If the top driver has consistent times have they reached the limit of the set up?

[Racer-X]

I was thinking about this today. Say you put your top driver out there and they run the same time +- .1 second over several laps on a minute long course trying different lines and levels of aggressiveness ranging from loads of slip and killing tires to cruising around like its no big deal. Is that indicative of the driver mod reaching the point of diminishing returns?

This isn't to address any problem in particular, I'd love it if our drivers could hold times that close, and this is just something I was thinking about.

[Claude Rouelle]

1. If you 2 drivers have equal lap times that doesn't mane they are quick. Put a professional driver in your car (if not Sebastien Vettel or Jeff Gordon, I am sure you can find one in your region) and compare. Not only the lap times but also the drivers comments and if you have data acquisition compare the drivers channels: Throttle, Brake Pressure, Steering, Lateral and Longitudinal G, GPS etc... You will know the what and the why of the differences. However give the professional driver a fair time to adapt, 1 hour, 50 laps for example. The Formula Student car is a specific car and requires some driving style adaptation compared to a "usual" single seater or a GT or a prototype.

2. At equal quickest lap time prefer the driver who is the most consistent (minimum deviation on 20 laps) and have less tire wear (that you can measure) and less full consumption.

3. Food for thoughts. Alain Prost said: "When I go fast I look slow and when I look slow I am fast" Most of the time the most spectacular drivers are not the fastest ones and most of the time they are also the less consistent. Of course there was Senna but he was the exception .....and we are in Formula Student (but that being said Senna had more fuel consumption than Pros)

Your goal is to have a car that the driver can exploit

1. By trying to have the 4 biggest tire traction ellipses at any time: that only have the best possible tires but the best possible exploitation of these tires with the best possible camber (static and dynamic), the best possible pressure, the best possible temperature etc.. Even if you are "quick" do you know if you are exploiting your tires at their best in terms of performance and consistency?

2. By having the yaw amount you want when you want it. That is the combination of the driver and the engineer work: exploitation of slip angle and slip ratio with throttle, brake and steering, weight distribution, possibly downforce and downnforce distribution, Spring and ARB stiffness, damping etc... How do you know if you have the right amount of yaw moment (that means the right amount of yaw acceleration) at any place of the circuit? Look at your circuit map and the derivation of your gyro

3. Having best possible control and stability. There is where the driver subjective comments meet the engineer objective analysis. Do you know how to define and quantify control and stability as a driver in your test comments and as an engineer in your simulation and in your data analysis?

[Rex]

Interesting topic! At the admitted risk of being seen publicly agreeing with Claude, he's absolutely right about some of these points:
1) Even if it's just one guy pounding laps within 0.1 of each other lap, that's still no assurance of fast (relative to the car's capabilities). I can go out and pound many laps (within the limits of my tires) in a GT car that I know pretty well and get times within a couple tenths of each other on a 2 minute course. From there, it doesn't matter how "hard I try" or how "calm I drive," that'll be my approximate laptime until I either go home and look at data, or have some instruction. But my lap times will still be a couple seconds off pro time. Being consistent is good, but it is not the same as being fast. If your drivers really are pro-level fast and are exploiting the potential of the car every lap, then their value as a driver changes and becomes the feedback they give you on how to improve the setup (and their communication in this regard is something they can improve). There's always room for improvement in driver mod.
2) Claude says "Your goal is to have a car that the driver can exploit..." and this is also very true (irrespective of what details follow it - doesn't matter how you get there, as long as your driver can exploit your car). Claude's point #3 is particularly important I think. You see many FSAE cars that have designs intended to achieve a performance envelope well outside the capabilities of any of the drivers on that particular team...which seems a huge waste of time and resources. Don't get me wrong, a faster car is a good goal, but only to the extent it's useable by your drivers. If your drivers aren't fast enough to notice a few extra lbs here or there, or tiny suspension variances, maybe spend more time/money on driver training and tune the car (however inherently fast or un-fast it may be) to be friendly and predictable.

[Claude Rouelle]

Rex, It is risky to publicly agree with me? And you did it? Wow! You are the man! :)

[Rex]

Rex, It is risky to publicly agree with me? And you did it? Wow! You are the man! :)

Indeed - I do have a reputation to uphold after all. :) Let the record show that I can agree with you when you make reasonable points, as is the case here.