Left foot braking
03-16-2004, 03:34 PM
#76
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greg:
I respect you quite a bit based on your posts and would love the chance to ride with you and vice/versa. Hell, if you’re as good as I think you might be I’ll let you thrash my car and lay down a challenge DAS line. If there is a DE, I will try to make it. I promised the wife (2 small kids), no racing until the youngest graduate’s high school, so no racing for me. Also, I agree that I am weighted too heavily with technical theory because I also only get about 2 DE events a year and so I try to overcompensate, and maximize my learning on the limited track time I have by learning as much technically as possible.
Now, I am very careful about pulling racing out of the equation when I make many of my statements. I have almost no experience there and have purposely read very little (I really don’t need more temptation). I do have quite a bit of ski racing experience but that’s quite different. I also try to choose between fact (simply stated) and my opinion (usually prefaced with “I think”). I agree with you in general what you are saying about book knowledge and experience but I would offer the same challenge to you that I have offered to everyone else. Please tell me what I have said that was wrong. I would love to learn.
Adam:
While I think you are saying you can’t answer everything about racing using physics and math, I agree. But, the example you gave is wrong. You can almost always determine the proper rear end using calculations (especially easy if you have a DAS). The model will show where you shift, show speeds at every point on the track, etc. based upon your gearing selection before you ever get out on the track (using a known car capable of a certain torque curve). I have a program that does exactly this. I do agree with you that it gets way more complicated when you start talking suspension set-up and actual race condition driving.
Oddly, I am having fun with guys like Greg and you, and many others, and I simply try to ignore those who resort to personal attacks. In the past I have responded to them, now I will not, I will simply point them out for the low character attacks that they are and move along.
I respect you quite a bit based on your posts and would love the chance to ride with you and vice/versa. Hell, if you’re as good as I think you might be I’ll let you thrash my car and lay down a challenge DAS line. If there is a DE, I will try to make it. I promised the wife (2 small kids), no racing until the youngest graduate’s high school, so no racing for me. Also, I agree that I am weighted too heavily with technical theory because I also only get about 2 DE events a year and so I try to overcompensate, and maximize my learning on the limited track time I have by learning as much technically as possible.
Now, I am very careful about pulling racing out of the equation when I make many of my statements. I have almost no experience there and have purposely read very little (I really don’t need more temptation). I do have quite a bit of ski racing experience but that’s quite different. I also try to choose between fact (simply stated) and my opinion (usually prefaced with “I think”). I agree with you in general what you are saying about book knowledge and experience but I would offer the same challenge to you that I have offered to everyone else. Please tell me what I have said that was wrong. I would love to learn.
Adam:
While I think you are saying you can’t answer everything about racing using physics and math, I agree. But, the example you gave is wrong. You can almost always determine the proper rear end using calculations (especially easy if you have a DAS). The model will show where you shift, show speeds at every point on the track, etc. based upon your gearing selection before you ever get out on the track (using a known car capable of a certain torque curve). I have a program that does exactly this. I do agree with you that it gets way more complicated when you start talking suspension set-up and actual race condition driving.
Oddly, I am having fun with guys like Greg and you, and many others, and I simply try to ignore those who resort to personal attacks. In the past I have responded to them, now I will not, I will simply point them out for the low character attacks that they are and move along.
03-16-2004, 03:39 PM
#77
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Come on John, you're better than personal attacks. Yes I am an engineer, but please attack what I said, not me by saying I’m full of sh*t. OK?
As you read, I agreed with Tim when he pointed out that in race conditions you might want to be in gear as often as possible. In my opinion, you shouldn’t be that close to someone in a DE that you couldn’t catch a gear quick enough to get out of a jam (maybe I’m wrong here, I’ll think about it). Again, my perspective is strictly from DE perspective and I comment relatively little on racing/racing strategy as I am quite ignorant there right now.
As you read, I agreed with Tim when he pointed out that in race conditions you might want to be in gear as often as possible. In my opinion, you shouldn’t be that close to someone in a DE that you couldn’t catch a gear quick enough to get out of a jam (maybe I’m wrong here, I’ll think about it). Again, my perspective is strictly from DE perspective and I comment relatively little on racing/racing strategy as I am quite ignorant there right now.
03-16-2004, 03:42 PM
#78
John is driving a low horsepower car and needs to conserve momentum as best as possible (well, everybody should be trying to do that)
Having driven a low HP car, all I can say is that you aren't following other people as close as you can, but sometimes they overbrake a corner and they get closer to you than they should.
Having driven a low HP car, all I can say is that you aren't following other people as close as you can, but sometimes they overbrake a corner and they get closer to you than they should.
03-16-2004, 03:50 PM
#79
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Bob Rouleau
It is getting to be academic anyway since with 2000 and later Porsches, egas will assume you have a runaway engine if you apply the brakes while still calling for power. Losing power in a fast corner is a scary thought for a 911 driver.
It is getting to be academic anyway since with 2000 and later Porsches, egas will assume you have a runaway engine if you apply the brakes while still calling for power. Losing power in a fast corner is a scary thought for a 911 driver.
03-16-2004, 03:58 PM
#80
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Originally posted by ColorChange
Hell, if you’re as good as I think you might be I’ll let you thrash my car and lay down a challenge DAS line. If there is a DE, I will try to make it.
Hell, if you’re as good as I think you might be I’ll let you thrash my car and lay down a challenge DAS line. If there is a DE, I will try to make it.
03-16-2004, 08:00 PM
#81
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally posted by ColorChange
Mark: Thanks for the post and avoiding personal attacks as many others cannot. If you take a look at the 90 degree turn you mentioned, I am talking about maximizing g sum = sqr[(lat g)^2+(lon g)^2]. If you only look at lat g’s, your analysis would be correct. If you look at long g’s as well, you are not. In your first example, let’s say both cars enter the turn at exactly the same speed. While the driver who drove the geometric line might have had slightly more g sum through that turn, he will now have significantly less g-sum in the braking for the next turn because the proper line driver is going faster when he hits the braking zone. The reduction in g-sum in the first turn is perfectly re-captured (and then some) in the second turn. Agree? I ma not saying to optimize g-sum at all times, I am saying optimize g-sum over the course of a lap. If you do this, you are the fastest, period.
Mark: Thanks for the post and avoiding personal attacks as many others cannot. If you take a look at the 90 degree turn you mentioned, I am talking about maximizing g sum = sqr[(lat g)^2+(lon g)^2]. If you only look at lat g’s, your analysis would be correct. If you look at long g’s as well, you are not. In your first example, let’s say both cars enter the turn at exactly the same speed. While the driver who drove the geometric line might have had slightly more g sum through that turn, he will now have significantly less g-sum in the braking for the next turn because the proper line driver is going faster when he hits the braking zone. The reduction in g-sum in the first turn is perfectly re-captured (and then some) in the second turn. Agree? I ma not saying to optimize g-sum at all times, I am saying optimize g-sum over the course of a lap. If you do this, you are the fastest, period.
I admire that you are diving into the theory. Pretty much everyone with a strong technical background does this and then tempers it with the reality of tracks. There are so many bizarre things that happen in real corners, that much of the theory that makes sense falls apart in the real world corners because of a bump or a change in surface and grip or any number of reasons.
That said, here is another way of looking at the g-sum. If you have 2 cars that turn in and exit at the same points, and both are driven on the FC all the way around the corner, won't they have the same g-sum. In other words, if they are capable of 1.00 g's and the FC is a perfect circle, they will always be at 1.00g (combined lat & long). That IS the definition of using all the FC.
If that is the case, then one car could drive a rim shot - all the way around the outside while the other takes the fast line. In fact, the car on the rim shot line takes more time and travels a greater distance doing this, so the g-sum would be larger for that car. But clearly, from basic race line theory, we know that is not the fast way to get around a track.
Now if we start to restrict the idea of maximizing g-sum and say it only applies on the correct line, then it is both true, but also becomes trivial. If that is the restriction, then the g-sum max concept boils down to 1) Drive the best line and 2) Drive it as fast as you can, riding the outer edge of the FC at all times.
That is certainly correct, but the g-sum description is overly complicated (but always correct with that limit).
There is a saying (widely used): "Slow in, fast out". It is a nice teaching tool, but in reality it is wrong for getting around the track as fast as you can. It is great for beginners to teach them to concentrate on throttle, where there are big gains and little risk. It is good for advanced to reign yourself in when you start to overcharge corners. BUT, in reality, you want fast in, fast middle and fast out. My point is there are many concepts that are wrong when disected but work, just as many concepts that seem right which won't work on the track.
It is just like trail-braking. In theory, when you consider the FC, you should trail-brake into every corner that requires braking. In the real world, you will get up close and personal with a lot of walls if you try that. (T1 at Mid -Ohio, T6 at Laguna Seca, and the list goes on). You have some good ideas and you need to temper them with on-track experience. You can do that all yourself or you can use the experience of others on this board.
FYI, if you care - we have somewhat similar backgrounds. I am a ME and worked as an automotive engineer for many years. I went on track with lots of interesting theories that just didn't work.
03-16-2004, 08:43 PM
#82
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Hey all;
EXCEEDINGLY well said, Sunday (Mark). In other words, Science and Reality don't always meet in the middle. If I had to guess, I'd say reality has at least a slight advantage!!
Color - I said that with an "Evil Grin" feeling, as in, you don't REALLY believe all that for gospel, do you?" I don't think you're stupid, just over charged and a bit misguided. Did you wonder how I knew you were an engineer?
Only an "engineer" can make the Leaps of Faith that it takes to try and transfer computer data 100% to reality, and further to tell people that can do it for real that they are wrong. Trust me, I wish I had the engineering background behind me. I'd be truely scarey in what I could do. But I know full well that engineering only makes the initial phases of a project quicker and easier. It doesn't make it work!
I recently did a 968 T-bar index. The owner is an engineer, and wanted to work with me. He showed up with his laptop and had calculated everything down to spline/angle relationships, how threads per inch of coilover preload, etc. I told him that this was a terrible job, hit & miss, and usually didn't work right the first time. He stated emphatically that "if you can control the variables, the outcome is a certainty" and "It is a virtual certainty that this will be correct the first time." I knew I was in trouble.
I nearly killed him before we were through. The insufferable arrogance to think that there was nothing to it but calculations was just a little more than I could stand. To further never throw up his hands and admit defeat was icing on the cake!
It was not nearly perfection. Nothing turned out like he thought and we had to fudge everything just to get it together straight. Turns out he made some mistakes in his calculations, as he told me just the other day after 3 months to ponder it. he has since redone it all himself, so we will see if he got it right "with certainty" this time.
I admire the ability, but it is only a tool. Someone still has to have the intrinsic ability to make it work. It's usually the guys on the machine floor that save the project!
EXCEEDINGLY well said, Sunday (Mark). In other words, Science and Reality don't always meet in the middle. If I had to guess, I'd say reality has at least a slight advantage!!
Color - I said that with an "Evil Grin" feeling, as in, you don't REALLY believe all that for gospel, do you?" I don't think you're stupid, just over charged and a bit misguided. Did you wonder how I knew you were an engineer?
Only an "engineer" can make the Leaps of Faith that it takes to try and transfer computer data 100% to reality, and further to tell people that can do it for real that they are wrong. Trust me, I wish I had the engineering background behind me. I'd be truely scarey in what I could do. But I know full well that engineering only makes the initial phases of a project quicker and easier. It doesn't make it work!
I recently did a 968 T-bar index. The owner is an engineer, and wanted to work with me. He showed up with his laptop and had calculated everything down to spline/angle relationships, how threads per inch of coilover preload, etc. I told him that this was a terrible job, hit & miss, and usually didn't work right the first time. He stated emphatically that "if you can control the variables, the outcome is a certainty" and "It is a virtual certainty that this will be correct the first time." I knew I was in trouble.
I nearly killed him before we were through. The insufferable arrogance to think that there was nothing to it but calculations was just a little more than I could stand. To further never throw up his hands and admit defeat was icing on the cake!
It was not nearly perfection. Nothing turned out like he thought and we had to fudge everything just to get it together straight. Turns out he made some mistakes in his calculations, as he told me just the other day after 3 months to ponder it. he has since redone it all himself, so we will see if he got it right "with certainty" this time.
I admire the ability, but it is only a tool. Someone still has to have the intrinsic ability to make it work. It's usually the guys on the machine floor that save the project!
03-17-2004, 09:43 AM
#84
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark:
I agree almost 100% with what you said. Nice job. But, your correct theory
1) Drive the best line and 2) Drive it as fast as you can, riding the outer edge of the FC at all times.
This used to be my nearly exact model (you need to correct your statement to as near the fc as possible) but it is improved by my newer version, maximize the area under the g sum curve (it incorporates the correct line). This took me while to realize and I had to go to my genius experts for help. See my 3/2/2004 post Improved Fastest Driver Model. It would be hijacking this thread to go into detail but I think if you think about it, you will see it is right. It took me a while of thinking about it.
John, I absolutely believe in the model I am describing here and in many of the things I state. I am an engineer and proud of it. Again, John, I challenge you to correct anything I have said, rather than discuss me personally. I also do not have a problem relating theory to application as you seem to imply. When I am not sure, I will almost always say I think.
Now, guys, back to LFB and more specifically, downshifting. If you guys can downshift without using the clutch (no double clutch downshift), I think you should run through the gears. If this has been the basis of our difference/miscommunication, I am an idiot and you guys don’t communicate well. I have not mastered downshifting without the clutch and as I stated earlier, I double clutch H/T downshift. If you guys are that much better than me (I think I’m in trouble here as I’m not very good) and can do clutchless downshifts on synchromesh trany’s then you should downshift through all the gears. Second question, if you guys are doing clutchless downshifts, does doing this right automatically put you near 100 rpm of redline?
I agree almost 100% with what you said. Nice job. But, your correct theory
1) Drive the best line and 2) Drive it as fast as you can, riding the outer edge of the FC at all times.
This used to be my nearly exact model (you need to correct your statement to as near the fc as possible) but it is improved by my newer version, maximize the area under the g sum curve (it incorporates the correct line). This took me while to realize and I had to go to my genius experts for help. See my 3/2/2004 post Improved Fastest Driver Model. It would be hijacking this thread to go into detail but I think if you think about it, you will see it is right. It took me a while of thinking about it.
John, I absolutely believe in the model I am describing here and in many of the things I state. I am an engineer and proud of it. Again, John, I challenge you to correct anything I have said, rather than discuss me personally. I also do not have a problem relating theory to application as you seem to imply. When I am not sure, I will almost always say I think.
Now, guys, back to LFB and more specifically, downshifting. If you guys can downshift without using the clutch (no double clutch downshift), I think you should run through the gears. If this has been the basis of our difference/miscommunication, I am an idiot and you guys don’t communicate well. I have not mastered downshifting without the clutch and as I stated earlier, I double clutch H/T downshift. If you guys are that much better than me (I think I’m in trouble here as I’m not very good) and can do clutchless downshifts on synchromesh trany’s then you should downshift through all the gears. Second question, if you guys are doing clutchless downshifts, does doing this right automatically put you near 100 rpm of redline?
03-17-2004, 10:16 AM
#85
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Ooooopps;
There's an oversight. I don't know ANYONE who tries clutchless downshifts in a Porsche, or anything else that someone else is not paying for. If they do, it is usually only once! $CHACHING$
It was just so universal as to be assumed that the clutch was being used. It never occured to me to do anything else!
"I think..." is not the same as saying "My theory is..." Most of what you are offering are theories, after all, given your driving experience, by your own admission.
Would you then apply the same modeling to ski or mountain bike racing? Yes, I think you would, and you would get the same response from those who do that.
Being a fast driver is instinctual. It is subconscious. It is made of qualities like bravery, acute sensory awareness, guestimation, and acclimatization. Fast drivers can use DAS to point out places they "MAY" be able to gain time, but only if they have the qualities to access it.
I don't think you would find ANY accomplished driver that would say that a given piece of road could be modeled, and then mastered quickly from that model. It may facilitate their learning, and offer them insights that may have been counterintuitive, but it will not take them to 10/10ths! Only THEY can do that because the road is alive, not on a CRT!
F1 teams are considered the most advanced in the world, and yet they still do thousands of miles of testing every year. Do they not have good enough engineers or computers?
It is all interesting IN THEORY, but don't bet the farm just yet. When you can drive your model, or find someone who can, let us know their lap times!
There's an oversight. I don't know ANYONE who tries clutchless downshifts in a Porsche, or anything else that someone else is not paying for. If they do, it is usually only once! $CHACHING$
It was just so universal as to be assumed that the clutch was being used. It never occured to me to do anything else!
"I think..." is not the same as saying "My theory is..." Most of what you are offering are theories, after all, given your driving experience, by your own admission.
Would you then apply the same modeling to ski or mountain bike racing? Yes, I think you would, and you would get the same response from those who do that.
Being a fast driver is instinctual. It is subconscious. It is made of qualities like bravery, acute sensory awareness, guestimation, and acclimatization. Fast drivers can use DAS to point out places they "MAY" be able to gain time, but only if they have the qualities to access it.
I don't think you would find ANY accomplished driver that would say that a given piece of road could be modeled, and then mastered quickly from that model. It may facilitate their learning, and offer them insights that may have been counterintuitive, but it will not take them to 10/10ths! Only THEY can do that because the road is alive, not on a CRT!
F1 teams are considered the most advanced in the world, and yet they still do thousands of miles of testing every year. Do they not have good enough engineers or computers?
It is all interesting IN THEORY, but don't bet the farm just yet. When you can drive your model, or find someone who can, let us know their lap times!
03-17-2004, 10:24 AM
#86
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Guys, just a word of endorsement for the new and improved Colorchange. On this thread it is evident that we can discuss theory and practice without being snotty or nasty. Let's all keep that in mind it makes for a much better thread.
Color - I may have missed something but I (at least) was not referring to clutchless downshifts. I cannot do them on a 911 and if I could I wouldn't try. On a Hewland crash box, it's a different story. BY going from gate to gate in the normal order (reverse order in fact) you minimize the odds of making a mistake and getting a lower gear than you intend.
MDS - I agree withe your observation of the delay before e-gas cuts power. I guessed at about two seconds so 1.5 is close enough for me. Since my LFB where power is on before brakes is limited to a slight press to transfer weight (or defer weight transfer) I haven't had the power cut out. On the other hand now that I know it can - I'm getting paranoid. Under the circumstances where a mix of brake and throttle stabilizes the car, a sudden reduction of power would prove disastrous!
To the recovering engineer - well done! I guess I have to say, I am an engineer. I have been and engineer for 30 years. I have now gone 155 days without being arrogant and inflexible:-)
Color - I may have missed something but I (at least) was not referring to clutchless downshifts. I cannot do them on a 911 and if I could I wouldn't try. On a Hewland crash box, it's a different story. BY going from gate to gate in the normal order (reverse order in fact) you minimize the odds of making a mistake and getting a lower gear than you intend.
MDS - I agree withe your observation of the delay before e-gas cuts power. I guessed at about two seconds so 1.5 is close enough for me. Since my LFB where power is on before brakes is limited to a slight press to transfer weight (or defer weight transfer) I haven't had the power cut out. On the other hand now that I know it can - I'm getting paranoid. Under the circumstances where a mix of brake and throttle stabilizes the car, a sudden reduction of power would prove disastrous!
To the recovering engineer - well done! I guess I have to say, I am an engineer. I have been and engineer for 30 years. I have now gone 155 days without being arrogant and inflexible:-)
03-17-2004, 10:29 AM
#87
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally posted by ColorChange
Mark:
I agree almost 100% with what you said. Nice job. But, your correct theory
1) Drive the best line and 2) Drive it as fast as you can, riding the outer edge of the FC at all times.
This used to be my nearly exact model (you need to correct your statement to as near the fc as possible) but it is improved by my newer version, maximize the area under the g sum curve (it incorporates the correct line). This took me while to realize and I had to go to my genius experts for help. See my 3/2/2004 post Improved Fastest Driver Model. It would be hijacking this thread to go into detail but I think if you think about it, you will see it is right. It took me a while of thinking about it.
John, I absolutely believe in the model I am describing here and in many of the things I state. I am an engineer and proud of it. Again, John, I challenge you to correct anything I have said, rather than discuss me personally. I also do not have a problem relating theory to application as you seem to imply. When I am not sure, I will almost always say I think.
Mark:
I agree almost 100% with what you said. Nice job. But, your correct theory
1) Drive the best line and 2) Drive it as fast as you can, riding the outer edge of the FC at all times.
This used to be my nearly exact model (you need to correct your statement to as near the fc as possible) but it is improved by my newer version, maximize the area under the g sum curve (it incorporates the correct line). This took me while to realize and I had to go to my genius experts for help. See my 3/2/2004 post Improved Fastest Driver Model. It would be hijacking this thread to go into detail but I think if you think about it, you will see it is right. It took me a while of thinking about it.
John, I absolutely believe in the model I am describing here and in many of the things I state. I am an engineer and proud of it. Again, John, I challenge you to correct anything I have said, rather than discuss me personally. I also do not have a problem relating theory to application as you seem to imply. When I am not sure, I will almost always say I think.
You keep challenging people to stop attacking you and to discuss the details of your statements. Further you tell us that you say "THINK" when it is not a known fact. Go back and read your own posts - with all due respect, that is not at all what you are doing. The only place you use the phrase "THINK" as described is where you "THINK" I will undestand you are correct. You want me to understand your theory, yet you won't post details so what am I left with?
You are coming across as less than serious about really discussing this stuff. If you are serious, then I apologize and ask you to post details about your theories so we can address that, instead of how we perceive you to be acting. I saw your absolute statements on trail braking on another thread. I posted commentary on that here and you avoided it.
Are you here to lecture us or to learn from each other? So far I HAVE learned some things from your posts. The g-sum idea is interesting (though it may not be the same model you are using since you won't actually describe it) - it has some good concepts, but some flaws as well. I learned from that. What have you learned from anyone here? I have not been at this all that long, but I have between 5-10,000 laps at speed, much with data acquisition. There are others here with more and less experience - there are people on this board who make their livings with race cars and the associated data. There is much to learn from each other - now how about you occupying some space on BOTH sides of the learning experience - share some real details of your theories if you are interested in seeing if they are valid and open you mind to learn from the many people with much greater experience than you, who just might be able to teach you a thing or two.
Feel free to start another thread if you think this is hijacking of this thread. Present your theories and the facts to back them and I think that we, as a group, can have an interesting and informative discussion. Don't be worried about quoting the theory from the leading books - just reference the page/section/etc - you would be surprised how many here have the same books. If we don't have it, then we can ask for the text.
This is a strong and professional challenge for your theories and ideas. If you are up to it, then let's learn a few things. If not, then I will go on my way.
03-17-2004, 10:49 AM
#88
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally posted by RedlineMan
F1 teams are considered the most advanced in the world, and yet they still do thousands of miles of testing every year. Do they not have good enough engineers or computers?
It is all interesting IN THEORY, but don't bet the farm just yet. When you can drive your model, or find someone who can, let us know their lap times!
F1 teams are considered the most advanced in the world, and yet they still do thousands of miles of testing every year. Do they not have good enough engineers or computers?
It is all interesting IN THEORY, but don't bet the farm just yet. When you can drive your model, or find someone who can, let us know their lap times!
Even if you could model the road, what model would you use? That is, what temperature, what sun load, what amount of moisture seepeing up through the pavement, how much rubber on the surface, etc, etc.
Experience will teach that the road is not the road - it is a different environment every time you come to the track. More experience will teach you it isn't even the same road on any two laps.
Theory and modeling is great for general understandings, but it is no substitute for experience. You don't have to be world class for this to be true - if you can get within 3-5 seconds of lap record times, you will experience this, first hand.
03-17-2004, 11:08 AM
#89
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark ... woa ... didn't mean to tick you off. Sorry. I will try again, and I don't mean to be a troll, really. Yes, I will update my earlier thread and we can continue the g sum discussion there. What trail braking comments did I miss? I looked through the posts and didn’t catch it?
Also, I do learn quite a bit from you guys. Almost all of you have way more experience then I have and I read almost all of the threads. For example, Bob’s instructor’s thread is extremely interesting. I have not commented because I have nothing to add but I sure have learned a lot. I have learned a lot about this LFB thread. I would have never tried a H/T downshift two foot brake dance but with so many guys saying you can do it, I will probably give it a try in the future.
Bob:
Bob, you will notice others have tried low character attacks and I have chosen not to respond (forklift, DTR, …). I can see your point of running through the gears so as not to miss one. I just don’t have enough experience to weigh the risk of blowing a gear against the risk of moving away from the fc doing additional downshifts. If you guys say “trust us”, do the downshifts, then I probably would do it as I have no strong reason not to, and blowing an engine would be a damn expensive way for me to realize I was wrong, although in my limited experience, I have never come close to missing a shift in the Countach. Maybe I will have higher risk in the tt as I have a short throw shifter in it and I might be more prone to misses.
John: I am agreeing with you in the application of all the racing theory. The theory is still right, how much you can do it depends upon how good the driver is. Now, I am stating the maximize g sum mantra as fact (technically a theory but theory plus time becomes fact), but I am pushing it because someone will have to counter it to prove it wrong, and so far no one has (let me again for the umpteenth time say this is not my theory and is supported buy almost all professors, race engineers, …). Now, my ideas on ABS threshold braking and traction control systems are broken into two parts, the theoretical which is again exact, and the practical, which is way unproven (and I have said so).
Also, I do learn quite a bit from you guys. Almost all of you have way more experience then I have and I read almost all of the threads. For example, Bob’s instructor’s thread is extremely interesting. I have not commented because I have nothing to add but I sure have learned a lot. I have learned a lot about this LFB thread. I would have never tried a H/T downshift two foot brake dance but with so many guys saying you can do it, I will probably give it a try in the future.
Bob:
Bob, you will notice others have tried low character attacks and I have chosen not to respond (forklift, DTR, …). I can see your point of running through the gears so as not to miss one. I just don’t have enough experience to weigh the risk of blowing a gear against the risk of moving away from the fc doing additional downshifts. If you guys say “trust us”, do the downshifts, then I probably would do it as I have no strong reason not to, and blowing an engine would be a damn expensive way for me to realize I was wrong, although in my limited experience, I have never come close to missing a shift in the Countach. Maybe I will have higher risk in the tt as I have a short throw shifter in it and I might be more prone to misses.
John: I am agreeing with you in the application of all the racing theory. The theory is still right, how much you can do it depends upon how good the driver is. Now, I am stating the maximize g sum mantra as fact (technically a theory but theory plus time becomes fact), but I am pushing it because someone will have to counter it to prove it wrong, and so far no one has (let me again for the umpteenth time say this is not my theory and is supported buy almost all professors, race engineers, …). Now, my ideas on ABS threshold braking and traction control systems are broken into two parts, the theoretical which is again exact, and the practical, which is way unproven (and I have said so).
03-17-2004, 11:19 AM
#90
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Cool - so let's keep the discussion going.
The trail braking comment was this:
It is just like trail-braking. In theory, when you consider the FC, you should trail-brake into every corner that requires braking. In the real world, you will get up close and personal with a lot of walls if you try that. (T1 at Mid -Ohio, T6 at Laguna Seca, and the list goes on).
It is a perfect example of where theory and reality diverge.
BTW - What tracks have you driven? That info might help in using some examples.
The trail braking comment was this:
It is just like trail-braking. In theory, when you consider the FC, you should trail-brake into every corner that requires braking. In the real world, you will get up close and personal with a lot of walls if you try that. (T1 at Mid -Ohio, T6 at Laguna Seca, and the list goes on).
It is a perfect example of where theory and reality diverge.
BTW - What tracks have you driven? That info might help in using some examples.