06/02: Physics of Racing
I stumbled upon an interesting series of articles a while ago, called The Physics of Racing by physicist and amateur racer/autocrosser, Brian Beckman. The whole series of articles, written over a 10 plus year span starting in 1991, is available online here.
As the title states, the articles address... the physics of racing. While a book like Going Faster addresses topics like the fastest line through a corner, braking force and tire slip angles with mainly qualitative explanations and diagrams, The Physics of Racing series attempts to explain with equations and numbers.
I'm not sure if understanding the physics behind racing at the level presented in the articles is required to be a good, or even top professional racer. And although I've only read about a forth of the articles, they certainly aren't as comprehensive as a book like Going Faster!. However, you can still certainly pick up a few things from it, and you might even find some of it interesting!
As the title states, the articles address... the physics of racing. While a book like Going Faster addresses topics like the fastest line through a corner, braking force and tire slip angles with mainly qualitative explanations and diagrams, The Physics of Racing series attempts to explain with equations and numbers.
I'm not sure if understanding the physics behind racing at the level presented in the articles is required to be a good, or even top professional racer. And although I've only read about a forth of the articles, they certainly aren't as comprehensive as a book like Going Faster!. However, you can still certainly pick up a few things from it, and you might even find some of it interesting!
I know this might sound ridiculous, but consider the following scenarios:
A racing series limits entries to drivers of a certain age, such as 16-21, 16-24, or 16-26. If you are not between these ages, you cannot race in the series. There is no other significant criteria for entry to the series other then age - i.e. anyone within the age group can race in the series, so long as the have the means/money.
A racing series selects its drivers from a driver tryout or selection, where drivers are evaluated based on criteria known to be important for successful drivers - i.e. racing experience, racing skills, media skills, etc. To attend the driver tryout, you must be within some age range, such as 16-26.
A driver development program selects drivers from a pool of applicants. Drivers are selected based on racing skills and experience. The drivers selected for the program receive career development training, and possibly partial or full funding for certain races. To apply, the applicant much meet some age criteria, such as 11-19 or 16-25.
A racing series is open to all drivers over some age, such as 16, and the champion wins a significant scholarship to race at the next level, worth anywhere from $300,000-$750,000. However, to win the scholarship, the winner of the series much be within some age range, such as 16-25. Drivers older then this range may be eligible for a separate prize pool, perhaps called an experts or master class prize, but the price amount is significantly smaller then the top prize offered to 16-25 aged drivers.
A drivers shootout is held in which the winner(s) get a significant scholarship to race in some series, worth anywhere from $60,000 to a few hundred thousand dollars. At the shootout drivers are evaluated based on driving skills. Participation in the shootout is limited to an age range, such as 13-17 or 16-25.
In any of the above scenarios where drivers are selected based on driving skill or experience, instead of eligibility being restricted by age, drivers of all ages may apply, but age is a factor in the selection, and there may be preference towards younger drivers.
A few notes to consider:
Most successful drivers at the top level start at a young age, and enter the series' described above within the above age ranges. However, there have historically been many successful drivers who has started racing and older ages, such as in their 20s or older. Some of these drivers have gone on to be extremely successful at the top levels of the sport.
Unlike many other popular sports such as basketball or football/soccer, access to racing is so limited that most average people cannot engage in any form of the sport in their childhood. Many people with the desire to race will not achieve the means to enter the sport until their late teens, 20s or older, if at all.
In many sports, performance at the top level declines for most people sometime in the 30s. In racing, many drivers continue to be successful in their 40s, and in some forms of the sport, some top drivers remain competitive over the age of 50.
Considering all this, are any of the above scenarios for age restrictions unethical? or questionable? or even illegal based on age discrimination laws?
To me, some of the above scenarios seem acceptable, but some are at least questionable. However, I know you could definitely argue the opposite. What do you think?
A racing series limits entries to drivers of a certain age, such as 16-21, 16-24, or 16-26. If you are not between these ages, you cannot race in the series. There is no other significant criteria for entry to the series other then age - i.e. anyone within the age group can race in the series, so long as the have the means/money.
A racing series selects its drivers from a driver tryout or selection, where drivers are evaluated based on criteria known to be important for successful drivers - i.e. racing experience, racing skills, media skills, etc. To attend the driver tryout, you must be within some age range, such as 16-26.
A driver development program selects drivers from a pool of applicants. Drivers are selected based on racing skills and experience. The drivers selected for the program receive career development training, and possibly partial or full funding for certain races. To apply, the applicant much meet some age criteria, such as 11-19 or 16-25.
A racing series is open to all drivers over some age, such as 16, and the champion wins a significant scholarship to race at the next level, worth anywhere from $300,000-$750,000. However, to win the scholarship, the winner of the series much be within some age range, such as 16-25. Drivers older then this range may be eligible for a separate prize pool, perhaps called an experts or master class prize, but the price amount is significantly smaller then the top prize offered to 16-25 aged drivers.
A drivers shootout is held in which the winner(s) get a significant scholarship to race in some series, worth anywhere from $60,000 to a few hundred thousand dollars. At the shootout drivers are evaluated based on driving skills. Participation in the shootout is limited to an age range, such as 13-17 or 16-25.
In any of the above scenarios where drivers are selected based on driving skill or experience, instead of eligibility being restricted by age, drivers of all ages may apply, but age is a factor in the selection, and there may be preference towards younger drivers.
A few notes to consider:
Most successful drivers at the top level start at a young age, and enter the series' described above within the above age ranges. However, there have historically been many successful drivers who has started racing and older ages, such as in their 20s or older. Some of these drivers have gone on to be extremely successful at the top levels of the sport.
Unlike many other popular sports such as basketball or football/soccer, access to racing is so limited that most average people cannot engage in any form of the sport in their childhood. Many people with the desire to race will not achieve the means to enter the sport until their late teens, 20s or older, if at all.
In many sports, performance at the top level declines for most people sometime in the 30s. In racing, many drivers continue to be successful in their 40s, and in some forms of the sport, some top drivers remain competitive over the age of 50.
Considering all this, are any of the above scenarios for age restrictions unethical? or questionable? or even illegal based on age discrimination laws?
To me, some of the above scenarios seem acceptable, but some are at least questionable. However, I know you could definitely argue the opposite. What do you think?
I wrote before about the ability of top sim racers in real life racing, but what about the other way around?
Unlike other games, iRacing displays your full name instead of some "gamertag" and there are quite a few real life pro racers who have accounts and race. In fact, I've raced against at least a few dozen names I recognized from a pro racing series, although few that have ever raced at the top levels.
So how good are the real life pros? From my experience it varies. Some real life pros are among the top rated iRacers. However, other pro racers have quite disappointing iRacing results. Some also seem to get in an above average amount of incidents.
So what does this mean? Who knows. Are the mediocre iRacers also mediocre real life racers? Are their lack of skills hidden by good equipment and/or a smaller pool of drivers in real physical world racing? Or do some real life racers just not take the game seriously? After all, they race for real, why take a game seriously? Are they used to having the real life "seat of the pants" feel and thus struggle without it? Are the guys that crash a lot just taking advantage of the comparably minimal repercussions? Or is it a result of real life racers racing more aggressively and competitively? I guess can't say I'll ever know unless I race against them in real life.
If you're an iRacing member, you can search for other members by name using the driver lookup feature under the myRacing->myRacers menu.
Unlike other games, iRacing displays your full name instead of some "gamertag" and there are quite a few real life pro racers who have accounts and race. In fact, I've raced against at least a few dozen names I recognized from a pro racing series, although few that have ever raced at the top levels.
So how good are the real life pros? From my experience it varies. Some real life pros are among the top rated iRacers. However, other pro racers have quite disappointing iRacing results. Some also seem to get in an above average amount of incidents.
So what does this mean? Who knows. Are the mediocre iRacers also mediocre real life racers? Are their lack of skills hidden by good equipment and/or a smaller pool of drivers in real physical world racing? Or do some real life racers just not take the game seriously? After all, they race for real, why take a game seriously? Are they used to having the real life "seat of the pants" feel and thus struggle without it? Are the guys that crash a lot just taking advantage of the comparably minimal repercussions? Or is it a result of real life racers racing more aggressively and competitively? I guess can't say I'll ever know unless I race against them in real life.
If you're an iRacing member, you can search for other members by name using the driver lookup feature under the myRacing->myRacers menu.
19/12: iRacing review
I first tried iRacing at the demo trailer during the Grand Am weekend at VIR. I was impressed enough to buy a subscription there and have been playing now for over 6 months.
To get started, you'll need a decent amount of computing power to play iRacing. A pretty new system (year or two old) with most importantly a dedicated video card should be enough. A lower spec system may work but you'll have to deal with a choppy frame rate and also set the graphics detail much lower so that visual references around the track are more difficult to spot. You'll also need a wheel and pedal set as iRacing won't even function without analog inputs. Logitech and Fanatec produce the post popular models which cost $250-$300 or so, but some cheaper options are available. Considering the service costs $7.50 - $14.00 a month depending on the length of plan you choose, tracks cost $12-$15, cars $12 (there are a few cars and tracks that come with the subscription), It could easily cost a thousand bucks plus if you need to buy everything. Pretty steep for a game, especially considering competitors such as rFactor require a one time $40 purchase and much less hardware to run. Still, I think iRacing can definitely be worth it.
