Quote:
Originally Posted by
SoundGuyDave 
A couple things about the above...
Perhaps, given your particular situation ("time slice" et al) you might focus on a "basket" within which to put the car at apex, rather than trying to hit the "exact, perfect" apex. Or, perhaps a different way of thinking about the line through a corner: forget about the apex! Normally, I wouldn't ever suggest this to a student, but given your situation, we may need to re-think how to approach getting you where you need to be. Instead of thinking in a linear form of braking point-->turn-in-->apex-->track-out, perhaps you should skip the apex point, and just focus on getting from turn-in to track out smoothly. Yes, this will tend to pull you away from a late-apex line and into a more geometric approach, but at this stage, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Hmm...that's going to be challenging. What you're talking about here is putting my eyes on the exit while somehow steering the car in a nonlinear fashion in order to get it there.
I'm not sure I can do that.
Annndddd that's exactly why I suggested taking more of a geometric approach to cornering. In a way, it's
extremely linear, in that you have one wheel input at turn in, hold that input through the vast majority of the corner, and then have a single wheel motion to get straight at exit. This is the
exact cornering style that you would use with lower-horsepower cars like a Miata or 944, and is
not the recommended line for a higher-horsepower car like a Mustang, however the choice of approach isn't dictated by safety, it's dictated by performance potential. In your specific case, you may profit (advance in comfort and skill level) by sacrificing corner-exit velocity for a higher, more constant mid-corner velocity, as there is no impetus to perform any wheel or throttle movement.
Quote:
I think what makes me wonder about this approach was your comment about needing "continuous adjustments to the steering in order to hit the apex." This is either from an improper turn-in point or input, OR this is how you are mentally processing the change from the tight-radius at turn-in through an increasing-radius from apex to track-out and finally getting to a straight wheel at the exit of the corner.
It's how I process things while driving. Driving for me is a continuous process of looking where I want the car to go and steering the car in order to get it there. If what's involved is anything other than a straight line, then I have to watch the entire process and make the car follow the desired path in question through steering changes. For those parts of the line that involve straight lines, I can spare cycles to do other things. For those parts that don't, I have no cycles to spare. I
must watch what I'm doing, because the steering, brakes, accelerator, etc., don't do anything except at my conscious command.
Now, if the arc I'm taking doesn't require any input changes, then I can spare some cycles. That may wind up helping with this.
Exactly. I think it may well be worth a shot.
Quote:
Ideally, the final output would be a single wheel motion at turn-in to set the tighter radius portion of the corner, followed by a gradual release of steering angle after apex, leading to zero input at the final track-out point. The "continuous adjustments" lead me to think you're over-analyzing or putting too much weight in hitting a specific mark.
I have no idea. But since I have to use the same process in normal driving, I suspect that the only difference here is the speed at which things happen and the greater precision demanded by driving on the track.
You're quite right. Outside of the concept of "the line," which is actually an arc (be it of constant or compound radii), and also a concept which you seem to have readily grasped. It's honestly not any different than street driving in that respect. Ignore the shape of the asphalt, and imagine you're on a highway with lane markers. Superimpose that 10' wide "lane" across the corner in approved race fashion (outside-inside-outside) and just drive in your lane. Accuracy will come as a function of experience. When you first started driving on the highway, I bet you though it was tough to be able to stay in your lane at 55mph. Now, not so much. You're ahead of the car, driving it, instead of letting it drive you. Cornering speeds can be considerably higher
(relative to the corner radius) but the concept remains. With experience, you will again be ahead of the car, rather than reacting to it.
Quote:
IF you were to take a more "holistic" approach, where you set your turn-in and track-out points, and treat the true apex as only another point on that line, with no more "weight" than any other, perhaps that might let you get your eyes up out of the car, since you're looking at exit now (where you should be anyway!) rather than an intermediate point (apex) in the corner. Yes, you still want to HIT the true apex, however that simply becomes a function of consistency in hitting your turn-in point and steering technique.
Maybe. But I've never driven that way before.
I'll try it out on the "driving simulator" (a.k.a. driving game) and see what comes of it. It's going to be
hard to break what amounts to 35 years of driving. The method I use for driving is not an arbitrary thing here -- it's consistent with how I do everything else. I do things this way because I
can't do them any other way. I simply don't seem to have the necessary "subconscious" brainpower required.
Understood. I'm not challenging that assertion in any way, I'm trying to find an approach that will "click" with your thought processes. When taking a bend on the highway, where do you look? Same approach on track. You look where you want the car to go. The above description is of a constant radius arc between turn-in and track-out that just
happens to get pretty near to the geometric apex point of the corner. If you hit your points consistently, it all comes down to how consistent you can be at inputting your steering angle. If you get a little lazy on one lap, you'll be wide of apex. If you get a little "happy," then you'll hit the apex berm. Of course, since it's a constant arc, you can also
see the car drifting away from the desired exit point (that you are presumably looking at) and that will allow you to correct all the way through the corner, either with the wheel (gross error) or with the gas pedal (fine error)
Let me give you an example of how I "work" that might shed some light here. I was taking a self-defense class one day, and was commenting to the instructor about how slowly I react. To test my reaction, the instructor made a move as if he were going to kick my balls (he didn't announce his intentions or anything -- the idea in hindsight was to test my reaction). I didn't react -- at all. That's the first time he'd ever seen anyone not react at all in that way. The reason I didn't react is that I haven't been trained to react, and didn't have any conscious indicators that said I should have reacted.
I'm not kidding when I say I do everything consciously.
All that means to me is that you need programming to execute the tasks required on-track. No "bad habits" to undo, but also no "good habits" to build from. A challenge, certainly, but I'm not quite ready to give up on you and declare that "OSB." (Other Sports Beckon) The primary reason for that is because so far, you have indicated
no tendency towards dangerous behaviour on track, and because neither of the two NASA instructors (presumably) parked you or gave you stern lectures. That tells me that you are at least fundamentally "safe," and pose no serious risk to yourself or others. I
have had students that I had to park. It's no fun going to the Chief Instructor and telling him "Sorry, but this guy is going to kill me, himself, and probably somebody else." I have a pretty high threshold of terror on track, so for me to make that type of statement is pretty unusual. As long as you're not "that guy," or trying to pick up pace before you're ready (run before you can walk), then at least based on your attitude and behaviour here, I think that you still have a good opportunity to have fun with this.
Quote:
Also, another place to start changing mind-set or world-view, or whatever, is to start focusing on throttle-steering rather than using the wheel for minor corrections. If you're pushing wide of your desired point (apex or track-out), a slight reduction in throttle pressure will pull the car towards the inside of the corner without any change in wheel input. If you're a bit tight, a little more throttle will push the car towards the outside of the corner, on the other end of the spectrum.
Will it work this way even when you're well below the limits of the car?
Absolutely. If you want, you can break it down into terms of force vectors. In a constant radius turn, under maintenance throttle, you will go around in a circle. At that point, the scrub/friction of the tires is exactly balanced by throttle input, yielding a net cancellation, leaving only the arc induced by the front wheel steering angle. If, however, you were to add power (effectively accelerating the car), you have created a force vector that is tangent to that circle, effectively widening the radius, or "pushing you outside." On the other hand, if you were to
reduce throttle in that same constant-radius corner, the tire scrub would overcome the balance of the power, lending more authority to the turned front wheels, and the inward force vector defined by the front wheels would cause the car to spiral inward, "pulling you inside." It's the same deal with orbital mechanics. Fire retro-rockets and you drop to a lower orbit. Fire main rockets and you climb to a higher orbit.
So, yes, it does work at any speed. Granted, the higher the G-load (higher velocity in a given radius corner) the more pronounced the effect, but even at normal parking-lot speeds, it does work.
Quote:
Once you get to the point where things are a little more automatic and you're no longer concentrating quite as hard on hitting your marks, you could then start working your existing line later and later, allowing you to get on the gas harder and sooner than you would with a more geometric line. The main thing, though, it to get you to the point where you're eyes are up and out of the car, and you're more aware of what's happening around you. This WILL take time, and WILL NOT happen in an "aha!" moment. It's purely a function of experience and comfort in the environment.
It sounds like it's going to take an enormous amount of time. As in, on the order of 100 sessions on the track or so.
I'm game, but I'd rather first try something that doesn't require undoing 35 years of driving experience to accomplish.
But if I can try these things in the "driving simulator", then that'll relieve a lot of the "burden". I can get a
lot of laps there.
It may take 100 track sessions (that's really only 12 weekends, and I do that
easily in a single season), but I would bet it will come faster. Again, what I'm suggesting is wholly consistent with street driving, just applied in an unorthodox manner. I'm not trying to suggest that this is a sure-fire idea, but it's about the best I can come up with from a perspective of 3000 miles of separation. I think what might be your best approach would be to contact the Chief Instructor and see if you can get a consistent instructor to work with, who is both sympathetic to your needs, and has some understanding of your mental processes. Another option would be to hire a true pro driving coach, if you can't or don't want to rely on a particular NASA instructors availability.
Quote:
When you approach a corner, or start your turn-in, are you able to sort of visualize the arc you're taking (or want to take)?
To a reasonable degree, yes, but I don't know that I can do so with anything like the necessary precision required for this.
I
do seem to have a "sense" of what the line is. I think that's why I picked it up as quickly as I did. While I control everything through conscious thought, there's probably some "background processing" going on that we might be able to use for this...
That's what I was hoping to hear! This is specifically why I suggested not worrying about the fine degree of accuracy right off the bat, but work within a "basket" of "acceptable." Going back to my 10' wide lane analogy from earlier, that leaves you around 3' of wiggle room within your "lane", nearly a half car-width to play with. If you can get your "superimposed lane" to track through the corner on a geometric line, you shouldn't be so focused on precision until you can develop the mental reserve for "additional cycles" while still being aware of what's going on around you. In essence, I'm suggesting on driving a working (but not optimal) line, while being aware of corner stations, other traffic, etc. Once you DO get comfortable on track (freeing up even more "spare cycles") you can start to apply the reserve brainpower to refining and tidying up your line; starting to shave the "slop" from a 10' lane to a 7' lane, and then eventually from a lane to a late-apex line. To do any of that, though, you need to be comfortable, and that simply comes with time.
Quote:
If you can do that, once you can see/feel that the car is on that arc, you can then look ahead knowing that you're going to hit apex as long as you don't change anything.
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to try it.
In normal driving, if your actual curve differs a bit from what it should be, it's no big deal. But on the track, it makes the difference between whether you make the next corner or go off the track. Of course, that's after you get advanced enough to be pushing the car that hard, so it looks to me to be a question of making sure I keep my speeds down enough that I always have sufficient headroom to err in that fashion.
Exactly. Speed, with ANYBODY, comes at the expense of safety margin. With HPDE-1 level students, I try to reign them in if they start to push past 70% or so of their capabilities. Why? Error factor. When a newbie makes a mistake, it's usually VERY large in scope. "Lifting" mid-corner is a good example. At 60-70%, that gets the rear end wiggling and usually sends the student into the locker room for a change of shorts. That obviously demonstrated that they exceeded 100% capability at that moment, indicating a
minimum error factor of 30-40%! Now imagine that exact same error and exact same margin, but with the car at 85% instead. Thats when "Boy Meets Wall." Sorry BMW fans... As any driver becomes more experienced, their techniques improve and error factors shrink, allowing them to push harder while still retaining that safety margin. With people like Sam Strano, Terry Fair, Steve Poe, Ed Hunter, et al, they can probably drive at around 90% all day long, because their "error factor" has shrunk from 30-40% to well under 10%.
The flip side, however, is that with the increased pace the more experienced drivers are able to run, when it
does go pear-shaped, it goes pear-shaped in a
big way. Where a novice might miss apex and wind up on the rumble strips, or even drop a tire or two into the dirt, the same mistake at 90+% will put the car into a tire wall or Aarmco.
If you keep your speeds lower until you have the concepts and execution pretty much down, you CAN do this very safely, since you're retaining a relatively large safety margin. With repetition and refinement, you can also safely start shaving that margin, and as a result, you will go faster. The biggest key is to not get frustrated and impatient. Focus on the long-game, and your eventual goals, whatever they may be. I would strongly suggest NOT focusing on lap times or ratio of passing vs. passed. Focus on safety first, then fun.
Should be a real shitshow 
