What do we really mean by 6/10ths, ... , 10/10ths?

[CanAm]

We often refer to cars being driven at 6/10ths, 7/10ths, ..., 10/10ths. Intuitively, it's useful and makes sense, but I've often wondered how those assessments are actually made. People seem to usually be in the same ballpark when making the assessments, but I've also seen differences of a tenth or more, which suggests that maybe there's too much subjectivity involved.

To attempt to quantify it and make it more objective, we could look at proportionality to lap times. But if a given car has a 10/10ths lap time of say 80 seconds (1:20) at Summit, that would mean 9/10ths is about 88 seconds (1:28) and 8/10ths is about 96 seconds (1:36), and those gaps seem way too big to me.

Another quantitative approach would be look at lateral G force. Since that's proportional to speed squared (for a given radius) in curves, say 100 mph gives 1.0 G; then if 9/10ths means 0.9 G, the corresponding speed would be about 95 mph, and 8/10ths (0.8 G) would correspond to about 89 mph. These speed differences seem more reasonable to me than the lap time differences, but maybe even these speed differences are too large to represent increments of tenths?

We could instead bring in driver effort as a factor. The problem there seems to be that driver ability varies widely, but maybe the assumption could be made that we're referring to an expert driver?

There may not be any official way to assess tenths, but I'd still be interested to hear what y'all think.

[BlackTalon]

My take on it is it has more to do with the driver's ability then the car's capabilities until the driver reaches the 'unconscious competant' level. Many developing drivers have incidents because they were driving above their ability at the time, and not necessarily exceeding the capabilities of the car until the driver's compounding mistakes finally exceeded the car's ability to save them.

[CanAm]

My take on it is it has more to do with the driver's ability then the car's capabilities until the driver reaches the 'unconscious competant' level. Many developing drivers have incidents because they were driving above their ability at the time, and not necessarily exceeding the capabilities of the car until the driver's compounding mistakes finally exceeded the car's ability to save them.

Certainly fits what I've seen at the track this season. Plenty of avoidable incidents because drivers were attempting to go faster than their true capabilities. Saw it all run groups, but especially among non-instructors. As the saying goes, 'leave your ego at home'. Seems to me that wrecking a car is a very effective way to ruin the fun. So far, I've had no incidents, and I'm trying hard to keep it that way.

[Lupin..the..3rd]

If you're driving at 10/10ths, you are driving flat out. Think of it as a percentage. For example, 9/10th's = 90%. This is in decimal notation, and metric numbering can be confusing for many. Like when it's 23 degrees C outside. Do you wear shorts or a parka? Standard notation is more widely accepted, so whether you're talking about 8/10's or 8mm, you can use 5/16's instead.

[savowood]

I've always thought of it as more of a logarithmic scale. If I'm driving my lap and I'm absolutely on the edge, nailing every entry and exiting within (or over) a few millimeters of the track out, then I'd consider that 10/10ths. For argument's sake, we'll say that was a 100 second lap. The next step wouldn't be a 90 second lap, rather a tenth or so off of that at 100.1-100.2. Then at 8/10ths, about a second off of that. Then, at 7/10ths, maybe 10 seconds. Beyond that it seems to flatten out in my mind...maybe an inverse log at that point.

That's how it sits in my brain. As you see, opinions vary.

[VaSteve]

Its a nice day, Irfan. Go outside and think about something else.

[CanAm]

If you're driving at 10/10ths, you are driving flat out. Think of it as a percentage. For example, 9/10th's = 90%. This is in decimal notation, and metric numbering can be confusing for many. Like when it's 23 degrees C outside. Do you wear shorts or a parka? Standard notation is more widely accepted, so whether you're talking about 8/10's or 8mm, you can use 5/16's instead.

Seems like there's still the question of percentage of what?

I've always thought of it as more of a logarithmic scale. If I'm driving my lap and I'm absolutely on the edge, nailing every entry and exiting within (or over) a few millimeters of the track out, then I'd consider that 10/10ths. For argument's sake, we'll say that was a 100 second lap. The next step wouldn't be a 90 second lap, rather a tenth or so off of that at 100.1-100.2. Then at 8/10ths, about a second off of that. Then, at 7/10ths, maybe 10 seconds. Beyond that it seems to flatten out in my mind...maybe an inverse log at that point.

That's how it sits in my brain. As you see, opinions vary.

I like that way of looking at it. And I think it ties in with level of driver effort (ie, increasing driver effort results in diminishing drop in lap time).

Its a nice day, Irfan. Go outside and think about something else.

Don't worry, I know what you mean. Will be heading out soon, and going to a comedy show tonight. :) Have to get some office work done this weekend too, but that's penance for the track time. :(

[Chopper Dropper]

Any "tenths" is based on drivers ability of what the instructor or driver thinks the student or driver is driving, not related to lap times except for that actual car and those conditions. It is a measure in DE instructor terms of how much the student might be leaving on the table, now go outside and play!!
Dirk

[VaSteve]

Seems like there's still the question of percentage of what?



Your wallet.

[HoodPin]

10/10th's is typically the line delineating between drover (less than) and dumbass (more than). :D

[1ED1]

I have never driven a 10/10ths lap.

[VaSteve]

At Chez Summit there's photographic proof of an 11/10th lap. Well, half of one.

[Dr K]

I've driven some partial laps that averaged out to 10/10ths :shock:

[CanAm]

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do we all agree that 11/10ths (overdriving) is slower than 10/10ths?

Edit: What I'm getting at is that 9/10ths and 11/10ths won't average to 10/10ths, since 11/10ths may only be about as fast as 9/10ths.

[VaSteve]

Yes, because the tow truck or yellow flag is out.

It's a swag anyway, not a precise scientific measurement.

[Potomac-Greg]

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do we all agree that 11/10ths (overdriving) is slower than 10/10ths?

You can go 11/10ths at some point in a lap, and save it (e.g sacrifice exit speed), so I don't call 11/10ths an "off" just an error. It's just a saying, and mostly used to characterize less than flat out -- e.g. leaving a margin of error.

[CanAm]

It's a swag anyway, not a precise scientific measurement.

Understood, the goal is to make is to make people's intuitive sense of a "tenth" explicit, so that we can compare and see if our intuitions have the same basis. So far, I think we can say that tenths aren't directly proportional to speed or G-force, and maybe not even quite proportional to driver effort either, and the log scale of lap time idea seems to best fit my own intuition. I wouldn't even raise the question if "tenths" weren't referred to so often.

[CanAm]

You can go 11/10ths at some point in a lap, and save it (e.g sacrifice exit speed), so I don't call 11/10ths an "off" just an error. It's just a saying, and mostly used to characterize less than flat out -- e.g. leaving a margin of error.

The first part is what I had in mind. To me, 11/10ths can mean driving hard enough to be slower, but necessarily going off, crashing, etc. The second part is what I think of as 9/10ths rather than 11/10ths.

[tdatk]

I think we should change the ratings to expressions, as fractions are an absolute and expressions are a variable except in politics.
example
6/10s = :roll:
7/10s = :(
8/10s = ;)
9/10s = :p
10/10's = :D
11/10 = :shock:

[CanAm]

I think we should change the ratings to expressions, as fractions are an absolute and expressions are a variable except in politics.
example
6/10s = :roll:
7/10s = :(
8/10s = ;)
9/10s = :p
10/10's = :D
11/10 = :shock:

Perfect! :) Reminds me of how in medicine, 0 to 10 ratings of pain level tend to be ambiguous, so often expressions are used in addition or instead: http://painconsortium.nih.gov/pain_scales/Wong-Baker_Faces.pdf

[VaSteve]

I think we should change the ratings to expressions, as fractions are an absolute and expressions are a variable except in politics.
example
6/10s = :roll:
7/10s = :(
8/10s = ;)
9/10s = :p
10/10's = :D
11/10 = :shock:

I'm going to print that on a card for my next student, thanks.

[Jazzbass]

I think we should change the ratings to expressions, as fractions are an absolute and expressions are a variable except in politics.
example
6/10s = :roll:
7/10s = :(
8/10s = ;)
9/10s = :p
10/10's = :D
11/10 = :shock:

That is perfect - and very accurate IMO. We don't mean anything exact by "10/10s". 10/10s = the fastest you (at your skill level) could have gone. 9/10 = damn close, 8/10 = pretty good but leaving some on the table. 7/10s = warm up lap. 11/10s = prepare to go both feet in. Tim captures all of this perfectly.

[CanAm]

That is perfect - and very accurate IMO. We don't mean anything exact by "10/10s". 10/10s = the fastest you (at your skill level) could have gone. 9/10 = damn close, 8/10 = pretty good but leaving some on the table. 7/10s = warm up lap. 11/10s = prepare to go both feet in. Tim captures all of this perfectly.

I like your verbal descriptors - another way to avoid the false impression of quantitative basis/precision associated with using numbers.

I'd suggest that the scale can be applied (separately) to both driver and car:

- "I'm driving this car at 8/10ths of my ability."
- "I'm driving this car at 8/10ths of its capability."

The two would only be the same in the case of a truly expert driver. People don't usually specify which they mean, but my sense is that the latter (car) is more common, though the former (driver) seems more common in student evaluation. This goes back to the point initially made by Talon, and also ties in with Dirk's response.

[ausgeflippt951]

For what it's worth this mensurative scheme has been used for a long time, well beyond the scope of just racing.

Any athlete's training regimen, for example, is often broken into exercises which are referred to as 60%, 70%, etc.

This convention is always intended as a way of approximately measure the person's LOE, not compare to some overarching standard. For example, if we both run a 100m dash at 100% (flat out), assuming we both are giving it everything we've got, we may still be at different speeds.

As neat a thought experiment as this is, my personal take on it is that the convention looses some of its value if we try to objectify ("deobfuscate"?) it.

[CanAm]

For what it's worth this mensurative scheme has been used for a long time, well beyond the scope of just racing.

Any athlete's training regimen, for example, is often broken into exercises which are referred to as 60%, 70%, etc.

This convention is always intended as a way of approximately measure the person's LOE, not compare to some overarching standard. For example, if we both run a 100m dash at 100% (flat out), assuming we both are giving it everything we've got, we may still be at different speeds.

As neat a thought experiment as this is, my personal take on it is that the convention looses some of its value if we try to objectify ("deobfuscate"?) it.

After reading the thread and thinking about it more, I completely agree. The driving "tenths" could be made objective according to some nonlinear relationship to lap time (eg, log scale), but in practice the tenths seem to be used in a more nominal/ordinal way, along the lines of Jazz's descriptors.

With apologies to the women, another good example of the universality of the scale is the way we 'rate' women's looks from 0 to 10. There's the 'perfect 10', a 9 is pretty darn hot, an 8 will make most men happy, a 7 is OK, and 6 and below, well ... :(

[Vicegrip]

It is simply a way to discuss something. It requires a contex based zero point or baseline that muse be derived from the conversation itself. The numbers could be replaced with conventional words.

[CanAm]

It is simply a way to discuss something. It requires a contex based zero point or baseline that muse be derived from the conversation itself. The numbers could be replaced with conventional words.

Agreed, though these statements imply a more objective basis:

"We're only using about 65% of the capability of the car." (pro racer)

"To drive in that group, we're looking for ability to drive the car at least at 80% of its capability." (a chief instructor)

But I think even these statements could be taken as meaning 6.5 and 8 tenths in the usual non-objective sense.

[Potomac-Greg]

With apologies to the women, another good example of the universality of the scale is the way we 'rate' women's looks from 0 to 10. There's the 'perfect 10', a 9 is pretty darn hot, an 8 will make most men happy, a 7 is OK, and 6 and below, well ... :(

And with enough beer, a 7 can become an 8, and you can go to 11/10ths, although you will regret.

[CanAm]

And with enough beer, a 7 can become an 8, and you can go to 11/10ths, although you will regret.

Ah yes, the infamous beer goggles. I've even experienced a 6 going to a 9. :shock:

[Vicegrip]

Agreed, though these statements imply a more objective basis:

"We're only using about 65% of the capability of the car." (pro racer)

"To drive in that group, we're looking for ability to drive the car at least at 80% of its capability." (a chief instructor)

But I think even these statements could be taken as meaning 6.5 and 8 tenths in the usual non-objective sense. Your point is still my point and "you think" is the key. It is all what the reader and writer "think". But what is the baseline of 80%. Green or Blue student, 500 hour driver, good club racer, hella good club racer, pro class racer, world class pro, frigging incomprehensable mind bending machine of a world class pro? None will have the same 1 to 10 baseline in the same car. A car does not have a given 100% number value. It is always a car and driver. No 2 drivers are the same. The numbers need to be pinned to the context. it is simple to use numbers but the numbers are not are not real. You can't add a 3/10ths to a 4/10ths and have a 7/10ths. The scale is subjective in its very nature.

Even within a "group" such as your mentioned CIs. Not all CI's drive at 80%. No two CI's are the same. (After 4 or 5 singlemalts Dirk and Bob might look like brothers but they would not be the same drovers.)

[John Clay]

another way I thought of it:

6/10 - even a big mistake won't mater
7/10 - a big mistake will be trouble
8/10 - a moderate mistake will be trouble
9/10 - a small mistake will be trouble
10/10 - anything not approaching perfect will be trouble

Of course that leaves us with defining big/moderate/small mistakes.

[CanAm]

another way I thought of it:

6/10 - even a big mistake won't mater
7/10 - a big mistake will be trouble
8/10 - a moderate mistake will be trouble
9/10 - a small mistake will be trouble
10/10 - anything not approaching perfect will be trouble

Of course that leaves us with defining big/moderate/small mistakes.

Actually, this is close to way I often look at it with my own driving. Relative to my ability, 7/10 is taking it somewhat easy and feels quite safe, 8/10 is making a real effort and still feels safe but less safe, and 9/10 is the hardest I've pushed and can be a bit scary. I've never even considered attempting 10/10.

Your point is still my point and "you think" is the key. It is all what the reader and writer "think". But what is the baseline of 80%. Green or Blue student, 500 hour driver, good club racer, hella good club racer, pro class racer, world class pro, frigging incomprehensable mind bending machine of a world class pro? None will have the same 1 to 10 baseline in the same car. A car does not have a given 100% number value. It is always a car and driver. No 2 drivers are the same. The numbers need to be pinned to the context. it is simple to use numbers but the numbers are not are not real. You can't add a 3/10ths to a 4/10ths and have a 7/10ths. The scale is subjective in its very nature.

Even within a "group" such as your mentioned CIs. Not all CI's drive at 80%. No two CI's are the same. (After 4 or 5 singlemalts Dirk and Bob might look like brothers but they would not be the same drovers.)

This raises a point we haven't explicitly discussed. I assume that for a given car and track, there's a theoretical fastest lap time, governed by the physics, which represents using 100% of the capability of the car. That theoretical limit can't be achieved by any human, but I suppose the very best drivers, on their best days, can get close? That still leaves open the question of what 'using 80% of the capability of the car' means, but there I would revert to a verbal descriptor like 'pretty good, but still leaving a good bit on the table' rather than trying to pin it to an objective measure.

[Chopper Dropper]

Beat to death, go have a single malt or two if you can't go out and play today.
Dirk

[CanAm]

Beat to death, go have a single malt or two if you can't go out and play today.
Dirk

Dirk,

Remember that some of us (or just me?) have a philosophical bent and like exploring questions like this, even if one can totally ignore these questions and still learn to drive well. I know many people will find the topic boring or pointless, and of course the thread is only intended for people who don't feel that way.

Back to work today, and we do stuff like designing bridges, so drinking is out of the question. :)

[Dr K]

I hate the thought of adding any more to this already-four-pages-too-long thread, but I will anyway.

I've driven some partial laps that averaged out to 10/10ths :shock:

Just to make sure we're on the same page, do we all agree that 11/10ths (overdriving) is slower than 10/10ths?

Edit: What I'm getting at is that 9/10ths and 11/10ths won't average to 10/10ths, since 11/10ths may only be about as fast as 9/10ths.

Notice I said "partial" laps. I used to spin a bit...

Even within a "group" such as your mentioned CIs. Not all CI's drive at 80%. In fact, one of the CI's hardly drives at all! :twisted:

Beat to death, go have a single malt or two if you can't go out and play today.
Dirk
Amen!

[Trak Ratt]

X2 on what Dirk said. Besides even tracks don't have a finite speed... or how would new lap records keep getting set?

[FrankyV]

Is it just me or does the OP like to talk about his feelings even more than our wives do? :p

[Trak Ratt]

^ you're not alone in this boy-o! aren't you kind of the 11/10s guy hero??

[}{arlequin]

Is it just me or does the OP like to talk about his feelings even more than our wives do? :p

if only there was someone to help him get in touch with his feminine side...

[Trak Ratt]

if only there was someone to help him get in touch with his feminine side...

T-9 + 11/10s =
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21WDlaKvK9L._SL500_AA300_.jpg

[CanAm]

In fact, one of the CI's hardly drives at all! :twisted:

To be clear, the CI I referred to wasn't with PCA.

[Vicegrip]

and, as we all know, that makes a difference. :lol: