GPL steering into a spin, revisited.

I am happy to inform you that steering into a spin to break it works well. I've read all kinds of physics debates about it - I tried it last night and it blew me away! It basically happens as the first front wheels and then back wheels take turns "anchoring".. Here's how it works: (The example is given for a clockwise spin) The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. The front wheels are turned quickly in the same direction as the spin, i.e. clockwise in this example. The grip of the front wheels decreases when a certain angle is reached. The back wheels now have more grip; they "anchor" and the car yaws counterclockwise. That's it. Andrew

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote: >The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the >front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. Nice analysis. If you really want to sound snooty and impress the locals, say: "The car enters the spin as the slip angle of the rear wheels increases faster than the front wheels" <g> What you are doing is suddenly ramping up the slip angle of the fronts to match or exceed the slip angle of the rears to arrest or reverse the yaw that is taking place. It's a very useful spin technique for saving one's bacon in a race and not losing too may spots because of the error. I sure am glad someone discovered it and were thoughtful enough to pass it along... Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Hi all Is this realistic car behavior ??? Bash Brett C. Cammack <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws [email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> > wrote: > >The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the > >front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. > > Nice analysis. If you really want to sound snooty and impress the > locals, say: "The car enters the spin as the slip angle of the rear > wheels increases faster than the front wheels" <g> > > What you are doing is suddenly ramping up the slip angle of the fronts > to match or exceed the slip angle of the rears to arrest or reverse > the yaw that is taking place. > > It's a very useful spin technique for saving one's bacon in a race and > not losing too may spots because of the error. I sure am glad someone > discovered it and were thoughtful enough to pass it along... > > Regards, > Brett C. Cammack > That's Racing! Motorsports > Pompano Beach, FL

Yes, I believe so. Steering 'into' a skid (or spin) is not a new technique. It's been well known for a long time. John Bash <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8irc14$1me5$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (31 lines)

> Hi all > > Is this realistic car behavior ??? > > Bash > > Brett C. Cammack <[email hidden]> schreef in berichtnieuws > [email hidden]... > > On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> > > wrote: > > >The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the > > >front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. > > > > Nice analysis. If you really want to sound snooty and impress the > > locals, say: "The car enters the spin as the slip angle of the rear > > wheels increases faster than the front wheels" <g> > > > > What you are doing is suddenly ramping up the slip angle of the fronts > > to match or exceed the slip angle of the rears to arrest or reverse > > the yaw that is taking place. > > > > It's a very useful spin technique for saving one's bacon in a race and > > not losing too may spots because of the error. I sure am glad someone > > discovered it and were thoughtful enough to pass it along... > > > > Regards, > > Brett C. Cammack > > That's Racing! Motorsports > > Pompano Beach, FL > >

Bash <[email hidden]> wrote: > Hi all > Is this realistic car behavior ??? That's what I'd like to know. I read the original post a while ago describing this technique and I too have had much success with it. I guess that shows that I spend too much time spinning :) -Nick

In article <9Du45.8394$[email hidden]>, "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote: > In other words, if you're in a right-hand turn, and the tail of thecar is > sliding to the left, turn the wheel more to the right." > > "This causes the front tires to go further past their slip angle peakand > give up more grip, reducing the slide. It also increases drag andslows down > the car, which can be useful under such circumstances. Once the caris back > under control, the steering can be returned to a more normal angle." Amazing stuff, thanks for sharing it. It's so counterintuitive, I'd not have thought of it. I will try it. Thanks for nobody roasting me for being a blathering idiot in this thread :) I misunderstood the original point. I must have good karma this week. -=hambone Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

"Brett C. Cammack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > The other way to arrest too high a yaw rate is to just bury the brake > pedal and lock both ends so that they have the same traction > available. Yet another way, and far better in my opinion, is to anticipate the rears and get the weight moving that way by judiciously applying gas. If there is enough room to save it by locking all four corners, there's probably room enough to balance the car and unwind some lock. Done right -- as though there were a right way to phuck up -- you end up in the grass on the outside, still rolling forward, under control. This is to say that you drive it as you would have if you didn't overcook it; the difference is not asking the car to do what it simply can't do, and instead settle for second best: under control, just a little outside the pavement. At any rate, neither way is the fast way around the track. Just promise yourself to not overcook there again.

