Talk:Bootleg turn

Image comments

• Nice work, Primalchaos. Good prose, and the image you made does the illustrative job perfectly. Simoes 02:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • A comment on the image - I think it would be useful if the image had an original direction of travel arrow it. I thought the car was travelling from top to bottom until I read the article more thoroughly. - 86.140.100.130 03:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Seconded. I read the image top down at first too and was utterly baffled. --bodnotbod 09:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • It appears to me that the image is equivalent from top-down and bottom-top. Your initial and second understanding of the image were equally correct.
        • No, the anonIP redlink comment was mine btw. From the top tp the bottom, it looks like the driver turns AWAY from the opposing lane and then swings the back end across. From the bottom to top, the driver turns TOWARDS the opposing lane and the rear end is swung around with it. It is from Bottom to Top of which the article describes. A arrow would be nice. - Hahnchen 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
          • I still have the original PSD of the image. I'lll add one with an arrow the moment I get a chance.--Primalchaos 17:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

New version of the image now added. Check it out.--Primalchaos 01:37, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

The man credited with inventing the turn -Robert Glenn "Junior" Johnson- was born oly two years before Prohibition ended. But the article gives the impression that he invented the maneuver so that he could escape the authorities while runung liquor for his father's still. Either one of these can be true, but not both of them.

An unlisenced still is illegal so it is possible he ran illegal shine even after the repeal of prohibition.--Gbleem 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Many states remained 'dry' after the repeal of prohibition, especially rural ones which remained dry for religious reasons.--Primalchaos 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm assuming this can only be done in a rear wheel drive car. Is the point of second gear to act like a rear brake? --Gbleem 07:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

It can be done in any car. In fact, Front-wheel drive is easier to master because you don't need to operate the clutch to avoid the engine stalling. Also, see left-foot braking, which is an alternative technique for front drive.

The text does not indicate when (or even whether) the handbrake is used in the turn. If it is indeed the same manoeuvre as a handbrake turn, then the explanation of one (handbrake) with the diagram of the other(bootleg) would be the best explanation. 87.112.5.55 21:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Animation

I've added a link to an animation I made, on my website. Since wiki commons won't accept avi files I'm afraid I can't post it there. The simulation is basically correct (it was made in a simulator called CarSim), and so far as I know all rights belong to me and I freely give them to anyone for any legal purpose. If somebody would like to convert it to Ogg and put it up on commons that would be great. if you'd like more details, or a change in viewpoint etc let me know. Greglocock 04:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is any way to 'skin' the car in your program with the existing car image on the current website, I can provide you with an original PSD of the car drawing.--Primalchaos 13:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Not with this version of the program, it only understands wireframes, and building them is a PITA Greglocock 00:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Merge with handbrake turn

I'm cool with the merge but it is worth pointing out that this article claims it is possible to do a bootleg turn without using the handbrake. I can see that it is possible (for instance at slow speed in a powerful RWD in a gravel car park), but I don't think you could do it in a normal roadway at any significant speed, you'd run out of width. Greglocock 23:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Traditional 'bootleggers' are performed in cars with manual transmission, where the gear shifting cause the same lock-up and skid that the handbrake produces in an automatic car. The effect is the same, ultimately, but the 'traditional' version requires a lot more skill on the part of the driver. The article originally described that bootleggers were normally performed back in the day by a rapid downshift into first or second gear.--Primalchaos 12:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so you swing on the wheel, drop the clutch into second (say) locking the rear axle. Then pump the throttle. Yes, dat'll woik. Tricky, but possible. So, that sounds like a no-vote, maybe my animation should be moved to handbrake turn to preserve and emphasise the difference.Greglocock 12:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Extremely tricky, and likely to blow out your gearbox. In general, the bootlegger was invented as a desparate attempt to avoid jailtime, not a sunday drive maneuver. And yes, my vote is No. However, emphasis should be made that any rapid 180 degree turn is often called a 'bootlegger', including a handbrake turn.--Primalchaos 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I actually came on the discussion page with a quibble about some of the phrasing re: easier to do it with a manual, RWD, etc. From having messed about with the trick a bit in younger days (and even recently still employed it as needs must), i'd expect a FWD automatic (or 4WD, even better) to be the best type for pulling this off: No need to worry about selecting the correct gear in time, or hitting the clutch... just come off the throttle as you pull on the brake and turn the wheel, then stamp on the loud pedal again as the back comes round and release the brake/straighten the wheel once you're pointing roughly the right way. The lack of front wheel braking (and the auto itself) will keep the motor running, then the auto will drop into low gear and allow the motor to spin up and start pulling the car forwards even while the tail is still coming around, giving you the best chance of a quick, clean getaway. Manual FWD means you're unlikely to stall it, but still have to be mindful to jam the transmission into a lower gear (1st, if you can convince it to do so, but don't lift the clutch until you're ready to take off in the second half of the turn to avoid messing up clutch/gears/engine) ahead of time and dip the clutch as the vehicle will be stopped or running counter to the engine's rotation at the conclusion of the turn. Auto RWD decouples the running wheels for you, and drops to low gear, but now the rears are having to look after both braking hard enough to lose traction, then provide power at the same time as sliding/immediately after the slide, and though they'd be better set to thrust the car forwards than a FWD setup, it may just start to spin out further instead. RWD manual would be a nightmare and require great driver skill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Link

The "J-Turn" described sounds exactly like the "reverse flick" used in Morokhana. Handbrake turns are also used in Motorkhana. Is it worth adding a link to the Wiki article on Motorkhana in the "See Also" section?203.46.95.243 02:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Not a U-turn

I removed the reference saying a bootleg turn was a type of U-turn. In a U-turn the car follows a path resembling the shape of the letter U. In a bootleg turn the car's path looks nothing like a U. A U-turn is not any 180 degree turn.The Goat 18:19, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And there I thought a U-turn was by definition usually a 180? Though obviously not a handbrake spin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

A U-turn is clearly a 180 degree turn where the end of the manouver happens at the same point along the road as the start of the manouver. But in a bootleg turn, the car spins around 180 degrees but the manouver finishes much further down the road. So you can't describe a bootleg turn as a U turn - although both are 180 degree turns. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"Controlled"

The term "controlled" is used a couple of times, as in "controlled skid". It's not controlled. It sounds to me like "controlled" is being used to soothe the reader. Don't worry - it's not an uncontrolled skid - it's under control. Tempshill 06:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

the article reads fine as it is, what is your point? Greglocock 10:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Certainly if you have half a mind towards what you're doing, it's reasonably controlled. Maybe not as precise as most other driving maneouvres (i.e. don't count on being able to use it to leap into small parking spaces without causing massive damage), but you won't end up in a ditch/wall/tree like you would in a normal "uncontrolled skid". It's somewhat reckless, but I've used it as a rapid way of turning my car 180 degrees in a confined road environment on discovering I've made a wrong turn when hurrying somewhere (instead of carrying on looking for a turnout to use, or engaging in a fifteen-point-turn). I've just gotta try and remember to drop it into 1st *before* the turn next time, as trying to pull away quickly in 2nd or 3rd gear when the car is stopped or rolling slightly backwards just isn't sensible (insofar as the entire thing could be judged to have any sense). In fact I'm not entirely sure why you'd choose 2nd for preference, as entry speeds much above what you can attain in 1st in an everyday car will be harder to control and potentially cause you to overshoot or be rolling backwards at some speed on exiting the move (though this may be beneficial in some extreme escape cases, where you may want to mash it into reverse instead). Easy to pull off to a basic level, difficult to master. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Anyone who wants to claim it as "uncontrolled" outright obviously has never watched a WRC championship race, where some tight turns practically require drivers to employ handbrake-assisted turns in order to negotiate them quickly (or in a single move)! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.180.56 (talk) 00:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dangers and damages?

Perhaps we should add a section on the threats to life, limb and property presented by the turn, likely problems and likely damage to the vehicle.--Primal Chaos 16:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do that then you should also edit thousands of other articles and include disclaimers about how they might be dangerous. Like walking. You could slip and hit your head and die while walking. etc. No I think the article is fine without your suggestion.The Goat 19:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... Possible dangers... 1/ If you go into it way too fast, and are trying it in an unsuitable vehicle, on a poor road surface or in obstacle-strewn surroundings, you will crash, with all the usual problems that come along with. 2/ You will strip some of the rubber off your tyres, unless it's wet. Allegedly there are other potential issues e.g. stress on the handbrake cable and the brakes themselves, forces placed on axles or particularly stub axles and suspension components they're just not designed for, and sloshing of fuel and motor oil. The latter are fairly minor, unless you have weak suspension/axles and large, grippy tyres on a high-grip road surface, as the whole idea is to lose traction and slide.

This sentence true?

" Vehicles with an automatic transmission can be modified to make a bootleg turn possible." -- I'm getting very sick and tired of popular notions, poor theories, and pre-determined ideas about FWD vehicles. I'd like to see a cited source on that because from watching http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daQNuKjTKv8. All you need, so I believe, is a handbrake. Colonel Marksman (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Handbrake turn.

Someone has again proposed a merge with Handbrake turn. We had a discussion about this a couple of years ago (see above) and there was no consensus to merge.

Speedy Reject: IMHO, nothing has changed since the last time we talked about this. There are enough differences in the goals, the techniques used and the history of these tricks that we can reasonably have two articles. I look at it like this:

• If the decision was to merge Bootleg turn into Handbrake turn then there would be complaints that a Bootleg turn can be achieved without the use of the handbrake.
• If the decision was to merge Handbrake turn into Bootleg turn then there would be an incorrect subsetting because a Bootleg turn is intended ONLY to produce a 180 degree turn within the width of a 2-lane road where handbrake turns can be used for turns of either less than or more than 180 degrees. There are bootleg turn competitions to see who can slide the car twice in a row through the narrowest gap (requiring two consecutive 180 degree turns) - and there are handbrake turn competitions to see who can park a car into the narrowest gap (requiring a 90 or 270 degree turn). Clearly neither technique is a subset of the other.
• It would perhaps be reasonable to merge both articles (and perhaps also the J-turn article) into an entirely new article encompassing all of the braking/skidding turn techniques - but it's really tough to come up with a single name that encompasses all of these driving tricks.

Since we already discussed it once before - a speedy reject seems the right choice here.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That was me. I did it because bootleg turn includes handbrake turn as an emphasized synonym in the intro. (They should be bold. I'll do that.) That seems to me to imply that the two are defining the same thing, or at least that "handbrake turn" would be a valid title to cover both pages. The physics and such are the same. The distinction I hear you making (of a 180 versus some other maneuver) seems pretty subtle. Unless the automotive community makes a strong distinction, I think these could all be grouped into one page titled handbrake turn and then have sections for particular maneuvers. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SteveBaker, these are essentially two seperate techniques, a handbrake turn by definition can only be carried out using the handbrake, whereas a bootleg turn can be done in whatever way you choose to lock the wheels, including a down-shift, power slide, scandinavian flick etc. I doubt we'd put drifting into a handbrake turn section just because it can be initiated in this way? Driver sam (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. DineshAdv (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we had "don't merge" consensus here for long enough - I'll remove the merge tags. SteveBaker (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What exactly is going on with the downshift, clutch, and throttle during this maneuver?

I am entirely confused. My guess is that this turn is essentially exactly the same thing as a 180-degree handbrake turn with only one difference: you use engine braking instead of brake pads. I can't find a description of how to do this kind of turn on the internet (although instructions on how to do handbrake turns abound). My guess is that you do the following: crank the wheel to one side, and roughly simultaneously shift into a lower gear. The inertia of the engine and/or the transmission suddenly slows down the drive wheels (engine braking), causing them to skid. This skidding enables the turn.

If this is what is actually going on then: A. This is extremely similar to a handbrake turn, the only difference being how you slow down the wheels. B. This is completely impossible in an automatic transmission car, unless it has "low gear" options. C. Doing this with a front-wheel drive car would be very similar to doing a foot-brake turn (a handbrake turn using the brake pedal) in a car with front-biased brakes (i.e. most cars). D. Doing this in a 4-wheel drive car would be very similar to doing a handbrake turn if the handbrake caused friction in all four wheels instead of just the rear two.

The article says "Using the handbrake to break the traction of the rear wheels is a lot simpler than trying to do this by power alone." This confuses me further. What does it mean "by power"? That makes me think they are flooring the throttle and causing the drive wheels to spin too fast and lose traction. That would be really cool, there are probably certain people with certain cars who can do that, but is that the traditional way? I doubt it. If doing this, the purpose of the downshift might be to provide enough torque to make the wheels spin out. No, doing the bootleg turn that way just doesn't make as much sense.76.118.39.39 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read the disccussions above. Most of your questions are answered. Greglocock (talk) 01:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have read the entire discussion above, and my questions are not answered explicitly. The answers may be alluded to, but I don't want to assume anything. Is the entire purpose of downshifting for engine braking? It just doesn't say - not in the article, not in the discussion, nowhere. The answer may be there in veiled terms, but in that case I missed it and I would appreciate it if you could point it out. I know a lot about how cars work and fixing cars, and I know mechanic jargon, but I don't understand some of the stunt-driver jargon. Also, because you already know the answer you might be able to see that the answer is buried in smaller hints in the text, whereas I would need a fuller picture before I would recognize it because I don't know what I'm looking for. Thanks.76.118.39.39 (talk) 16:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The way I'd do it in a RWD, starting from say 30 mph on a wet grass field, is to flick the tail out with the steering wheel and then floor the throttle so as to break traction, then keep the power on and opposite lock the car around. I think you could do it in an auto especially if you lock it in gear. So long as you keep the rear tires spinning you don't really damage the driveline. If the car doesn't have enough power to break traction at the rear you could use the handbrake to initiate the slide, and then apply the power, ie start it like a high speed handbrake turn then release the handbrake and hit the throttle. Maybe. Greglocock (talk) 04:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)