solid state vs. tubes. Pros and Cons

[Resident Loser]

Good speculation, but that's not what happens in the real world of racing. As with audio, they begin with the numbers - that only take you so far - then the driver's feedback (as does a critical listener) fills in the gap(s).

rw

Is there a difference in cars built for Indy-style ovals than say for Grand Prix road events? Big diff between making nothing but left turns punctuated by straightaways then say meandering European-style road courses, no? Cars may be similar mechanically, but you think there might be a certain asymmetry in their suspensions...Again I mention the old dirt-oval cars and midgets...Off-camber, mismatched tire sizes, uneven A-arms L to R...Non-centerlined carbody placement...Waybackwhen, it was all trial and error based in common sense with some basic knowledge of physics...I would imagine all those things have been transferred to numbers and can now be quantified quite precisely...

Either way you start out with a car suited for it's environment based on those numbers and how they translate to real-world conditions...Negative driver feedback? Well he says "bla-bla" and you know the answer...maybe a more or less stickier tire or perhaps a change in spring rate in one corner's coil-overs...Maybe both? Are there realtime changes on race day based on track conditions? I'm quite sure they aren't arrived at arbitrarily...somebody, somewhere knows the numbers that apply...Even if we chalk it up to gut-feeling or instinct/experience, I'm fairly certain one of the pocket-protector crown could quote chapter and verse.

And what about those sanctioning bodies that require each car to be exactly like every other...everything down to the effective area of groun-effects...It comes down to driver skill and the support crew; other than that, the basic parameters would seem to be all numbers.

It's too big an "industry" to rely on flights of fancy IMO...

jimHJJ(...unlike audio...)

[hermanv]

There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. The math performed by computers is to all extents accurate so the cars would end up being set up identically year in year out. Of course this is not true, each year the cars get a little faster, some years more than others.

This is not due to the computers becoming more accurate, it is due to input from people who have new ideas or insights as to what's going on. Not better math. the new insights might produce better equations in the end, but the initial input was provided by concepts or insights provided by people not computers.

I realize that many improvements are due to changes at every level of a race car, such as tires, but even the tire people use computers. I don't think that improvments in tires are due to more accurate arithmetic.

Nor do I mean that computers aren't indispensible in reviewing or testing many of these new ideas or enhancements, computers are just another tool in the race car mechanic's toolbox.

[theaudiohobby]

There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. The math performed by computers is to all extents accurate so the cars would end up being set up identically year in year out. Of course this is not true, each year the cars get a little faster, some years more than others.

This is not due to the computers becoming more accurate, it is due to input from people who have new ideas or insights as to what's going on. Not better math. the new insights might produce better equations in the end, but the initial input was provided by concepts or insights provided by people not computers.

I realize that many improvements are due to changes at every level of a race car, such as tires, but even the tire people use computers. I don't think that improvments in tires are due to more accurate arithmetic.

Nor do I mean that computers aren't indispensible in reviewing or testing many of these new ideas or enhancements, computers are just another tool in the race car mechanic's toolbox.

There is basic misunderstanding here, the maths referred to by RL is about Performance evaluation, The maths for measuring performance is fairly well defined, there are advances in that area also but for the purposes of this discussion, but they are not pertinent to this discussion, The utilization of performance evaluation does not stagnate the flow of ideas in any fields rather it validates real advances in technology, despite strict rules in various such automobile engineering, aerospace technology etc, advances continue in earnest. Advances are generally new applications of established scientific or engineering (which is itself simplied applied science) principles.

[E-Stat]

I would imagine all those things have been transferred to numbers and can now be quantified quite precisely...

But that is the beginning to the story, not the end.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st100908.htm

Are there realtime changes on race day based on track conditions? I'm quite sure they aren't arrived at arbitrarily...somebody, somewhere knows the numbers that apply..

You're half right. In Formula One track specific testing runs for days with drivers experimenting with various tire, suspension, and aerodynamic settings. Why? Because the labcoats can only get close. Every year the chassis evolve based upon learning from the engineers and drivers alike. I assure you they do not know all the answers. Not yet at least.

Even if we chalk it up to gut-feeling or instinct/experience, I'm fairly certain one of the pocket-protector crown could quote chapter and verse.

And yet never have the ability nor the understanding of piloting a 1200 lb car with 800 HP across corners at 4 Gs.

And what about those sanctioning bodies that require each car to be exactly like every other...everything down to the effective area of groun-effects...It comes down to driver skill and the support crew; other than that, the basic parameters would seem to be all numbers.

Perhaps with NASCAR, but not with more sophisticated cars like you find in F1. The regs only go so far. Indeed it is very much the driver skill to tell the engineers to fill in where even the most sophisticated test gear ends.

It's too big an "industry" to rely on flights of fancy IMO...

Agreed. Ferrari's budget is something like $200M per year. That's why they never run a car out of the box based on engineering theory alone. It's not for lack of experience. They've been doing it for some time now.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

But that is the beginning to the story, not the end.

http://www.sportnetwork.net/main/s169/st100908.htm


You're half right. In Formula One track specific testing runs for days with drivers experimenting with various tire, suspension, and aerodynamic settings. Why? Because the labcoats can only get close. Every year the chassis evolve based upon learning from the engineers and drivers alike. I assure you they do not know all the answers. Not yet at least.

Your comments reinforce my opinion that your do not understand the way engineering is applied to pratical solutions, Performance evaluation and Performance modelling are two sides of the same coin, i.e. you model your solution i.e. performance modelling and then you field test your model in a real life scenario by measure the actual performance i.e. performance evaluation in this case of F1 cars very precisely, the purpose of models is not to provide all the answers, but discard poor solutions efficiently. A major part of fine tuning is carried out in the field test, where the parameters adjusted to performance in a field test. In your particular case, the drivers input is part of the field test, it does not validate the performance measurements, it is an efficient means of optimising the car to a specific driver's percularities in areas such as skill, physique, preferences etc. In a nutshell, using measurements as a means to capturing actual performance is a pretty fine art, when it is carried out after the 'final' solution is developed, it is very precise, The adjustments made to the car as a result of driver input all show up in those measurements.

[Resident Loser]

...There is of course a great deal of number crunching and computer use in setting up race cars, but from RL's interpretation it would seem to mean that the car technology is essentially stagnant. ...

...my responses have been in response to:

...The metrics for cars are similarly insufficient to characterize it's complete performance envelope either...

If I put new jets in a carb, drop in a cam with different durations or even increase or decrease the diameter of the exhaust pipe, using numbers alone, it can be readily predicted what effect these things will have in the horsepower/torque powerband...likewise the effects of wheel offsets, track width or spring rates...

Why was there a dramatic change from traditional open-wheeled Offenhauser-powered cars to the Lotus-Ford type of vehicle in the 60s?...Simple, just completely abandon the front-engined, less-aerodynamic, higher CofG style for a rear-engined ground-hugging design...I've got a funny feeling a little number crunching would reveal more metrics than one could shake a 5 speed stick at...The laws of physics are governed by numbers...

jimHJJ(...but then again, I'm neither much of a race enthusiast nor audiophile for that matter...I simply like music...)

[E-Stat]

it can be readily predicted what effect these things will have in the horsepower/torque powerband...likewise the effects of wheel offsets, track width or spring rates...

And yet - all of that like THD specs alone tells you little as to the real world system performance. That continues to be my point. There is a big difference between information and knowledge.

If it were as simple as you seem to suggest it is, racing teams wouldn't throw away hundreds of millions of development and testing dollars every year. Or maybe you think they're all nuts, too.

rw

[theaudiohobby]

And yet - all of that like THD specs alone tells you little as to the real world system performance. That continues to be my point. There is a big difference between information and knowledge.

rw

And this is the point that is incorrect, the metrics can and do measure real world system performance where necessary and relevant. On your second point, THD is a composite value, its popularity is down to its easier comprehension by end users because it is a single number, rather than its usefulness as a precise evaluation tool, which as you point out it is not.