Quoted text (11 lines)

> This has to be done early enough in the developing spin that the yaw > rate has not escalated to a level that the inertia of the mass of the > vehicle will continue the yaw so far that you either come to a stop > facing completely the wrong way or the car continues to rotate a > couple times until all of the stored energy of the yaw has been > dissappated. > > That's the rub as we all tend to admit defeat too late when we lose > it, thinking "I can save it!" and flailing away at the controls past > the point of a graceful resolution. As the old song goes, "You've got > to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." <g>

Up until things pass the 90� mark, you're still rolling forward and normal thinking still applies. Once past 90�, things are going in reverse. I think this is why steering into the spin works. If you manage to get the fronts (now the steerable rears) rolling again, they're going the right way to bring the nose back the way it came. By relaxing the brakes a little, the rears (in front now) can unlock and allow the nose to come back around, just like a Rockford turn. I was dubious at first when I heard this. Seeing is believing, so it's time now for everyone to try this at the first Lesmo (especially Eldred, who should take a break from hotlapping the 'Ring). Michael.

In article <8irds5$1g1i$[email hidden]>, [email hidden] wrote: > Bash <[email hidden]> wrote: > > Hi all > > > Is this realistic car behavior ??? Absolutely realistic in general, although I think GPL allows us a little extra leeway from, a pure physics standpoint, than "real life" (yes, that's just an opinion) If you watch much modern f1 with the in-car cameras, that's what "opposite lock" is all about - this concept to the extreme. In fact, it was awesome this weekend watching Velleneuve just when it started to rain. They had an in-car shot of him opposite locking *TOWARD* the turn exit wall where it says "Bienvenue" - whilst travelling at around 100kph (est.) - at the last turn onto the front straight... that guy has frickin' TITANIUM NUTS. He did it two laps in a row that they showed. Spectacular stuff, on the razors edge. -=ham Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Hammer <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:8irl3o$qp$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (21 lines)

> In article <8irds5$1g1i$[email hidden]>, > [email hidden] wrote: > > Bash <[email hidden]> wrote: > > > Hi all > > > > > Is this realistic car behavior ??? > > Absolutely realistic in general, although I think GPL allows us a > little extra leeway from, a pure physics standpoint, than "real life" > (yes, that's just an opinion) > > If you watch much modern f1 with the in-car cameras, that's > what "opposite lock" is all about - this concept to the extreme. In > fact, it was awesome this weekend watching Velleneuve just when it > started to rain. They had an in-car shot of him opposite locking > *TOWARD* the turn exit wall where it says "Bienvenue" - whilst > travelling at around 100kph (est.) - at the last turn onto the front > straight... that guy has frickin' TITANIUM NUTS. He did it two laps in > a row that they showed. Spectacular stuff, on the razors edge. > > -=ham

Now I'm confused. I thought Gregor et al. were talking about something completely different than traditional opposite lock. That is, if I am driving around a right turn and the car starts to oversteer (ie. rotate faster towards the right) the natural instinct is to unwind the steering wheel, and in extreme cases add in opposite lock (ie. steering left) to stop the rotation. But I thought Gregor was describing some magical point of no return where opposite lock no longer works, and in fact he was saying turn a bit more to the right. Maybe I read it wrong. Opposite lock is obvious and intuitive to anyone who has driven in a Canadian winter. The other is not so intuitive, and I haven't had a chance to test it. As for Villeneuve, he smacked that wall last year and walked away, so probably thinks it is not a big deal. The same could be said of his big Eau Rouge wrecks which seem to have become an annual event. Stephen

In article <3951c0e8$[email hidden]>, "Stephen Ferguson" <[email hidden]> wrote: > Now I'm confused. I thought Gregor et al. were talking aboutsomething > completely different than traditional opposite lock. Hmmm, well, now me too. I just re-read that and I think I'm the one that's got it backwards. I can't see how that would be physically correct... I'll have to try it. In fact, I've never heard of it... ain't ignorance bliss (or not). If indeed it's true, an overcorrection/mistiming of the anchoring maneuvre would have serious conqsequence I would think. Food for thought [sheepish grin]. > As for Villeneuve, he smacked that wall last year and walked away, so > probably thinks it is not a big deal. The same could be said of hisbig Eau Rouge wrecks which seem to have become an annual event. > > Stephen Yes, that's what impressed me even more... after his nearly head first smack last year, he still had the nuts to do it... although the smack last year was an entrance problem, not exit. Also, I think at most tracks it's no biggie, but not on his home track, I think he wants to finish that race worse than any. If I recall, 4 world champions bit that wall in last years race... Schumi, Jaques, Damon Hill, and Mika. ouch. -=ham Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag: [email hidden]... Hi! > [snip] First off: I know that your described technique works and it may be the best technique for people driving with combined pedals. But for me, the following countermeasures always do the job as fine: I'm driving with a seperated pedals setup, i. e. I can feed in gas and brake simultaneously. If I overcook it and the car starts to spin, I immediately give opposite lock in a manner that my front wheels point exactly to the direction I normally want to drive. I also feed in just enough throttle to prevent load travel to the front wheels, that means I balance the car. If I am still too fast and the car does not recover, I quickly give full throttle and full brake simultaneously. This causes two things: The front wheels lock immediately and therefore loose a lot of grip. But the rear wheels don't lock because the braking torque is overdriven by the engine-torque. So now I have the same result as you: Front loose, rear grip. Now the car starts to spin the other way round but this time in a controllable manner. I have put a little replay (77kB-zipfile) onto my server for download. It shows a spectacular overtake maneuver at Silverstone where I catch two AIs in one turn ;). You can get it by clicking this link: http://www.joachimblum.de/files/spin-recovery.zip Watch from inboard-view or TV1. Enjoy! Regards Crash

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> wrote: >I am happy to inform you that steering into a spin to break it works >well. It absolutely works, someone sent me a replay showing how to do it, and after a few tries I got the hang of it. But I can only do it when I focus on it, it feels so unnatural, in the heat of the action I allways countersteer... and lose it :) Andre

Quoted text (30 lines)

> >I've read all kinds of physics debates about it - I tried it last night >and it blew me away! > >It basically happens as the first front wheels and then back wheels take >turns "anchoring".. Here's how it works: > > >(The example is given for a clockwise spin) > >The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the >front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. > >The front wheels are turned quickly in the same direction as the spin, >i.e. clockwise in this example. > >The grip of the front wheels decreases when a certain angle is reached. > >The back wheels now have more grip; they "anchor" and the car yaws >counterclockwise. > > >That's it. > >Andrew > > > > >

Stephen Ferguson wrote:

Quoted text (29 lines)

> > Hammer <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:8irl3o$qp$[email hidden]... > > > > Absolutely realistic in general, although I think GPL allows us a > > little extra leeway from, a pure physics standpoint, than "real life" > > (yes, that's just an opinion) > > > > If you watch much modern f1 with the in-car cameras, that's > > what "opposite lock" is all about - this concept to the extreme. In > > fact, it was awesome this weekend watching Velleneuve just when it > > started to rain. They had an in-car shot of him opposite locking > > *TOWARD* the turn exit wall where it says "Bienvenue" - whilst > > travelling at around 100kph (est.) - at the last turn onto the front > > straight... that guy has frickin' TITANIUM NUTS. He did it two laps in > > a row that they showed. Spectacular stuff, on the razors edge. > > > > -=ham > > Now I'm confused. I thought Gregor et al. were talking about something > completely different than traditional opposite lock. That is, if I am > driving around a right turn and the car starts to oversteer (ie. rotate > faster towards the right) the natural instinct is to unwind the steering > wheel, and in extreme cases add in opposite lock (ie. steering left) to stop > the rotation. But I thought Gregor was describing some magical point of no > return where opposite lock no longer works, and in fact he was saying turn a > bit more to the right. Maybe I read it wrong. Opposite lock is obvious and > intuitive to anyone who has driven in a Canadian winter. The other is not > so intuitive, and I haven't had a chance to test it.

Yes, what this discussion is originally about is the opposite of the opposite lock :), which, as you nicely put it, is effective only after the magical point when the car yaw angle becomes really drastic, in fact higher than the maximum possible lock of your front wheels. Why you don't see this technique used in real racing is that a good driver should never get into such a situation in the first place, and is still in the regime where opposite lock is effective. On the other hand, this effect is more pronounced the higher the center of gravity of the car (the more the outisde wheels are loaded), so the technique does not work as well with modern F1 cars, although I had limited success with it in F1 2000. May I recommend not to try the opposite of the opposite lock in the real life? On icy surfaces there is not much load transfer onto the outside tyres, so the effect would not be as large. > > As for Villeneuve, he smacked that wall last year and walked away, so > probably thinks it is not a big deal. The same could be said of his big Eau > Rouge wrecks which seem to have become an annual event. > > Stephen I'd love to see Villeneuve in a more competitive car! He is such a spectacular driver even when not going over the limit, and driving a more prominent car would give more coverage of him on the TV. -Gregor

Well, I still am getting started with GPL.... I suck! But believe it or not, I can do this really well... Now if only it worked on grass. I mean when the car is on the grass. Regards! Andrew Andre Warringa wrote:

Quoted text (43 lines)

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >I am happy to inform you that steering into a spin to break it works > >well. > > It absolutely works, someone sent me a replay showing how to do it, > and after a few tries I got the hang of it. > But I can only do it when I focus on it, it feels so unnatural, in the > heat of the action I allways countersteer... and lose it :) > > Andre > > > > >I've read all kinds of physics debates about it - I tried it last night > >and it blew me away! > > > >It basically happens as the first front wheels and then back wheels take > >turns "anchoring".. Here's how it works: > > > > > >(The example is given for a clockwise spin) > > > >The car enters the spin as the rear wheels lose grip faster than the > >front wheels; the front wheels "anchor" and the car yaws to the right. > > > >The front wheels are turned quickly in the same direction as the spin, > >i.e. clockwise in this example. > > > >The grip of the front wheels decreases when a certain angle is reached. > > > >The back wheels now have more grip; they "anchor" and the car yaws > >counterclockwise. > > > > > >That's it. > > > >Andrew > > > > > > > > > >

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:17:01 GMT, Hammer <[email hidden]> wrote: >Hmmm, well, now me too. I just re-read that and I think I'm the one >that's got it backwards. I can't see how that would be physically >correct... I'll have to try it. In fact, I've never heard of it... >ain't ignorance bliss (or not). If indeed it's true, an >overcorrection/mistiming of the anchoring maneuvre would have serious >conqsequence I would think. Food for thought [sheepish grin]. Visualize for a moment each tire working in a corner. Tires generate their grip via hysterisis of the rubber molecules when the contact patch distorts (to a point) when the tire is scrubbing across the pavement at a slight angle (the slip angle). A neutral drift occurs when the slip angles of all four tires sustain a relatively constant ratio of slip angles between one another. (from motoring sedately through a corner with no fanfare to drifting gracefully in an arc wider than the corner's radius until you come to rest against the Armco.) If the slip angles of the front wheels increase faster than the rear wheels the vehicle experiences understeer, or "push". If the slip angles of the rear wheels increase faster than the front wheels the vehicle experiences oversteer, or is "loose". If the car is understeering, you might attempt to neutralize this by popping the throttle to take away some of the available traction for cornering so that the slip angle of the rear tires increases, thereby balancing the slip angles fore and aft. If the car is oversteering, you might feed in some opposite lock to reduce the cornering load on the rear tires to match the available grip by widening the line a bit. If the oversteer is too great (the difference in fore/aft slip angles is increasing too rapidly) and the car cannot be balanced by reducing the cornering load on the rear tires or otherwise increasing their grip, then you can bring the fore/aft slip angles back into balance by radically increasing the slip angle of the front tires to the point that they have the same deficit of grip as the fronts, thereby arresting the yaw that is occurring. (the developing spin) The other way to arrest too high a yaw rate is to just bury the brake pedal and lock both ends so that they have the same traction available. This has to be done early enough in the developing spin that the yaw rate has not escalated to a level that the inertia of the mass of the vehicle will continue the yaw so far that you either come to a stop facing completely the wrong way or the car continues to rotate a couple times until all of the stored energy of the yaw has been dissappated. That's the rub as we all tend to admit defeat too late when we lose it, thinking "I can save it!" and flailing away at the controls past the point of a graceful resolution. As the old song goes, "You've got to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." <g> Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:08:35 +0200, "Joachim Blum" <[email hidden]> wrote: >But for me, the following countermeasures always do the job as fine: Fascinating! I'll have to give it a try during one of my numerous opportunities... <g> Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

