Does heel/toe cause any extra wear on any parts of the car?

[RobM77]

StressedDave said:

RobM77 said:

Sorry, I didn't mean it like that. Hugh's former colleague John Lyons for instance has plenty of racing experience, and I'm well aware of the obvious cross-overs. What I was responding to was the suggestion that 1) if I want to go faster on track, I should go to a company like Cadence in preference to someone such as Simon Mason or Mark Hales! As I'm sure you'll agree, that would be misguided of me. Mark Hales' job is to train people to drive faster on track, your job is to train people to drive safely on the road. The other suggestion I was responding to was 2) that the training that a Class 1 Police driver goes through makes him well equipped to challenge at the front of the pack in a GT race. That's like saying that Steffi Graf could beat a club level table tennis player! I know for a fact a traffic policeman wouldn't even qualify for a GT race, and if it's any different then I want my money back as a tax payer, as setting quick qualifying times is not one of the skills that a Class 1 driver should be learning!! They're highly skilled people, but just not in that particular area.

On-road training is indeed never going to help with limit work on the track - that's why I don't do that sort of tuition there. But if I had a pound for every track-experienced (and that includes Track day lunatics as well as amateur racers like you) client who didn't know the basics then I'd be well on my way to a Veyron (well a 1/24th scale model anyway). I do find somewhat disappointing that you feel that no-one except a successful racer can help you with your goals. As I've said before, I do a lot of work with racers and the problem is normally not one of vehicle control, but more of getting the acceleration in the right direction at the right time.

I am certain that I could learn a lot from you; you're a professional advanced driving instructor! I just think that if I was to spend money learning to go quicker on the track it would be better spent with a dedicated racing instructor that has lots of racing experience. I hope you take that in the right way! If I'm right I actually have more racing experience than you have?! I've had quite a bit of success, and in particular have set two lap records that still stand after four years, plus I won every race that I entered bar one in the final two years of the last championship that I raced in, and got pole for all of them. I'm not trying to be arrogant there, just trying to state that I'm not a confused 21 year old novice! Vehicle control is getting the acceleration in the right direction at the right time.

The other thing that I hope you take in the right way is that I haven't exactly been impressed with the confused messages you've been putting across on this thread. Clarity, brevity and consistency are things that I would need from an instructor, as well as the ability answer a direct question clearly. I've received a fair bit of instruction on track, and very few instructors can articulate what they mean terribly well. None have been as good as Hugh is on the road, and only one of them was really worth the money because he could explain clearly and briefly what he meant to me (and he was German! Maybe that helped?!). I've been in no doubt that they were all better and faster drivers than me, but it was getting the message across that was the key problem. Can I add that I'm not talking about any of the ones I listed above they've just been recommended to me for my next session (especially Simon Mason). You also seem very confused about the dynamics of how cars handle; or at least in how to explain how they handle which is probably more likely in fairness given your credentials. Some things that you've said on this thread have appeared to be completely different to what I've learnt through experience and instruction, both on the track and on the road. Up until this thread kicked off my understanding of the dynamics of cars at speed had been completely consistent from what I've read in books, heard from instructors, and tried out myself on track and on road. This has been the first challenge to any of that that I've ever known. I'm not claiming to be an authority on the matter, far from it, but I have heard the same messages so many times in such a variety of ways (including physical experience). As I said above, it might just be the way you're explaining things! Either way, you definitely appeared confused yourself, and you've certainly confused me in trying to fathom out what you mean.

Edited by RobM77 on Monday 9th June 20:32

[waremark]

RobM77 said:

Either way, you definitely appeared confused yourself

I think Dave's message is quite clear - but since it is in conflict with all your belief systems you have been reluctant to understand him. I believe that Dave can demonstrate his case empirically in an instrumented car - why don't you give him the opportunity to demonstrate it to you and report back to us? Whether or not you learn something useful I am sure you would have an interesting day.

My personal position, as a traditional IAMer with only rudimentary track driving skills, is that I don't go near the limit of grip on the road and am not fussed by a little bit of understeer. I want to maintain speed from the time the vision stops reducing, which means a little gas as I turn in, and to increase speed when vision increases, which means progressive acceleration from that point, which may well be before a late apex.

[RobM77]

waremark said:

RobM77 said:

Either way, you definitely appeared confused yourself

I think Dave's message is quite clear - but since it is in conflict with all your belief systems you have been reluctant to understand him.

I think "belief systems" is taking it a bit far, sounds like a religion! It's been contrary to everything I've ever been taught by other respected advanced instructors, including Dave's boss Hugh! I'm not saying that Dave is wrong, it's just that his responses have been long, entangled and confused. I'm sure there's a singular message in there somewhere that probably agrees with everything I've been taught from other means.

waremark said:

I believe that Dave can demonstrate his case empirically in an instrumented car - why don't you give him the opportunity to demonstrate it to you and report back to us? Whether or not you learn something useful I am sure you would have an interesting day.

A demo on an instrumented car sounds great I'm very impressed with his videos so far.

waremark said:

My personal position, as a traditional IAMer with only rudimentary track driving skills, is that I don't go near the limit of grip on the road and am not fussed by a little bit of understeer. I want to maintain speed from the time the vision stops reducing, which means a little gas as I turn in, and to increase speed when vision increases, which means progressive acceleration from that point, which may well be before a late apex.

Nothing wrong there. That's exactly what I'm advocating both through theory, my own experience and what I've been taught. Enough gas to balance the car until the bend opens out, and then unwind the steering and accelerate out of the bend. It's essentially the same as how one drives on the track. My basic premise is that in both track and road situations you are trying to keep the car away from the limit. Doing a fast lap is basically (basically mind, before I get taken up on this!) all about riding the limit (or just over it actually) all the way round the bend, and driving on the road should be about the same thing, just much slower, so one can make progress whilst staying as far from the limit as possible at any given time.

[hardboiledPhil]

I've been out with several professional track instructors and StressedDave is the only instructor who was able to show me what a change in technique had on my lap time using data-logging technology.

As devil's advocate I could say Rob that if you're getting such high level results already then chances are you already have the core techniques in place and it's time on track with someone such as Dave with good analytical skills and the technologies needed to do this level of analysis that could help you eek out a few more mph here and there as opposed to spending more time listening to people giving you more alternative views to deal with (and lets face it 5 instructors will have 5 different views as to what's fastest, usually without any empirical evidence to back it up).

[RobM77]

hardboiledPhil said:

I've been out with several professional track instructors and StressedDave is the only instructor who was able to show me what a change in technique had on my lap time using data-logging technology.

As devil's advocate I could say Rob that if you're getting such high level results already then chances are you already have the core techniques in place and it's time on track with someone such as Dave with good analytical skills and the technologies needed to do this level of analysis that could help you eek out a few more mph here and there as opposed to spending more time listening to people giving you more alternative views to deal with (and lets face it 5 instructors will have 5 different views as to what's fastest, usually without any empirical evidence to back it up).

Most racing instructors do use telemetry quite heavily nowadays. I love it, and have learnt quite a lot comparing my laps with others through its use. However, Dave's extensive background in the theory side of things could indeed be very useful. It may be just a case that Dave's much better at face to face communication than written on paper. For example, I know of one instructor in particular (who I won't name!) who makes absolutely no sense at all on e-mails, but is actually quite good when you meet him face to face. He actually frequently apologises in his e-mails that he's making no sense! I certainly don't want to speak badly of Dave, he's got good credentials and has been selected by Hugh. I remain open minded

[StressedDave]

I will admit that I'm hampered by not being able to draw diagrams on a text-based forum and I'm sort of short of time to spend with Photoshop/Illustrator I'm normally more coherent than this - honest, although I'm reminded of a conversation with a former boss prior to delivering a training course where he told me that the aim was not to teach the cops anything, but merely to show how much more than them you knew. I don't subscribe to that view, although occasionally...

I do think there is a subtle difference between your definition of vehicle control and mine. Yours (and I'm happy to be corrected) tends to suggest that it's all about controlling the vehicle at the limit. Mine tends to veer towards careful manipulation of the acceleration being used into the correct direction at all times. It's only subtle, but it is an important distinction.

It's also true that everyone and his dog is using telemetry these days, although only at a relatively low level, i.e. comparing speeds and times rather than perhaps the causes of both. If you've got cash and spare time I can thoroughly recommend Claude Rouelle's course in November. That and investing in a yaw rate gyro...

[BertBert]

waremark said:

...I want to maintain speed from the time the vision stops reducing, which means a little gas as I turn in, and to increase speed when vision increases, which means progressive acceleration from that point, which may well be before a late apex.

RobM77 said:

Nothing wrong there. That's exactly what I'm advocating both through theory, my own experience and what I've been taught. Enough gas to balance the car until the bend opens out, and then unwind the steering and accelerate out of the bend. It's essentially the same as how one drives on the track.

Contrary to your statement, you are not in agreement here. waremark said (s)he accelerates from where vision increases.
Rob said unwind the steering and accelerate as the bend opens out.

What waremark said he does is what you said a while back you would absolutely not do - accelerate when vision opens out and before the "apex".

You seem fundamentally fixated on your assertion that car control techniques on track are absolutely transferrable to the road. I think this shows otherwise.

Bert

[RobM77]

BertBert said:

waremark said:

...I want to maintain speed from the time the vision stops reducing, which means a little gas as I turn in, and to increase speed when vision increases, which means progressive acceleration from that point, which may well be before a late apex.

RobM77 said:

Nothing wrong there. That's exactly what I'm advocating both through theory, my own experience and what I've been taught. Enough gas to balance the car until the bend opens out, and then unwind the steering and accelerate out of the bend. It's essentially the same as how one drives on the track.

Contrary to your statement, you are not in agreement here. waremark said (s)he accelerates from where vision increases.
Rob said unwind the steering and accelerate as the bend opens out.

What waremark said he does is what you said a while back you would absolutely not do - accelerate when vision opens out and before the "apex".

You seem fundamentally fixated on your assertion that car control techniques on track are absolutely transferrable to the road. I think this shows otherwise.

Bert

You're quite right. I wasn't strictly correct there. If I had all the vision in the world I wouldn't accelerate out of a bend until I was actually leaving that bend from the point of view of my car. My car doesn't have eyes, it still thinks it's cornering! Once you are pulling lateral g you are subject to the physical complications of cornering - you can't just accelerate off where you want to.

With regard to your second comment, I have been driving on the road and racing on the track for many years; so maybe with both sides of the story under my belt I'm better to judge such a statement than you, who seem to have only driven on the road. Not best to judge, but certainly better. I say that driving on the road without thought to the limits and aspects of car control is a foolish pursuit. Yes, it's not the sole concern for the road going motorist, but just as before one goes sailing one should learn to swim and how to right a capsized boat, I think you would benefit from a more thorough understanding of how things work, especially before you criticise others who are trying to look at the whole picture.

[Dr Jekyll]

RobM77 said:

If I had all the vision in the world I wouldn't accelerate out of a bend until I was actually leaving that bend from the point of view of my car. My car doesn't have eyes, it still thinks it's cornering! Once you are pulling lateral g you are subject to the physical complications of cornering - you can't just accelerate off where you want to.

But on the road your cornering speed is likely to have been dictated by vision rather than grip. If you are cornering with plenty of grip still in hand there is nothing wrong with using some of it to accelerate when vision improves. Though obviously still not getting as close to the limit as would be acceptable on the track.

I'm all for understanding the physics in order to better cope with emergencies, but not as a guide to normal road driving. To paraphrase an old saying, the superbly skilled driver uses their superb skills to avoid getting into any situation where they are so close to the limit that racing driver techniques become relevant.

[StressedDave]

RobM77 said:

Nothing wrong there. That's exactly what I'm advocating both through theory, my own experience and what I've been taught. Enough gas to balance the car until the bend opens out, and then unwind the steering and accelerate out of the bend. It's essentially the same as how one drives on the track.

I'm not sure that's right for the quickest track drivers. The steering wheel is a blunt instrument - it rapidly changes the slip angle at the front wheels. The rear wheels trail along behind as it were as their slip angle is dependent only on the speed and the path being followed. Unwinding steering lock, except perhaps for the system Rob Wilson teaches, is something best not done when right on the limit because of the obvious instability it can cause.

Now for most people, both on track and on road, trail braking isn't a commonly used technique (and when it is used it's generally poorly done), so I work on people's ability to consistently improve their corner exits. IMHO trying to optimise your corner entry is of less value than optimising your exits.

So the technique I teach and advocate (and it works both on road and on track) is thus:

1. Get the braking done in a straight line. Feel free to heel and toe to get the changes right. If you've got a nice sounding engine, I'm all for listening to those lovely blips between gears. If not then I prefer you to leave space at the end to get the gear change. Taper off the brakes smoothly. My neck is weak and I don't like doing the nodding dog, especially as the only thing holding me in my seat is the belt and I'm not a small chap.

