simultaneous throttle and brake

http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle and brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. Achim

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:12:20 +0200, Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (7 lines)

> http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle and > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > Achim

Is there a translation somewhere? I can order food and get the bill in German but that's about it!!

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:32:21 +0100, Scott <[email hidden]> wrote: >Is there a translation somewhere? I can order food and get the bill in >German but that's about it!! Use babelfish.altavista.com -- Andrew

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bisl53$cebng$[email hidden]... > http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttleand > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > Achim Very, VERY rough translation from Babelfish: (F1Total.com) - over the last years Michael Schumacher again and again proved its exception position in the formula 1. The Ferrari pilot belongs to the best Formel-1-Fahrern of all times and not without reason, as the specialized magazine could point ' F1 out Racing ' now in a unique analysis. One could show on the basis telemetry data of the Italian Formel-1-Teams, how the German deals unbelievably sensitivly and flexibly with gas and brake pedal. Particularly impressing the comparison is on the basis the data of the 180-Kehre in Suzuka, a distance, on which Michael Schumacher exceeds again and again over itself. In principle Rubens Barrichellos style of driving affects compared with that one from Schumacher the telemetry data "simply" - "Rubinho" is now real no bad driver. The Brazilian rises before the curve 15 meters in former times to the brake and gives above all either gas or brakes. With the world champion looks completely differently. Michael Schumacher stops clearly longer fully on the gas than Barrichello, but begins it however before the actual "correct" braking for the hairpin curve the car with an employment of the brake from only five per cent to to stabilize. In the curve goes to Barrichello fully from the gas, Schumacher gives however constantly gas and "plays" with brake and gas, in order to get the car as fast and stably as possible around the curve. Even in the exit of the curve Michael Schumacher uses the brake. While Rubens Barrichello tries to prevent the car by removal of gas from breaking out the German gives substantially more gases and counterbalances its Ferrari with easy braking. Alone in this curve is the champion 25 kilometers per hour faster on the way than Barrichello, which loses 0.3 seconds. Apart from the fact that Rubens Barrichello brakes either or gives gas and quite frequently both pedals parallel uses Michael Schumacher in contrast to it, a further difference is noticeable. Thus Schumacher applies brakes gently a curve mostly later and stabilizes the car, in which he gives further easily gas, what works at first sight counter productive, but but ensures that Schumacher can brake later, without control of his car to lose and cleanly give in can. While Rubens Barrichello applies brakes gently, speaks a curve nearly "linear" first strong pressure on the brake pedal constructs and this then continuously lowers, in order to avoid a blocking of the front wheels, Schumacher in the braking reduces briefly the brake pressure, in order to lend to the wheels again more adhesion. Thus Schumacher brings more in into the hairpin curve of Montreal with 15 kilometers per hour than Barrichello. And during Schumacher before the apex five meters at all no gas are, are there with the Brazilian of ten meters. But everything is not gold which shines. Thus Michael Schumacher with its driving fashion stresses the material more strongly than Barrichello. The front tires are more strongly loaded, because Schumacher brakes more strongly and faster in-driven into the curves. This caused in some past running that the Kerpener could not drive with the softer tire mixture, Rubens Barrichello however already. Also the brakes and the engine are more strongly loaded, because Schumacher brakes at the same time and gives gas. And also gasoline consumption might be higher with Schumacher by this fact than with the Brazilian. But if it comes hard on hard, as in Montreal, when the brakes over their limit were, Michael Schumacher can change its style of driving over completely and preserve the brakes thereby. That constitutes evenly a genuine world champion.

In article <bisl53$cebng$[email hidden]>, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> writes: >http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > >An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle and >brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic >are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > /me wishes I could understand German... Eldred -- "A voice from the crowd: Right, everyone out of my garden. I've had enough of this!" Homepage - http://www.umich.edu/~epickett GPLRank -2.4 N2k3 rank ? Remove SPAM-OFF to reply.

"EldredP" wrote: > >An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttleand > >brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particulartopic > >are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > /me wishes I could understand German... I think it says that Schuey is driving in an unrealistic manner by using gas and brake simultaneously throughout the turns... :) --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 19/08/2003

Joachim Trensz wrote: > http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle and > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. Hey, does this mean that the hotlapper technique of choice in GPL (brake and throttle at the same time) might be realistic after all ? While doing so in GPL significantly reduced my lap times, I refrain from it because I just feel it would be wrong with real cars (yeah I know, it is only a game...) Interestingly, NetKar is another sim in which that driving technique can make a difference. Regards Mr. Sylvestre (puzzled)

Yes, this is precisely what it says <g> Achim "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:nFm4b.1051$[email hidden]... .. > I think it says that Schuey is driving in an unrealistic manner by using > gas and brake simultaneously throughout the turns... :)...

Well, unless that hotlapper technique people criticize is something completely different from what is being described for Schumacher, it is perfectly realistic. It's perhaps harder to do with a 3-pedal setup, but for example Walter Roehrl also said he was using it. I've always wondered why some say this technique isn't realistic. I've even tried it myself in cars and carts (while I was still slender enough to drive carts fast <g>) and while I wasn't getting anywhere with it in 3-pedal cars, it worked well in carts. I've AAMOF always thought that _everybody_ is usung this technique, until I read about it allegedly being 'unrealistic' here. Achim "Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f51f76f$0$4540$[email hidden]... ...

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Hey, does this mean that the hotlapper technique of choice in GPL (brake > and throttle at the same time) might be realistic after all ? While > doing so in GPL significantly reduced my lap times, I refrain from it > because I just feel it would be wrong with real cars (yeah I know, it is > only a game...) > > Interestingly, NetKar is another sim in which that driving technique can > make a difference.

...

It was my impression that this technique had been in use by lots of drivers for years. See here (1997): http://e46m3performance.com/installs/pedal/page3.htm Also, iianm, NASCAR drivers use the brake against full throttle to draft at the superspeedways, do they not? Don D in KC "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in news:bit12g$c15jj$[email hidden]:

Quoted text (11 lines)

>> > I've always wondered why some say this technique isn't realistic. I've > even tried it myself in cars and carts (while I was still slender > enough to drive carts fast <g>) and while I wasn't getting anywhere > with it in 3-pedal cars, it worked well in carts. I've AAMOF always > thought that _everybody_ is usung this technique, until I read about > it allegedly being 'unrealistic' here. > > Achim > >

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:01:29 GMT, Don Dodge <[email hidden]> wrote: >It was my impression that this technique had been in use by lots of >drivers for years. >I certainly heard that MS was doing it at least 4 years ago, and am pretty sure some other F1 drivers do it too. -- Andrew

I believe that's the exact reason professional racecar drivers use their right and left foot for gas and brake respectively. Most people on the highways use just one foot. Take it off the gas and apply the brake. I think racecar drivers use both feet on the gas and brake more like a highway driver might feather the gas and the clutch in a manual transmission. If you've ever stopped on a grade you know that with the clutch in, you will start to slide downhill if you take your foot off the brake. To avoid that you can feather the gas and clutch together to maintain your position. On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:01:29 GMT, Don Dodge <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (26 lines)

>It was my impression that this technique had been in use by lots of >drivers for years. > >See here (1997): http://e46m3performance.com/installs/pedal/page3.htm > >Also, iianm, NASCAR drivers use the brake against full throttle to draft >at the superspeedways, do they not? > >Don D in KC > > > >"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in >news:bit12g$c15jj$[email hidden]: > >>> >> I've always wondered why some say this technique isn't realistic. I've >> even tried it myself in cars and carts (while I was still slender >> enough to drive carts fast <g>) and while I wasn't getting anywhere >> with it in 3-pedal cars, it worked well in carts. I've AAMOF always >> thought that _everybody_ is usung this technique, until I read about >> it allegedly being 'unrealistic' here. >> >> Achim >> >>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:36:58 +0200, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Well, unless that hotlapper technique people criticize is something >completely different from what is being described for Schumacher, it is >perfectly realistic. Except that the steering column prevented you from left foot braking in F1 cars circa 1967... Jason

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:28:31 GMT, [email hidden] (jason moyer) wrote: >Except that the steering column prevented you from left foot braking >in F1 cars circa 1967... >Geez, I didn't realise Schuey had been around so long! ;-) -- Andrew

Do that too much and you will burn out the clutch "EGK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... To avoid that you can feather the gas and clutch together to > maintain your position.

Ohhhh don't try to open a new battlefield now as this would only take us into the old and unsolveable controller discussion again :-) The assertion (made here and elsewhere regarding this topic) this article proves incorrect is that this driving technique is unrealistic because it would damage a real car so quickly that it couldn't finish a race. The article shows that this assertion was incorrect, and that in fact this driving technique is used by good drivers, and that the car very well can finish a race with this. Neither you nor I want to start discussing about controllers again, I think, because it would inevitably culminate in the old argument that you'd need to apply yourself a deadly electrical shock after a simulated fatal accident to have real realism... ;-) Achim "jason moyer" <[email hidden]> wrote in message ... > Except that the steering column prevented you from left foot braking > in F1 cars circa 1967......

Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (10 lines)

> Well, unless that hotlapper technique people criticize is something > completely different from what is being described for Schumacher, it is > perfectly realistic. It's perhaps harder to do with a 3-pedal setup, but for > example Walter Roehrl also said he was using it. > > I've always wondered why some say this technique isn't realistic. I've even > tried it myself in cars and carts (while I was still slender enough to drive > carts fast <g>) and while I wasn't getting anywhere with it in 3-pedal cars, > it worked well in carts. I've AAMOF always thought that _everybody_ is usung > this technique, until I read about it allegedly being 'unrealistic' here.

Hi Achim Hehe, go on then, can you talk me though how this would work in a Lotus 49? I'll set the scene: You are approaching T6 at Silverstone, you just snatch 5th, give it a squirt, and it's time to brake. Now, over to you... -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

The article I have in F1 Racing magazine also states that Rubens is a RIGHT foot braker, where Schuey is a left foot braker. -- Sean Higgins My Trans Am pics http://home.comcast.net/~higpup/ My Ferrari pics http://home.sprintmail.com/~higgy/ "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:bisl53$cebng$[email hidden]... > > http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle > and > > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > > > Achim > > Very, VERY rough translation from Babelfish: > > (F1Total.com) - over the last years Michael Schumacher again and again > proved its exception position in the formula 1. The Ferrari pilot belongs to > the best Formel-1-Fahrern of all times and not without reason, as the > specialized magazine could point ' F1 out Racing ' now in a unique analysis. > One could show on the basis telemetry data of the Italian Formel-1-Teams, > how the German deals unbelievably sensitivly and flexibly with gas and brake > pedal. Particularly impressing the comparison is on the basis the data of > the 180-Kehre in Suzuka, a distance, on which Michael Schumacher exceeds > again and again over itself. In principle Rubens Barrichellos style of > driving affects compared with that one from Schumacher the telemetry data > "simply" - "Rubinho" is now real no bad driver. The Brazilian rises before > the curve 15 meters in former times to the brake and gives above all either > gas or brakes. With the world champion looks completely differently. Michael > Schumacher stops clearly longer fully on the gas than Barrichello, but > begins it however before the actual "correct" braking for the hairpin curve > the car with an employment of the brake from only five per cent to to > stabilize. In the curve goes to Barrichello fully from the gas, Schumacher > gives however constantly gas and "plays" with brake and gas, in order to get > the car as fast and stably as possible around the curve. Even in the exit of > the curve Michael Schumacher uses the brake. While Rubens Barrichello tries > to prevent the car by removal of gas from breaking out the German gives > substantially more gases and counterbalances its Ferrari with easy braking. > Alone in this curve is the champion 25 kilometers per hour faster on the way > than Barrichello, which loses 0.3 seconds. Apart from the fact that Rubens > Barrichello brakes either or gives gas and quite frequently both pedals > parallel uses Michael Schumacher in contrast to it, a further difference is > noticeable. Thus Schumacher applies brakes gently a curve mostly later and > stabilizes the car, in which he gives further easily gas, what works at > first sight counter productive, but but ensures that Schumacher can brake > later, without control of his car to lose and cleanly give in can. While > Rubens Barrichello applies brakes gently, speaks a curve nearly "linear" > first strong pressure on the brake pedal constructs and this then > continuously lowers, in order to avoid a blocking of the front wheels, > Schumacher in the braking reduces briefly the brake pressure, in order to > lend to the wheels again more adhesion. Thus Schumacher brings more in into > the hairpin curve of Montreal with 15 kilometers per hour than Barrichello. > And during Schumacher before the apex five meters at all no gas are, are > there with the Brazilian of ten meters. But everything is not gold which > shines. Thus Michael Schumacher with its driving fashion stresses the > material more strongly than Barrichello. The front tires are more strongly > loaded, because Schumacher brakes more strongly and faster in-driven into > the curves. This caused in some past running that the Kerpener could not > drive with the softer tire mixture, Rubens Barrichello however already. Also > the brakes and the engine are more strongly loaded, because Schumacher > brakes at the same time and gives gas. And also gasoline consumption might > be higher with Schumacher by this fact than with the Brazilian. But if it > comes hard on hard, as in Montreal, when the brakes over their limit were, > Michael Schumacher can change its style of driving over completely and > preserve the brakes thereby. That constitutes evenly a genuine world > champion. > >

Joachim Trensz wrote: > Ohhhh don't try to open a new battlefield now as this would only take us > into the old and unsolveable controller discussion again :-) > > The assertion (made here and elsewhere regarding this topic) this article > proves incorrect is that this driving technique is unrealistic because it > would damage a real car so quickly that it couldn't finish a race. Was this assertion made in the context of a lotus 49? -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

I was just giving an example with a specific circumstance. Unless you have three feet, it's impossible to stop on an incline and keep yourself from drifting back into the car behind you without doing that. You have one foot on the brake, one foot on the clutch. Soon as you take your foot off the brake to put it on the gas, you start to coast backwards. You can be real quick and gas it and pop the clutch but for that split second you're still going to drift and if another car is on your bumper, you can easily hit them. Just up the street from me is a stop sign at a busy intersection. It's also on a fairly steep incline and with cars parked on the street it's hard to see what's coming. If you stop there with a manual transmission and anyone stops right behind you, it can be very hard for inexperienced drivers. Lots of people are smart enough not to stop 6 inches from someone's bumper on an incline but we all know not everyone is smart. :) On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 17:38:18 GMT, "Cliff Roman" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

>Do that too much and you will burn out the clutch > > >"EGK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >news:[email hidden]... >To avoid that you can feather the gas and clutch together to >> maintain your position. >

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "There would be a lot more civility in this world if people didn't take that as an invitation to walk all over you" - (Calvin and Hobbes)

EGK wrote:

Quoted text (16 lines)

> I was just giving an example with a specific circumstance. Unless you have > three feet, it's impossible to stop on an incline and keep yourself from > drifting back into the car behind you without doing that. You have one foot > on the brake, one foot on the clutch. Soon as you take your foot off the > brake to put it on the gas, you start to coast backwards. You can be real > quick and gas it and pop the clutch but for that split second you're still > going to drift and if another car is on your bumper, you can easily hit > them. > > Just up the street from me is a stop sign at a busy intersection. It's also > on a fairly steep incline and with cars parked on the street it's hard to > see what's coming. If you stop there with a manual transmission and anyone > stops right behind you, it can be very hard for inexperienced drivers. > Lots of people are smart enough not to stop 6 inches from someone's bumper > on an incline but we all know not everyone is smart. :) >

That's why we have handbrakes. Slipping the clutch like that WILL reduce it's life. -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

"EGK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (10 lines)

> I believe that's the exact reason professional racecar drivers use their > right and left foot for gas and brake respectively. Most people on the > highways use just one foot. Take it off the gas and apply the brake. > > I think racecar drivers use both feet on the gas and brake more like a > highway driver might feather the gas and the clutch in a manual > transmission. If you've ever stopped on a grade you know that with the > clutch in, you will start to slide downhill if you take your foot off the > brake. To avoid that you can feather the gas and clutch together to > maintain your position.

Sometimes I perform hill starts in RL (manual transmission) by holding my right foot at an angle across both the brake and accelerator, and my left foot on the clutch. To move off, I engage the clutch while shifting the right foot's pressure from brake to accelerator. If I'm not going to be stopped for very long I find this less effort than using the handbrake. It doesn't burn out the clutch, and I don't roll backwards. I always right-foot when driving as I my left foot doesn't seem able to be gentle enough with the brake pedal alternately with pushing the clutch pedal all the way down for gear changing. But in GPL and F1C I left-foot brake, since I only have two pedals attached to my computer. Applying the brake and accelerator simultaneously in F1C does seem to help in some corners, but some care is needed as brakes overheating and wearing out can be a problem if you are too aggressive (particularly if the maximum brake pressure is set fairly high, and the brake cooling ducts are a bit small). I suspect quite a lot of different driving styles can be optimized by adjusting brake balance and differential lock. GPL doesn't seem to have any brake wear modelled (correct me if I'm wrong), so perhaps this technique can be exploited beyond what is realistic in GPL.

I have always used the brake and accelerator together. Works very well in LFS, GPL and Go-Karts. I have always found it very natural when Sim racing. I always left foot braked from the first wheel I bought, it just felt 'right'. For some reason I never ever could left foot brake in a road car. It's definitely much faster and very good to get the balance right... Scott Green Flag Racing www.green-flag.com

You would remember that better than I do, wouldn't you ;-) Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Was this assertion made in the context of a lotus 49?...

Amazing, you're repeating yourself :-) Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Hehe, go on then, can you talk me though how this would work in a Lotus49?

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > I'll set the scene: > > You are approaching T6 at Silverstone, you just snatch 5th, give it a > squirt, and it's time to brake. > > Now, over to you...

...

Joachim Trensz wrote: > You would remember that better than I do, wouldn't you ;-) > > Achim It wasn't. No assertion was made about modern F1 driving. I was talking strictly about 67. -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

It is still open to question whether this is a good thing to do in a real race, where fuel mileage and brake life could be important. Yes I know MS is doing it and he can be quite fast and he has xx world championships but that still doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do. The question I have is whether the faster laptimes are offset by having to carry more fuel or pit more often. Who is to say other than the teams themselves? For all we know MS could still have won all those races by driving with more normal technique. Note too that this year he has frequently been outqualified. Has he slowed down, or is it because he has to carry more fuel? Not long ago during a Trans-Am race I was watching, Derek Daly made the comment that they had made a lot of study over the years about how to conserve fuel, and the only thing which really worked was to get off the throttle a little earlier on the way in to a turn. If you are overlapping gas and brake you are burning more fuel per lap. Depending on the type of race and the pit strategy employed, you might get away with it and you might not. As for it working in karts, I guess it depends on what class. The lower classes have rear brakes only, so overlapping throttle and brake is pointless. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bit12g$c15jj$[email hidden]... > Well, unless that hotlapper technique people criticize is something > completely different from what is being described for Schumacher, it is > perfectly realistic. It's perhaps harder to do with a 3-pedal setup, butfor > example Walter Roehrl also said he was using it. > > I've always wondered why some say this technique isn't realistic. I'veeven > tried it myself in cars and carts (while I was still slender enough todrive > carts fast <g>) and while I wasn't getting anywhere with it in 3-pedalcars, > it worked well in carts. I've AAMOF always thought that _everybody_ isusung > this technique, until I read about it allegedly being 'unrealistic' here. > > Achim >

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 19:26:10 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote: >Was this assertion made in the context of a lotus 49? According to some quote by Colin Chapman (which unfortunately I can't find atm) he never had a driver whose cars exhibited less wear than Jim Clark's. Apparently if something on the car failed, or if he needed a new tire or brake installed, he was genuinely embarrassed by it. Which probably tells you something about the way he drove. Jason

Joachim Trensz wrote: > Amazing, you're repeating yourself :-) Modern F1 cars, and the techniques used to drive them, had nothing to do with what we discussed here about GPL. The fact is, you cannot drive like that in a real lotus 49. So doing so in GPL is unrealistic. It works well in karts though, I should know, I've driven enough of them! MS and the current crop came from kart racing, and brought these techniques with them. F1 cars today are designed around this technique. The technology, and material components, like carbon fiber and semi automatic gearboxes, allow it. Unlike in 67! -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:01:29 GMT, Don Dodge <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >It was my impression that this technique had been in use by lots of > >drivers for years. > > > As far as I know Rubens and David are the only current F1 drivers who still right foot brake. Most drivers cut their teeth in karting where you have to left foot brake anyway so this is not a problem for them. And of course all current "quick" rally drivers left foot brake. One of the most noticeable things in the F1 Racing article was how smooth the brake and accelerator graphs of Michael were compared to Rubens. Some Call Me Tim

Haqsau wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

> It is still open to question whether this is a good thing to do in a real > race, where fuel mileage and brake life could be important. Yes I know MS > is doing it and he can be quite fast and he has xx world championships but > that still doesn't necessarily mean it's a good thing to do. The question I > have is whether the faster laptimes are offset by having to carry more fuel > or pit more often. Who is to say other than the teams themselves? For all > we know MS could still have won all those races by driving with more normal > technique. Note too that this year he has frequently been outqualified. > Has he slowed down, or is it because he has to carry more fuel? Not long > ago during a Trans-Am race I was watching, Derek Daly made the comment that > they had made a lot of study over the years about how to conserve fuel, and > the only thing which really worked was to get off the throttle a little > earlier on the way in to a turn. If you are overlapping gas and brake you > are burning more fuel per lap. Depending on the type of race and the pit > strategy employed, you might get away with it and you might not. > > As for it working in karts, I guess it depends on what class. The lower > classes have rear brakes only, so overlapping throttle and brake is > pointless.

It works, but not in the same way. -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

EGK <[email hidden]> wrote in news:[email hidden]: > I was just giving an example with a specific circumstance. Unless you > have three feet, it's impossible to stop on an incline and keep > yourself from drifting back into the car behind you without doing that. > You have one foot on the brake, one foot on the clutch.I have one foot on the clutch and another on the throttle - turning the car around is not the only use for the handbrake. Alex.

"Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bisl53$cebng$[email hidden]... > http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttleand > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > Achim > I'll see if i can do a quick translation.... It might take a few hours tho, i have other stuff to do. Allstarnz

Why are you so convinced that those '67 F1 drivers never used this technique? Or if your statement is limited to the Lotus 49, then why would it definitely not be feasible in that particular car? Of course I don't know what those '67 F1 drivers did, but I wouldn't consider it impossible that some of them used this technique, depressing both throttle and brake using just the right foot. This is exactly what Walter Roehrl claimed he was doing in his Rallye car, and I don't think he was just bragging. He said he's depressing both brake and throttle, both of which he had built-in very near to each other specifically for this purpose. Couldn't this have been done in those '67 F1 cars as well? And while I'll gladly concede that your approach to realism is even more purist than mine (as I'm willing to make concessions for affordable mainstream computer controller equipment like shifter buttons and dual-pedal units and still call it realism), I don't buy the thought that those ancient F1 cars would have broken down under the strain. Their tires' service life was a lot longer, and the drive strain components were made out of pretty good steel. Considering what we did to humble Volkswagen Beetles offroad in the early 70's, I'm very willing to believe that some moderate simultaneous use of throttle and brake would not have posed the least longevity challenge to these cars. Because obviously, it _would_ have been moderate, considering the purpose of maintaining a precarious balance between various powers affecting the car. And the cars in those days weren't made to last just one race, like nowadays. But you were not the only one claiming that this driving technique is unrealistic, and others didn't limit that claim to the 49 Lotus. Pez for example claimed not too long ago that this driving technique would damage today's cars rapidly, unless I remember this incorrectly. But the article clearly shows that this is not the case at least for the F1 cars, and your own experience with carts shows that it doesn't damage carts either. So my posting this article didn't go exclusively, and not even mainly in your direction. It went in a general direction ;-) Achim Well like I said to Jason ...

Quoted text (11 lines)

> Modern F1 cars, and the techniques used to drive them, had nothing to do > with what we discussed here about GPL. > > The fact is, you cannot drive like that in a real lotus 49. So doing so > in GPL is unrealistic. > > It works well in karts though, I should know, I've driven enough of > them! MS and the current crop came from kart racing, and brought these > techniques with them. F1 cars today are designed around this technique. > The technology, and material components, like carbon fiber and semi > automatic gearboxes, allow it. Unlike in 67!

...

"EGK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > I think racecar drivers use both feet on the gas and brake more like a > highway driver might feather the gas and the clutch in a manual > transmission. If you've ever stopped on a grade you know that with the > clutch in, you will start to slide downhill if you take your foot off the > brake. To avoid that you can feather the gas and clutch together to > maintain your position. IIRC, several years ago there was an article in OnTrack that discussed Schumacher's driving techniques and mentioned that he worked the throttle under braking to keep the exhaust gases going over the diffuser, I assume to keep downforce at the rear. I can't remember if it was when he was at Benetton or Ferrari though. Pickaxe

Don Dodge wrote: > See here (1997): http://e46m3performance.com/installs/pedal/page3.htm Thanks for the link. Up to now, I thought only rally drivers used both pedals at the same time. As I understand it, using both pedals together allows the driver to modulate the brake balance before and into the turn. In real life, this means smoother transitions thus less chance to upset the car. Particularly in GPL, this prevents locking the rear wheels (sort of an ABS). But then, brake/tyre wear is not simulated in GPL, and I doubt the technique was used by Clark et al. anyway. I would still feel guilty of throttlebraking(tm) in GPL but not in modern-era sims anymore. Mr. S.

And the point is.....? -- ed_ "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding news:bit12g$c15jj$[email hidden]... > Yes, this is precisely what it says <g> > > Achim > > > "Tony Rickard" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:nFm4b.1051$[email hidden]... > .. > > I think it says that Schuey is driving in an unrealistic manner by using > > gas and brake simultaneously throughout the turns... :) > ... > >

And the point is.....? -- ed_ > Yes, this is precisely what it says <g> > Achim > .. > > I think it says that Schuey is driving in an unrealistic manner by using > > gas and brake simultaneously throughout the turns... :) > ...

"Joachim Trensz" said: > Well, unless that hotlapper technique people criticize is something > completely different from what is being described for Schumacher, it is > perfectly realistic. I would like to see Schumacher do the very same thing in a '67 Grand Prix car. The thing wouldn't last 2 laps. The reason why he "get's off with it" now - is because the technology has evolved to such a high level that it's feasable. Right up to the early *90's* the story was veeeeery different. When's the last time you saw a guy retire 'cause of fading brakes? Or even with something as simple as engine problem... (okey this still happens but not nearly as frequent as it did.) Today fly-by-wire software-controlled systems is quite different from the steel gas-wire "direct drive" that F1 had right up to the eary 90's, and that most of us *still* uses. To me "realism" is a natural reflection of what your trying to simulate.. and you can bet your behind that if the drivers of the 60's, 70's or 80's had been able to "get away" with that kind of driving - they'd do it. Racing drivers are *very* competetive people and if they could get an ende by doing something "out of the blue" - they do it for sure. -- ed_

> The thing wouldn't last 2 laps. Says who? Remember that this technique isn't a leadfoot matter, it's something subtle, meant to maintain a precarious balance. In fact, so subtle many drivers can't even do it, apparently. I'd also like to remind you that even those small carts don't break when you use this technique, and they didn't in the mid-70's either, because that's when I had my 'carting' high-times. But it isn't my intention to assert that the '67 drivers used this technique, as the arguments the assertions that this driving technique were unrealistic were based on in general were neither limited to GPL-related circumstances, nor to the physical impossibility of doing it with a three pedal setup. The article shows that this technique is a valid driving technique, and that's why I posted the URL. For my purpose, discussing whether '67 F1 drivers used it or not is moot because of what I said above, and because nobody here knows how they drove, and which techniques they used, or can even assess whether the hardware would have been up to it. As for the term realism, that's a discussion I'm not going to enter either, we've had it so often. Each of us 'realism' fans thinks that his interpretation of realism is the right one, but in fact, neither of us really simulates reality. We all do it within the bounds we personally deem sensible. Achim "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f531992$[email hidden]... ... > The reason why he "get's off with it" now - is because the technology has > evolved to such a high level that it's feasable. Right up to the early > *90's* the story was veeeeery different. When's the last time you saw aguy > retire 'cause of fading brakes? Or even with something as simple as engine > problem... (okey this still happens but not nearly as frequent as itdid.)

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Today fly-by-wire software-controlled systems is quite different from the > steel gas-wire "direct drive" that F1 had right up to the eary 90's, and > that most of us *still* uses. > > To me "realism" is a natural reflection of what your trying to simulate.. > and you can bet your behind that if the drivers of the 60's, 70's or 80's > had been able to "get away" with that kind of driving - they'd do it. > Racing drivers are *very* competetive people and if they could get an ende > by doing something "out of the blue" - they do it for sure.

...

Read this thread and you'll understand. Achim "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > And the point is.....?...

Sorry it's a bit loose and grammatically crap, I don't have the time or effort to do a better job right now. Some of it might seem a bit ambiguous, but most of that is the articles fault, not mine. Anyhow anything is better than Babel Fish, especially for something as technical as this.... Cheers Allstarnz PS if anyone can do a better job, please change it :-) ======================================= Schumacher: Impressive analysis of his driving style von Fabian Hust 30. August 2003 - 16:23 Uhr In the past few years Michael Schumacher has again and again shown his exceptional class in Formula 1. The Ferrari driver belongs to the best formula 1 divers of all times, and that is not without reason, which the magazine F1 Racing can demonstrate in a one off analysis. With it can be shown by the telemetry data for the Italian Formula 1 team, how the German is unbelieveably sensitive and flexible with the accelerator and brake pedals. Especially noticeable is the comparison for the data of the 180 degree turn is Suzuka, a circuit, which Michael Schumacher exceeds himself again and again. Importantly in the telemetry Ruebens Barichellos driving style in comparison to that of Schumachers is 'simple' - in saying that 'Rubino' is by no means a bad driver. The Brazilian gets on the brakes 15 metres earlier when approaching a corner and above all uses either the brakes or the accelerator. With the world champion is it something completely different. Michael Schumacher stays noticeably longer on the throttle than Barichello, for that however with the use of the brakes at only 5% he begins to stabilise with the actual correct braking manoeuvre of the hairpin [I couldn't seem to make much sense of exactly what they were getting at here]. In the curve itself Barichello removes his foot completely from the accelerator, Schumacher however gives continual throttle and 'plays' with the brakes and throttle, in order to get the car as fast and stable as possible. In the exit of the curve itself Schumacher uses the brakes. During this time, Rubens attempts to aid the car through removing his foot from the throttle on the exit, this gives the German considerably more acceleration and he balances his Ferrari with light braking. Overall on this corner the champion is 25km/h faster than Barichello, who loses 0.3 seconds. Next to the fact that Rubens Barrichello uses either his brakes or accelerator and Michael in comparison frequently uses both pedals in parallel, there is another striking difference. Schumacher mostly brakes later in the curve and stabilises the car, in which he then accelerates lightly, which on first impressions would be counterproductive, but allows for Schumacher to brake later without losing control of his car and allows him to manoeuvre easily. { while Barichello brakes in a uniform way though the curve, Schumacher's more sporadic braking style makes him faster [more technical details]. Such manoeuvres allow MS to go 15km/h faster through the hairpin at Montreal than RB. While MS gives 5 metres of no acceleration at apex of the curve, for RB it's 10m [I'm too lazy to translate this more complicated paragraph]} However there are downsides to this driving style. MS is much harder on his parts the RB is. His front tyres get more quickly worn, because MS brakes hard and drives quicker through the corners. This brought about a issues in past races, where the MS couldn't use the softer tyre compound, whereas RB could The engine and the brakes are also worn more quickly, as MS simultaneously brakes and accelerates. Also the fuel consumption of MS is higher than RB. But when it comes to the crunch, like in Montreal, where the brakes were over their limit, MS can completely change his driving style, and through this look after his brakes. That's what a real world champion does.

I have reposted this from the actual message thread.... Sorry it's a bit loose and grammatically crap, I don't have the time or effort to do a better job right now. Some of it might seem a bit ambiguous, but most of that is the articles fault, not mine. Anyhow anything is better than Babel Fish, especially for something as technical as this.... Cheers Allstarnz PS if anyone can do a better job, please change it :-) ======================================= Schumacher: Impressive analysis of his driving style von Fabian Hust 30. August 2003 - 16:23 Uhr In the past few years Michael Schumacher has again and again shown his exceptional class in Formula 1. The Ferrari driver belongs to the best formula 1 divers of all times, and that is not without reason, which the magazine F1 Racing can demonstrate in a one off analysis. With it can be shown by the telemetry data for the Italian Formula 1 team, how the German is unbelieveably sensitive and flexible with the accelerator and brake pedals. Especially noticeable is the comparison for the data of the 180 degree turn is Suzuka, a circuit, which Michael Schumacher exceeds himself again and again. Importantly in the telemetry Ruebens Barichellos driving style in comparison to that of Schumachers is 'simple' - in saying that 'Rubino' is by no means a bad driver. The Brazilian gets on the brakes 15 metres earlier when approaching a corner and above all uses either the brakes or the accelerator. With the world champion is it something completely different. Michael Schumacher stays noticeably longer on the throttle than Barichello, for that however with the use of the brakes at only 5% he begins to stabilise with the actual correct braking manoeuvre of the hairpin [I couldn't seem to make much sense of exactly what they were getting at here]. In the curve itself Barichello removes his foot completely from the accelerator, Schumacher however gives continual throttle and 'plays' with the brakes and throttle, in order to get the car as fast and stable as possible. In the exit of the curve itself Schumacher uses the brakes. During this time, Rubens attempts to aid the car through removing his foot from the throttle on the exit, this gives the German considerably more acceleration and he balances his Ferrari with light braking. Overall on this corner the champion is 25km/h faster than Barichello, who loses 0.3 seconds. Next to the fact that Rubens Barrichello uses either his brakes or accelerator and Michael in comparison frequently uses both pedals in parallel, there is another striking difference. Schumacher mostly brakes later in the curve and stabilises the car, in which he then accelerates lightly, which on first impressions would be counterproductive, but allows for Schumacher to brake later without losing control of his car and allows him to manoeuvre easily. { while Barichello brakes in a uniform way though the curve, Schumacher's more sporadic braking style makes him faster [more technical details]. Such manoeuvres allow MS to go 15km/h faster through the hairpin at Montreal than RB. While MS gives 5 metres of no acceleration at apex of the curve, for RB it's 10m [I'm too lazy to translate this more complicated paragraph]} However there are downsides to this driving style. MS is much harder on his parts the RB is. His front tyres get more quickly worn, because MS brakes hard and drives quicker through the corners. This brought about a issues in past races, where the MS couldn't use the softer tyre compound, whereas RB could The engine and the brakes are also worn more quickly, as MS simultaneously brakes and accelerates. Also the fuel consumption of MS is higher than RB. But when it comes to the crunch, like in Montreal, where the brakes were over their limit, MS can completely change his driving style, and through this look after his brakes. That's what a real world champion does.

