| sdecker | 03-05-2004 07:08 AM |
Autox gurus -- can you explain this?
�
�
From Jean Kinser-Dana's site ([url]http://autocross.com/evolution/phase3.shtml[/url]):
[B]Lines- classic flowing "road race" line vs. shortest distance [/B]
I have a decent bit of track day/HPDE experience in my WRX and am a student of most things motorsports. Living next to Road Atlanta affords me the opportunity to drive and watch an awful lot of cool stuff.
However, I'm starting autox this year for the first time ever. While browsing for info on the region's novice school, I came across that line above.
That statement goes counter-intuitive to everything I've ever heard, read, and driven. However, Jean is obviously an excellent driver with championships to prove it -- so I feel like I am missing something!
Can you folks explain to me how the widest possible arc through a corner is not faster than taking the shortest distance? I'm trying to make it work but I guess I'm just pre-programmed to think differently. Shortest distance is obviously the shortest distance, but the speed at which that line can be traversed is supposed to be much slower...isn't it? :confused:
Does this have something to do with the lower speeds and/or slip angles and rotation usually present in autox?
I'm sincerely :confused: here and would like an explanation if possible. I'm not trying to start any kind of holy war or anything -- just trying to gain some knowledge and get serious about autox. If something works in autox that's different than road race, I'd like to know it and apply it.
Thanks in advance!
Scott
[B]Lines- classic flowing "road race" line vs. shortest distance [/B]
I have a decent bit of track day/HPDE experience in my WRX and am a student of most things motorsports. Living next to Road Atlanta affords me the opportunity to drive and watch an awful lot of cool stuff.
However, I'm starting autox this year for the first time ever. While browsing for info on the region's novice school, I came across that line above.
That statement goes counter-intuitive to everything I've ever heard, read, and driven. However, Jean is obviously an excellent driver with championships to prove it -- so I feel like I am missing something!
Can you folks explain to me how the widest possible arc through a corner is not faster than taking the shortest distance? I'm trying to make it work but I guess I'm just pre-programmed to think differently. Shortest distance is obviously the shortest distance, but the speed at which that line can be traversed is supposed to be much slower...isn't it? :confused:
Does this have something to do with the lower speeds and/or slip angles and rotation usually present in autox?
I'm sincerely :confused: here and would like an explanation if possible. I'm not trying to start any kind of holy war or anything -- just trying to gain some knowledge and get serious about autox. If something works in autox that's different than road race, I'd like to know it and apply it.
Thanks in advance!
Scott
| Storm | 03-05-2004 07:46 AM |
From my understanding, turns where this applies are so tight that the maximum speed capable of getting around the turn on the outside is still slower than braking extra hard and cutting all that real-estate out of the equasion.
Autocross courses generally have traits that simply upset any chassis to a higher degree than most roadcourses. Because you have to slow so much anyway just to make it around the turn, any extra distance just adds time regardless.
Using classic lines on a roadcourse to control the car beneath you and not cause (such) abrupt changes in weight transfer proves to be faster overall than keeping tight everywhere. Roadracers prove this every time they trim a tenth by using an extra foot on the exit of that turn.
Evolution makes a very solid effort in proving this by specifically setting up a skidpad in which you are timed negotiating. The keypoint being that there is no time to be made up there....only minimizing time lost. I was fully convinced after comparing times across the day as the theories sunk through the helmet.
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
Autocross courses generally have traits that simply upset any chassis to a higher degree than most roadcourses. Because you have to slow so much anyway just to make it around the turn, any extra distance just adds time regardless.
Using classic lines on a roadcourse to control the car beneath you and not cause (such) abrupt changes in weight transfer proves to be faster overall than keeping tight everywhere. Roadracers prove this every time they trim a tenth by using an extra foot on the exit of that turn.
Evolution makes a very solid effort in proving this by specifically setting up a skidpad in which you are timed negotiating. The keypoint being that there is no time to be made up there....only minimizing time lost. I was fully convinced after comparing times across the day as the theories sunk through the helmet.
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
| KC | 03-05-2004 07:54 AM |
[QUOTE]Can you folks explain to me how the widest possible arc through a corner is not faster than taking the shortest distance? I'm trying to make it work but I guess I'm just pre-programmed to think differently. Shortest distance is obviously the shortest distance, but the speed at which that line can be traversed is supposed to be much slower...isn't it?
Does this have something to do with the lower speeds and/or slip angles and rotation usually present in autox?[/QUOTE]
IMHO, having a road race background, only a little bit of that is going to help you auto-x..... driving the car and braking/balancing the car. The rest about lines you have to have an open mind that the RR curve may not be the fastest. There's a saying... auto-xers make good road racers, but road racers don't make good auto-xers. (It's a 'saying'... not here to debate that.. just say you need to 'free your mind' of what you know about road race.)
What it means is that there are some turns where it's better to be on this inside, doing a point to point run instead of tracking out in a flowing arc becuase you're covering more distance between the cones instead of tracking out and following a smooth curve for speed maintenance. Every course you walk, certain sections just may be 'speed maintenance' and certain ones are 'shortest distance'. EVO school will show you the difference in that regard.. where to spot places on course where it's better to go a little wider on the turn before a long straght or entrance to a slolom, etc.. (hahah long straight.. ya right... but a straight none the less)
I'll caveat that with... taking a certain line also depends on the course, and it's surface and your ability for grip (slip angles etc...).
It'll become clear when you start auto-xing and do your 1st couple course walks. Get walking with some people that have been doing it for years and pay attention. Ask questions about the course itself. Don't go out walking with friends that just want to talk about how many beers they had.. they'll distract you from actually seeing the course. If you do, walk it again alone. It's easier to explain and understand when you have the visuals of cones in front of you and someone who knows what they're talking about as you walk through. :)
Oh yeah... biggest point of all... have fun! It's going to seem like a flurry of action for 60 seconds, but when you get done, your heart should be a pumpin. You're going to be making about 40 -70 steering inputs in those 60 seconds. :)
--kC
Does this have something to do with the lower speeds and/or slip angles and rotation usually present in autox?[/QUOTE]
IMHO, having a road race background, only a little bit of that is going to help you auto-x..... driving the car and braking/balancing the car. The rest about lines you have to have an open mind that the RR curve may not be the fastest. There's a saying... auto-xers make good road racers, but road racers don't make good auto-xers. (It's a 'saying'... not here to debate that.. just say you need to 'free your mind' of what you know about road race.)
What it means is that there are some turns where it's better to be on this inside, doing a point to point run instead of tracking out in a flowing arc becuase you're covering more distance between the cones instead of tracking out and following a smooth curve for speed maintenance. Every course you walk, certain sections just may be 'speed maintenance' and certain ones are 'shortest distance'. EVO school will show you the difference in that regard.. where to spot places on course where it's better to go a little wider on the turn before a long straght or entrance to a slolom, etc.. (hahah long straight.. ya right... but a straight none the less)
I'll caveat that with... taking a certain line also depends on the course, and it's surface and your ability for grip (slip angles etc...).
It'll become clear when you start auto-xing and do your 1st couple course walks. Get walking with some people that have been doing it for years and pay attention. Ask questions about the course itself. Don't go out walking with friends that just want to talk about how many beers they had.. they'll distract you from actually seeing the course. If you do, walk it again alone. It's easier to explain and understand when you have the visuals of cones in front of you and someone who knows what they're talking about as you walk through. :)
Oh yeah... biggest point of all... have fun! It's going to seem like a flurry of action for 60 seconds, but when you get done, your heart should be a pumpin. You're going to be making about 40 -70 steering inputs in those 60 seconds. :)
--kC
| bbimpreza | 03-05-2004 08:13 AM |
I may not be an expert, but I will give it my best shot. Autocross is a much slower speed form of racing, that calls for quicker judgements due to the tighter courses. The classic wide arc road racing line is not always the fastest line in a autocross course due to how wide the cones are set apart or how much distance is between each set of cones. You need to find the shortest and fastest line through the course while maintaining a good rate of speed. Shortest distance does not mean going through the course point-to-point. It means finding the closest line to going point-to-point without suffering major speed loss. I think of it as you need to combine the two forms of lines in order to achieve the quickest line for your car in a particular autocross course. Through flowing sections of a course you can use the traditional road race line, whle combining the shortest distance theory, where you having a flowing line trying to maintain as much speed as you can through the corners while not being to wide. Making sure that you are setup for the following turns and not loosing hundreths of seconds by taking a wide line. When it comes to a turn around, 180, the road race line of wide arc is not always the best choice because you are not traveling at such a high rate of a speed to actually gain an advantage. In a slalom you would need to use the shortest distance form of line while maintaining fluidity, and being smooth. No sudden jerks of the wheel or your car will become upset very easily, causing you to loose control of the car and spin. If you autocross using a road race line where you try to use wide arcs, those wide arcs will cost you precious tenths of seconds, and autocrosses are lost be hundreths or thousandths of seconds. Although you my think you are going faster than everyone else, you are actually going slower. Look at the Pro-Solo Finale in Topeka for example. In order to make it into the challenge rounds you needed to be within .084, I believe, from first. I have sometimes heard people say that, it is funny or interesting to try to watch a person that has grown-up road racing, autocross, than a person who started autocrossing, road race because of the hard times they have negotiating the tight turns using a wide arc flowing line. I hope that I have not confused you more than you were originally. I guess it is sometimes harder to explain than you think it is.
Billy Brooks
Billy Brooks
| ITWRX4ME | 03-05-2004 08:48 AM |
I think you have to ask yourself why, in road racing, is the longer arc desirable? It's usually to allow you to get on the gas as early as possible, as hard as possible, in as straight a line as possible because that gets you to the cars maximum straightaway speed as quickly as possible. All that is so that you can [i]maintain[/i] max speed for as long as possible.
As has been stated, the straights are short in autocross, for the most part. So, the amount of time you spend at top speed is usually brief, sometimes only a split second, before you're lifting/braking for the next turn.
You can decelerate faster than you can accelerate. So, by taking time going deeper into a corner, you spend a 1/10 of a second or more getting farther away from the next corner. Then you have to make up that time by accelerating from that deeper spot. All you might acheive by doing that is hitting the rev-limiter a couple of feet sooner on the straight.
As has been stated, the straights are short in autocross, for the most part. So, the amount of time you spend at top speed is usually brief, sometimes only a split second, before you're lifting/braking for the next turn.
You can decelerate faster than you can accelerate. So, by taking time going deeper into a corner, you spend a 1/10 of a second or more getting farther away from the next corner. Then you have to make up that time by accelerating from that deeper spot. All you might acheive by doing that is hitting the rev-limiter a couple of feet sooner on the straight.
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 09:02 AM |
Jay, KC, Billy, ITWRX4ME -- thank you for the explanations.
Every time I think Nabisco has degenerated into a high school flame-fest, I am renewed by a thread like this.
I am definitely keeping an open mind on this one. Oddly enough, KC, that saying is completely reversed when you're on a road course! "Road racers make good autocrossers, but autocrossers don't make good road racers." I think that was my first clue that there must be some significant differences between the two activities. (Note: again, I'm not trying to start a holy war at all, just repeating what I heard.) It's actually kind of hilarious that both sides say the *exact* opposite. :lol:
That being said, I'm not here to debate that point either. I just want to be as effective as possible, as quickly as possible. If I need to adjust my lines to autox, then fine, I'll adjust my lines.
Getting back to the point -- my question about the lower wheel speeds and tendency for higher car rotation seems to be what you guys are pointing me to.
If I'm hearing you correctly, what you are saying is that the prototypical 'turn-in to apex to track-out' still works as I am used to. The difference is in how you put the segments together, am I correct? Essentially, I want to shorten the distance between the individual corners as much as possible, even though that may compromise the classic road race line. A little less track-out in the interest of hustling to the next corner as quick as possible is the example I am thinking of.
This leads me to believe that tossing the car is much less of an issue in autox and may in fact be desirable at times. If this is true, then I can see why the two driving styles are very different...
So, I'm thinking that a more aggresive, less 'smooth' style may be in order. (EDIT -- no offense intended -- I know you guys are smooth, I just don't know any other way to describe it.) Use standard flowing lines where possible but don't be afraid to compromise the road race line where necessary to make time? I'm thinking that's what you guys are saying. If not, keep trying -- it'll sink through the helmet eventually.
(Oh yeah - I do plan to take pretty much all the Evolution schools over the next 1-2 years and do ALL the autox in my area as well, so I'll be gaining seat time fairly quickly. I'm also going to get my 10 year old into junior karts so we can run a father/son effort.)
Thanks again guys, your input is valued!
Scott
Every time I think Nabisco has degenerated into a high school flame-fest, I am renewed by a thread like this.
I am definitely keeping an open mind on this one. Oddly enough, KC, that saying is completely reversed when you're on a road course! "Road racers make good autocrossers, but autocrossers don't make good road racers." I think that was my first clue that there must be some significant differences between the two activities. (Note: again, I'm not trying to start a holy war at all, just repeating what I heard.) It's actually kind of hilarious that both sides say the *exact* opposite. :lol:
That being said, I'm not here to debate that point either. I just want to be as effective as possible, as quickly as possible. If I need to adjust my lines to autox, then fine, I'll adjust my lines.
Getting back to the point -- my question about the lower wheel speeds and tendency for higher car rotation seems to be what you guys are pointing me to.
If I'm hearing you correctly, what you are saying is that the prototypical 'turn-in to apex to track-out' still works as I am used to. The difference is in how you put the segments together, am I correct? Essentially, I want to shorten the distance between the individual corners as much as possible, even though that may compromise the classic road race line. A little less track-out in the interest of hustling to the next corner as quick as possible is the example I am thinking of.
This leads me to believe that tossing the car is much less of an issue in autox and may in fact be desirable at times. If this is true, then I can see why the two driving styles are very different...
So, I'm thinking that a more aggresive, less 'smooth' style may be in order. (EDIT -- no offense intended -- I know you guys are smooth, I just don't know any other way to describe it.) Use standard flowing lines where possible but don't be afraid to compromise the road race line where necessary to make time? I'm thinking that's what you guys are saying. If not, keep trying -- it'll sink through the helmet eventually.
(Oh yeah - I do plan to take pretty much all the Evolution schools over the next 1-2 years and do ALL the autox in my area as well, so I'll be gaining seat time fairly quickly. I'm also going to get my 10 year old into junior karts so we can run a father/son effort.)
Thanks again guys, your input is valued!
Scott
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 09:13 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ITWRX4ME [/i]
[B]I think you have to ask yourself why, in road racing, is the longer arc desirable? It's usually to allow you to get on the gas as early as possible, as hard as possible, in as straight a line as possible because that gets you to the cars maximum straightaway speed as quickly as possible. All that is so that you can [i]maintain[/i] max speed for as long as possible.
[/B][/QUOTE]
This makes sense.
The thing that is confusing me is that I am looking at an autox course as a sort of miniature road course (which is probably the whole issue).
Here's something you guys may find amusing -- I do my very first autox on 3/14. Guess what the next weekend is? Instructor training and HPDE at Road Atlanta. The mix should produce some interesting results. :lol: :lol:
Scott
[B]I think you have to ask yourself why, in road racing, is the longer arc desirable? It's usually to allow you to get on the gas as early as possible, as hard as possible, in as straight a line as possible because that gets you to the cars maximum straightaway speed as quickly as possible. All that is so that you can [i]maintain[/i] max speed for as long as possible.
[/B][/QUOTE]
This makes sense.
The thing that is confusing me is that I am looking at an autox course as a sort of miniature road course (which is probably the whole issue).
Here's something you guys may find amusing -- I do my very first autox on 3/14. Guess what the next weekend is? Instructor training and HPDE at Road Atlanta. The mix should produce some interesting results. :lol: :lol:
Scott
| KC | 03-05-2004 09:20 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sdecker[/i]
[B] This leads me to believe that tossing the car is much less of an issue in autox and may in fact be desirable at times. If this is true, then I can see why the two driving styles are very different...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yep. :) You're at such less speeds (and less pucker factor of hitting a wall) that tossing the car around 'a bit' could be beneficial to get lined up for the next straight. Just remember smooth driving is still a key portion of auto-x... just quicker inputs. :)
--kC
[B] This leads me to believe that tossing the car is much less of an issue in autox and may in fact be desirable at times. If this is true, then I can see why the two driving styles are very different...
[/B][/QUOTE]
Yep. :) You're at such less speeds (and less pucker factor of hitting a wall) that tossing the car around 'a bit' could be beneficial to get lined up for the next straight. Just remember smooth driving is still a key portion of auto-x... just quicker inputs. :)
--kC
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 09:23 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Yep. :) You're at such less speeds (and less pucker factor of hitting a wall) that tossing the car around 'a bit' could be beneficial to get lined up for the next straight. Just remember smooth driving is still a key portion of auto-x... just quicker inputs. :)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to imply that smoothness was not in the equation! :p
It's more like 'smooth corner technique, toss if necessary to line up, rinse-lather-repeat'...yeah?
[B]Yep. :) You're at such less speeds (and less pucker factor of hitting a wall) that tossing the car around 'a bit' could be beneficial to get lined up for the next straight. Just remember smooth driving is still a key portion of auto-x... just quicker inputs. :)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say. I wasn't trying to imply that smoothness was not in the equation! :p
It's more like 'smooth corner technique, toss if necessary to line up, rinse-lather-repeat'...yeah?
| KC | 03-05-2004 09:45 AM |
Sounds good to me. :)
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 09:48 AM |
Thank you sir, I will attempt it next weekend.
On a totally unrelated note - do you plan to do the Mazda Rev-It-Up again this year, in addition to being a complete Scooby autox badass? Or are you going to leave the scraps to some other people? ;) :lol:
On a totally unrelated note - do you plan to do the Mazda Rev-It-Up again this year, in addition to being a complete Scooby autox badass? Or are you going to leave the scraps to some other people? ;) :lol:
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 09:54 AM |
IMHO its harder to adjust from road racing to autox, then autox to road racing. I had no problems or qualms going on track with my car after a year of autoxing it. After one lap, it was hard to drive well at the first couple of autoxes as I was trying to take the road race line. I had to adjust back to autox mentality. I actually had people that were watching my runs mention it to me.
It would be even harder after years of road racing :)
A good example of time gained by shorter distance vs. higher speed was last year at the Pro Finale. KC picked up about 0.500 per side by taking a tight slow line through the major turnaround. Bastard. It was nice of you to <adam sandler yell>NOT TO MENTION THAT LITTLE SECRET TO ME</adam sandler yell> :lol: :lol: :lol:
-Tom
It would be even harder after years of road racing :)
A good example of time gained by shorter distance vs. higher speed was last year at the Pro Finale. KC picked up about 0.500 per side by taking a tight slow line through the major turnaround. Bastard. It was nice of you to <adam sandler yell>NOT TO MENTION THAT LITTLE SECRET TO ME</adam sandler yell> :lol: :lol: :lol:
-Tom
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 10:01 AM |
^^^
:lol: :lol:
Tom, would you care to comment on
[QUOTE]It's more like 'smooth corner technique, toss if necessary to line up, rinse-lather-repeat'...yeah?[/QUOTE]
Thanks!
Scott
:lol: :lol:
Tom, would you care to comment on
[QUOTE]It's more like 'smooth corner technique, toss if necessary to line up, rinse-lather-repeat'...yeah?[/QUOTE]
Thanks!
Scott
| ITWRX4ME | 03-05-2004 10:11 AM |
Yeah, the smooth factor is still there.
BTW, I don't want to mislead you. I'm speaking purely from a theoretical stand point. I haven't autocrossed in several years and when I did, I completely sucked. I know you asked for autocross gurus but I still felt compelled to chime in. :D
This discussion got me to thinking of an exchange I had with an instructor at VIR. Actually I just listened, but in the back of my mind I was disagreeing.
At turn 4, I tried trail braking into the corner, taking an early apex and letting the car rotate. He told me that I was scrubbing off speed by doing that. Instead, he wanted me to stay wide and take a late apex. ([url=http://www.virclub.com/track_info/track_layout.html]Track map[/url])
This (4) is a 90° left followed by a short (100') straight followed by a right hander(5) leading to a 300' straight. My thinking was to maintain my speed going into turn 4 as long as possible, because the setup to turn 5 and the straight beyond it dictates a late apex. I didn't see any advantage to lengthening my acceleration zone from 4 to 5 because turn 5 could only be taken so fast.
I was able to place the car at the same spot, at the same speed, for the entry to turn 5, regardless of whether I trail braked turn 4 or took the 'smoother' late apex. I would have loved to know the difference in time between the two turn in points at 4 and the turn in point at 5.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this section of the track is similiar in nature to what we're talking about. The difference in technique will translate to X amount of time to cover ground from point A to point B. Whatever makes X shorter is what's most important.
BTW, I don't want to mislead you. I'm speaking purely from a theoretical stand point. I haven't autocrossed in several years and when I did, I completely sucked. I know you asked for autocross gurus but I still felt compelled to chime in. :D
This discussion got me to thinking of an exchange I had with an instructor at VIR. Actually I just listened, but in the back of my mind I was disagreeing.
At turn 4, I tried trail braking into the corner, taking an early apex and letting the car rotate. He told me that I was scrubbing off speed by doing that. Instead, he wanted me to stay wide and take a late apex. ([url=http://www.virclub.com/track_info/track_layout.html]Track map[/url])
This (4) is a 90° left followed by a short (100') straight followed by a right hander(5) leading to a 300' straight. My thinking was to maintain my speed going into turn 4 as long as possible, because the setup to turn 5 and the straight beyond it dictates a late apex. I didn't see any advantage to lengthening my acceleration zone from 4 to 5 because turn 5 could only be taken so fast.
I was able to place the car at the same spot, at the same speed, for the entry to turn 5, regardless of whether I trail braked turn 4 or took the 'smoother' late apex. I would have loved to know the difference in time between the two turn in points at 4 and the turn in point at 5.
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that this section of the track is similiar in nature to what we're talking about. The difference in technique will translate to X amount of time to cover ground from point A to point B. Whatever makes X shorter is what's most important.
| dwx | 03-05-2004 10:12 AM |
While I've found myself tossing the car into a corner that usually isn't the fastest way. There are some really good videos out there that they show at our novice school in Milwaukee that illustrate how the shortest path may be faster using a car taking 3-4 lines around a specific corner. 180s are especially true. You just want to get around the 180 in a tight line, if you try early/late apexing it generally you just scrub off time. I'll see if I can find them or get ahold of them. Like everyone else has said the speeds are slower and turns are much much closer together in autox than on a road course. Don't think there aren't going to be opportunities to use longer flowing lines where you can get on the gas earlier, because there will be. It just won't be like a road course and many times a course designer will constrict how wide you can go by putting cones in your way. You'll run into parts that are just plain slow and may be a few slow things right after eachother, in my mind you just want to get through that using the shortest line possible.
Peter Cunningham started off autocrossing in our region, he's done pretty well with that whole road racing thing. ;)
Peter Cunningham started off autocrossing in our region, he's done pretty well with that whole road racing thing. ;)
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 10:19 AM |
[QUOTE]Don't think there aren't going to be opportunities to use longer flowing lines where you can get on the gas earlier, because there will be. It just won't be like a road course and many times a course designer will constrict how wide you can go by putting cones in your way. You'll run into parts that are just plain slow and may be a few slow things right after eachother, in my mind you just want to get through that using the shortest line possible. [/QUOTE]
OK, that explains it. I finally understand. It all came clear with this statement:
[QUOTE]and many times a course designer will constrict how wide you can go by putting cones in your way.[/QUOTE]
I'm just a little slow on the draw, guys. :o
And yes, Peter Cunningham is quite the road racer...I've seen him dicing it up with Turner/Galati/Pobst quite a few times. Met him in the paddock at Road Atlanta as well. Nice guy!
OK, that explains it. I finally understand. It all came clear with this statement:
[QUOTE]and many times a course designer will constrict how wide you can go by putting cones in your way.[/QUOTE]
I'm just a little slow on the draw, guys. :o
And yes, Peter Cunningham is quite the road racer...I've seen him dicing it up with Turner/Galati/Pobst quite a few times. Met him in the paddock at Road Atlanta as well. Nice guy!
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 10:22 AM |
I think that most of the time its important to be smooth in the car. Like KC said, smooth but quick. Not jerky. The way I have my STX car setup is that I try to be smooth all the time. Off throttle, on turn in, the car is super responsive, you will have no issues turning in smoothly, you would never *need* to toss the car to make it loose.
That being said, in DS, I think tossing is necessary. Rice shultz described my DS method of driving as "pitch and catch". You just have to figure out which turns you can be smooth on and be smooth on those, as smooth is fast, but on some turns you will need to toss the car to get it to turn in.
-Tom
That being said, in DS, I think tossing is necessary. Rice shultz described my DS method of driving as "pitch and catch". You just have to figure out which turns you can be smooth on and be smooth on those, as smooth is fast, but on some turns you will need to toss the car to get it to turn in.
-Tom
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 10:29 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ITWRX4ME [/i]
[B]BTW, I don't want to mislead you. I'm speaking purely from a theoretical stand point. I haven't autocrossed in several years and when I did, I completely sucked. [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha, I don't want to mislead you guys either. I am not a real road racer like Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Felstead, etc. I'm just a motorsports junkie who actualizes some of his fantasies in track days/HPDE stuff. :D
I can't afford to travel and truly road race, not to mention the WRX doesn't class well for road racing either. However, I'm decent enough to want to compete a little bit. Autox looks like just the ticket for me. If I can be regionally competitive, then hey -- that'll work.
Thanks for all the input, guys. For a laugh, I'll update the thread after next weekend's runs. :D
Scott
[B]BTW, I don't want to mislead you. I'm speaking purely from a theoretical stand point. I haven't autocrossed in several years and when I did, I completely sucked. [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha, I don't want to mislead you guys either. I am not a real road racer like Mr. Sheehan, Mr. Felstead, etc. I'm just a motorsports junkie who actualizes some of his fantasies in track days/HPDE stuff. :D
I can't afford to travel and truly road race, not to mention the WRX doesn't class well for road racing either. However, I'm decent enough to want to compete a little bit. Autox looks like just the ticket for me. If I can be regionally competitive, then hey -- that'll work.
Thanks for all the input, guys. For a laugh, I'll update the thread after next weekend's runs. :D
Scott
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 10:30 AM |
[quote]Don't think there aren't going to be opportunities to use longer flowing lines where you can get on the gas earlier, because there will be[/quote]
To confuse you more. I'm starting my 3rd year of autox this year. In my first 2 years, I've seen like 2 courses were in 1 turnaround the faster speed worked over shortest line.
ITWRX4ME - At VIR, at that turn, yes you will want to take the late apex. The smidgen more of ground that you cover will be made up by the fact that you were smooth and you were going a LOT faster.
-Tom
To confuse you more. I'm starting my 3rd year of autox this year. In my first 2 years, I've seen like 2 courses were in 1 turnaround the faster speed worked over shortest line.
ITWRX4ME - At VIR, at that turn, yes you will want to take the late apex. The smidgen more of ground that you cover will be made up by the fact that you were smooth and you were going a LOT faster.
-Tom
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 10:32 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]That being said, in DS, I think tossing is necessary. Rice shultz described my DS method of driving as "pitch and catch". You just have to figure out which turns you can be smooth on and be smooth on those, as smooth is fast, but on some turns you will need to toss the car to get it to turn in.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was thinking.
Nabisco is an invaluable source of information, as long as you know how to ask the questions. ;)
I appreciate it!
[B]That being said, in DS, I think tossing is necessary. Rice shultz described my DS method of driving as "pitch and catch". You just have to figure out which turns you can be smooth on and be smooth on those, as smooth is fast, but on some turns you will need to toss the car to get it to turn in.
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Exactly what I was thinking.
Nabisco is an invaluable source of information, as long as you know how to ask the questions. ;)
I appreciate it!
| Templar | 03-05-2004 10:36 AM |
Sometimes my faith gets restored. Of course the tools don't usually post in the motorsports forum.
I don't even begin to claim the skills of Tom or KC so take what I say for what it is.
Autocross is so much of a compromise between the fast corner or tight corner conundrum, and a huge part of it depends upon how fast you and your car can take the corner. With the microscopic lots that our local club has to deal with, we generally have at least one or two 180 degree turnarounds on each course. The main thing that I find myself looking at on these extreme corners is what comes before and what comes after. I do find myself taking the tightest line I can (without crawling) most of the time, but on occasion, there will be those that it is still better to take the wider faster line. There are a lot of factors to look at...does the corner come off of a long straight, does it lead to a long straight, does it go right back into another corner, is it off camber, and several others.
Sometimes you have to try different lines to see. Last year at the Highlands night series there was a huge debate over the best way to take one particular turnaround. Several people were following the shortest distance theory. But the corner was at the end of a long straight, and the beginning of another reasonable straight. Plus it was a slightly banked corner. Deadbolt and I took it a different path than everyone else at the events and we were the two fastest cars (not including Karts) at the first two events. After that many other cars starting following our line and their times got better.
I just don't think you can say "take all the slow corners on the tight line" or "take all the fast corners with the wider arcing line".
You just have to look at the settup and exit to each corner.
My $0.02 and some change.
I don't even begin to claim the skills of Tom or KC so take what I say for what it is.
Autocross is so much of a compromise between the fast corner or tight corner conundrum, and a huge part of it depends upon how fast you and your car can take the corner. With the microscopic lots that our local club has to deal with, we generally have at least one or two 180 degree turnarounds on each course. The main thing that I find myself looking at on these extreme corners is what comes before and what comes after. I do find myself taking the tightest line I can (without crawling) most of the time, but on occasion, there will be those that it is still better to take the wider faster line. There are a lot of factors to look at...does the corner come off of a long straight, does it lead to a long straight, does it go right back into another corner, is it off camber, and several others.
Sometimes you have to try different lines to see. Last year at the Highlands night series there was a huge debate over the best way to take one particular turnaround. Several people were following the shortest distance theory. But the corner was at the end of a long straight, and the beginning of another reasonable straight. Plus it was a slightly banked corner. Deadbolt and I took it a different path than everyone else at the events and we were the two fastest cars (not including Karts) at the first two events. After that many other cars starting following our line and their times got better.
I just don't think you can say "take all the slow corners on the tight line" or "take all the fast corners with the wider arcing line".
You just have to look at the settup and exit to each corner.
My $0.02 and some change.
| KC | 03-05-2004 10:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe[/i]
[B] A good example of time gained by shorter distance vs. higher speed was last year at the Pro Finale. KC picked up about 0.500 per side by taking a tight slow line through the major turnaround. Bastard. It was nice of you to <adam sandler yell>NOT TO MENTION THAT LITTLE SECRET TO ME</adam sandler yell> :lol: :lol: :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Whadda ya mean? Didn't we walk with Nate and I was in the inside and everyone was all like [Adam Sandler whining]You don't want to be there.[/Adam Sandler whining]. Guess where I was? :p
Smooth = quick.
Oh.. and if you left foot brake? Have fun getting used to the vaccuum issues with off boost braking and it's equal loss of braking force. ;)
--kC
[B] A good example of time gained by shorter distance vs. higher speed was last year at the Pro Finale. KC picked up about 0.500 per side by taking a tight slow line through the major turnaround. Bastard. It was nice of you to <adam sandler yell>NOT TO MENTION THAT LITTLE SECRET TO ME</adam sandler yell> :lol: :lol: :lol:
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Whadda ya mean? Didn't we walk with Nate and I was in the inside and everyone was all like [Adam Sandler whining]You don't want to be there.[/Adam Sandler whining]. Guess where I was? :p
Smooth = quick.
Oh.. and if you left foot brake? Have fun getting used to the vaccuum issues with off boost braking and it's equal loss of braking force. ;)
--kC
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 10:37 AM |
This kind of goes in line with taking out rear camber to make a car rotate. I would have NEVER thought to take OUT grip to make a car rotate. I always though, lets get MORE grip in the front. Well, a car with less grip that turns will be faster then a car that doesn't turn that has more grip :)
Even though you might be slower on turn in and scrub off some speed vs. being smooth, tossing the DS car into some turns will allow you to stomp (smoothly of course) on the gas pedal EARLY and get out of the turn faster and hold the speed through the next section (if applicable)
-Tom
Even though you might be slower on turn in and scrub off some speed vs. being smooth, tossing the DS car into some turns will allow you to stomp (smoothly of course) on the gas pedal EARLY and get out of the turn faster and hold the speed through the next section (if applicable)
-Tom
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 10:39 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] Whadda ya mean? Didn't we walk with Nate and I was in the inside and everyone was all like [Adam Sandler whining]You don't want to be there.[/Adam Sandler whining]. Guess where I was? :p
-kC [/B][/QUOTE]
No you bastage :lol: We were walking the course and we all said "we want to be a little out, but not too far out, somewhere along the middle" :furious:
-Tom
edit: KC - respond to your email
[B] Whadda ya mean? Didn't we walk with Nate and I was in the inside and everyone was all like [Adam Sandler whining]You don't want to be there.[/Adam Sandler whining]. Guess where I was? :p
-kC [/B][/QUOTE]
No you bastage :lol: We were walking the course and we all said "we want to be a little out, but not too far out, somewhere along the middle" :furious:
-Tom
edit: KC - respond to your email
| jmott | 03-05-2004 10:44 AM |
Certainly any time you can take the shortest distance and still have the throttle mashed at WOT the whole way through the turn, take the shortest distance.
and certainly any time that having a higher exit speed out of a turn is useless because of an upcoming slow speed manuever, take the shortest distance instead (this is very common in autocross)
In road racing most manuevers are followed by reasonable straighaways, in autocross, few are.
and certainly any time that having a higher exit speed out of a turn is useless because of an upcoming slow speed manuever, take the shortest distance instead (this is very common in autocross)
In road racing most manuevers are followed by reasonable straighaways, in autocross, few are.
| KC | 03-05-2004 10:44 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Templar[/i]
[B]I don't even begin to claim the skills of Tom or KC so take what I say for what it is. [/B][/QUOTE]
You guys flatter me too much. Really. I got this way delivering Pizza before I even heard of auto-x. :D I just go out there and do. There's a large mental aspect of this game. Part of it requires not overthinking things... becuase on the course, your reflexes are going to count more than planning. On a road course you have upteen seconds to think of the next turn, and setting up for it... in auto-x? A second if you're lucky?
You need to have a 'plan of attack' on the course before you even get strapped in. Then after you're strapped in, you think about the course some more and find the key parts of the course in your mind that 'if you did wrong, you're gonna lose a LOT of time' and then work backwards from there.
But don't over think it. Just work on what cones you NEED to find to make those sections quicker. By getting rid of all the extra cones in your mind, the course opens up a quite a bit.
For example: A slalom is a slalom. You need to think about entering it and exiting it. The middle is just extra noise.
There's other things... but after a while and doing many courses, certain elements from course to course get repeated and you just get used to knowing... walking the course... I need to do that there... but in order for me to get my car there, I need to be HERE... and work backwards. ;)
--kC
[B]I don't even begin to claim the skills of Tom or KC so take what I say for what it is. [/B][/QUOTE]
You guys flatter me too much. Really. I got this way delivering Pizza before I even heard of auto-x. :D I just go out there and do. There's a large mental aspect of this game. Part of it requires not overthinking things... becuase on the course, your reflexes are going to count more than planning. On a road course you have upteen seconds to think of the next turn, and setting up for it... in auto-x? A second if you're lucky?
You need to have a 'plan of attack' on the course before you even get strapped in. Then after you're strapped in, you think about the course some more and find the key parts of the course in your mind that 'if you did wrong, you're gonna lose a LOT of time' and then work backwards from there.
But don't over think it. Just work on what cones you NEED to find to make those sections quicker. By getting rid of all the extra cones in your mind, the course opens up a quite a bit.
For example: A slalom is a slalom. You need to think about entering it and exiting it. The middle is just extra noise.
There's other things... but after a while and doing many courses, certain elements from course to course get repeated and you just get used to knowing... walking the course... I need to do that there... but in order for me to get my car there, I need to be HERE... and work backwards. ;)
--kC
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 11:11 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]Oh.. and if you left foot brake? Have fun getting used to the vaccuum issues with off boost braking and it's equal loss of braking force. ;)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Ackkk -- I have so much to learn. I feel like I'm starting all over, actually. :(
[B]Oh.. and if you left foot brake? Have fun getting used to the vaccuum issues with off boost braking and it's equal loss of braking force. ;)
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Ackkk -- I have so much to learn. I feel like I'm starting all over, actually. :(
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 11:15 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by jmott [/i]
[B]Certainly any time you can take the shortest distance and still have the throttle mashed at WOT the whole way through the turn, take the shortest distance.
and certainly any time that having a higher exit speed out of a turn is useless because of an upcoming slow speed manuever, take the shortest distance instead (this is very common in autocross)
In road racing most manuevers are followed by reasonable straighaways, in autocross, few are. [/B][/QUOTE]
Right -- same thing ITWRX4ME was saying. Very cool. I actually *GET IT* now. :disco:
[B]Certainly any time you can take the shortest distance and still have the throttle mashed at WOT the whole way through the turn, take the shortest distance.
and certainly any time that having a higher exit speed out of a turn is useless because of an upcoming slow speed manuever, take the shortest distance instead (this is very common in autocross)
In road racing most manuevers are followed by reasonable straighaways, in autocross, few are. [/B][/QUOTE]
Right -- same thing ITWRX4ME was saying. Very cool. I actually *GET IT* now. :disco:
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 11:25 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] You guys flatter me too much. Really. I got this way delivering Pizza before I even heard of auto-x. :D
[/B][/QUOTE]
Man, I wish our pizza guy was that quick down here. :D
I think the hard part of doing this subaru thing is driving a car that doesn't have the telepathic turn-in of my SP car. All this talk of tossin' the car really only applies to the stock suspension (I'd imagine since that is my frame of reference so far). Subarus seem to have a severe corner-entry understeer that is VERY speed sensitive.
[quote]
For example: A slalom is a slalom. You need to think about entering it and exiting it. The middle is just extra noise.
[/quote]
Entering and exiting yes... and linking them togther with the other parts. Any particular autox manuever on its own os VERY straight forward, its how they are put together to create a course that adds complexity. This is what tends to remove your classic RR line as well. A road course is very much about average speeds. You come out of a corner 4 MPH faster your going to carry that extra 4mph down a long straight. So you're making up the extra distance you may have traveled in the turn down the straight. Autox... no such straight exists You can't "make up" that time/distance.
-Matt
[B] You guys flatter me too much. Really. I got this way delivering Pizza before I even heard of auto-x. :D
[/B][/QUOTE]
Man, I wish our pizza guy was that quick down here. :D
I think the hard part of doing this subaru thing is driving a car that doesn't have the telepathic turn-in of my SP car. All this talk of tossin' the car really only applies to the stock suspension (I'd imagine since that is my frame of reference so far). Subarus seem to have a severe corner-entry understeer that is VERY speed sensitive.
[quote]
For example: A slalom is a slalom. You need to think about entering it and exiting it. The middle is just extra noise.
