Ayrton Senna Heel-and-Toe
Discussion
I'm sure all of us have already seen the video of Ayrton Senna driving a Honda NSX around Sazuka. Where he demonstrates he's awesome Heel-and-toe driving amongst other things. For those who haven't its here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8By2AEsGAhU
I'm familiar with Heel-and-toe and also familiar with the need to be as smooth as possible when track driving. So my question is why Senna 'flicks' the throttle mid corner after engaging the gear...
In the video this can be seen at 47seconds in.
He's done the heel-toe, engaged the gear but rather than smoothly squeeze the throttle on (as I was always taught to do) he flicks the throttle. Why would he do that? Surely this destabilises the car, compromising grip...
He does it again at 1m30s - perhaps the best example.
and 1m54s
Any ideas why he's doing this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8By2AEsGAhU
I'm familiar with Heel-and-toe and also familiar with the need to be as smooth as possible when track driving. So my question is why Senna 'flicks' the throttle mid corner after engaging the gear...
In the video this can be seen at 47seconds in.
He's done the heel-toe, engaged the gear but rather than smoothly squeeze the throttle on (as I was always taught to do) he flicks the throttle. Why would he do that? Surely this destabilises the car, compromising grip...
He does it again at 1m30s - perhaps the best example.
and 1m54s
Any ideas why he's doing this?
These discussions go back a long time. Try here:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
alock said:
These discussions go back a long time. Try here:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
Love the keyboard warrior there saying how Senna could have driven faster with a better technique http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
autosport thread said:
He could have been faster if he wouldn't have driven like that
My first reaction was that he's keeping the car in a very neutral (on average) state of balance. On the 1.54 timing mark example he's having to use hardly any steering (from what I can gather) for the second half of the corner because the car is almost floating round neutrally.
Had he used more throttle it would have started properly power sliding, less throttle and he'd have had to use more steering input.
Just my take on it at least.
Had he used more throttle it would have started properly power sliding, less throttle and he'd have had to use more steering input.
Just my take on it at least.
alock said:
These discussions go back a long time. Try here:
http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
Interesting video I'd not seen before from Parabolica in 1992 in that thread:http://forums.autosport.com/topic/75104-senna-thro...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UELuXvbRmM0
I always assumed the pumping of the accelerator was to feel out the levels of grip that will be available on the exit by slightly unsettling the car before/at the apex. Would be interested to read other views though.
Some more info:
http://www.lotustalk.com/forums/f100/senna-video-b...
Comparison of Schumi and Herbert (with a mention of Senna as well): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk2p2nRK-p4
Edited by bicycleshorts on Friday 14th March 13:47
gsuk1 said:
So from what I see the leading arguments are:
1) Spool up the Turbo.
2) Human traction control.
3) Cure understeer.
4) Diffuser efficiency - Seems unlikely on a Honda NSX.
4) He isn't driving very well - I think I'll put in the maybes.
Further thoughts...?
I think you've got issues if that's the one out of those that bothers you most.1) Spool up the Turbo.
2) Human traction control.
3) Cure understeer.
4) Diffuser efficiency - Seems unlikely on a Honda NSX.
4) He isn't driving very well - I think I'll put in the maybes.
Further thoughts...?
gsuk1 said:
So from what I see the leading arguments are:
1) Spool up the Turbo.
2) Human traction control.
3) Cure understeer.
4) Diffuser efficiency - Seems unlikely on a Honda NSX.
4) He isn't driving very well - I think I'll put in the maybes.
Further thoughts...?
I'd also put 1 in the maybes - spooling a turbo? On an NSX? 1) Spool up the Turbo.
2) Human traction control.
3) Cure understeer.
4) Diffuser efficiency - Seems unlikely on a Honda NSX.
4) He isn't driving very well - I think I'll put in the maybes.
Further thoughts...?
2 and 3 seem most likely.
I'd add, as my thought:
6) Because race driver and knows what doing.
With regards to the "steady throttle" principle, the only time this is taught is early on in racing/advanced driving, and it's because without having been there and seen the results, new drivers find themselves unbalancing the car. Someone like Mr Senna is well aware of what the unbalancing can do an will be using it to his advantage.
If anyone here has ever driven something very responsive in the wet or in low grip levels then you'll know what is meant by driving the car on the throttle. You can basically put the car where you want with very little steering input, but it does require a very delicate touch on the throttle. (a fast go kart in the wet is a good example!)
I imagine this is all Senna is doing here, albeit in good conditions with high grip levels which makes incremental adjustments so much more difficult to feel and judge. To me, all this does is suggest the level of feel and understanding he has with the car is well beyond anything most people (or at least I) could ever comprehend.
Respect
If anyone here has ever driven something very responsive in the wet or in low grip levels then you'll know what is meant by driving the car on the throttle. You can basically put the car where you want with very little steering input, but it does require a very delicate touch on the throttle. (a fast go kart in the wet is a good example!)
I imagine this is all Senna is doing here, albeit in good conditions with high grip levels which makes incremental adjustments so much more difficult to feel and judge. To me, all this does is suggest the level of feel and understanding he has with the car is well beyond anything most people (or at least I) could ever comprehend.
Respect
Reg's view*
Think about the NSX as it was in 1990. It was developed to be a competitor to the Ferrari 348 and I think most if not all contemporary road testers rated it as a much better car. Aluminium construction (was it the first all-aluminium production car?) and an all alloy 3 litre vtec (yo!) engine with 270bhp. I'm going from memory so I stand to be corrected, but I think it would do 0-60 in about 5.5ish seconds and 170ish mph.
That sort of spec and performance is impressive in 2014, but was very high-end supercar performance in 1990. These days, an M135i would comfortably out-perform an early NSX but there is one significant difference - electronic driver aids.
A modern high performance car is fitted with very complex systems which go way beyond "traction control". They measure road speed against individual wheel speed, roll angle, yaw angle, steering input, braking effort and many other parameters and are able to apply corrective measures which are unavailable to the driver - such as applying an individual rear brake to correct oversteer.
I'm currently driving a fairly ordinary 120d, and in the recent high winds, I noticed the stability light flicking on the dashboard, indicating that the car had recognised a minor change in the car's yaw angle and was taking action to correct it which I thought was very impressive.
Many people (me included) have bemoaned the introduction of these systems over the years, believing that they have taken away the skill required to drive high performance cars and are in some way "nannying" us as drivers.
My view has changed recently. If you saw the recent episode of Top Gear when Clarkson spun a 135i in a straight line at 120+mph, you'll probably have clocked that he had the stability systems switched off and his foot buried into the footwell. Now, think what you will about Clarkson, but you can't deny that he is very experienced in driving high performance cars, but when that BMW spun up a rear wheel in a puddle, it went in the blink of an eye and there was literally nothing he could have done to catch it.
If these systems weren't available, there is no way manufacturers like BMW would even contemplate selling cars like the M135i to the general public. I'm not saying they would be undrivable - these systems can still be turned off, but I'm now convinced that stability systems have allowed manufacturers to develop much higher performance road cars for the general public than they would otherwise have been able to.
Back to Senna - this man was on another level even compared with most of his contemporary peers. In my view he is acting as his own stability system. That "stabbing" of the throttle when the car is at the limit of its grip is, in effect, a "cadence throttle" technique, or a sort of manual traction control. It seems to allow him to apply more power through a corner than the more traditional gradual application of power would and probably allows the throttle to be applied earlier in the corner too.
Think about the NSX as it was in 1990. It was developed to be a competitor to the Ferrari 348 and I think most if not all contemporary road testers rated it as a much better car. Aluminium construction (was it the first all-aluminium production car?) and an all alloy 3 litre vtec (yo!) engine with 270bhp. I'm going from memory so I stand to be corrected, but I think it would do 0-60 in about 5.5ish seconds and 170ish mph.
That sort of spec and performance is impressive in 2014, but was very high-end supercar performance in 1990. These days, an M135i would comfortably out-perform an early NSX but there is one significant difference - electronic driver aids.
A modern high performance car is fitted with very complex systems which go way beyond "traction control". They measure road speed against individual wheel speed, roll angle, yaw angle, steering input, braking effort and many other parameters and are able to apply corrective measures which are unavailable to the driver - such as applying an individual rear brake to correct oversteer.
I'm currently driving a fairly ordinary 120d, and in the recent high winds, I noticed the stability light flicking on the dashboard, indicating that the car had recognised a minor change in the car's yaw angle and was taking action to correct it which I thought was very impressive.
Many people (me included) have bemoaned the introduction of these systems over the years, believing that they have taken away the skill required to drive high performance cars and are in some way "nannying" us as drivers.
My view has changed recently. If you saw the recent episode of Top Gear when Clarkson spun a 135i in a straight line at 120+mph, you'll probably have clocked that he had the stability systems switched off and his foot buried into the footwell. Now, think what you will about Clarkson, but you can't deny that he is very experienced in driving high performance cars, but when that BMW spun up a rear wheel in a puddle, it went in the blink of an eye and there was literally nothing he could have done to catch it.
If these systems weren't available, there is no way manufacturers like BMW would even contemplate selling cars like the M135i to the general public. I'm not saying they would be undrivable - these systems can still be turned off, but I'm now convinced that stability systems have allowed manufacturers to develop much higher performance road cars for the general public than they would otherwise have been able to.
Back to Senna - this man was on another level even compared with most of his contemporary peers. In my view he is acting as his own stability system. That "stabbing" of the throttle when the car is at the limit of its grip is, in effect, a "cadence throttle" technique, or a sort of manual traction control. It seems to allow him to apply more power through a corner than the more traditional gradual application of power would and probably allows the throttle to be applied earlier in the corner too.
- Disclaimer - Reg's view may be utter bobbins.
He's possibly on the understeer, oversteer cusp.
This is where the ability to reduce understeer or induce oversteer due to acceleration peters out as there is less acceleration available and the handling then transitions to understeer.
It is the sensitivity to this, and the ability to respond to it, that is, I believe, what gives the very top drivers their edge.
On a relatively slow acting road car which is set up to understeer, as they all were in those days for safety reasons, this would be very easy for a top racer to react to.
Racecars however are designed with handling that is much closer to neutral on the oversteer, understeer cusp and if the design is wrong that can make them undriveable at the limit. Jenson Button's Honda RA 108 of 2008 was an example of this.
This is because things happen so quickly that even as a top racer takes action to compensate for one effect it might have transitioned to the other and so they will now be applying lock in the wrong direction.
This is where the ability to reduce understeer or induce oversteer due to acceleration peters out as there is less acceleration available and the handling then transitions to understeer.
It is the sensitivity to this, and the ability to respond to it, that is, I believe, what gives the very top drivers their edge.
On a relatively slow acting road car which is set up to understeer, as they all were in those days for safety reasons, this would be very easy for a top racer to react to.
Racecars however are designed with handling that is much closer to neutral on the oversteer, understeer cusp and if the design is wrong that can make them undriveable at the limit. Jenson Button's Honda RA 108 of 2008 was an example of this.
This is because things happen so quickly that even as a top racer takes action to compensate for one effect it might have transitioned to the other and so they will now be applying lock in the wrong direction.
R_U_LOCAL said:
Reg's view*
Think about the NSX as it was in 1990. It was developed to be a competitor to the Ferrari 348 and I think most if not all contemporary road testers rated it as a much better car. Aluminium construction (was it the first all-aluminium production car?) and an all alloy 3 litre vtec (yo!) engine with 270bhp. I'm going from memory so I stand to be corrected, but I think it would do 0-60 in about 5.5ish seconds and 170ish mph.
That sort of spec and performance is impressive in 2014, but was very high-end supercar performance in 1990. These days, an M135i would comfortably out-perform an early NSX but there is one significant difference - electronic driver aids.
Co-incidentally, my first ever experience of traction control came during a test drive of an NSX in (I think)1992 - I was lent one for 24 hours. I still remember where I felt it intervene. At that time I ended up buying a 911 C4 instead. I chose the 4 wheel drive version because I thought it would help keep me out of trouble. Quite some time later I found out (in a safe environment) that stability control systems do a great deal more to keep you out of trouble than 4 wheel drive!Think about the NSX as it was in 1990. It was developed to be a competitor to the Ferrari 348 and I think most if not all contemporary road testers rated it as a much better car. Aluminium construction (was it the first all-aluminium production car?) and an all alloy 3 litre vtec (yo!) engine with 270bhp. I'm going from memory so I stand to be corrected, but I think it would do 0-60 in about 5.5ish seconds and 170ish mph.
That sort of spec and performance is impressive in 2014, but was very high-end supercar performance in 1990. These days, an M135i would comfortably out-perform an early NSX but there is one significant difference - electronic driver aids.
I was very interested in the M135 spin on Top Gear. I thought it was disappointing that they did not analyse what happened in any serious way on the programme. As you say a factor was switching off the stability programme - it was ironic that they commented that you cannot switch off the stability programme in the Golf, without pointing out that the spin in the BMW happened because Jeremy had done so. I suspected that another factor may have been that he had already shagged the tyres. But unlike you I did not necessarily think that he reacted well or quickly, and wondered whether it would have been possible to hold the car if he had been more ready for the loss of control. The great thing about stability programmes is that (unlike drivers) they are always ready to respond instantly!
Senna was famed for having this style of throttle use. Even in an F1 car he would stab at the throttle through the corner.
He is basically using it to rotate the car in to the corner and then looking to get back on the power as early as possible. The initial dabs of throttle are exploring the grip and getting the car rotated so that he can wind off lock and drive out of the corner using all of the throttle.
To answer the question regarding this technique unsettling the car. Yes it does but circuit driving and road driving are totally different beasts, you often WANT the car unsettled so that you can use more throttle and less steering angle.
He is basically using it to rotate the car in to the corner and then looking to get back on the power as early as possible. The initial dabs of throttle are exploring the grip and getting the car rotated so that he can wind off lock and drive out of the corner using all of the throttle.
To answer the question regarding this technique unsettling the car. Yes it does but circuit driving and road driving are totally different beasts, you often WANT the car unsettled so that you can use more throttle and less steering angle.
papahet said:
Senna was famed for having this style of throttle use. Even in an F1 car he would stab at the throttle through the corner.
In the F1 cars that he spent most of his career driving, that was the way to do it - they were massive turbos with terrible so it was more or less impossible to get an even power setting by holding the pedal in one place. Having such massive turbo lag meant you had to press the pedal a very long time before the power came one (Prost here saying 2-3 seconds in the early 80s):http://www.formula1.com/news/interviews/2013/6/146...
By tapping the pedal regularly he could put fuel into the engine and exhaust gases to the turbo, keep the turbo spinning without making too much power, and get a roughly even power application through the corner even with the turbo lag.
That same technique would work just fine in a N/A car too - the power would be instant but the amount of power to the wheels still work out to be the same as a steady pedal application - so no need to adapt the technique he was comfortable with.
papahet said:
Senna was famed for having this style of throttle use. Even in an F1 car he would stab at the throttle through the corner.
He is basically using it to rotate the car in to the corner and then looking to get back on the power as early as possible. The initial dabs of throttle are exploring the grip and getting the car rotated so that he can wind off lock and drive out of the corner using all of the throttle.
To answer the question regarding this technique unsettling the car. Yes it does but circuit driving and road driving are totally different beasts, you often WANT the car unsettled so that you can use more throttle and less steering angle.
This was my opinion on what he was doing when I first saw that video ages back.He is basically using it to rotate the car in to the corner and then looking to get back on the power as early as possible. The initial dabs of throttle are exploring the grip and getting the car rotated so that he can wind off lock and drive out of the corner using all of the throttle.
To answer the question regarding this technique unsettling the car. Yes it does but circuit driving and road driving are totally different beasts, you often WANT the car unsettled so that you can use more throttle and less steering angle.
We are taught to be smooth on the road to be safer and stay away from breaking grip because other drivers and hedges are close by. On the track as beginners it is also preferable not to unbalance the car because if you are not used to it and can't instinctively deal with it you are likely to go off. For me smoother is faster, but in the wet, or an extreme example on a skidpan, we all like to have a little play and get the car to move around. The respect for senna is he is able to do it in the dry, entering at speed and provoking the car to get the nose in so he can take lock off as he exits, getting straighter earlier. Legend.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff