Procoaches...can you fix the reasonable man?

Sorry, I couldn't let this one go without commenting, but racing and reasonable? Are you serious?

Dale

 

good one - but the one point is that the "reasonable" man is not fast enough because he values his life and equipment too much!

On that note, I do think you have to be ready, willing and able to wad up and walk away from a race car to be at the very, very, top.

I hear all the time about how that simply won't happen if you are truly skilled, but say you are at Road America, coming into the Kink with the perfect entry, your line and apex speed are such that, you will just kick up a wisp of dust at the exit but the tires will be clean by the time you get to Canada COrner so no worries. You are leading the race and on the last lap.

But the last place backmarker had a major problem and put down oil or coolant and you are the first to get there. The fluid is hard to see or perhaps the corner workers were slow to put up a debris flag.

Not going to be pretty and IMO no "fault" other than racing to win on the leader or the guy behind who has figured out how the leader has been getting thourgh so quickly and makes a hard run in order to get a draft and pass into Canada and instead collects the leader or crashes himself.

Or lose a wing like Legge did.

 

Peter, I think I just read what's creating some of the misconceptions. True Talent vs Aptitude. I, for one called it talent where aptitude would have been more appropriate. After graduating highschool at 14 in Austria I wanted to become a mechanic. In order to not waste my time/life or that of my mentors I had to take an aptitude test at a government agency. I remember amongst many things being handed a piece of welding rod, a pair of pliers and a drawing.
Make this, they said.
Being that Raw Talent is almost non existent most of us call it talent but should call it aptitude. I have taught many over the years that had no aptitude and had no business on a race track.
Your thoughts?

Karl

 

Just stopping in on one of the rare occasions I get to do so these days... ugh ... and couldn't help but read through this thread and of course throw in a tidbit or two.

First off - From the World English Dictionary:
Talent:
1. innate ability, aptitude, or faculty, esp when unspecified; above average ability: a talent for cooking ; a child with talent
2. a person or persons possessing such ability
... and something I found interesting...
5. an obsolete word for inclination

The other two definitions were out of context.

Notice that the words innate and aptitude are in there... Without getting too deep (and wordy like I can), I share a view with several other major coaches in the racing/driving world that one is not born with a steering wheel in their hands. Certainly there can be genetics and life experiences that contribute to one's "natural" ability but in the end it ultimately comes down to learning, willingness to learn and openness to learn from mistakes, as well as being coachable. Someone who's genetics and experience gives them an edge can certainly fall prey to those who are willing to put forth the effort and discipline to achieve, yet don't share the same predispositions; just as Peter has indicated. Also, misuse or mistrust of those predispositions can give a driver a very real disadvantage through overconfidence and potential lack of discipline.

@FBB: I too have explored many forms of martial arts and I see many parallels between the two activities. I have LONG taught something I branded "Cartial Arts" to bring this to light; often relating driving to Tai Chi. I see so many parallels that I won't start mentioning them for fear of that wordiness (that I'm already doing ;-)) Both martial arts and driving take discipline, dedication, understanding, open-mindedness, willingness to turn fear energy into motivation, willingness to train repeatedly and endure what may in the moment seem pointless repetition to train to a subconscious level, and the ability to push one's comfort envelope well beyond the edge (to find new edges), etc. etc. to become truly successful. Even a 'naturally talented' driver must go through some, if not most of this process to be successful - as talent alone will NOT get the job done.

As for "fixing a reasonable man" - there's nothing broken, so nothing to fix. It's more a matter of moving confidence and ability to a #3 level. To move from a #2 to a #3 driver, one must be willing to be SMART first (reflecting on martial arts - the angry fighter will lose to the smart practitioner, as one who is not in anger sees more and acts with calculation and through accurate prediction), they must not be 'fearless' or 'stupid' - but willing to channel fear energy into something productive and controlled, and to tip-toe to boundaries to manage learning and execution - while training.

While racing, one must be able to do/use all of this AND be willing to cross the limits more assertively in order to compete. All that training leads up to the feel of when the edge is breached and by how much, so that it can be used to go faster and be protective and strategic - all at the same time. As I have said so many times - racing is NOT about driving as fast as you possibly can... it's about driving as efficiently as you possibly can - at speed. Being able to accurately predict an outcome and respond correctly when the outcome is not so accurate. I reflect on a circle track racer friend of mine who says "Road racers make technically better drivers, while circle track racers make better racers." His point being circle track guys tend to be less calculating and more aggressive - willing to scrap it out & damn the bent metal. Road racers tend (or at least used to) to be more 'gentlemanly' in their execution. I wouldn't associate his analogy with being fearless as much as I would being willing to 'throw it in there and see what happens' regardless of their personal fear status - channeling it for something they hope to be more productive.

Last thing and then I'll shut up:
There's one symantec difference that I noted Peter use prior in the thread; and while I am sure he and I see things the same way, I describe it a little differently. And that's about 'telling' the car what to do vs. 'asking.' I prefer to say that one asks the car to do something simply because this fosters the understanding that this is a conversation. Just because I tell the car to do something does not mean it will do exactly that as there are many forces at work. I must listen to the car's response and converse appropriately. I just say we ask authoritatively and LISTEN for the response, then respond accordingly.

I know Peter and I are on the same page here (as we've talked about it) but feel I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the difference in our description due to other posts I've made and will make in the future, no doubt.

Doh! Time's up... gotta run to a meeting (I'm in West coast time currently for those looking at time stamps ;-)

Cheers,
C

Chuck Hawks,
Pro-Driver Coach, Instructor & Facilitator
rEvolution Performance

 

I remember the first time I got it. I was doing the Skippy thing and had paid my $500 or whatever for the insurance.

Me - So even if I wad the car, all I'll owe is the $500 deductible.

Skippy - Well, Mazda fronts us the cars.

Me - You're kidding, right?

Skippy - Have fun.

Lord knows, I tried. It doesn't get much better than the T9 and T10 Fandango at Laguna. Ah, Glory Days.

Dale

 

Agreed.