steering input habits

[TheJuggernaut]

10-4, I'm not trying to change your mind, was just curious what exactly you guys took issue with, I get it.

[doktor b]

i'm late to the party. but i have the novice/outsider's perspective.
zero track time. zero instruction.

i think the biggest hurdle to overcome from that article is the language used. "under developed" "over developed" "refined" are all words that immediately illicit a response and can prejudice the reader before he even begins to make his point. also, the truncated use of 'grip' instead of 'tire grip' can be very misleading. i think if the verbiage of the article had been edited, it wouldn't have garnered the disdain shown in page one of this thread.

i found it to be insightful. if you've got years of track experience, it's probably a little remedial. (kind of like taking an arithmetic theory course when you're an accomplished mathematician.) but if you're in the shoes (or driving seat) of a beginner, it offers some insight and even some preventative reassurance that you have to be loose to be fast, but not too loose. the whole article is theory, not practice. if nothing else, it gets people to talk about racing and going fast. that's something we are all clearly interested in.

[Def]

Some cars that have a very strong understeering tendency will not require any sort of corrections, while some cars will change their yaw rate by quite a bit as bumps are encountered or throttle is applied.

The ultimate goal is to keep the CG of your car tracing a smooth line, and maximizing the grip of the tires. Sometimes this takes quite a lot of corrections, most notably as you get close to the limit.


I had a friend say I was sawing the wheel, so I did 3 laps in a row with zero steering corrections. They were all about 0.8-1.0 secs slower than laps with steering corrections. The car just needed steering corrections to be close to the limit, but generally the lateral G's were consistent going around a corner even with corrections.

Now a very developed race car, with $$$ fancy parts that are well setup, and lots of downforce, you're not typically going to make many corrections in a corner. The average street car turned into a track car - probably going to have some minor "bad habits" close to the limit. Nature of the beast, and most think a car like that is kinda fun to drive as it keeps you involved as you get closer to the limit.

[CoMZ302]

^ This.

Not sure what the point of this thread is.

[Haifisch M3]

^ This.

Not sure what the point of this thread is.

must be for you to make a "this" contribution twice

[CoMZ302]

must be for you to make a "this" contribution twice

Why don't you tell us why you started this thread?

[Haifisch M3]

Why don't you tell us why you started this thread?

read post # 1

[ELVA164]

This won't apply to pretty much anyone here, but I thought you all may find it interesting since it relates to the topic. When using bias ply tires (as all our cars do), a series of small steering corrections are much more necessary to get the most out of the tires and the car. If you were to try to "drive" a car on bias ply tires around a race track, your times will be not tenths but probably whole seconds away from their potential. In many cases, a car like our Cortina requires an initial "chuck" into the corner, then a series of steering and throttle corrections to hold a slide until track-out. Don't take this as me thinking I'm some sort of perfect example, but here's one race showing what I'm talking about:



There are certain situations where the corrections aren't quite as big. For example, in this video of myself in one of our Ginettas, you can see the driving style is very different due to the different characteristics of the tires and the chassis. I'll admit in this video I was at like 7.5/10, but I was still able to set a track record so I wasn't hanging around too much. My time was a few tenths off a MkIV GT40.

[exvitermini2]

Man, nothing has the sound of those old school motors! Looks like a pretty awesome time! That track looks like quite a bit of fun too(pitt race)

[ELVA164]

Man, nothing has the sound of those old school motors! Looks like a pretty awesome time! That track looks like quite a bit of fun too(pitt race)

They sound even better in person! I highly recommend you get to a vintage event sometime, you'll have a ball.

The extended circuit at Pitt Race completely changed the track for the better. It's a real blast, and I hope I have another chance to try it in the future.

[Stuntman]

I'm glad to see that The Juggernaut was able to understand the concepts and context of the article. I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't written well enough since others struggled with and we're "turned off" by the writing, and even worse, calling it click bait.

Unfortunately MotoIQ is set up in that way with the page layout (for more pageviews) but that's out of my control and it's the platform I have to use.

You obviously got a lot out of the article. Good. My definition of car control is much broader, and more challenging, than being comfortable in oversteer.

I think that's a little short-sighted the definition in the article:

"I would define CAR CONTROL as the sensitive ability of a driver to induce intended actions of a car at and beyond the peak limit of grip of the tire, through his or her inputs. This covers everything from creating an intended slide to adjust the yaw angle and trajectory of the car, to catching an unintended slide, to making the car behave in a certain manner that best keeps all four tires at their limits at all times to yield the fastest lap possible."

The authors definition of good car control is simplified down to being comfortable when the back-end is hanging out, and calls that 'over developed' car control. And unless you have that, you suck.

"Having good car control is not necessary in yaw-sensitive high downforce cars ... "
WTF? Only by his incorrect definition of car control.

"The next category is the Over Developed driver. These drivers have advanced beyond the under developed car control stage and are comfortable driving a car past the limit, such as drifters and rally car drivers. "
Drift and rally cars are NOT driven past 'the limit'.

At the very least a poorly written article, hence my comment that it's a terrible article; confusing and misleading.

You seem to narrowly focus on small snippets without finishing reading the paragraph or sentence to put the statement in context.

In bold - of course they do since both rally and drift cars constantly operate at extreme yaw angles that are well beyond the tire's "limit" (of grip), which happens at the peak slip angle of the tire (which achieves maximum grip - or lateral load).


I apologize that the article was not written in a way for you to easily understand. That was a failure on my part.

.
.

[Haifisch M3]

So based on what is being said here, when magazines do skid pad testing on new cars they would generate the highest G-forces (turn at maximum speed) by not holding the steering wheel steady?

[aeronaut]

I'm glad to see that The Juggernaut was able to understand the concepts and context of the article. I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't written well enough since others struggled with and we're "turned off" by the writing, and even worse, calling it click bait.

Unfortunately MotoIQ is set up in that way with the page layout (for more pageviews) but that's out of my control and it's the platform I have to use.



I think that's a little short-sighted the definition in the article:

"I would define CAR CONTROL as the sensitive ability of a driver to induce intended actions of a car at and beyond the peak limit of grip of the tire, through his or her inputs. This covers everything from creating an intended slide to adjust the yaw angle and trajectory of the car, to catching an unintended slide, to making the car behave in a certain manner that best keeps all four tires at their limits at all times to yield the fastest lap possible."



You seem to narrowly focus on small snippets without finishing reading the paragraph or sentence to put the statement in context.

In bold - of course they do since both rally and drift cars constantly operate at extreme yaw angles that are well beyond the tire's "limit" (of grip), which happens at the peak slip angle of the tire (which achieves maximum grip - or lateral load).


I apologize that the article was not written in a way for you to easily understand. That was a failure on my part.

.
.

So I'll keep this to my opinion and say that I appreciate any article that makes me think about driving and how I can do it better. This article doesn't do that for me, but seems to for others, so all is good.

Big picture comment. The article tries to read like a somewhat logical analysis of performance driving, but IMO falls short of that.

As an example of my comments; I'll stand by my statement that Drift and rally cars are NOT driven past 'the limit' (if not crashed). Their rear tires are often driven past their highest level of grip in one vector (not past their 'limit'). But oddly, the car goes where the driver wants, and hence, the car is not being driven past its limit. The article implies otherwise, or at least is not clear to differentiate between the rear tires (and particular vectors) and the car as a unit.

Bluntly, after reading the article 3 or so times, I start to see the intent. But it's a bit of fluff and exaggeration directed at a reader who might want to brag that they are 'more developed' than an F1 racer, and can drive past 'the limit'.

[Stuntman]

So based on what is being said here, when magazines do skid pad testing on new cars they would generate the highest G-forces (turn at maximum speed) by not holding the steering wheel steady?

I personally think skidpad tests are a bit too abstract and meaningless. Most of the time they slowly building speed and steering until they reach the limit where they can no longer stay in the diameter of the circle. All it does is measure the peak lateral Gs when steady-state on throttle or slight acceleration. When the front tires are unloaded.

A car that has a lot of built in understeer will reach the limit of the front tires grip well before the rears reach their limit. So said car could generate more cornering force (on track) when trail braking or coasting mid corner than it does in that arbitrary on-throttle skidpad test. Thus I don't really care for skidpad #s.

[jonb94118]

I'm glad to see that The Juggernaut was able to understand the concepts and context of the article. I'm sorry to hear that it wasn't written well enough since others struggled with and we're "turned off" by the writing, and even worse, calling it click bait.

Unfortunately MotoIQ is set up in that way with the page layout (for more pageviews) but that's out of my control and it's the platform I have to use.



I think that's a little short-sighted the definition in the article:

"I would define CAR CONTROL as the sensitive ability of a driver to induce intended actions of a car at and beyond the peak limit of grip of the tire, through his or her inputs. This covers everything from creating an intended slide to adjust the yaw angle and trajectory of the car, to catching an unintended slide, to making the car behave in a certain manner that best keeps all four tires at their limits at all times to yield the fastest lap possible."



You seem to narrowly focus on small snippets without finishing reading the paragraph or sentence to put the statement in context.

In bold - of course they do since both rally and drift cars constantly operate at extreme yaw angles that are well beyond the tire's "limit" (of grip), which happens at the peak slip angle of the tire (which achieves maximum grip - or lateral load).


I apologize that the article was not written in a way for you to easily understand. That was a failure on my part.

.
.

Billy - As a racer who follows and appreciates your success, articles and contributions on forums and articles in MotoIQ, I would say there is no need to apologize. You can't please everyone but I hope you continue to contribute and help others. You are one of the few respected professional drivers who seems to go out of his way to help others (i have even PM'd you in the past about OSGiken setup and you were nice enough to respond) and hope you continue to do so. thanks again - jonb

[Stuntman]

Thank you for the kind words. The article has an overwhelmingly positive response, from comments in the article to forum posts and direct emails. You can't always make everyone happy or understand, and some people just like to be argumentative and negative without trying to learn or clarify a misunderstanding. However it's still good to listen to negative feedback as well to see how to make improvements in the future.

[TXBDan]

I appreciate the thought and effort put into the article. I do agree with the concept that many drivers, myself included at points, think they're driving well, but are just below the limit (what you call underdeveloped). This can often be the phase where you're clipping along fine in top groups, nailing your line, being consistent, being "tidy". This can also be the level where drivers with fast/modern cars are "hanging" due to their car's capabilities without having to push harder. Then comes an ah-ha moment when you finally accept the feeling of consistently pushing the car beyond that point, particularly in the rain, when the car is almost in a consistent state of slip. This is when more steering input/correction is needed. This is what you mean by "refined car control" i think.

Since we're on the topic of feedback, I do think the article is more verbose than need be and adds unnecessary quips that can be viewed as condescending or needlessly provocative. I'm also not keen on the concept of "overdeveloped car control". You should have left it at underdeveloped and developed imo.

But again, thanks for putting in the time to make this material, it is interesting.

[harristweed]

One common misconception I've found many drivers have since instructors have been pushing smoothness is confusing smooth with slow and steady. You can move frantically and quickly but smoothly. Smooth just means not overreacting. *snip

I like your thoughtful, analytical approach. It is incredibly difficult to parse the multitude of variables when performing video analysis - car and setup, track, conditions, driver experience, etc. So the fault lies both in instruction and application by the student. Context is crucial, so instruction is heavily dependent on a conservative approach (which in a day or a weekend means smooth gets conflated with slow and steady more often than not). "Fast hands" means different things in a 1.2g 70mph corner than it does on a 15ph skidpad (holding all other variables constant). At some point, the student/driver is responsible for correcting bad habits and misunderstandings.

[Stuntman]

I appreciate the thought and effort put into the article. I do agree with the concept that many drivers, myself included at points, think they're driving well, but are just below the limit (what you call underdeveloped). This can often be the phase where you're clipping along fine in top groups, nailing your line, being consistent, being "tidy". This can also be the level where drivers with fast/modern cars are "hanging" due to their car's capabilities without having to push harder. Then comes an ah-ha moment when you finally accept the feeling of consistently pushing the car beyond that point, particularly in the rain, when the car is almost in a consistent state of slip. This is when more steering input/correction is needed. This is what you mean by "refined car control" i think.

Since we're on the topic of feedback, I do think the article is more verbose than need be and adds unnecessary quips that can be viewed as condescending or needlessly provocative. I'm also not keen on the concept of "overdeveloped car control". You should have left it at underdeveloped and developed imo.

But again, thanks for putting in the time to make this material, it is interesting.

Thanks for the feedback. If I left it as simply underdeveloped and developed, it would not cover or explain the stage of some people who are very good at car control and will rarely spin, and who can be very fast despite constantly sawwing at the wheel and sliding the car around. While they may be fast, they can turn faster lap times by "refining", smoothing out, and minimizing their inputs and corrections.

I still feel it's important to distinguish the 3 different categories that exist because there's a difference between relying in good car control and mastering it to not allow the car to move around or rotate more than what's necessary.

What came off as condescending or needlessly provocative?

[TheJuggernaut]

I like your thoughtful, analytical approach. It is incredibly difficult to parse the multitude of variables when performing video analysis - car and setup, track, conditions, driver experience, etc. So the fault lies both in instruction and application by the student. Context is crucial, so instruction is heavily dependent on a conservative approach (which in a day or a weekend means smooth gets conflated with slow and steady more often than not). "Fast hands" means different things in a 1.2g 70mph corner than it does on a 15ph skidpad (holding all other variables constant). At some point, the student/driver is responsible for correcting bad habits and misunderstandings.

Thanks and I agree - unless you can afford to hire a coach full-time and work full-time together, analyzing data, the instructors can only do so much for you. At some point you either reach the limit of such a learning environment, or you take over.

[harristweed]

Thanks and I agree - unless you can afford to hire a coach full-time and work full-time together, analyzing data, the instructors can only do so much for you. At some point you either reach the limit of such a learning environment, or you take over.

More often than not, it takes an outside eye to work through developmental opportunities; self-deceit and ego-blindness were my biggest obstacles to improvement.

[Stuntman]

More often than not, it takes an outside eye to work through developmental opportunities; self-deceit and ego-blindness were my biggest obstacles to improvement.

You can say that for any discipline. Which is why the best athletes in the world: cyclists, triathletes, golfers, tennis players, runners, football players, you name it -all have trainers and coaches.

[TheJuggernaut]

More often than not, it takes an outside eye to work through developmental opportunities; self-deceit and ego-blindness were my biggest obstacles to improvement.

It won't hurt but my point is that if you depend on the outside eye then unless the outside eye is always there and you work together consistently and exclusively, you can't go very far unless you take over with your own analysis and introspection (and then sprinkle in the outside eye).

[Stuntman]

It won't hurt but my point is that if you depend on the outside eye then unless the outside eye is always there and you work together consistently and exclusively, you can't go very far unless you take over with your own analysis and introspection (and then sprinkle in the outside eye).

Agreed. Which is why data and video analysis and learning how to use data is very important.

[harristweed]

Agreed. Which is why data and video analysis and learning how to use data is very important.

Spot on, all. Additionally, the blend of introspection and coaching (50-50, 90-10) is almost never the same for the individual or at the stage of skill development. I need more time to digest that article