RE: PH Blog: go with the flow
Discussion
Dan Trent said:
mrmr96 said:
So, Dan, is what you're saying that you're getting too old to drive properly fast cars properly fast? And you feel more comfortable with something slower? I just don't believe you can't get the same sense of flowing joy from a more capable car, unless you're scared of it.
Well, it's more complicated than that. Though part of it must be that properly fast cars have got easier to drive properly fast. That GT3 example I raised in the piece - it's always taken me a little while to ease into the experience but, boy, once I have... As a couple of unfortunate passengers will attest! Part of that is that to really rinse a GT3 makes much greater demands of you as a driver. First time I drove one I moaned that the pedals seemed really badly placed and weighted for heel and toe but then it dawned on me that they *were* spot on but only when you were completely on it and using the kind of brake and throttle applications you would when really committed. Just one of the many reasons I love those cars.
So, yes, you can get that sense of flow out of a seriously capable car but, by heck, you need to think carefully about when/where you might do that. So I guess that's where a slower/less powerful car might be advantageous, purely because it might open up more opportunities.
But, like I say, it's more subtle than that and not just about how fast or slow you're going. It's about how you feel doing it. And how the sensations from the car, from its controls to the noise it makes, contribute to that.
[quote=jerrytlr]Great thread.
Superb Flow...
- Renault Clio 1.2
etc...
Really? I bought one recently as a hack car and it is absolutely crap to drive. 1.2 from 1999 with zero steering feel, inprecise suspension and a general feeling of being detached. I don't know what it's doing so I don't trust it.
The upshot of all that is that for me it really doesn't flow well. Maybe its me?! Any comments? The only fwd car I owned that flowed well was my 1.4 306. 1.8 mk1 Focus wasn't great. MGB terrible for this. MX5 sublime, partially due to very low grip tyres.
There is another aspect to this type of driving that is fun - eco driving. It requires the brake pedal to almost never be used and engine braking to be avoided if possible. Straights to be taken at moderate speed and corners to be taken at the same speed on the racing line where visibilty allows (thats the fun bit!). Clearly there's a compromise between fuel economy (ie max speed in corners) and tyre/suspension life. If used carefully on quiet B roads, it is safe, fun and cheap. To be honest its the only aspect of driving I enjoy right now...until I get something decent to drive again.
Superb Flow...
- Renault Clio 1.2
etc...
Really? I bought one recently as a hack car and it is absolutely crap to drive. 1.2 from 1999 with zero steering feel, inprecise suspension and a general feeling of being detached. I don't know what it's doing so I don't trust it.
The upshot of all that is that for me it really doesn't flow well. Maybe its me?! Any comments? The only fwd car I owned that flowed well was my 1.4 306. 1.8 mk1 Focus wasn't great. MGB terrible for this. MX5 sublime, partially due to very low grip tyres.
There is another aspect to this type of driving that is fun - eco driving. It requires the brake pedal to almost never be used and engine braking to be avoided if possible. Straights to be taken at moderate speed and corners to be taken at the same speed on the racing line where visibilty allows (thats the fun bit!). Clearly there's a compromise between fuel economy (ie max speed in corners) and tyre/suspension life. If used carefully on quiet B roads, it is safe, fun and cheap. To be honest its the only aspect of driving I enjoy right now...until I get something decent to drive again.
Noesph said:
doggydog33 said:
Some magazines call it 'Evo-ness'.
It's the fun factor that's needed.
MX5
Elise
Honda Beat
Smart Roadster
Suzuki Cappucino
Pug 106
205 gti
Citroen AX GT
All the sort of cars to have down a twisty bit of clear road. Problem comes when you need to overtake something, then you will wish you had a bit more oomph!
I agree (especially on the 106, AX front).It's the fun factor that's needed.
MX5
Elise
Honda Beat
Smart Roadster
Suzuki Cappucino
Pug 106
205 gti
Citroen AX GT
All the sort of cars to have down a twisty bit of clear road. Problem comes when you need to overtake something, then you will wish you had a bit more oomph!
Excellent article.
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
You can drive a high-power car and still maintain decent flow. You've just got to remind yourself that you don't have to use all of the horses all of the time.
When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
very good post.When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
thats the approach i take in the noble. a friend has an atom who would definitly have an angular graph, inexperienced passengers then think bloody hell we are going quick by how much braking and hard accelerating is being done.
I think gearing is a crucial part of flow. My old Prelude Vtec flowed beautifully once on cam and could make the most of its power as it changed up into the most responsive part of the rev-range.
Flow is not the same as fun though. People have mentioned various diesels and my two-pence-worth is that my Jag diesel flows well, transporting occupants in comfort and at pace, but its not much fun.
For flow and fun I have many memorable drives around the Sierra Nevada in a hired Ka...
Flow is not the same as fun though. People have mentioned various diesels and my two-pence-worth is that my Jag diesel flows well, transporting occupants in comfort and at pace, but its not much fun.
For flow and fun I have many memorable drives around the Sierra Nevada in a hired Ka...
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
You can drive a high-power car and still maintain decent flow. You've just got to remind yourself that you don't have to use all of the horses all of the time.
When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
Its not nearly as satisfying though. You don't get the feeling that you are wringing out and exhausting the capabilities of the car.When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
jackal said:
Its not nearly as satisfying though. You don't get the feeling that you are wringing out and exhausting the capabilities of the car.
Yes and no. 75% in a TVR is still a fair bit quicker I reckon than 100% in an MX-5, and hence while you may not get the satisfaction that you are wringing it out, at least the braking and acceleration forces you experience will be of greater magnitude. Which I suppose is the problem as it means that you are more likely to get less flow. [quote=suffolk009]Flow - it's the new BHP.
And the best drive I've had in the last two years has been in my old MG Midget on B-roads, about half an hour journey that normally takes 25 minutes in anything newer.
As I've been reading this blog I was starting to think Spriget myself. I stll have an old 1969 MkIII Midget that I can't bring myself to sell despite owning some more powerful machines now. I think Dan has perfectly described why, and may even be touching on some of the reasons why old, out of date, classic sports cars still hold some appeal these days.
And the best drive I've had in the last two years has been in my old MG Midget on B-roads, about half an hour journey that normally takes 25 minutes in anything newer.
As I've been reading this blog I was starting to think Spriget myself. I stll have an old 1969 MkIII Midget that I can't bring myself to sell despite owning some more powerful machines now. I think Dan has perfectly described why, and may even be touching on some of the reasons why old, out of date, classic sports cars still hold some appeal these days.
Dr Mike Oxgreen said:
You can drive a high-power car and still maintain decent flow. You've just got to remind yourself that you don't have to use all of the horses all of the time.
When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
I really agree here. Its not one or the other, it can be both. You can have 'flow' just as easily with a high performance car. It takes skill and time in understanding what you have to do to get the 'sweet spot' from your machine.When exiting one corner, you need to look far enough ahead and decide how much of your power it makes sense to use between here and the next corner, and hence when you're going to start easing off the power so that you don't need to be braking too much.
When I'm hustling the TVR along a twisty road, I rarely use more than 75% of its power. I aim for a smooth modulation of power from one corner to the next, with minimal braking (which requires good judgement of when to start easing off) - and where braking is necessary, I try to blend it into the car's natural deceleration.
If you were to draw a graph of your acceleration and deceleration, it should be a curvy line rather than an angular one - and that's just as possible in a TVR as it is in an MX-5.
foxhounduk said:
I really agree here. Its not one or the other, it can be both. You can have 'flow' just as easily with a high performance car. It takes skill and time in understanding what you have to do to get the 'sweet spot' from your machine.
So are we concluding then that flow is simply maintaining [perhaps a fairly high] speed over a given road? In which case, indeed, it can be done in any car, but some cars will be more fun than in others. Some would say it is more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow, something I'd kind of agree with. I'd also perhaps suggest that cars with good ride quality (not necessarily meaning soft or soggy) are better as they allow those cars to flow over even rough roads?TheOrangePeril said:
Damn straight, hopped out of a mate's Civic Type R and into my A30 and only then did the blood really start pumping. Drive a car that needs to be DRIVEN to get the most out of it and you'll find there is no more rewarding driving experience out there.
So right.And the cars which need to be driven tend to be older, with less rubbery controls that make the car do what you want, not what the designers thought some muppet driver needed
I think for a car to have proper flow charactaristics it needs to be: Softly sprung, not overpowered, and ideally have some manner of midrange, although this is not essiential.
I remember one journey I did 5 up in an '08 Passat diesel estate; everyone commented how quickly we got there. I was going quickly, but I barely braked the whole 150 miles as I was concerned out passenger comfort, the journey just wafted by, 'pacey, but not racey' is I think the best way to describe what we're getting at here.
Obviously - not easy in all cars, I did the same journey the year before in an M3 and whilst we got there just as quickly, the passengers felt the journey a lot more.
I remember one journey I did 5 up in an '08 Passat diesel estate; everyone commented how quickly we got there. I was going quickly, but I barely braked the whole 150 miles as I was concerned out passenger comfort, the journey just wafted by, 'pacey, but not racey' is I think the best way to describe what we're getting at here.
Obviously - not easy in all cars, I did the same journey the year before in an M3 and whilst we got there just as quickly, the passengers felt the journey a lot more.
BlackPrince said:
jackal said:
Its not nearly as satisfying though. You don't get the feeling that you are wringing out and exhausting the capabilities of the car.
Yes and no. 75% in a TVR is still a fair bit quicker I reckon than 100% in an MX-5, and hence while you may not get the satisfaction that you are wringing it out, at least the braking and acceleration forces you experience will be of greater magnitude. Which I suppose is the problem as it means that you are more likely to get less flow. It depends on the drive too- Dan mentioned that he enjoyed the peak district in the Rangie, was he ragging it? Probably not. My best drive from last year was taking my Alfa RZ (which flows superbly) up to Ben Nevis. The drive up the A82 was epic but also long, the pleasure came in several hours of rapid but not balls-out progress. The satisfaction in keeping it smooth and feeling the edges of the grip window rather than traversing them. Frankly on a drive like that it is far too far to be on the edge the whole way and that's where flow (and indeed a faster car) can be hugely enjoyable
Excellent blog, good to see someone highlighting a very enjoyable part of driving and a more relevant part than the standard stats. Was refreshing to see an article where speed was not the main focus of the pleasure achieved.