[/quote]
Entering and exiting yes... and linking them togther with the other parts. Any particular autox manuever on its own os VERY straight forward, its how they are put together to create a course that adds complexity. This is what tends to remove your classic RR line as well. A road course is very much about average speeds. You come out of a corner 4 MPH faster your going to carry that extra 4mph down a long straight. So you're making up the extra distance you may have traveled in the turn down the straight. Autox... no such straight exists You can't "make up" that time/distance.
-Matt
| kwh29 | 03-05-2004 11:36 AM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Watkinsm3[/i]
[B]
I think the hard part of doing this subaru thing is driving a car that doesn't have the telepathic turn-in of my SP car. All this talk of tossin' the car really only applies to the stock suspension (I'd imagine since that is my frame of reference so far). Subarus seem to have a severe corner-entry understeer that is VERY speed sensitive.
-Matt [/B][/QUOTE]
If you're getting severe corner entry understeer, slow down a bit earlier! I like to think of our cars as sort of like Porsche 911's in reverse. You have to give up a bit on entry because so much of the weight is concentrated on the front wheels. If the car is entering a corner and is hard on the brakes at the same time the front tires will be saturated. Braking hard but earlier lets you transfer weight back to the rear on corner entry and keep the fronts from getting saturated.
Now in practice I never think about these things on course because it would just overwhelm with info. I'm still amazed by how much aggression the Subaru chassis can take and still stay in control. Remember though that aggression != harshness. Aggression done right is smooth. It's very very hard to do right.
--Kevin H.
[B]
I think the hard part of doing this subaru thing is driving a car that doesn't have the telepathic turn-in of my SP car. All this talk of tossin' the car really only applies to the stock suspension (I'd imagine since that is my frame of reference so far). Subarus seem to have a severe corner-entry understeer that is VERY speed sensitive.
-Matt [/B][/QUOTE]
If you're getting severe corner entry understeer, slow down a bit earlier! I like to think of our cars as sort of like Porsche 911's in reverse. You have to give up a bit on entry because so much of the weight is concentrated on the front wheels. If the car is entering a corner and is hard on the brakes at the same time the front tires will be saturated. Braking hard but earlier lets you transfer weight back to the rear on corner entry and keep the fronts from getting saturated.
Now in practice I never think about these things on course because it would just overwhelm with info. I'm still amazed by how much aggression the Subaru chassis can take and still stay in control. Remember though that aggression != harshness. Aggression done right is smooth. It's very very hard to do right.
--Kevin H.
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 11:53 AM |
By the way, my references to 'tossing' and 'smooth' are only my words. I don't want everybody to get hung up on those words, it's just that I don't have the right autox vocabulary yet. To my limited frame of reference, a sharp steering manuever resulting in a large amount of rotation is 'tossing'. That is also usually accompanied by a significant loss of traction on one or more wheels...
I hope I'm making sense. I just don't want to shut the conversation down 'cause I'm stepping on anybody's toes. I'm learning too much. :D
I hope I'm making sense. I just don't want to shut the conversation down 'cause I'm stepping on anybody's toes. I'm learning too much. :D
| kwh29 | 03-05-2004 12:13 PM |
No toes stepped here, I just thought my point was worth making because I hear so many people complaining about understeer in WRX's. It's easy to drive around if it's understood. Everyone, please continue this awesome thread!
--Kevin H.
--Kevin H.
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 12:13 PM |
sdecker
No toe stepping here at all. Those are same words I use. Tossing a car is more of a tool for dealing with the limitations and compromises of stock car.
kwh29
I understand the concept of over cooking corner entry, what I was trying to point out is that this happens at a slower speed than I was expecting. Especially compared to my SP integra (a front heavy FWD car). The subaru is much more sensitive to the slow-in fast-out methodology.
-Matt
No toe stepping here at all. Those are same words I use. Tossing a car is more of a tool for dealing with the limitations and compromises of stock car.
kwh29
I understand the concept of over cooking corner entry, what I was trying to point out is that this happens at a slower speed than I was expecting. Especially compared to my SP integra (a front heavy FWD car). The subaru is much more sensitive to the slow-in fast-out methodology.
-Matt
| GarySheehan | 03-05-2004 01:01 PM |
I'm going to jump in and give my two cents. I've got lots of track experience and a tiny bit of autox experience. So at least I'm not completely talking out my a$$.
I've seen some people flirt with this idea, but not come out and say it. I think it all comes down to whether the corner is steady-state or transitional. If the car actually takes a set for for a short amount of time with no roll change it's a steady state corner and a traditional racing line to maximize speed during the steady-state will pay off. In purely transitional corners the car is always in a roll or pitch change. For this type of corner, reduce the duration of roll change so that you are on the brakes or on the gas for the most amount of time (i.e.-shortest distance).
Just about everything on a road course is steady state. Even hairpins, but hairpins are getting closer to being more transitional, which is why you will see so many different lines in a hairpin, but in long sweeping steady-state corners nearly everyone drives the same line.
Just about everything in autox is transitional. There are a few longer corners where the car is steady and a traditional racing line will probably have it's advantages.
I think the slow speed of autox is much less of a factor than the tight corners. Roadracers use the shortest distance method at both low and high speeds in different chicanes. The objective is to minimize the time the car spends in transition.
At least that's what I think the reasoning is.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I've seen some people flirt with this idea, but not come out and say it. I think it all comes down to whether the corner is steady-state or transitional. If the car actually takes a set for for a short amount of time with no roll change it's a steady state corner and a traditional racing line to maximize speed during the steady-state will pay off. In purely transitional corners the car is always in a roll or pitch change. For this type of corner, reduce the duration of roll change so that you are on the brakes or on the gas for the most amount of time (i.e.-shortest distance).
Just about everything on a road course is steady state. Even hairpins, but hairpins are getting closer to being more transitional, which is why you will see so many different lines in a hairpin, but in long sweeping steady-state corners nearly everyone drives the same line.
Just about everything in autox is transitional. There are a few longer corners where the car is steady and a traditional racing line will probably have it's advantages.
I think the slow speed of autox is much less of a factor than the tight corners. Roadracers use the shortest distance method at both low and high speeds in different chicanes. The objective is to minimize the time the car spends in transition.
At least that's what I think the reasoning is.
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| KC | 03-05-2004 01:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Watkinsm3[/i]
[B] The subaru is much more sensitive to the slow-in fast-out methodology.[/B][/QUOTE] Care to elaborate? I don't think that basic element of auto-x has been discussed yet. :)
You have the floor Matt. :)
--kC
[B] The subaru is much more sensitive to the slow-in fast-out methodology.[/B][/QUOTE] Care to elaborate? I don't think that basic element of auto-x has been discussed yet. :)
You have the floor Matt. :)
--kC
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 01:35 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC[/i]
[B] Care to elaborate? I don't think that basic element of auto-x has been discussed yet. :)
You have the floor Matt. :)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks... nothing a little pressure of the spotlight... :)
We've all heard the sayings before "go slow to go fast", "slow in fast out" and I'm sure there was another but I can't remember it now. Basicly its the simplest idea to understand. The premise, in layman's terms, Don't over drive into the corner so you can take the best line, carry speed, and optimise corner exit (both position and speed). its more of don't go too fast than go slow...
As some of you may know (to everyone else here I'm just a suby-n00b) I campaigned a street-prepared Integra to Topeka the past two years. At risk of being called a sellout to the Honda crowd I retired the Integra in favour of an A-Stock STi.
Soo... Obviously the VERY first thing to do is comprare the two cars performance and begin thinking on how to make the STi as fast I can under stock rules. Overall, right out of the box the Subaru has incredible performance over my SP integra... except for turn in. The Integra was a VERY predictable and generous car. It was simple... mash the gas to a turn. wait till just after where you think you should brake. Settle the car as your rolling of the brakes and back on the throttle (modulated) you whip the wheel (smoothly of course... but really fast). Tires bite. your brains try and rush out your ear. It was a turn-in god... A little too hot... the car forgave you and it was back on course. It took and act of god to really wash out the front end.
The Subaru in contrast does everything better (especially coming off a corner, oh god is that sweet) its just tough to get the nose tucked. A little too hot and the car punishes you for it. Its stylisticly a different car to drive at the edge. So with subaru... go slow to go fast... it should be its montra.
did i just write all that?... you axed fo it KC...
-Matt, the suby-n00b
[B] Care to elaborate? I don't think that basic element of auto-x has been discussed yet. :)
You have the floor Matt. :)
[/B][/QUOTE]
Thanks... nothing a little pressure of the spotlight... :)
We've all heard the sayings before "go slow to go fast", "slow in fast out" and I'm sure there was another but I can't remember it now. Basicly its the simplest idea to understand. The premise, in layman's terms, Don't over drive into the corner so you can take the best line, carry speed, and optimise corner exit (both position and speed). its more of don't go too fast than go slow...
As some of you may know (to everyone else here I'm just a suby-n00b) I campaigned a street-prepared Integra to Topeka the past two years. At risk of being called a sellout to the Honda crowd I retired the Integra in favour of an A-Stock STi.
Soo... Obviously the VERY first thing to do is comprare the two cars performance and begin thinking on how to make the STi as fast I can under stock rules. Overall, right out of the box the Subaru has incredible performance over my SP integra... except for turn in. The Integra was a VERY predictable and generous car. It was simple... mash the gas to a turn. wait till just after where you think you should brake. Settle the car as your rolling of the brakes and back on the throttle (modulated) you whip the wheel (smoothly of course... but really fast). Tires bite. your brains try and rush out your ear. It was a turn-in god... A little too hot... the car forgave you and it was back on course. It took and act of god to really wash out the front end.
The Subaru in contrast does everything better (especially coming off a corner, oh god is that sweet) its just tough to get the nose tucked. A little too hot and the car punishes you for it. Its stylisticly a different car to drive at the edge. So with subaru... go slow to go fast... it should be its montra.
did i just write all that?... you axed fo it KC...
-Matt, the suby-n00b
| PaulC | 03-05-2004 02:28 PM |
What KC said about keeping things simple and not overthinking the course really struck a chord with me.
In my experience, the combination of limited runs and the tighter nature of autocross courses usually indicates that it is far easier to LOSE time than GAIN time.
So, with that in mind I've developed a method of looking at courses that categorizes segments as "opening" or "closing".
In an "opening" section I don't really worry too much about things. I tend to take more classic lines through these parts and usually I'm at or close to WOT the whole time.
What usually defines a "closing" section for me is either a heavy braking zone or a tricky corner that requires extra forethought.
In those sections I tend to me much more conservative and strive to be more precise and aware. These are the sections where it is really, really easy to throw away a few tenths from a simple mistake.
Obviously there's more to that when you really get down to it, but it's a good start for your first run to picture the course this way, and will help you keep your bearings.
Sorry that had very little to do with RR vs point-to-point lines. :D
In my experience, the combination of limited runs and the tighter nature of autocross courses usually indicates that it is far easier to LOSE time than GAIN time.
So, with that in mind I've developed a method of looking at courses that categorizes segments as "opening" or "closing".
In an "opening" section I don't really worry too much about things. I tend to take more classic lines through these parts and usually I'm at or close to WOT the whole time.
What usually defines a "closing" section for me is either a heavy braking zone or a tricky corner that requires extra forethought.
In those sections I tend to me much more conservative and strive to be more precise and aware. These are the sections where it is really, really easy to throw away a few tenths from a simple mistake.
Obviously there's more to that when you really get down to it, but it's a good start for your first run to picture the course this way, and will help you keep your bearings.
Sorry that had very little to do with RR vs point-to-point lines. :D
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 02:32 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PaulC[/i]
[B]
In my experience, the combination of limited runs and the tighter nature of autocross courses usually indicates that it is far easier to LOSE time than GAIN time.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I tend to think, and have heard this before, that you can't gain time or make up time... its only possible to lose time.
[B]
In my experience, the combination of limited runs and the tighter nature of autocross courses usually indicates that it is far easier to LOSE time than GAIN time.
[/B][/QUOTE]
I tend to think, and have heard this before, that you can't gain time or make up time... its only possible to lose time.
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 02:40 PM |
A trick that I use is one that I look for straights. I try to line myself up in sections and look far ahead. A straight is anything where I can keep the gas to the floor and just steer. Then I can do like KC said and go "to make this next section a straight I would have to be HERE, what do I do in the section beforehand to get myself HERE so that I can just straightline the next section"
-Tom
-Tom
| KC | 03-05-2004 02:43 PM |
"You want to be on the course for the shortest amount time possible."
Seems like it's pretty obvious, but when you're losing time being 5 feet or 10 feet off the line, then you're not out there for the shortest amount of time. ;)
--KC
Seems like it's pretty obvious, but when you're losing time being 5 feet or 10 feet off the line, then you're not out there for the shortest amount of time. ;)
--KC
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 02:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by PaulC [/i]
[B]What KC said about keeping things simple and not overthinking the course really struck a chord with me.
Sorry that had very little to do with RR vs point-to-point lines. :D [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you and KC on not over thinking it. I will admit I do have a tendency to examine things very closely, but not to the point of over thinking, usually...hehe!
I'm just one of those engineering types that can do better at a lot of things if I understand the way they work first. Hence my original question about the differences in lines...now I'll go to my first autox armed with more knowledge than the 'typical' rookie. Knowledge is power, and we have a fountain of it here. Hope you guys don't mind if I drink from it every now and again. ;)
Scott
[B]What KC said about keeping things simple and not overthinking the course really struck a chord with me.
Sorry that had very little to do with RR vs point-to-point lines. :D [/B][/QUOTE]
I agree with you and KC on not over thinking it. I will admit I do have a tendency to examine things very closely, but not to the point of over thinking, usually...hehe!
I'm just one of those engineering types that can do better at a lot of things if I understand the way they work first. Hence my original question about the differences in lines...now I'll go to my first autox armed with more knowledge than the 'typical' rookie. Knowledge is power, and we have a fountain of it here. Hope you guys don't mind if I drink from it every now and again. ;)
Scott
| KC | 03-05-2004 02:46 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sdecker[/i]
[B] I agree with you and KC on not over thinking it. I will admit I do have a tendency to examine things very closely, but not to the point of over thinking, usually...hehe!
I'm just one of those engineering types that can do better at a lot of things if I understand the way they work first. Hence my original question about the differences in lines...now I'll go to my first autox armed with more knowledge than the 'typical' rookie. Knowledge is power, and we have a fountain of it here. Hope you guys don't mind if I drink from it every now and again. ;)
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
What makes you think what we say is true?
:devil:
[B] I agree with you and KC on not over thinking it. I will admit I do have a tendency to examine things very closely, but not to the point of over thinking, usually...hehe!
I'm just one of those engineering types that can do better at a lot of things if I understand the way they work first. Hence my original question about the differences in lines...now I'll go to my first autox armed with more knowledge than the 'typical' rookie. Knowledge is power, and we have a fountain of it here. Hope you guys don't mind if I drink from it every now and again. ;)
Scott [/B][/QUOTE]
What makes you think what we say is true?
:devil:
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 02:49 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]A trick that I use is one that I look for straights. I try to line myself up in sections and look far ahead. A straight is anything where I can keep the gas to the floor and just steer. Then I can do like KC said and go "to make this next section a straight I would have to be HERE, what do I do in the section beforehand to get myself HERE so that I can just straightline the next section"
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Good advice. I will consider the course in this way and hopefully be ahead of the game.
By the way, will I look like a complete moron if I bring a spiral notebook and a pencil to trace the layout of the course? I can take that back to pits and take a closer look. Maybe graph paper for a little scale? Trace the 'road race' and the 'autox' lines on it? (wait, I'm going over the top now)
Those things are helpful for me, personally. If I see something and commit it to paper, it's much easier for to remember. It's almost like I can 'see' the paper in my head. Weird...
[B]A trick that I use is one that I look for straights. I try to line myself up in sections and look far ahead. A straight is anything where I can keep the gas to the floor and just steer. Then I can do like KC said and go "to make this next section a straight I would have to be HERE, what do I do in the section beforehand to get myself HERE so that I can just straightline the next section"
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
Good advice. I will consider the course in this way and hopefully be ahead of the game.
By the way, will I look like a complete moron if I bring a spiral notebook and a pencil to trace the layout of the course? I can take that back to pits and take a closer look. Maybe graph paper for a little scale? Trace the 'road race' and the 'autox' lines on it? (wait, I'm going over the top now)
Those things are helpful for me, personally. If I see something and commit it to paper, it's much easier for to remember. It's almost like I can 'see' the paper in my head. Weird...
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 02:50 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]What makes you think what we say is true?
:devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
[I]Because I read it on teh int4rw3bn3t of course.[/I]
KC, you sly devil, you! This thread is nothing but a shell game designed so that you, Tom, and Phil can psyche each other out.
ADMIT IT!!!
:lol:
[SIZE=1]Don't worry, I won't be going Nationals or ProSolo anytime soon.[/SIZE]
[B]What makes you think what we say is true?
:devil: [/B][/QUOTE]
[I]Because I read it on teh int4rw3bn3t of course.[/I]
KC, you sly devil, you! This thread is nothing but a shell game designed so that you, Tom, and Phil can psyche each other out.
ADMIT IT!!!
:lol:
[SIZE=1]Don't worry, I won't be going Nationals or ProSolo anytime soon.[/SIZE]
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 03:01 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sdecker[/i]
[B] [I]Because I read it on teh int4rw3bn3t of course.[/I]
KC, you sly devil, you! This thread is nothing but a shell game designed so that you, Tom, and Phil can psyche each other out.
ADMIT IT!!!
[/B][/QUOTE]
He's on to you guys! ;)
[B] [I]Because I read it on teh int4rw3bn3t of course.[/I]
KC, you sly devil, you! This thread is nothing but a shell game designed so that you, Tom, and Phil can psyche each other out.
ADMIT IT!!!
[/B][/QUOTE]
He's on to you guys! ;)
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 03:06 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by sdecker[/i]
[B]
By the way, will I look like a complete moron if I bring a spiral notebook and a pencil to trace the layout of the course? I can take that back to pits and take a closer look. Maybe graph paper for a little scale? Trace the 'road race' and the 'autox' lines on it? (wait, I'm going over the top now)
Those things are helpful for me, personally. If I see something and commit it to paper, it's much easier for to remember. It's almost like I can 'see' the paper in my head. Weird... [/B][/QUOTE]
no you won't look like a moron... I see people at national events taking notes and have done so myself. It helps with visualizing the course. Draw it on one of your walk throughs. take notes on key cones. Put the map away back in the pits and try and draw it from memory. Then drive it from memory in your head... but when you drive it. visualize it looking forward (not top down). Spot the key cones in your head. look ahead. Feel the brake points and transitions. knowing the course intimately is the key to driving it fast.
-Matt
[B]
By the way, will I look like a complete moron if I bring a spiral notebook and a pencil to trace the layout of the course? I can take that back to pits and take a closer look. Maybe graph paper for a little scale? Trace the 'road race' and the 'autox' lines on it? (wait, I'm going over the top now)
Those things are helpful for me, personally. If I see something and commit it to paper, it's much easier for to remember. It's almost like I can 'see' the paper in my head. Weird... [/B][/QUOTE]
no you won't look like a moron... I see people at national events taking notes and have done so myself. It helps with visualizing the course. Draw it on one of your walk throughs. take notes on key cones. Put the map away back in the pits and try and draw it from memory. Then drive it from memory in your head... but when you drive it. visualize it looking forward (not top down). Spot the key cones in your head. look ahead. Feel the brake points and transitions. knowing the course intimately is the key to driving it fast.