Having driven on several configurations at VIR in real life as well as the virtual iRacing version, I can confirm one of the highlights of iRacing is the hyper realistic models of real world tracks, which are unmatched by any sim. Not only are the dimensions of the track near prefect, so are the subtle elevation and camber changes, as well as the type and heights of curbing. Realistic tracks not only make iRacing a better tool for learning real world tracks, but also help in learning the skill of learning new tracks, as well as add to the challenge of sim racing.
Another aspect of iRacing I really like is the well organized hosting and racing structure. Although privately hosted events and leagues are now allowed, iRacing hosts their own official series for each car, which are generally well participated. iRacing also has a ranking system for both performance/results (iRating) and safety(safety rating). The safety rating generally keeps the intentional crashers/wreckers out much better then other sims. The iRating provides a good (although not perfect) way to group similarly skilled racers together and award championship points fairly through a strength of field formula even if many competitors never compete directly with each other in the same race. All this means it's much easier and I think less time consuming and more fun to race competitively versus other systems in which you have to find an individual league, join it, and manage your time to make all specific events.
Along those lines I also like iRacings detailed web based statistics and results displays. This allows you to lookup your competitors and your own detailed stats and past race results through a simple interface. One thing I would like to see added though is a data acquisition/analysis tool similar to what Live for Speed has, which allows you to view for your speed, steering, throttle, brake positions, g-forces, etc. graphs all overlayed against anyone else's lap. This is similar to data acquisition systems used in real world racing and would help drivers improve alot.
In terms of vehicle dynamics, I think iRacing does a good job, although I'm not sure if it's perfect. Although I have driven the Skip Barber F2000 car in real life as well as the iRacing version, it's hard to compare perfectly because I've only had a few days in the real life car, I was on different tires (the sim models the slicks used in the national series) and likely a different setup. The simulation is certainly close enough so that the techniques used to drive in the game are very close to those used in real life. In comparison with other sims, I think iRacing is at least on par with Live For Speed's excellent vehicle dynamics and modeling, and superior to rFactor.
There are certainly areas where iRacing can be improved. For example, the damage modeling is limited mostly to suspensions breaking or bending, and graphically the body panels don't damage realistically at all. The dirt/grass off the racing surface is not realistically modeled like the actual track surface. The gearbox modeling is primitive compared to Live For Speed; clutch slipping feels non existent and it allows flat shifting and downshifting without rev matching in situations that would not work in real life. However, the good thing is iRacing is under constant development, and there are constant improvements to the physics modeling in addition to new features and new cars and tracks.
Overall, I think iRacing is a great game, or simulator or whatever you want to call it. It's both a useful as a tool for real world racing as well as a lot of fun.
To get started, you'll need a decent amount of computing power to play iRacing. A pretty new system (year or two old) with most importantly a dedicated video card should be enough. A lower spec system may work but you'll have to deal with a choppy frame rate and also set the graphics detail much lower so that visual references around the track are more difficult to spot. You'll also need a wheel and pedal set as iRacing won't even function without analog inputs. Logitech and Fanatec produce the post popular models which cost $250-$300 or so, but some cheaper options are available. Considering the service costs $7.50 - $14.00 a month depending on the length of plan you choose, tracks cost $12-$15, cars $12 (there are a few cars and tracks that come with the subscription), It could easily cost a thousand bucks plus if you need to buy everything. Pretty steep for a game, especially considering competitors such as rFactor require a one time $40 purchase and much less hardware to run. Still, I think iRacing can definitely be worth it.
Having driven on several configurations at VIR in real life as well as the virtual iRacing version, I can confirm one of the highlights of iRacing is the hyper realistic models of real world tracks, which are unmatched by any sim. Not only are the dimensions of the track near prefect, so are the subtle elevation and camber changes, as well as the type and heights of curbing. Realistic tracks not only make iRacing a better tool for learning real world tracks, but also help in learning the skill of learning new tracks, as well as add to the challenge of sim racing.
Another aspect of iRacing I really like is the well organized hosting and racing structure. Although privately hosted events and leagues are now allowed, iRacing hosts their own official series for each car, which are generally well participated. iRacing also has a ranking system for both performance/results (iRating) and safety(safety rating). The safety rating generally keeps the intentional crashers/wreckers out much better then other sims. The iRating provides a good (although not perfect) way to group similarly skilled racers together and award championship points fairly through a strength of field formula even if many competitors never compete directly with each other in the same race. All this means it's much easier and I think less time consuming and more fun to race competitively versus other systems in which you have to find an individual league, join it, and manage your time to make all specific events.
