1st very powerful car

[Crippo]

I'm not an advanced driver so please forgive me if I'm getting the wrong end of the stick. I've read several topics along these lines that seem to offer conflicting advice about whether Track driving aids road driving. I always feel that the Advanced drivers are quick to stand up and justify their corner by denigrating the performance drivers with comments such as safe speed and observation and never reaching a cars limits or other such phrases. It's quite obvious that being a good driver in a performance sense requires the same set of skills that an advanced driver possessed. However, it also strikes me that an advanced driver, in the context usually taken in this section on PH does not need to be a performance driver. So whilst driving safely on the road doesn't need some of the skills one might learn from track driving I would suggest that the enjoyment is greatly enhanced by doing so.

[RobM77]

That's probably because there's a lack of people who have practised both disciplines to the point of understanding them properly. It's quite a simple concept how understanding the limit can help you avoid it.

To use an analogy, I suspect that a motorcycle stunt rider is a lot less likely to accidentally wheelie over the back of his bike pulling away quickly than an ordinary rider - the difficulty is getting that stunt rider to not use his experience to run it fine each time! Although of course it would be illogical to say that the stunt rider couldn't run things a bit closer than an ordinary rider, because the ordinary rider's safety margin is determined partly by their ignorance.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 30th March 09:20

[Nigel_O]

RobM77 said:

To be brutally honest, in my opinion it's simply a lack of experience and understanding of track driving. It's quite a simple concept how understanding the limit can help you avoid it.

but later edited to:

RobM77 said:

That's probably because there's a lack of people who have practised both disciplines to the point of understanding them properly. It's quite a simple concept how understanding the limit can help you avoid it.

but the answer is the same:

Not in my case its not - I have trophies for many different track events, from Ten of the Best (x3), PalmerSport, Hillclimbs and several karting events. I also have several trophies from several road safety trials.

I can drive quickly and I can drive safely. Sometimes I can even do both at the same time. My interpretation of the OP's question was how to be quick and safe on the road, and whether trackday tuition would help. The very first response in this thread gave the OP the answer he needed.

I agree that finding the limit of your car (or your ability) on track can help you avoid it on the road. However, the converse can sometimes be true in that understanding the limit on track can occasionally lead to drivers getting too close to the limit on the road. Whilst the physical limits may be similar on the road to those on the track, the consequences of exceeding the limits are disproportionately more severe.

In a Boxster of any description, driving close to the car's limit on a road is asking for trouble. The message that I (and others) were trying to get across is that the stuff you learn on track should mostly be used when driving on the track. If that's what the OP wants, then great - trackdays are great fun, with little risk and if you shell out for a bit of tuition, you'll come away knowing more than you did when you arrived.

However, to get the most out of a Boxster (or any other quick car) on the road, trackday tuition won't help much, if at all. By far the best way to be quick AND safe on the road is to have training that's designed for the road.

FWIW, I've had track training and it made me a faster and safer track driver. I've had IAM training and it made me a safer and faster road driver. The training was very different for each discipline, but the results were broadly the same.

Edited by Nigel_O on Wednesday 30th March 09:39

Edited by Nigel_O on Wednesday 30th March 09:43

[RobM77]

My edit was simply because I thought of a better way of expressing my point; both points are true. I don't just post off the cuff - I think properly about the points I'm making and how I put them across and I frequently make edits (this post is on its fourth since I posted!).

Obviously, as with anything, this isn't something that everyone is going to agree on, but I do think it's a pretty basic point that anyone reasonably accomplished and experienced in both activities will appreciate.

ETA: Nigel - I'd appreciate a more direct answer to my point if that's ok as I'm interested in your viewpoint.

1) I presume we agree that for a given corner, Jackie Stewart for example could take it faster than you or I? Furthermore, you or I could take it faster than someone with no track experience, yes? This is the central principle of motorsport. So, how is it that in your opinion when we're all driving at 40mph, Jackie isn't safer than us and we're not safer than the people with no track experience? Surely we have a greater margin for safety at any given speed?

2) Consider also what would happen if a deer ran out, someone came at us on the wrong side of the road, or we hit a patch of wet mud; surely we'd be safer, if not just from the ability to stay calm and measured?

3) Finally, you and I will understand how to use the controls to keep the car balanced - for example so that both ends of the car are sat at 50% grip. Most people sit in a corner with their front end at, say, 70%, and the rear end at 30%. How is our approach not safer?!

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 30th March 10:15

[RobM77]

Incidentally, I would like to add that if someone is in the OP's position, I wouldn't recommend track instruction. My reasoning is that for a given amount of time to improve one's road driving, one is always better taking advanced road driving instruction. This is why it's not on the syllabus for IAM, RoSPA etc. To re-use my earlier analogy, I wouldn't recommend a course in stunt riding for a biker wishing to improve their road riding. However, if one already happens to be an experienced racing driver, then yes, of course that helps you to be safer on the road.

ETA: I do think the application of car dynamics to safe road driving becomes more relevant for higher performance cars.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 30th March 10:54

[anonymous-user]

What about booking someone like Bernard Aubrey (is he still working?).

When I got my first Boxster in '98 I booked him for a day - half was on the roads and half on track. He really taught me a lot about roadcraft and handling.

[RobM77]

I may have remembered this wrongly, but did Mark Hales used to do a weekend course with John Lyons up at Anglesey? You couldn't fail to get a lot out of that.

[Nigel_O]

RobM77 said:

ETA: Nigel - I'd appreciate a more direct answer to my point if that's ok as I'm interested in your viewpoint.

No problem - I'm certainly not spoiling for a fight - just trying to defend my opinion (and I accept its only an opinion - not trying to hold it up as fact)

RobM77 said:

1) I presume we agree that for a given corner, Jackie Stewart for example could take it faster than you or I? Furthermore, you or I could take it faster than someone with no track experience, yes? This is the central principle of motorsport. So, how is it that in your opinion when we're all driving at 40mph, Jackie isn't safer than us and we're not safer than the people with no track experience? Surely we have a greater margin for safety at any given speed?

Agreed - racing drivers can generally drive faster than non racing drivers. However, my opinion is that (Sir) Jackie is neither safer or less safe than a non racing driver on the road because his racing skills are not in play (and most definitely shouldn't be). The only attribute that MIGHT come into play is a heightened awareness of his surroundings, but my point was that this is something that IAM teaches anyway.

RobM77 said:

2) Consider also what would happen if a deer ran out, someone came at us on the wrong side of the road, or we hit a patch of wet mud; surely we'd be safer, if not just from the ability to stay calm and measured?

None of those situations is likely on a race track, so one could argue that the road-trained driver is more likely to have encountered the situation before and is thus able to reply on experience. I'll accept that a racing driver is more likely to be able to hold an unexpected slide due to mud on the road, although an IAM driver would probably have anticipated the mud in advance and reacted accordingly

RobM77 said:

3) Finally, you and I will understand how to use the controls to keep the car balanced - for example so that both ends of the car are sat at 50% grip. Most people sit in a corner with their front end at, say, 70%, and the rear end at 30%. How is our approach not safer?!

Agreed - people with track experience can balance a car (or even choose to upset the balance if required) Sadly, my days of 50/50 and RWD are long over (had a 355 for a couple of years) and I'm now running almost 500bhp, but through the front wheels. However, my opinion is that road driving should never get to the point where weight distribution is an issue. If an imbalance of weight distribution is the cause of a loss of control (even partially), the driver was already going too fast for the road conditions. Yes, we've all had slidy moments on the road, and some might even have been in control of it, but it doesn't really have a place on today's crowded roads

and finally

RobM77 said:

Incidentally, I would like to add that if someone is in the OP's position, I wouldn't recommend track instruction.

Seems that we're in agreement re the answer to the OP's question, but not with the reasons for the answer

[otolith]

I would tend to agree with Jackie Stewart's observation that developing smoothness is a transferable skill between road and track.

I don't see that the value of the IAM/RoSPA route really has anything to do with how powerful the car is.

Provided you leave the stability/traction functions alone, modern high performance cars are no less forgiving than humbler models - they aren't going to spit you off the road for a simple ill-judged throttle application. They give you the option of getting yourself into trouble more quickly, but that has a common sense resolution. If someone were buying, say, a Cobra replica, there would certainly be an argument for them getting some experience of the car's foibles in a safe environment, and perhaps some professional tuition.

I think on-road and on-track tuition are good things, but I'm not sure that buying a more powerful car makes them suddenly more necessary than before.

[RobM77]

Nigel_O said:

RobM77 said:

ETA: Nigel - I'd appreciate a more direct answer to my point if that's ok as I'm interested in your viewpoint.

No problem - I'm certainly not spoiling for a fight - just trying to defend my opinion (and I accept its only an opinion - not trying to hold it up as fact)

Likewise

Nigel_O said:

RobM77 said:

1) I presume we agree that for a given corner, Jackie Stewart for example could take it faster than you or I? Furthermore, you or I could take it faster than someone with no track experience, yes? This is the central principle of motorsport. So, how is it that in your opinion when we're all driving at 40mph, Jackie isn't safer than us and we're not safer than the people with no track experience? Surely we have a greater margin for safety at any given speed?

Agreed - racing drivers can generally drive faster than non racing drivers. However, my opinion is that (Sir) Jackie is neither safer or less safe than a non racing driver on the road because his racing skills are not in play (and most definitely shouldn't be). The only attribute that MIGHT come into play is a heightened awareness of his surroundings, but my point was that this is something that IAM teaches anyway.

Surely if driver A is capable of taking a corner at 65mph in extremis and driver B could only manage 50mph, then at 40mph driver A has a greater margin of safety?

Nigel_O said:

RobM77 said:

2) Consider also what would happen if a deer ran out, someone came at us on the wrong side of the road, or we hit a patch of wet mud; surely we'd be safer, if not just from the ability to stay calm and measured?

None of those situations is likely on a race track, so one could argue that the road-trained driver is more likely to have encountered the situation before and is thus able to reply on experience. I'll accept that a racing driver is more likely to be able to hold an unexpected slide due to mud on the road, although an IAM driver would probably have anticipated the mud in advance and reacted accordingly

I'm referring to a driver who already has IAM training though, so the track driving ability is on top of his advanced road driving skills. Our hypothetical driver would do everything that the IAM driver would do, but on top of that would have learnt to stay calm in adversity (to answer your first point, whether that's a deer or a spinning car in front of them it makes no difference) and would know how to correct a slide with supremely more delicacy and accuracy than an IAM driver

Nigel_O said:

RobM77 said:

3) Finally, you and I will understand how to use the controls to keep the car balanced - for example so that both ends of the car are sat at 50% grip. Most people sit in a corner with their front end at, say, 70%, and the rear end at 30%. How is our approach not safer?!

Agreed - people with track experience can balance a car (or even choose to upset the balance if required) Sadly, my days of 50/50 and RWD are long over (had a 355 for a couple of years) and I'm now running almost 500bhp, but through the front wheels.

That's a ststic weight distribution. I'm talking about the dynamic balance created by the driver in a corner.

Nigel_O said:

However, my opinion is that road driving should never get to the point where weight distribution is an issue. If an imbalance of weight distribution is the cause of a loss of control (even partially), the driver was already going too fast for the road conditions. Yes, we've all had slidy moments on the road, and some might even have been in control of it, but it doesn't really have a place on today's crowded roads

Nothing that advanced driving teaches you is necessary unless something goes wrong, but that's the whole point isn't it? Layers of safety to guard against the unexpected. I'd rather be in a balanced car than an unbalanced one.

Nigel_O said:

and finally

RobM77 said:

Incidentally, I would like to add that if someone is in the OP's position, I wouldn't recommend track instruction.

Seems that we're in agreement re the answer to the OP's question, but not with the reasons for the answer

Yes, given a limited amount of time a driver is always better going to the IAM, RoSPA or similar. If a driver is already an accomplished racer though, I believe that would make him safer than another driver if they both study advanced driving to the same degree.

[Alex]

I think it could be summarised as:

IAM or RoSPA training will help prevent things go wrong; track tuition will help if they do.

[DanL]

On road tuition - might be worth looking at these guys:

http://www.ridedrive.co.uk/

I had a morning with them a good few years ago now, and it's still useful. I didn't learn car control, but I did learn how to read the road, car positioning, etc. and all of this make me smoother and (where needed) faster.

[RobM77]

Alex said:

I think it could be summarised as:

IAM or RoSPA training will help prevent things go wrong; track tuition will help if they do.

The edges do blur a bit of course between advanced road and track ability. Any decent advanced road driving instructor (IAM, RoSPA etc) will encourage you to rev-match and operate the controls smoothly for the same reason as a track instructor will. In actual fact though, when driving at speeds generally considered safe on the road, you could bang gears in without rev matching and operate the controls jerkily and you'd still get to your destination safely. We as advanced drivers do these things like rev-matching and smooth steering because they build in safety margins. I just go a stage further on the dynamic side of things.

Edited by RobM77 on Wednesday 30th March 12:22

[Nigel_O]

Alex said:

I think it could be summarised as:

IAM or RoSPA training will help prevent things go wrong; track tuition will help if they do.

That seems to be what Rob and I are both saying, but in 2% of the words we've used....

[Alex]

RobM77 said:

I just go a stage further on the dynamic side of things.

Like you mentioned, track tuition will help understand how to keep a car balanced, for example, by not lifting or braking in a corner. Are things like this covered by IAM/RoSPA?

[jaf01uk]

Alex said:

RobM77 said:

I just go a stage further on the dynamic side of things.

Like you mentione, track tuition will help understand how to keep a car balanced, for example, by not lifting or braking in a corner. Are things like this covered by IAM/RoSPA?

Yes, yes they are... the reading of limit points and forward observation and planning avoid the imbalance of dynamics experienced on the limits, Slow, slow, limit point moving,off brakes, take gear appropriate for the new speed, gas on to maintain speed through the bend applying increasing gas as the steering straightens out, on to the next one... not rocket surgery?

[gavsdavs]

Walshyday!

(www.carlimits.com)

[Nigel_O]

Trying not to re-quote too deeply...

RobM77 said:

Surely if driver A is capable of taking a corner at 65mph in extremis and driver B could only manage 50mph, then at 40mph driver A has a greater margin of safety?

Yes, but if either driver is taking the corner at 40mph, the safety element is so large that skill simply doesn't apply. Admittedly, if something goes horribly wrong halfway round the corner, driver A stands a better chance of staying out of the scenery, but all other things being equal, both drivers will make it round the corner without having to rely on any special skills

RobM77 said:

I'm referring to a driver who already has IAM training though, so the track driving ability is on top of his advanced road driving skills. Our hypothetical driver would do everything that the IAM driver would do, but on top of that would have learnt to stay calm in adversity (to answer your first point, whether that's a deer or a spinning car in front of them it makes no difference) and would know how to correct a slide with supremely more delicacy and accuracy than an IAM driver

Ah, well - that's changing the goalposts slightly - I was commenting from the position of the OP, ie no track OR IAM training. In your scenario, I agree that an IAM driver WITH track experience is more likely to survive a "moment" than an IAM driver without track experience

RobM77 said:

Nothing that advanced driving teaches you is necessary unless something goes wrong, but that's the whole point isn't it? Layers of safety to guard against the unexpected. I'd rather be in a balanced car than an unbalanced one

My point was that if a driver is driving within the limits, the balance of the car is immaterial and that for the vast majority of drivers, "balance" is something that only applies to their bank account. I disagree with the opening comment about "Nothing that advanced driving teaches you is necessary unless something goes wrong" - IAM teaches you to not get into the "wrong" position in the first place - I don't recall my course ever covering what happens if at all goes tits-up

The "layers of safety" you mention are best achieved by driving within the limits of the vehicle - that way you won't need the extra layers afforded by a sweet-handling car

RobM77 said:

Yes, given a limited amount of time a driver is always better going to the IAM, RoSPA or similar. If a driver is already an accomplished racer though, I believe that would make him safer than another driver if they both study advanced driving to the same degree.

Impossible to disagree - a race driver (or even just a driver with a fair few trackdays under his belt) is always going to have that extra level of skill for the point when the safety-based training runs out and control is partially lost. I'm not sure the race driver will be any safer though, as the non-race driver (but still IAM qualified) probably wouldn't put himself into the unsafe position in the first place. The race driver is just more likely to recover from a loss of control

Ultimately, I feel my driving is better for having experience at both ends of the spectrum - I feel safe on the road and I thoroughly enjoy trackdays. I also feel safe on track and enjoy making good progress on the road - perhaps the advice to the OP should be "do both"

[RobM77]

jaf01uk said:

Alex said:

RobM77 said:

I just go a stage further on the dynamic side of things.

Like you mentione, track tuition will help understand how to keep a car balanced, for example, by not lifting or braking in a corner. Are things like this covered by IAM/RoSPA?

Yes, yes they are... the reading of limit points and forward observation and planning avoid the imbalance of dynamics experienced on the limits, Slow, slow, limit point moving,off brakes, take gear appropriate for the new speed, gas on to maintain speed through the bend applying increasing gas as the steering straightens out, on to the next one... not rocket surgery?

I've ridden with an HPC member from this forum and a very high up RoSPA instructor and both managed the balance of their car very well indeed, but they do remain two isolated islands of dynamic sympathy amongst the sea of advanced drivers I've ridden with, including police class one and RoSPA gold drivers.

[RobM77]

Nigel_O said:

Trying not to re-quote too deeply...

I think we're broadly in agreement there

There is one thing I must comment on though:

Nigel_O said:

I disagree with the opening comment about "Nothing that advanced driving teaches you is necessary unless something goes wrong" - IAM teaches you to not get into the "wrong" position in the first place - I don't recall my course ever covering what happens if at all goes tits-up

The "layers of safety" you mention are best achieved by driving within the limits of the vehicle - that way you won't need the extra layers afforded by a sweet-handling car

This is 100% nothing personal, and wholly a criticism of advanced driving in general, but this is one of my major problems with advanced driving - this attitude that mistakes never happen. By following the principles of advanced driving you are much less likely to encounter an emergency situation, and indeed by building layers of safety you'll normally just peel back one or two of those, rather than have an incident. However, accidents and mistakes do happen. A friend of mine's Dad was a well regarded advanced motorcycle instructor and he broke his leg when he hit some black ice on his bike one day - it happens!

I did say 'in general', so to expand on the above: the other, and more common, time this comes up is with indicating. Many advanced drivers quite rightly see indicating solely as a means of communication to other road users, but many go a stage further and won't indicate if nobody is around to communicate to. I'll rephrase that: "if they haven't observed anyone around...". I have a major issue with that, particularly as a regular pedestrian and cyclist who gets infuriated by drivers who don't indicate because they haven't seen me waiting at a junction up the road. Yes, nobody should ever trust an indicator in a decision related to safety, but they are frequently needed in decisions related to the smooth passage of traffic and undue hesitancy. Many a time I've been waiting to cross a road and a car's been approaching and getting slower and slower and I'm stood there wondering what to do, and then they suddenly turn into a side road without indicating, because they hadn't scanned the road far ahead enough of them. I'm not going to walk out in front of a moving car, but I'd be ready to cross as soon as they confirmed their turn into that road. I've even ridden with advanced drivers who've pissed off other road users with this behaviour, when I've spotted someone that the driver just didn't see. It's rare, but it happens. Nobody's perfect.