Gingerman Track Video 996tt
08-12-2004, 07:54 PM
#61
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Here's what I think;
- As Sunday mentioned, there are a lot of people here with varying opinions, just as there are a lot of ways to drive fast. Perhaps some here are less diplomatic, patient, or salient than others, but everyone has the ability to contribute, and likely has.
- What the good student will do is listen to EVERYONE - ACTIVELY - distill what they have to say, try it out and see what works for them, and use ALL of it to create a style of their own. This works for what to do, and what NOT to do.
- After that, to be truly fast, you must listen to many things that may not make sense to you, or seem logical, look hard in the mirror, stuff your friggin ego, and go out there and try it. Often it is the counterintuitive that lends the best results. Something you never would have come up with on your own. If you close your mind, you end your ascent!
- Color, for my own part, and speaking on behalf of a lot of us, I'd wager, we have no problem with your use of or fascination in DA. The problem stems from your FANATICAL INSISTANCE that it is the word of God, and that it is THE path to true enlightenment. You have a lot of very experienced pilots here. For you to say to those who can drive RINGS around you that they do not know what they are talking about is arrogant. To then ignore them because they can't understand you or your thinking - and say so - is childish. What else can you call it? If you would just tone down your insistance, keep it to yourself a bit, you'd make out much better here.
- Gingerman looks like a track that does not - for the most part - put a premium on absolute accuracy of line. It would seem from what I see that the premium should be placed on keeping momentum up as high as possible, and keeping the car running as "free" as one can. Other than lack of elevation - which I find tedious - I'd like to go there. It looks like place one could REALLY hang it out over the edge without paying a big price for it. I've never driven a track like that, and I want to!!
- How does this new spell check work?????
- As Sunday mentioned, there are a lot of people here with varying opinions, just as there are a lot of ways to drive fast. Perhaps some here are less diplomatic, patient, or salient than others, but everyone has the ability to contribute, and likely has.
- What the good student will do is listen to EVERYONE - ACTIVELY - distill what they have to say, try it out and see what works for them, and use ALL of it to create a style of their own. This works for what to do, and what NOT to do.
- After that, to be truly fast, you must listen to many things that may not make sense to you, or seem logical, look hard in the mirror, stuff your friggin ego, and go out there and try it. Often it is the counterintuitive that lends the best results. Something you never would have come up with on your own. If you close your mind, you end your ascent!
- Color, for my own part, and speaking on behalf of a lot of us, I'd wager, we have no problem with your use of or fascination in DA. The problem stems from your FANATICAL INSISTANCE that it is the word of God, and that it is THE path to true enlightenment. You have a lot of very experienced pilots here. For you to say to those who can drive RINGS around you that they do not know what they are talking about is arrogant. To then ignore them because they can't understand you or your thinking - and say so - is childish. What else can you call it? If you would just tone down your insistance, keep it to yourself a bit, you'd make out much better here.
- Gingerman looks like a track that does not - for the most part - put a premium on absolute accuracy of line. It would seem from what I see that the premium should be placed on keeping momentum up as high as possible, and keeping the car running as "free" as one can. Other than lack of elevation - which I find tedious - I'd like to go there. It looks like place one could REALLY hang it out over the edge without paying a big price for it. I've never driven a track like that, and I want to!!
- How does this new spell check work?????
08-12-2004, 07:59 PM
#62
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the arguement about having a faster car is a great one....The faster your car the slower you will learn the basics of smooth driving imho. If your car is fast you can get away with keeping up by just having hp....also there may be another reason you are pulling mroe speed through the corners then other people, it could be the fact that you have 295 size tires, a nice suspension and a hell of a car....My 944 turbo has a stock suspension with 15 year old technology...Now it would be hard pressed for me to run the same speed through the corners in my car then me driving a 996TT....that is simply because my car doesnt have the same technology or speed as your TT. But I think if you learn to drive in a slower car and like some people said "have to squeeze the last bits of speed" out of your car then you will learn to drive a lot cleaner..I dunno this is just my opinion from the different cars I have driven. I learned to track on my 325 bmw and I am glad I tracked that before the 944 turbo because I think I would have "thought" i was better then i was because I would catch people with hp. In the bmw I had to work at keeping up and had to really learn to drive the car....
08-12-2004, 08:00 PM
#63
Originally Posted by ColorChange
You shouldn’t get offended. If I am driving the car near it’s limits on that line, no one else could do much better … on that line. Again, that is probably not the best line. If you have a high g-sum, your doing as well as you can along that line. Simple physics, not bragging or anything else when you have the data to back it up.
1) I doubt you sit there in the car and say, "Hmm, I'm hitting .9 G-sum. Time to back off now." Yes, I can believe you have concerns driving near the limit, but I'm willing to bet that you push it as hard as you feel is safe. Maybe that pushing comes out to 0.9, but it's not the other way around.
2) I completely agree that you could be driving at the limit on that line. A while back, I posted this little gem.... "I believe that most intermediate drivers are driving near the limits but it is their inputs to the car that is causing the limit to be artificially low." Simply put, a different line might allow better cornering force. It might allow for a higher exit speed if you have a long straightaway after it or it might allow for a lower exit speed if you have a short straightaway after it. Obviously, both scenarios can't map out the same G-G plot.
3) You mention how your car can pull 1.05 G at a skid pad. Let's realize that a skid pad is done under neutral throttle and as such, it does give you a sense of the maximum G force your car can obtain on level, smooth ground. However, what if you had a skid pad where you are constantly accelerating? How about your skid pad value where you are trail braking? They are going to give lower G-sum values than the neutral throttle skid pad value. This is another reason that I suggest that you might be closer to the limit in your line than you might initially think.
As others have tried to say, there's many ways you can be on the edge of the friction circle. One is by charging hard into turn, throwing on the brakes, try to pitch the car while getting off the brakes, and then stomping on the gas. Another is to be on the gas while the other driver is trying to trail off the brakes. The second driver is going to be quicker even though he loses time in the first portion of the turn.
As I said a while back Tim, I was a big fan of the style of driving that you suggest. After changing styles, I dropped huge amounts of time at various tracks. For instance, at VIR, I dropped 12 seconds. Granted, I added R-compound tires and a slightly better suspension, but that certainly doesn't add up to 12 seconds of time.
If you're anything like me, I don't expect you to listen or believe what anyone is saying on this forum. Just file it away for now, and pull it out later someday when you are bored on the track. For instance, if you get stuck in a big train of traffic, try entering a few turns with no brakes and see how fast you can do it.
08-12-2004, 08:24 PM
#64
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redlineman:
Agree with your point 1. Agree with your point 2. I try to do this and think I do. Definitely agree with point 3.
Point 4. DAS certainly is not the only way. It is a highly effective, highly accurate way, highly efficient way.
You have a lot of very experienced pilots here. For you to say to those who can drive RINGS around you that they do not know what they are talking about is arrogant.
This statement is relatively worthless. It is highly unlikely that MJ knows more about basketball than Phil Jackson or Hubey Brown. Greg Louganis is not a recognized expert on the science of springboard diving. Phil Mahre is not an expert on the physics of ski racing. My point is ability is not directly related to understanding. So to say that because someone can drive faster than me (maximize g-sum is a much better comparison) they therefore understand more is ridiculous. Engineers understand racing the best (by and large) and I am a damn good engineer. This gives me a huge advantage on vehicle dynamics understanding than those who are not. I am not a damn good driver yet. The two are highly independent but occasionally coincide (Mark Donahue is probably the best example).
To then ignore them because they can't understand you or your thinking - and say so - is childish. What else can you call it? If you would just tone down your insistance, keep it to yourself a bit, you'd make out much better here.
I ignore the people who chose to personally attack rather than admit they were wrong, don’t understand, or can’t logically support their positions but cling to them despite overwhelming evidence. Secondly, I am not interested in winning a popularity contest on Rennlist. I participate to try to learn, and when certain people speak, I listen very closely. When others speak, I quickly identify their errors and if I think they/I will benefit from a correction, I will usually offer it. And when someone corrects me (accurately), I will say thank you and change my view. Many here (see my lack of respect list) lack the character or understanding to admit their errors.
I have been fortunate enough in my life to be able to rely upon my engineering expertise to a high degree of success despite often loud opposition, and this has served me quite well. It also serves me well here as I would be substantially slowed in my progress had I listened to much of the misinformation that is popular on this forum.
Does this make me unpopular with many? Yes. Do I care? No, not much. If the opposing opinions were rational or sound, I would care. If they are low character personal attacks, no. So, I take what positives I can and largely ignore the rest. Would I get along better doing as you suggest, yes, but again, I don’t care to waste my time sucking up to the ignorant or low character people of this world and I would not feel comfortable propagating (or allowing the propagation of) gross misinformation.
I hope you notice I took the time to reply to your post. That is a compliment from me to you. I hope it is respectfully received.
PS,
The spell check worked pretty well except on insistence.
Agree with your point 1. Agree with your point 2. I try to do this and think I do. Definitely agree with point 3.
Point 4. DAS certainly is not the only way. It is a highly effective, highly accurate way, highly efficient way.
You have a lot of very experienced pilots here. For you to say to those who can drive RINGS around you that they do not know what they are talking about is arrogant.
This statement is relatively worthless. It is highly unlikely that MJ knows more about basketball than Phil Jackson or Hubey Brown. Greg Louganis is not a recognized expert on the science of springboard diving. Phil Mahre is not an expert on the physics of ski racing. My point is ability is not directly related to understanding. So to say that because someone can drive faster than me (maximize g-sum is a much better comparison) they therefore understand more is ridiculous. Engineers understand racing the best (by and large) and I am a damn good engineer. This gives me a huge advantage on vehicle dynamics understanding than those who are not. I am not a damn good driver yet. The two are highly independent but occasionally coincide (Mark Donahue is probably the best example).
To then ignore them because they can't understand you or your thinking - and say so - is childish. What else can you call it? If you would just tone down your insistance, keep it to yourself a bit, you'd make out much better here.
I ignore the people who chose to personally attack rather than admit they were wrong, don’t understand, or can’t logically support their positions but cling to them despite overwhelming evidence. Secondly, I am not interested in winning a popularity contest on Rennlist. I participate to try to learn, and when certain people speak, I listen very closely. When others speak, I quickly identify their errors and if I think they/I will benefit from a correction, I will usually offer it. And when someone corrects me (accurately), I will say thank you and change my view. Many here (see my lack of respect list) lack the character or understanding to admit their errors.
I have been fortunate enough in my life to be able to rely upon my engineering expertise to a high degree of success despite often loud opposition, and this has served me quite well. It also serves me well here as I would be substantially slowed in my progress had I listened to much of the misinformation that is popular on this forum.
Does this make me unpopular with many? Yes. Do I care? No, not much. If the opposing opinions were rational or sound, I would care. If they are low character personal attacks, no. So, I take what positives I can and largely ignore the rest. Would I get along better doing as you suggest, yes, but again, I don’t care to waste my time sucking up to the ignorant or low character people of this world and I would not feel comfortable propagating (or allowing the propagation of) gross misinformation.
I hope you notice I took the time to reply to your post. That is a compliment from me to you. I hope it is respectfully received.
PS,
The spell check worked pretty well except on insistence.
08-12-2004, 10:22 PM
#67
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brain:
1) I doubt you sit there in the car and say, "Hmm, I'm hitting .9 G-sum. Time to back off now." Yes, I can believe you have concerns driving near the limit, but I'm willing to bet that you push it as hard as you feel is safe. Maybe that pushing comes out to 0.9, but it's not the other way around.
Largely you are right. I happen to think of it as how far am I pushing the envelope. It so happens that around 0.9 g-sum is where I am only semi-comfortable in that car at this time on that track.
2) I completely agree that you could be driving at the limit on that line. A while back, I posted this little gem.... "I believe that most intermediate drivers are driving near the limits but it is their inputs to the car that is causing the limit to be artificially low." Simply put, a different line might allow better cornering force. It might allow for a higher exit speed if you have a long straightaway after it or it might allow for a lower exit speed if you have a short straightaway after it. Obviously, both scenarios can't map out the same G-G plot.
Not quite right I think. The job of the race car engineer is to create the widest g-sum capability. It is the job of the driver to use as much of that capability as possible (or as needed if racing). Again, the g-sum of any car is a function very heavily dominated by the car, the tires, and the tarmac, not the driver.
3) You mention how your car can pull 1.05 G at a skid pad. Let's realize that a skid pad is done under neutral throttle and as such, it does give you a sense of the maximum G force your car can obtain on level, smooth ground.
Yes.
However, what if you had a skid pad where you are constantly accelerating? How about your skid pad value where you are trail braking? They are going to give lower G-sum values than the neutral throttle skid pad value. This is another reason that I suggest that you might be closer to the limit in your line than you might initially think.
The whole point of this and what I keep saying is the number does not change dramatically unless under odd conditions (vertical changes, traction changes, banking changes). But even under these conditions, your old lap data indicates what the g-sum max is at that particular point on the track as long as you have pushed it in the past.
As others have tried to say, there's many ways you can be on the edge of the friction circle. One is by charging hard into turn, throwing on the brakes, try to pitch the car while getting off the brakes, and then stomping on the gas. Another is to be on the gas while the other driver is trying to trail off the brakes. The second driver is going to be quicker even though he loses time in the first portion of the turn.
In general I agree but as to which driver might be faster depends upon the specifics of that turn/track point.
As I said a while back Tim, I was a big fan of the style of driving that you suggest. After changing styles, I dropped huge amounts of time at various tracks. For instance, at VIR, I dropped 12 seconds. Granted, I added R-compound tires and a slightly better suspension, but that certainly doesn't add up to 12 seconds of time.
The only “style” of driving I fully support is maximizing g’s in the appropriate direction at all times.
If you're anything like me, I don't expect you to listen or believe what anyone is saying on this forum. Just file it away for now, and pull it out later someday when you are bored on the track. For instance, if you get stuck in a big train of traffic, try entering a few turns with no brakes and see how fast you can do it.
I do listen to those points that are correct, well supported, or that just plain sound like good ideas. I’m listening to your right now. Those that I know are wrong I reject. For example, I do the exact exercise often, especially when working up a track to determine max lat g corner speeds. I also do this as much as possible during every cool down lap. I did this after reading it from someone on this board a while ago. Sorry, can’t remember who.
1) I doubt you sit there in the car and say, "Hmm, I'm hitting .9 G-sum. Time to back off now." Yes, I can believe you have concerns driving near the limit, but I'm willing to bet that you push it as hard as you feel is safe. Maybe that pushing comes out to 0.9, but it's not the other way around.
Largely you are right. I happen to think of it as how far am I pushing the envelope. It so happens that around 0.9 g-sum is where I am only semi-comfortable in that car at this time on that track.
2) I completely agree that you could be driving at the limit on that line. A while back, I posted this little gem.... "I believe that most intermediate drivers are driving near the limits but it is their inputs to the car that is causing the limit to be artificially low." Simply put, a different line might allow better cornering force. It might allow for a higher exit speed if you have a long straightaway after it or it might allow for a lower exit speed if you have a short straightaway after it. Obviously, both scenarios can't map out the same G-G plot.
Not quite right I think. The job of the race car engineer is to create the widest g-sum capability. It is the job of the driver to use as much of that capability as possible (or as needed if racing). Again, the g-sum of any car is a function very heavily dominated by the car, the tires, and the tarmac, not the driver.
3) You mention how your car can pull 1.05 G at a skid pad. Let's realize that a skid pad is done under neutral throttle and as such, it does give you a sense of the maximum G force your car can obtain on level, smooth ground.
Yes.
However, what if you had a skid pad where you are constantly accelerating? How about your skid pad value where you are trail braking? They are going to give lower G-sum values than the neutral throttle skid pad value. This is another reason that I suggest that you might be closer to the limit in your line than you might initially think.
The whole point of this and what I keep saying is the number does not change dramatically unless under odd conditions (vertical changes, traction changes, banking changes). But even under these conditions, your old lap data indicates what the g-sum max is at that particular point on the track as long as you have pushed it in the past.
As others have tried to say, there's many ways you can be on the edge of the friction circle. One is by charging hard into turn, throwing on the brakes, try to pitch the car while getting off the brakes, and then stomping on the gas. Another is to be on the gas while the other driver is trying to trail off the brakes. The second driver is going to be quicker even though he loses time in the first portion of the turn.
In general I agree but as to which driver might be faster depends upon the specifics of that turn/track point.
As I said a while back Tim, I was a big fan of the style of driving that you suggest. After changing styles, I dropped huge amounts of time at various tracks. For instance, at VIR, I dropped 12 seconds. Granted, I added R-compound tires and a slightly better suspension, but that certainly doesn't add up to 12 seconds of time.
The only “style” of driving I fully support is maximizing g’s in the appropriate direction at all times.
If you're anything like me, I don't expect you to listen or believe what anyone is saying on this forum. Just file it away for now, and pull it out later someday when you are bored on the track. For instance, if you get stuck in a big train of traffic, try entering a few turns with no brakes and see how fast you can do it.
I do listen to those points that are correct, well supported, or that just plain sound like good ideas. I’m listening to your right now. Those that I know are wrong I reject. For example, I do the exact exercise often, especially when working up a track to determine max lat g corner speeds. I also do this as much as possible during every cool down lap. I did this after reading it from someone on this board a while ago. Sorry, can’t remember who.
08-13-2004, 12:18 AM
#69
Haiku Grasshoppa
Rennlist Member
Can I Drove Your Car?
Rennlist Member
Can I Drove Your Car?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Grants Pass, OR
Posts: 1,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The only “style” of driving I fully support is maximizing g’s in the appropriate direction at all times.
I don't. I try to drive as smoothly as possible. I try to coax the car around the track on a line that purposely creates the least amount of lateral g-force possible. Believe it or not, that's the fast way.
Read that paragraph again.
Charging into corners, stomping on the brakes, missing the line, late getting back onto the throttle... It feels fast, but it's the slow way.
Besides just being on the line--for a moment, imagine that you could channel Michael Schumacher's line-driving talent, so that you were always, at every millimeter of the track on the absolute best possible line--you've *still* got to smoothly balance the weight transfer of the car. You can't just drive around stomping on the pedals at the "appropriate" places. Imperceptably smooth transitions is what allows the car (on the correct line) to go as fast as it possibly can.
Also, you've got the DAS to test this out: Which braking technique actually results in a higher negative longitudinal force in your car: going straight into ABS, or holding the car right on the edge of impending lockup (at the edge of invoking ABS)? I know that the ABS system in the 996 is different from that in the 993, and I know that in the 993 it was faster to not invoke ABS. I'd be interested to see which method provided better absolute braking in a 996, and to see the data from each technique overlaid.
I don't. I try to drive as smoothly as possible. I try to coax the car around the track on a line that purposely creates the least amount of lateral g-force possible. Believe it or not, that's the fast way.
Read that paragraph again.
Charging into corners, stomping on the brakes, missing the line, late getting back onto the throttle... It feels fast, but it's the slow way.
Besides just being on the line--for a moment, imagine that you could channel Michael Schumacher's line-driving talent, so that you were always, at every millimeter of the track on the absolute best possible line--you've *still* got to smoothly balance the weight transfer of the car. You can't just drive around stomping on the pedals at the "appropriate" places. Imperceptably smooth transitions is what allows the car (on the correct line) to go as fast as it possibly can.
Also, you've got the DAS to test this out: Which braking technique actually results in a higher negative longitudinal force in your car: going straight into ABS, or holding the car right on the edge of impending lockup (at the edge of invoking ABS)? I know that the ABS system in the 996 is different from that in the 993, and I know that in the 993 it was faster to not invoke ABS. I'd be interested to see which method provided better absolute braking in a 996, and to see the data from each technique overlaid.
08-13-2004, 12:26 AM
#70
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's interesting to see the way different people approach high performance driving. On one hand we seem to have the semi-scientific method that hopes to achieve greatness, or at least enlightenment, through application of physical laws governing the universe. This approach distills the mechanical complexities and nuances of driving into a simple equation On the other, we have the pure driver who by creative instinct and artistic expression, paints a masterpiece of speed across the track. This type of driver is less inhibited, less caught up in the physical boundaries posed by his machine. He is free to let it run and see what happens. I think we know which one will win the race.
08-13-2004, 12:30 AM
#71
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by carreracup21
I think it's interesting to see the way different people approach high performance driving. On one hand we seem to have the semi-scientific method that hopes to achieve greatness, or at least enlightenment, through application of physical laws governing the universe. This approach distills the mechanical complexities and nuances of driving into a simple equation On the other, we have the pure driver who by creative instinct and artistic expression, paints a masterpiece of speed across the track. This type of driver is less inhibited, less caught up in the physical boundaries posed by his machine. He is free to let it run and see what happens. I think we know which one will win the race.
This is a perfect example of my dad and I....he has the DAS system and I do not...he chooses to interpret every graph and I so far think that at this point in my driving I need to play around with the car and my own skills and find out what i think is the best way around the track. however even Michael Schumacher uses DAS so i guess eventually i will give in and use one as well, but right now I dont think i want to spend the money on a system like that quite yet
08-13-2004, 12:32 AM
#72
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
944
I had a Mychron 3 in my Lambo 2 years ago and just got the MXL for my tt.
DJ, I will respond because your question was fairly asked and I promised similar data earlier. (I keep my word. I will later show how the car performs on full ABS turn in versus conventional as well from a prior discussion.) My car is getting new beefed up hoses so I won't have it until I return from vacation after next week. Once I get it and bed the new brakes, I'll post the data.
Just for amusement sake, Schumi (and every F1 driver) absolutely jumps on the brakes with all the force they can muster as quickly as they can often when they brake. At high speeds, the downforce is so high that they can't apply enough pressure to lock the tires. As the aero downforce drops, then they need to modulate but they often strike the pedal like a sledgehammer. This is as opposite from smooth as humanly posssible from the best/fastest drivers in the world.
I had a Mychron 3 in my Lambo 2 years ago and just got the MXL for my tt.
DJ, I will respond because your question was fairly asked and I promised similar data earlier. (I keep my word. I will later show how the car performs on full ABS turn in versus conventional as well from a prior discussion.) My car is getting new beefed up hoses so I won't have it until I return from vacation after next week. Once I get it and bed the new brakes, I'll post the data.
Just for amusement sake, Schumi (and every F1 driver) absolutely jumps on the brakes with all the force they can muster as quickly as they can often when they brake. At high speeds, the downforce is so high that they can't apply enough pressure to lock the tires. As the aero downforce drops, then they need to modulate but they often strike the pedal like a sledgehammer. This is as opposite from smooth as humanly posssible from the best/fastest drivers in the world.
08-13-2004, 08:27 AM
#73
Still plays with cars.
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
CC - T'was I who suggested the "no brakes" exercise, a very good way to discover how fast you can go when the car is unaffected by imbalance caused by braking.
DAS is very useful for fine tuning. I learned some new tricks by playing back laps on a PC, watching my car and another side by side. Both of us got faster as a result.
Cars with wings add a whole new dimension to driving technique. We should note that Schumi's car will slow down at 1G if he simply lifts off without touching the brakes from high speed. Our cars need threshold braking to achieve that rate of decel.
DJ - I drove a 996TT last weekend, ABS appeared to be similar to the 993 on smooth surfaces at least. Less pedal shake though. Threshold braking is still better than ABS. Yaw Control does intervene if you trail brake more than a little. I'm glad not to have it.
DAS is very useful for fine tuning. I learned some new tricks by playing back laps on a PC, watching my car and another side by side. Both of us got faster as a result.
Cars with wings add a whole new dimension to driving technique. We should note that Schumi's car will slow down at 1G if he simply lifts off without touching the brakes from high speed. Our cars need threshold braking to achieve that rate of decel.
DJ - I drove a 996TT last weekend, ABS appeared to be similar to the 993 on smooth surfaces at least. Less pedal shake though. Threshold braking is still better than ABS. Yaw Control does intervene if you trail brake more than a little. I'm glad not to have it.
08-13-2004, 08:57 AM
#74
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob, I haven't completed my analysis of the PSM yet but if it is as obtrusive as it appears to be, I will be working on ways to defeat it. Yes, I know I should have just bought a GT-2. I plan to try just pulling the fuse to the psm and hoping it doesn't take the car into limp mode or something else. I will have hard data on your braking comments shortly. You very well may have been the one, if so ... thanks.
08-13-2004, 10:13 AM
#75
Lifetime Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by ColorChange
Just for amusement sake, Schumi (and every F1 driver) absolutely jumps on the brakes with all the force they can muster as quickly as they can often when they brake. At high speeds, the downforce is so high that they can't apply enough pressure to lock the tires. As the aero downforce drops, then they need to modulate but they often strike the pedal like a sledgehammer. This is as opposite from smooth as humanly posssible from the best/fastest drivers in the world.
DJ said it perfectly and it is the same message I have gotten from two former F1 drivers and almost a dozen other professional driver coaches I have had the opportunity to work with. It is all about smoothness. Smooth turns, smooth application of brakes and smooth throttle application. Keep the platform balanced.
The idea of driving the edge of the FC is comical in the real world. The fast, smooth way through most corners is not to even attempt to drive the edge of the FC throughout the corner. You trade one aspect for another. In a high HP, low grip car, a big trade of entry speed pays off in exit speed for the appropriate corners. Charging the corners, early turn in and apex and late power application - all the marks of a rookie with no relationship to drving faster.
What counts is lap times and/or victories (and the satisfaction that comes with them). I care about what happens on the track and when data helps with lap times or race craft, then great. Maximizing some g-sum number on the computer is a video game - it has as much relationship to drving on the track as does playing Pac-Man.