One of the first things that instructors say to new students on the track is to “look THROUGH the corner to where you want to go.” Invariably this always comes up with my students too. But unlike most instructors, I’m always a bit hesitant as to what to say. You see, for me, I DON’T do my best driving looking through a corner. Rather, I drive best when most of my attention is focused right in front of me, analyzing where my car is RIGHT NOW.
So which approach is best? The answer is that there is no right answer to this question. All that matters is that you take the correct line through the corner AND that you are aware of what other cars around you are doing. Where you look is irrelevant as long as both of these criteria are met. That said, most people accomplish both of these criteria best by looking through the corner, and that is what I have my students, at least at first.
Why Looking Through the Corner is Useful
The main reason why looking through a corner is useful is that people naturally tend to go in the direction that they are looking. Back in drivers ed, your “instructor” (it’s kind of funny to me to call them that, now that I know how much they don’t know) probably told you to look where you want to go, and you will naturally head in that direction. Conversely, you were probably told, “DON’T look where you DON’T want to go.” I.e., if you start to lose control, don’t look at that guardrail you don’t want to hit because if you do, you’ll be drawn right towards it (so that line of thinking goes, anyways). The same logic is also used when teaching people how to downhill ski and ice skate.
So how does that rationale apply on the track? Well, if you are looking through a corner to your track out point, you will naturally be drawn and thus drive your car to that point. The problem with looking right in front of you is that if you are a novice or unfamiliar with the track, you may be drawn to a spot well short of your track out point. This will effectively be an early apex, and that is always a problem, sometimes catastrophically.
The other major benefit of looking through the corner is that you will be more likely to be aware of other cars or hazards that are on the track. If you are looking at the apex 5 feet in front of you, you may be oblivious to the car 100 feet ahead of you that just spun out and is now right in your path. Or you may not see the flagger frantically waving the yellow flag to warn you of a situation just out of your field of view.
Drawbacks to Looking too Far Ahead/Benefits of Looking 5 Feet in Front of You
In my experience, most people never get to this question of why NOT to look ahead in the corner. Everything in the previous section is simply taken as gospel. OR, people actually end up doing what I do without realizing it, which is to combine looking ahead with looking 5 feet in front of you.
The main problem with looking far ahead at all times is that while your general line may be correct, you aren’t paying enough attention to where you are NOW to fine tune your line and get it perfect. 6 inches (or even 1 inch) may not seem like much, but it means a lot at the limit. If you are 6 inches away from your apex, you are not using as much road as you could and thus are going slower (as a general rule). And if you track out 6 inches off the track in the dirt, well, you can probably deduce why that is a bad thing.
For me, the main benefit I derive from looking right in from of me is gauging how my line is through that particular corner. The three main reference points in a corner are turn in, apex, and track out. But there are a myriad of other reference points you can use along the way to ensure that you connect these three main points correctly. With longer corners, using more reference points along the way becomes even more important. At Watkins Glen, for example, the right hand sweeper just after the bus stop is very long and you have a blind apex going in. You can either go by “feel” to make sure you hit the apex, or aim for another point part of the way there. As of last season, there was a darker patch of pavement right in the middle of the track well before the apex. I always used that as an additional reference point to know whether my line was correct at that point.
The End Result is All That Counts
Remember, the reason why everyone says to look through a corner is because you see where you want to go, and then naturally drive the car to that point. This end result - putting your car at the correct track out point - will always be constant. In other words, all you and anyone else cares about is getting through the corner on the correct line. As long as you can repeatably drive on the same line, it does not matter whether you do so by looking at each pebble 2 inches from your front bumper as they whiz by or the tops of the trees 5 miles ahead.
The only other consideration is that you are aware of what other cars are doing, around and ahead of you. This really comes down to your own level of awareness and your peripheral vision. I’ve always been good at taking in things peripherally and generally being aware of them. I can thus afford to spend a bit more time looking closer in front of me. If you cannot, then you need to make a conscience effort to look farther ahead. Again, there is no right answer - all anyone cares about is that you are aware of your surroundings 100%. How you do so is up to you.
You Need to Know the Track VERY WELL to Look Right in Front of You
As I just stated right above, your line through the corner is the end result that you care about. If you don’t know the track very well, then you don’t know what line is best through any given corner. Or, you may not even know whether it is a right or left! In this situation, you may think you are at correct turn in or apex, but may be completely off. At best, this will just yield a bad and slow line through the corner. At worst, you’ll be early apexing and won’t even realize it until its too late because you didn’t look ahead to see where your track out point was.
