It's a little bit chicken and egg.
You have to be able to do reproducible laps so that you can identify what effect any changes have had.
It is the ability to repeat the performance that is important, rather than the speed. So the set-up doesn't really matter.
The second thing is to experiment with the existing conditions to find not only where the line is for those conditions, but why the line is there. What happens if you slightly change the line, what happens if you drive entirely without braking? Yes, seriously. Drive something like 20 laps without braking,and measure the laps only in terms of how much improvement you make over your first complete 'no brakes' lap. No brakes is a real leveller because it shows how much of a reaction to a change can be down to a different learning experience. Also one tends to experiment more slowly, to find a line that feels 'safe' and 'comfortable' and gradually push that envelope, not only in terms of line but understanding how the way that one turns into a corner or puts on power etc can make a huge difference to times.
This is the point, regardless of whether the set-up is right or wrong (and you don't get much more wrong than 'no brakes') one is learning to drive first, to evaluate a response and to alter how one drives to make the best advantage of the change.
Only then can you measure whether the change to a set-up is better or worse. These threads are full of reports by mechanics (dads) of the difficulty of getting reliable feed back from the driver.
So, improvements in driving technique may mean that changes in set-up are needed to get the best effect, but equally changes in set-up will need changes in driving technique.
At the level where you are, unsure of what caster or camber is or does, the most important factor is not changing the set-up nor getting the set-up right but being able to make a change and get reliable feed-back on the results.
|
|