Traction Control & Racing

Mon Aug 23 13:25:59 GMT 1999

> Ah, but aren't these the same people that make the ABS systems the way
> they are?  I have driven OE traction control cars and they are good for

Yes, and while they are somewhat effective, its the same thing as OEM
traction control - it helps drivers who make small mistakes survive
large consequences.  Traction control and ABS still is not going to help
a downhill run at 45MPH on ice :)

> The ABS systems are no different.  They are 'tuned' (can I use that word
> here?) for the masses and not for performance.  Many many times, I see a

Well, if I may stick my opinion in again, I haven't found one OEM car on
the market that is geared for true performance in ANY sense.  There have
been, and probably always will be, too many tradeoffs between mass
production and engineering.  Look at a typical, 1999 SVT Cobra Mustang. 
Nice 30k car, they handle good, they accelerate good, and for most, they
look good.  However, is that car reaching its maximum potential in
power, acceleration, and braking?  Of course not.  Otherwise companies
like Saleen would be out of business by now.

> racecar with one tire locked up no matter how good the driver.  IMO,

Yes, I've seen that too, and if the driver is properly trained and has
enough experience - that can be minimized or eliminated, or controlled
when it occurs.  That's all I was trying to say.  I don't believe race
cars need all this stuff that isolates the driver from the road.  Having
my brake pedal pulsate does not give me "feel" of how much the brakes
are grabbing, or not.  While there are certain advantages to automated
systems in vehicles, I believe there are more advantages to a better
driver.

> My point exactly.  Hoping I can come up with a scheme that is 'better
> than the human'.  May not be possible, but will be fun to play with
> regardless.

Well, two video cameras, a small cray, and some video processing could
be used to create a nice optically stereo drive by cray system that
would win, win, win :)  Just busting your chops :)

> Well, that is where we differ slightly on our philosophy.  The one
> rhetorical question here is: why then to the supposedly best drivers in
> the world (F1) need to have an explicit ban on traction control?
> Because it is unsafe, or is it because it could give an unfair
> advantage?

I can't answer that, for I don't know for sure.  If all drivers in the
same league/class had the same features/options/functions on their car,
then in theory, there are no advantages of one car over another.  So, I
would therefore conclude, between those two choices, that its considered
unsafe.

> 'racing' surface will be like.  Having 750+ horsepower available with
> 10" tires makes for a very throttle controlled ride.  It also makes for

This is true.

> a slower tun than if I could, say, reliably dial in 15% tire slip and
> concentrate on keeping it between the ditches.  Sorry for the non-PC
> example for those of you that don't condone street racing.  Just

I don't, however as a young'en, I did a helluva lot of it.  I had one of
the heaviest cars in our little "league" and was always in the top three
as far as wins.

> consider the case where you drive wide open all by yourself for the hell
> of it.

Well, we're talking theoretical of course :)  We would never hold WOT
for 15 minutes on an open road.

> Even in drag racing, they have means of controlling the amount of power
> put down at any given time.  Clutch timers, progressive nitrous systems,
> bypass valves, etc.  The difference there is that they can usually rely
> on some minimal amount of track preparation, and that during a run, the
> car will have a given amount of bite at any place on the track.  Set
> timers work pretty well in these cases to get them through 95% of the

Its funny that you bring all these technologies.  Our funny car, which
was based on a 500cid donovan block for power, didn't have all this
fancy stuff.  In fact, we didn't even run a transmission.  Engine,
flywheel, clutch pack, spherical bearing, driveshaft, spool, axles,
tires.  That was the chain of power front to back.  Simple is good. 
While I don't often apply the KISS theory to street projects, racing is
an entirely different story.  This also removes "excuses" from the
driver's vocabulary.  If I crashed, lost, overspun the tires, lost
traction, or facilitated any vehicle behavior that lost the race, well,
I as the driver sucked that day.  Of course if a wheel comes off or a
piston flys into the crowd, that's a different story - then my crew
sucked that day, but that's entirely rare, at least in our case.

> traction problems.  IMO, John Force is somewhat of a god, but he also
> has more money available than probably any other team on the circuit,

I would completely agree.  He is a wealthy "god" as you put it.  And to
extend my original point further, on the dyno, our 1989 thunderbird
funny car produced slightly more power than his car at one point - and
in 1990, he qualified for the season in the NHRA and we didn't.  Driver
experience is absolutely what makes his car go faster every time.  There
is a vast difference between a man who has raced all his life, having 25
years experience, and a man racing his entire life, and having 5 years
experience.  In contrast, this is why guys like Jeff Gordon fascinate me
- his driving experience in both years and quantity of laps is
significantly less than a lot of the guys we beats... so irregardless of
my opinion of the man personally, I have to respect his quick
acceleration to the fast lane.

> control system <G>.  John is a god because he has the unique ability to
> most often deal with that remaining 5% that Austin can't account for.

Exactly, and that ability comes from a combination of practice, and an
innate ability to wear the race car like a tightly laced sneaker.  Which
quite honestly, is what a race car is.  Its a motorized sneaker - it has
to fit, be somewhat comfortable, and apply force to the ground
appropriate for the style race.

> the current clutch/timer setup.  Those guys would all be sitting on the
> starting line with lifted blowers of liquefied tires.

Clutch timers aren't necessary.  Never had one never needed one, at
least from a launching perspective.  From a clutch survivability
perspective, well, lets just say John Forces clutch lasts a helluva lot
longer than mine ever did.

> the old left foot braking habit.  Interestingly, they were more
> concerned that we could navigate a parking lot than the highway.

Actually, I like the left foot braking habit, and for automatic
vehicles, I think its a safer method for those who master it.

> Exactly my point.

And mine too.  The problem with downforce is designing for it on a
street car is not terribly effective.  Spoilers and air dams look cool,
but they are cosmetic at street speeds, unless you plan to hit the
140-150MPH mark on the street. And of course, you are not, because
you're a responsible law abiding citizen ::grin::

Anyway, back to the point - I don't see how traction control is going to
help accelerate a car light to light any faster - your cutting something
out - spark, fuel, air, something, to get this traction control.  Why
not have the engine/tranny geared properly, and sit things in its
optimum RPM making the most power, then applying it as necessary?  Back
off the throttle if the tires spin.   Driver experience :)

> my Impala SS...an interesting study in traction itself <VBG>.

I can imagine... on that particular car, body roll is what kills it in
my opinion.  Bigger sway bar in the front, stock in the back, and if you
could find a way to introduce an IRS system in the back, the car would
handle much, much better.  You could also remove the motor mounts and
put in aluminum spacers, and lower the engine about 3/4".  Hey, every
little bit helps :)

> Thanks for your views.  I agree with a lot of them, but still want
> traction control.  Just not the OE system.

That's okay, I have no issue with what you want in your car, I merely
shared my viewpoint and experiences.  :)

-- 

Frederic Breitwieser
Xephic Technology
769 Sylvan Ave #9
Bridgeport CT 06606

Tele: (203) 372-2707
 Fax: (603) 372-1147
Web: http://xephic.dynip.com/