Circuit Cornering Theory

[hrd-hr30]

brocky at his peak was an awesome driver. 87 Bathurst VL in the wet is my favourite!

[Roy]

practice and race engines were the same spec, the race engine would be a fresh one for the 1000km race, vs Brock's well used practice engine... I doubt that was a disadvantage for Perkins! In fact Perkins top speed on Conrod was 277.9, Brocky 277.8 so how can you suggest Brock made up all his time down Conrod???

split time at Forest Elbow was a 1:30 for Brock and they originally said 30.9 for Perkins, but there was some confusion over it and they changed their minds to a 30 as well, probably because they were so convinced his smoother lap was going to be faster as they had been saying all the way through it. Maybe they just didn't want to be proven wrong on national television...

Meh, i dont know. They said LP was the quickest to Forrest Elbow, and i dont know any different...but i do expect that a race engine to be down in power and/or not rev'd as hard as a practice-quali engine. From memory the V8s in Grp A trim had a higher rev limit, higher compression ratio limit and more cam freedoms then they later enjoyed when they moved to the control formula?!?!? (Based on memory only)

[hrd-hr30]

I think you need to listen to it again. all that stuff in my previous post is what the commentators said. I didn't just make it up. eg:

commentators about Brock's split time: "fastest time at forest elbow, one minute thirty"

commentators about Perkins split time, after talking him up for the whole lap about how smooth he was and that's why he's going to be faster than Brocky's ragged lap: "split time to the elbow was a thirty point nine, so...<insert pregnant pause>... No a thirty! So quickest so far"

and what do you know, after doing identical speeds down Conrod (277.9 vs 277.8kph), Brock was 0.9 up at the finish line. I think the original 30.9 split for Perkins was correct, the commentators just couldn't accept it...

the identical terminal speeds say more about the equivalence of their engines than any theorising about which may have had more power...

Edited February 2, 2010 by hrd-hr30

[juggernaut1]

I think you need to listen to it again. all that stuff in my previous post is what the commentators said. I didn't just make it up. eg:

commentators about Brock's split time: "fastest time at forest elbow, one minute thirty"

commentators about Perkins split time, after talking him up for the whole lap about how smooth he was and that's why he's going to be faster than Brocky's ragged lap: "split time to the elbow was a thirty point nine, so...<insert pregnant pause>... No a thirty! So quickest so far"

and what do you know, after doing identical speeds down Conrod (277.9 vs 277.8kph), Brock was 0.9 up at the finish line. I think the original 30.9 split for Perkins was correct, the commentators just couldn't accept it...

the identical terminal speeds say more about the equivalence of their engines than any theorising about which may have had more power...

Terminal speed accounts for nothing.

Its the highest average speed that results in better lap times. Just because they had near identical terminal speeds ignores which car was travelling fastest down Conrod for the longest. At higher speeds it takes a exponentional amount of hp to punch a hole through the air. Those cars could have been within 20hp of each other and still ended up with near identical terminal speeds because or wind resistence, gearing, etc.

Edited February 3, 2010 by juggernaut1

[hrd-hr30]

ffs, the cars are as near as is possible to being identical! same weight, same gearing, same wind resistance, same engine specs. they're both built to the same set of rules, by the same team!

are you suggesting that if one of those identical engines had 20bhp more, that's enough to accellerate an identically 1250kg Commodore fast enough to make up 0.9 of a second in the 19 seconds it takes to run down conrod alone???

[juggernaut1]

I'm suggesting that identical terminal speeds and peak hp means nothing as to which car will produce faster lap times or a faster sector time even if the cars are "identical".

But your right.....your comment that "the commentators just couldn't accept it" sounds much more plausable.

Edited February 3, 2010 by juggernaut1

[Tony de Wonderful]

Have I got this right for how to corner?

Come up to the corner.

Brake in a straight line.

Clutch out.

Blip throttle.

Stop braking.

Clutch in and engage lower gear.

Should now be at corner turn in.

Turn wheel.

Flat on throttle until apex.

Slowly give it some gas and floor it on exit.

Rinse and repeat?

[scathing]

You shouldn't stop braking that early. If you're trail braking, you won't stop braking until you're practically at the apex.

Even if you're not trail braking, you should be braking during that gearchange (assuming its necessary). I'd swap the "engage lower gear" and "stop braking" points around.

[djr81]

Have I got this right for how to corner?

Come up to the corner.

Brake in a straight line.

Clutch out.

Blip throttle.

Stop braking.

Clutch in and engage lower gear.

Should now be at corner turn in.

Turn wheel.

Flat on throttle until apex.

Slowly give it some gas and floor it on exit.

Rinse and repeat?

Sequence is roughly like this.

At the start of the braking zone. Smash foot onto the brakes ie brake hard as you can without lockup early in the stop.

If you need to heel/toe down change do it as early as the road speed allows (ie don't buzz the motor) with the idea of being in the gear you need on corner exit before you turn in. You are still braking as hard as you can at this point.

Ease off the brakes as you turn the car in carrying a little brake pressure to the apex to keep the nose interested. (Mostly for GTR's as they are understeering cops)

Get on the gas as soon as you can and always bear in mind once on it it stay on it - don't stab at it. On some circuit set ups this may even happen before the apex of the corner.

The best advice is buy a book on track driving techniques that includes an explanation of tyre behaviour and chassis behaviour. There is a lot more to it than can be explained in one post let alone one chapter of a book.

Try amazon & pitstop for the books.

Edited February 5, 2010 by djr81