Driving style evolution

[Rani]

I haven't posted a question for a few weeks now, so I figuered it's about time I toss another one into the fray... :crazy:

Loeb is always heralded as the driver who changed the way WRC's are driven (being neat instead of scandinavian flicking and opposite locking) these days. I often read about it being attributed to the active differentials (now only central but formally the transverse ones as well) but I'd like to understand fully.
Is the active differentials' ability to 'kill" understeer on corner entry what made this change in style possible or am I completely off here and it's something I never even thought of?

[duff]

Hey Rani

I personally would say that it was Gronholm who was the first to bring the new style of driving into the WRC with the 206. He was more sideways than Loeb, but he was the first to put the emphasis on neat driving above all else. I think the change started in 1999/2000 with the pug and also with the focus (although less successfully).

As for the active diffs; I don't think that the change of style is all up to them (although they are a component), I think its more that the cars got to such a refined stage with their development in ALL areas of handling such as the weight distribution, tyres etc. that flicking and sideways driving were not as necessary to make the car do what the driver wanted. These advances also made the cars only seriously fast when driven in one style (which happens to be Loeb's natural style) - as straight as possible. Also the Citroens have always suited him incredibly well in this way and they have been really difficult for many other drivers to get the most out of. I don't think that anyone believes that Colin, and to a lesser extent Carlos, were as slow against Loeb as the Xsara made them look. They just had to drive the thing in an unnatural style as they had been driving cars very sideways for their entire careers.

To sum up, I think that the change in style wasn't all up to the active diffs but they certainly were a part of the whole package that changed the driving style of today.

[Sulland]

I think Walter Rhorl was the first driver to go fast using another style than the scandinavian.

[Sami]

For sure there has always been different driving styles in rallying and that is one of the fascinations. There has been different eras but it has always been so that on the top there been drivers of different driving schools.

Today the two fastest guys have the most opposite driving styles of the top ten drivers, Loeb is very clean and front end first, Latvala is more sideways than anyone on top since McRae.

In my opinion Tommi Mäkinen was the first to make the cleaner style like art. He talked about it much and has clear followers, most obviously Petter Solberg, for example. Because of that, I consider him as the inventor of the "new style". His difference to Loeb was that he threw the car sideways in the corner but left it very much front end first, which was brilliant and intelligent driving, very much based on theories of Rauno Aaltonen for example (European champion of the sixties)..

In Mäkinen's era McRae was purely measured with raw speed almost as fast as Mäkinen, but drove exactly the opposite way. Amazing, isn't it.

The same goes with Airikkala, Vatanen and Alén vs. Blomqvist, Lampinen, Biasion, Röhrl, Hämäläinen of the sixties-seventies-eighties.

And despite technology is evalving every year, the laws of physics are not to be won. Whatever happens technology-wise the fact is that the earlier the driver is able to point the driving wheels and power towards the opening straight the faster he/she is.

[pettersolberg29]

Even in only the past 5 years or so the tidier drivers have become more and more successful.
Petter's style in 2003 is now out-of-date and not as effective, and it is no coincidence that Hirvonen and Loeb are top 2 now as they have the most consistent and neat style. Even though Latvala and even Sordo are arguably faster or as fast as these two, they dont do as well.
Dont partciularly know why this is - all I know is I prefer the sideways driving of McRae and the like, and that is why Petter's my man, and JML my second man!

[rubla]

i have the theory about driving sideways or neatly - it depends on what type of car did driver learn to go fast in his youth. as some 20 years ago most rallycars were rwd, it also required more use of oversteer, and it came along when drivers started use 4wd cars. current generation guys have used more fwd cars and thus throw back-end much less than ones who drove rwd cars in youth. of-course, this is not absolute thruth. for example Markko Märtin was also very neat driver (comparing to Rovanpera for example, who used much more tires) and though he entered rally world in Lada 2108 (fwd), he has credited many times Estonian Rally champ Ivar Raidam as his mentor and one from who he learned his clean driving style, but Raidam (though he was extremely clean driver) drove rwd Ladas before 4wd mitsus, so this theory of first cars doesnt hold in this case...

[Nenukknak]

A good driver should be able to drive any car fast in any style necessary. Rorhl for instance started off his career with very sideways driving (Ford Capri) and with Opel also. When he first drove the Fiat 131, it turned out to be more nimble than the Opel and had less lock on the steering. That's when he developed his clean driving style which he carried through untill he drove the Audi. Here he again needed to change his driving style although he still drove it nose first. Later with the Brutal Audi Sport and E2, he needed to resort to more agressive driving style again, especially at "slower" corners just to get that nose-heavy, engine-too-much-up-front car to turn in somewhat properly.

I'll say this however, that nose-in-first is a more treacherous driving style, and therefore might take more getting used to, as a certain degree of safety margin is reduced. So in that way it might be more difficult to adapt to a "clean" drivingstyle.

[cut the b.s.]

I'll say this however, that nose-in-first is a more treacherous driving style, and therefore might take more getting used to, as a certain degree of safety margin is reduced. So in that way it might be more difficult to adapt to a "clean" drivingstyle.


Ah, that oft ignored reality, driving the boring way is harder, not often acknowledged around here :-)

[Lalo]

Remeber it also depends on the car's behavior and how you can manage to drive it. Gronhölm didn't drive the same style in the Corolla, the 206, the 307 or even the Focus. The driver has to adapt at some point to get speed from the car. Märtin had this problem with the 307 at begins of the 2005 until he changed some suspension parts for Finland and did superb, being fast and also feeling confortable at speed.

Also, late Colin didn't manage to adapt to the Xsara in 2003, and couldn't drive as fast as Sèb or Carlos that year.

[A.F.F.]

Sorry I can't offer the link but I read it from somewhere that the new tyre rule has brought some problems to Ford as the tyres weight more than previous ones. Hence the weight balance is now wrong and the rear weights more than it should. That has caused some problems to Latvala and Hirvonen. That could explain the oversteering.

[Zico]

Sorry I can't offer the link but I read it from somewhere that the new tyre rule has brought some problems to Ford as the tyres weight more than previous ones. Hence the weight balance is now wrong and the rear weights more than it should. That has caused some problems to Latvala and Hirvonen. That could explain the oversteering.

Im having difficulty imagining how much heavier a tyre would have to be to cause this problem.
Excluding the additional weight of the spare.. All 4 corners of the car suffer.. but for a very small change in overall front/rear weight distribution percentage.

As Pentti says... they should move the spare more towards the centre of the car.

[DonJippo]

Im having difficulty imagining how much heavier a tyre would have to be to cause this problem.
Excluding the additional weight of the spare.. All 4 corners of the car suffer.. but for a very small change in overall front/rear weight distribution percentage.

Nowadays they carry two spare wheels on board and placement of both spares in Ford might not be optimal, therefore I believe it causes trouble for them.

[MrJan]

Richard Burns was always a very tidy driver too :up:

With regard to tyre wear it was noticeable at Turkey, the difference between Latvala (who was trashing his) and Mikko who was less agressive. Jari Mati absolutely ruined his rubber on a few stages because he drives too hard and would probably have won the rally if he hadn't de-laminated and punctured a few tyres. Also Mikko was saying that it is a different driving style between running second or 3rd on a swept road and running somewhere where sweeping is not such a disadvantage. Basically when you are running on these nasty gravel events it is important to stay neater in order to stick to the 'clean' line.

[Zico]

Nowadays they carry two spare wheels on board and placement of both spares in Ford might not be optimal, therefore I believe it causes trouble for them.

Ah.. Id always thought they only carried 2 spares on very rough rallies such as Acropolis..

[A.F.F.]

Im having difficulty imagining how much heavier a tyre would have to be to cause this problem.
Excluding the additional weight of the spare.. All 4 corners of the car suffer.. but for a very small change in overall front/rear weight distribution percentage.

As Pentti says... they should move the spare more towards the centre of the car.

Yep, like Don already said. But in the same article they mentioned they're already on the issue but rules aren't. But they're getting there.

[DonJippo]

Ah.. Id always thought they only carried 2 spares on very rough rallies such as Acropolis..

Actually in Acropolis they carried 3 spare wheels.

[fabioalpine]

Every interpretation is very interesting!
In my opinion we must consider the mental approach of the driver and his condition and feelings with the car that is beyond tyres, active diffs...

[OldF]

Looking at some pics of the Loeb’s testing and remembering an article in Vauhdin Maailma about driving styles (VM 11/2003) I had to dig out this old thread about driving styles.

In that article it’s said that the fastest way to drive true a bend is with four wheel sliding with 2WD car and four wheel drive sliding with a 4WD car. With that driving style the front wheels points straight ahead in relation to the car longitudinal axle.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/MarkkoMrtin4-wheelsliding.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/RikuSeppl4-wheelsliding.jpg

Here’s the whole story:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_1_VM_11_2003.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_2_VM_11_2003.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_3_VM_11_2003.jpg


Looking at the first pic, Loeb is sliding with the front wheels pointing in the direction of the movement but in the second one he’s driving true the bend with a 4WD slide. Maybe the short wheelbase of the new cars could sometimes cause surprises.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net..._3340738_n.jpg (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/263985_2197811354971_1537873602_2333028_3340738_n. jpg)

Rally Finland 2011 test Sebastien Loeb - Petri Skog Motorsport Photography (http://www.petriskog.com/Rally/2011/Rally-Finland-2011-test/17946231_4BxwS8#1374150109_3Rv2t7b-L-LB)


Here’s a link to a similar thread by Pentti Airikkala

http://www.motorsportforums.com/wrc/114962-where-have-train-drivers-gone.html

[tfp]

Very interesting topic.
YouTube - ‪WRC - Colin McRae - Scandinavian Flick & Handbrake Lessons‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqmZFhI0co)
Here, Colin Mcrae explains how in modern rally cars the scandanavian flick isn't really neccessary anymore.

[N.O.T]

Looking at some pics of the Loeb’s testing and remembering an article in Vauhdin Maailma about driving styles (VM 11/2003) I had to dig out this old thread about driving styles.

In that article it’s said that the fastest way to drive true a bend is with four wheel sliding with 2WD car and four wheel drive sliding with a 4WD car. With that driving style the front wheels points straight ahead in relation to the car longitudinal axle.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/MarkkoMrtin4-wheelsliding.jpg



http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/RikuSeppl4-wheelsliding.jpg

Here’s the whole story:
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_1_VM_11_2003.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_2_VM_11_2003.jpg
http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii284/OkdF/Nelipyrluisu_3_VM_11_2003.jpg


Looking at the first pic, Loeb is sliding with the front wheels pointing in the direction of the movement but in the second one he’s driving true the bend with a 4WD slide. Maybe the short wheelbase of the new cars could sometimes cause surprises.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net..._3340738_n.jpg (https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/263985_2197811354971_1537873602_2333028_3340738_n. jpg)

Rally Finland 2011 test Sebastien Loeb - Petri Skog Motorsport Photography (http://www.petriskog.com/Rally/2011/Rally-Finland-2011-test/17946231_4BxwS8#1374150109_3Rv2t7b-L-LB)


Here’s a link to a similar thread by Pentti Airikkala

http://www.motorsportforums.com/wrc/114962-where-have-train-drivers-gone.html

i think a video would be more useful here since in the first pic you only capture a moment which is not accurate and for example this momentet could be at the start of the opposite lock or an adjustment withing the corner in which the wheel point straight....

However you (or the article) is right since it is also evident to the eye that the more you turn the wheel the bigger the speed loss.

[OldF]

Very interesting topic.
YouTube - ‪WRC - Colin McRae - Scandinavian Flick & Handbrake Lessons‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqmZFhI0co)
Here, Colin Mcrae explains how in modern rally cars the scandanavian flick isn't really neccessary anymore.

By modern cars Colin probably meant WRC cars which rules allows tilting the engine backwards and putting all heavier stuff between the axles closer to the centre of gravity to minimize the hammer effect.

This was explained by another article in Vauhdin Maailma some years ago. Putting the centre of a lets say a 10m long ladder on your shoulders and putting in both ends 10 kg loads and then turning around. Next moving the loads closer to your self you can notice that the turning is much easier.

It’s kind of opposite to torque where the force x radius makes the torque but in this case the force is in the centre and the smaller the radius is, less force is needed to turn the load on the circumference.

[OldF]

i think a video would be more useful here since in the first pic you only capture a moment which is not accurate and for example this momentet could be at the start of the opposite lock or an adjustment withing the corner in which the wheel point straight....

However you (or the article) is right since it is also evident to the eye that the more you turn the wheel the bigger the speed loss.

I think it can been seen on this video especially at about 5:50 when he’s going little bit wide. Great moment for Markko.

YouTube - ‪Markko Märtin Winner Finland 2003‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiuus52__eI)

[nafpaktos]

YouTube - ‪Richard Burns onboard Peugeot 206 - Finland‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x0m6IGVLajE)
RICHARD BUNS. In this video i'm sure you'll see the absolutely neat driving(dont forget 206 was a difficult car to drive-not the most convinient for neat driving).The right video for rally schools.

[Tomi]

(dont forget 206 was a difficult car to drive-not the most convinient for neat driving)

From where did you get that? First time I hear that it should have been difficult to drive.

[nafpaktos]

From where did you get that? First time I hear that it should have been difficult to drive.

From the very short wheelbase ,from the fact that only Marcus manage to drive it really fast(i dont refer to asphalt rallies).Richard who was top driver he was never able to find the limits of the car.I have also read from magazines that it wasnt the most easy car to drive compare to other cars like subaru or ford.

[Tomi]

From the very short wheelbase ,from the fact that only Marcus manage to drive it really fast(i dont refer to asphalt rallies).

There is big differences between Drivers and "drivers" but seriously I have never heard anyone who has been driving with the 206 complaine that it should be difficult to drive rather the opposite.

[N.O.T]

I think results worldwide show that the 206 was one of the most user-friendly cars to drive....2nd after the toyota corrola.

[dimviii]

Drivers that have drive scooby/focus/206 their choice was the 206.
Wheelbase is not the point to see if a car is better/faster than another one,specially at wrc level.Of course is something to look, but not only that.
307 was much more difficult for works drivers, than the shorter 206.

[tfp]

I heard all of the subaru drivers complained that they struggled to keep up with the peugoets 'cos the pugs diddnt have that pendulum of a boot sticking out of the back of their cars.

[tfp]

Finnish people!
What does "perkola" mean? I think that is how it's spelled....
I watched this video before, Mr Makinen wasn't very clear of his answer...!

P.s, I post in here 'cos its not really worth starting a thread over :p :

[tfp]

YouTube - ‪Tommi Makinen takes Tiff for a spin.‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AofwUIgciQ&feature=related)
Damned link diddnt work:-) I tried google translate but I must have the wrong spelling, it thought it was an italian word.

[OldF]

YouTube - ‪Tommi Makinen takes Tiff for a spin.‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AofwUIgciQ&feature=related)
Damned link diddnt work:-) I tried google translate but I must have the wrong spelling, it thought it was an italian word.

It's spelled "perkele". Good luck. ;)

[Sami]

Oh, this subjects is brought up again, and I'm glad about it.

This excact article was discussed in this forum in 2003 by Pentti, me and many others. I couldn't find that thread anymore. But let's do it again, unfortunately without Pentti.

In my opinion Erkki Pahkinen's article is really interesting but has many contradictions and aggravations.

The article has good points , but drawing conclusions based on some single photos is unprofessional.

There's some laws of physics that can't be won by drivers or engineers.

The basic rule, that counts in any car, is that the sooner you are able to point the driving wheels to the opening straight and accelerate, the faster you are, slow in, fast out that is. That speed of acceleration counts the whole straight, as high speed in counts only that short period of braking in and is usually followed by dramatic loss of speed outside the corner.

How is that done, there's different schools and opinions on that, even on top level of our sport.

Some basics of driving physics: the forces affecting the tyre count. There is certain level of friction to be used in either turning, braking or accelerating. The biggest threat is understeering, and killing that is the core art of driving.

I tend to emphasise my point by discussing a crisis situation. You enter a corner too fast and you have to be able to turn the car throught the corner, and despite that misjudgement entering the corner, you still try to maintain as much speed as possible.

Let's start with fwd where the problem is really acute. Turning is mostly achieved by the front wheels. And in fwd case, sadly, also the acceleration is achieved through the front wheels. That means that those two forces, both turning and accelerating are both "eating" the friction available, that means you can't both turn and accelerate in maximal effect without losing the grip. Everyone of us has probably experienced in my opinion the most unpleasant moment in fast driving, when the front looses grip and car starts to travel straight towards the direction of its mass. Because of that, you have to be able to turn the mass of the car in order to be able to start to accelerate out of the crisis. That might be done by scandinavian flick or left foot braking, which also brings some more mass to the front wheels and allows more grip to be available to accelerate and turn with your front wheels. In fwd the neat driving style is more crucial, as throwing the car around also throws the direction of the mass and center of gravity around, which means that those poor front wheels have a lot more direction of travel to change and less grip available to do it. Other important point of view is that if you concentrate on turning too much there's no room for acceleration, and wise versa. But still in fwd acceleration through a corner is crucial, otherwise the change of direction of travel, i.e. turning the car, is much less effective, you can drive through a corner at about double the speed, if you give some gas!

In rwd, my clear favourite, that case is even more obvious. In rwd the front wheels have a separate tarsk to turn the car and the rear wheels are working on acceleration. Also weight balance is better to give some more stability to rwd cars, that is why they are faster!

In rwd the rule is the same, slow in, fast out. In rwd you have to bring the car to wide angles in order to get the rear wheels point to the opening straight, in 90 degree corner that is 90 degree slide angle in to the corner. But that means also that it should be absolutely straight out of the corner, so no slide after the apex at all. That is the most common mistake, and many drivers ruin their performances by sliding around too much even thought the straight has already began. About Pahkinen's article, these is the point I agree the least. It doesn't matter where the front wheels are pointing in in relation to the car, it matters where they are pointing in relation to the direction of travel! Coming in a 90 degree corner normally requires opposite lock, and that is absolutely normal and "the fastest way" throught the corner, you just give it some gas and opposite lock slide nicely throught the corner accelerating as early as possible. If you don't steer opposite lock, the car spins around immediately, if you don't want to turn the front wheels to opposite direction, you can't accelerate, it is as simple as that! The more you give gas the more you need to adjust the direction of travel with your steering, rwd car is sort of 4 wheel steering car, really agile and rewarding..

In crisis situation the rwd is really good, that is why they are superior in Finnish blind rallies. You enter a corner too fast, you flick the car to wide angle drift and give it some gas, the power of the rear wheels is pointing to the inside of the corner and the turning angle of the car is minimized. I have had several close calls like that and it is absolutely amazing how well a rwd car turns in those situations, I have lost hope manymany times but just amazingly the car turns around the corners by that. Here's an example of another driver, check the BMW at 5:23 on that video:
YouTube - ‪Rantaralli 2.10.2010‬‏ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJOZijJ_rCw)

In case of 4wd Pahkinen is absolutely right, in optimal case the car points towards the opening straight as early as possible and all the 4 wheels are accelerating the car at maximal force out of the corner. Still in that case, all the wheels have to bear both the turning and accelerating forces, as the direction of travel is changed.

The problem in 4wd is understeering, if you don't throw the car to point in the corner, the initial effect of acceleration is understeering. That is because the front wheels both accelerate and turn and initially the rear wheels only accelerate. That's why the rear wheels friction is higher and the front wheels loose grip first, so the front wheels have less grip and the rear wheels only push the car forward more and more. That is why 4wd is really challenging in blind rallies, you have to keep some marginal in to the corners. With high power car, the rear wheels loose grip fast and the car goes sideways after that.. But being fast in 4wd car requires a lot of commitment in order to avoid understeering. Ogiers roll in testing is a perfect example of 4wd skillfull driving, he almost saved that situation even though entered the corner 30km/h too fast... http://jannepievilainen.com/Ogier_testing/Ogier_testing.html

[tfp]

It's spelled "perkele". Good luck. ;)

:) Thankyou, although, I have to say I'm dissapointed :D

[tfp]

@ sami - Good video with the BMW, save of the day from the driver!!

[OldF]

If I understood it correctly, the focus is to first get the car to turn around it’s vertical centre of gravity in a way or another and at the apex minimize the transversal forces that drives the car to the outside of the bend to get the driving wheels (front, rear or all) to point to the direction where the car should go.

What I’ve noticed at least with 4WD cars, is seems that the drivers turn in to a bend turning the steering wheel more than necessary (video in post #23) and in that way get it to controlled slide where the mass is “pushing” the car to the outside of the bend and the wheels driving the car to the inside of the bend.

[Plan9]

Can someone explain Petter Solberg's driving style and strategy? I don't get why he is fast on the opening day or gravel rallies when the others slow down, meaning that he has to sweep the roadsf for the following day, often causing him to lose the lead....

[Coach 2]

Must say I disagree with much of what you write, Sami. But explain this in a language other than my own, is difficult. So try to understand as best.

What we fight against is centrifugal forces. In all cars (except rear Weele drive cars with the engine mounted behind or above the rear wheels), the main part of the weight will be located between or slightly behind the front wheels. This applies even if the car has 50 to 50 weight distribution. It is this point that must be moved as straight as possible with as long arcs as possible to maintain the highest possible speed.
To create the longest arcs as possible through sharp turns, the driver must be able to place the car with great accuracy as close to Apax as possible. This is achieved very rarely with a car that has oversteering, or have a nervous behavior.

THAT'S WHY MOST OF (IF NOT ALL) TOP DRIVERS CHOOSE SETTINGS WHICH MAKES THE CAR TO THE NEUTRAL AS POSSIBLE, BUT TOOWARDS UNDERSTEERING. NEVER TOOWARDS OVERSTEERING.

The more grip the surface gives (asphalt), the less danger if oversteering occurs.
The less grip the surfase Gives ...................

Puh, hard to write in English, take the rest later.

[OldF]

As a private driver his sponsors exposure are essential and I remember Petter saying in some interview that whatever the final result is, it’s important for him and his sponsors that he’s leading a rally at some point to get more exposure.

[Plan9]

As a private driver his sponsors exposure are essential and I remember Petter saying in some interview that whatever the final result is, it’s important for him and his sponsors that he’s leading a rally at some point to get more exposure.
Thank you for explaining that. It just seemed illogical that he would lose time on purpose. Now I get it. What do you think of this style? Is not not appropriate for this ear?

[Sladden]

I haven't posted a question for a few weeks now, so I figuered it's about time I toss another one into the fray... :crazy:

Loeb is always heralded as the driver who changed the way WRC's are driven (being neat instead of scandinavian flicking and opposite locking) these days. I often read about it being attributed to the active differentials (now only central but formally the transverse ones as well) but I'd like to understand fully.
Is the active differentials' ability to 'kill" understeer on corner entry what made this change in style possible or am I completely off here and it's something I never even thought of?
In 2003 there was Loeb, Märtin and Solberg that was the new generation of drivers setting the pace and of course Loeb the most successful. I had a feeling that it was alot of politics involving driving styles. Since these 3 were quite neat (but Märtin not as clinical) that was the way to go end of story. Then Latvala comes along and his first win in sweden 2008 with the old fasioned style and proves them wrong. He is maybe the quickest guy around now...
These new cars made for a nice return to some wilder driving. In my book the "devolution" was scaled back a bit :)

The epic decline of Colin McRae in 2003 was I think down to motivation, working in french team and other issues, not neccessary his driving style. But that was what everybody talked about.

Would be nice with a video comparing drivers thru the same stage, how much they slide ect.

[tfp]

If I understood it correctly, the focus is to first get the car to turn around it’s vertical centre of gravity in a way or another and at the apex minimize the transversal forces that drives the car to the outside of the bend to get the driving wheels (front, rear or all) to point to the direction where the car should go.

What I’ve noticed at least with 4WD cars, is seems that the drivers turn in to a bend turning the steering wheel more than necessary (video in post #23) and in that way get it to controlled slide where the mass is “pushing” the car to the outside of the bend and the wheels driving the car to the inside of the bend.

I noticed this especially in Jordan and Portugal this year, both events it seems the gravel there you get less grip from(as opposed to, say, japan or GB).

[tmx]

Even in only the past 5 years or so the tidier drivers have become more and more successful.
Petter's style in 2003 is now out-of-date and not as effective, and it is no coincidence that Hirvonen and Loeb are top 2 now as they have the most consistent and neat style.

I disagree, I have a fair stash of rally onboards. Petter has always had a tidy style, further clues from his pace notes. He's more edgy and takes more risks in corners though so he crashes more, kinda remind me of Meeke now. Also the Subrau were crap.

I disagree about Hirvonen too, can be reliable, but either lack confidence or overdrive trying to go fast, as seen entire last season. He seems to struggle to find the right balance.

Gronholm is very smooth just like Loeb on gravel imo base on the onboards, but he gets ragged when he desperately tries to keep up with the Citreon. But he had ungodly confidence if he knows the rally well. Loeb on the other hand makes perfect preperation and has amazing adaptability and does well even in new events, this adaptiness is reminescene of Kankkunen. I know he only drove for Citreon, and I am not fond of Loeb, but now thinking about it, he'll be fast in any cars.

Ogier is very Hamilton-esque, both driving and personality, but draws less bling bling guess.

Sideway is going away with more emphasis on aero and wind tunnel design. At the sametime, I enjoy the new cars, short and less stable, but completely horizontal in turns and even higher and longer jumps, so it balances out. Not fond of high rpm engine sound though.

[Coach 2]

Here are some more to you Sami.

You claim.
Some basics of driving physics: the forces affecting the tyre count. There is certain level of friction to be used in either turning, braking or accelerating. The biggest threat is understeering, and killing that is the core art of driving.

I will claim the opposite: (When we talk about oversteering.)
Of course, too much understeering will be a problem, but oversteering will always be a bigger problem. Not always a problem in terms of speed, but very difficult to keep the car on the road for three days in a WRC rally.
A car with oversteering will tend to slip out the back end to easy, especially when you do not want that to happen.
I claim:
A car that is neutral at low speed (even with some understeer), will oversteer at high speed. Understeering is all about speed, at high enough speed understeering will disappear.
Most of what you (and many others) claim will maybe suit rwd (and slow drivers) but not fwd, 4wd (and fast drivers).

[N.O.T]

i think most fast drivers are fast because it comes natural to them....not because they have a degree in physics...in any aspect of life which is considered art most of the people who are very good at, do not have a big background on the theoritical aspect of it...of course it helps if you are no good to become better/average since you do not have the talent, and this discussion suits better in an amateur driving driving forum....when it comes to world level it all comes to having the talent and practice with the proper equipment...

[Coach 2]

I completely agree with you there N.O.T.
But what makes fast drivers, fast, and not so fast drivers, slow, is something we can discuss if we find it interesting.
If you do not find it interesting, do not join in the discussion.

[Rallyper]

The fast guys dare to go flat over blind crests on 6th gear. That´s the difference.

Compare to slow rallies lika Cyprus a few years ago when not so fast drivers could have a podium finish.

[Sami]

Rallyper, I completely agree with you on that. The biggest importance of the braveness is on blind rallies where you can win 2-3 seconds on one blind crest if other are braking and you are not. That is consious risk taking.

coach2, reading your texts makes me think that you probably have background in tarmac rallying. On tarmac your rules of driving are totally right, but on gravel in rwd or 4wd cars, in my understanding, not so much. On gravel the car is driven much more with weight distributions and by throwing the weight from rear to front and left to right in order to make the car turn better and play with different levels of friction on different wheels. Driving the racing line you described is just steering around and less effective, you are loosing the whole momentum and a lot of car's and its tyres potential there.

