Talk:Scandinavian flick

Possible inter-Wiki Link

Apparently this is the same technique as used by motorcyclists and cyclists but is known as "Countersteering". Perhaps we could add a link? 203.46.95.243 00:51, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Disagree - countersteering on two wheels induces lean angle, whereas feint drift/scandanavian flick/inertia drift (which SHOULD all be merged) works by weight transfer inducing loss of traction at the rear wheels.

Opposite lock

If Opposite lock is another name for this, you may want to cross-link or merge the two articles. If not, please explain the difference. -AndrewDressel 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a use of the opposite lock technique. A merge or mention of it in the Opposite Lock page (like handbrake turns are mentioned) would be appropriate. 203.46.95.243 01:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No. This is an example of counter-steering. Opposite lock is the case of maximum counter-steering, occurring when the steering wheel can be turned no farther. In an opposite lock turn, the vehicle's turn rate is controlled by throttle: More throttle==wider turn. However, a counter-steered turn can be controlled by steering wheel (not at opposite lock) and throttle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.213.217.230 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Merging with feint drift

In more or less the same sense, a scandinavian flick is performed the same as a feint drift. With the only difference between the two being the purpose, I propose this merge. --Blackhawk charlie2003 14:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, these methods are describing the same maneuvre of initiating oversteer. "Scandanavian flick" is the more popular terminology however (especially in rallying). 58.165.63.153 12:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote when expanding the article, Scandinavian flick, Feint drift and Inertial drift all refer to the same thing. Whereas Scandinavian flick is popular among rally racers, Feint drift is popular among American public, because the Americans would hate to admit they didn't invent it. --Lasombra bg (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal Force

"Every time you turn, the centrifugal force attempts to cause your vehicle to continue moving straight." -- Someone had BETTER change that because centrifugal force is a fiction force, it doesn't actually exist. Anyone who knows that would probably find this page poorly researched and/or thought out. Colonel Marksman (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Since I'm the author of the sentence in question, I think I should reply to that. Here is what the Wikipedia article says on this. There's a pretty long discussion about the centrifugal force being "real" or "imaginary". However, the term "centrifugal force" is well-known to anyone who has finished their sixth grade in Physics, so I used it without intention of turning this driving technique article into a Physics one. As an amateur rally racer I feel it would be easier for people who take interest in driving techniques to have a simple explanation how a maneuver is performed, rather than overwhelming them with physics, diagrams and formulas. Lasombra bg (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to avoid bogging down the reader with complex physics explanations, it's another to perpetuate the myth that centrifugal forces "cause your vehicle to continue moving straight." I'm sorry, this is just blatantly incorrect. If you're explaining this concept at a party I can see using this phrase for casual clarity, but this is an encyclopedia. 24.141.36.50 (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Centrifugal acceleration is simply acceleration that results from being in a rotating (non-inertial) frame of reference, and in such reference frames Newton's Laws are different or not as simple as they are in inertial frames. It's nothing more than a term that happens to come out when you take time derivatives in such a frame. Whether its "real" or "fake", what does that even mean? It's just as real as gravity, or the electric field, it's just a way of describing something that happens. "Fictitious force" is certainly a misnomer at best.

Regarding the "Physics" section, I'm not even sure if the explanation is valid at all, or if it is, seems awfully convoluted. If we simply stay away from the complexity of being in the accelerating and hence noninertial frame of the vehicle, I feel like turning the car sideways is simply an attempt at aligning the vector the rotation of the tires to the velocity of the car, such that, instead of having the kinetic friction force apply a moment about the wheel axle, which leads to traction, it does not apply a moment about that axis, hence you get a skid.18.218.1.192 (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It goes into a similar direction: Where whether centrifugal force exists is a matter of choice of refererence frame, "inertial energy" just plainly doesn't exist. And we're not talking about energy preservation here either, but preservation of momentum. Therefore changed to "angular momentum". 213.68.42.99 (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Physics section is incorrect. Especially the sentence beginning with "Since most cars have their engines in front...". In fact, rear-engine cars probably demonstrate these characteristics even more than front-engine cars. 74.105.2.12 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to be a stickler, but it's centripetal force. Centrifugal force is outward. In this case, inertia is causing this "force". Where centrifugal forces do not exist in terms of inertial force, centripetal forces do exist. This is friction of the tires to the road. If one is in the car and guns it, one moves back. Slam the brakes and one goes forward. Turn and one goes in the opposite way because the car is literally accelerating sideways, turning the car and creating a new vector for that acceleration. (circular motion, force always inward keeping the object in the path. Relative to the object, it is always traveling forward. That's why when the car slides it feels so different, because it's no longer traveling "forward", but sideways to a degree) Basically, the car will never experience centrifugal force, but it exerts centrifugal force onto the ground. It's a "reactive" force. It DOES exist, but not relative to the car. I'm not sure if that was a great explanation, but at least one gets the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.213.21 (talk) 02:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Illustration

I think that the illustrated picture should be corrected to show the direction that the vehicle is driving, as it might be confusing when the .svg doesn't show anything more than a rectangle and a line. Jokkk (talk) 19:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems like the diagram would be clearer if it showed the direction the (front) tires are aimed in, at each point. 2601:601:9A7E:C70:15C8:38E7:5C14:A3BA (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Errors

Ari Vatanen and Rauno Aaltonen did not drive during the 60's, which disqualifies them from being first doing anything connected to flicking. In fact the technique was used to prevent hard corner breaking with power cars as early as the 50's, but was perfected when the frontwheel-drive appeared at rally's top level - both winter and summer. Names like Erik Carlsson, Stig Blomqvist, and Björn Waldegård should have been mentioned instead. In fact, summer gravel has similar properties to snow at higher speeds, so the flick was to some extent used even with the rearwheel-drive Volvo PV and the Volkswagens with their rear-mounted engines. There is also a winter variant where the car's rear is forced into the outside snow-drift, which reputably enables a higher corner entry speed and/or straighter exit. However, I can not find a quotable source for these facts, so I do not alter the article this time. I prefer discussion to erasure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.68.54.57 (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Angular momentum or rotational energy?

Shouldn't the article state that the intention of the maneuver is to build up rotational energy, NOT angular momentum like it currently does? It is rotational energy that determines the total angle a rotating body travels when slowed down by a net torque. Therefore, the increased "turning angle" achieved by using the maneuver is due to the increased rotational energy instead of the increased angular momentum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.181.29 (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)