Not sure I agree with the state of mind thing. Yes it is part of flow but certainly not all of it, although for the best flow it really matters. Flow is more about harmony, which is why higher power car often struggle to flow. It is all about the driver/rider being one with the car/bike and road. No one aspect should dominate the experience, it is about everything working together to compliment each other. Think of it like an orchestra if one part dominates or the parts do not work together the music will be unballanced, when all part work together in a ballanced way then the best music will be produced. It is the same when getting flow when you drive. If you drive in a smooth manner so you dont unsettle the car, the car has a compliant (but controlled) ride so it doesn't crash or wallow down the road and you drive to the road in a way that is continuous, not stop start then you will achieve flow.
This can be achieved in higher power more capable cars, but requires much more skill and is significantly more difficult to achieve, as the performance of the car can become dominant distracting from the harmony Getting flow from a higher performance vehicle can be very rewarding as the effort/skill you have to put in to get it can increase the reward/pleasure. If the performance of the car/engine become dominant it can still be fun and enjoyable, but it isn't flow.
I have had flow in cars and on bikes, they have all been very memorable drives/rides and not once has the speed I was travelling at mattered to me at all. The best vehicle I have ever owned for flow was a 1991 Honda CBR600F, it had 83.5bHp at the rear wheel but for me it just clicked with that bike and flow was easy to achieve on a regular basis.
One of the best cars I have driven for flow is a maseratti ghibli gt (with an automatic gearbox), being a gt car it doesn't suit being hussled in the same way as a sports car. The subtle predictable power deliver and the compliant but controlled ride all combine to provide a car that is easy to drive and get flow with. I had a very memorable drive in one on the B863 in scotland and the only complaint from the passanger (who's car it is) was that they would have like to have been driving.
Not sure I agree with the state of mind thing. Yes it is part of flow but certainly not all of it, although for the best flow it really matters. Flow is more about harmony, which is why higher power car often struggle to flow. It is all about the driver/rider being one with the car/bike and road. No one aspect should dominate the experience, it is about everything working together to compliment each other. Think of it like an orchestra if one part dominates or the parts do not work together the music will be unballanced, when all part work together in a ballanced way then the best music will be produced. It is the same when getting flow when you drive. If you drive in a smooth manner so you dont unsettle the car, the car has a compliant (but controlled) ride so it doesn't crash or wallow down the road and you drive to the road in a way that is continuous, not stop start then you will achieve flow.
This can be achieved in higher power more capable cars, but requires much more skill and is significantly more difficult to achieve, as the performance of the car can become dominant distracting from the harmony Getting flow from a higher performance vehicle can be very rewarding as the effort/skill you have to put in to get it can increase the reward/pleasure. If the performance of the car/engine become dominant it can still be fun and enjoyable, but it isn't flow.
I have had flow in cars and on bikes, they have all been very memorable drives/rides and not once has the speed I was travelling at mattered to me at all. The best vehicle I have ever owned for flow was a 1991 Honda CBR600F, it had 83.5bHp at the rear wheel but for me it just clicked with that bike and flow was easy to achieve on a regular basis.
One of the best cars I have driven for flow is a maseratti ghibli gt (with an automatic gearbox), being a gt car it doesn't suit being hussled in the same way as a sports car. The subtle predictable power deliver and the compliant but controlled ride all combine to provide a car that is easy to drive and get flow with. I had a very memorable drive in one on the B863 in scotland and the only complaint from the passanger (who's car it is) was that they would have like to have been driving.
This encapsulates my love of my BMW E39 520i Touring. It's not especially fast, though it's quick enough beyond 20mph and pulls strongly to 140. It's not the prettiest car ever, though I think it's handsome. It doesn't have the fastest, most feelsome steering, the sharpest-turn-in or the smoothest ride. Half the time it's a pain in the arse, stuff on it breaks all the time and I've considered getting rid of it several times - but, every time I do, I find myself on a great road and the car just reminds me why I bought it in the first place. The turbine-smooth, sonorous straight six revving eagerly to 6800rpm or so (and you need to, there's no point short-shifting as there's no low-end torque), the nice precise but quite long-throw gearchange that won't be hurried and requires forethought and anticipation, and that unquantifiable sense of flow. It doesn't seem to matter if it's a smooth, curvy A-road or a windy, hilly B-road, as long as the surface is decent (the shock absorbers aren't up to much), it is just an utter joy. That a big old family bus like that, which I've used to transport four people (myself included) with a tumble dryer in the boot, has such balance and poise is really quite staggering. The old girl is scarred and beaten and feeling a tad knackered (some engine, suspension and cosmetic refreshing work is going to be needed soon), but, at the end of one of those drives, I get out of it and wonder what could honestly be a more perfect all-rounder for my needs. An end-of-line 53-reg E39 530iT, perhaps.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff