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.

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.

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.