Cars built 'for' a certain driver's style

[NPP]

We often casually say that a team builds its car, and sets it up, around the no. 1 driver's requirements. But what does this actually mean in technical terms? I have two questions in particular, maybe someone can point me to some further reading on this:

(1) how much scope is there to adapt a car's setup once it has been built? Obviously, things like wheelbase or the blown diffusers that seemed to suit people like Vettel and Button can't be changed once implemented.

(2) what are some drivers' preferred setups? I've read on here that several of Kimi's team mates regard his setups as undriveable. What characterises a 'Kimi setup'? How would Button, Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel differ in their approach to setting up the same car?

I am aware of the basic (!) functions of springs, dampers, wings, tyres and how playing with them could alter a car's behaviour in various situations.

[JeremySmith]

They are good questions and thank you for asking them. I am not technical enough to respond, but i will have a go..

I think we would have to ask the drivers, i believe that most drivers would prefer the car to feel fairly neutral. At the present time the tyres are playing a huge role, lots of head scratching..

I am not sure any team builds a car to suit a particular driver..

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JeremySmith

I am not sure any team builds a car to suit a particular driver..

They may build it in a way that is more likely to suit a particular driver. We've already mentioned things like wheelbase, but I'm not so sure that blown diffusers only benefited Vettel and Button. Probably not.

Speaking of Button: Pre-season, he was talking about how he was taking full advantage of this time period to tell his engineers exactly what it was that he wanted from his 2013 car. Clearly it's doing something for him and not for his team mate. Although, in reality, it's not really doing much for either of them.

[werner]

I know that Schumachter liked his cars twitchy and oversteered, wich made life difficult for his teammates. The tires as they are in this era must not have helped him one bit.
The way aero and tyres are make a difference in how much drifting is the fastest way around a corner. That can make a difference for drivers who feel more or less comfortable going sideways.

[GORDON STREETER]

I don't think there can be a definitive answer, how do people like a cup of tea ?
I remember when I started in oval circuit racing I had a go in a competitor's car that was always beating me and found it was awful and I was a fair bit slower !

[VIVA GT]

I think that one of the fundamental issues is down to understeer & oversteer.
From what I've heard, some drivers (Like Button for example) prefer the stability of understeer/dislike the instability of oversteer and drive accordingly to this trait.
Other drivers (Hamilton & Vettel for example) prefer a more pointy/oversteery chassis and use their driving style to capitalise on this.

[Knowlesy]

It is purely a balance thing I'd imagine.

[steve_r]

Michael Schumacher liked his cars built with spikes that come out from underneath the hubcaps, whereas Jacques Villeneuve preferred a bad-ass sound system with poweful subwoofer, and Eddie Irvine always wanted a decent cigarette lighter and ashtray.

[chillibowl]

size of the driver has been an issue with the tub construction on several occasions.

i would also think that the directions that the updates take, which problems they hope to correct, takes into account one driver's preferences over the other one possibly more than in the initial construction.

but as seasons go on those preferences in terms of updates would then get incorporated into the following years design. provided their is driver continuity.

tricky questions though. not sure there is an answer even.

[chunder]

There have been numerous examples of this all the way back to Stewart ad the like.

I know for a fact that when Rosberg left McKLaren he always called the car a Prostc ar coz it was built around Alain's style of driving, fairly clear line of thinking there I guess.

And the Benettons of 94/5 were the same which is why maybe Johnny, Jos and Lehto struggled abit with them, as they were designed around Michael.

My issue was when Bridgestone started making pretty much Ferrari and Michael tyres while they were still supplying other teams!

I would imagine cars like the Red Bull, Ferrari and Lotus this year might be designed around their lead drivers, (lol RB) but some of the guys further back maybe not?

[NPP]

Thanks for all your input. Could we become slightly more specific and technical - which driver wants which kind of adjustment? Or would this require information jealously guarded by drivers and teams?

[chunterer]

You'll probably need to ask Peter Windsor about that!

[Bononi]

Originally Posted by NPP

Thanks for all your input. Could we become slightly more specific and technical - which driver wants which kind of adjustment? Or would this require information jealously guarded by drivers and teams?

Top secret information...

[Born Racer]

Originally Posted by chunterer

You'll probably need to ask Peter Windsor about that!

Oh God. Does most of that stuff he writes about reactive drivers and what-have-you make sense? I've always sensed it a bit too precise to be accurate (but I'm not an engineer; then again, neither is he, hence my slight scepticism).

[Marbot]

Most drivers just want a car that's quicker than everyone elses, regardless of whether it oversteers, understeers, or whatever.

Most of us should be able to remember as far back as the 2005/6 seasons and wonder how the hell Alonso managed to win two championships in a Renault that had what could only be described as terminal understeer every time he so much as tweaked the steering wheel!

[Bononi]

Yep I do remember !

[Marbot]

I'm also reminded, more recently, that Adrian Newey would tell Sebastian Vettel what changes had been made to the car and how he should drive it now that it had different handling characteristics. So there's obviously more going on with regard to the car than anything that the driver might actually want. At least in that particular case. It is also believed that this is one of the reasons why Webber can't make the tyres last on his car......when it's running, that is.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Born Racer

Oh God. Does most of that stuff he writes about reactive drivers and what-have-you make sense? I've always sensed it a bit too precise to be accurate (but I'm not an engineer; then again, neither is he, hence my slight scepticism).

Indeed, this sort of self indulgent twaddle (and Schuey buying sjyscrapers in the news section) contributed greatly to my subscription cancellation!

[Knowlesy]

THE FRICTION CIRCLE!

[JamesH]

Originally Posted by Marbot

Most drivers just want a car that's quicker than everyone elses, regardless of whether it oversteers, understeers, or whatever.

Whilst of course anyone wants a car that's faster than anyone else, I don't think it regardless of it handling, as shown by many driver expressing a preference for a particular setup.

As to the OP, there range of setup options on even a simple race car is bewildering. You can have one chassis and make it perform in a vast variety of different ways.
e.g.

Suspension geometry. Often you will be able to change the mount points of the wishbones to give different camber/caster changes on movement. And of course you can set static caster/camber/toe in to whatever you want anyway.
Damper adjustment. You can change the stiffness of the dampers in bound and separately in rebound.
Springs (currently torsion bar in F1)- variable spring rate, overall stiffness
Anti rollbars. These can be adjusted, often whilst driving. And with the front back stuff (FRIC) this is even more complicated.
Ride height. Important with high aero.
Brake balance.
Steering speed and ackerman settings.
Tyre pressures.
Tyre specification - different tyres turning up each race...

Now, take all those values, and work out all the different combinations (many!), and you'll see why it's an arcane art, and why the testing ban leaves a lot to guesswork (and simulation)

[NPP]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Whilst of course anyone wants a car that's faster than anyone else, I don't think it regardless of it handling, as shown by many driver expressing a preference for a particular setup.

As to the OP, there range of setup options on even a simple race car is bewildering. You can have one chassis and make it perform in a vast variety of different ways.
e.g.

Suspension geometry. Often you will be able to change the mount points of the wishbones to give different camber/caster changes on movement. And of course you can set static caster/camber/toe in to whatever you want anyway.
Damper adjustment. You can change the stiffness of the dampers in bound and separately in rebound.
Springs (currently torsion bar in F1)- variable spring rate, overall stiffness
Anti rollbars. These can be adjusted, often whilst driving. And with the front back stuff (FRIC) this is even more complicated.
Ride height. Important with high aero.
Brake balance.
Steering speed and ackerman settings.
Tyre pressures.
Tyre specification - different tyres turning up each race...

Now, take all those values, and work out all the different combinations (many!), and you'll see why it's an arcane art, and why the testing ban leaves a lot to guesswork (and simulation)

thanks James! That's more or less what I was getting at - with so many options available, it should be possible to adapt a car to a wide range of driver preference. Though, perhaps, workable setups may be developed and tested with particular drivers' styles and preferences in mind. But then it would be a matter of driver x not getting the same level of engineering support and testing time as driver y, or x not being as good at telling engineers what he wants, rather than the car as such being built for y rather than x.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by JamesH

Whilst of course anyone wants a car that's faster than anyone else, I don't think it regardless of it handling, as shown by many driver expressing a preference for a particular setup.

As to the OP, there range of setup options on even a simple race car is bewildering. You can have one chassis and make it perform in a vast variety of different ways.
e.g.

Suspension geometry. Often you will be able to change the mount points of the wishbones to give different camber/caster changes on movement. And of course you can set static caster/camber/toe in to whatever you want anyway.
Damper adjustment. You can change the stiffness of the dampers in bound and separately in rebound.
Springs (currently torsion bar in F1)- variable spring rate, overall stiffness
Anti rollbars. These can be adjusted, often whilst driving. And with the front back stuff (FRIC) this is even more complicated.
Ride height. Important with high aero.
Brake balance.
Steering speed and ackerman settings.
Tyre pressures.
Tyre specification - different tyres turning up each race...

Now, take all those values, and work out all the different combinations (many!), and you'll see why it's an arcane art, and why the testing ban leaves a lot to guesswork (and simulation)

None of that explains why Teflonso won two world championships with front tyres that were mostly going sideways rather than frontways every time the car so much as looked at a corner. He's certainly not a driver who likes understeer, but he didn't seem to mind it at all when he drove for Renault in 05/06. If you'll remember, it was a car that was designed with a definite rearward weight bias and that isn't something that any driver would specifically ask for. That's something that only the cars designer would ever commit themselves to.

[chunterer]

Originally Posted by Marbot

None of that explains why Teflonso won two world championships with front tyres that were mostly going sideways rather than frontways every time the car so much as looked at a corner. He's certainly not a driver who likes understeer, but he didn't seem to mind it at all when he drove for Renault in 05/06. If you'll remember, it was a car that was designed with a definite rearward weight bias and that isn't something that any driver would specifically ask for. That's something that only the cars designer would ever commit themselves to.

Is Tim Densham an unheralded genius, or was that basic chassis a fluke?

[henners88]

Adrian Newey recently said on the BBC that he designs a car with the sole intent of making it as fast as possible within the given regulations. The drivers individual styles are always secondary and the team then look at ways to help the drivers adapt to what has been designed. Some drivers are better at adapting their styles than others. Newey said he never designs a car around one particular driver because the regulations are restrictive enough as they are. The driver has a job to do too.

[jedrinck]

Originally Posted by Marbot

None of that explains why Teflonso won two world championships with front tyres that were mostly going sideways rather than frontways every time the car so much as looked at a corner. He's certainly not a driver who likes understeer, but he didn't seem to mind it at all when he drove for Renault in 05/06. If you'll remember, it was a car that was designed with a definite rearward weight bias and that isn't something that any driver would specifically ask for. That's something that only the cars designer would ever commit themselves to.

I read in an interview with Alonso a while ago that the tires at the time worked particularly well with Alonso's extremely violent corner entry he practiced then. The high onset rate caused all 4 wheels and more so the fronts to go sideways initially and that caused them to develop more bite mid turn than with a smooth entry. If it's due to a brief peak in temperature or some other magic effect I don't know. A classic case of a driver's personal preference meeting the exact right car and tires.