mrondeau wrote: What we’re trying to educate people on has to do with improving their driving ability. If you want to learn to get the most out of your car, learn to drive in a lower horsepower momentum car.
I agree completely, Mark. That makes the most sense and is a proven formula. A lot of the best drivers around began racing in karts--look at Formula 1, or heck, look no further afield than Erik K. or Isabella B. I'm sure I could put Erik in my car on any day and with a short period of acclimatization he would beat me by a second or two!
But on the other hand, I think the club (and the instructor corps) has to recognize that such an ideal situation is not always going to be followed or adhered to these days or in the coming years. Already, and even more so in the future, we are going to have people coming into the club and starting to learn performance driving in highly powered, thoroughly modern cars with complex electronic aids. It is not going to be possible or even reasonable to simply tell them to go learn in another car and come back later. Yes, Diane C. made that decision herself, but others may not see things in the same way, for various reasons. When the student doesn't agree that they should park their car for a year or two and buy a 944 or old Boxster to properly learn car control, we are still going to have to deal with them in a safe and helpful manner.
I think Craig F.'s comments earlier in this thread are germane--we need to make sure our instructors become more familiar with the changing technology. Many of the things I have read in this thread regarding the actions of the "nannies" do not correlate with my experience of them, and I wonder if everyone really understands exactly what they do, how they work, and when they engage, etc. If instructing in such a car, are you making sure the student understands these systems and is aware of when they engage and why they shouldn't be driving in a manner that invokes their intrusion? I don't see how you could help them progress without discussing their intervention, although I do get Dave M.'s comment from Jackie about being a "cheerleader" and not discouraging people. But I don't think you are doing them a favor by not discussing how they almost crashed 6 times in a lap and the PSM saved them (yes, Dave, I realize that was hyperbole). Some aspects of the modern electronics are indeed "invisible," such as PASM, PDCC, PADM, auto brake pre-charging, etc., but they do not really enter into this discussion as they are not intermittent and the driver's inputs have no control over them, they just enhance the grip and stability of the car full-time. The important parts of the PSM system are those that react to the driver's inputs when the vehicle is put into an unstable condition, which are mainly ABD, ASR, PTV, and MSR, which all fall under the umbrella of the ESC and TC buttons.
I haven't been instructing since this latest generation of PSM arrived on the scene, but the first thing I would do with such a student is to tell them to drive a lap without any PSM intervention, and start pointing out the cause of each intervention that they were unable to avoid, then insist that they try to remedy that problem. I don't agree with the assertion that these nannies are totally "transparent" or "invisible" to the driver, and they shouldn't be from the right seat either, although I haven't been sitting there myself lately. They are quite obvious when the major intrusions happen, and you will be faster by avoiding them, as they slow you down in every case. That is the justification I would offer to the student. The ESC, or stability management, operates by braking individual wheels in unstable situations. Braking = slower. You can sometimes hear odd "hydraulic noises" and feel the car slow down even though you are not lifting or applying the brakes (this may be a little harder to perceive from the right seat, as you are not operating the pedals, but every instructor can recognize when a car is out of shape and recovers miraculously, seemingly "defying the laws of physics" as Russell put it). This may come from entering a corner too hot, turning in too early or too late, missing an apex and running out of track, over-controlling the car, etc., but it is up to the instructor to point out the mistake and the solution.
The traction control (TC) prevents too abrupt or excessive application of the throttle from spinning the rear wheels, causing a loss of traction. It cuts fuel/ignition (sounding like hitting the rev limiter at a lower RPM) and is SLOWER, since acceleration is inhibited. The student needs to be instructed about modulating the throttle properly, or changing the timing of throttle application relative to the car's position on track and attitude, etc. It is absolutely possible and necessary for them to learn to turn quick laps with no intervention by the PSM. That should be a goal for a newbie, not swept under the rug and ignored.
I can honestly say I have never seen the lights on the dash come on in these situations because I am never looking at the dash at such times, but I feel them in the seat of my pants every time. The old "buttometer" registers them and sends them to my brain unfailingly. Every student in these cars must be taught to recognize and correct these intervention incidents if they ever hope to be faster, or to drive the car with the nannies off (or drive any other non-nanny car quickly). Isn't this the proper goal of instructing? If the student doesn't understand or isn't receptive to these suggestions, as Pete Tremper said in the National DE Instructor certification training, "Other sports beckon."
TT