-Matt
| Kostamojen | 03-05-2004 03:29 PM |
I think the general idea is the same between autox and road racing (IE trying to get from point a to point b in the shortest, fastest time) but there are just those small little differences that result from the average speed difference between the two.
I guess what I mean is you cant toss a car at 80mph like you can at 20mph, and if you tried you would end up in the dirt :p
I'd have to say that your every-day WRX or STI is a better road course car then an auto-x car, mostly because they are not that tossable of a car. However, GC's do make excellent autox cars because they tend to be more tossable (mostly due to weight).
But in any case, the difference do definatly show up in 180 degree turns as was mentioned. In a road course, a 180 degree turn is rather large in comparison to an autox 180, with higher speeds. With an autox 180, what you want to do with just about any car is slam the brakes and hug the inside apex cone and rotate the car around that cone (swing that backside, but not too much or youll loose speed!) and then gun it out of there. This is seriously like a 1 second difference or more in times from taking a wide in or wide out aproach to the corner. I actually have the video proof of it if anyone wants to see it :p
Personally I think the straights are more critical in autox then some people realize. Why? Because the faster you can enter and exit one the more time you will take off your lap. Slaloms are also like this, but you need a car with a ton of grip and some tossability to get through a slalom as fast as possible and you need to max out the cars capability to take the full advantage of the slalom, and you really do need to hug those cones as close as possible (alot of newbs hang waaaaay too far away from slalom cones is why im mentioning this)
The rest of an auto-x course tends to be simular to roadracing, where you end up taking simular lines between the two unless you car can take a tighter, faster line in an auto-x at WOT without loosing grip or speed.
I guess what I mean is you cant toss a car at 80mph like you can at 20mph, and if you tried you would end up in the dirt :p
I'd have to say that your every-day WRX or STI is a better road course car then an auto-x car, mostly because they are not that tossable of a car. However, GC's do make excellent autox cars because they tend to be more tossable (mostly due to weight).
But in any case, the difference do definatly show up in 180 degree turns as was mentioned. In a road course, a 180 degree turn is rather large in comparison to an autox 180, with higher speeds. With an autox 180, what you want to do with just about any car is slam the brakes and hug the inside apex cone and rotate the car around that cone (swing that backside, but not too much or youll loose speed!) and then gun it out of there. This is seriously like a 1 second difference or more in times from taking a wide in or wide out aproach to the corner. I actually have the video proof of it if anyone wants to see it :p
Personally I think the straights are more critical in autox then some people realize. Why? Because the faster you can enter and exit one the more time you will take off your lap. Slaloms are also like this, but you need a car with a ton of grip and some tossability to get through a slalom as fast as possible and you need to max out the cars capability to take the full advantage of the slalom, and you really do need to hug those cones as close as possible (alot of newbs hang waaaaay too far away from slalom cones is why im mentioning this)
The rest of an auto-x course tends to be simular to roadracing, where you end up taking simular lines between the two unless you car can take a tighter, faster line in an auto-x at WOT without loosing grip or speed.
| Watkinsm3 | 03-05-2004 03:45 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Kostamojen[/i]
[B]
Slaloms are also like this, but you need a car with a ton of grip and some tossability to get through a slalom as fast as possible and you need to max out the cars capability to take the full advantage of the slalom, and you really do need to hug those cones as close as possible (alot of newbs hang waaaaay too far away from slalom cones is why im mentioning this)
[/B][/QUOTE]
It's because the slalom cones are so darn scary!!! I had to hit every cone in a six cone slalom a couple years ago to get over my fear of slaloms. :cool: Seriously speaking though, I think slaloms are the hardest manuver for a rookie autoxer to figure out and there is tons of time to be lost in slalom if you don't carry a tight line and drive it fairly aggresive. Most people don't realize how soon they can get on the throttle coming out of a slalom especially if its open after the slalom.
I'll also back up KC and Tom's comment about [i]finding[/i] hidden straight aways.
-Matt, blah blah blah... I need to autox
[B]
Slaloms are also like this, but you need a car with a ton of grip and some tossability to get through a slalom as fast as possible and you need to max out the cars capability to take the full advantage of the slalom, and you really do need to hug those cones as close as possible (alot of newbs hang waaaaay too far away from slalom cones is why im mentioning this)
[/B][/QUOTE]
It's because the slalom cones are so darn scary!!! I had to hit every cone in a six cone slalom a couple years ago to get over my fear of slaloms. :cool: Seriously speaking though, I think slaloms are the hardest manuver for a rookie autoxer to figure out and there is tons of time to be lost in slalom if you don't carry a tight line and drive it fairly aggresive. Most people don't realize how soon they can get on the throttle coming out of a slalom especially if its open after the slalom.
I'll also back up KC and Tom's comment about [i]finding[/i] hidden straight aways.
-Matt, blah blah blah... I need to autox
| Calamity Jesus | 03-05-2004 04:27 PM |
Good stuff, everybody.
I think I've wasted too much time in all of my races so far (I've only got one season under my belt) trying to keep to the road-racer's arc. With my car's ability to turn-in hard and tight around a point, the pivot around the center cone 180 would have been far prefferable and I might have given the other guys in my class a little more competition.
Oh, and decreasing slaloms be damned!:furious:
I think I've wasted too much time in all of my races so far (I've only got one season under my belt) trying to keep to the road-racer's arc. With my car's ability to turn-in hard and tight around a point, the pivot around the center cone 180 would have been far prefferable and I might have given the other guys in my class a little more competition.
Oh, and decreasing slaloms be damned!:furious:
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 04:47 PM |
Wow, I'm really getting some good info out of this!
Another rookie question: could you guys rank the difficult cone setups and your approach to driving them?
For example, I've heard quite a few folks talking about the decreasing slalom. This *does* look difficult -- so what is the 'preferred' way to drive one? The Evolution school doesn't happen for a couple of months and probably doesn't cover all that stuff anyway.
What other nasty little surprises are out there, if you don't mind sharing with a n00b?
Thanks a ton, all. BTW, I know a lot of this is subjective, I'm just looking for more excellent input. This thread is great.
Scott
Another rookie question: could you guys rank the difficult cone setups and your approach to driving them?
For example, I've heard quite a few folks talking about the decreasing slalom. This *does* look difficult -- so what is the 'preferred' way to drive one? The Evolution school doesn't happen for a couple of months and probably doesn't cover all that stuff anyway.
What other nasty little surprises are out there, if you don't mind sharing with a n00b?
Thanks a ton, all. BTW, I know a lot of this is subjective, I'm just looking for more excellent input. This thread is great.
Scott
| dave bruener | 03-05-2004 05:16 PM |
The suggestions I have to add regard looking ahead. In road racing you can afford to let your concentration linger for a moment on the corner you are in at that moment, but in autocrossing you must be focusing on the next corner (or two) before you are really thru with the one you are in. You have to let go of where you are and always address where you are going.
KC suggested to not over think what you are doing and this is my suggestion to just be in the moment (yeah, very zen).
Also your car may tend to clunk and make noises (maybe from running over cones) that in road racing you can let your mind address for a moment but in autox let it go, finish the run and look things over after the run.
Also, you asked about about tricky autox bits like decreasing sloloms, again if you are looking ahead, having walked the course with out distractions, your mind will sort out how to do it best. More specific, practical advice is that no time is ever made up in a slolom but a lot has been lost there, so get thru it with out messing it up.:)
KC suggested to not over think what you are doing and this is my suggestion to just be in the moment (yeah, very zen).
Also your car may tend to clunk and make noises (maybe from running over cones) that in road racing you can let your mind address for a moment but in autox let it go, finish the run and look things over after the run.
Also, you asked about about tricky autox bits like decreasing sloloms, again if you are looking ahead, having walked the course with out distractions, your mind will sort out how to do it best. More specific, practical advice is that no time is ever made up in a slolom but a lot has been lost there, so get thru it with out messing it up.:)
| PaulC | 03-05-2004 05:21 PM |
There's not too many "stock" cone setups that will give you trouble.
Usually it's a combination of maneuvers that will be tricky.
A decreasing slalom is one of those "stock" ones that suck though! :devil:
For an understeering car usually you can find a good rythm for a standard slalom. Steady throttle, smooth inputs and staying ahead of the car will get you through quickly.
A decreasing slalom will require you to brake at some point, which is what catches people up. You want to find the right place to brake, if you brake at the wrong time you'll either understeer into oblivion, or if you're being especially enthusiastic will spin you around.
Once I've found my breaking point I generally drive it like two slaloms. First slalom, brake, second slalom.
Now, add in some power or loosen your suspension up and things will get a bit more hectic.
Usually it's a combination of maneuvers that will be tricky.
A decreasing slalom is one of those "stock" ones that suck though! :devil:
For an understeering car usually you can find a good rythm for a standard slalom. Steady throttle, smooth inputs and staying ahead of the car will get you through quickly.
A decreasing slalom will require you to brake at some point, which is what catches people up. You want to find the right place to brake, if you brake at the wrong time you'll either understeer into oblivion, or if you're being especially enthusiastic will spin you around.
Once I've found my breaking point I generally drive it like two slaloms. First slalom, brake, second slalom.
Now, add in some power or loosen your suspension up and things will get a bit more hectic.
| Storm | 03-05-2004 05:58 PM |
Decreasing slaloms are definately a PIA. How I make the most of them is to walk the course more and visualize where I'll be and how my hands and feet will be working. Staying steady on the gas through a typical slalom will require you to steer into the cones earlier as you keep the speed up (or even pick up speed). Once you hint at lifting, the front will bite sooner and take out that cone unlees you mentally account for it and steer a hair later. Focusing on the cone where the slalom decreases and adjusting speed before you get there will help you get through a little smoother because it is the key point of that section.
Weaving that keypoint into the flow to the next section is where you will seperate the quick and the not so quick..... As soon as you see the key point of the slalom and commit to getting through, focus on whats after. Where do you need to be in order to get through the section following. Find the points you saw when you walked it and stick to your plan.
If you make a mistake....screw it....don't dwell....always look and think ahead.
You have an advantage over the other novices in that you have a feel for highspeed sections. One of the key differences between novice and veteran autocrossers is that novices will almost always be [B]too fast in the slow stuff and too slow in the fast stuff[/B]. You should have no probem taking the car deeper in fast sections. Once you get the feel for how you should get through the slow sections....you'll see your times drop like $$$'s at Babydolls!
Take notes as you walk, ask questions from long-time conekillers, and (ask to) take rides with these folks to see and feel what they do to get through tough sections. Ask for someone to ride with you too. Get feedback and adjust as necessary.
Just don't forget to have fun......overanalyzing can lead to brainfarts on-course, so plan things before you get rolling, then just follow the plan.
HTH
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
Weaving that keypoint into the flow to the next section is where you will seperate the quick and the not so quick..... As soon as you see the key point of the slalom and commit to getting through, focus on whats after. Where do you need to be in order to get through the section following. Find the points you saw when you walked it and stick to your plan.
If you make a mistake....screw it....don't dwell....always look and think ahead.
You have an advantage over the other novices in that you have a feel for highspeed sections. One of the key differences between novice and veteran autocrossers is that novices will almost always be [B]too fast in the slow stuff and too slow in the fast stuff[/B]. You should have no probem taking the car deeper in fast sections. Once you get the feel for how you should get through the slow sections....you'll see your times drop like $$$'s at Babydolls!
Take notes as you walk, ask questions from long-time conekillers, and (ask to) take rides with these folks to see and feel what they do to get through tough sections. Ask for someone to ride with you too. Get feedback and adjust as necessary.
Just don't forget to have fun......overanalyzing can lead to brainfarts on-course, so plan things before you get rolling, then just follow the plan.
HTH
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 06:18 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Storm [/i]
[B]
Just don't forget to have fun......overanalyzing can lead to brainfarts on-course, so plan things before you get rolling, then just follow the plan.
HTH
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Yep, that's the [B]plan[/B] ! :P
Thanks, Jay -- that's great info.
If I had to guess, I would also say that I would have an advantage over the typical n00b in the following ways:
1) I know how to brake HARD, and to the threshold. On a road course, just this skill alone is worth a ton of time.
2) I know how my car works in terms of its dynamics. I know when it tends to understeer, oversteer, how it feels when hunkered down on the suspension, etc. Again, this is worth a lot as compared to a typical 'off the street' driver, I feel.
3) I'm not afraid of 'hurting' my car. I maintain the critical bits religiously for track duty. IMHO, if it can stand up to track duty it can stand up to autox. I'm not afraid of clunks and noise and funny feelings.
4) I understand weight transfer and what it entails.
In other words, it ain't my first rodeo, exactly. :banana:
I could be wrong here, but I know all of those things were taking huge chunks of time on track. I'd be surprised if a lot of them don't also make up a large part of a novice's high times in the beginning.
If anyone is wondering, I'm jumping directly into SM, which is apparently a pretty competitive class here locally. I'm not going to bother with time-only or novice, although I will attend the novice schools for edumacation purposes.
My game will improve more rapidly when I'm directly competing against my superiors. :D
Scott
[B]
Just don't forget to have fun......overanalyzing can lead to brainfarts on-course, so plan things before you get rolling, then just follow the plan.
HTH
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Yep, that's the [B]plan[/B] ! :P
Thanks, Jay -- that's great info.
If I had to guess, I would also say that I would have an advantage over the typical n00b in the following ways:
1) I know how to brake HARD, and to the threshold. On a road course, just this skill alone is worth a ton of time.
2) I know how my car works in terms of its dynamics. I know when it tends to understeer, oversteer, how it feels when hunkered down on the suspension, etc. Again, this is worth a lot as compared to a typical 'off the street' driver, I feel.
3) I'm not afraid of 'hurting' my car. I maintain the critical bits religiously for track duty. IMHO, if it can stand up to track duty it can stand up to autox. I'm not afraid of clunks and noise and funny feelings.
4) I understand weight transfer and what it entails.
In other words, it ain't my first rodeo, exactly. :banana:
I could be wrong here, but I know all of those things were taking huge chunks of time on track. I'd be surprised if a lot of them don't also make up a large part of a novice's high times in the beginning.
If anyone is wondering, I'm jumping directly into SM, which is apparently a pretty competitive class here locally. I'm not going to bother with time-only or novice, although I will attend the novice schools for edumacation purposes.
My game will improve more rapidly when I'm directly competing against my superiors. :D
Scott
| Storm | 03-05-2004 06:23 PM |
Regardless of what class you jump into, you'll be fine. You'll have an advantage over the novice who just swapped a huge powerplant into something that won't turn.....and run on street tires.....:lol:
This thread should be a sticky!
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
This thread should be a sticky!
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url]
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 07:11 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Storm [/i]
[B]Regardless of what class you jump into, you'll be fine. You'll have an advantage over the novice who just swapped a huge powerplant into something that won't turn.....and run on street tires.....:lol:
This thread should be a sticky!
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I originally set my car up to be competitive against modified M3's here at Road Atlanta. I do have a stage 2 engine setup (~290 hp), Konis on Prodrives, camber plates, RSB, endlinks, and Victoracers. Oh yeah, and the go-fast STI hood scoop. No stickers though -- but I need to put some on to gain horsepower. I hear it's 5 hp per JDM sticker, but only 3 hp per USDM sticker. Is that true? :p
I also did these mods with the goal of dual duty daily driver/weekend track driver, and frankly it does quite well out there. The car still has a lot more in it than I am capable of at this point. Again, though, that's why I'm now doing autox in addition to track. :devil:
Scott
[B]Regardless of what class you jump into, you'll be fine. You'll have an advantage over the novice who just swapped a huge powerplant into something that won't turn.....and run on street tires.....:lol:
This thread should be a sticky!
Jay Storm
[url]www.sourcemotorsports.com[/url] [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, I originally set my car up to be competitive against modified M3's here at Road Atlanta. I do have a stage 2 engine setup (~290 hp), Konis on Prodrives, camber plates, RSB, endlinks, and Victoracers. Oh yeah, and the go-fast STI hood scoop. No stickers though -- but I need to put some on to gain horsepower. I hear it's 5 hp per JDM sticker, but only 3 hp per USDM sticker. Is that true? :p
I also did these mods with the goal of dual duty daily driver/weekend track driver, and frankly it does quite well out there. The car still has a lot more in it than I am capable of at this point. Again, though, that's why I'm now doing autox in addition to track. :devil:
Scott
| trhoppe | 03-05-2004 07:22 PM |
[quote]I hear it's 5 hp per JDM sticker, but only 3 hp per USDM sticker. Is that true? [/quote]
It has been dyno proven that Yellow stickers add more power ;)
-Tom
It has been dyno proven that Yellow stickers add more power ;)
-Tom
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 07:54 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by trhoppe [/i]
[B]It has been dyno proven that Yellow stickers add more power ;)
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
See, we always get the weak stuff. They only put the white stickers on the USDM models. No fair, I say. The rest of the world gets the yellow stickers and the corresponding hp boost. Dammit, dammit all to hell!
[B]It has been dyno proven that Yellow stickers add more power ;)
-Tom [/B][/QUOTE]
See, we always get the weak stuff. They only put the white stickers on the USDM models. No fair, I say. The rest of the world gets the yellow stickers and the corresponding hp boost. Dammit, dammit all to hell!
| KC | 03-05-2004 08:02 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Storm[/i]
[B] Once you get the feel for how you should get through the slow sections....you'll see your times drop like $$$'s at Babydolls!
[/B][/QUOTE]
:devil: I don't think he'll get the reference... but maybe in a couple years. :D
I'm dynoing some decals and colors within the next month. I'll be sure to post the results. It seems that yellow is faster, but I think red is giving a good run. Don't foget, the larger, the more HP... almost like nawwwwws.
--kC
[B] Once you get the feel for how you should get through the slow sections....you'll see your times drop like $$$'s at Babydolls!
[/B][/QUOTE]
:devil: I don't think he'll get the reference... but maybe in a couple years. :D
I'm dynoing some decals and colors within the next month. I'll be sure to post the results. It seems that yellow is faster, but I think red is giving a good run. Don't foget, the larger, the more HP... almost like nawwwwws.
--kC
| sdecker | 03-05-2004 08:22 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by KC [/i]
[B]:devil: I don't think he'll get the reference... but maybe in a couple years. :D
I'm dynoing some decals and colors within the next month. I'll be sure to post the results. It seems that yellow is faster, but I think red is giving a good run. Don't foget, the larger, the more HP... almost like nawwwwws.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh, let me guess -- Babydolls = a place of questionable repute in the general vicinity of Topeka?
And KC, if I sent you my diamond plate floor pans, could you go ahead and have those dyno'd too? The manufacturer claims a guaranteed +50hp at the wheels. I'm convinced it's closer to 75, myself.
I also spent an extra couple hundred bucks on the custom install kit. It includes rivets that pop out when I get up to a certain speed, usually after at least a 1/4 mile. For some reason, that 1/4 mile always seems to take like 5 minutes? :confused:
[B]:devil: I don't think he'll get the reference... but maybe in a couple years. :D
I'm dynoing some decals and colors within the next month. I'll be sure to post the results. It seems that yellow is faster, but I think red is giving a good run. Don't foget, the larger, the more HP... almost like nawwwwws.
--kC [/B][/QUOTE]
Heh, let me guess -- Babydolls = a place of questionable repute in the general vicinity of Topeka?
And KC, if I sent you my diamond plate floor pans, could you go ahead and have those dyno'd too? The manufacturer claims a guaranteed +50hp at the wheels. I'm convinced it's closer to 75, myself.
I also spent an extra couple hundred bucks on the custom install kit. It includes rivets that pop out when I get up to a certain speed, usually after at least a 1/4 mile. For some reason, that 1/4 mile always seems to take like 5 minutes? :confused:
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét