Road Racing Philosophy
Feb 14, 2019 17:28:11 GMT -5
Post by Scott Bolster on Feb 14, 2019 17:28:11 GMT -5
You Still Own Nothing, Jon Snow
I wrote an article a while ago about this subject; but after a while, I put more thought into how I could better explain my opinion of road course passing etiquette and why the popular perception of “corner rights” detracts from racing and actually leads to more accidents.
The major nuance between my perspective to corner etiquette and what seems to be the popular opinion is not whether or not the defending driver has the right to a particular line but their decision as to which line they can take and when that decision should be made.
Let’s face it: every driver wants their preferred line through a corner. It’s the fastest way to the lowest possible lap time.
The issue is that racing is also, at its very essence, a predator versus prey endeavor and the unfortunate, undeniable truth is that the defending driver is the prey and they are always at a disadvantage – which is why, I believe, people try to advocate for having supreme rights to an entire corner from whatever point they decide they are entitled to it.
The other truth is that all drivers are only entitled to the track upon which they occupy and it’s the attacking driver’s entire job to safely deny the defending driver’s capability to utilize their preferred line: i.e.: put them at a disadvantage by taking away their preferred line in order to make them slower in order to overtake.
Pretty straight forward. At least it should be except race car drivers perpetually think they’ve been victimized on overtakes that materialize close to corner entry.
I believe that the major reason for this inherent belief is that unless the overtaking driver is at a pre-described distance (that no one can really agree upon let alone determine with much accuracy while strapped in a car approaching a braking zone at break-neck speeds with the blood pumping) alongside by an arbitrary point (that most drivers view differently and changes from lap to lap), the defending driver believes that they are entitled to the corner and turn in while assuming that the attacking driver should understand this and back out.
That. Almost. Never. Happens.
This all adds up to a max-braking urination match that ends up in catastrophe and irate drivers.
Could these bad results be mostly avoided if a few things were adjusted mentally by the defending driver? I think so. And here’s how:
As I said, the defending driver is the prey and they are at the disadvantage. The car behind is on the attack and is trying desperately to get a run down the straight and into the braking zone so they can be alongside before turn in.
In the following photo, you can see the typical, contested corner at the end of a straight. There are two points labeled (A and B) which is an example of two different decision points. Now these may be different in your mind but the underlying point of my argument is still valid no matter where you move them.
The red shaded area is the braking zone and the yellow shaded area is turn-in.
You also see the first decision point, ‘A’, at a point prior to the braking zone while point ‘B’ is much further into the braking zone.
The popular “Corner Rights” approach tends to make the decision as to whether or not they own the corner and the line they are going to take thru the corner at a point prior to the braking zone.
My issue with that mental approach is that while it’s fine if no one is close to you, it is way too early to make a singular decision if you are under threat. So much can change between Point A and turn-in and if you make a decision, you usually start focusing on your turn-in point and the rest of the corner.
Meanwhile, the attacking driver may have significantly changed the scenario before you crank the wheel and dive into the corner. And if you haven’t paid attention – or worse: decided that the attacking driver would back out and turn in anyhow – you usually end up pointing the wrong direction in a tire barrier.
How I approach defending my position is based upon the premise that I’ve laid out: I’m the prey. I’m at the disadvantage with the most to lose because if I defend too strongly or turn down on someone on purpose, they usually come out of it with minimal damage and I’m junked on the beach or the barriers.
It is up to me to make the best decision that will result in the best finishing position possible. I will never “fight until I wreck.”
That all begins with making sure that I have the best situational awareness and trying to understand what the level of threat may become on the exit of the previous corner. As you can see, my decision-making process doesn’t start at Point A above. It starts much sooner.
As I exit the corner in a position battle, I evaluate the quality of my exit and start to evaluate the quality of exit of the driver attacking me. I’ve also been paying attention to how good their their previous exits have been compared to me. All of that gives me the best context to evaluate the situation.
By halfway down the straight, I know whether or not they are closing and will probably have a run prior to – or more importantly entering – the braking zone.
At this point I begin to make three plans: 1) what my preferred line will be; 2) what my alternate line through the corner will be; and if I’ll even battle at all and simply yield the position.
A ton goes into that final decision: Is it lap 5 or 5 to go? Is the attacking driver massively stronger than I am? Are they known to be aggressive? Tends to be out of control? Etc.
While I’ll have decided to yield way before the braking zone and would have backed out so I sacrifice a little time at the end of the straight versus a ton of time through the corner and down the next straight, I continue to evaluate my options as I enter and as I progress thru the braking zone. My decision isn’t made until around Point B and because I’ve prepared mentally for both options, I can execute either plan and will not be surprised if the attacking driver tries to out-brake me through the braking zone. I have given myself much more time to more fully evaluate the situation before I turn the wheel and commit to a course of action.
This mentality has served me well throughout my seven years of sim racing and 4 years of real world racing.
I hope that you can see the difference between the two approaches and why I feel that the second will always – as long as the attacking driver can safely present themselves alongside prior to turn in and give me enough opportunity to make a decision – give you a better chance of safely navigating a corner while under threat and will allow you to choose how you execute your battles and continue to race on.
If you believe that you “own” a corner versus considering that no one owns it and it must be shared if necessary, you may tend to fight harder than you should and wind up in more accidents than needed.
So lets talk about the attacking driver:
The attacking driver is expected to safely present themselves for the pass. That means that they need to position themselves alongside the defending driver prior to turn-in and without making contact: don't punt the defending driver entering the braking zone and don't brake so late that you're going to slide out of your lane and into the defending driver.
Once the attacking driver gets alongside they are expected to be able to make the corner in the lane where they establish themselves and stay there all the way through the corner or at least until the pass has been completed and changing lanes can be done safely.
The phrase "divebomb" gets tossed around and gets attached to a lot of different circumstances.
I don't mind late braking. I enjoy it, actually, no matter if I'm attacking or defending. It's exciting. Late braking is perfectly fine if the attacking driver can get slowed down enough to safely make the corner. Late braking is not a divebomb.
In my book, a divebomb is a desperation, low-percentage kamikaze move that leaves the defending driver with no options and either results in contact or forcing the defending driver off track.
I hope that illustrates how I will view these situations.
I wrote an article a while ago about this subject; but after a while, I put more thought into how I could better explain my opinion of road course passing etiquette and why the popular perception of “corner rights” detracts from racing and actually leads to more accidents.
The major nuance between my perspective to corner etiquette and what seems to be the popular opinion is not whether or not the defending driver has the right to a particular line but their decision as to which line they can take and when that decision should be made.
Let’s face it: every driver wants their preferred line through a corner. It’s the fastest way to the lowest possible lap time.
The issue is that racing is also, at its very essence, a predator versus prey endeavor and the unfortunate, undeniable truth is that the defending driver is the prey and they are always at a disadvantage – which is why, I believe, people try to advocate for having supreme rights to an entire corner from whatever point they decide they are entitled to it.
The other truth is that all drivers are only entitled to the track upon which they occupy and it’s the attacking driver’s entire job to safely deny the defending driver’s capability to utilize their preferred line: i.e.: put them at a disadvantage by taking away their preferred line in order to make them slower in order to overtake.
Pretty straight forward. At least it should be except race car drivers perpetually think they’ve been victimized on overtakes that materialize close to corner entry.
I believe that the major reason for this inherent belief is that unless the overtaking driver is at a pre-described distance (that no one can really agree upon let alone determine with much accuracy while strapped in a car approaching a braking zone at break-neck speeds with the blood pumping) alongside by an arbitrary point (that most drivers view differently and changes from lap to lap), the defending driver believes that they are entitled to the corner and turn in while assuming that the attacking driver should understand this and back out.
That. Almost. Never. Happens.
This all adds up to a max-braking urination match that ends up in catastrophe and irate drivers.
Could these bad results be mostly avoided if a few things were adjusted mentally by the defending driver? I think so. And here’s how:
As I said, the defending driver is the prey and they are at the disadvantage. The car behind is on the attack and is trying desperately to get a run down the straight and into the braking zone so they can be alongside before turn in.
In the following photo, you can see the typical, contested corner at the end of a straight. There are two points labeled (A and B) which is an example of two different decision points. Now these may be different in your mind but the underlying point of my argument is still valid no matter where you move them.
The red shaded area is the braking zone and the yellow shaded area is turn-in.
You also see the first decision point, ‘A’, at a point prior to the braking zone while point ‘B’ is much further into the braking zone.
The popular “Corner Rights” approach tends to make the decision as to whether or not they own the corner and the line they are going to take thru the corner at a point prior to the braking zone.
My issue with that mental approach is that while it’s fine if no one is close to you, it is way too early to make a singular decision if you are under threat. So much can change between Point A and turn-in and if you make a decision, you usually start focusing on your turn-in point and the rest of the corner.
Meanwhile, the attacking driver may have significantly changed the scenario before you crank the wheel and dive into the corner. And if you haven’t paid attention – or worse: decided that the attacking driver would back out and turn in anyhow – you usually end up pointing the wrong direction in a tire barrier.
How I approach defending my position is based upon the premise that I’ve laid out: I’m the prey. I’m at the disadvantage with the most to lose because if I defend too strongly or turn down on someone on purpose, they usually come out of it with minimal damage and I’m junked on the beach or the barriers.
It is up to me to make the best decision that will result in the best finishing position possible. I will never “fight until I wreck.”
That all begins with making sure that I have the best situational awareness and trying to understand what the level of threat may become on the exit of the previous corner. As you can see, my decision-making process doesn’t start at Point A above. It starts much sooner.
As I exit the corner in a position battle, I evaluate the quality of my exit and start to evaluate the quality of exit of the driver attacking me. I’ve also been paying attention to how good their their previous exits have been compared to me. All of that gives me the best context to evaluate the situation.
By halfway down the straight, I know whether or not they are closing and will probably have a run prior to – or more importantly entering – the braking zone.
At this point I begin to make three plans: 1) what my preferred line will be; 2) what my alternate line through the corner will be; and if I’ll even battle at all and simply yield the position.
A ton goes into that final decision: Is it lap 5 or 5 to go? Is the attacking driver massively stronger than I am? Are they known to be aggressive? Tends to be out of control? Etc.
While I’ll have decided to yield way before the braking zone and would have backed out so I sacrifice a little time at the end of the straight versus a ton of time through the corner and down the next straight, I continue to evaluate my options as I enter and as I progress thru the braking zone. My decision isn’t made until around Point B and because I’ve prepared mentally for both options, I can execute either plan and will not be surprised if the attacking driver tries to out-brake me through the braking zone. I have given myself much more time to more fully evaluate the situation before I turn the wheel and commit to a course of action.
This mentality has served me well throughout my seven years of sim racing and 4 years of real world racing.
I hope that you can see the difference between the two approaches and why I feel that the second will always – as long as the attacking driver can safely present themselves alongside prior to turn in and give me enough opportunity to make a decision – give you a better chance of safely navigating a corner while under threat and will allow you to choose how you execute your battles and continue to race on.
If you believe that you “own” a corner versus considering that no one owns it and it must be shared if necessary, you may tend to fight harder than you should and wind up in more accidents than needed.
So lets talk about the attacking driver:
The attacking driver is expected to safely present themselves for the pass. That means that they need to position themselves alongside the defending driver prior to turn-in and without making contact: don't punt the defending driver entering the braking zone and don't brake so late that you're going to slide out of your lane and into the defending driver.
Once the attacking driver gets alongside they are expected to be able to make the corner in the lane where they establish themselves and stay there all the way through the corner or at least until the pass has been completed and changing lanes can be done safely.
The phrase "divebomb" gets tossed around and gets attached to a lot of different circumstances.
I don't mind late braking. I enjoy it, actually, no matter if I'm attacking or defending. It's exciting. Late braking is perfectly fine if the attacking driver can get slowed down enough to safely make the corner. Late braking is not a divebomb.
In my book, a divebomb is a desperation, low-percentage kamikaze move that leaves the defending driver with no options and either results in contact or forcing the defending driver off track.
I hope that illustrates how I will view these situations.