My IAM Experience

[SVS]

trashbat said:

You use the IAM insurer. Threads on here about it already, but in summary, you find the cheapest quote and then they beat that, with better cover.

+1. This ^

The IAM insurance broker is called 'IAM Surety'. They have always been pretty good, IME.

[Synchromesh]

vonhosen said:

What would so bad/problematic with that?

Possibly disadvantageous WRT smoothness (how many drivers H&T their way down?) and stability (alteration of brake bias and, in extreme cases, shift lock).

[SVS]

fitz1985 said:

Keep it up Craig ... (and lots more good stuff) ...

The biggest point should be that Advanced driving is a continual process, and as an advanced motorist you should always be looking to self assess your driving. I'm probably going to ask my local group if I can have a couple of observed runs in the new year to 'freshen up'

If you're going to 'freshen up', why not do so with a police driver through a Driving Assessment No test, just good advice from a police driver £35; one of the benefits of IAM membership.

Edited by SVS on Sunday 22 September 13:18

[vonhosen]

Synchromesh said:

vonhosen said:

What would so bad/problematic with that?

Possibly disadvantageous WRT smoothness and stability.

You can have those with any method. That's a matter of quality in implementation, not the chosen method.

[R0G]

vonhosen said:

That doesn't answer the question.

Cannot answer it without my question being answered first

Why do something that is not necessary for any reason other than doing it ?

[Synchromesh]

vonhosen said:

Synchromesh said:

vonhosen said:

What would so bad/problematic with that?

Possibly disadvantageous WRT smoothness and stability.

You can have those with any method. That's a matter of quality in implementation, not the chosen method.

Yes, but is it easier to make a clean rev matched gear change while not worrying about changing speed, or while trying also to brake smoothly at the same time?

Have you ever met a "regular" driver (i.e. someone with no interest in driving, 95% of the population) who rev matches and H&Ts? Which of those two skills would be inclined to introduce them too first?

I have no issue with overlap when used with H&T, but until I can do it with 100% reliability on the road, I'll stick to doing one thing at a time. As an aside, I H&T on track as when using more brake pressure, I find I have a more stable support to twist my foot about on.

[vonhosen]

R0G said:

vonhosen said:

That doesn't answer the question.

Cannot answer it without my question being answered first

Why not?
Does it break an IAM rule?

ROG said:

Why do something that is not necessary for any reason other than doing it ?

Because you prefer it is a good enough reason, just as you may prefer to drive somewhere rather than walk (it's not necessary to drive, you could have gone on the bus, walked, etc, but you chose to drive). It's called personal preference & in the absence of an appreciable negative impact why shouldn't it be a perfectly valid method & fine?

I went out for a ride on the bike. It wasn't necessary but it was fun.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 September 18:00

[R0G]

vonhosen said:

I went out for a ride on the bike. It wasn't necessary but it was fun.

Thats a reason = fun

[vonhosen]

R0G said:

vonhosen said:

I went out for a ride on the bike. It wasn't necessary but it was fun.

Thats a reason = fun

But it's not necessary.
Being told you have to do something without good reason isn't fun.

[R0G]

If down changing through every gear is fun then fine but its certainly not necessary so if not done for fun then why do it ?

If another says it is necessary then the question is why?

[MC Bodge]

Synchromesh said:

I have no issue with overlap when used with H&T, but until I can do it with 100% reliability on the road, I'll stick to doing one thing at a time. As an aside, I H&T on track as when using more brake pressure, I find I have a more stable support to twist my foot about on.

Constant practice works wonders. It'll become send nature.

[vonhosen]

R0G said:

If down changing through every gear is fun then fine but its certainly not necessary so if not done for fun then why do it ?

If another says it is necessary then the question is why?

The point is that if there is no appreciative negative (& no appreciative gain to consider change) then there is no reason to change the method.
It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.

Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 22 September 20:38

[Synchromesh]

vonhosen said:

R0G said:

If down changing through every gear is fun then fine but its certainly not necessary so if not done for fun then why do it ?

If another says it is necessary then the question is why?

The point is that if there is no appreciative negative (& no appreciative gain to consider change) then there is no reason to change the method.
It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.

Von, I've given you the negative, but I'll repeat for your benefit. In order to maintain smoothness and stability, engine and road speeds should be matched, so if you plan to brake while changing gear, this means you need to H&T. It's much more difficult to H&T well than it is to rev match off-brakes. The fact that most people haven't even learnt the latter means that's where we should concentrate our efforts. When was the last time you saw a member of the public (with no interest in cars or driving) perfectly H&T their way down the box every time they slowed?

[Craikeybaby]

But why do the IAM discourage heel & toe to those that can do it?

[BertBert]

Craikeybaby said:

But why do the IAM discourage heel & toe to those that can do it?

Because it's not part of the system. The IAM use a systematic method. That's the whole point.
Bert

[Synchromesh]

Craikeybaby said:

But why do the IAM discourage heel & toe to those that can do it?

Probably so they can be consistent in their advice, as 99.9% of people can't and would struggle to do it. Arguably (can of worms time) it has little benefit. I personally think it's a useful tool for the toolbox if done well, and it's a skill I need to perfect, even if I rarely see a need to incorporate it into my driving plan.

Another theory might be that the IAM syllabus is based on Roadcraft, and that is of course used for training police response drivers. Perhaps, and this is just a theory, it is thought that under the high pressure, high adrenaline situations that these drivers face, H&T is too tricky or leaves too much margin for messing things up.

[vonhosen]

Synchromesh said:

vonhosen said:

R0G said:

If down changing through every gear is fun then fine but its certainly not necessary so if not done for fun then why do it ?

If another says it is necessary then the question is why?

The point is that if there is no appreciative negative (& no appreciative gain to consider change) then there is no reason to change the method.
It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.

Von, I've given you the negative, but I'll repeat for your benefit. In order to maintain smoothness and stability, engine and road speeds should be matched, so if you plan to brake while changing gear, this means you need to H&T. It's much more difficult to H&T well than it is to rev match off-brakes. The fact that most people haven't even learnt the latter means that's where we should concentrate our efforts. When was the last time you saw a member of the public (with no interest in cars or driving) perfectly H&T their way down the box every time they slowed?

If you are braking & changing gear at the same time.
Another possibility is going down through the gears whilst not braking.
Either are viable & as such if people would rather do that it should be fine.

The point is it's reliable consistent outcomes that are important, not the method (& what's unnecessary is any further prescription for the sake of it).

[vonhosen]

BertBert said:

Craikeybaby said:

But why do the IAM discourage heel & toe to those that can do it?

Because it's not part of the system. The IAM use a systematic method. That's the whole point.
Bert

You can overlap legitimately within roadcraft (whether you rev on that down change or not doesn't alter that).
Banning something without good reason only tends to make anyone banning it less relevant, not more.
I suspect one of the reasons why heel/toe might be discouraged as 'a tool in the box' is because many doing the 'teaching' aren't very adept at it themselves.

[arfur daley]

I once got taken on a test drive by a customer to hear a noise on the brakes. He said "Im an advanced driving instructor" I nearly shat myself with his driving, I was gripping the seat thinking any minute now we are going to crash.

[waremark]

vonhosen said:

The point is that if there is no appreciative negative (& no appreciative gain to consider change) then there is no reason to change the method.
It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.

VH, do you really believe that in the normal course of events for normal folk trying to drive well it is perfectly good practise to change down sequentially through the box on the approach to a hazard? You have completely dumped the 'brakes to slow, gears to go' approach?

Is there no absolute sense in which it makes more sense to keep both hands on the wheel until you are driving more slowly, to do one thing at a time, and not to make unnecessary and irrelevant gear changes? And then of course there is the matter of avoiding non-rev matched gear changes, which are the norm for normal drivers who do change down through the box.

Even when using H & T, I and most of my expert driving friends generally avoid intermediate gear changes in road driving.