Extract from GRE help, which goes some way to explaining why the technique of increasing steering as opposed to opposite locking is effective in GPL. It also suggests GPL exaggerates the effect due to lack of some aspects being modelled. "In GPL, however, the addition of opposite lock during a big slide often aggravates the slide instead of initiating recovery. This is because the front tires are already past the peak of their slip angle curves. As the driver feeds in opposite lock, the front tires' slip angle is reduced and they gain grip, causing the front of the car to grip more and rotating front of the car toward the inside of the corner. This effect is present in real cars, but it seems exaggerated in GPL. It seems to me that it was easier to recover from big slides in real life race cars than it is in GPL. I am fairly certain that GPL's omission of the weight jacking and camber change effects of kingpin inclination are responsible for this." "When the car is sliding and the driver feeds in opposite lock, the effects of kingpin inclination cause weight transfer to the outside front and inside rear wheel. This causes the rear to grip better and the front to give up some grip, much like softening the rear anti-roll bar and stiffening the front. Under the same conditions, opposite lock also causes an adverse camber change on the outside front wheel, giving up still more grip at the front. These suspension geometry effects offset the increase in grip as the front tires' slip angle is reduced. The result is that the car is less prone to spin if the driver applies opposite lock during an extreme slide. Since GPL doesn't model these effects, many GPL drivers have developed the technique of increasing steering lock when the car is in an extreme slide. In other words, if you're in a right-hand turn, and the tail of the car is sliding to the left, turn the wheel more to the right." "This causes the front tires to go further past their slip angle peak and give up more grip, reducing the slide. It also increases drag and slows down the car, which can be useful under such circumstances. Once the car is back under control, the steering can be returned to a more normal angle."

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:46:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Brett C. Cammack) wrote: >It's a very useful spin technique for saving one's bacon in a race and >not losing too may spots because of the error. I sure am glad someone >discovered it and were thoughtful enough to pass it along... It's also possible to recognise when the fledgling spin is too far gone to recover - then boot the throttle and hold the steering or even steer out of the skid, thus accelerating the spin. With practice you can do a complete 360, engage first while spinning and continue on without ever leaving the track or coming to a stop. It loses very little time and turns a somewhat embarrasing spin into an extremely cool looking piece of driving. I have some replays of this I could post in the binaries group if anyone wants to see an example. Cheers! John

In article <[email hidden]>, Brett C. Cammack <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (65 lines)

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 08:17:01 GMT, Hammer <[email hidden]> >wrote: >>Hmmm, well, now me too. I just re-read that and I think I'm the one >>that's got it backwards. I can't see how that would be physically >>correct... I'll have to try it. In fact, I've never heard of it... >>ain't ignorance bliss (or not). If indeed it's true, an >>overcorrection/mistiming of the anchoring maneuvre would have serious >>conqsequence I would think. Food for thought [sheepish grin]. > >Visualize for a moment each tire working in a corner. Tires generate >their grip via hysterisis of the rubber molecules when the contact >patch distorts (to a point) when the tire is scrubbing across the >pavement at a slight angle (the slip angle). > >A neutral drift occurs when the slip angles of all four tires sustain >a relatively constant ratio of slip angles between one another. >(from motoring sedately through a corner with no fanfare to drifting >gracefully in an arc wider than the corner's radius until you come to >rest against the Armco.) > >If the slip angles of the front wheels increase faster than the rear >wheels the vehicle experiences understeer, or "push". > >If the slip angles of the rear wheels increase faster than the front >wheels the vehicle experiences oversteer, or is "loose". > >If the car is understeering, you might attempt to neutralize this by >popping the throttle to take away some of the available traction for >cornering so that the slip angle of the rear tires increases, thereby >balancing the slip angles fore and aft. > >If the car is oversteering, you might feed in some opposite lock to >reduce the cornering load on the rear tires to match the available >grip by widening the line a bit. > >If the oversteer is too great (the difference in fore/aft slip angles >is increasing too rapidly) and the car cannot be balanced by reducing >the cornering load on the rear tires or otherwise increasing their >grip, then you can bring the fore/aft slip angles back into balance by >radically increasing the slip angle of the front tires to the point >that they have the same deficit of grip as the fronts, thereby >arresting the yaw that is occurring. (the developing spin) > >The other way to arrest too high a yaw rate is to just bury the brake >pedal and lock both ends so that they have the same traction >available. > >This has to be done early enough in the developing spin that the yaw >rate has not escalated to a level that the inertia of the mass of the >vehicle will continue the yaw so far that you either come to a stop >facing completely the wrong way or the car continues to rotate a >couple times until all of the stored energy of the yaw has been >dissappated. > >That's the rub as we all tend to admit defeat too late when we lose >it, thinking "I can save it!" and flailing away at the controls past >the point of a graceful resolution. As the old song goes, "You've got >to know when to hold 'em and know when to fold 'em." <g> > >Regards, >Brett C. Cammack >That's Racing! Motorsports >Pompano Beach, FL > >

So what you're saying is, and I hope I'm correct, that if the back end starts to slide more than the front and is not remediable by more opposite lock because the back end is sliding too much and the front end is still gripping too much because of the opposite lock, then deliberately cause the front end to slide more as well by turning into the spin. This will allow the front end to catch up with the back end in the sliding stakes and you will drift sideways instead of the back end doing all the sliding and causing a spin. Am I correct? :) I know its not the correct technical vernacular, but hopefully that's it in a nutshell. :) -- Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington) No person's opinions can be said to be more correct than another's, because each is the sole judge of his or her own experience.

My problem is I know it works, did it once, but I find it near impossible to fight the urge to counter! Very hard to break habits! SLG [email hidden] (Brett C. Cammack) wrote:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>On Thu, 22 Jun 2000 14:08:35 +0200, "Joachim Blum" ><[email hidden]> wrote: >>But for me, the following countermeasures always do the job as fine: > >Fascinating! I'll have to give it a try during one of my numerous >opportunities... <g> > >Regards, >Brett C. Cammack >That's Racing! Motorsports >Pompano Beach, FL

(All spelling errors are intentional and are there to show new and improved ways of spelling old words. Grammatical errors are due to too many English classes/teachers)

But surely, if you opposite lock far enough (beyond the direction of intended travel) the front wheels will be pointing partly across the track and will _roll_, reducing the turning forces at the front of the car. One of these days I'll get my hands on a real Lotus 49 and try it out... Tony Whitley Peter Ives <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (12 lines)

> > So what you're saying is, and I hope I'm correct, that if the back end > starts to slide more than the front and is not remediable by more > opposite lock because the back end is sliding too much and the front end > is still gripping too much because of the opposite lock, then > deliberately cause the front end to slide more as well by turning into > the spin. This will allow the front end to catch up with the back end > in the sliding stakes and you will drift sideways instead of the back > end doing all the sliding and causing a spin. Am I correct? :) > > I know its not the correct technical vernacular, but hopefully that's it > in a nutshell. :)

I'd have to say that you've pretty much summed it up in a nutshell, Peter. Hope it is helpful to you. Regards, Brett C. Cammack That's Racing! Motorsports Pompano Beach, FL

In article <4aW45.140996$[email hidden]>, Jim Allison <[email hidden]> writes

Quoted text (10 lines)

>After reading about this technique I was in a race at Monza. I overcooked it >a bit coming out of Parabolica and the back end started to come around. As >I >wound in plenty of opposite lock I came to the realization that all was >lost. But then I heard a voice in my head (one of many) that said "the >force...use the force Jim...dammit Jim...use the force". I cranked the wheel >over faster than an Eldred 'Ring lap and saved the day (yay!). > >I'm a believer and I now use this technique on *all* my corners! :-) >

Yep, managed it myself at Monaco over the brow of the hill and into the left hander at Masanet. The car started to drift wide and I could feel the back end coming round as I applied opposite lock to no avail. Then like yourself I had that epiphany moment after all this chat and turned back into the corner. A result? You bet your ass it was. Suddenly, instead of oversteer, the car just drifted nicely giving me time to get things back under control. In fact it almost felt like I'd hardly ballsed the corner up at all. :)

Quoted text (22 lines)

> >Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner ><[email hidden]> >> wrote: >> >> >I am happy to inform you that steering into a spin to break it works >> >well. >> >> It absolutely works, someone sent me a replay showing how to do it, >> and after a few tries I got the hang of it. >> But I can only do it when I focus on it, it feels so unnatural, in the >> heat of the action I allways countersteer... and lose it :) >> >> Andre >> >> >> > > > >

-- Peter Ives - (AKA Ivington) No person's opinions can be said to be more correct than another's, because each is the sole judge of his or her own experience.

In article <[email hidden]>, John Wallace <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (17 lines)

>On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 15:46:37 GMT, [email hidden] (Brett C. >Cammack) wrote: > >>It's a very useful spin technique for saving one's bacon in a race and >>not losing too may spots because of the error. I sure am glad someone >>discovered it and were thoughtful enough to pass it along... > >It's also possible to recognise when the fledgling spin is too far >gone to recover - then boot the throttle and hold the steering or even >steer out of the skid, thus accelerating the spin. With practice you >can do a complete 360, engage first while spinning and continue on >without ever leaving the track or coming to a stop. > >It loses very little time and turns a somewhat embarrasing spin into >an extremely cool looking piece of driving. I have some replays of >this I could post in the binaries group if anyone wants to see an >example.

I started doing this since I've seen both Nascar and Indycar drivers do it... Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +85.99 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

After reading about this technique I was in a race at Monza. I overcooked it a bit coming out of Parabolica and the back end started to come around. As I wound in plenty of opposite lock I came to the realization that all was lost. But then I heard a voice in my head (one of many) that said "the force...use the force Jim...dammit Jim...use the force". I cranked the wheel over faster than an Eldred 'Ring lap and saved the day (yay!). I'm a believer and I now use this technique on *all* my corners! :-) Andre Warringa <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (15 lines)

> On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 14:34:55 GMT, Andrew Turner <[email hidden]> > wrote: > > >I am happy to inform you that steering into a spin to break it works > >well. > > It absolutely works, someone sent me a replay showing how to do it, > and after a few tries I got the hang of it. > But I can only do it when I focus on it, it feels so unnatural, in the > heat of the action I allways countersteer... and lose it :) > > Andre > > > >

Ok, since this thread is still alive, I'll throw in my two cents. This technique actually DOES work on real cars. However..... In a real car what generally happens is this, as you steer to the inside of the spin, the spin is arrested, but the car is slowing dramaticly. As the car reachs near the 90 degree mark the car has slowed enough for the tires to regain grip. The car now shoots straight off the road toward the inside of the turn. For whatever reason this dosn't happen as dramaticly in GPL as in a real car.

In article <[email hidden]>, "Michael Young" <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>Up until things pass the 90� mark, you're still rolling forward and normal >thinking still applies. Once past 90�, things are going in reverse. I think >this is why steering into the spin works. If you manage to get the fronts >(now the steerable rears) rolling again, they're going the right way to >bring the nose back the way it came. By relaxing the brakes a little, the >rears (in front now) can unlock and allow the nose to come back around, just >like a Rockford turn. I was dubious at first when I heard this. Seeing is >believing, so it's time now for everyone to try this at the first Lesmo >(especially Eldred, who should take a break from hotlapping the 'Ring). > >Michael.

Don't worry, I've done PLENTY of 360 turns...I don't need anymore practice at THAT...<g> If I could just keep it straight in the FIRST !@#$%^ place... :) Eldred -- Tiger Stadium R.I.P. 1912-1999 Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPL hcp. +70.45 Never argue with an idiot. He brings you down to his level, then beats you with experience... Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.