get a feel.
There are some good lessons in this. Data is a great tool, but only when you can connect it to the real world and you remain open enough to believe what you are seeing. Additionally, although you do need to start with an idea (eg - g-g data should be balanced) you can't allow yourself to hang on to that idea when the data and experience tells you it is wrong.
Nice analysis of the front straight at HPT. Unfortunately CC's information is out of date. The front straight is NOT the drag-strip, rather it is what used to be the hot pits with a new corner in the middle. There is even a bumpy section just beyond track out so most laps were done with a bit of extra steering to avoid that.
I think I am pretty open minded about new ideas, so I even went back and looked at data from half a dozen tracks. Low and behold, almost every one shows the same kind of offset of the center (~0 LatG) data and it is consistent with the direction of the track. Turns out that my laps at HPT have only ~8 seconds where you are under 0.1g.
Finally, as far as the difference between the max g's left and right, the Professor was right. The average speeds for the left handers at that track are about 25mph higher than the right handers. In an aero car, the last thing you would expect is balance in a g-g graph. I do often run asymmetrical setups, but did not in that session - it was first time out with the car and I just wanted to drive it and get a feel.
There are some good lessons in this. Data is a great tool, but only when you can connect it to the real world and you remain open enough to believe what you are seeing. Additionally, although you do need to start with an idea (eg - g-g data should be balanced) you can't allow yourself to hang on to that idea when the data and experience tells you it is wrong.
04-16-2004, 02:07 PM
#63
Haiku Grasshoppa
Rennlist Member
Can I Drove Your Car?
Rennlist Member
Can I Drove Your Car?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Additionally, although you do need to start with an idea (eg - g-g data should be balanced) you can't allow yourself to hang on to that idea when the data and experience tells you it is wrong.
Absolutely. I think this is the single most important point.
I've had similar experience at a particular corner, at a particular track. Everyone knew "the line" through that corner, but a newbie was taking a different line. We tried to convince him that he was wrong, to no avail. So we went out and ran "the line", and then on subsequent laps, ran the newbie's line. Lo and behold, looking at the data afterward, the newbie's line was faster. Still, some drivers refused to even try the new line, and are consequently now slower through that section.
Absolutely. I think this is the single most important point.
I've had similar experience at a particular corner, at a particular track. Everyone knew "the line" through that corner, but a newbie was taking a different line. We tried to convince him that he was wrong, to no avail. So we went out and ran "the line", and then on subsequent laps, ran the newbie's line. Lo and behold, looking at the data afterward, the newbie's line was faster. Still, some drivers refused to even try the new line, and are consequently now slower through that section.
04-16-2004, 02:27 PM
#64
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
924
Yes I am an engineer (with 20+ years of experience), and a highly successful one by most anyone's account (if I continue here I will be accused of bragging). In my opinion, one of the biggest factors in my success has been knowing what I know, and knowing what I don't know. Admittedly, my "arrogant" style has not been a help but luckily in most of the engineering world, being right does matter most and is objectively provable. This has served me extremely well as I am rarely wrong when it is important. No, this stuff is not important, just fun, but I still try to be right.
Take this case for example; I believe there is an offset issue. I stated it as true, and believe it is true, and presented a compelling argument that it is true. Now, I will try to work with Sunday to help him definitively prove it is true. Now, the biggest potential weakness in my argument is that his lat g curve should show a baseline difference as well. I can’t see if there is one or not. I will talk more about this later. Would it have been better to soft sell my observations and opinions, sure, but as stated, that is a weakness of mine, and I’ll try to get better.
Your comments on setup are correct and I understand them. I am surprised though that most of you guys really dial in your car for a particular track, especially if you don't have a DAS. For example, if you crank camber on one side, how do you know how much time you gained on the desired turns and how much time you lost on the sacrificed turns, or even how much braking you gained or lost. While I think it's doable (as professor says), it is complicated and I would think it would be pretty hard to definitively do without a DAS.
Please help me now, how much different is the car to drive? I would be worried that if I dial in 2 degrees more negative camber on one side only that I might even start to yaw at threshold braking. Or, are the changes usually small enough that the driver doesn’t get that screwed up. Or, is it tuff and you guys just that plain good?
