|
In my experience a lot of depends on what your are trying to achieve.
For those of us bought up on accelerometers and squiggles the GPS stuff seems full of problems.
In terms of trying to establish 'absolutes' GPS does have problems for all the reasons above.
However, if your focus is on identifying trends and 'relatives' GPS is very visual, and that is good for drivers to perform self analysis.
Squiggles are abstract and it can take time to learn to read them well. Many drivers struggle to focus long enough to learn.
Bear in mind that I am taking about lower levels of motorsport here.
Many engineers these days are spoiled by the quality of info they have. Having to use a different or even a really basic logger is a good disapline. Identifying effectively what needs to happen by crystal ball gazing will test your understanding of the fundelmentals.
As always the question is driver or car?
I"m interested to hear the comment that a team is telling its drivers that (for example) to brake 0.3m later. Thats a big call. At the end of the day the driver is the first point of feedback and they need to be encouraged to develop 'feel', not an absolute reliance on the data.
Mark Webber used to say "Did it understeer? No. Then go a foot deeper. Yes? Pull back" The track surface is dynamic and only the driver can feel that. The suggestion to go deeper from data may be correct at that point in time (the past) and may point to a trend but is never an absolute.
|