In reply to Andy Hollis :
Huh -I had not thought about the tire degradation piece, so add to that the changing track conditions due to temperature, humidity, that rubber wearing off /onto the track surface...
It just keeps getting more complex :)
In reply to Andy Hollis :
Huh -I had not thought about the tire degradation piece, so add to that the changing track conditions due to temperature, humidity, that rubber wearing off /onto the track surface...
It just keeps getting more complex :)
Andy Hollis said:codrus (Forum Supporter) said:Computers are good at precision, people are good at flexibility. Driving fast on a race track (time trial/qualifying, say) is all about precision, and they've gotten a long way in making automated cars do that. If they aren't faster than good drivers already, it won't be long.
I like that observation...but not the conclusion.
To be precise means the input variables are constant. In reality, they are not. Even in a single-car situation, there is no predictable perfect lap because the car's performance is changing constantly. Most notably, tire grip and feel.
As someone who pushes a variety of tires to the limits frequently, I can tell you it is a risky business even for a "flexible human". An AI isn't going to be able to predict the performance changes of a particular tire during a session without a LOT of test runs to base that curve on. Grip is not a single number. And that assumes fresh tires go on every session...which rarely happens. Instead, you have to know your vehicle really well and be able to sense changes in performance potential quickly and apply those to your future asks.
PS: GRM tire test stories never mention the offs and mulligans that occur in the name of science.
The computer doesn't need to predict the performance changes of the tire, it can measure them exactly the same way that you do. You do it by turning the wheel and sensing the resulting yaw and the feedback through the steering, the computer can do this with accelerometers and force sensors but it's got much more resolution. This isn't what I mean by "flexibility", it's just a closed loop control systems problem and we know how to build those.
When I talk about "flexibility", I'm talking about dealing with the potentially unending list of situations that come up out in the real world, rather than the controlled confines of a race track. The kid in the yard over there -- is he going to kick the ball out into the street and chase it? What about that man on the corner waving his arms, is he a crazy man or a police officer directing traffic? Construction zones with cones that make you drive over onto the wrong side of the road to get around a hole that they're digging. The list of those sorts of problems just goes on and on and on, it's effectively infinite. Humans can think, they can understand what's going on and figure out the best way to deal with it. Computers can't do that and we have no idea how to make them do it.
The race track environment tries to minimize these random factors, those that are left are basically down to the other drivers on the track or mechanical failures on the vehicle. Make it a closed single-car qualifying session on a permanent road course and you've got the ideal environment for a computer to go faster than any human can.
The race track environment tries to minimize these random factors, those that are left are basically down to the other drivers on the track or mechanical failures on the vehicle. Make it a closed single-car qualifying session on a permanent road course and you've got the ideal environment for a computer to go faster than any human can.
Perhaps, but will the computer notice a cloud cover/uncover the sun and realize the potential change in tire grip later in the lap. How about seeing spectators raise umbrellas for a rain shower ahead. A human can.
Your proposition reminds me of the saying: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
BL
I'm at the point of my life where it's not about going faster. Those last tenths of a second mean nothing to me. I race for the mental chess game. The move to pass, making my car wide to not be passed.
Feeling that edge of control in the loose stuff. Those moments when my heart is in my throat knowing how delicate I need to be to corner at this speed. Or Braking on the edge of lock up.
I've been using a catalyst this season and I really enjoy it but the best improvement I saw was when I followed a car on a couple of laps that had a better line than me. From there I was able to spend the rest of the day chasing improvements and consistency on that better line/track usage. I'd also like to have an instructor take a lap in the car to set a baseline and then run it with the catalyst with me as a driver to compare. It isn't magic but it is an easy package for getting more data about what is happening in a lap.
I sometimes need someone to see what I'm doing and physically demonstrate it to me. AI can't do that lol.
I remember learning manual. I simply could NOT get how to use a clutch. As soon as someone demonstrated exactly what you would do but he used his hands to show me I got it immediately.
kanaric said:I sometimes need someone to see what I'm doing and physically demonstrate it to me. AI can't do that lol.
I know when I'm instruction it's sometimes easier to show someone; can't recall the number of times I've told someone to watch my feet in an effort to get them to understand how deep to trail the brakes in a particular corner.
More than a year later using a catalyst I still like it.
Still some frustrations or not so good things
Overall I don't think it replaces a coach. It can make working with a coach more effective like any datalogging. It helps you keep working on what a coach tells you without having them in the right seat all the time in a measurable way.
You'll need to log in to post.