Along those lines I also like iRacings detailed web based statistics and results displays. This allows you to lookup your competitors and your own detailed stats and past race results through a simple interface. One thing I would like to see added though is a data acquisition/analysis tool similar to what Live for Speed has, which allows you to view for your speed, steering, throttle, brake positions, g-forces, etc. graphs all overlayed against anyone else's lap. This is similar to data acquisition systems used in real world racing and would help drivers improve alot.
In terms of vehicle dynamics, I think iRacing does a good job, although I'm not sure if it's perfect. Although I have driven the Skip Barber F2000 car in real life as well as the iRacing version, it's hard to compare perfectly because I've only had a few days in the real life car, I was on different tires (the sim models the slicks used in the national series) and likely a different setup. The simulation is certainly close enough so that the techniques used to drive in the game are very close to those used in real life. In comparison with other sims, I think iRacing is at least on par with Live For Speed's excellent vehicle dynamics and modeling, and superior to rFactor.
There are certainly areas where iRacing can be improved. For example, the damage modeling is limited mostly to suspensions breaking or bending, and graphically the body panels don't damage realistically at all. The dirt/grass off the racing surface is not realistically modeled like the actual track surface. The gearbox modeling is primitive compared to Live For Speed; clutch slipping feels non existent and it allows flat shifting and downshifting without rev matching in situations that would not work in real life. However, the good thing is iRacing is under constant development, and there are constant improvements to the physics modeling in addition to new features and new cars and tracks.
Overall, I think iRacing is a great game, or simulator or whatever you want to call it. It's both a useful as a tool for real world racing as well as a lot of fun.
22/11: HJC AR-10 Helmet review
HJC is best known for a line of affordable motorcycle helmets, but they also offer several SA SNELL approved auto helmets. The one I have is the HJC AR10, the most affordable model at $300 retail. There is also an AR-11, which is similar to the AR-10 but adds an aerodynamic "spolier", a carbon fiber version (HX10) and a super lightweight Si-12.
The build quality and fit and finish of the HJC helmets is one thing that steered me towards them. The fit and finish of the AR-10 is noticeably better then most comparably priced helmet. The shield attachment screws are also metal, while many helmets at this pricepoint have use plastic screws.
I'd say the eyeport size of the AR10 is average. At first, I thought I wanted a helmet with a larger eyeport, because psychologically I thought I would have better vision. However, I found that the helmets with smaller eyeports don't significantly limit vision. With the AR10, I don't have any issues with peripheral vision or checking the gauges. I beleive if you're racing karts or open cockpit cars, a smaller eyeport could be safer since it will be less area for debris to penetrate through the shield.
For ventilation, the AR-10 has two adjustable vents in the front above the visor, and two vents in the rear. Although it does not have vents in the chin area, I've had no issues due to lack of ventilation. I've also had no issues with fogging, even in the rain.
Another problem I've had with several rental/borrowed helmets I've used is wind buffeting at higher speeds in karts or open wheel cars. At times I've had a helmet shaking back and forth on my head at high speeds which is not the most comforting feeling. I believe this is due to a non aerodynamic shape of some helmets which may be more designed for closed cockpit cars, and also poorly fitted helmets. I've had no problem with this in the AR10 in this regard, even without the aerodynamic spoiler on the AR11, which shares the same shape as the AR10. I think the fact that HJC had decades of experience in motorcycle helmets may give it an advantage in this regard over manufacturers like Simpson or Bell.
The fit is obviously one of the most important factors in purchasing a helmet. I haven't been able to find a helmet that fits my head perfectly, but the AR10 is among the best I've tried. The helmet is very comfortable
The AR-10 is also relatively lightweight. This was particularly important to me since neck fatigue has been an issue for me. SoloRacer has a comparison of helmet weights of several popular helmets. The AR-10 is one of the lightest fiberglass helmets, with the exception of the super light HJC Si-12, while carbon fiber helmets are also generally lighter.
Overall, for the price I think it's hard to beat the HJC AR-10 helmet. I definitely happy with mine.
The build quality and fit and finish of the HJC helmets is one thing that steered me towards them. The fit and finish of the AR-10 is noticeably better then most comparably priced helmet. The shield attachment screws are also metal, while many helmets at this pricepoint have use plastic screws.
I'd say the eyeport size of the AR10 is average. At first, I thought I wanted a helmet with a larger eyeport, because psychologically I thought I would have better vision. However, I found that the helmets with smaller eyeports don't significantly limit vision. With the AR10, I don't have any issues with peripheral vision or checking the gauges. I beleive if you're racing karts or open cockpit cars, a smaller eyeport could be safer since it will be less area for debris to penetrate through the shield.
For ventilation, the AR-10 has two adjustable vents in the front above the visor, and two vents in the rear. Although it does not have vents in the chin area, I've had no issues due to lack of ventilation. I've also had no issues with fogging, even in the rain.
Another problem I've had with several rental/borrowed helmets I've used is wind buffeting at higher speeds in karts or open wheel cars. At times I've had a helmet shaking back and forth on my head at high speeds which is not the most comforting feeling. I believe this is due to a non aerodynamic shape of some helmets which may be more designed for closed cockpit cars, and also poorly fitted helmets. I've had no problem with this in the AR10 in this regard, even without the aerodynamic spoiler on the AR11, which shares the same shape as the AR10. I think the fact that HJC had decades of experience in motorcycle helmets may give it an advantage in this regard over manufacturers like Simpson or Bell.
The fit is obviously one of the most important factors in purchasing a helmet. I haven't been able to find a helmet that fits my head perfectly, but the AR10 is among the best I've tried. The helmet is very comfortable
The AR-10 is also relatively lightweight. This was particularly important to me since neck fatigue has been an issue for me. SoloRacer has a comparison of helmet weights of several popular helmets. The AR-10 is one of the lightest fiberglass helmets, with the exception of the super light HJC Si-12, while carbon fiber helmets are also generally lighter.
Overall, for the price I think it's hard to beat the HJC AR-10 helmet. I definitely happy with mine.
30/10: Push vs. Pull
I never really thought much about whether I push up with the outside hand or pull down with the inside hand when turning until my first racing school (w/ Bertil Roos). There an instructor suggested pulling down because it was easier physically/less fatiguing. If I remember correctly one reason given was pulling down works with gravity. This made sense to me and I started to consciously pull down both in race cars, karts and on the street too. Later I read a bunch of different discussions on the topic and found a wide range of theories supporting pushing vs. pulling. When I went to the TDI cup karting qualifier, the lead instructor advocated pushing, and when I further inquired, he said karts or cars, always push because you get better precision/more control.
Here are a few discussions on the topic I can find at the moment:
Regarding the steering wheel - are you a 'puller or a pusher
Hands on the (formula car) Wheel
To summarize, there are supporters of both pulling or pushing that claim each method provides better precision and/or feel, and is easier physically/less fatiguing. Further claims include less body movement, better weight transfer or stiffening the chassis by pushing in karting. More people seem to support the pushing theory, especially in karts, but there are some adamant supporters of pulling too.
Considering there are many respected drivers that support either method, I'm content with thinking it comes down to personal preference. I've since return to just doing what's natural for me, which I believe is something in between.
Here are a few discussions on the topic I can find at the moment:
Regarding the steering wheel - are you a 'puller or a pusher
Hands on the (formula car) Wheel
To summarize, there are supporters of both pulling or pushing that claim each method provides better precision and/or feel, and is easier physically/less fatiguing. Further claims include less body movement, better weight transfer or stiffening the chassis by pushing in karting. More people seem to support the pushing theory, especially in karts, but there are some adamant supporters of pulling too.
Considering there are many respected drivers that support either method, I'm content with thinking it comes down to personal preference. I've since return to just doing what's natural for me, which I believe is something in between.
27/10: sparco hurricane gloves
I'm going to be posting several safety gear reviews here soon.
First is the Sparco Hurricane gloves. These gloves are actually discontinued but are still in stock at several online retailers.
I got the Sparco Hurricane gloves about 7 months ago and have used them quite a bit in both karts and cars. The gloves are made of Nomex and FIA standard 8856 compliant, which I believe should make them legal for most forms of auto racing.
The fit was my most important criteria in selecting these gloves. I initially wanted a cheaper pair of G-Force gloves, but they did not fit my skinny hands well at all. The Hurricane gloves fit my hands pretty much perfectly from the the fingers to the wrist. The wrist has no velcro strap but is elastic so they stay on my hands well.
The grip provided by the gloves is not that great though. The gloves are Nomex fabric all around with small finger, palm and thumb suade patches. The lack of grip is most notible to me in karting. Most karting gloves I've tried do provide much better grip. Other Nomex gloves with more suade/leather on the underside I've tried also seem to grip better.
Considering the gloves are a single layer of soft Nomex, I don't think they provide good abrasion resistance for karting at all. Nomex gloves with patches on the knuckles may be slightly better, but karting specific gloves should be much better in this department.
The fabric gets linty very easily, but as of yet has stayed durable. The construction of the glove appears very high quality.
Comfort is great. The feel is as good as any other glove I've tried.
Overall, it's a solid glove, but I've I were to get another pair for around the same price I think I would try something else. But for those with skinny hands and doing mainly auto, I think they be a good pick, particularly if you can get them on sale since they are discontinued.
First is the Sparco Hurricane gloves. These gloves are actually discontinued but are still in stock at several online retailers.
I got the Sparco Hurricane gloves about 7 months ago and have used them quite a bit in both karts and cars. The gloves are made of Nomex and FIA standard 8856 compliant, which I believe should make them legal for most forms of auto racing.
The fit was my most important criteria in selecting these gloves. I initially wanted a cheaper pair of G-Force gloves, but they did not fit my skinny hands well at all. The Hurricane gloves fit my hands pretty much perfectly from the the fingers to the wrist. The wrist has no velcro strap but is elastic so they stay on my hands well.
The grip provided by the gloves is not that great though. The gloves are Nomex fabric all around with small finger, palm and thumb suade patches. The lack of grip is most notible to me in karting. Most karting gloves I've tried do provide much better grip. Other Nomex gloves with more suade/leather on the underside I've tried also seem to grip better.
Considering the gloves are a single layer of soft Nomex, I don't think they provide good abrasion resistance for karting at all. Nomex gloves with patches on the knuckles may be slightly better, but karting specific gloves should be much better in this department.
The fabric gets linty very easily, but as of yet has stayed durable. The construction of the glove appears very high quality.
Comfort is great. The feel is as good as any other glove I've tried.
Overall, it's a solid glove, but I've I were to get another pair for around the same price I think I would try something else. But for those with skinny hands and doing mainly auto, I think they be a good pick, particularly if you can get them on sale since they are discontinued.
23/10: Ugly F1 Cars
Think the current (2009) field of cars in F1 are ugly? I'd say they look glorious compared to these beasts!
Ugly F1 cars
Ugly F1 cars
22/10: TDI Cup Karting Qualifier
In September I attended the Volkswagen TDI Cup Karting Qualifier at F1 Outdoors near Boston. The top ten from the event would qualify for the final selection and be eligible for a free ride for 2010 which will go to the top karting qualified driver at the final selection. For details see volkswagenjettacup.com. My writeup's a little late but here's what went down.
I drove up to the Boston area the day before and the drive was horrid; almost 11 hours due to heavy traffic on some stretches and a few wrong turns. I finally got to my hotel close to 10PM and crashed early without eating much all day.
The morning didn't start off too well either. I got up early at 5:30 and left the hotel at a reasonable time to make it to the track at 7AM. Unfortunately roads in Massachusetts don't seem to have street signs, and that combined with my lack of navigation skills meant I got to the track late, last of the 19 registered drivers.
There was a quick drivers meeting where the we went over the format of the day, and Jan Haylen, lead instructor/judge gave a few pointers. There would be three groups, and each group would run four 10 minute sessions. The first session would not be timed, the second and final sessions would be timed for fastest lap and the third session would be timed for fastest 5 laps. The judges said they were also looking for improvement through the day and would be taking into consideration everyone's various experience levels in the karts.
Next there was a long block of time for kart fitting, which seemed kind of pointless to me, since the Rotax powered CRG karts we would be driving aren't so adjustable and all seemed to have the same sized seat. Fortunately there were some inserts and padding to use which I desperately needed. Since the kart fitting didn't take too long there was a long period of waiting and hanging out with the other drivers and those involved in the series. It was certainly nice to meet people from different backgrounds during this time and after that, most of the nerves started to go away.
Finally the first group went out for the first session and – as I've come to expect in every first session, there were a lot of spins – just on the outlap several karts spun in the first few corners! While the first two groups were on track, I made a point to walk around to a few different spots to get some different views of the karts around the track. The track at F1 Outdoors was pretty impressive. The layout we ran included most of the whole complex and was probably a bit under a mile in length including a mix of sweepers and hairpins. The configuration was very fast with several turns having camber to hold you. The landscaping around the track was equally impressive and the grass around the track was smooth and neatly mowed.
Next it was time for me to get in the kart. I took it easy for the first few corners then quickly stepped up to what for me was a moderate pace. I was feeling decent with my pace and got comfortable with the track quickly. I caught up to another driver and followed him for a lap or two – I was slightly faster but not so much to have a easy opportunity to pass. Soon, he pulled over and let me by. I was not sure if he had a problem or wanted to find open track. Regardless, I continued on my way for another lap or so when I braked for a tight hairpin. As one driver passed me on the inside, I felt an impact to my rear and saw a kart spinning behind me! That was interesting. Luckily the karts had a plastic rear bumper so there was no damage or karts flying through the air. I finished the session feeling decent about how I'd done.
The second 10 minute session would be the first timed session. I went out and continued where I left off, carrying more speed through the corners and feeling a little faster. Towards the end of the session though, I was starting to feel it in my neck and this was a concern to me. I had actually been trying to work out my neck in preparation but it is pretty hard to simulate the forces you experience in a high powered kart on a high grip track. After a short debrief, the laps times were posted and I was surprised to see that I was 3rd fastest in my group and only around 2 seconds off the pace of the fastest guys, given my lack of experience in racing karts. I also wondered if I perhaps went too fast, particularly since I knew my neck would give me trouble in the later sessions. In fact, I had set my fastest lap on lap 2, while all other drivers had set their fast laps later on. We had a long lunch break and I got to watch a helmet cam video from another driver in my group who had turned laps close to mine, which was pretty cool.
For the third session I worked on being smoother as this was the feedback I got from the judges. I wanted to show the judges I could adopt to their feedback, I understood that the session would be judged on the average of the best 5 laps, and given that I thought smoother would be less physically demanding, I felt this was the best strategy. I finished the session thinking I had run about the same pace as before, if not faster, but I was disappointed to see that my best lap was over half a second slower, and I was slowest of my group!
I went out for the last session with the plan to absolutely attack the course on the first few laps to set a good time before my neck got fatigued. Given that improvement would be a criteria my goal was to at least improve on my time from the 2nd session. After a spin on my first hot lap, I pushed hard for the next two or three laps and felt like I was going pretty fast, faster then I had all day. The next few laps I dialed it back before I decided to make a final push in the last few minutes. Even though I was tired and could not hold my neck straight in the fast corners at all, I pushed through it anyway. I was so disoriented coming off the corners I could barely see and was frankly surprised I kept it on the track.
Given my limited experience I had no idea how fast I had run, and unfortunately, due to some logistical issue we never got to see our times from the last session. There was a long wait while the judges did the scoring. I truly had no idea if I was among the top 10 qualifiers. Everyone seemed to had done a decent job given their experience levels. Finally, the judges came out from the trailer to announce the qualifiers. The names were read off one by one in random order and I can't say I was not quite disappointed when my name was not called.
The specific scoring criteria was not revealed so of course, I was second guessing myself afterwords wondering if there was something simple I could have done differently to qualify. It was frustrating because I truly believe I was good enough to qualify, but on this day, 10 other drivers had performed better based on the judges standards. Regardless, I've since been invited to the final driver selection event anyway since another driver has backed out. In the end I had a great time and was glad to have met the people I met. I'd love the opportunity to attend the final selection, although I don't have all the funding yet. It's a long shot but
I'll be trying a few things to raise the money for the entry fee. Let me know if you can help or have any suggestions for me!
I drove up to the Boston area the day before and the drive was horrid; almost 11 hours due to heavy traffic on some stretches and a few wrong turns. I finally got to my hotel close to 10PM and crashed early without eating much all day.
The morning didn't start off too well either. I got up early at 5:30 and left the hotel at a reasonable time to make it to the track at 7AM. Unfortunately roads in Massachusetts don't seem to have street signs, and that combined with my lack of navigation skills meant I got to the track late, last of the 19 registered drivers.
There was a quick drivers meeting where the we went over the format of the day, and Jan Haylen, lead instructor/judge gave a few pointers. There would be three groups, and each group would run four 10 minute sessions. The first session would not be timed, the second and final sessions would be timed for fastest lap and the third session would be timed for fastest 5 laps. The judges said they were also looking for improvement through the day and would be taking into consideration everyone's various experience levels in the karts.
Next there was a long block of time for kart fitting, which seemed kind of pointless to me, since the Rotax powered CRG karts we would be driving aren't so adjustable and all seemed to have the same sized seat. Fortunately there were some inserts and padding to use which I desperately needed. Since the kart fitting didn't take too long there was a long period of waiting and hanging out with the other drivers and those involved in the series. It was certainly nice to meet people from different backgrounds during this time and after that, most of the nerves started to go away.
Finally the first group went out for the first session and – as I've come to expect in every first session, there were a lot of spins – just on the outlap several karts spun in the first few corners! While the first two groups were on track, I made a point to walk around to a few different spots to get some different views of the karts around the track. The track at F1 Outdoors was pretty impressive. The layout we ran included most of the whole complex and was probably a bit under a mile in length including a mix of sweepers and hairpins. The configuration was very fast with several turns having camber to hold you. The landscaping around the track was equally impressive and the grass around the track was smooth and neatly mowed.
Next it was time for me to get in the kart. I took it easy for the first few corners then quickly stepped up to what for me was a moderate pace. I was feeling decent with my pace and got comfortable with the track quickly. I caught up to another driver and followed him for a lap or two – I was slightly faster but not so much to have a easy opportunity to pass. Soon, he pulled over and let me by. I was not sure if he had a problem or wanted to find open track. Regardless, I continued on my way for another lap or so when I braked for a tight hairpin. As one driver passed me on the inside, I felt an impact to my rear and saw a kart spinning behind me! That was interesting. Luckily the karts had a plastic rear bumper so there was no damage or karts flying through the air. I finished the session feeling decent about how I'd done.
The second 10 minute session would be the first timed session. I went out and continued where I left off, carrying more speed through the corners and feeling a little faster. Towards the end of the session though, I was starting to feel it in my neck and this was a concern to me. I had actually been trying to work out my neck in preparation but it is pretty hard to simulate the forces you experience in a high powered kart on a high grip track. After a short debrief, the laps times were posted and I was surprised to see that I was 3rd fastest in my group and only around 2 seconds off the pace of the fastest guys, given my lack of experience in racing karts. I also wondered if I perhaps went too fast, particularly since I knew my neck would give me trouble in the later sessions. In fact, I had set my fastest lap on lap 2, while all other drivers had set their fast laps later on. We had a long lunch break and I got to watch a helmet cam video from another driver in my group who had turned laps close to mine, which was pretty cool.
For the third session I worked on being smoother as this was the feedback I got from the judges. I wanted to show the judges I could adopt to their feedback, I understood that the session would be judged on the average of the best 5 laps, and given that I thought smoother would be less physically demanding, I felt this was the best strategy. I finished the session thinking I had run about the same pace as before, if not faster, but I was disappointed to see that my best lap was over half a second slower, and I was slowest of my group!
I went out for the last session with the plan to absolutely attack the course on the first few laps to set a good time before my neck got fatigued. Given that improvement would be a criteria my goal was to at least improve on my time from the 2nd session. After a spin on my first hot lap, I pushed hard for the next two or three laps and felt like I was going pretty fast, faster then I had all day. The next few laps I dialed it back before I decided to make a final push in the last few minutes. Even though I was tired and could not hold my neck straight in the fast corners at all, I pushed through it anyway. I was so disoriented coming off the corners I could barely see and was frankly surprised I kept it on the track.
Given my limited experience I had no idea how fast I had run, and unfortunately, due to some logistical issue we never got to see our times from the last session. There was a long wait while the judges did the scoring. I truly had no idea if I was among the top 10 qualifiers. Everyone seemed to had done a decent job given their experience levels. Finally, the judges came out from the trailer to announce the qualifiers. The names were read off one by one in random order and I can't say I was not quite disappointed when my name was not called.
The specific scoring criteria was not revealed so of course, I was second guessing myself afterwords wondering if there was something simple I could have done differently to qualify. It was frustrating because I truly believe I was good enough to qualify, but on this day, 10 other drivers had performed better based on the judges standards. Regardless, I've since been invited to the final driver selection event anyway since another driver has backed out. In the end I had a great time and was glad to have met the people I met. I'd love the opportunity to attend the final selection, although I don't have all the funding yet. It's a long shot but
I'll be trying a few things to raise the money for the entry fee. Let me know if you can help or have any suggestions for me!
Here's an interesting article which is an old email thread between Paul Haney, author of several racing books and sports car racer Guy Cosmo when he was racing in junior formula cars.
http://insideracingtechnology.com/disccosmo.htm
I thought it was pretty interesting and for me it brings up the question of, how much of the technical stuff does a driver need to understand to push a car to it's limit, develop/setup a car and effectively communicate with their engineer? I haven't really figured out the answer to that yet.
Also check out the rest of the site, it has some other interesting articles and photos too!
http://insideracingtechnology.com/disccosmo.htm
I thought it was pretty interesting and for me it brings up the question of, how much of the technical stuff does a driver need to understand to push a car to it's limit, develop/setup a car and effectively communicate with their engineer? I haven't really figured out the answer to that yet.
Also check out the rest of the site, it has some other interesting articles and photos too!