>to a faster time. Bob is likely taking a better *line* than you are in some
>places, and getting through certain parts of the course quicker than you
>even though you're pulling higher "numbers" in those areas.
Bob and I walked the course together about 10 times. We shared where
each of us were running and we were pretty much running the exact same
line (we also talked about car attitude at key points, where we were
getting on the throttle, etc. etc.) (From externally watching him, he
also seemed to be running very much the same line as me.) Now if you
are talking about who executed the plan better....well the times answer
that story ;) That is not to say that there may have been subtle
differences in the lines that accounted for the times.
>If I understand how Geez figures this (Byron or someone correct me if I'm
>wrong), the usage numbers are based on how closely the driver comes to
>the peak numbers seen when he drives the car.
This is how GEEZ works, but it does smoothness and agressiveness
separately. Agressiveness is only measured when you *don't* have large
lateral G's on the car. According to GEEZ I didn't have any major
problems pointing the car straight and getting on the power (i.e. no
happy feet or hands.) Where I did have the largest room for improvement
was maintaining the lateral limits (again according to the rating
system.)
>Therefore lower "peaks" by another driver can actually generate usage
>percentages similar to those of the first driver, as long as the second
>driver stays equally close to his lower "peak".
Agreed. My point was that this isn't necessarily a good thing, and that
if you took the first driver's values and used them for the rating
system of the second driver, the second driver's ratings would go down.
But I get your point, that I should not necessarily be looking to
improve my arcs, but pick a different line so as to minimize them and
lengthen the "straights".
>OK, a friendly wager: I'd bet that if Bob and you had both driven your car at
>Lemoore, Geez would likely have shown your peak numbers as being *higher*
>in some places on the course than his, but he actually may have negotiated
>those portions of the course as quickly, or more so, than you.
Good point. And this is precisely why I think GEEZ needs the ability to
directly overlay runs (hint hint Byron ;) ;) ;) When runs start differing
by 10ths or 100ths, it is pretty hard to eyeball the differences in
separate windows, IMHO. For now, I just run them through a Perl script
and graph them in Excel.
Thanks for the insights!
Todd
|