Doug Snyder, of Force 5 Racing, has given Race2Play permission to publish excerpts from his book; Driving Advantage.

Most books on racing recount the experiences of their authors, this book does not. It is a survey and compilation of important information from other fields, particularly the branch of psychology known as human performance.

It is an amazing read. Each minute of reading time is equal to ten minutes of physical 'on track' testing.

Go read Driving Advantage

More chapters will be posted on Feb 23, 2008

Nice. These are going to be some good reads!

Cool. Thanks Tim!

Interesting stuff

Thanks for organizing this and a big thanks to Mr. Snyder for making it happen. I look forward to reading these articles while I watch hockey this evening.

Reading...understanding...discussing.

Driving Advantage 02 - Time: A car is going 70mph=100ft/sec. It requires 200ms from thought to decision to applying brake...let's say the brake pedal moves from 0 pressure to maximum pressure for the system with negligible loss of total friction between the road and wheel i.e. rolling friction + static friction during braking >= rolling friction + static friction before braking. And let's say it stays at the max (pressure being reduced when dynamic friction increases to maintain rolling friction + static friction >> dynamic friction) According to data acquisition it takes the car 500ms to go from 0g to 1g in a fairly linear curve.

Now we are looking at:

Distance = 1/2 * a * t^2 + 100ft/sec *t

Where a = deceleration = -1g/500ms * t

Sticking a into the distance formula and using t = 500ms we get:

Distance = - 1/2 1g/500ms * 500ms * (500ms)^2 + 100ft/sec(500ms)
= 46.0ft

So, the total distance between thought of braking and 1g of braking is 20ft + 46.0ft = 66ft which is apparently where he's getting the 60 to 70 feet remark. At the end of this period the car is now going:

V = velocity = a * t + Vo
= - 1g/500ms * t * t + 100ft/sec
= 83.9ft/sec

If we continue to decelerate at a constant 1g for an additional 110ft (180 - 70) then it will take:

solving 110ft = -.5*1g*t^2 + 83.9t for t we get t=1.09sec.

At the end of this deceleration (where he says we finally have complete control) the car is going:

V = velocity = - a * t + Vo
= - 1g * 1.09sec + 83.9ft/sec
= 49.0ft/sec

So it took 200ms + 500ms + 1.09sec = 1.79sec (to have complete control).

I'm hoping he will explain what "complete control" means in a subsequent chapter...cause 49ft/sec = 33mph and is slow even for a passenger vehicle.

I'm reading on...will post as I see something interesting...uhm...interesting to me anyway.

Yes...very interesting...I'm very eager to see the next chapter...since eagerness is an unconcious process then I'll be snapping it up milliseconds after it hits the server...or something like that. :)

Very often an author wonders if people are actually reading his work or just skimming over it. Then you run into people like Tim, Steve and the rest of you and it is really nice to hear. A couple of thing I want to mention, very often a really serious reader will take some comment in the text and explore it way beyond the level the author did. My most serious supporter and critic, VJ Mizayan does this all the time. VJ is a pro driver for Turner Motorsports. Now I can add Steve to that select list. Thanks Steve, I look forward to your continued analysis. The second thing, and Steve you can take this as a challenge, is one often doesn’t put in all the detail because it would become too tedious for most readers, so there is always a balance between accurately explaining in depth and keeping the material lively and moving along. Steve I will be very interested to see you find those places where I took liberties!
Thanks All
Doug

Hi Doug! I just like doing math. I just finished my bachelor's degree in computer engineering with minors in math, physics, and mechanical engineering...I feel like all I did was take the fun classes. :) But, I still feel honored by your notice. Thanks for sharing with R2P...there's a lot of great guys here who, like myself, will appreciate your work.

As a point of discussion I think the last two paragraphs of chapter 2 don't quite fit with the rest of the chapter content. The chapter has a great ending at the 3rd to last paragraph with, "A driver should pay little attention to things that are so close he can’t have any influence on them." A really great chapter that will be perfect after a spell check, unless carious is a racing term I haven't seen before. :)

In the second to last paragraph halving or doubling "to get to distances for other useful speeds" promises the reader that there will be an explaination of some "useful speeds". But, the next sentence doesn't provide either half or double nor what use this will be. Instead the next sentence is a unit conversion. There's no info on what halving or doubling is good for, nor is there a continuation of this new subject in the next chapter...it's a subject tease.

The last paragraph starts out as a detailed analysis of braking. In fact, all of it except for the last sentence work really well and would be a great example to use as an illustration of this chapter's concept concerning 2 things (at 250ms seconds each) that a driver can think of during the 500ms of the 60 to 70 feet where we have no control anyway. But, unless the reader is a math wiz that can do the calculations in their head (I didn't know where you got the "60 or 70" from until I finished that calculation), there's no indication of where those numbers came from. I'm not suggesting going through the calculations, but perhaps just mention how those 500ms results in 60 to 70 feet of travel, instead of including new numbers in a "summary". Or, perhaps sticking with the 500ms and not mentioning the distance traveled. I'm sure I'm not the only reader that will look back through the chapter looking for where those 60 to 70 feet were mentioned. And, the 180 feet...in my opinion...just comes out of the blue. There's no explaination of why the car is out of control during this time nor what it means when we regain complete control.

I like how the book is starting and except for those last two paragraphs of chapter 2 think it's well written and have learned a lot in a short amount of time.

Steve:
I hope I don’t come off as sounding defensive but there are a few thing you need to be aware of and sensitive to. First this is an excerpt not the entire text. I am not responsible for the spell check as the text was not transcribed by me. This indeed was an added on section to show that basic math and physical calculations were involved and to give some conclusions one could reach that would be useful as a very general guide not as a mathematical study of the topic. You are the only person who has complained about the lack of detail and perhaps the only one who bothered to really read and do the math. Every other complaint I have had was in the opposite direction. "We are not interested in the calculations they are boring and add nothing to our understanding just give us the results." So you can’t make everyone happy. I actually think the topic worked well and had the exact effect I intended. It showed the general audience that there was indeed some science behind the assertions and it left enough unsaid to hook the mathematically inclined to do a more through analysis. This is not the only place I had to make this kind of decision. See if you can find the others.
Doug

Good original topics Doug. I enjoyed the parts on the senses and was reminded an old Japanese F1 GP run in zero visibility, where the drivers said they would race by ear, listening to the engine note of the car in front.

As you say, you can't make everyone happy. I don't think you don't go into enough detail. On the contrary (like other feedback) you have too much. I feel you you sit in no-man's land, leaving the engineer underwhelmed yet test the non-engineer's patience. Important (but complete) derivations can always be placed in a footnote, sidebar or appendix for those who are interested so as not to upset the flow.

I've just read Skip Barber's course book and being an engineer-author, I was frustrated because it spent so long proving simple things. I'm also sure non-engineers would have been screaming 'so what's the result?'. Yep, Skip had me skipping, the result was an inefficient read. I bought it to learn to race, not to see how maths applies to racing.