Joachim Trensz wrote: > As for the term realism, that's a discussion I'm not going to enter either, > we've had it so often. Each of us 'realism' fans thinks that his > interpretation of realism is the right one, but in fact, neither of us > really simulates reality. We all do it within the bounds we personally deem > sensible. What do you mean by "really simulates reality" ? ;) Seriously, I feel a little bit guilty of drawing you (and others) into that debate with my naive question. Thanks for your time, it has been an interesting read. Regards, Mr. Sylvestre

"Allstarnz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:kkG4b.134054$[email hidden]... > I have reposted this from the actual message thread.... > > Sorry it's a bit loose and grammatically crap, I don't have the time or > effort to do a better job right now. Some of it might seem a bitambiguous, > but most of that is the articles fault, not mine. Anyhow anything isbetter > than Babel Fish, especially for something as technical as this.... Great job! Thanks for going to all that trouble. -- R. GPLRank +79.699

Achim, (Your email didn't work). I'm fairly new to karting, and I run a 100cc 2 stroke, with direct drive (i.e. no clutch), and a rear disc brake only. Is there any point in trying out this technique, or does it only work if you have a clutch, or front brakes, etc? Thanks. -- R. GPLRank +79.699 > I'd also like to remind you that > even those small carts don't break when you use this technique, and they > didn't in the mid-70's either, because that's when I had my 'carting' > high-times.

Hmm, as applied to GPL it doesn't appear to be so subtle. I don't know for sure what the aliens are doing, but when I see people running 48% front brake bias I know they must be doing something very unsubtle to avoid spinning when they put the brakes on. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:biv85o$dh9kd$[email hidden]... > > Says who? Remember that this technique isn't a leadfoot matter, it's > something subtle, meant to maintain a precarious balance. In fact, sosubtle > many drivers can't even do it, apparently. >

I will not debate realism with you, if you think I would you haven't understood what I said before :-) I was referring to the fact although we often think we're going to extremes to simulate 'realism', and sometimes even look down upon others who we consider as 'arcade' fans, the truth is, we all just simulate the degree of realism we personally consider sensible, or feasible. Nobody simulates full realism, therefor we should all humble down a bit as respect each others preferences WRT realism. Achim "Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bivctt$ojb$[email hidden]... ... > What do you mean by "really simulates reality" ? ;) Seriously, I feel a > little bit guilty of drawing you (and others) into that debate with my > naive question. Thanks for your time, it has been an interesting read....

Like you say, you don't know what they're doing. Let's discuss this when you (and I) do ;-) That said, I've used 56-58% FBB. But it really depends on the setup in general whether a BB works or not. You can't generally say that someone using 48% must use an unrealistic driving technique. Although it's probably either that or an unrealistic setup <g> Achim "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Hmm, as applied to GPL it doesn't appear to be so subtle. I don't knowfor > sure what the aliens are doing, but when I see people running 48% front > brake bias I know they must be doing something very unsubtle to avoid > spinning when they put the brakes on....

"Joachim Trensz" said: > > The thing wouldn't last 2 laps. > > Says who? Remember that this technique isn't a leadfoot matter, it's > something subtle, meant to maintain a precarious balance. In fact, sosubtle > many drivers can't even do it, apparently. I'd also like to remind youthat > even those small carts don't break when you use this technique, and they > didn't in the mid-70's either, because that's when I had my 'carting' > high-times. Comparing go-karts to cars is just not possible Achim. The stress put in a kart is small compared to 500+ kg. car. First of all, a go-kart weigth a lot less that a car, secondly - most karts use rear-axel braking. A kart engine is high reving with low torque vs. a car engine with "bags" of torque and a low rpm limit. Not only that, but a kart has a lot higher cornering-speed vs. it's "top-speed" compared to a car, who might go from 250+km/h to 80km/h for a corner. There are litterary 100's of "how-to-drive books" out there, and if this technique was "going rate"... how come nobody's mentioned it? You can be certain that if some of the "stars" of the passed had been using or talking about this - it would have been known - and used a long time ago. A gentle "tap" on the brakes - which is what left foot-braking is all about - is one thing, but what these hot-lapping guru's been doing is another story. Keeping the engine screaming at 6000+ rpm. while applying the brakes (whilch were 4 pot solid discs btw.) - hard, is just not very do-able imo. Nor is a 52% front brake-bias either btw. But, yes... You are correct in saying that the article prove this is a technique used in *F1 today* - but from what I can recall that's never been the question. -- ed_

I don't agree with everything you say, but let's just leave it at that. Or else we'll just create another monster thread :-) Achim "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f5350d0$[email hidden]... ... > - but from what I can recall that's never been > the question....

It's not unrealistic in the sense that it couldn't be done; it's unrealistic in the sense that it *wasn't* done. Not only was it ergonomically unfeasible (the steering shaft went between the driver's feet, making left-foot braking impossible) and mechanically dicey (the brakes--especially Ferrari's--were marginal), but also, incredibly, the brake balance wasn't adjustable from the cockpit. I questioned this during GPL's beta phase, and Papy assured me they'd researched it. In '67, the brake balance would have been adjusted for optimal braking under normal circumstances...which didn't include simultaneous brake & throttle. Even in the later Sixties, the Chaparral drivers--who could have employed this technique--didn't; they would've fried the brakes (as the drivers of the Rover turbine that ran at Le Mans did--to their chagrin--before they were admonished not to by the Rover engineers). The first time I remember hearing of this technique being successfully employed was in the mid-Sixties, as applied to production-based cars in rallying. Eric Carlson, Pat Moss, Eugen Boehringer, and, as Achim remembers, Walter Roerl, at al. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:biv85o$dh9kd$[email hidden]... > > The thing wouldn't last 2 laps. > > Says who? Remember that this technique isn't a leadfoot matter, it's > something subtle, meant to maintain a precarious balance. In fact, sosubtle > many drivers can't even do it, apparently. I'd also like to remind youthat > even those small carts don't break when you use this technique, and they > didn't in the mid-70's either, because that's when I had my 'carting' > high-times. > > But it isn't my intention to assert that the '67 drivers used this > technique, as the arguments the assertions that this driving techniquewere

Quoted text (11 lines)

> unrealistic were based on in general were neither limited to GPL-related > circumstances, nor to the physical impossibility of doing it with a three > pedal setup. > > The article shows that this technique is a valid driving technique, and > that's why I posted the URL. For my purpose, discussing whether '67 F1 > drivers used it or not is moot because of what I said above, and because > nobody here knows how they drove, and which techniques they used, or can > even assess whether the hardware would have been up to it. > > As for the term realism, that's a discussion I'm not going to enter

either, > we've had it so often. Each of us 'realism' fans thinks that his > interpretation of realism is the right one, but in fact, neither of us > really simulates reality. We all do it within the bounds we personallydeem

Quoted text (9 lines)

> sensible. > > Achim > > > "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3f531992$[email hidden]... > ... > > The reason why he "get's off with it" now - is because the technology

has > > evolved to such a high level that it's feasable. Right up to the early > > *90's* the story was veeeeery different. When's the last time you saw a > guy > > retire 'cause of fading brakes? Or even with something as simple asengine > > problem... (okey this still happens but not nearly as frequent as it > did.) > > Today fly-by-wire software-controlled systems is quite different fromthe > > steel gas-wire "direct drive" that F1 had right up to the eary 90's, and > > that most of us *still* uses. > > > > To me "realism" is a natural reflection of what your trying tosimulate.. > > and you can bet your behind that if the drivers of the 60's, 70's or80's > > had been able to "get away" with that kind of driving - they'd do it. > > Racing drivers are *very* competetive people and if they could get anende > > by doing something "out of the blue" - they do it for sure. > ... > >

Hey Steve, thanks for the info. You were btw right about _my_ BB in N2k3 - I've moved it aft by as much as five clicks meanwhile. On another note, did you get my mail regarding the sound? It got bounced back a few times, so I'm not sure it got to you our not. Achim "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:sSI4b.22853$[email hidden]... > It's not unrealistic in the sense that it couldn't be done......

Joachim Trensz wrote: > Why are you so convinced that those '67 F1 drivers never used this > technique? Or if your statement is limited to the Lotus 49, then why would > it definitely not be feasible in that particular car? Go on then, tell me how it would be done.

Quoted text (8 lines)

> Of course I don't know what those '67 F1 drivers did, but I wouldn't > consider it impossible that some of them used this technique, depressing > both throttle and brake using just the right foot. This is exactly what > Walter Roehrl claimed he was doing in his Rallye car, and I don't think he > was just bragging. He said he's depressing both brake and throttle, both of > which he had built-in very near to each other specifically for this purpose. > > Couldn't this have been done in those '67 F1 cars as well?

Well, can you talk me though how it would be done, even with one foot, and also explain what the benefit is?

Quoted text (13 lines)

> And while I'll gladly concede that your approach to realism is even more > purist than mine (as I'm willing to make concessions for affordable > mainstream computer controller equipment like shifter buttons and dual-pedal > units and still call it realism), I don't buy the thought that those ancient > F1 cars would have broken down under the strain. Their tires' service life > was a lot longer, and the drive strain components were made out of pretty > good steel. Considering what we did to humble Volkswagen Beetles offroad in > the early 70's, I'm very willing to believe that some moderate simultaneous > use of throttle and brake would not have posed the least longevity challenge > to these cars. Because obviously, it _would_ have been moderate, considering > the purpose of maintaining a precarious balance between various powers > affecting the car. And the cars in those days weren't made to last just one > race, like nowadays.

The weakest link were the brake pads, misuse thereof, would means reduced braking effectiveness, and elongated lap times. > But you were not the only one claiming that this driving technique is > unrealistic, and others didn't limit that claim to the 49 Lotus. Well i do. > Pez for > example claimed not too long ago that this driving technique would damage > today's cars rapidly, unless I remember this incorrectly. But the article > clearly shows that this is not the case at least for the F1 cars, and your > own experience with carts shows that it doesn't damage carts either. Oh but it can. It can overheat the brakes, and centrifugal clutches can burst into flames. > So my > posting this article didn't go exclusively, and not even mainly in your > direction. It went in a general direction ;-) Well you mentioned GPL very early on in this thread, so i think i can be forgiven for thinking you were mainly aiming this in my direction. ;) -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Once upon a time there was a GPL setup guide by a self professed alien who said that he sets brake bias in GPL in such a way that he can put the brake pedal all the way down without front lockup, and then he uses the accelerator to control the bias. Surely you would agree that this is not a realistic driving technique? The bias he ended up with is very similar to what the other aliens use: high 40's to low 50's. That strongly implies that the other aliens are doing the same thing. I can't find the link right now but I believe it was here: http://www.windycityracers.hwgn.net/setupguide.html. Unfortunately that site appears to be down now. "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bivhh9$dhl0j$[email hidden]... > Like you say, you don't know what they're doing. Let's discuss this whenyou > (and I) do ;-) > > That said, I've used 56-58% FBB. But it really depends on the setup in > general whether a BB works or not. You can't generally say that someone > using 48% must use an unrealistic driving technique. Although it'sprobably > either that or an unrealistic setup <g> > > Achim >

Joachim Trensz wrote: > I don't agree with everything you say, but let's just leave it at that. Or > else we'll just create another monster thread :-) Don't chicken out, Achim! ;) Do I sense you don't agree with the kart aspect of this discussion? -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Steve Smith wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> It's not unrealistic in the sense that it couldn't be done; it's unrealistic > in the sense that it *wasn't* done. Not only was it ergonomically > unfeasible (the steering shaft went between the driver's feet, making > left-foot braking impossible) and mechanically dicey (the brakes--especially > Ferrari's--were marginal), but also, incredibly, the brake balance wasn't > adjustable from the cockpit. I questioned this during GPL's beta phase, and > Papy assured me they'd researched it. In '67, the brake balance would have > been adjusted for optimal braking under normal circumstances...which didn't > include simultaneous brake & throttle. Even in the later Sixties, the > Chaparral drivers--who could have employed this technique--didn't; they > would've fried the brakes (as the drivers of the Rover turbine that ran at > Le Mans did--to their chagrin--before they were admonished not to by the > Rover engineers).

Hi Steve Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much strain on the brakes, IIRC? -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Allstarnz wrote:

Quoted text (9 lines)

> Sorry it's a bit loose and grammatically crap, I don't have the time or > effort to do a better job right now. Some of it might seem a bit ambiguous, > but most of that is the articles fault, not mine. Anyhow anything is better > than Babel Fish, especially for something as technical as this.... > > Cheers > Allstarnz > > PS if anyone can do a better job, please change it :-)

<SNIP> Thanks, mate, much appreciated! -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

> Well you mentioned GPL very early on in this thread, so i think i can be > forgiven for thinking you were mainly aiming this in my direction. ;) AAMOF, I didn't mention GPL at all in this thread except a few paragraphs further down in this very message <g> unless I missed that message when I just checked them all ;-) > Go on then, tell me how it would be done. Or you tell me why it wouldn't work. Now, Steve has settled this question for us, saying that the brakes of the '67 F1 cars couldn't handle it yet. But a few years later they could. So, you're right in saying that it wouldn't work in the Lotus, but that doesn't distract from the fact that it's a valid driving technique for real cars. So if anyone asks me in the future, I'll tell them it's a realistic driving technique, but if they want to simulate '67 F1 cars to the point that they shoot themselves after having had a potentially fatal accident, they shouldn't use it with GPL ;-) > ...can you talk me though how it would be done, even with one foot, Walter Roehrl could - and some of the others Steve mentions. > Oh but it can. It can overheat the brakes, and centrifugal clutches can > burst into flames. Sure it can - when carried out by less capable drivers :-) Achim

Yep, clearly not a realistic driving technique. When I posted this I was rather thinking about my own driving technique, because I also use T+B in such a way that sometimes in N2k3 you see both bars partially lit. Achim "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Surely you would agree that this is not a > realistic driving technique?...

You should know you can't lure me into it, after all those years ;-) I really don't want to deprive you and others of a discussion, but I get tired of these things very quickly. I wasn't always like this, but I've probably grown a bit old. At least AFA these discussions are concerned <g> Apologies for cutting off such conversations when I should perhaps continue them out of fairness and respect. Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > Don't chicken out, Achim! ;) Do I sense you don't agree with the kart > aspect of this discussion?...

Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (8 lines)

> You should know you can't lure me into it, after all those years ;-) > > I really don't want to deprive you and others of a discussion, but I get > tired of these things very quickly. I wasn't always like this, but I've > probably grown a bit old. At least AFA these discussions are concerned <g> > > Apologies for cutting off such conversations when I should perhaps continue > them out of fairness and respect.

NP, mate. -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Joachim Trensz wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

>>Well you mentioned GPL very early on in this thread, so i think i can be >>forgiven for thinking you were mainly aiming this in my direction. ;) > > > AAMOF, I didn't mention GPL at all in this thread except a few paragraphs > further down in this very message <g> unless I missed that message when I > just checked them all ;-) > > >>Go on then, tell me how it would be done. > > > Or you tell me why it wouldn't work.

I agree with Steve. > > Now, Steve has settled this question for us, saying that the brakes of the > '67 F1 cars couldn't handle it yet. But a few years later they could. So, > you're right in saying that it wouldn't work in the Lotus, but that doesn't > distract from the fact that it's a valid driving technique for real cars. Which i never said it wasn't. :) > > So if anyone asks me in the future, I'll tell them it's a realistic driving > technique, but if they want to simulate '67 F1 cars to the point that they > shoot themselves after having had a potentially fatal accident, they > shouldn't use it with GPL ;-) GPL has killed the social lives of all those hotlapper. In some cases it was a good thing. ;)

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > >>...can you talk me though how it would be done, even with one foot, > > > Walter Roehrl could - and some of the others Steve mentions. > > >>Oh but it can. It can overheat the brakes, and centrifugal clutches can >>burst into flames. > > > Sure it can - when carried out by less capable drivers :-)

You're right, this normally only happens to novices. But as far as indoor karting goes, I wouldn't be seen dead even using the brake pedal on it's own! -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 09:17:01 +0200, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Why are you so convinced that those '67 F1 drivers never used this >technique? From the interview with John Cooper: ----- GPLF: Did the drivers brake with the right foot (presumably), sometimes the left or even with both? JC: Right. He doesn't believe left foot braking really came in until the rally minis of the sixties. In fact, on most of the Coopers it would be impossible as the steering shaft was in the way. ----- Jason

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:45:13 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote: >Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was >withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much >strain on the brakes, IIRC? Didn't Parnelli Jones enter his turbine car in a few GP's? I'd check but I'm feeling a bit lazy. =) Jason

jason moyer wrote:

Quoted text (13 lines)

> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:45:13 +0100, Gerry Aitken > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >>Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was >>withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much >>strain on the brakes, IIRC? > > > Didn't Parnelli Jones enter his turbine car in a few GP's? I'd check > but I'm feeling a bit lazy. =) > > Jason

Hehe, same here. :) -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Hi, I started reading down this thread because I wanted to read some opinions about this throttle-brake aspect. It so happens that about a year ago I was driving around in our local indoor kart, trying to keep up with a friend of mine that was way faster than I am. Suddenly one of the trackpeople called me to the side of the track. the whole thing behind me was smoking badly when I stopped. He told me that this was because I used throttle and brake at the same time and urged me not to do this as I was evenually going to run out of brakes. These karts are not professional race karts. They are 200cc Honda engined 4-stroke karts. But it strenghtenth me in my belief that throttle and brake was not done. In karts anyway because I do not know about racecars, I have never driven a race car greets, On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 17:39:44 +0100, Gerry Aitken <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (14 lines)

>Joachim Trensz wrote: >> I don't agree with everything you say, but let's just leave it at that. Or >> else we'll just create another monster thread :-) > >Don't chicken out, Achim! ;) Do I sense you don't agree with the kart >aspect of this discussion? > >-- > >Gerry Aitken > >...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter >6, verse 16 >

Indoor carting, yikes! <g> Achim "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... ... > But as far as indoor karting goes...

> IIRC, several years ago there was an article in OnTrack that discussed > Schumacher's driving techniques and mentioned that he worked the throttle > under braking to keep the exhaust gases going over the diffuser, I assume to > keep downforce at the rear. I can't remember if it was when he was at > Benetton or Ferrari though. Benetton, and supposedly he only did it through high speed corners which would normally require a bit of a lift which fits in with the extra downforce theory. If I remember right he also used to right foot brake into some corners. In GPL you brake like that in effect to change brake balance as you turn in to get the maximum out of the brakes all the time you are on them, as far as I know MS isn't doing that. Paul

> It works well in karts though, I should know, I've driven enough of > them! MS and the current crop came from kart racing, and brought these Why would it work in karts? Most karts have only a rear axle brake so accelerating against that would seem pointless, no effective change in brake balance. Some people use it for starting clutched karts faster however (not good for clutch wear!). Unless you mean gearbox karts which have front brakes where I suppose it could work fine. Paul

> > As for it working in karts, I guess it depends on what class. The lower > > classes have rear brakes only, so overlapping throttle and brake is > > pointless. > > > It works, but not in the same way. How does it work? I can't see how it could do anything usefull other perhaps that getting cold pads upto temp quick. Or is it a substitute for choking? Either way I can't see how it would make you go faster. I know at indoor places they get all upset if they see you doing it! They don't like buying new brake pads........ Paul

"Gerry Aitken" said: > Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was > withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much > strain on the brakes, IIRC? The Lotus 56 B - raced in '71 - used a Patt & Whitney gas turbine. The car was much like a Lotus 72 - apart from the rear end. It raced 3 times - finishing two of them with an 8th in Emmo's hands at Monza as best result. From what I recall what really 'killed it' was the huge delay when applying power. I do believe the car has it's roots in the turbine car raced at Indy in '69 or so.... -- eD_

"Joachim Trensz" said: > Yep, clearly not a realistic driving technique. > > When I posted this I was rather thinking about my own driving technique, > because I also use T+B in such a way that sometimes in N2k3 you see both > bars partially lit. I do that too Achim! :o) Seriously... "normal" left foot braking - I have nothing against because it's both realistic, do-able and something I practice myself.. It's the likes of what Haqsau mentioned that I cannot "accept". -- ed_

That's what you do in rally racing in order to control the end from losing while maintaining the speed??? "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bisl53$cebng$[email hidden]... > http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > > An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttleand > brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic > are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. > > Achim > >

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 21:09:51 -0400, "Jan2004" <[email hidden]> wrote: >That's what you do in rally racing in order to control the end from losing >while maintaining the speed??? Eh, no, not really. Left foot braking has been around since the sixties in rallying(which is NOT called rally racing), but it's nothing really subtle about it. You do it on loose surfaces like gravel and ice/snow to provoke oversteer on FWD or AWD cars and basically lock up the rears on turn-in. That's the short version anyway.

Paul Laidlaw wrote:

Quoted text (12 lines)

>>>As for it working in karts, I guess it depends on what class. The lower >>>classes have rear brakes only, so overlapping throttle and brake is >>>pointless. >> >> >>It works, but not in the same way. > > > How does it work? I can't see how it could do anything usefull > other perhaps that getting cold pads upto temp quick. Or is it > a substitute for choking? Either way I can't see how it would > make you go faster.

Slow karts have poor throttle response, but if you keep your foot it there is a gain in response. Not much, but enough to make it worthwhile. It's the sort of thing you do with a hire kart tho'. ;) > > I know at indoor places they get all upset if they see you doing it! > They don't like buying new brake pads........ Exactly! -- Gerry Aitken ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter 6, verse 16

Joachim Trensz wrote: > So if anyone asks me in the future, I'll tell them it's a realistic driving > technique, but if they want to simulate '67 F1 cars to the point that they > shoot themselves after having had a potentially fatal accident, they > shouldn't use it with GPL ;-) So that makes harcore GPL simmers an endangered species, I suppose :) Where is GreenPeace when you need it ? Mr. S.

:-) Achim "Mr. Sylvestre" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:bj1kl0$9v8$[email hidden]... > Joachim Trensz wrote: > > So if anyone asks me in the future, I'll tell them it's a realisticdriving > > technique, but if they want to simulate '67 F1 cars to the point thatthey

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > shoot themselves after having had a potentially fatal accident, they > > shouldn't use it with GPL ;-) > > So that makes harcore GPL simmers an endangered species, I suppose :) > Where is GreenPeace when you need it ? > > Mr. S. >

Yeah, the 59B, with a Pratt&Whitney gas turbine. Developed from a '69 F2 car, it finally ran in '71 but was not successful. The problem with turbines (like the Rover endurance car as well) was that it took forever for the rotating mass to spool up (like extreme turbo lag), so the drivers were inclined to apply the throttle long before they were thru braking. There wasn't all that much torque below the power peak (and no gearbox), but enuf to put a strain on the brakes, as you say, and cook the brakes. Neither the brake prob nor the throttle lag prob were as crippling in oval-track racing as they were in road racing, hence the Lotus & Granatelli turbines that ran at Indy. "Gerry Aitken" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > Steve Smith wrote: > > It's not unrealistic in the sense that it couldn't be done; it'sunrealistic > > in the sense that it *wasn't* done. Not only was it ergonomically > > unfeasible (the steering shaft went between the driver's feet, making > > left-foot braking impossible) and mechanically dicey (thebrakes--especially > > Ferrari's--were marginal), but also, incredibly, the brake balancewasn't > > adjustable from the cockpit. I questioned this during GPL's beta phase,and > > Papy assured me they'd researched it. In '67, the brake balance wouldhave > > been adjusted for optimal braking under normal circumstances...whichdidn't > > include simultaneous brake & throttle. Even in the later Sixties, the > > Chaparral drivers--who could have employed this technique--didn't; they > > would've fried the brakes (as the drivers of the Rover turbine that ranat

Quoted text (17 lines)

> > Le Mans did--to their chagrin--before they were admonished not to by the > > Rover engineers). > > > Hi Steve > > Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was > withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much > strain on the brakes, IIRC? > > -- > > Gerry Aitken > > ...and a friend shall lose a friend's hammer -- Book of Cyril, chapter > 6, verse 16 >

Yes, the 56B. Dave Walker also drove it to an 8th-place finish at the Dutch GP in '71. Reine Wissell appeared w. the car at the British GP that year, but didn't compete. "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:3f53c7b9$[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> > "Gerry Aitken" said: > > > Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It was > > withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much > > strain on the brakes, IIRC? > > The Lotus 56 B - raced in '71 - used a Patt & Whitney gas turbine. > The car was much like a Lotus 72 - apart from the rear end. > > It raced 3 times - finishing two of them with an 8th in Emmo's hands at > Monza as best result. > From what I recall what really 'killed it' was the huge delay when

applying > power. > > I do believe the car has it's roots in the turbine car raced at Indy in'69 > or so.... > > -- > eD_ > >

Err, sor-eeeee! Guinness gives the model ver as both 56B and 59B. Curious, as both came AFTER the 72 (also a Maurice Philippe design). "Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:Qc05b.40581$[email hidden]... > Yes, the 56B. Dave Walker also drove it to an 8th-place finish at theDutch

Quoted text (9 lines)

> GP in '71. Reine Wissell appeared w. the car at the British GP that year, > but didn't compete. > > "Ed Solheim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message > news:3f53c7b9$[email hidden]... > > > > "Gerry Aitken" said: > > > > > Wasn't there an F1 car in the mid 70's that was turbine powered? It

was

Quoted text (22 lines)

> > > withdrawn from racing because the lack of engine braking put too much > > > strain on the brakes, IIRC? > > > > The Lotus 56 B - raced in '71 - used a Patt & Whitney gas turbine. > > The car was much like a Lotus 72 - apart from the rear end. > > > > It raced 3 times - finishing two of them with an 8th in Emmo's hands at > > Monza as best result. > > From what I recall what really 'killed it' was the huge delay when > applying > > power. > > > > I do believe the car has it's roots in the turbine car raced at Indy in > '69 > > or so.... > > > > -- > > eD_ > > > > > >

"> >That's what you do in rally racing in order to control the end from losing

Quoted text (9 lines)

> >while maintaining the speed??? > > Eh, no, not really. Left foot braking has been around since the > sixties in rallying(which is NOT called rally racing), but it's > nothing really subtle about it. You do it on loose surfaces like > gravel and ice/snow to provoke oversteer on FWD or AWD cars and > basically lock up the rears on turn-in. That's the short version > anyway. >

Rally drivers have only ever used the left foot braking technique in FWD and 4WD cars not RWD. Braking the rear wheels gives some oversteer whilst keeping the power on the fronts brings (or pulls) the front round. In circuit racing with RWD it is quite different, the transaction between throtle and brake is less and it is much smoother and smoothness equals speed. The quicker drivers al la Jim Clark have always braked more gently but more deeply anyway, left foot breaking is meerly an extention of this making the transition between accerating and braking somewhat smoother. Some Call Me Tim extra :- I used to left foot brake in my manual road car some years ago which was not only very balanced on the brakes (most road cars are a bit too forward biased) but the gear box was slick enough to change between 3rd and forth without using the clutch. This made a huge improvement into corners especially downhill but the extra pressure on the brakes meant that after 6 - 8 corners the brakes would overheat and that was that.

"Steve Smith" <[email hidden]> schreef in bericht news:Qc05b.40581$[email hidden]... > Yes, the 56B. Dave Walker also drove it to an 8th-place finish at theDutch > GP in '71. Now that you mention it, I remember seeing the car crashed in practice, because the brakes had failed completely! It had cleared the dunes of Tarzan corner to come down on the other side. Bye, Leo

As a matter of fact Mika Hakkinen introduced it to modern F1 racing. He was the first to use it during complete laps. At some stage he reverted to right foot braking, only to go back to left foot brake once he got the handle of the McLaren diff (this was in '97). In general left foot brakers are more smooth on the brakes, the gently apply it while right footers often smash it. Some left foot brakers still right foot brake for extreme braking points (Verstappen for example). Why? Maybe because they feel they can build more power from the fact that there's motion in the leg coming from the accelerator. But it could also be that they've just gotten used to it in junior series. I doubt the F1 Racing article a bit, the kind of speed differences they mention would make RB far slower than he generally is comparative to Schumacher. "Some Call Me Tim" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (13 lines)

> "> >That's what you do in rally racing in order to control the end from > losing > > >while maintaining the speed??? > > > > Eh, no, not really. Left foot braking has been around since the > > sixties in rallying(which is NOT called rally racing), but it's > > nothing really subtle about it. You do it on loose surfaces like > > gravel and ice/snow to provoke oversteer on FWD or AWD cars and > > basically lock up the rears on turn-in. That's the short version/ > > anyway. > > > > Rally drivers have only ever used the left foot braking technique in FWD

and

Quoted text (13 lines)

> 4WD cars not RWD. Braking the rear wheels gives some oversteer whilst > keeping the power on the fronts brings (or pulls) the front round. In > circuit racing with RWD it is quite different, the transaction between > throtle and brake is less and it is much smoother and smoothness equals > speed. The quicker drivers al la Jim Clark have always braked more gently > but more deeply anyway, left foot breaking is meerly an extention of this > making the transition between accerating and braking somewhat smoother. > > Some Call Me Tim > > > extra :- I used to left foot brake in my manual road car some years ago > which was not only very balanced on the brakes (most road cars are a bit

too > forward biased) but the gear box was slick enough to change between 3rdand > forth without using the clutch. This made a huge improvement into corners > especially downhill but the extra pressure on the brakes meant that after > 6 - 8 corners the brakes would overheat and that was that. > >

"Some Call Me Tim" <[email hidden]> skrev i melding > Rally drivers have only ever used the left foot braking technique in FWDand

Quoted text (9 lines)

> 4WD cars not RWD. Braking the rear wheels gives some oversteer whilst > keeping the power on the fronts brings (or pulls) the front round. In > circuit racing with RWD it is quite different, the transaction between > throtle and brake is less and it is much smoother and smoothness equals > speed. The quicker drivers al la Jim Clark have always braked more gently > but more deeply anyway, left foot breaking is meerly an extention of this > making the transition between accerating and braking somewhat smoother. > > Some Call Me Tim

Yeah, Jim Clark was different on the brakes in the sense that he had the "full speed to apex" style, while others preferred to slow down and gain speed through the entire corner. Both techniques are about as quick on an overall lap, and I believe its down to preference. The exceptions are, of course, corners that require maximum exit speed for very long straights etc. As for left foot braking, I saw in-car video from Ricky Rudd's NASCAR at the Glen a few years ago, and he was definitely using his left foot on the brake to try and get that boat to bite at the front through the esses after start/finish. /Matt, Norway

> These karts are not professional race karts. They are 200cc Honda > engined 4-stroke karts. But it strenghtenth me in my belief that > throttle and brake was not done. In karts anyway because I do not know > about racecars, I have never driven a race car Karts use a centrifuge clutch which can be damaged using both pedals. Nevertheless, almost all good kart drivers use both pedals from time to time especially in slow corners to avoid the engine inertia build up costing time. steve

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 13:12:20 +0200, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >http://www.f1total.com/news/03083006.shtml > >An interesting German article, mentioning that Schumacher uses throttle and >brake at the same time. Particularly interesting for this particular topic >are paragraphs 3,4 and 5. There was quite an interesting article in one of the F1 magazines last month comparing Michael and Ruebens through various sections of track. Obviously Ruebens can't drive "alien" (being right foot braker), but it's clear Michael gets quite some benefit from left-foot braking, and from simulataneously using throttle even while heavily on the brakes. John

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 12:49:54 +0200, "Joachim Trensz" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Says who? Remember that this technique isn't a leadfoot matter, it's >something subtle, meant to maintain a precarious balance. In fact, so subtle >many drivers can't even do it, apparently. Looking at the analysis of MS and RB, take Beckets as an example. Rubens brakes heavily into Beckets for a split second, then balances the car with stacatto throttle stabs through the complex. Michael brakes very lightly, the once more heavily, but altogether much less than Rubens. During this time he is still 50% on throttle, then back to full throttle through the next apex, back to 50%, then increasing throttle all the way out - all the balancing the car's weight transfer through the apices using light braking. The result is that Michael gains 0.2sec through Beckets and is 25km/h faster exiting onto Hangar straight. The point is though that the technique is clearly used - and to great effect. John

Okay now that makes some sense. If you are spinning the engine faster but you are not going faster through the corner, then what you are doing is using combined pedals to force the clutch to slip. So it will work but as you said it will damage the clutch. Not a real good thing to do to any car. "Steve Rawlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]... > > Karts use a centrifuge clutch which can be damaged using both pedals. > Nevertheless, almost all good kart drivers use both pedals from time totime > especially in slow corners to avoid the engine inertia build up costing > time. > > steve

On Wed, 3 Sep 2003 19:21:17 -0400, "Haqsau" <[email hidden]> wrote: >Okay now that makes some sense. If you are spinning the engine faster but >you are not going faster through the corner, then what you are doing is >using combined pedals to force the clutch to slip. So it will work but as >you said it will damage the clutch. Not a real good thing to do to any car. As long as the 'damage' doesn't result in failure, I'd say it's more 'using' the clutch to your advantage. Esp. in F1, if it doesn't break throughout the race, then it has not failed. Doesn't matter if it breaks 2 km's after the finish. ;-) It's a matter of costs. Ruud van Gaal Free car sim: http://www.racer.nl/ Pencil art : http://www.marketgraph.nl/gallery/