Sunday, I am not whining, just don’t want to offer any input where it isn’t wanted and/or appreciated, and I can’t read you well through the posts. I would do two things, blow up your lat g trace and check the baseline. Does it look +0.1 high? If it doesn’t, I’m probably wrong. Smoothing may make it easier to see. Secondly, check the static read on the lat g accelerometer. If there is an offset, the answer is clear. Being perfectly flat is not required! This is not obvious but it is a sine function, so a few degrees is a negligible error.
OK, just say your updated post while I got back to this one so some of my earlier stuff might not time sequence. The only thing I could offer now would be to have you post your DAS generated track map like I asked for. It could be that under that track configuration, the offset is expected. I apparently used an irrelevant map so that analysis does not fully apply. I am still quite confident, especially after you said it was consistent at other tracks, that the problem is a misadjusted lat accelerometer. It is very rare to have the kind of offset you are showing, and across multiple tracks, further indicates a sensor issue. The Schumi data I showed did not show it (DF car), my data does not show it (non DF car), and almost all the data I have ever seen does not show it. But, … I could be wrong.
If you really want to look at it, post a big blow up of your lat g trace, maybe from +0.3 to -0.3 and let us take a close look, from multiple tracks preferably. My data and experience tells me there is an offset error, which is why I cling to it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient data (your DAS generated track map) to further analyze the situation and say it is real rarity on this track with your car. That’s the best I can do with limited direct information on your situation flying in direct contrast to nearly all the data I have ever seen from many other cars and other tracks; thus the clinging.
Robert:
If your goal is to work at a large corporation, Iacocca was largely correct. If that is not your goal, and it certainly wasn’t mine (I have worked at GE, …), then he can be flat wrong. I speak from the dregs of no people skills to relatively poor people skills, but have still achieved all my life’s major goals so far. Playing nice with people is a nice to have, not a need to have. I get along extremely well with other people similar to me. Having high character, acting with honor, working hard, being smart, and being right are much more important. But, after saying that, you’re still partially correct and I am working on it. It just isn’t particularly important in my life experience. The response to this ought to be interesting.
Yes I am an engineer (with 20+ years of experience), and a highly successful one by most anyone's account (if I continue here I will be accused of bragging). In my opinion, one of the biggest factors in my success has been knowing what I know, and knowing what I don't know. Admittedly, my "arrogant" style has not been a help but luckily in most of the engineering world, being right does matter most and is objectively provable. This has served me extremely well as I am rarely wrong when it is important. No, this stuff is not important, just fun, but I still try to be right.
Take this case for example; I believe there is an offset issue. I stated it as true, and believe it is true, and presented a compelling argument that it is true. Now, I will try to work with Sunday to help him definitively prove it is true. Now, the biggest potential weakness in my argument is that his lat g curve should show a baseline difference as well. I can’t see if there is one or not. I will talk more about this later. Would it have been better to soft sell my observations and opinions, sure, but as stated, that is a weakness of mine, and I’ll try to get better.
Your comments on setup are correct and I understand them. I am surprised though that most of you guys really dial in your car for a particular track, especially if you don't have a DAS. For example, if you crank camber on one side, how do you know how much time you gained on the desired turns and how much time you lost on the sacrificed turns, or even how much braking you gained or lost. While I think it's doable (as professor says), it is complicated and I would think it would be pretty hard to definitively do without a DAS.
Please help me now, how much different is the car to drive? I would be worried that if I dial in 2 degrees more negative camber on one side only that I might even start to yaw at threshold braking. Or, are the changes usually small enough that the driver doesn’t get that screwed up. Or, is it tuff and you guys just that plain good?
Sunday, I am not whining, just don’t want to offer any input where it isn’t wanted and/or appreciated, and I can’t read you well through the posts. I would do two things, blow up your lat g trace and check the baseline. Does it look +0.1 high? If it doesn’t, I’m probably wrong. Smoothing may make it easier to see. Secondly, check the static read on the lat g accelerometer. If there is an offset, the answer is clear. Being perfectly flat is not required! This is not obvious but it is a sine function, so a few degrees is a negligible error.
OK, just say your updated post while I got back to this one so some of my earlier stuff might not time sequence. The only thing I could offer now would be to have you post your DAS generated track map like I asked for. It could be that under that track configuration, the offset is expected. I apparently used an irrelevant map so that analysis does not fully apply. I am still quite confident, especially after you said it was consistent at other tracks, that the problem is a misadjusted lat accelerometer. It is very rare to have the kind of offset you are showing, and across multiple tracks, further indicates a sensor issue. The Schumi data I showed did not show it (DF car), my data does not show it (non DF car), and almost all the data I have ever seen does not show it. But, … I could be wrong.
If you really want to look at it, post a big blow up of your lat g trace, maybe from +0.3 to -0.3 and let us take a close look, from multiple tracks preferably. My data and experience tells me there is an offset error, which is why I cling to it. Unfortunately, I do not have sufficient data (your DAS generated track map) to further analyze the situation and say it is real rarity on this track with your car. That’s the best I can do with limited direct information on your situation flying in direct contrast to nearly all the data I have ever seen from many other cars and other tracks; thus the clinging.Robert:
If your goal is to work at a large corporation, Iacocca was largely correct. If that is not your goal, and it certainly wasn’t mine (I have worked at GE, …), then he can be flat wrong. I speak from the dregs of no people skills to relatively poor people skills, but have still achieved all my life’s major goals so far. Playing nice with people is a nice to have, not a need to have. I get along extremely well with other people similar to me. Having high character, acting with honor, working hard, being smart, and being right are much more important. But, after saying that, you’re still partially correct and I am working on it. It just isn’t particularly important in my life experience. The response to this ought to be interesting.
04-16-2004, 02:54 PM
#65
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
OK, I'll admit I was paying attention on a previous thread and not guessing your occupation 
You are quite correct regarding proof of the efficiency of an asymmetric setup; barring the use of DAS, the only proof, though with other factors still in play, is just overall laptimes. Yet another reason I'm getting a DAS (MyChron3, in keeping with my 924 budget) this year!
WRT how it is to drive a car with such a setup, or other setup irregularities, I feel that I can comment with a good degree of authority here, being as how this is my speciality. I expect that it would be unlikely that most drivers (I'll refrain from making generalizations about driver abilities here, due to a wide range with some expected unusually high peaks) would notice less than about a degree camber difference side-to-side up front, and caster even less so (don't know if anyone's experimented with offset caster here). Weight jacking would be even further down, IMO, as far as noticeability.
OTOH, I have to admit in my experience and others', going from uneven cross-weights to even, on track, was quite noticeable, perhaps more in retrospect than immediately (while actually driving through the corner). The experience here, namely in going from a car not corner-balanced to one that is (as opposed to intentionally weight jacking) is more on the level of confidence felt by the driver, due to the consistency of the chassis. I expect that intentionally dialing in wedge to bias for a given corner would be a little less dramatic. Perhaps I think it was Sunday who can comment here, he runs a bit 'o wedge? Or am I getting confused with someone else?
Camber variation would show up and be perceived more immediately, IMO, and I think at our level (driving competitively on track) the effect would be more apparent. At the same time, I most certainly feel that anyone here who's learned to get their car around track on the proper line would be able to adjust to such changes; I expect they would register just as if you were learning again how to drive the track with your car - just as if you'd made a tire pressure change or any other such tweak. It just starts with re-establishing entry speeds for each corner, apex and track-out points, etc.
I'm sure one reason, as an aside, you don't see such things surfacing in DE forums/discussions is that of course it is expected that DE cars are driven to the track, and who wants to drive such a setup on the street and trash tires!
I think it's a combination of modest changes that aren't drastic, and learning as the driver how to adapt to and use them. You also naturally want to learn how to make the adjustments to change only the area that you desire to be affected. For example, shock tuning, if you've got a high-speed left-hander (I'm thinking Turn 1 Mid-O) where the car tucks in real good at turn-in, but then pushes hard out (more than you want), naturally you're not gonna want to tweak the rear swaybar stiffer, but rather you might like to loosen up (soften) the rebound on your front right shock. Of course, that might make the car a bit loose coming out of Madness (sticking with the Mid-O example here) where it drops off after the apex of the left-hander, so you might find yourself having to modify your line out of Madness to compensate. Then again, it might also help you keep the car out of the kitty litter driver's left after the LH turn before Carousel, where you can make up some good ground and line up some passes onto the pit straight, and it's unusual to be able to line up any passes coming out of Madness anyway (though I've done it many a time).
You are quite correct regarding proof of the efficiency of an asymmetric setup; barring the use of DAS, the only proof, though with other factors still in play, is just overall laptimes. Yet another reason I'm getting a DAS (MyChron3, in keeping with my 924 budget) this year!
WRT how it is to drive a car with such a setup, or other setup irregularities, I feel that I can comment with a good degree of authority here, being as how this is my speciality. I expect that it would be unlikely that most drivers (I'll refrain from making generalizations about driver abilities here, due to a wide range with some expected unusually high peaks) would notice less than about a degree camber difference side-to-side up front, and caster even less so (don't know if anyone's experimented with offset caster here). Weight jacking would be even further down, IMO, as far as noticeability.
OTOH, I have to admit in my experience and others', going from uneven cross-weights to even, on track, was quite noticeable, perhaps more in retrospect than immediately (while actually driving through the corner). The experience here, namely in going from a car not corner-balanced to one that is (as opposed to intentionally weight jacking) is more on the level of confidence felt by the driver, due to the consistency of the chassis. I expect that intentionally dialing in wedge to bias for a given corner would be a little less dramatic. Perhaps I think it was Sunday who can comment here, he runs a bit 'o wedge? Or am I getting confused with someone else?
Camber variation would show up and be perceived more immediately, IMO, and I think at our level (driving competitively on track) the effect would be more apparent. At the same time, I most certainly feel that anyone here who's learned to get their car around track on the proper line would be able to adjust to such changes; I expect they would register just as if you were learning again how to drive the track with your car - just as if you'd made a tire pressure change or any other such tweak. It just starts with re-establishing entry speeds for each corner, apex and track-out points, etc.
I'm sure one reason, as an aside, you don't see such things surfacing in DE forums/discussions is that of course it is expected that DE cars are driven to the track, and who wants to drive such a setup on the street and trash tires!
I think it's a combination of modest changes that aren't drastic, and learning as the driver how to adapt to and use them. You also naturally want to learn how to make the adjustments to change only the area that you desire to be affected. For example, shock tuning, if you've got a high-speed left-hander (I'm thinking Turn 1 Mid-O) where the car tucks in real good at turn-in, but then pushes hard out (more than you want), naturally you're not gonna want to tweak the rear swaybar stiffer, but rather you might like to loosen up (soften) the rebound on your front right shock. Of course, that might make the car a bit loose coming out of Madness (sticking with the Mid-O example here) where it drops off after the apex of the left-hander, so you might find yourself having to modify your line out of Madness to compensate. Then again, it might also help you keep the car out of the kitty litter driver's left after the LH turn before Carousel, where you can make up some good ground and line up some passes onto the pit straight, and it's unusual to be able to line up any passes coming out of Madness anyway (though I've done it many a time).
04-16-2004, 03:09 PM
#66
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Color,
1. How do you account for the fact that the data is skewed but the sensor sits at zero?
2. If you have so much data that shows no skew, how about you post it. Since the track does seem to have some affect, I suggest you only share tracks that you know, have driven (or are widely driven amateur tracks that others would know). As for my data, I have to do screen captures, then convert each and upload. Sorry, that is way more work than this is worth when you make it clear that the only purpose is to prove to me that I am wrong. You do the work.
1. How do you account for the fact that the data is skewed but the sensor sits at zero?
2. If you have so much data that shows no skew, how about you post it. Since the track does seem to have some affect, I suggest you only share tracks that you know, have driven (or are widely driven amateur tracks that others would know). As for my data, I have to do screen captures, then convert each and upload. Sorry, that is way more work than this is worth when you make it clear that the only purpose is to prove to me that I am wrong. You do the work.
04-16-2004, 03:20 PM
#67
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally posted by ColorChange
I would do two things, blow up your lat g trace and check the baseline. Does it look +0.1 high? If it doesn’t, I’m probably wrong. Smoothing may make it easier to see. Secondly, check the static read on the lat g accelerometer. If there is an offset, the answer is clear. Being perfectly flat is not required! This is not obvious but it is a sine function, so a few degrees is a negligible error.
I would do two things, blow up your lat g trace and check the baseline. Does it look +0.1 high? If it doesn’t, I’m probably wrong. Smoothing may make it easier to see. Secondly, check the static read on the lat g accelerometer. If there is an offset, the answer is clear. Being perfectly flat is not required! This is not obvious but it is a sine function, so a few degrees is a negligible error.
The sensor is 0.00-0.01 as the car sits.
The trace entering the front straight goes from slight +g's (left steering_ and settles at 0.0 for about a second. This matches what is happening on the track. It then goes slightly positive, which matches driving to the left side to set up for T1. It never again settles on the front straight becasue there is always steering input.
The back straight curves gently to the left. The data shows 0.0 as the car sets exiting the last corner to that straight and then the left curve. At the very end it again settles to 0.0 in the braking zone.
There is one other section that appears fairly straight and the data is sitting again at 0.0 with some slight (.05g) excursions negative.
How about going back to my list of tracks and seeing which you can find that have significant time where you actually go straight?
04-16-2004, 04:40 PM
#68
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Screw that, straight tracks are boring...
j/k
j/k
04-16-2004, 04:40 PM
#69
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 924:
Sunday:
1. Good question. I don't know. Let me find out. It would really help if you could post your track map.
2. The only data I have on my is Gingerman. I can present data on Schumi at about 3 or 4 courses, and pull a lot from books that are almost always symmetrical on the braking end. If you really want, I can go to a DAS and analysis company and pull reams of data, but this will cost you if your wrong because it's a lot of work.
If the accel levels are around zero for a second, it sure doesn't appear to show in the g-g plot. Can you repost the g-g plot as points rather thatn lines?
Sunday:
1. Good question. I don't know. Let me find out. It would really help if you could post your track map.
2. The only data I have on my is Gingerman. I can present data on Schumi at about 3 or 4 courses, and pull a lot from books that are almost always symmetrical on the braking end. If you really want, I can go to a DAS and analysis company and pull reams of data, but this will cost you if your wrong because it's a lot of work.
If the accel levels are around zero for a second, it sure doesn't appear to show in the g-g plot. Can you repost the g-g plot as points rather thatn lines?
04-16-2004, 04:58 PM
#70
Burning Brakes
Originally posted by 924RACR
You are quite correct regarding proof of the efficiency of an asymmetric setup; barring the use of DAS, the only proof, though with other factors still in play, is just overall laptimes.
You are quite correct regarding proof of the efficiency of an asymmetric setup; barring the use of DAS, the only proof, though with other factors still in play, is just overall laptimes.
AHHHH !!!!!! None of this stuff is new. Drivers figured out how to go fast and minimize lap times LONG before anyone ever thought of hanging a computer in a car. 20+ years ago, we weren't rolling around on stone tires, powered by steam engines, using sundials for timing (except for DJ...he still uses sundials).
If you can't notice a 100rpm increase in exit speed in a particular corner without the aid of a computer, you are either 'clinically dead', or your motor is turning something in excess of 15,000 rpm (not likely on this board).
I've raced cars with carburetors (gasp !), with drum brakes (Gasp!), and without ABS (GASP !!!!!!). In all that decrepit obsolete hardware, I've managed to figure out how to cut faster laps without the aid of digital doohickeys. IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO DO.
Same is true of asymmetrical set-ups. It's obvious, real fast. Driver quickly adapts. I don't need a stinkin computer to tell me that I want to run some wedge at LRP, or that I want to pull some camber off the right side on the WGI short course. I know it's the right thing to do once my tires have warmed up and I look at my tach once or twice.
Computer stuff is cool, but it's not a substitute for a trained driver. Hardware freaks in racing fall in love with all sorts of zoomy stuff. Just because you 'can' buy something for your car doesn't mean that you 'should' buy it. If you don't have 100+ hours of tracktime under your belt, in all sorts of conditions and on all sorts of tracks, you're wasting your time with all the ultra-high resolution data stuff because you can't even turn consistant, repeatable laps. If you can't cut a 5 lap series within a couple of 10ths, you're just kidding yourself by looking at data.
Invest in the DRIVER first, not in the hardware.
04-16-2004, 04:59 PM
#71
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Originally posted by ColorChange
Thanks 924:
Sunday:
1. Good question. I don't know. Let me find out. It would really help if you could post your track map.
2. The only data I have on my is Gingerman. I can present data on Schumi at about 3 or 4 courses, and pull a lot from books that are almost always symmetrical on the braking end. If you really want, I can go to a DAS and analysis company and pull reams of data, but this will cost you if your wrong because it's a lot of work.
If the accel levels are around zero for a second, it sure doesn't appear to show in the g-g plot. Can you repost the g-g plot as points rather thatn lines?
Thanks 924:
Sunday:
1. Good question. I don't know. Let me find out. It would really help if you could post your track map.
2. The only data I have on my is Gingerman. I can present data on Schumi at about 3 or 4 courses, and pull a lot from books that are almost always symmetrical on the braking end. If you really want, I can go to a DAS and analysis company and pull reams of data, but this will cost you if your wrong because it's a lot of work.
If the accel levels are around zero for a second, it sure doesn't appear to show in the g-g plot. Can you repost the g-g plot as points rather thatn lines?
In the mean time, I have work to do on my race car for next weekend so I will check back as I take breaks.
04-17-2004, 02:08 PM
#72
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunday:
I'll try to come up with some anwers on static 0 but possible dynamic offset.
I have said it is possible in some tracks to show this (+.1g offset), but again, when you said you see the same thing at many tracks, that almost guarantees that it is an offset issue as this is simply uncommon.
I'll try to come up with some anwers on static 0 but possible dynamic offset.
I have said it is possible in some tracks to show this (+.1g offset), but again, when you said you see the same thing at many tracks, that almost guarantees that it is an offset issue as this is simply uncommon.
04-20-2004, 08:57 PM
#73
Intermediate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Corona Del Mar, CA
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wow, i won't even attempt to read all these posts
but Mark, if you send me a zipped data file I can help sort out any problems. When looking at the G sensor, you should have a math filter it out since the noise in the signal is actually caused from chassis vibration. Make sure it's mounted with velcro.
Your oversteer numbers don't quite look right, again it's probably due to the calibration of the steering sensor with the outside tire angle, or the wheelbase number in edit details which must be "actual wheelbase / 2.5" due to a bug in the software.
my work email is chris@motec.com
cheers,
christopher
Your oversteer numbers don't quite look right, again it's probably due to the calibration of the steering sensor with the outside tire angle, or the wheelbase number in edit details which must be "actual wheelbase / 2.5" due to a bug in the software.
my work email is chris@motec.com
cheers,
christopher
04-21-2004, 12:38 AM
#74
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Re: wow, i won't even attempt to read all these posts
Originally posted by cbracer
but Mark, if you send me a zipped data file I can help sort out any problems. When looking at the G sensor, you should have a math filter it out since the noise in the signal is actually caused from chassis vibration. Make sure it's mounted with velcro.
Your oversteer numbers don't quite look right, again it's probably due to the calibration of the steering sensor with the outside tire angle, or the wheelbase number in edit details which must be "actual wheelbase / 2.5" due to a bug in the software.
my work email is chris@motec.com
cheers,
christopher
but Mark, if you send me a zipped data file I can help sort out any problems. When looking at the G sensor, you should have a math filter it out since the noise in the signal is actually caused from chassis vibration. Make sure it's mounted with velcro.
Your oversteer numbers don't quite look right, again it's probably due to the calibration of the steering sensor with the outside tire angle, or the wheelbase number in edit details which must be "actual wheelbase / 2.5" due to a bug in the software.
my work email is chris@motec.com
cheers,
christopher
