Howdy,
On Tue, 10 Aug 1999 jct@daimlerchrysler.com wrote:
> Okay, I have to add my 2 cents. For what Dennis wanted to measure, which is
>to
> measure lateral and longitudinal G's, a G-Analyst would have been a less
> expensive and easier to install alternative.
Yeah! Dennis, you're wrong. You actually like the Geez! package
better... :-)
> For driver analysis in autox, self measurement without some benchmark doesn't
> work, you're doomed to continuously repeat your mistakes. From self
>experience,
> just measuring yourself gets old and really accomplishes very little. All the
> instruments in the world might help you improve a car setup (or they may just
> fill you with information overload and just more confusion) but without
> baselines, it won't be so easy to improve the driver, which afterall is the
> critical element in autox.
I agree. However, I don't trust the calibration of my unit or others to
give me quality absolute G readings, and I dunno how their car is setup,
etc.
What I do trust is having said baseline driver in my car. As folks around
here would probably tell you, I'm a car pimp... :-)
The thing I find most useful (with Geez) is the map drawing with usage
shading. That gives me a quick look at the places I'm potentially doing
something stupid so that I can fix them. Then later I can compare my runs
to the other driver (or myself, which doens't typically help as much) in
excrutiating detail to see if there's a consistent driveing technique that
I'm doing wrong.
Mark
|