2. Transfer your right foot onto the throttle and bring the car up on the power. This gap between stopping one thing and starting another is important - some of the great racing drivers famously used this pause. As you get the power right you'll hear the tone of the engine change. If you're on road AND you've got enough vision AND you're travelling slowly enough that you can safely increase speed through the first part of the corner, you might consider using more power than will be necessary to balance the car because it means you'll need less steering to complete the cornering manoeuvre...

3. Start steering. This is important. You don't 'steer' you start to steer. Most people steer too much and steer too quickly. You need to be positive with the steering but the key is to keep a constant rate of steering. The thing that makes you feel uncomfortable as a passenger is 'jerk' - the rate of change of acceleration. Jerk is directly proportional to the rate you turn the steering, so slow movements are more comfortable and also less likely to suddenly unbalance the car. As said above turning the steering wheel changes the front slip angle. The rear slip angle changes as a result of the yaw and sideslip created by that change. If you change the front slip angle gradually then there will be less lag between front and rear wheel slip angles and the car will feel like it's cornering on rails.

4. Keep adding to the steering until you're on the line you want. So rather than turning the steering wheel by 'x', you are using the visual feedback of what you can see (and limit point is just as important on track as it is on road - staring at an apex is generally a recipe for disaster).

5. Once you've passed your late apex, start increasing the power to drive the car out towards the edge of the road/circuit. Let's face it - a majority of PH readers are male and we don't do multi-tasking. So instead of balancing steering and throttle, just use throttle to drive the car out to its exit. Then gradually wind the steering lock off as the exit line becomes a straight line. Again you're using visual feedback to control your exit. If you do nothing in terms of steering and throttle, a late apex means you'll come out somewhere in the centre of the track, so you've always got the safety margin built in and it's up to you how much of it you use.

The result I generally find is that you have much more confidence that the car is going to go where you want it to and you have control over where you come out rather than hoping there's enough grip left when you get it wrong. Once you can consistently do this then you can start working on optimising your entries to corners.

[RobM77]

Dr Jekyll said:

RobM77 said:

If I had all the vision in the world I wouldn't accelerate out of a bend until I was actually leaving that bend from the point of view of my car. My car doesn't have eyes, it still thinks it's cornering! Once you are pulling lateral g you are subject to the physical complications of cornering - you can't just accelerate off where you want to.

But on the road your cornering speed is likely to have been dictated by vision rather than grip. If you are cornering with plenty of grip still in hand there is nothing wrong with using some of it to accelerate when vision improves. Though obviously still not getting as close to the limit as would be acceptable on the track.

I'm all for understanding the physics in order to better cope with emergencies, but not as a guide to normal road driving. To paraphrase an old saying, the superbly skilled driver uses their superb skills to avoid getting into any situation where they are so close to the limit that racing driver techniques become relevant.

As you realise from my earlier comments, I couldn't disagree with that more. My boat analogy is a good one I reckon, let's take it further. Imagine that you absolutely don't want to fall in the water. Well, it makes sense to know the point when the boat is leaning (heeling) so much that it'll capsize. Let's say this is 80 degrees of lean (heel). Right, now when you're sailing because you don't want to fall in you'll give yourself a safety margin, so you might decide that 40 degrees of lean (heel) is as far as you want to go. With me so far? Right, when the opportunity arises to make more progress at the expense of going to a greater angle of lean, do you take it?...

With this analogy firmly in our heads, we can see that what you're advocating is three things:

a) Not setting a safety margin and sticking to it. This is because the knowledge required to walk the line of the limit is the exact same knowledge that you should be using to walk a lesser line at a percentage of the limit. Yes, ok, I'll hold a hand up to the pedants and say that the exact physics of what's going on is different (as it is in any situation: wet vs dry or RWD vs FWD etc etc), but the fact of understanding the physics is what should concern us, not the minute details that can be inflated beyond their true importance and used to try and blind people with science (which Dave now admits to, although he thankfully doesn't condone it as his usual teaching practise). You can't just drive around oblivious to the grip you've got, thinking that your limit skills will rescue you if you happen to cross the limit. I believe you should set a safety margin and monitor your proximity to it.

b) Not knowing the limit is broken until you've actually broken it and an "emergency" is declared. That's just barking. It'd be far safer to have the experience and knowledge of where that limit is so you can avoid any "emergencies" altogether. I suppose a good analogy is cadence braking vs threshold braking - in one you breach the limit then cope with it, whereas in the other you avoid the limit (and actually stop quicker plus retain steering control!). I'll always chose the option of avoiding the limit thanks very much.

c) Making more progress at the expense of safety. This is obviously deeply wrong. Driving on the road is not a race! The core principle of driving on the road is to make journies whilst preserving the safety of yourself and of others. Moving on from that you've got another principle of good driving practise, which is to make decent progress where possible to show efficient use of the car as a mode of transport. To do that you're going to have to know where you can make more progress and where you can't. This involves spotting hazards such as parked cars opening doors or pulling away, children running after balls, spotting horses in the road etc; but it also equally involves knowing the dynamics of your car and what it's capable of, or more importantly what it's not capable of.

[StressedDave]

RobM77 said:

...but the fact of understanding the physics is what should concern us, not the minute details that can be inflated beyond their true importance and used to try and blind people with science (which Dave now admits to, although he thankfully doesn't condone it as his usual teaching practise).

Blimey, that's some reality filter you've got there... I actually wrote

DT said:

I will admit that I'm hampered by not being able to draw diagrams on a text-based forum and I'm sort of short of time to spend with Photoshop/Illustrator laugh I'm normally more coherent than this - honest, although I'm reminded of a conversation with a former boss prior to delivering a training course where he told me that the aim was not to teach the cops anything, but merely to show how much more than them you knew. I don't subscribe to that view, although occasionally...

Now I know this is an internet forum where EFA is common, but that's probably a revisionist statement too far...

Edited by StressedDave on Tuesday 10th June 22:14

[RobM77]

StressedDave said:

RobM77 said:

...but the fact of understanding the physics is what should concern us, not the minute details that can be inflated beyond their true importance and used to try and blind people with science (which Dave now admits to, although he thankfully doesn't condone it as his usual teaching practise).

Blimey, that's some reality filter you've got there... I actually wrote
[quote]I will admit that I'm hampered by not being able to draw diagrams on a text-based forum and I'm sort of short of time to spend with Photoshop/Illustrator laugh I'm normally more coherent than this - honest, although I'm reminded of a conversation with a former boss prior to delivering a training course where he told me that the aim was not to teach the cops anything, but merely to show how much more than them you knew. I don't subscribe to that view, although occasionally...

Now I know this is an internet forum where EFA is common, but that's probably a revisionist statement too far...

Sorry, what does EFA mean?

From your statement there it was clear to me that you don't normally subscribe to a method of teaching where your goal is to demonstrate how much more you know than the target audience, although occasionally it is a useful tactic?

My apologies if I mis-interpreted that! It seemed quite clear to me though reading it, and it still does now to be honest! Maybe an example of another confused statement?

The other thing I was getting at there was that when explaining things it is important to scale one's emphasis on fundamentals in proportion to the smaller details. Failure to do this can put across a misleading impression, which I believe you were guilty of earlier if you'll pardon me saying so. I've got a story to tell that proves this very well: It's normal to teach people that oversteer can be caused by two things: weight transfer or power application. Yes, I know there's complicated physics going on, but that's the best message to put across to the ordinary Joe in the street. Now, in a fairly low powered car on a dry road weight transfer is going to be the predominant factor. Therefore I would expect any explanations or training to give more "air time" to the notions of weight transfer than to the notions of power application. An example of this going wrong belongs to a friend of mine. He went on a skid pan course where he got used to the idea that power application caused oversteer, and backing off and applying opposite lock corrected the skid. Their cars have bugger all grip and are rear wheel drive with reasonably punchy engines. Guess what was in his mind a few months later when we got a twitch of oversteer on a greasy roundabout at 60mph? Yes, you've guessed it, he backed off completely and applied the opposite lock, just as he has been taught to on the skid pan. How did we get to 60mph on a roundabout? He was trying to get the back end out for a laugh by accelerating, when in fact all that was happening was understeer. That's one person completely confused by the correct information presented in the wrong manner. For a second I thought it was two people in hospital, but thankfully the lessons he'd learnt on the skid pan about opposite lock and over correction saved the day.

[Vaux]

RobM77 said:

Sorry, what does EFA mean?

Edited for accuracy?

[StressedDave]

RobM77 said:

Sorry, what does EFA mean?

From your statement there it was clear to me that you don't normally subscribe to a method of teaching where your goal is to demonstrate how much more you know than the target audience, although occasionally it is a useful tactic?

