Why does Karen get to have an avitar?

 

has anyone heard back from this fool?

 

NASA-TRISTATE, unlike NASA-VA, did a lot of lead and follow with the instructors at that event. This was their very first event in an HPDE. I'm sure they learned from their experience.

NASA-VA requires an instructor for each novice and intermediate. (and quietly listens to the students beg to go solo.) This is one of the reasons instructors are critical to the safety issues.

Grumpy


[Modified by Grumpy, 1:13 PM 1/24/2002]

 

Same reason she gets to autocross a variety of cars.

Don't be jealous -- just live with it (that's my philosophy anyway).

 

What brilliant insight on the topic at hand Dave!

 

Or, where there an instructor present to notice he's going in too fast, yell "BRAKE! BRAKE! BRAKE!" to scrub off any bit of speed before turn-in. Then on to "GAS! GAS! GAS!"

 

Even for an AWD vehicle????

 

In relation to video #2, when did a GTO ever look like an early fairlane or falcon?

Seems like an 80-something old man who's never bothered to learn how to drive. I agree, the majority of speeders and agressive drivers are highway hazards to everyone around them, but that's not to say you're the greatest driver in the world just because you don't speed and you don't take risks in a controlled environment. From the words on his page, he is the kind of person that will likely get into an accident from "point fixation" because he hasn't been in a situation that warrants learning how to drive and operate around those potential hazards.

 

Umm I thought the reaction is the same no matter which wheels drive the car. Once the rear has broken away (in this case from the forward weight transfer under turning and decelerating), I thought the only thing a driver could do (besides patiently waiting the outcome of the spin, both feet in) is to get the weight transferred back to the rear end (with application of the throttle) in an attempt to get those rear tires planted again.

 

As long as you don't have or don't apply so much throttle that the rear tires spin more, that works.

 

AFAIK, those Scoobies have a front wheel torque bias. 60/40 maybe? So basic FWD technique should apply.

 

am I the only one who thinks that the video clips aren't dangerous? The S class is cruising in the left lane, slows down when it catches up to a slower moving car, and speeds up when it moves aside. As for the GTO, the only thing he did wrong was crossing two lanes at once. It wasn't like he dove between those cars aggressively or anything. Whoever this guy is, he's a tool.

Matt

 

Right...and to go through such effort to make sure he knows that is a little bit of a waste of time/energy with little to be gained.

 

Because I'm me.

Karen

 

In my experience, yes. During my now-infamous runs with the Kriemelmeyer Impreza RS at Harrisburg, I asked what I should know about the car before my first runs (I had never autocrossed an AWD car). Kriemelmeyer tells me this : "If it pushes in a turn, give it gas. If it's oversteering, give it gas."

I still managed to spin on my last left side run.

Of course, it does depend somewhat on how the car is setup too.
Karen

 

The gas pedal is your most powerful weapon with an AWD car. Having driven many over the years I found the principals to be very different. If the car steps out give it throttle and it will pull itself back in line. If it pushes give it some throttle because the diffs will "lock" and pull it back in. Granted there are extremes where the car is just gonna push no matter what but for the most part AWD is a whole different ballgame.

 

It's peculiar like that. Bernard Cooley and I were watching West in his Impreza and observed "if it's understeering... he floors it. if it's oversteering... he floors it. Cooool!" Snow, it tends to make up its own mind. Generally speaking though, if you FLOOR it, it will snap the tail around pretty well but... on bald RE92s, this translates into yaw, and not an actual change in the vehicle's direction. The parking lots looked interesting at my old high school when it snowed last, I'll just say that.

 

Here are some impressions from my experiences with my '95 Talon turbo awd. I have autocrossed it quite a few times and been on three different tracks with it. I've also got it more sideways than I ever wanted on both road atlanta and cmp track days.

On an AWD vehicle it matters a lot what limited slips it has. If it has a center LSD, then getting on the power in a turn will behave closer to a RWD car, by being able to overpower the rear wheels and get the back end to turn - in other words it reduces an understeering condition just as a RWD would. Without a center LSD, most of the power will be sent to the front wheels causing a little more understeer if the throttle is applied, just like a FWD car would do. The Talon having now over 240 lbs feet of torque can break the rear wheels loose coming out of 2nd gear corners in the wet and makes for a pretty cool power slide. I also know of a few dirt roads where I took my Talon twice on and basically getting on the power makes the rear end feel like a RWD car, but at the same time the car also picks up speed a lot faster. And when it snowed that night and morning here in Atlanta I was in heaven! Even Pleasant Hill was deserted and with no cars anywhere I had all the roads and parking lots to myself. Coming out of any turn in any gear up to 4th, you can easily get the car sideways by getting on the gas. Needless to say I went though almost a whole tank of a gas during that magical snowy night and morning. In the dry, the Talon doesn't have enough power to behave like a RWD by power-oversteering and it just holds its line. Give it too much power for too tight of a turn and it will understeer as expected. Whenever the car gets sideways, just like with a FWD car, the more gas you give the faster you can recover. And this makes perfect sense for an AWD vehicle. I do think that an AWD car behaves closer to a FWD vehicle than a RWD in dry conditions, unless you can play with the center diff and give the car a more appropriate torque split of 30%f / 70%r for example.


[Modified by Hracer, 9:25 AM 1/25/2002]

 

Cobra/Drew, I usually feel much in agreement with many of the things you say here, but I'm curious why you chose the phrase "gay logic" in your letter to this guy. (Actually, this ties into the whole cc.com'er's love for all things rectal-related, but I don't want to go too far afield).

Anyway, my question/comment is, I would expect that using a phrase like "gay logic" instead of "weak logic", "twisted logic", "flawed logic", "fallacious logic", will automatically prejudice this guy to think that you are an ignoramous whose thoughts are not worthy of consideration. Especially considering how conservative he appears to be, I would expect a puerile tone to immediately end any possible objective evaluation of what you have to say.

Maybe I'm wrong, and he won't dismiss it out of hand.. maybe he's a little tough-tough who feels he needs to rise to the "challenge" and defend himself from such a "slur".

I mean, it's fine to call someone an ***-clown or whatever as an invective, but why do the cornercarver people so often continue to use that language when they are trying to be persuasive or defend their point?

ack.. sorry for polluting the thread with weenie questions..

As for my response to the original post of this thread, I agree that the guy seems to not give enough credit to Pat and the truth of the situation. His main point, as I interpret it, is that high speeds cars are less controllable, not so much anything like "Pat is a moron" (although he does have at least some disturbing hints of contempt for someone I rather respect). I think his point would be _MUCH_ more strongly made if he said something along the lines of

"Here is someone in a vehicle prepared for speed, in a controlled environment, with a driver who has some skill in handling his vehicle, and even despite this, his car rolls. If a trained driver in a prepared car on a prepared course can roll, what makes you think you are so safe in an unprepared vehicle on an uncontrolled course at the same speeds? Surely you could see how innocent people could be severely injured if something similar were to have occurred on crowded public roads."

I agree, his other videos are rather weak.. this one could make his point the strongest, but instead he seems to take an unreasonable stand regarding it, and attempts to use it out of context, when it would be quite powerful if properly used in context, I believe.

 

I used it as it appears - a jab at him. Having read hisentire website it is evident that he is a hard *** and will not listen to any ideas/thoughts/logic that is not his own. I knew before writing that email that he would just shrug it off as a piece of crap from a fool. My intention was never to reason with him - just to tell him he was wrong. That very act is enough for him to pass me off so I may as well take my shots.
You didn't. You asked a valid question based on the fact that you thought my motivations to be something other than what they were.
I disagree. He clearly states that his driving motivation was the death of some children on a public road as the result of speeding. Pat's video does not fit into this criteria at all. He is not on a public road, he is not speeding, he is not breaking any laws and there are no children in danger of his driving. He further detaches the video from his theme by using the discription that he is.
I think it depends on both the person and the topic. For the most part the CCer's realize that they are not going to change the thinking of the people they attack. Since that is the case their motivation becomes to change the minds of those around the person regarding that individual. I will use MUMZER as an example because he is probably the undesputed king of the "Flame With Substance". His psots not only prove you wrong using logic, reason and knowledge but he adds insult to injury by calling you things such as "c0ckblaster". His motivation is not to help you understand - it is more to help those around you understand why what you are saying is wrong. The names are just insults to add to the humor for those of us not involved, and to further humiliate the person in question. Do I agree with it? Not always. Do I laugh? Hell yes. Would it work on me if he fired his gun off at me? In every respect it would.