Let's describe the scandinavian flick here in order to emphasise my point, technique that is used still, and now even more, on wrc level because of the new regulations. The scandinavian flick is the complete opposite to coach2's style. Let's say there's a tight corner to left. You enter on the middle of the road coming straight. On braking point just before braking you turn the car slightly to right and the brake at maximum effect. The weight of the car goes to front left corner of the car, which makes the rear lighter and throws the rear over to the left, so the car is pointing to the right and is sliding in full braking its left side first. Then just before the corner you turn the steering to the left a lot and release the brakes, the weight is still in front so there's a lot of grip on front wheels and less on rear, and that is just perfect! The car oversteers and the turning is done in minimun time, and then you just floor it with oposite lock steering! The weight goes from front left to rear right immediately and that flick enables the car to turn very well and throws the back of the car nicely out with a lot of weight and grip. Nailing it brings the weight to back, which gives the car more acceleration grip and the speed the car comes out of the corner is maximised because of that and also because with the flick you could take a much wider line than by driving the racing line and you could also open the throthle earlier and the driving wheels are pointing to the direction you want to accelerate ie. the opening straight as early as possible.. That is why on tight corners scandinavian flick is perfect method still.

Driving racing line in understeering car is another method, and as I described earlier is very much better suited to fwd cars, because on fwd the moment the weight transfers from front to rear in scandinavian flick the weight is transferred away from driving wheels, which means there's less traction available to accelerate. But still scandinavian flick is a method to avoid understeering also in fwd, along with left foot braking. I've codriven a very good Opel Kadett GSi once, and that car was very much oversteering, all the weight was in front and the rear was compeletely empty plus the rear wheels were at open angle toeing out in order to give brutal agility and oversteering to the car. That was because the driver didn't want to throw the fwd car at all, but wanted it to turn at maximum effect by the slightest movement of the steering and then he controlled the slides by nailing the gas. He always said that in fwd you just can't spin as long as you keep your right foot down.. And we won that rally overall by the way.

To go back to coach2, I disagree your analysis of oversteering and grip available. In my opinion on tarmac rallying the oversteering is often really brutal and quick and on gravel and snow it is a absolutely necessary in order to be fast. It is also risk control, as in rallying, opposite to cirquit racing, you will end up to surprising situations where you enter a place at too high speed, at that moment, at the latest, you will respect that characteristics of oversteering in your car. Oversteering and agility are key features also to give you some room to take more risks entering a corner, as it is said by European Champion Rauno Aaltonen, 9 of 10 corners seem tighter thatn they are, but the one is the one that is crucial. That is why rally driving as a piece of art is, in my opinion, as its finest in the crisis situation, that is where the car's and especially driver's abilities are really measured.

[Coach 2]

Hey Sami
No, I do not have the background from racing and tarmac rallying. As I wrote earlier, explain the driving style in a language other than my own, it will be difficult.
I claim:
You can flick, throw the car sideways, move the vehicle weight in many ways, but you have to go nose end first. Especially with fwd and 4wd. This is the way many describe as the new driving style (old as hell, if you ask me).
I claim:
Opesite lock steering is necessary with rwd, but errors in fwd and 4wd. Because you can slide all four wheels. It appears that the top drivers use opesite lock, but it is only to maintain the rotation of the car between turns, if there is a short distance between turns. Short between turns can be quite long if the speed is high.
If the car has a tendency to oversteering, one will because of humps, bumps or other reasons, often enter the turns with opesite lock. That will be the biggest killer of speed, if you drive fwd or 4wd. You can not increase speed until you get the front wheels to point where you want the car to go.

[Sami]

Hey Sami
If the car has a tendency to oversteering, one will because of humps, bumps or other reasons, often enter the turns with opesite lock. That will be the biggest killer of speed, if you drive fwd or 4wd. You can not increase speed until you get the front wheels to point where you want the car to go.

Hi, I knew this would happen after all, we are very much approaching each other's opinions. Your argumentation is fwd -oriented and mine is rwd-oriented, that makes the difference.

You got it absolutely right. As I wrote in my first post, it is crucial to get your driving wheels, ie. the power to point where you want to go. That is why let's take a closer look at opposite lock situation (exaggeration to make it more obvious). The force vector affecting a driving tyre should point where you want to go. So, if you are in opposite lock situation in a 4wd car, the force vector in your front wheels point to left and force vector of your rear wheels to the right and no force vector pointing where you want to go! That is loss of power and totally uneffective, of course.

It is important to understand that the friction of an object that is standing still is higher than an object in move. You should imagine a circle, a friction circle. force vectors within the circle mean forces that don't exceed the friction, ie. the object isn't sliding. The moment the vector crosses the border of the friction circle the friction drops. In rallying that drop is less dramatic on gravel and dramatic on tarmac. That is the reason why on tarmac you shouldn't slide and on gravel you should.

Inside the circle there's different forces affecting the tyres ability to grip, braking forces, accelerating, turning. Plus the weight dynamics discussed earlier, more weight on a tyre means wider friction circle, by left foot braking or scandinavian flick you will be able to play with weight and grip so that in understeering situation for example you push some brake keeping gas down, nose drops a bit and grips a lot better and at the same time rear end lifts a bit and looses some grip in order to make the car turn better.

So in the case of fwd the front wheels have to bear both accelerating/braking and turning forces and loose grip easier, as the vectors of acceleration and turning exceed the border of the friction circle easily (imagine a vector towards let's say right of the circle and towards up (acceleration) and the crossing line of those vectors is the point that counts whether the forces are big enought for the tyre to start sliding)... So fwd driving is constant struggle of finding grip for both acceleration and turning for those poor two front wheels.

Imagine 4wd case, coach2's front end first style means that in entrance of the corner you start the acceleration and your front wheels are turned inside the corner and your rear wheels point to outside. This is exactly the same loss of effective power described earlies in opposite lock case. You should be able to get all the 4 driving wheels to work for acceleration towards the opening straight and that means that you have to be in 4 wheels slide drifting and steering straight in optimal case as early as possible!

[Coach 2]

Totally agree with you Sami. But agreement makes no discussion.
But: When many describe the fight against what they called understeer, they describe the actually the fight against centrifugal forces.
I claim: (hope you understand that I write: I claim, to get the discussion where I want it)
With a car that has oversteering, you will "always" lose the fight against centrifugal forces, because you too often must use opesite lock to prevent rear end from slideing too much. When I write too much I do not mean much, but too much.
Many drivers feel oversteering as safe (understeering unsafe), but the opposite is true.

[N.O.T]

what is better for rallying ? FWD or RWD ? and why RWD is abandoned ?

[Sami]

On World level of rallying RWD is very rare, as the only rwd rallycars that are FIA eligible these days are GT cars, Porsches, Aston Martins and Ferraris. But on national level rwd is still the king!

In Finland 1300 different cars were used in official rallies in 2010. Of those cars almost 800 were rwd cars!

To coach2, in my opinion, as described earlier, there is no difference in front wheel or rear wheel slide except that in front wheel slide you have lesser methods to correct that... Exaggeration: in front wheel slide you open the steering a bit and wait patiently something to happen and hope you dont hit a big tree, in rear wheel slide the real driving has just begun!!!

[Tomi]

what is better for rallying ? FWD or RWD ? and why RWD is abandoned ?

I would not say that they are abandoned, its more likely that its cheaper to produce FWD, and manufacturers like to promote the kind of cars they build.
But like Sami said atleast here if and when driver has the choise, its normally RWD, spectatorwise its nicer to watch also.

[nafpaktos]

In Finland 1300 different cars were used in official rallies in 2010. Of those cars almost 800 were rwd cars!



Very intresting information.But i suppose this occurs a lot in nordic national championsips,or to all national championsips?

[tfp]

what is better for rallying ? FWD or RWD ? and why RWD is abandoned ?

Dominance of the audi quattro in the 80s :)
Oh, and RWD, definetly!

[N.O.T]

I would not say that they are abandoned, its more likely that its cheaper to produce FWD, and manufacturers like to promote the kind of cars they build.
But like Sami said atleast here if and when driver has the choise, its normally RWD, spectatorwise its nicer to watch also.

the thing that i find hard to understand is that what makes the majority of manufacturers go for FWD cars for their major fleet at least ? Are they safer ? cheper to produce ?

and when it comes to rallying if you exclude the 4wd which dominates FWD cars are the second best choice when it comes to higher competition....and especially tarmac, what makes FWD cars be the preferable choice from RWD and even 4wd sometimes....

[Plan9]

I would be interested to hear you thoughts about how you translate the current ideal driving style (ie Loeb style- smooth) into rallying in video games?

[Sami]

the thing that i find hard to understand is that what makes the majority of manufacturers go for FWD cars for their major fleet at least ? Are they safer ? cheper to produce ?

and when it comes to rallying if you exclude the 4wd which dominates FWD cars are the second best choice when it comes to higher competition....and especially tarmac, what makes FWD cars be the preferable choice from RWD and even 4wd sometimes....

About civil traffic, I haven't had a fwd car ever, and I won't. There's plenty of choice: BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, Smart, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Lotus, and sports cars of Mazda, Chevrolet, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Opel etc... So if you don't want to drive a fwd car, you don't have to.

In normal traffic it doesn't matter too much whether your car is fwd or rwd. Only in winter conditions the difference is huge. What you should do in fwd, is totally wrong in rwd and vice versa. Fwd is cheaper to produce and it has slowly become the standard for family cars.

About rallying, I can quarantee that rwd is faster on tarmac than fwd. Fwd might be faster on very slippery conditions on mud or snow where there is very narrow track to follow, in these conditions rwd tend to loose. But when there's room for sliding a bit, rwd is superior, and especially on tarmac. Proof of that is that in wtcc rwd cars have to carry weight penalty in order to make them less superior.

[tfp]

About civil traffic, I haven't had a fwd car ever, and I won't. There's plenty of choice: BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Ferrari, Maserati, Smart, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Lotus, and sports cars of Mazda, Chevrolet, Honda, Toyota, Ford, Opel etc... So if you don't want to drive a fwd car, you don't have to.

In normal traffic it doesn't matter too much whether your car is fwd or rwd. Only in winter conditions the difference is huge. What you should do in fwd, is totally wrong in rwd and vice versa. Fwd is cheaper to produce and it has slowly become the standard for family cars.

About rallying, I can quarantee that rwd is faster on tarmac than fwd. Fwd might be faster on very slippery conditions on mud or snow where there is very narrow track to follow, in these conditions rwd tend to loose. But when there's room for sliding a bit, rwd is superior, and especially on tarmac. Proof of that is that in wtcc rwd cars have to carry weight penalty in order to make them less superior.

There was a thread recently that talked of the GT classes, that would be interesting to see them up against the fwd cars on loose surfaces, maybe even take on the 4wd cars on tarmac...

[Coach 2]

To Sami
To coach2, in my opinion, as described earlier, there is no difference in front wheel or rear wheel slide except that in front wheel slide you have lesser methods to correct that... Exaggeration: in front wheel slide you open the steering a bit and wait patiently something to happen and hope you dont hit a big tree, in rear wheel slide the real driving has just begun!!!

I do not know how familiar you are with the left foot breaking, or if you now how much the right caster-angel can do to the handling of the FWD cars.
It is perhaps more difficult to learn the right way to drive with FWD, but if you do, the problems you describe, will disappear.

[dimviii]

which is the rwd car that is faster than a 306kit car or xsara kit car?

[Gregor-y]

which is the rwd car that is faster than a 306kit car or xsara kit car?
For competition I would think the set up of the car is more important than the wheels driving it.

[Sami]

which is the rwd car that is faster than a 306kit car or xsara kit car?


BMW M3 that I'm driving in the next rally, to mention an example.

[N.O.T]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkYx3mHSR5Y&feature=related

This shows that RWD can be successful on tarmac as well...of course the era is different but still.

Why serious rally preparation teams do not prepare RWD cars anymore for rallying ??

[Tomi]

BMW M3 that I'm driving in the next rally, to mention an example.

call and tell when and where that is, i want to see that for sure.

[Coach 2]

Maybe not right to compare a group of a rwd with a kitcar fwr. If a manufacturer had made a rwd-kitcar, that would probably have to be very good on asphalt. The best-2wd car ever made is most likely rwd. 037.

[Tomi]

The best-2wd car ever made is most likely rwd. 037. In what way is that? Nice looking car, but not good drivability, what I have been told from guys who did drive that in the past.

[dimviii]

BMW M3 that I'm driving in the next rally, to mention an example.
dont think so...fwd Kit cars have beat even wrc cars in asphalt.Very good car a m3 grA but not in terms of a xsara kit car.Just different league.

[dimviii]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkYx3mHSR5Y&feature=related

This shows that RWD can be successful on tarmac as well...of course the era is different but still.

Why serious rally preparation teams do not prepare RWD cars anymore for rallying ??

Because there are not any rwd cars anymore with small engines(>2000cc)
Bigger from 2000cc are going to be in same class as the 4wd ones.And 4wd are not going to loose from any fwd/rwd today.

[Coach 2]

In what way is that? Nice looking car, but not good drivability, what I have been told from guys who did drive that in the past.

I meant in comparison with other cars at the same time.
Remember, they won the factory-championship against Audi in 83.

[kiil]

BMW M3 that I'm driving in the next rally, to mention an example.

Not knowing the spec of that M3, but i beg to differ. 306 Maxi and Xsara Kit car are in my opinion far superior on tarmac to a BMW M3. With equal drivers i can't see the M3 being able to beat those.

[Sulland]

How can we best describe the different driving syles among todays top drivers in WRC1 and WRC2?
And who does what per cartype?

[N.O.T]

well done... we now have a zombie thread for no reason.

[Rallyper]

well done... we now have a zombie thread for no reason.

No need for nose end discussions in one more topic. Agree fully.

[EightGear]

Ancient history just called, they want their thread back.

[N.O.T]

well at least the part about WRC2 driving style has an easy answer... non-existent.

[stefanvv]

May be a driver is born to win with Porsche GT with 300bhp against R5 with same power?
Yeah, enough of this, let's do some driving lessons.
May be Ogier can try such challenge? Starting order is not enough anymore....

[N.O.T]

Starting order is not enough anymore....

if a part time driver, a newcomer and a nobody with talent can beat him with inferior cars I think the starting order is doing a fine job...

[stefanvv]

if a part time driver, a newcomer and a nobody with talent can beat him with inferior cars I think the starting order is doing a fine job...

Didn't You forgot someone? And no, they didn't beated him in the championship, he is still waaaaaay ahead. And asphalt rallies are still to come, I don't want to think what will happen.

[N.O.T]

Latvala does not count, its ok to lose from Latvala because he has the speed to do it, but losing to the rest is a bit of a joke especially Meeke.

[stefanvv]

So, on topic - what do you think Ogier drives like, is it RWD (Scandinavian style) or FWD (Loeb style)?

[N.O.T]

I do not care how he does it and most likely nobody does know how apart from Ogier.

We can of course turn philosophical and start spouting useless bull around like most of the times and pretend we know how and why...

but i would prefer this thread to die in a very violent way.

[stefanvv]

Anyone else?

[seb_sh]

So, on topic - what do you think Ogier drives like, is it RWD (Scandinavian style) or FWD (Loeb style)?

I don't think Loeb's style is "FWD" style; but Ogier drives similar to Loeb, yes.

[stefanvv]

I don't think Loeb's style is "FWD" style; but Ogier drives similar to Loeb, yes.

Let me put it this way, it is obvious they have some difference in driving, in which driving "philosophy" belongs one or another? May be we should add also Makinen/Rohrl to the equation?!?

[Mirek]

So, on topic - what do you think Ogier drives like, is it RWD (Scandinavian style) or FWD (Loeb style)?

I believe Loeb and Sordo were the only ones who used 40/60 torque split on asphalt events in times when active diffs were used. That's closer to RWD than anyone else.

[nafpaktos]

I wait for comments from paddon's coach!

[janvanvurpa]

but i would prefer this thread to die in a very violent way.


Good idea.
You start.

[Coach 2]

Let me put it this way, it is obvious they have some difference in driving, in which driving "philosophy" belongs one or another? May be we should add also Makinen/Rohrl to the equation?!?

Let me put it this way, you should add all champions into the equation when talking about "driving philosophy", but you should look for similarities rather than differences.
And if you can find this similarities, you are on to something.

[stefanvv]

Let me put it this way, you should add all champions into the equation when talking about "driving philosophy", but you should look for similarities rather than differences.
And if you can find this similarities, you are on to something.

I know, I know, Nose End First.