People who drive automatics with 2 feet?

[Klipschguy]

Jay481985 wrote:

"Also if you want to learn or teach your kids panic braking methods, please in an empty parking lot with lots of room..."

Hmmm....interesting advice.

[DrWho]

DO NOT SCARE THESE 2 FOOTED DRIVERS WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND THE WHEEL

OK so I just went to pick up some coffee after reading this thread and since traffic was light decided to try two footed driving [:^)]............My neck hurts......[:$]

lol! so what happened to the coffee....?

[Klipschguy]

Was it McDonald's coffee?

[Jay481985]

Meh maybe they will get sued with the new line of "premium coffees" Meh I wonder if McDonalds is actually still keeping their coffee hotter than the others, meh simple reason it retains its taste without making new coffee which is cheaper and is the bottomline for the corporation. I do not recall them ever replacing the coffee at McDonalds.

[jacksonbart]

If you can't take the heat don't drink McDonald's coffee and drive with two feet.

[Jay481985]

JB try juggling the coffee, the C6 that you own, and if its an stick heh something is gonna give...... Does the new C6 have a cup holder? Cause if it does *raises fist and shakes it* [:@]

[jacksonbart]

I don't drink coffee or drive with two feet though so no danger there.

[Ray Garrison]

Quickly reviewing previous posts in this thread I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious advantage...

With a front wheel drive car, by applying the brakes with the left foot and the gas with the right foot, one can lock up the rear wheels while the fronts continue to rotate. This allows you to break the back end free, thus enabling all sorts of wonderous entertainment. Just like using the hand break while accelerating in a stick shift. This is particularly effective on low friction surfaces like snow or ice.

[Jay481985]

I remember people talking about that but I guess that fell out of flavor, most just use the ebrake on frontwheel drive cars

[maxg]

Quickly reviewing previous posts in this thread I don't think anyone mentioned the most obvious advantage... With a front wheel drive car, by applying the brakes with the left foot and the gas with the right foot, one can lock up the rear wheels while the fronts continue to rotate. This allows you to break the back end free, thus enabling all sorts of wonderous entertainment. Just like using the hand break while accelerating in a stick shift. This is particularly effective on low friction surfaces like snow or ice.

Actually Ray that won't work. Foot braking applies brake pressure to all the wheels evenly - you will just brake your gearbox that way. If you want to break the back end out you use the handbrake which, usually, only applies to the rear wheels. In any event it is rear wheel drive that will be far the more rewarding experience in terms of getting the back end out and going around a corner sideways.

To get the back end out the first thing you have to do is to make sure all of the ESP type stuff is off - not a problem in older cars - they dont have any - but newer rear wheel drives are often loaded with electronics to keep things safe.

Approaching a corner brake hard and turn in hard - the back end should unstick. Turn the wheels away from the direction of the corner and use the power to catch the back end and then enjoy the slide. Empty car parks for practise are a good idea (in the absense of a proper skid pan). Depending on the car they can be quite difficult to catch. I had an old mid-engined Toyota MR2 1600 cc car that was great fun but when the back end broke out - it really went with speed so you had to be lightening fast with the steering wheel (which was too high geared to be really useful).

It was not as bad as the old Porsche Turbo of course - that could do a 180 degree spin in a split second - but tricky enough for someone of my skills.

[Speedball]

The handbrake is the key to breaking the rearend loose. I just confirmed this a week ago with a Mitsubishi rental car........is great fun and quite noisy I might add. I almost felt the car was "stretching".

[Jay481985]

thats why most rally cars do not have pass through trunks as they have to brace like crazy, the whole car as it flexes bends and streches non modified chasises out.

[maxg]

Actually Jay that is a 2 fold problem of modern design:

Tthe first issue is with the modern tires. Basically there is now too much grip (for safety in 95% of conditions). The first problem is that to get them to go you need a relatively huge amount of lateral force - resulting in very high cornering speeds whilst the second problem is that once they go - THEY GO. Huge adhesion to none in split seconds - very testing on the driver.

The second issue is body design. In the old days we had a chassis (and cross ply tires)with the body suspended on top - unstressed. Now all the strength of the car is in the body itself. This is subjected to the now huge cornering forces from the big tyres and you get body flex.

Most of the add-on bracing is really to protect the driver first and foremost (the roll cage). Additional bracing (other than necessities like a sump guard) are avoided as they add unneccessary weight. The good news it that the roll cage itself does act to stiffen up the body significantly - but that is an add-on benefit.

As it all stands today the limit on cornering forces achievable is no longer the car - it is the driver. If you look at formula one drivers these days you will notice that they all have rather small heads and very large necks. The driver's neck is now the weakest point for cornering and the ulitmate limit, it seems, on how fast you can go.

[oldtimer]

I tend to agree with Meagain about being un-nerved by the two footed brake/throttle technique. I also realize that done properly either method is fine for daily street driving. It bothers me when someone is riding their brake on a purist level, as well as a brake wear level. Personally, I would not teach one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator to a teen-ager still discovering coordination. I am just as bothered by the slightly resting foot on the clutch pedal, or resting the hand on the shifter. What the hell, move over, I'll drive!

"People who drive automatics do not live in my house."

[seti]

DO NOT SCARE THESE 2 FOOTED DRIVERS WHILE THEY ARE BEHIND THE WHEEL

OK so I just went to pick up some coffee after reading this thread and since traffic was light decided to try two footed driving [:^)]............My neck hurts......[:$]

lol! so what happened to the coffee....?

[:$]lets just say my girlfriend may have to wait a little while[:$]

[Jay481985]

Actually Jay that is a 2 fold problem of modern design:

Tthe first issue is with the modern tires. Basically there is now too much grip (for safety in 95% of conditions). The first problem is that to get them to go you need a relatively huge amount of lateral force - resulting in very high cornering speeds whilst the second problem is that once they go - THEY GO. Huge adhesion to none in split seconds - very testing on the driver.

Very true, I find Yokohama still goes with the older method though as they give up a bit of ultimate grip for the predicatable slip. That is why the Mitsubishi Evo uses it, albeit the Japanese version uses even a slicker version to allow revving up to 7000 rpm drop cluth while the American version cuts you off at 3000. They claim it is the grippier tire in america which may be true but i smell a bit of warantee issues too.

The second issue is body design. In the old days we had a chassis (and cross ply tires)with the body suspended on top - unstressed. Now all the strength of the car is in the body itself. This is subjected to the now huge cornering forces from the big tyres and you get body flex.

to even further emphasize, the porsche carrera gt locked the engine as part of the overall body stiffness too. That is why you hear all these car companies trying to lower the unsprung weight soo much by using exoticer material like fiberglass, carbon fiber, aluminum, carbon carbon brakes

Most of the add-on bracing is really to protect the driver first and foremost (the roll cage). Additional bracing (other than necessities like a sump guard) are avoided as they add unneccessary weight. The good news it that the roll cage itself does act to stiffen up the body significantly - but that is an add-on benefit.

I remember both the reigning and once reigning champions, the subaru STI and the mitsubishi Evo both use a standard body that has been modifed. Mostly with more braces and cross sectional beam. The evo even has a engine brace across the suspension that fits barely under the hood.

As it all stands today the limit on cornering forces achievable is no longer the car - it is the driver. If you look at formula one drivers these days you will notice that they all have rather small heads and very large necks. The driver's neck is now the weakest point for cornering and the ulitmate limit, it seems, on how fast you can go.

I remember a race in Formula One was canceled in a new racetrack a year or two ago cause the drivers experienced sustained 3-5 g forces which caused many drivers on test runs to get dizzy and one I believe blacked out. But in any other car though the limit is still the car as formula one race cars have race tires that provide ultra grip and a very light car with lots of downforce. Also it helps that the racecar drivers are ultrafit like military airplane pilots. But most streetlegal cars hit around the 1.0g sustained forced which is still well below the 3-5 g forces that are required to "blackout"

[Ray Garrison]

Max,

Not sure why you say that. In a front wheel drive car (assuming ABS is off) if you apply the brakes, the braking force will be (fairly) evenly distributed to all four wheels. Then by applying the gas, you are applying torque to only the front wheels. By judiciously using the right amount of brake pressure and accelerator pressure, you can reach a point where the (undriven) back wheels begin to lock up, while the front wheels continue to rotate. I tried this tonight on the way home in my '88 Buick Century. Go around a corner, press hard on the brake and harder on the gas, and the inside rear wheel will lock up, followed shortly by the outside rear wheel.

Yes it's a heck of a lot easier with a handbrake - I used to have a Fiat 128 sporte coupe that could dance lightly and precisely by using the handbrake and high revs - used to park at school in the winter by going past the parking space I wanted, then flipping the back end around to the right while pulling the front back to the left, wind up going backwards but pointed at the spot I wanted, then spin the front wheels until the car stopped going backwards and went forwards into the spot. Only worked with a couple inches of snow on the ground - ice was too slippery for control, and dry pavement required way too much speed.

Did this once on the way home from school (like, 1975 or so)... just a block short of my house, tried to get cute pulling into driveway, messed up, wound up stuck in high snow drift on wrong side of street pointing wrong way, Mom drove by before I could get unstuck. Was sort of hard to explain...

[maxg]

Ray,

OK - I will withdraw my original statement and replace it with - it might work - but it places massive strains on the car, whilst simply applying the hand-brake achieves the same thing, easier, with about 10th of the stresses on the car.

Simply put - you are pitting your brakes against your engine at the same time - everything is under strain - it is a real bad idea. I am prepared to take your word for it that there is a balance point that will allow the undriven rear wheels to lock up whilst still allowing some power to hit the front wheels and retain control but I dont think it is something I would ever even want to try....

The guy I used to rally with did that parking trick of yours as a part piece. He could get into any car - front or rear wheel drive and swing-skid it into the place precisely - seemingly on any surface. The only problem we had was being showered with pebbles in a pub carpark whislt we were watching him.

[oldbuckster]

It's a bad practice, but it's your car, do what you want.............I can't imagine using 2 feet in a snow, or freezing rain storm, or just a bad rain storm, like I said, your car, your life, do what you want.....................Six pages on this subject.......Go Figure....................

[LarryC]

It's a bad practice.............I can't imagine using 2 feet in a snow, or freezing rain storm, or just a bad rain storm....

I couldn't remember, finally looked at how I do the brake and gas -- I use both feet, the left for brake and right for gas. This follows from surgery on my right foot two years ago, where I wasn't supposed to use braking pressure with my right foot for a few months.

I think 2-footed driving is fine -- for me -- and don't think there is a bit of danger to it -- for me, 'cause I'm used to it. I recall a few bad moments when I was first re-learing how to do it after I got out of my cast and fracture boot. In tight driving situations (stop and go driving, edging closely behind somebody), my left foot is poised near the brake (heel on floor, toe barely touching) and can apply them almost instantly. I can also lightly apply both gas and brakes and modulate very quickly between them at very low speeds.

This is not something I'd recommend to others for all the reasons given above, but it sure works for me.