-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.racesimcentral.net/ The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back
in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd
have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car.
(However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy
Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with
all aspects of any racing vehicle)
: [snip]
:>Some people took it as a sign of his
:>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After
:>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
> : And of course, we're all in agreement that during his (too-short) career,
> : Mr. Clark was indeed simply "nowhere."
> I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back
> in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd
> have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car.
One cannot say what Clark would have done in current F1, but I still
think he would do well. F1 drivers do not need to know all the details
of setting up a car (when did you last see an of the Schumacher brothers
with a wrench?). What is more important is that they are able to
communicate well with their racing engineer about what the car is doing
in various phases (i.e. under/oversteer in slow/fast corners, corner
entry and exit, ride over bumps etc.). Of course it is better if the
driver knows exactly which component is causing problems, but that can
be determined from both telemetry and personal communication.
From his ability to feel the balance the car, I believe Clark could tell
the engineers what was wrong with the car better than many others. It
would then be the job of the engineers to set the car up accordingly.
> : [snip]
> :>Some people took it as a sign of his
> :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After
> :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up.
By the way, if you look at some of the online race reports from 1967, you
will see lots of, often vague, discussion about "getting the car right."
Often, it seems, this was done *between* races rather than at the track--but
even in the practice sessions you'll see talk about changing diffs., and
yes, gearboxes.
Finally, I think it's quite fine to say that Clark wasn't god, wasn't
perfect, etc. He was before my time, and I haven't got a whole lot invested
there. I just didn't get the logic of your critique.
Finally, finally, I'll agree with anyone that says this thread is getting
persnickety. Indeed, I've just done some persnicketing myself.
cheers,
DK
> I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back
> in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd
> have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car.
> (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy
> Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with
> all aspects of any racing vehicle)
> : [snip]
> :>Some people took it as a sign of his
> :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After
> :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up.
> --
> Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
> Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
> Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
Not at all. Clark's lack of attention to set up was clearly unusual
even then. That's why his mechanics commented on it and why it is
continually wheeled out as another remarkable thing about him as a
driver. By contrast Hill spent a fair time tweaking ride-heights.
: Finally, I think it's quite fine to say that Clark wasn't god, wasn't
: perfect, etc. He was before my time, and I haven't got a whole lot invested
: there. I just didn't get the logic of your critique.
The logic is that if we believe reports of the time, Clark used
essentially the same set up from track to track (nobody has told
me that this is wrong anyway and mechanics talking about the time
strongly imply this is the case). Some people choose to see this
as a strength of Clark the driver - "he was so good he didn't need
to do set up" - I see it as a weakness of Clark - "he was so good
he could drive around the wrong set up but he would have been
_better_ if he could have got the right set up"
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
> I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back
> in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd
> have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car.
> (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy
> Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with
> all aspects of any racing vehicle)
> : [snip]
> :>Some people took it as a sign of his
> :>brilliance I took it as a significant weakness in his abilities. After
> :>all, you're nowhere in modern F1 if you can't do set-up.
> --
> Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
> Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
> Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
> www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
Not every driver had, or has, that skill; to wring the best from whatever
has an engine and four wheels. Even Fangio was less than brilliant in
anything with enclosed wheels.....even he stated that. He needed to be
able to see the front wheels and he needed to be central in the car to
produce his best.
Then there is the ENORMOUS difference between setting up a car today and
setting up a car then. That in itself means that comparisons with then and
now are irrelevant.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
---------------------------
> I said in MODERN F1. Clark could get away with not doing set-up back
> in the 60s. I would not work today. Further I would contend that he'd
> have been faster still if he had learned how to set up a car.
> (However, it does seem these days to be heresy to suggest that Jimmy
> Clark wasn't absolutely perfect all the time at all tracks and with
> all aspects of any racing vehicle)
=====================================
Within the bounds of the technology available at the time. In some
instances the driver would simply come in and say that the "back feels soft"
or "it's bottoming going over the Ledger crossing" and the mechanic (the
only "engineers" were thos with degrees and they were few and far between in
the motor racing pits in 1967!) would weild his trusty wrench.
--
Regards,
Bruce Kennewell,
Canberra, Australia.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
> (snip)
> From his ability to feel the balance the car, I believe Clark could tell
> the engineers what was wrong with the car better than many others. It
> would then be the job of the engineers to set the car up accordingly.
> =====================================
> Within the bounds of the technology available at the time. In some
> instances the driver would simply come in and say that the "back feels soft"
> or "it's bottoming going over the Ledger crossing" and the mechanic (the
> only "engineers" were thos with degrees and they were few and far between in
> the motor racing pits in 1967!) would weild his trusty wrench.
> --
> Regards,
> Bruce Kennewell,
> Canberra, Australia.
> -----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
> ------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Well, I wasn't around <g>. There's 2 answers:
1) Clark was notorious with his mechanics for 'driving around' a problem. If
they noticed his laptimes were slowing down, they called him in immediately
or he would speed up again and they would never know what was wrong. So yes,
maybe he didn't have to know much about set-ups.
2) I remember from one of the books on Clark that he said something to the
effect of 'you can't overestimate the importance of the right bump ***s'.
Now that doesn't sound like the remark of an ignorant man.
But like I said, I wasn't there, so I could be wrong. And please don't ask
me to look up that specific quote...
Bye,
Leo
My definition of a great driver is certainly one who can get into a
car and get around faster than anyone else. That includes the ability
to set the car up properly and gain maximum performance from that car.
Especially in modern motor racing (particularly higher formulae).
Setting your car up propoerly does not make you a great driver I agree.
But, today, inability to set your car up does make you a poor driver.
: Putting all drivers in identical machinery is the true test of a drivers
: ability.
It's one test of a major part of their ability. Their ability to
develop a car is certainly another part. I would argue that a
_complete_ driver is one who can aid with development, design and
set up and, having done that, get out there and drive around faster
than anyone else.
--
Richard G. Clegg Only the mind is waving
Networks and Non-Linear Dynamics Group
Dept. of Mathematics, Uni. of York
www: http://manor.york.ac.uk/top.html
