I was thinking how prevalent the "unthinking" racer might be...based somewhat on my recollection of my reflections thru a lifetime of racing.

A primal animating impulse pulled me into racing and propelled me for many years before I ever questioned who I thought I was and what I thought I was doing. And that seems quite natural and fine. It's probably also fine if I'd never puzzled over philosophy, but I suspect not as natural.

In my years racing MX I never really thought about the guys I was racing with much beyond how they behaved on the track. Who was fast, who was squirelly, who was clean, and who was dirty. And who was smart, who was dim. And who was friendly, and who was insular. But not what made them race, why they raced, what their motivation was. Most of us did want to be stars.

Results spoke loudly. Winning was a pretty unambiguous indication of talent, ability, and skill. Reasonable parity in equipment, classes based on speed, and speed dominantly correlated to skill made the order of rank.

I really miss that on one level. It could keep a guy from thinking about this stuff indefinitely unless he really wanted to. Sure you could reach around for a rationalization for why your lack of results didn't mean that you sucked. But nobody ever did that for very long, which seems to me to indicate that most of us are at least too smart to deceive ourselves without a little more help.

Like you get in sports car racing. Unless you're racing in a spec class, or one that's evolved into the equivalent in your region (proving that your sanction does occassionally get the rules right).

I guess I'm saying that the ideas you might get might follow from the kind of racing you're getting.

And if you're really the take charge type, the kind of racing you go get might follow from the ideas you get about all this stuff.

You know how babies take a while to develop the ability to focus, until which time they kinda gape around at bright colors, movement, and sounds? I think racers start out that way. And left to nature they can turn out in a wide variety of forms.

They can be "serious racers - the kind that are going Somewhere". Or they can be "recreational racers - the kind that are Going somewhere". There's plenty of opportunity for these different types of racers to misunderestimate each other.

Do you think that they race all that differently on the track though?

Does the recreational racer necessarily race any less competitively? The serious racer necessarily more competitively? I don't think so.

But the serious racer...might he not take more "chances"? Push the boundaries of stupidity?

About the time I moved up to Intermediate we were just starting to see double jumps and some of my buddies who were still Juniors complained that if you were an Intermediate and you cleared the double you were Good, whereas if you were a Junior and did it you were Crazy. There's an analog here.

Some of us around here have expressed a desire to race "guys like me" in terms of skill, experience, and sense. It's easy to empathize. It's as hard to see a solution. Unlike MX this game has less to do with skill.

That leaves for the recreational racer that "somewhere" as being in the perception of their peers. Who know the difference between Speed and Results. Who are consigned and affirmed to an informal society where it's about who knows who and what you are. And you can only tell by looking. And you only look because you're interested.

But why are you interested? Because that's where the real it is.

So there's racing. There's having "it". And there's racing your "it" against the other guys "it". And if you want to go it to it to prove something you gotta have hardware parity.

That most of us don't take that road says something about the kind of people we're racing against.

Scott, who, just in case you're unsure, is ok with that...

 

I have given a lot of thought to the guys I've raced against. Starting with BMX on to MX then to bicycle racing and now in car racing. Although, in bicycle racing, I always knew who could climb, who could time trial, and who were the sprinters. If you wanted to win a bike race against 100-150 riders, you had to use your strengths against their weaknesses. Sometimes you had to fake them out by appearing to be suffering when in fact you were about to pounce on a climb or something like that. I won quite a few races in sprints even though I wasn't a sprinter - I was a time trialist/climber. I would try to drop the sprinters on a climb or in a fast paced surge where the sprinters have their difficulty. After the sprinters were dropped, then it was a lot easier to win a smaller bunch sprint.

In car racing, it is so different. You can't make mistakes and you have to be fast in our little 120 whp CRX's. You always think that you want to beat you arch rivals but you don't do the same type of sizing up you do in some of the other motor/non-motorsports.

 

I thought alot about this when I karted. I personally broke down drivers into three catagories: Professional, Talented Amatuer, and Untalented Amatuer.

I beleive that there is an "it" that drivers either have or don't. That's the difference between talented and untalented. Probly a combination of reactions, ability to plan, and how sensitive your butt is.

As far as classifying driver's strengths I think it's immensely useful. I usually classified drivers into guys with good feet, good hands, and good heads or in combination. Remembering what a driver was good at always made it so much easier to get by. Mistakes get made every corner by every car every lap. They're just small mistakes but by knowing they're coming you only need a small mistake if you can take advantage.

Professionals are always the best to race against, I believe they take the fewest risks by being smart and not letting their emotions run away with them. Getting pissed causes more accidents than a driver's skill at the wheel.

Talented Amatuers could be pros with a couple of seasons under their belts and a good mentor. They've got "it" but are usually lacking in other areas. You can tell these guys because they're nice and really acknowlege that they have alot to learn. Mainly so you'll get chatty in the pits and they can find something to use to beat you

Untalented Amatuers just need to get off the track. These folks don't have "it" and get pissed because they can't buy aggression and natural talent. I think they're actually the toughest bunch to race with. Unlike the pro they do stupid things to keep you behind them because they couldn't get back by and unlike the talented amatuer they don't let you by and try to fall in to pick up your lines. They also tend to be the "widest" on track because they alternate between pushing too far and not enough.

 

No , becuase their all going to be losers when I'm done.....jk of course.

I can usually tell what kind of guys I race against after hearing the first words out of their mouth when they are behind. Theres competetiveness and theres respect. I make it a point to congratulate the winner even if my feelings tell me otherwise....he beat me fair and square.


Modified by dvp at 12:32 PM 11/27/2005

 

When sizing someone up, I usually want to know two things. How "fast" are they, and what is their temperment.

Once you have seen someone drive on track, and see there laps times obviously you can get a good idea of where their skill level is. But I also like to identify where on the learning curve they are. Someone racing for ten years probably has some consistency, while someone with 2 could have untapped talent you haven't seen, or more likely, have vulnerabilities they themselves haven't discovered yet. A good litmus test is not necessarily age, but what they talk about coming off the track. If they talk about the car too much, they might be focused on it while racing. If they talk about their own technique that day, then you have a good indication that the driver is smart, is focused and aware of themselveswith driving, and is learning. Both good things to know.

As far as temperment, I think this is an easy one. Arrogant drivers, no matter how fast and talented, might have their arrogance as baggage on the track. You might find them easier to intimidate than a rookie. I fear the soft spoken ones that you haven't met before that appear at the top of the time sheet. "Nice lap" you say. "Oh thanks" they say... "Great", you think, "I will have my hands full with him"

 

I chase cones, but even in chasing cones you have to size up your opponents.

Most events have an online entry list, I browse through it for familiar names. If its someone I have never seen I usually try to watch their run. There is an element of raw talent in autox, a complete greenhorn could come in and blow you away. But, generally experience speaks a greater hand.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dvp &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I make it a point to congratulate the winner even if my feelings tell me otherwise....he beat me fair and square.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

This is something I've never really put much thought into.

I do make a point of saying, "Hey, kick *** driving!" if I lose a well played race. However, I've not stopped to consider what I was actually doing.

The phrase usually comes out of my mouth rather breathlessly and in a mild state of adrenaline-induced awe, but there's more to it than a simple congratulation.

It has nothing to do with a hope for reciprocity on the part of my competitor. I couldn't care much less if someone tells me I dun good when the race results are already screaming at me that I won.

I guess part of it is just a reassurance to the other driver that it's all good, and that no vendettas will be created as a result of the race that just ended.

There is genuine respect coming out of my mouth when I say "good job," but mostly, I guess it's a polite way of saying, "Next time, you're going down, ************. And it's gonna be fun."

I'll have to quit leaving that last part out.