My apologies if I mis-interpreted that! It seemed quite clear to me though reading it, and it still does now to be honest! Maybe an example of another confused statement?

More a case of a missing smiley methinks...

[7db]

StressedDave said:

Blimey, that's some reality filter you've got there...

What a nice (and apt) concept.

Don't you realise that Rob knows all the answers already? He's been driving on the road and track for years and has a full trophy cabinet. *And* a degree of Physics.

I think you should just be posting your thank for his insights, rather than having the temerity to correct his version of reality.

[RobM77]

7db said:

StressedDave said:

Blimey, that's some reality filter you've got there...

What a nice (and apt) concept.

Don't you realise that Rob knows all the answers already? He's been driving on the road and track for years and has a full trophy cabinet. *And* a degree of Physics.

I think you should just be posting your thank for his insights, rather than having the temerity to correct his version of reality.

Those comments that I made were only in response to insults and childish comments directed at me, some of which were by you. I wouldn't make such self inflating comments without provocation, as you can tell by my polite and courteous manner at the start of this thread if you flick back a few pages. I felt those comments were justified as I was being treated like an inexperienced and ignorant troll, when in fact I am not any of those things. Would you stand for similar comments directed at you? I doubt it, so I suggest that you wind your neck in. Have you actually contributed to this discussion at all? That's a serious question!! All you've done is pick up on things that StressedDave has said, wielded them above your head and bashed me with them. StressedDave is a perfectly intelligent, articulate and self sustaining person, and I'm sure he can speak for himself and doesn't need a little yappy puppy repeating everything that he says with a taint of agression directed at me. Unless you have anything intelligent to contribute of your own then I suggest that you just keep your mouth shut and let everyone just get on with with the discussion in peace. StressedDave is a lovely bloke, well read and interesting to chat to - he is not however a deity and doesn't need defending and he certainly doesn't need a personal army of keyboard warriors such as yourself. I think you owe both Dave and myself an apology.

[StressedDave]

RobM77 said:

StressedDave is a perfectly intelligent, articulate and self sustaining person...

You've not met me have you...

BTW, what's wrong with the 7? You've not troubled the scorers so far this year.

[RobM77]

StressedDave said:

RobM77 said:

StressedDave is a perfectly intelligent, articulate and self sustaining person...

You've not met me have you...

BTW, what's wrong with the 7? You've not troubled the scorers so far this year.

Not sure if you're checking the right results sheets or you have my name wrong, but I actually haven't raced this year! I just can't afford it any more. The race entry fees are £500 each time, and most of the quick guys are having an engine rebuild each year, which is the best part of £2k. On top of that you've got to add the know how to set the car up properly, which really you need to pay someone to do. And on top of that you've obviously got tyres etc. Really you're looking at spending about £1k to £2k per race to get anywhere, and over £3k a race to win. I dread to think what accident repairs would cost if I did bin in (thankfully something I've never done in a racing car!). I can just about afford to enter the races, tow the car there and that's about it really. I have completed two races in the car since I bought it (both in 2007), but in the first it was suffering from horrific understeer due to a dodgy setup, so I paid to have the setup fixed for the next race and it just oversteered everywhere alarmingly instead! What a waste of money that was! Whilst it's true I've devoted most of my adult life to learning how to drive a racing car fast, I'm guilty as charged for not knowing how to set them up properly. The reason for my success in my previous car (MG Metro Cup) was that I happened to be friendly with someone who knew how to do set them up. I have actually now found someone who can set cars up and doesn't charge very much (SimonY from Pistonheads - www.spy-motorsport.co.uk ), and he spent a day with me at Brands back in March. The setup is now glorious and I was really happy with my times, but when faced with the bills to actually go racing in 2008 I'm afraid I took the only sensible way out, which was putting my car up for sale... (you'll find it on Pistonheads classifieds). Having now experienced what it's like to work with someone who knows what they're doing (SimonY and his brother PeterY), I'm currently looking at racing a Formula Ford or Formula Renault with the 750MC or Monosposto instead. Race entry fees are £190, so I can spend my change on getting the car run for me by someone like Simon or Peter who knows one end of a spanner from the other! You'll hopefully see me on the results sheets again soon!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 11th June 13:54

[StressedDave]

I figured it was either broken car or funding - you're still listed at the bottom of the results sheet for Roadsports, so I presume you paid entry fee to championships and are now condemned to be listed as 'Not Seen'.