Why is it wrong to brake and down-change simultaneously?

[BertBert]

MC Bodge said:

BertBert said:

Specifically, the idea of IPSGA and non-overlapping has nothing whatsoever to do with vehicle dynamics, stability, control, braking or any of those things.

...but there are some people, albeit very few on this thread, that appear to think that it does.

Yes in my very broad ideological statement I have deliberately ruled out some nuances, perhaps some of the minor or fringe benefits. This is because the fine and detailed debate about the fringe benefits are completely out of kilter with the big picture and where the major gains are to be made. If you are driving around on the edge of grip all the time, then the minor nuance of vehicle dynamics becomes quite important. But to use my vernacular of earlier, it's out of scope.

One such out of kilter debate is the one regarding clutch wear as part of mechanical sympathy and the importance of rev-matching. That's all very interesting to debate, but it's a minor part of the benefits of the system. The system wasn't conceived as a way of getting several 100k miles from a clutch.

Take the whole handbrake ratchet thing. A point absurdly out of proportion to the benefit. It's a nice nuance, but irrelevant. Some of the finest machines in the world which embody mechanical sympathy rely in the daily, minute by minute, second by second use of a ratchet.

Bert

[MC Bodge]

supersport said:

You should do they are a blast, no power steering, no ABS and little servo and no electronics, just you three peddles and a steering wheel, add in sounds and smell to get drving heaven.

There's an 80s 911SC that I occasionally see in the works car park. It appeals more than the new ones that are dotted about.

supersport said:

The notion of the car trying to kill you by going backwards into any and all available hedges is largly just pub talk.

'largely'? I presume that it could catch you out/punish a mistake though?

[p1esk]

vonhosen said:

MC Bodge said:

I'd go along with that. It's not advanced from a car control point of view, but the observation is a skill/technique that every driver and rider should apply, whether they have an 'advanced' certificate or not.

So advanced is a misnomer all round then?

Getting hung up on the term 'advanced' might divert some of our attention away from the truly important stuff.

[p1esk]

BertBert said:

Some of the finest machines in the world which embody mechanical sympathy rely in the daily, minute by minute, second by second use of a ratchet.

Bert

True enough, but they are very lightly loaded, and they don't have much of an immediate safety implication.

Anyhow, I still prefer to avoid the ratchet racket when I apply the handbrake. Old fashioned thinking from an unthinker, I guess.

[vonhosen]

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

MC Bodge said:

I'd go along with that. It's not advanced from a car control point of view, but the observation is a skill/technique that every driver and rider should apply, whether they have an 'advanced' certificate or not.

So advanced is a misnomer all round then?

Getting hung up on the term 'advanced' might divert some of our attention away from the truly important stuff.

I've said before I don't like the term at all

[supersport]

MC Bodge said:

supersport said:

You should do they are a blast, no power steering, no ABS and little servo and no electronics, just you three peddles and a steering wheel, add in sounds and smell to get drving heaven.

There's an 80s 911SC that I occasionally see in the works car park. It appeals more than the new ones that are dotted about.

supersport said:

The notion of the car trying to kill you by going backwards into any and all available hedges is largly just pub talk.

'largely'? I presume that it could catch you out/punish a mistake though?

They will punish stupidity more than anything else, having committed the mistake that should see you in the hedge nothing actually happened; other than learning the lesson and preferring to not be in that position again. Their "reputation" makes you more aware of these things so you have to forget the "reputation" and enjoy.

At the end of the day you just have to be balanced and smooth with the inputs, they are incredibly capable.

[supersport]

BertBert said:

supersport said:

Given that there is NO way you should be driving like this or even close to it on the public road, how exactly unbalanced and out of control is overlapped braking going to make you???

And I think there you have the mis-conception. If you thought that the "IAM System" or even the "Roadcraft System" was a finely optimised tool for the very best of advanced driving, you would be completely wrong. It's a set of systematic, low-technology, sub-optimal steps. Made so anyone can do it to make a big improvement in safety.

Specifically, the idea of IPSGA and non-overlapping has nothing whatsoever to do with vehicle dynamics, stability, control, braking or any of those things. It's a way of getting the hazard approach sequence to happen early and systematically. So add in the observation and limit point techniques and you have a system which is a big step up. We'll find it a lot easier if we stop discussing it as the pinnacle of advanced driving. It's a million miles away. It's a system for getting Joe-ordinary to be a lot safer.

Bert

I don't see it as a pinnacle of advanced driving and largely agree with what you just said. I haven't undergone any training, but have read the books and take from them a way to think smarter about driving and to expand my awareness of what is going on around me on the road.

I always assumed that the "advanced" was relative to the standard learner experience, which barely equips drivers for the road.

For advanced car control I would be looking towards the like of Bernard Aubry and the chap at North Weald, his name escapes me.

[Technomad]

supersport said:

They will punish stupidity more than anything else, having committed the mistake that should see you in the hedge nothing actually happened; other than learning the lesson and preferring to not be in that position again. Their "reputation" makes you more aware of these things so you have to forget the "reputation" and enjoy.

At the end of the day you just have to be balanced and smooth with the inputs, they are incredibly capable.

Agreed. In a modern-era 911 (996, 997, 991) you'd have to be incredibly ham-fisted to spin it on a dry road - I actually find it difficult to imagine just how it could be managed. In the wet, I guess a really exaggerated mid-corner lift-off could at least get the stability control working but, even at my very moderate level of 911 competence, I've never had that happen, and it rains a lot hereabouts. I do find the 911 very confidence-inspiring in the wet because of the amount of feedback it gives. The ONLY 'moment' I've had was under power, in the wet, on what turns out to be a piece of road with a notoriously (but not obviously) slippery surface - oversteer and fairly major bit of fishtailing - enough to have me think, "WTF?", stop, get out, check tyre pressures and then walk the road to try to work out why it happened. I suspect that, in something with slower steering - ie any of my RWD BMWs - I might have been into the hedge.

[Vaux]

supersport said:

....and the chap at North Weald, his name escapes me.

Andy Walsh.

[supersport]

Vaux said:

Andy Walsh.

That would be the chap.

[MC Bodge]

supersport said:

They will punish stupidity more than anything else, having committed the mistake that should see you in the hedge nothing actually happened; other than learning the lesson and preferring to not be in that position again. Their "reputation" makes you more aware of these things so you have to forget the "reputation" and enjoy.

At the end of the day you just have to be balanced and smooth with the inputs, they are incredibly capable.

I like the sound of that. I sometimes drive an MGB which, although very different, I really enjoy for many of the same reasons.

[Toltec]

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

MC Bodge said:

I'd go along with that. It's not advanced from a car control point of view, but the observation is a skill/technique that every driver and rider should apply, whether they have an 'advanced' certificate or not.

So advanced is a misnomer all round then?

Getting hung up on the term 'advanced' might divert some of our attention away from the truly important stuff.

I've said before I don't like the term at all

Competent driving? Driving to the expected standard?

I started reading some advanced driving books before my provisional licence came through the letterbox so to me passing the test was always just the initial stage of learning to drive properly.

[p1esk]

Toltec said:

vonhosen said:

p1esk said:

vonhosen said:

MC Bodge said:

I'd go along with that. It's not advanced from a car control point of view, but the observation is a skill/technique that every driver and rider should apply, whether they have an 'advanced' certificate or not.

So advanced is a misnomer all round then?

Getting hung up on the term 'advanced' might divert some of our attention away from the truly important stuff.

I've said before I don't like the term at all

Competent driving? Driving to the expected standard?

I started reading some advanced driving books before my provisional licence came through the letterbox so to me passing the test was always just the initial stage of learning to drive properly.

Whatever 'learning to drive properly' means; but that has been my approach since the mid-1950s. I think you and I might be on the same wavelength, and if ever Von can bring himself to spend a bit of time with us, I've no doubt we could improve further. It's not vital though, we're probably coping pretty well already.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Toltec]

p1esk said:

Whatever 'learninriding drive properly' means; but that has been my approach since the mid-1950s. I think you and I might be on the same efficientlygth, and if ever Von can bring himself to spend a bit of time with us, I've no doubt we could improve further. It's not vital though, we're probably coping pretty well already.

Best w. ishes all,
Dave.

It means different things to each driver throughout their driving career, hopefully it is more of an attitude that you do not know it all.

I'll admit that for me it was originally about being able to be quicker without increasing risk. So observation and timing in order to use the road more efficiently, if anything the latter rather than speed being my emphasis. Other road users were simply hazards and obstructions to be avoided, switching to bikes did little to change this. It was only much later that I started to allow for my effect on other road users, I always tried to be reasonably polite, however I did not suffer fools gladly.

To veer a little back on topic, riding bikes is why I find coordinating my limbs to control a vehicle the natural thing to do. Try telling a helicopter pilot that you are only supposed to use one control at a time. Just because this is possible in a car does not mean it is the best way to do it even if it provides less distraction while learning the basics

[Fairbridge]

Avoid the BGOL, it's the mantra of advanced driving.

[Toltec]

Fairbridge said:

Avoid the BGOL, it's the mantra of advanced driving.

No it is the mantra of a specific system of driving and only necessary if you want to pass a particular test with full marks. As far as I am aware you can still pass the rospa test without using separation and pull push, you just won't get a gold.

[MC Bodge]

Toltec said:

Try telling a helicopter pilot that you are only supposed to use one control at a time. Just because this is possible in a car does not mean it is the best way to do it even if it provides less distraction while learning the basics

A very good point.


...and I can fully understand your post about your approach to driving and riding.

[watchnut]

I'm with the comments Bert/bert has made, being an ADI I see youngsters show why IPSGA is a good system to drive to on public roads, these are very different to blazing around a track.

By braking first, ideally in a straight line, then selecting the "gear for the speed", then turning, novice drivers maintain far more control of the direction of the car, keeping it to the correct side of the road. But, allowing time and space to do all of it, many leave it very late, rush it, get it wrong........loose car control

When they leave it very late, and try to brake, change gear, and steer at the same time, they often take the bend/corner too fast, select the wrong gear in haste (normally slotting it into 4th rather than 2nd.....this then makes it very interesting as the "anti stall" on the car squirts a wee bit of juice into the engine), and causes a "surge"......by now the car is understeering going across the road into the path of oncoming traffic, and the novice is frantically trying to turn the wheel......forgetting that his foot is back on the gas pedal, and trying to accelerate towards danger.....it makes it very interesting for the passenger...me!......it also shows them that they MUST allow time for slowing of the vehicle, selecting the correct gear for the bend/corner, then if neccessary loosing a wee bit more speed so that they can steer under control. For drivers with experience you may find you are doing this without thinking you are, but it shows the "IAM" way is good for learning basic car control.

I can't speak for motor bikes as i have not ridden one for about 10 years, but believe that when I did I did most of my braking straight, using mostly front brake, going down the gears as I did so, I never came off once. i don't know if my method of riding was the best, but it worked for me.

in cars I think the best way of dealing with bends/corners is summed up as

Slow in.....Fast out
Fast in.....st out!

[vonhosen]

watchnut said:

I'm with the comments Bert/bert has made, being an ADI I see youngsters show why IPSGA is a good system to drive to on public roads, these are very different to blazing around a track.

By braking first, ideally in a straight line, then selecting the "gear for the speed", then turning, novice drivers maintain far more control of the direction of the car, keeping it to the correct side of the road. But, allowing time and space to do all of it, many leave it very late, rush it, get it wrong........loose car control

When they leave it very late, and try to brake, change gear, and steer at the same time, they often take the bend/corner too fast, select the wrong gear in haste (normally slotting it into 4th rather than 2nd.....this then makes it very interesting as the "anti stall" on the car squirts a wee bit of juice into the engine), and causes a "surge"......by now the car is understeering going across the road into the path of oncoming traffic, and the novice is frantically trying to turn the wheel......forgetting that his foot is back on the gas pedal, and trying to accelerate towards danger.....it makes it very interesting for the passenger...me!......it also shows them that they MUST allow time for slowing of the vehicle, selecting the correct gear for the bend/corner, then if neccessary loosing a wee bit more speed so that they can steer under control. For drivers with experience you may find you are doing this without thinking you are, but it shows the "IAM" way is good for learning basic car control.

I can't speak for motor bikes as i have not ridden one for about 10 years, but believe that when I did I did most of my braking straight, using mostly front brake, going down the gears as I did so, I never came off once. i don't know if my method of riding was the best, but it worked for me.

in cars I think the best way of dealing with bends/corners is summed up as

Slow in.....Fast out
Fast in.....st out!

But doing it early or late is not defined by whether you overlap or not. Getting the speed right, the right distance from the hazard & getting everything you need done before arrival (function or outcome) is what's important, rather than how you achieve that (technique or style). IAM is being described above as 'basic' rather than 'advanced'. Should it be 'IBM'?

[MC Bodge]

vonhosen said:

But doing it early or late is not defined by whether you overlap or not. Getting the speed right, the right distance from the hazard & getting everything you need done before arrival (function or outcome) is what's important, rather than how you achieve that (technique or style). IAM is being described above as 'basic' rather than 'advanced'. Should it be 'IBM'?

It may be more correct to say that it is about safe driving, through the systematic use of good observation and basic vehicle control that avoids complexity. It's not about advanced vehicle control, extreme adverse conditions or limit handling. Nor is it about using the smoothest, most balanced, most flowing, integrated approach to driving -despite what some people might think.

From what I've been told by people who've done them this same system and approach is consistently applied to the more advanced Police courses and is taught as the 'one true way to drive', although Mr Vonhosen appears to offer a different view to this.

Edited by MC Bodge on Saturday 12th October 11:48