tntporsche

We too maintain a database on drivers who participate with us . . . and I am convinced that drivers lie (even about their blood type). . . . I keep information on what experience a driver indicates on their application in addition to the experience that they have with us. Often a drivers experience changes dramatically from one application to the next. When I questioned someone about the vast difference in experience from one event to another, I was told that on one application he indicated days and on the next he thought it would be more accurate to list number of laps . . . Also, a driver with 3 or 6 or 12 days on the track is NOT an advanced driver. I have had applications from drivers who indicate less than a dozen days on the track and they want instructor status. There is no substitute for seat time and FAST does not eqaul Advanced.

BobbyC - For Pete's sake, put away the golf clubs and the keyboard and get some seat time.

Z-man

My $0.42 on the subject at hand:

Before my involvement in DE, I had a good two years of autocross under my belt. My first DE instructor could tell right away that I had started to understand the basic car control skills that one develops in AX. (Side note: 1 year later he actually tried the autox thing, and spanked my butt with his times!!) Speaking with many other DE instructors, I have the following observations:
1. Most can tell if a student has had prior AX experience.
2. Most instructors feel very positive about a student having AX experience.
3. NO instructor I have spoken to feels that AX is a detriment to DE. No instructor I've spoken with would rather have a student with no AX experience, than one who's kissed a few cones!

That said, I feel that AX is a great prelude to DE in one very simple respect: understanding car control. The autocrosser quickly develops a sense of whether or not a car is understeering, oversteering, not sliding at all, or is in a four wheel drift. So, if an experienced autocrosser gets on the track, and things start getting a little out of hand, the person:
(a.) is familiar with the sensation, be it oversteer, understeer, drift, or impending spin.
(b.) because of (a.) that person is less likely to panic when the car starts to slide.
(c.) the ax-er probably has a greater chance to reel the car back in, since the driver's not in panic mode, has slid the car around before, and knows what inputs are required to bring the car back into control.

Now I'm not saying that AX or a car control clinic should be required for newbie drivers, but perhaps the veterns of DE AND AX should stress the importance of these car control exercises more, as well as support the regions car control clinics if they hold such events. Often during a DE, I'll chat with some newbie drivers, and invite them to an AX. The general consensus is, "No thanks - I heard you drive for like 8 minutes all day, and sit around the rest. Not worth it for me." True, AX is alot of "Hurry and wait, hurry and wait," with more 'wait' than 'hurry.' But what you learn in those eight minutes is invaluable in terms of understanding car control.

Where are these newbies getting this idea that AX is a waste? Perhaps it is those folks who tried autocross once, maybe twice, just didn't "get it," and cast a negative light on the sport. Perhaps it is the mentaily that "I've got a 500 hp 996TT, and it is mean to be driven through the Esses at Watkins Glen at 120mph - it's not meant to be driving in 2nd gear around some silly cones in a parking lot." Regardless of where folks are getting it, autocross is getting a bad rap these days. That is very sad.

As for me, these days, while I prefer to spend time on the big tracks in DE's, but I am still a very active participant in autocross - I help setup and instruct in AX, and I attend 8 to 10 AX events a year.

Oh, and I too say "Amen" to the fact that the technology built into the modern Porsches can very easily mask the faults of a weak driver.

-Z-man.

PS: I am sure those AX folks who participated in NNJR's DE @ Shenandoah last weekend appreciate what they learned in the parking lots...

Phokaioglaukos

The SCCA club local to me runs a autocross school every spring that, for a modest amount of money, gets you LOTS of track time, at least compared to a AX competition. It's worth doing every year, IMHO.

TD in DC

After reading Z-man's post, I wanted to chime in. Here is my take on the situation as someone who is new to this sport.

I am sure that the benefits everyone discuss about AX are true. I am trying to do more AX exactly because everyone talks about its benefits.

You instructors may know a lot more about newbie attitudes than I do since you ride with so many, but I can't help but cringe when I hear this talk about how much better things were in the old days, and how high hp is leading to corruption of our nation's newbie drivers. Could it be that some of you are just getting old and cranky?

Although it is undoubtedly true that today's cars have much higher HP, and therefore that newbie drivers can go much faster, isn't it also true that today's cars are (1) easier to drive; and (2) safer in the event of an accident? Doesn't this somewhat help to balance out the "risk" of the higher HP? Sure, a slower car with today's safety and handling improvements would be ideal, but, purely from a safety standpoint, wouldn't you rather ride in a 996 with ABS, PSM and a ton of airbags than a 3.6L 964, which is surely as fast or faster without the added safety features?

I think what is far more important than the type of car that someone drives on the track is the attitude with which a student approaches this sport. Guess what instructors: you are largely the biggest factor in shaping that attitude, particularly for green students.

You heard me. How many of you spend any amount of time at all talking with a student before you get in the car with them for the first time about your passion for this sport and why it is about so much more than just speed?

I mean, if you can get someone to think about driving as a sport where the basics are just as important as in any other sport, you will, with most people, have made a huge difference right there. Also, it will give you a chance to talk about the basics in a constructive manner rather than preaching to someone about all the things you don't want to see them do or lecturing to them about how the first day will be all about going slowly. Have a little faith in greenies. Another side benefit of this kind of discusssion would be to calm down a new student, many of whom are probably a lot more nervous than you might think. The nervousness, in my opinion, is as dangerous as anything. The speed you see some green students drive at when they first get on the track may actually be the product of nervousness rather than bravado.

What about taking a student around the paddock to explain things like hand position, smoothness in general, smooth brake application, smooth throttle application, etc . . .? I think it would be very easy to show someone these types of things at very low speed. When you are on the track it is "too" late, because the newbie is trying to "take in" the track and will likely be in information overload. All the things you take for granted are overwhelming to the poor newbies, including those in the 996TTs. You say brake smoothly, the newbie thinks he or she is braking smoothly, you know that he or she is not braking smoothly, but saying it over again isn't going to change a thing because the newbie thought that they were already doing what you wanted! I think that taking a newbie around the paddock at a very slow pace and talking and showing someone the basics can only help foster communication, instill the proper attitude, and explain what the "goals" of the session should be rather than preaching about how "speed kills," which isn't helpful because it just makes people nervous rather than teaching a skill. Another side benefit of taking a fair amount of time before you ever get on the track with someone is that it might give you insight into their personality and whether they might prove to be a "problem" child.

At my first event, my instructor barely spoke with me before we went out on the track at VIR. I was clueless (and still am, but that's a whole other story), and I didn't even know what I was supposed to be doing in preparation for my run let alone on the track. I spent my time alternating between looking at a track map and using three roles of racing tape on my car to prevent any pitting. I was so nervous I thought my heart was going to leap out of my chest when we started to go around the track. My instructor did spend a fair amount of time with me between our run groups, but I think it would have been even more useful if he had spent a good deal of time talking to me before my first run group.

I have a hunch that this feeling that today's drivers have substantially poorer attitudes than yesterday's drivers may potentially be related as much to the fact that you as instructors know so much more now than when you started rarther than with a substantial change in the actual attitudes of the majority of the drivers themselves. Nobody wants to get hurt. Nobody wants to go off the track. In fact, in many cases, the owner of a more expensive car may be just as worried, or maybe more worried, about screwing up than is the driver of an older or less valuable car.

I had never had a single day of AX before I went to the track. Why? I didn't even know it existed. I didn't even know how to find an AX. How could that be? I grew up in the middle of BFE where we didn't even have a stoplight in our town, and the nearest real movie theater was over one hour away. I stumbled into the track thing because someone told me that a High Performance Driving Clinic would be a great way for me to learn more about my nifty new Porsche that I bought in 2002. They were right. I really enjoyed it. I spent the next year trying to sign up for DEs on the Potomac websight, but I didn't get accepted to a single one. I complained here on rennlist, and somebody -- I think Forklift -- pointed out last year's VIR event with NNJR. I applied, was accepted, attended, and became heavily addicted after just one short hit of the track pipe. My wallet thanks you guys.

Was my lack of driving experience an indication of a poor attitude? No way. Was I driving a high HP car with all the bells and whistles? Absolutely. Did this make me particularly dangerous? I don't think so. I was clay ready to be molded, and all I needed was someone who loved the sport enough to take the time to work with me. Passion is contagious, and, if you are willing to work with the newbies, they might just catch your addiction, which, in most cases, will be good from a safety standpoint because they will be focusing on the sport rather than on the end result: speed.

Finally, you instructors should be thanking your lucky stars that many of the new high HP cars have PSM. PSM is a training wheel for new drivers, and a good one at that. How a student views the engagement of PSM is largely in the control of the instructor. If you can get the student to treat the engagement of PSM exactly the same as a spin, it can be a very effective learning technique. And don't tell me you can't tell when it engages. It is abrubt when it seriously engages, and you should be able to tell with your highly tuned instructor butt-o-meter. Maybe that would be the good time for a consructive discussion? Also, if the student is doing something that makes you think PSM might be engaging, why does it matter whether it actually has engaged or not? Sounds like a good time for a constructive discussion.

OK, this post is too long, but the bottom line is similar to John Hanjy's point about driving safety. As an instructor, a student's attitude is largely in YOUR control. So, rather than complaining about miserable student attitudes and lack of experience, take control of the situation and mold the attitude before it presents a problem.

Finally, rather than focusing solely on qualifying students, maybe PCA should focus on reserving the very best instructors for the most novice drivers, who are the most impressionable.

Thanks to all of the great instructors I have had. You have made a huge difference to me.

Larry Herman

Even me, Todd??

Actually the main reason that what you are suggesting doesn't happen often enough is that there is just not enough time when you are juggling 2 or even 3 students. I would love to always have only 1 student. Don't forget too that the students quickly learn who the "great instructors" are and there is usually a demand for them to run with some of the intermediate (white group) drivers as well. That just doesn't leave a whole lot of time left for what you suggest, though if you took a poll, I'm sure that most instructors would want just 1 student, not for selfish reasons, but so they could spend all that extra time that really does make a difference.

TD in DC

Absolutely


I'm sure that's true. I do think that it is more important for a great instructor to be assigned to a green strudent than to a blue student. I also think that one of the most crucial times to spend with a green student may well be before the very first run session. Even with multiple students, I think that the green student should get the majority of the time. ( I realize that I am talking against my interests since I expect you to spend some time with me in white at NNJR VIR). Of course, I am not an instructor, so I my comments might not be that helpful. I just think that it may be easy for an instructor to forget what it's like to be green.

Gator_86_951

Here is my $0.43:

How about people that "get" AX and frankly don't like it. I have done quite a bit of autocrossing and although it is not a WASTE of time, I feel it is a bad exchange. I don't feel like your framing of the reasoning is necessarily fair.

Do you get car control skills from autocross: Yes
Do you sit around and wait a whole lot: Yes

Sometimes I don't feel like sitting around and waiting. Not my idea of a good time.

Wholesale rejection of a logical reason why some people don't like AX is the arguably as bad as anybody rejected AX out of hand. That being said. There are definately people that should AX a ton before they get anywhere near a race track. But, as has been mentioned, that is pretty much impossible.

The ultimate problem in my opinion is attitude. The first time I DE'd I was 19, and in my second year of college. My pops wouldn't let me go until then. I guess I was the opposite of most in that I felt pretty fortunate to be driving @ Sebring in an 89 930. I respected the situation and I ended up running with Suncoast and eventually we had to get another car so I could progress in the run groups.

I guess I am the aberation. But, I had the right attitude, and always listened to my instructor and corrected/adjusted and tried to become a better driver before putting up my "I am a badass, I have done X, Y and Z. Clearly I need not get advice from you" block.

Also, I had done a substantial amount of DE before I ever attended an AX. My first AX was the summer of 2003. I was with Dan of 944Fest the day before @ mid-ohio, got on a plane, landed in tallahassee, drove to bainbridge. Got in my friends Second gen RX-7, never having driven it before, destroyed his best time by about 2 seconds. This a few minutes after hearing somebody say "You know they say, a good autocrossing is usually a good track driver, but a good track driver isn't always a good autocrosser"

One size does not fit all in this sport. Some people progress far more rapidly then others. Attitude is the key. But, then again, attitude is one of the essential elements in life. Jerk in life, likely total jerk off @ the race track.

mdbickell

As I read everyone's post, most of the club references are the PCA. I thought I would give a different perspective on driver training from the left coast where we have the POC as well as the PCA.

The POC takes a somewhat different tack with their driver education / competition and starts new drivers out on the Short Track Series before letting anyone on to the big tracks. The Short Track Series takes place on the Streets of Willow at Willow Springs. The track is VERY tight and twisty and has only 1 straight which is fairly short. All of this keeps the speeds way down. For example, in my SC I spend almost all of my time in 2nd gear. In essence, the short track is a half-step between AX and DE. All newbies have to have an instructor for 3 days and 1 school day before they are signed off to drive solo. So after 4 or more days, students are then allowed to drive solo in a very controlled environment on the short streets track only. FYI - The school is pretty basic and is mostly slalom, skidpad and some theory. Personally, I don't think the school helps much, but in theory its a good idea.

After completion of the Short Track program, then students are allowed on the big track. The POC requires students to have an instructor for three 2-day events before they are allowed to run solo in Time Trials.

Having said all this, the POC does not have a DE rather we have the Short Track and Time Trial programs instead.

Since I've only run w/ POC and NASA, I can't compare how this stacks up against PCA but from what I read here the PCA organizes things differently. I honestly don't know if any one approach is superior, but I thought I'd pass along this slightly different perspective.

In the end, we all want to get out and have fun driving our cars. This is not a safe endeavour, but we need to try to make it as safe as possible and proper training is just the start.

Geo

I may be in the minority here, but autocross does nothing for me. Never really did.

For a little background, here is my history in order:

Auto-x - 2 years
Kart racing - 8 years
Racing school - one 3 day school in the middle of my 3rd year of karting
SCCA school - 2 schools
SCCA regional racing - 5 years

Perhaps the reason I didn't like auto-x is because I suck at it. Or perhaps I suck at it because I don't like it. I don't know. But I can definitely say for me I got zero out of it. I probably got more out of a year or two of karting than everything else combined. I must also say I hate single lap qualifying and suck at that too, so there is some correlation there as well.

I know there are those that diss auto-x. I guess I do it sometimes. But, I am very aware that there are a lot of people who have gotten a lot out of it. I do think it's over played as to the benefits sometimes. I think autocrossers are sensitive to people who don't think much of it. To each their own.

I think autoross is both over played and under played depending upon who you are talking to. I think karting is definitely under appreciated. Too many think you need to be in a shifter kart to really go fast or to learn something. That's pure macho BS. Jumping into a shifter kart is not unlike spending your first time on the track in a F1 car.

In the end, people should do what they enjoy and what works well for one person doesn't for another.

IMHO of course. I'm sure I'll be pelted with rotten veggies, but I'm just telling my side.

BobbyC

Now we have a debate and involment and hopefully some good will come of this...

First, fast cars, PSM and other driver aids are here to stay. Get used to it as the next crop of DE newbies more likely than not are going to show up with these same cars that seemingly mask driver errors. Bottom line:

No proficiency testing = higher incident rates.

How the DE organizers choose to adapt to these changing conditions is going to spell the difference.

As for a few choice comments earlier in this thread about rookie attitudes especially the ones in 500 HP twin turbos...I can only speak for myself. Yup, I'm guilty of owning one of these, yet I'm the one clamoring for higher safeguards, I'm the one S**t scared of participating in run groups that don't inspire confidence, and I'm the rookie worrying about life and limb. So much for stereotyping!

bobt993

[QUOTE=TD in DC)

Although it is undoubtedly true that today's cars have much higher HP, and therefore that newbie drivers can go much faster, isn't it also true that today's cars are (1) easier to drive; and (2) safer in the event of an accident? Doesn't this somewhat help to balance out the "risk" of the higher HP? Sure, a slower car with today's safety and handling improvements would be ideal, but, purely from a safety standpoint, wouldn't you rather ride in a 996 with ABS, PSM and a ton of airbags than a 3.6L 964, which is surely as fast or faster without the added safety features?


Not really true.... Newer cars allow more intervention aiding/correcting driver skill level until the very end which usually ends in something bent up. 996 chassis pushes until TTO. Airbags are still suspect for neck/spinal fracture from impacting the extended chin of a full face helmet. Stock seats with harnesses are an illusion of safety for this problem. I have watched PSM literally save a driver over the edge, but also send one off the track. A 996TT driver; chipped, suspension, and Hoosiers went farming last year in an advanced group after turning off his PSM for the first time. I closed on a Carrera GT in the toe of the boot (WGlen) only to watch him spin twice in front of me on the uphill where the rest of us are lucky to get any real torque/speed. He landed next to the blue bushes. The car had just prior hit the guard rail in turn 10 at VIR. I see more GT3's spinning with newbie drivers than just about any car in our region. Fortunately, a spin is a crash without the sound of an impact. I think the new cars belong on the track just as much as any car, but looking at the past two years: I find more bent metal on new cars than old.

Larry Herman

Bobby, I think that you've got an incorrect opinion of what the more experienced instructors feel about 500 hp newbies. We don't think that they are all a bunch of crazed loons. Most are just overexuberant car owners stepping into a world which they really know nothing about. The biggest problem is with those that think that they do. What we as instructors do know is that they have picked the most difficult platform on which to learn some of the trickiest skills to be mastered by humans. It is a subject that has been beaten to death, but it still is true. You face a more daunting task trying to learn about car control and track driving with a high powered car. Maybe 1 in 100 have the innate talent to learn this way and be a truely fast and capable driver. Maybe you are that person, odds are you are not.

TD in DC

[QUOTE=bobt993][QUOTE=TD in DC)

Although it is undoubtedly true that today's cars have much higher HP, and therefore that newbie drivers can go much faster, isn't it also true that today's cars are (1) easier to drive; and (2) safer in the event of an accident? Doesn't this somewhat help to balance out the "risk" of the higher HP? Sure, a slower car with today's safety and handling improvements would be ideal, but, purely from a safety standpoint, wouldn't you rather ride in a 996 with ABS, PSM and a ton of airbags than a 3.6L 964, which is surely as fast or faster without the added safety features?


Not really true.... Newer cars allow more intervention aiding/correcting driver skill level until the very end which usually ends in something bent up. 996 chassis pushes until TTO. Airbags are still suspect for neck/spinal fracture from impacting the extended chin of a full face helmet. Stock seats with harnesses are an illusion of safety for this problem. I have watched PSM literally save a driver over the edge, but also send one off the track. A 996TT driver; chipped, suspension, and Hoosiers went farming last year in an advanced group after turning off his PSM for the first time. I closed on a Carrera GT in the toe of the boot (WGlen) only to watch him spin twice in front of me on the uphill where the rest of us are lucky to get any real torque/speed. He landed next to the blue bushes. The car had just prior hit the guard rail in turn 10 at VIR. I see more GT3's spinning with newbie drivers than just about any car in our region. Fortunately, a spin is a crash without the sound of an impact. I think the new cars belong on the track just as much as any car, but looking at the past two years: I find more bent metal on new cars than old.[/QUOTE]

I am not really sure we are talking about exactly the same things. I am not saying that you cannot be an idiot in a new car, or that you are insulated from an occasional mistake. What I am saying is that, on balance, I am not certain that I buy the proposition that the electronic aids on the new cars are "responsible" for more accidents and/or bad attitudes, or that the new cars are in fact more "dangerous" than the older cars despite the increase in speeds. Many of the examples you provide don't really seem to me to prove that my proposition is true or untrue.

I do agree that it is harder to learn how to be a truly good driver in a newer car with high HP and all the electronic aids. That's why I bought an '84 944.

bobt993

[QUOTE=Larry Herman]Bobby, I think that you've got an incorrect opinion of what the more experienced instructors feel about 500 hp newbies. We don't think that they are all a bunch of crazed loons.

Larry, I don't feel that way, but you have to admit for a student driver to feel car trouble in a PSM based car, it is difficult. Your innate ability tells what is going on well before this becomes a problem. I think it is more of a challenge for you help a student who is more aggressive in a newer car. My concern is at the edge, these cars present a real challenge that need an instructor's aid to correct. My closing comment was all these cars belong on the track and should be welcome. I was only addressing a prior comment that they are "safer" and this may exist to a specific limit. If you look at the past 3 years in our region and count the cars that really took a tumble, how many were say less the 5 years old ie: 996/986 chassis?

RedlineMan

HooBoy;

How do I respond to it all?

Bob, et al, I think that what has driven the increase in speeds is the strength of the economy, and the growth is racing and motorsports in general. The strong economy puts a lot of people into these cars. People not of the enthusiast bent that might not have done so if not for the influx of spare cash. By and large I think it is these folks that are the biggest challenge becaue they do not necessarily have the motor oil in their veins that I mentioned previously. Just a causal interest, perhaps.

The increase in the amount of go-fast stuff in the aftermarket also has driven a lot of the increase in speeds. Hardly anyone drives a bone stock car anymore. Even the guys with the new rocketships are buying Techart this and Moton that. It is seriously rediculous! I drove my old bucket till I was BORED with DE before I even got R tires. Most people seem to spend first, learn second.

Todd, You are a prime example of a motivated enthusiast, and a smart guy to boot. Your points are well taken, but until you step into that right seat and take that role on, you won't know what it takes. There are differing schools of thought on how to handle a novice.

Some do a lot of hand holding. Some don't. I try to split the difference between filling a student with too much confusing information, and putting them off with indifference. I do the basic PCA interview. This starts a rapport, and I use it to not only find out a little about the students car and ambitions, but to give them a positive feel about what we will do. Theory at this point is wasted, and what theory does this specific person need? How do I know? I don't.

I could obviously fill them with more information than 10 people could manage, but instead I default to a very basic approach. I inform them that I will tell them what to do and when to do it. By this I will see how the respond to comands, and will also quickly see their aptitude for driving. Then, I can much more quickly home in on what they need as an individual instead of generalizing and muddying the waters.

Until you have utterly confused your own novice student, you will not understand the applied wit of initial brevity. Until you have had to get your own car ready, do tech, get your stuff set, search the paddock for your guy who is searching in the other direction for you.... Different styles.

Z, et al, Sadly, autocross is dying most places. My region doesn't even have them anymore. Try and get a venue. Try and get workers. Try and get anything. It's dying in so many places. It's a shame, but that is the reality most of the time.

mdbickell - Were all groups to be so lucky as to have a Streets course to do what your POC does. It's a great idea. Perhaps Shenandoah is such a place for Potomac and such. They are now lucky. Upper Canada region has Shannonville, and Rennsport uses St. Eustache, I believe. These are the lucky few.

BobbyC - I do not mean to desparage your ideas or input here. You make very good points. I am trying to round out your perspective regarding what it might take to attain what you seek. All a good idea takes to be succesful is a lot of hard work by someone to make it happen. Most of the folks I know running events already have their plate full.

Maybe it IS time that regions seek to limit their events more, driven less by any though of profit than of trying to provide a better learning environment for their rookie drivers? There must be a point of diminishing return here. Perhaps we've found it?

It is a shame you feel intimidated by your track circumstance. Maybe you need to realize that this is not for you? If you know it is, then you must make the best of it. It can't always be that bad. I don't see it as a constant problem, and I'm out in it in every event.

I have had students with cars like yours, and it really does create problems for us as a team. I can't teach - and they can't learn - when we are constantly putzing along behind packs of slower cars. Maybe you need to move up where the pace is a bit quicker? I've done it, and it has been helpful.

And yet, you are learning valuable lessons in having to deal with drivers you don't trust. While you must strenuously resist the temptation to become a paranoid driver, you can gleen a lot from dealing with these situations. Your powers of observation and intuition are being honed in the crucible of necessity. No better place, and it will stand you well. When the pace quickens in the coming years as you progress, your skill at anticipating outcomes will prove quite helpful.

Regarding todays faster but safer cars, I don't think the safety aspects have carried the exponential improvment that is embodied in the equation for Kinetic energy, which is KE=.5MV^2. Velocity squared would require safety squared at least. Faster is ALWAYS more dangerous.

I'm fried. Next?