Again, you are just connecting points through a corner along the line. If you don’t know where those points are, you cannot gauge where your car is on the line based on those points. So LOOK AHEAD UNTIL YOU KNOW THE TRACK WELL ENOUGH TO LOOK RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU!
So, Where Should You Look?
As you have probably gathered by now, my answer to this question will always be look wherever you need to look to 1) drive a consistent line while 2) being aware of your surroundings. For ME, I do best looking mostly right in front of me to make sure I’m where I should be on the track at any given point. For most people, they do best looking far ahead through a corner.
So what should you do? I would FIRST look through every corner, as that will help you figure out your line and ensure you are aware of your surroundings. Once you are familiar with the track, you can begin fine tuning your line and looking closer in front of you to see if that helps. Just make sure you don’t sacrifice your awareness in the process or you can end up ramming into someone or something that could have been avoided.
on April 9, 2010 at 4:00 pm Astraist wrote:
Noah, your explained preference of looking at the grounds before you is not pointless, but it indicates that your understanding of your own racing, and your very own visual field, is wrong. Do not take it to harshly, It is a thing I often see in my students, even if they had some training and experience.
You need to open your eyes, relax them. This way, with slight adjustment, you will be able to detect a broader field of vision. How? You will use your peripheral vision, a term that has not appeared once in your article!
Instead of referring merely to the small radius of focus of your eyes, refer to the overall visual field. This way, the very question of looking ahead or looking before you, is irrelevant, you should be doing both at the same time!
During a corner, you divide it into physical reference points (with the addition of reference points by steering angle and engine revs as nessecary), mainly for the braking, turn-in, APEX and track-out. Coming up to the braking point, you are to be looking at the turn-in and seeing the exact braking point with your peripheral vision.
In chikanes or very fast curves, you drive through several reference points with your peripheral vision.
on April 12, 2010 at 12:09 pm Noah wrote:
My entire article, in and of itself, is a rebuttal to your comment as I have already discussed the views and conclusions you assert at length. As such, I will merely address some critical issues with your comments.
You have now posted comments on several of my articles and the themes are the same. You have valid points, but you take the position that because I may have a different explanation or conclusion, I must therefore be wrong regardless of my justifications for that position. The condescension you use in stating your positions is insulting not only to me, but to ANYONE that has a differing conclusion or opinion from you.
I have seen this high and mighty attitude before from instructors and “advanced” drivers, and it does nothing to help anyone. The important part of any explanation - driving related or otherwise - is WHY a particular conclusion is correct. Your post on this article is a perfect example of why you fail at this basic aspect of reasoning and explanations.
As my article goes into in much greater length, you need to boil down the question of “Where do I look?” to “WHY am I considering where to look in the first place?” I have done this. You have not. Your comment is simply that I (or anyone) should use one’s peripheral vision to look everywhere at the same time. That is fantastic, but I DON’T CARE UNLESS YOU TELL ME WHY. You have not.
What is it about using your peripheral vision exclusively - or selectively - that makes your position so superior that it must be “correct,” and my position so incorrect that you feel justified in talking down to me as though I am a novice student? As I have noted in my article, where to look is only relevant insofar as it affects your line and your awareness. My approach (which is actually a hybrid approach, if you actually read my article carefully) fully satisfies both criteria. So again, why is this “wrong?”
And this brings us nicely to the problem with people who make blind assertions like you have been doing - such assertions do not take into account the various skills, assets, demerits, or particularities of different students and drivers. Some people may have fantastic peripheral vision, and for those people, your conclusion may be correct. Others may not, in which case your conclusion and advice may be disastrous. And THAT is why rigid approaches to teaching like yours are not only problematic, but incorrect. Remember, that some famous racer may have said something does not validate that conclusion IN AND OF ITSELF. You need to know WHY that person came to the conclusion that they did. As with where to look, what works best for them (or you) does not automatically imply that the same approach will work for everyone. Is it a good start? Yes. But the attitude that it is both the start and end of the discussion is incredibly narrow-minded.
Do your students and yourself a favor and try to be more open minded. Ask yourself WHY you are recommending something in the first place. If the reasoning does not justify the suggestion as related to THEM, help them out and try something else. If you do not, you not only are doing a disservice to them as their instructor, but you may be placing everyone on the track at risk if the technique you are blindly hammering home is counterproductive to the objective you are trying to achieve.
Oh, and “peripheral” appears twice in my article, just for the record.
on April 15, 2010 at 1:20 pm astraist wrote:
dear noah, forgive me if you found my former input blunt. However, it is the problem of our modern world, that everyone is right, but for you to write an article that calles every racing school in the world wrong, and than, upon being confronted, to say none ofus both is right or wrong, does that not seem odd, self contradicting and possibly hypocritic?
As I have said, I disscussed your article with several professional colleagues, at the trackhq forums amongst other places, and we ALL agreed that while your article has an important point, it is wrong, simplistic and presenting it so to all viewers, who might choose to aplly it on the road or track is irresponsible . Like I have said, you do not ask the right question, how do expect to come upwith a good answer?
on April 16, 2010 at 8:14 am Noah wrote:
The purpose of this article was not to assert that looking 5 feet in front of you is the best approach on where to look in corner. Rather, it is a survey of the various places one can look in the corner, their merits and demerits, and what I have found works best for me. Moreover, my emphasis here (and elsewhere on this site) is that different drivers may benefit from slightly different techniques or approaches. I think that phenomenon is most apparent with this question of where to look in a corner, again for all of the reasons I outline above.
I am still unclear how any of that constitutes a rejection of every major racing school in the world. If you mean I question why things are done and analyze why to do things before making a recommendation, then yes, I guess that could be a rejection. Any discussion should lie in the analysis of why to do something, not in questioning whether to do it in the first place.
And you STILL haven’t satisfactorily answered WHY looking right in front of you at your various reference points throughout the corner is inherently and always wrong. You say you have discussed this with your various colleagues. Well, what did you discuss, and why do think I am wrong? WHY should you use peripheral vision exclusively, as you mentioned. And what do you tell people that don’t have as good peripheral vision as you? You say I ask the wrong question, but what question is more fundamental then “WHY should you look in a certain place in the corner?” What is the correct question if not this?
on April 17, 2010 at 7:42 am Astraist wrote:
Noah, my last response was written somewhat in a hurry, so I will now explain myself: First, I am glad to see that, in this last post, you have calmed your manners and wrote in a more civil manner, with which I could have a serious disscussion. Thank you for this, it is not an obvious deed to do during an argument!
About the subject in general: I came across your articles some time ago and was impressed by them. However, like with much of the material I hear or read, there is (always) some criticism to be mentioned.
You see, I am generally against online guidelines for racing and/or written material in general, unless it revolves soley around basic advice (Like “be smooth”) or, alternativelly, is fully detailed, illustrated and correct. Anything in between carries a risk of presenting complex subjects, like cornering during a race, as much more simple than they really are, and doing so is wrong, partial and irresponsible at the very least!
Therefore, as one who guides his students to read some of your articles, I have to deny the more “excentric” opinions of some of your articles. In this regard, you have criticised me as being closed-minded and shallow. However, if you knew the mind of any good racing instructor, you would know that I must always be aware of any development in the technical aspect of racing — The driving techniques of modern car racing (Saloon, Single-seater, Rallying, etc…) are not like they were a decade ago.
Your article is far from pointless, as I have said: First, like I say your article is simplistic, articles that tell one to just look “far ahead” are also simplistic, it’s more complicated than that, and just looking through the corner is indeed not going to be ideal. Your peripheral vision is occupied with seeing your immediate vicinity (I.e. “Five feet ahead) and your focus is targeting the next reference point. You are doing both simultanously. If the line in between is not straight, it is usually a matter of bad reference points or other phenomenons experienced by beginners.
If you knew me in particular, you would know that I do not just teach “students” to perform something, nor do I merely state the reason for it. I make them understand and tell me the reasons for each course of action they are taught to do or one they instinctivelly did, I show them what is wrong in their natural tendencies and how things are done and not done, systematically. Amongst other things, I spend a great deal of time refuting any opposite opinion.
Why to look up rather than down? Less roadrush due to filteration of unnessecary information, less corrective inputs (that only end up increasing the tractive demands on the car rather than reducing them), less chance of a slide and a better position of readiness for the occurance of one, better handling on the limit of grip, more speed via a straighter line between reference points.
on April 21, 2010 at 11:39 am Noah wrote:
I have no issue with being criticized, or with discussing why my articles may be incorrect. Indeed, if I am wrong, I would like to know and know why! But comments that take a patronizing tone and assert that what I say is wrong simply by virtue of the fact that it is not what the poster thinks is right are narrow minded and shallow. Hence my previous post. However, now that you have given the basis for your criticism, we can have a rational discussion on it.
You spell out the details of your reasoning in your last paragraph, so I won’t rehash them. But in sum, you are essentially saying that where one looks DIRECTLY impacts one’s line and overall speed. Here I must disagree with you, as that logical jump is missing a few steps. You control your car via 3 inputs: the steering wheel, the throttle, and the brakes. These are manipulated by your hands and feet, not by your eyes. So what happens is that you assess your driving and surroundings with your eyes, but make the inputs with your hands and feet. I draw out this process in detail because these details are the key to analyzing where you should look and why.
The question you need to answer is: What is it about using your peripheral vision that translates into all of the positives you have listed? The whole point of my article is precisely that the basis for your outlook is missing a link - where you look does NOT directly impact your driving. There is a stepping stone in there as your brain processes the information and you react accordingly. This is the basic tenet I am trying to get students to understand with this article, because once they understand that, then they can better use their sight and perception in ways that suit them and their strengths best. And behind that approach is the idea that not everyone observes and processes information in the same way, which is key to understanding where to look.
As my article states, for ME, looking directly at my reference points is often most useful (though not in every corner or situation). The reason is that when I am very familiar with a track, I am able to analyze where my car is in relation to the reference point, then process how that will affect my line and all the other impacts that will have through the next several corners. Again, where you look is just a means of extracting information from your surroundings, and does NOT have any impact, in and of itself, on your control of the car. Whichever methods allows for the DRIVER IN QUESTION the best processing of this information is best.
on April 25, 2010 at 2:44 pm astraist wrote:
Likewise, you have not given any real support of your claim. The fact remains that it is physiologicaly easier to drive through reference points and traffic with your peripheral vision, which filters out redundant information when driving at speed. Our peripheral vision will actually read the information better than the focused sector of our eyes.
Additionally, one does simply invenvt methods for driving, and surely does not simply post ever soconclusivly, without supplying reference to an institute that confirm your assestments.
on April 29, 2010 at 11:09 am Noah wrote:
Again, your assertions regarding the merits of peripheral vision are conclusions, not facts, as they relate to driving. For example, “it is physiologicaly easier to drive through reference points and traffic with your peripheral vision” is a CONCLUSION, which you reach via analyzing supporting facts. I still haven’t seen any such facts that support that claim from your posts. Saying that various institutions have reached this conclusion in and of itself does not counter what I’ve said. Again, I don’t just want to know that just that someone else said that, I want to know WHY they said that.
Which brings us to your next point - that any of my articles require references to institutes that support what I write. References are indeed good and useful, but not every article or idea requires that someone else of “stature” also agrees with it. Many of my posts are based upon my own observations, thoughts, and ideas, which I have come to myself from instructing driving over the course of my driving and track experience. The most important thing is that the reasoning for a conclusion or bit of advice is given - and this I always do.
Again, read my article. ALL of it. I don’t advocate looking in any particular place at all. I advocate realizing that not everyone can use their peripheral vision the same, nor processes information the same. I treat looking near and far equally, and explain why looking near often works better for ME. These are personal observations about myself and how I observe the world at speed. They require no citation. They also may not work for anyone else, as I note in my article. But if they work for me, their is probably someone else they would work for too. That said, I acknowledge that most people do best looking farther ahead, and that is what I always tell my students to do first. BUT, I explain to them where I look and WHY, and let them figure out how best to process the information for themselves.
on May 2, 2010 at 12:02 pm Astraist wrote:
Noah, it’s a fact of physiology. We are talking motorSPORT here, we are ought to understand the physiological reasoning behing seating postions, steering habits, utilization of the visual field, body stability, etcetra.
Our Focused vision is encharged with planning and our peripheral vision with timing and dosage. You should not be any exception, unless you have some problem, which I hope out of courtesy that you do not. I will confirm this with a BA in the relative sciene, if you wish.
About your notion regarding references. Yes, you MUST post references to support this idea. Why? Because you state it in an article that, amongst other things, pretends to tell novice drivers “Where to look in a corner”. You remind me of someone who once decided that understeer is best corrected with the clutch, and like you was reluctant to give support of his view from driving and racing schools, and his advice caused someone to crash.
Even once you have opted such proof, it is arguable whether the point is indeed legible. Returning to the above example, I do know driving schools that teach you to declutch out of trouble, still they are wrong. Yes, wrong. There is only one extreme exception when this is brought into practice. The same with your personal preferences regarding vision.
Like I have said, I think you have a point: Many drivers, on the track or otherwise, simply go by the rule of “Look far ahead”, but it’s much more complicated than that and you actually need to look to a certain distance through a corner, depending on the line and the speed. Saying categorily to look five feet ahead is just as simplistic than to encourage someone to look far ahead. Besides, I do not see a corner where one should be looking so close ahead.
on May 3, 2010 at 9:23 am Noah wrote:
Look, this is very simple, and you don’t need a degree to understand it. When I want to see how many inches away from a reference point I am, I look directly at that reference point. Why? For the same reason I look directly at a book when I read it. Looking directly at something gives me the most precise picture of it. I can tell how close I am to a reference point better by looking directly at it, rather than out of the corner of my eye.
I have a corner for you where this holds true. Before Lime Rock was repaved, there was a very small blue line at the top of the downhill that many guys would use as a reference point for turn in. This line was a few inches in every dimension and a fairly dark shade of blue, so it was hard to see. In fact, I did not even know it existed until someone specifically and repeatedly pointed it out to me. I could not see this mark out with my peripheral vision. It just wasn’t going to happen. But I could see it if I looked directly at it. So, why is looking directly at it wrong?
on May 4, 2010 at 9:29 am Astraist wrote:
A reference point is not like a book except in specific cases, possibly like what you described. This is not a technique, but a variation of the correct technique, applied in the specific situation of one refernce point at one cornet. That I can agree with, but it does not make it a technique.
on May 7, 2010 at 4:47 am DriveMaster wrote:
Noah, Astraist is right:
First, physiologically our peripheral vision is indeed the one in charge of timing: When to brake, when to turn, when to pick up the throttle. If you have trouble in this regard in between reference points or if your reference points are hard to notice — you need to change them!
All of the professionals do this. If a corner seems to be unsmooth, they smoothen it out by shifting their focus further up, rather than down. I would agree with you fully that this is good to a certain point alone, though.
A book is not a good example because it is not moving. It is a different task for our vision. As a driver, your eyes are greatly a filter of superflous data.
“You don’t need a degree to understand it”. Of course you do! Motorsport and advanced motoring in general is a vast and deep area of expertise. For one to professionally particiaptes in motorsport, it would be an obligation to first comprehend oral and audible theoretical material, than practice it under professional supervision and only than he may begin doing solo practice session, all that before going on and doing laps on tracks.
The problem with common American motorsport is the simplification of very complex matters in an attempt to skip several of these critical stages which is even more acute when someone pops up with unheared method that no known racing school has ever adopted, and I know quite a few.
Begging your pardon, your article (not all of them) suffers from this point greatly. It pretends to portray a very deep subject as a quite simple point to understand and apply. The information is at best partial and out of content and presenting it the way you did over the internet is utter irresposibility, should one choose to apply it on the track.
I never come up with a method or something, it simply does not work that way, or do you want me to be utterly convinced by your disscussion as to contact Schumacher, Loeb, ressurect Senna and tell them all that they are wrong and they should adopt the advice made by one Noah on the internet, instead of the good old method of looking up.
That the problem with modernism and the internet: Every one can think and say whatever they want. I am sorry but while I carefully considered your view as your disscussion unfolded, you did not seem to be nearly as considerate to the opposing point of view and blame it’s followers with being narrow minded?
Unfortunatly, guide-lines given over the internet, or in writing in general, are judged predominantly by length. Any instructional guide shorter in length than a good book is an evidence of simplfication that often boarders in criminal slackness. I have experience with frontal instruction, but I would never dare to present such an important subject so briefly in words, nor to invent methods for my students.
I appreciate many of your articles (those I read thus far, by a reference from Astraist with whom you spend so much time arguing, by the way), but I can bluntly say: You are wrong, we (as in all instructors and professionals around the globe) are right, period!
on May 9, 2010 at 12:57 pm Noah wrote:
First, it should be noted that the main tenor of my article is NOT that the best place to look is right in front of you. My main point is that the best place to look is wherever 1) gives you a consistent line while 2) being aware of your surroundings. To that end, I do not advocate looking at any particular point exclusively, I advocate looking wherever the particular driver needs to look to maximize those two objectives.
Second, in rereading my article I could see how it might seem that I say that I ALWAYS look right in front of me. That is not true, and not what I intended. Like all drivers, I drive from reference point to reference point (generally speaking), and I simply look at whichever reference point I am at if I find doing so to be beneficial. Again, there are certain reference points and corners where I find that approach to be beneficial (like the Lime Rock corner for example), and others where I do not (turn 1 at both Lime Rock and NHMS, where I indeed find myself looking for my braking point out of my peripheral vision). I suspect that in practice, looking at a specific reference point in certain corners, where warranted, is not so foreign as you two would lead everyone to believe. I have heard numerous drivers talk of finding all sorts of cracks, rocks, pebbles, etc to use as reference points, many of which require a more direct viewing to be able to see at all.
Third, I fully concede that my car may play a very large role in where I look and why. Miatas are incredibly slow as far as track cars go, so of course I am approaching and passing reference points much slower than a professional F1 driver, for example. Were I driving such a car (or even a more normal/faster track car), I mind find myself looking elsewhere.
Fourth, notwithstanding what other people do and the analyses you two have given, there is still the issue that I find this techniques works best for me, at least in certain corners and circumstances. As I have said above, taking in information is an independent process from the actual, physical inputs that a driver makes. Which brings us back to the question of: if all of my inputs are “correct” and I am driving the correct line as fast I as I wish to, why is where I look wrong? I fully concede that must people look far ahead. But again, that I am in the distinct minority here does not mean that where I look is wrong as applied to me (and in turn, as applied to whoever else may prefer this technique).
Fifth, motorsports IS incredibly complicated if you wish to take into account every facet of what is going on. There are all sorts of technical physics at play, physiological issues of the driver, and of course the fact that all of these are going on all the time and affecting each other in the process. The best driver will of course be cognizant of all of these factors and drive accordingly. But the novice driver will not. Nor will the novice driver be able to not only quickly understand all of this information and techniques, but APPLY them correctly and consistently. As such, complicated things must by necessity be pared down to something palatable for the beginner.
Finally, do you guys have any references to articles, etc regarding the timing aspects of peripheral v direct (I think that is the word?) vision? I do not doubt that this is the case - rather I simply do not know the specifics but would like to know. I’m also curious to see why if this is how the eye works, I tend to do better not using my peripheral vision. If I know the background, I may be able to parse it out better at my next track day.
on May 10, 2010 at 2:57 am Astraist wrote:
Noah, this sounds very much more reasonable and quite more understandable. As I have said before, I am not one of those coachers that tell his students to look far ahead, and in times looking directly on a certain reference point is required, which only proves how deep driving is.
About trying to simplify matters for beginners, it depends what you simplify. Things like seating, vision and weight transfers must be fully comprehended before going on the track. If the driver is not using these tools, he is not only losing time lapping, he is dangerous to himself and to others. In these areas, no compromise is allowed.
About your interest in vision in particular: The human eye has two types of vision: The small range of focus (direct or focused vision) and a wider range of “peripheral vision”. Most people, when hopping into a car, particularly if insecure or in bad conditions of visibility, focus their eyes, increasing the field of focus somewhat on the expense of their peripheral vision and causing an effect known as “Tunnel vision”.
The problem with “Tunnel vision” as that while it is good for tasks such as reading, it performs bad at speed when things are moving. When moving, we need to readjust the taks for our eyes in a different fashion: Our focused vision is responsible for anticipation and will therefore be up and ahead. Our peripheral vision will be the one to alert us on any sudden move or change of color around us, which it actually does better than our focused vision and also about timing of our inputs: When to turn the wheel, when to brake, etcetra.
The combination of both creates our full visual field and allows us to proccess more information in less time by filtering out unnessecary or superflous information when moving at speed. By combining both sorts of vision with the correct habits of observation, we decide on our pace and line, or speed and position.
For pace we must ask ourselves if our visual field is clear and to which dimenions, what is the sort and quality of the road surface, what is the direction of travel (uphill, downhill, on-camber, off-camber, right-hand bend, left-hander.
For position we ask ourselves where are our reference points and if there is any obstruction (hazard) on the road to cause us to change our line.
The trick is to first drive slowely and actually ask yourselves these questions, eventually making them built into your mind.
on May 10, 2010 at 8:18 am DriveMaster wrote:
There is one thing we all neglected: You ARE supposed to look directly at reference points! It’s simply that the reference point you are looking directly at is not the near one but rather than further one.
Let’s assume I am going down the straight (say, at Loheac circuit), I look directly at the braking point (assuming I use one) to make sure I clip it accuratly. The idea is that before clipping it, my eyes roll up to the turn-in point and when I am physically at the braking point I am looking at the turn-in, untill I am near the turn-in, which is when I shift my focus onward to the APEX.
So I am going to percisley clip the points because I was looking at them earlier and not nessecarily now.