Understeer vs Oversteer

I found this interesting article from a wiki website:

"A car that tends neither to oversteer nor understeer when pushed to
the limit is said to have neutral handling. It seems intuitive that
race drivers would prefer a slight oversteer condition to rotate the
car around a corner, but this isn't usually the case for two reasons.
Accelerating early as the car passes the apex of a corner allows it to
gain extra speed down the following straight. The driver who
accelerates sooner and/or harder has a large advantage. The rear tires
need some excess traction to accelerate the car in this critical phase
of the corner, while the front tires can devote all their traction to
turning. So the car must be set up with a slight understeer or "tight"
tendency. Also, an oversteering car tends to be twitchy and ill
tempered, making a race car driver more likely to lose control during
a long race or when reacting to sudden situations in traffic.

Carroll Smith, in his book "Drive to Win", provides a detailed
explanation of why a fast race car must have a bit of understeer. Note
that this applies only to pavement racing. Dirt racing is a different
matter.

Even so, some successful race car drivers do prefer a bit of oversteer
in their cars, preferring a car which is less sedate and more willing
to turn into corners (or inside their opponents). It should be noted
that the judgement of a car's handling balance is not an objective
one. Driving style is a major factor in the apparent balance of a car.
This is why two drivers with identical cars on the same race team
often run with rather different balance settings from each other. And
both may call the balance of their cars 'neutral'."

I guess having oversteer, understeer, or neutral is a user preference
and related to how you like to drive. I remember seeing Jeremy on the
show "Top Gear" complain once because of a car oversteering too much,
but then the manufacturer drove it and told him he wasn't driving it
correctly.

Regards,
Mike.

Yep, I;d agree with the "bit of understeer" theory for all said reasons.
But some tracks/conditions demand a bit of oversteer if you wish to be
competitive. I always believe the best setup for a race is the one that
spreads the wear most evenly across the tyres (assuming the tyres are
properly balanced front to rear - width and compound wise) - one must adjust
to be able to drive THAT setup.


"Mr T" > wrote in message
...
>I found this interesting article from a wiki website:
>
> "A car that tends neither to oversteer nor understeer when pushed to
> the limit is said to have neutral handling. It seems intuitive that
> race drivers would prefer a slight oversteer condition to rotate the
> car around a corner, but this isn't usually the case for two reasons.
> Accelerating early as the car passes the apex of a corner allows it to
> gain extra speed down the following straight. The driver who
> accelerates sooner and/or harder has a large advantage. The rear tires
> need some excess traction to accelerate the car in this critical phase
> of the corner, while the front tires can devote all their traction to
> turning. So the car must be set up with a slight understeer or "tight"
> tendency. Also, an oversteering car tends to be twitchy and ill
> tempered, making a race car driver more likely to lose control during
> a long race or when reacting to sudden situations in traffic.
>
> Carroll Smith, in his book "Drive to Win", provides a detailed
> explanation of why a fast race car must have a bit of understeer. Note
> that this applies only to pavement racing. Dirt racing is a different
> matter.
>
> Even so, some successful race car drivers do prefer a bit of oversteer
> in their cars, preferring a car which is less sedate and more willing
> to turn into corners (or inside their opponents). It should be noted
> that the judgement of a car's handling balance is not an objective
> one. Driving style is a major factor in the apparent balance of a car.
> This is why two drivers with identical cars on the same race team
> often run with rather different balance settings from each other. And
> both may call the balance of their cars 'neutral'."
>
> I guess having oversteer, understeer, or neutral is a user preference
> and related to how you like to drive. I remember seeing Jeremy on the
> show "Top Gear" complain once because of a car oversteering too much,
> but then the manufacturer drove it and told him he wasn't driving it
> correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.

"Mr T" > wrote in message
...
>I found this interesting article from a wiki website:
>
> "A car that tends neither to oversteer nor understeer when pushed to
> the limit is said to have neutral handling. It seems intuitive that
> race drivers would prefer a slight oversteer condition to rotate the
> car around a corner, but this isn't usually the case for two reasons.
> Accelerating early as the car passes the apex of a corner allows it to
> gain extra speed down the following straight. The driver who
> accelerates sooner and/or harder has a large advantage. The rear tires
> need some excess traction to accelerate the car in this critical phase
> of the corner, while the front tires can devote all their traction to
> turning. So the car must be set up with a slight understeer or "tight"
> tendency. Also, an oversteering car tends to be twitchy and ill
> tempered, making a race car driver more likely to lose control during
> a long race or when reacting to sudden situations in traffic.
>
> Carroll Smith, in his book "Drive to Win", provides a detailed
> explanation of why a fast race car must have a bit of understeer. Note
> that this applies only to pavement racing. Dirt racing is a different
> matter.
>
> Even so, some successful race car drivers do prefer a bit of oversteer
> in their cars, preferring a car which is less sedate and more willing
> to turn into corners (or inside their opponents). It should be noted
> that the judgement of a car's handling balance is not an objective
> one. Driving style is a major factor in the apparent balance of a car.
> This is why two drivers with identical cars on the same race team
> often run with rather different balance settings from each other. And
> both may call the balance of their cars 'neutral'."
>
> I guess having oversteer, understeer, or neutral is a user preference
> and related to how you like to drive. I remember seeing Jeremy on the
> show "Top Gear" complain once because of a car oversteering too much,
> but then the manufacturer drove it and told him he wasn't driving it
> correctly.
>
> Regards,
> Mike.

Great read... !

I honestly beleive this issue - in the end - is the difference in who has
the power -RearWheelBrakeHorsePower ---- And who has the smooth consistency
(with the potential of less power)

*( in the case of absolute power equals power - none of this applies - that
case is SMOOTHER IS FASTER )*

My driving sucks.... ok, now it's out there, so anyway....

In a powerful car, you can over come the slowing affects of oversteering
with power (spinning and sliding the rear around as needed to point the car
in the desired direction) making up for the loss by using the HP to get OUT
FAST from the tight over-steered corner

when you are limited in power you are at the mercy of smoothness; continuity
of speed. In this case understeering is more desireable. Keeping your
speed into and through the apex of the corner with understeer will, when
done properly, beat any loss of speed through over-steering the car and
result in a lead at the next corner.

Main reason my driving sucks.... I need enough power to overcome my errors.

A smooth driver will beat me with less rear wheel brake horsepower by
understeering and consistently managing his speed. An oversteering car
tends to lose a lot of speed by 'sliding the rear' or side-slipping to get
the car turned at the apex.

Food for thought
Comments Objections Observations and Critiques Welcome
Life is Learning

"Mr T" > wrote in message
...
>I found this interesting article from a wiki website:
>
> "A car that tends neither to oversteer nor understeer when pushed to
> the limit is said to have neutral handling. It seems intuitive that

....

> Even so, some successful race car drivers do prefer a bit of oversteer
> in their cars, preferring a car which is less sedate and more willing
> to turn into corners (or inside their opponents). It should be noted

If you ask me, this is the dead give away of the lack of understanding. Have
traction circle left over to "turn inside" your opponents is much less a
function of over/understeer as, well, having traction circle left over. It
isn't helping if one end is washing out before the other reaches limits.

(Yeah, I know. It's old news. I'm just now catching up with my inbox.)

MikeWhy wrote:
> If you ask me, this is the dead give away of the lack of understanding.
> Have traction circle left over to "turn inside" your opponents is much
> less a function of over/understeer as, well, having traction circle left
> over. It isn't helping if one end is washing out before the other
> reaches limits.

It all comes down on how you like to steer the car. Some like to turn
in early and then use the throttle to bring the front out to the apex.
Others turn later and use the throttle to rotate the car to the apex.
The former requires understeer, the later a bit on the oversteer side.
Both drivers are using all of the traction available at both ends, it's
just one technique needs more traction at the rear, the other in the front.

"Ken MacKay" > wrote in message
news:LR58k.1111$2G6.1062@edtnps83...
> MikeWhy wrote:
>> If you ask me, this is the dead give away of the lack of understanding.
>> Have traction circle left over to "turn inside" your opponents is much
>> less a function of over/understeer as, well, having traction circle left
>> over. It isn't helping if one end is washing out before the other reaches
>> limits.
>
> It all comes down on how you like to steer the car. Some like to turn in
> early and then use the throttle to bring the front out to the apex. Others
> turn later and use the throttle to rotate the car to the apex. The former
> requires understeer, the later a bit on the oversteer side. Both drivers
> are using all of the traction available at both ends, it's just one
> technique needs more traction at the rear, the other in the front.

Reading it again, maybe he just worded the thought badly. Carrying enough
static understeer (not oversteer) might allow him to "turn inside" by
carrying more speed to the apex under brakes. Could this be what he means? I
think he means simply getting enough turn-in at speed while his opponent
plows at that speed. That's just less understeer, not oversteer. Anyway,
oversteer and understeer both take from cornering potential, limiting the
good end to what the bad end will hold. (I also just hate it when my nephew
talks about drifting. He has a different meaning for the word than I do.)