My IAM Experience
Discussion
waremark said:
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?It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.
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.
1) In the normal course of events people aren't approaching the hazard very quickly & aren't using a great percentage of the braking performance available.
2) As I said outcomes are key & are more universal, style isn't and there should be more individual freedom.
Why force someone to change if their inputs produce good consistent outcomes?
If they do decide they need change to eliminate a problem they don't like then the method they chose should be their choice, they after all are responsible for the subsequent outcomes.
Craikeybaby said:
But why do the IAM discourage heel & toe to those that can do it?
I'm not sure it does. I've heard plenty of people say they used H&T on AD tests and were neither marked down for it nor discouraged from doing it.It's not required and I don't think it's particularly actively encouraged, but that's not the same as discouraging it.
R0G said:
fitz1985 said:
As an example of the difference between interpretations, my observer was being observed on one of my sessions, and his observers queried why I changed down to an intermediate gear from 4th when approaching a traffic light - Instead of keeping in 4th like I had been advised by my observer. I stated that my car (a 1.3 cdti corsa at the time) would not allow me smoothly slow down to a halt in fourth without me riding the clutch for an extended period before the lights. His response to my great surprise was "You know your car better than I, good, Carry on".
Had I been the observer I would have suggested that you try dipping the clutch a little to keep it smooth even if for a longish period towards a stop or a very low speed That is not regarded as coasting but as keeping the vehicle form stalling or juddering
I do that all the time in every vehicle be it car or artic without any issues
What you were doing perfectly acceptably is using a 'covering gear' but providing it did not end up as sequencially dropping down through the gears then its fine
In these circumstances if we're going to have a gear engaged at all, I'd say the clutch should also be fully engaged, otherwise we might as well be in neutral as we approach red traffic lights. Staying in a high gear at very low revs. means we're not going to have any useful amount of acceleration capability available anyhow. I'm therefore inclined to advocate dropping down from (for example) 5th to 3rd gear, and moderating our speed with the aim of retaining that gear as long as possible. With good judgement (and a bit of luck) we might then be able to arrive at the green, and run through unhindered.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
p1esk said:
ROG - I might be misunderstanding you, but I don't see the merit of 'dipping the clutch a little to keep it smooth', because to me that sounds mechanically unsympathetic, without being of much practical help. In that situation you're not only introducung some degree of clutch slip, but also creating unnecessary wear on the clutch release mechanism. I've no doubt it would avoid the problem of judder and snatching in the transmission, caused by forcing the engine to go below idling speed, but it's not how I would prefer to do it.
It sounded odd to me too. During braking, either the clutch is up if it can be or down if it has to be. I can't see a benefit to it being somewhere in between.p1esk said:
I'm therefore inclined to advocate dropping down from (for example) 5th to 3rd gear, and moderating our speed with the aim of retaining that gear as long as possible. With good judgement (and a bit of luck) we might then be able to arrive at the green, and run through unhindered.
While I think there can be situations where a strict, IPSGA-esque, "brake in whatever gear you approached in, clutch down when necessary, don't change gear until you're ready to go" approach can be a hindrance, I don't really think approaching a red traffic light is such an example because you get so much notice of when it's going to be green.vonhosen said:
waremark said:
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?It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.
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.
1) In the normal course of events people aren't approaching the hazard very quickly & aren't using a great percentage of the braking performance available.
2) As I said outcomes are key & are more universal, style isn't and there should be more individual freedom.
Why force someone to change if their inputs produce good consistent outcomes?
If they do decide they need change to eliminate a problem they don't like then the method they chose should be their choice, they after all are responsible for the subsequent outcomes.
So, I hold on to the concept of MSPSL/IPSGA as a reasonable way of dealing with hazards - the methods used to alter P/S/G/A should be open to individual freedom.
Are you saying a student who goes IPsgsgsgA will be marked the same as one who accurately assessed the hazard and went IPSGA?
Vaux said:
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
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?It's fun (& you've offered no appreciative negative), so it's fine.
That's that sorted.
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.
1) In the normal course of events people aren't approaching the hazard very quickly & aren't using a great percentage of the braking performance available.
2) As I said outcomes are key & are more universal, style isn't and there should be more individual freedom.
Why force someone to change if their inputs produce good consistent outcomes?
If they do decide they need change to eliminate a problem they don't like then the method they chose should be their choice, they after all are responsible for the subsequent outcomes.
So, I hold on to the concept of MSPSL/IPSGA as a reasonable way of dealing with hazards - the methods used to alter P/S/G/A should be open to individual freedom.
Vaux said:
Are you saying a student who goes IPsgsgsgA will be marked the same as one who accurately assessed the hazard and went IPSGA?
That will be dependent on where they are being tested & by whom. I didn't claim that every school around the country would share my personal view.
I was on a speed awareness course this afternoon and interestingly the instructor (who is also an IAM instructor) recommended using 3rd gear in a 30mph - which I was criticised for doing during my IAM training.
This has also given me the kick I need to get in contact with the local group and get some more training, before going for my test again.
This has also given me the kick I need to get in contact with the local group and get some more training, before going for my test again.
I'll happily use 4th for long 30mph straights suited to cruise control, and 3rd for anything more dynamic (in a N/A two litre petrol)
However I'd be hesitant to recommend either to anyone as a rule, as it's marginal and subjective, and they probably know the car better. Encouraging them to think about it is a good idea.
However I'd be hesitant to recommend either to anyone as a rule, as it's marginal and subjective, and they probably know the car better. Encouraging them to think about it is a good idea.
Craikeybaby said:
I was on a speed awareness course this afternoon and interestingly the instructor (who is also an IAM instructor) recommended using 3rd gear in a 30mph - which I was criticised for doing during my IAM training.
Which way round was the criticism from your previous IAM instructor - did they want you in a higher gear or a lower gear? Given that the IAM expect you to be driving within the law, that there seems to be something of a trend in the driving public of prioritising fuel economy over safety and control, and that a lot of people do not slow down appropriately around hazards in built up areas, I would imagine an IAM observer's life consists more of suggesting that people use lower gears in 30s, but I get the impression you were advised to use a higher gear?Craikeybaby said:
Yes, IAM instructor said I should be using 4th gear in a 30 limit. Which I felt was wrong.
30mph in 4th gear is quite low rpm in a Mondeo 2.0TD -which tries its best to avoid tickover/stalling.I've been told by people that on speed awareness course they were advised to do 30mph in 3rd gear to help avoid the speed creeping up.
Whilst on an (non-Rospa) observed drive with a Rospa examiner I was advised not to do so. I told him why I had been doing it. The reasons were dismissed and I was told about fuel economy (marginal at best, I would suggest)) and other things.
I seemed to me an example of the arbitrary 'objectivisation' for the purose of making a rule of something that is actually fairly subjective.
ps. At the time I did suspect that had I been in 4th gear initially, I might have been told that I should have been in 3rd, as something to criticise... but I may have been wrong.
Here's another way of thinking about it - what rev range does the engine in your car like to be in? At what revs does it respond willingly? Is there a turbo? At what revs does it start to make a difference? Find that point, and aim to be somewhere either just below (not ideal for response) or just above (less ideal for economy) and use the gear that feels sweet at that engine speed.
I was out with someone who was a RoSPA tutor a little while ago, helping him to prepare for an advanced tutor test. He drives an auto Ford. Purely out of habit, if using the manual override, he would knock it out of auto, then drop it down a gear. Actually the box already dropped down a gear when put into manual mode, so he was dropping 2 gears. He'd never listened to the engine, or tried to feel if it was comfortable or not, he just automatically did his little routine. Once encouraged to actually think about it, and listen to the car, he had an "aha" moment, and I think he's happier to use his manual override now.
I was out with someone who was a RoSPA tutor a little while ago, helping him to prepare for an advanced tutor test. He drives an auto Ford. Purely out of habit, if using the manual override, he would knock it out of auto, then drop it down a gear. Actually the box already dropped down a gear when put into manual mode, so he was dropping 2 gears. He'd never listened to the engine, or tried to feel if it was comfortable or not, he just automatically did his little routine. Once encouraged to actually think about it, and listen to the car, he had an "aha" moment, and I think he's happier to use his manual override now.
I suggest that if you ask anyone a question about an Advanced Driving subject, and the answer doesn't begin with 'well, it depends...', then they're probably incorrect.
There comes a time in every young persons' life when they realise that their parents don't have all the answers and aren't infallible. It's one of the points that marks the start of adulthood and becoming responsible for your own thoughts and opinions.
There's a similar point in the process of becoming a better driver - the transition from following 'rules', to a much more thinking approach. It's probably more difficult for the pupils to make this transition when apparently so many of the teachers haven't managed it.
There comes a time in every young persons' life when they realise that their parents don't have all the answers and aren't infallible. It's one of the points that marks the start of adulthood and becoming responsible for your own thoughts and opinions.
There's a similar point in the process of becoming a better driver - the transition from following 'rules', to a much more thinking approach. It's probably more difficult for the pupils to make this transition when apparently so many of the teachers haven't managed it.
S. Gonzales Esq. said:
There's a similar point in the process of becoming a better driver - the transition from following 'rules', to a much more thinking approach. It's probably more difficult for the pupils to make this transition when apparently so many of the teachers haven't managed it.
Exactly.That sums up most of the debate on this forum.
There are those who like to rely on rules and there are those who like to question things.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff