gulf911 wrote:Thanks for your response Dan, but, My assumptions are correct. No offense but driving a GT car while instructing , in a car you dont own, a couple times , at well under 7/10's? Does not a
comparison make. Thats why I had "driven" in quotations.
Just an observation but , One of the big reasons you dont feel the "Bump/Twitches" in a newer GT (nannies or not), is because YOU PROBABLY HAVE SUSPENSION TECHNOLOGY FROM 1983..
gulf911 wrote:There are A LOT of things you can instruct besides how to throw the car around to novices in nannied cars , like the right line , when to brake , apply throttle , oh and how to drive a nannied car fast etc etc etc...
Just this can take years to master.
This comes under how to teach to be a better driver. The basics are what helps students most imho.
gulf911 wrote:There are many different cars , and I am just spit balling here but...many cars may have to be driven differently than an old 911. So if you are trying to demonstrate/teach how to drive an 83 SC with a 3.6 in it,
in a GT car , then you are right it wont work and wont be fast.
gulf911 wrote:My point is nannies , with respect to instructing , really shouldnt hinder what or how you can instruct for that car, imho.
gulf911 wrote:Good to see you are still feisty Dan!...
gulf911 wrote:Thanks for your response Dan, but, My assumptions are correct. No offense but driving a GT car while instructing , in a car you dont own, a couple times , at well under 7/10's? Does not a
comparison make. Thats why I had "driven" in quotations.
Just an observation but , One of the big reasons you dont feel the "Bump/Twitches" in a newer GT (nannies or not), is because YOU PROBABLY HAVE SUSPENSION TECHNOLOGY FROM 1983..
There are A LOT of things you can instruct besides how to throw the car around to novices in nannied cars , like the right line , when to brake , apply throttle , oh and how to drive a nannied car fast etc etc etc...
Just this can take years to master.
This comes under how to teach to be a better driver. The basics are what helps students most imho.
There are many different cars , and I am just spit balling here but...many cars may have to be driven differently than an old 911. So if you are trying to demonstrate/teach how to drive an 83 SC with a 3.6 in it,
in a GT car , then you are right it wont work and wont be fast.
My point is nannies , with respect to instructing , really shouldnt hinder what or how you can instruct for that car, imho.
Good to see you are still feisty Dan!...
Was that Dano a Dano ?
Greg
LUCKY DAVE wrote:I can go faster in a bone stock Cayman on hard street tires than I can in my prepared 951 on slicks. Is it as satisfying as driving well in my quirky hard to drive 951?
NO!
I agree with Mark on this, I can't remember how many times a student told me they were amazed they were getting so fast right away when I knew that thanks to the nannies they were unaware they crashed six times per lap. But if I told them so, they would be discouraged and maybe not come back ( Jackie once told me, be a cheerleader! She was right.).
I've said this before:
With nannies they will never learn the basics of car control, (because there's no penalty when they make mistakes) and with big horsepower they never learn to carry momentum properly.
If I was the Czar of PCA, Tim would be contracted to buy and maintain a fleet of ugly but mechanically sound 944s and ALL basic training would be done in them. Only after being signed off by an instructor could a student drive their own (nanny equipped) car.
The reality of course, is that's not going to happen. So we have to deal with students in their cars not learning as "WE" feel they should and make the best of it.
Jad wrote:Dave, I think I have to disagree on a couple things:
First the 944's do not need to be ugly
Second, for no good reason, the thought of you as Czar just scares me.
Other than that
944's do not need to be ugly
Second, for no good reason, the thought of you as Czar just scares me.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 20 guests