Modern gearing + BGOL

[anonymous-user]

wst said:

Max_Torque said:

One point of order: If you drive a front wheel drive car, it's slippy (wet road or worse) and you are forced to do a max braking emergency stop (of course, your advanced skills mean this won't happen too often due to great observation and speed selection........ ;-) then get the clutch pushed (de-clutched) in immediately! (otherwise the ABS system is having to cope with the gear referenced inertia of the Engine and results in sub optimum tyre slip control, and a longer stopping distance)

So that explains it! I was taught in '09 (at 17) to dip the clutch when performing emergency stops unless the car didn't have ABS - I came up with the theory that the engine inertia helped prevent wheel locking (if the wheels lock at - nonsense numbers ahead - 80% of max braking force with clutch depressed, and at 95% with clutch not depressed, then they'd be locked for less time with the clutch up... was my theory anyway) but not that the ABS would struggle with engine inertia.

Appears I had it backwards!

The issue surrounds what happens AFTER the wheels "lock"!


Take a look at this graph:





It shows in a generic form, the shape and non-linearity of a tyres grip as a function of that tyres slip against the road. What it highlights is that for any given tyre, road and conditions, there is a given amount of slip (typically around 20% for a road tyre) at which the tyre can produce its highest tractive effort.

The aim of ABS is to keep the tyre as close to that level of slip for as long as possible during the braking event in order to provide the highest available tyre force and hence the shortest possible stopping distance (or the max directional authority)

Unfortunately, for various reasons too long winded and complicated to go into here, ABS systems cannot use pure linear control and in effect they operate in one of two main slip control states:

Slip less than max slip = increase braking

OR

Slip more than max slip = reduced braking



So, they either push harder, more hydraulic pressure on the brake pads, or push less (release the hydraulic pressure). This "cycling" is what you feel as the classic ABS judder through the pedal.


Now, a quirk of mathematics and averages says that the quicker you can cycle either side of the optimum slip target, the closer, on average, you will be to that target. ie, if the ABS took ages to respond to excessive tyre slip, by the time it started to reduce the excessive slip, the further away it would be. And as the first graph showed, the closer we stay to optimum slip, the quicker we stop.


So, lets now look at the factors that effect the rate of change of wheel speed.
As the vehicle deccelerates, its average speed across the road also falls. The ABS system attempts to keep the tyre turning slower than this average speed (by the required 20% or so) through out. But, as it is just using two point control it has to wait until slip becomes excessive before it releases brake pressure. (Luckily, in the case of a maximum stopping event, the driver naturally presses harder and harder the more they want to stop, especially in a real emergency!)

During the application of brake force stage, the speed at which the road wheel slows(as opposed to how fast the vehicle slows) is a function of the excess brake torque(ie brake torque > tyre capability) and the rotating inertia of the components being braked. As modern brakes are hugely powerful, there is always enough brake torque to very quickly slow the wheel down, and as slip gets excessive, so the ABS system then releases brake pressure.

What happens next is the important bit!

The only force that can accelerate the road wheel comes from the road itself. (brakes only act to stop a wheel from turning, they cannot actively turn it). For the road wheel to accelerate (reducing the excessive tyre slip), it requires the road sliding past under the tyre to do this. On a dry road, where there is lots of friction, the road can quickly apply a large force to the roadwheel, spinning it back up to speed, at which point the ABS can re-apply the brakes to slow it back down again.
But, on a wet, or worse icy road, there is hardly any force available to accelerate the roadwheel, meaning it takes a long time to speed up, and during that time tyre slip is non-optimal, and so you are not stopping as hard as you could be.

You can feel this yourself, by (safely) carrying out a test ABS stop in the dry and in the wet, and noticing the difference in the speed of pressure cycling. Modern systems get to around 10 to 15 Hz (cycles per second) in the dry, and that reduces to less than 10Hz in the wet, or as little as 1Hz when it's very slippy.

In a fwd car, if you don't dip the clutch, the engine and powertrain rotational inertia is added to that of the roadwheel, meaning the situation gets even worse. In extremis, like on ice, the road wheel can completely lock, stalling the engine, and there just isn't enough friction between the (icy)road and tyre to re-start it. Here, you just understeer straight off the road with both front wheels locked...........

[anonymous-user]

BTW, the advice to leave the clutch engaged for non - ABS vehicles (or rwd ones) is fairly sound.

With the clutch is engaged, the front wheels are "Locked together" by the friction in the gearbox, resulting in the forces applied from the engine braking load. This helps to prevent individual front wheels from turning at different speeds to some degree. This helps to improve yaw stability.

Also, the higher rotating inertia helps to prevent the road wheels locking immediately when too much force is applied by the driver to the brake pedal. As even the fastest driver is going to struggle to modulate the brake force more than 2 or 3 times a second, reducing the frequency at which the system naturally oscillates is an advantage in general.

[wst]

Yeah, I gathered all that from what you said, I was just throwing my old theory out there as comparison to the reality (and it seems to be partially right whoop!). I like the graphs and actual information though, don't quit info-dumping like that, it's good content!

Edited by wst on Saturday 15th August 14:31

I'd like to test out ABS stops now but I don't have ABS, d'oh.

Edited by wst on Saturday 15th August 14:32

[Nigel_O]

R_U_LOCAL said:

If you're just looking to improve your own driving, then you can be less rigid in your approach and take an interim gear whilst slowing if you're uncomfortable with dipping the clutch at a point which feels too early for you.

Heck, if you're looking in the right places and it's part of a planned approach, I'm not even bothered if you knock it into neutral before you brake to a stop - you won't be putting anyone in any danger and it might feel more natural to some drivers.

Quite possibly the most refreshing few lines of text I've read in AD for quite a while

I've always accepted that my own method of approaching a roundabout is not "by the book" and is probably a result of spending ten years on bikes before downgrading to four wheels. It's therefore technically "wrong", but at last, I'm now told above that I won't be derided by the rest of the AD community for my blatant refusal to comply with the Book. Here's what I do, and my rationale.

As I approach the roundabout (or pretty much any hazard where I probably have to stop, but may be able to go), I change down the gears, often one at a time, sometimes (especially in my daily diesel hack) two or more at a time. I accept that I'm doing more than one thing at once, but as I'm not braking heavily, the removal of drive from the wheels is never going to cause any issues. If I was braking so hard that changing gear would destabilise the car, I've probably got far bigger problems on my hands....

My rationale is that when / if I decide that its safe to continue onto the roundabout without stopping, I'm definitely in the right gear. "By the book", I'd now be faced with changing from 6th gear to whatever gear the engine needs to be able to pull well enough to make the manoeuvre safe - a second or so lost? Additionally, on a modern turbo diesel, I'd have to lift the revs to start spooling the turbo, another second or so? In my weekend fun car (petrol, lumpy cams, big laggy turbo), being in the wrong gear means that acceleration is measured with a sun-dial, so I'm always stirring the cogs to keep above 3k rpm.

As with the OP and other posters, if I left the car in 6th gear, I'd be dipping the clutch at about 25mph and coasting until I made the decision to stop or go - I HATE coasting.....

I guess what I'm really asking is why it is so frowned upon to be selecting gears before the hazard, rather than at the hazard. I understand that if I actually come to a stop, I will have changed gear five times instead of once, but at any point in "Nigel's system" I am always in the most appropriate gear for the circumstances (the "circumstances" being the probability of stopping, but the possibility of being able to continue). Give today's traffic chaos, any opportunity to keep going needs to be taken wherever its safe to do so.

What is the rationale behind Roadcraft's approach? Is it safety? I never feel even remotely unsafe doing it my way. It can't be mechanical, as we're no longer in the forties with non-synchro boxes and clutches that last 30,000 miles.

Picking up on an earlier comment of "get an auto", I'd suggest that the auto-box is only doing what I already do - its shifting into whatever gear is most appropriate for the road speed NOW, rather than in a few seconds time. And what about flappy-paddle "sequential" boxes like VAGs DSG and BMW's SMG? We're (neatly) back to the motorcycling system where going through the 'box sequentially is the only way....

[S. Gonzales Esq.]

Nigel_O said:

... As I approach the roundabout (or pretty much any hazard where I probably have to stop, but may be able to go), I change down the gears, often one at a time, sometimes (especially in my daily diesel hack) two or more at a time. I accept that I'm doing more than one thing at once, but as I'm not braking heavily ...

Does that mean you're applying and releasing the brakes several times on approach, or are you not rev-matching the changes? The alternative would be using heel and toe to brake and change at the same time.

Multiple gear changes also mean lots of time with a hand off the wheel.

Neither of these things are an issue if you're going slowly, but then if you're doing all this then you won't be able to go fast.

[smallgun]

Nigel_O said:

Quite possibly the most refreshing few lines of text I've read in AD for quite a while

I've always accepted that my own method of approaching a roundabout is not "by the book" and is probably a result of spending ten years on bikes before downgrading to four wheels. It's therefore technically "wrong", but at last, I'm now told above that I won't be derided by the rest of the AD community for my blatant refusal to comply with the Book. Here's what I do, and my rationale.

As I approach the roundabout (or pretty much any hazard where I probably have to stop, but may be able to go), I change down the gears, often one at a time, sometimes (especially in my daily diesel hack) two or more at a time. I accept that I'm doing more than one thing at once, but as I'm not braking heavily, the removal of drive from the wheels is never going to cause any issues. If I was braking so hard that changing gear would destabilise the car, I've probably got far bigger problems on my hands....

My rationale is that when / if I decide that its safe to continue onto the roundabout without stopping, I'm definitely in the right gear. "By the book", I'd now be faced with changing from 6th gear to whatever gear the engine needs to be able to pull well enough to make the manoeuvre safe - a second or so lost? Additionally, on a modern turbo diesel, I'd have to lift the revs to start spooling the turbo, another second or so? In my weekend fun car (petrol, lumpy cams, big laggy turbo), being in the wrong gear means that acceleration is measured with a sun-dial, so I'm always stirring the cogs to keep above 3k rpm.

As with the OP and other posters, if I left the car in 6th gear, I'd be dipping the clutch at about 25mph and coasting until I made the decision to stop or go - I HATE coasting.....

I guess what I'm really asking is why it is so frowned upon to be selecting gears before the hazard, rather than at the hazard. I understand that if I actually come to a stop, I will have changed gear five times instead of once, but at any point in "Nigel's system" I am always in the most appropriate gear for the circumstances (the "circumstances" being the probability of stopping, but the possibility of being able to continue). Give today's traffic chaos, any opportunity to keep going needs to be taken wherever its safe to do so.

What is the rationale behind Roadcraft's approach? Is it safety? I never feel even remotely unsafe doing it my way. It can't be mechanical, as we're no longer in the forties with non-synchro boxes and clutches that last 30,000 miles.

Picking up on an earlier comment of "get an auto", I'd suggest that the auto-box is only doing what I already do - its shifting into whatever gear is most appropriate for the road speed NOW, rather than in a few seconds time. And what about flappy-paddle "sequential" boxes like VAGs DSG and BMW's SMG? We're (neatly) back to the motorcycling system where going through the 'box sequentially is the only way....

I think I'm going to get shot down in flames after writing this but that's fine.
I also come from a motorcycle first background and having got use to a sequential gearbox still change down when approaching a hazard . At the time of changing from a bike to a car (1968) I was taught that engines had a usable band in the rev range and the idea was to stay within it when changing down so you change down when approaching a hazard, also to match engine revs to road speed and use the natural engine braking to do the majority of the slowing down. The other point was to make the gear changes and braking as smooth as possible so that the passengers were not thrown backwards and forwards in their seats. (this translates to keeping the car balanced).

Edited by smallgun on Sunday 16th August 11:52

Edited by smallgun on Sunday 16th August 11:56

[Nigel_O]

S. Gonzales Esq. said:

Does that mean you're applying and releasing the brakes several times on approach, or are you not rev-matching the changes? The alternative would be using heel and toe to brake and change at the same time.

Multiple gear changes also mean lots of time with a hand off the wheel.

Neither of these things are an issue if you're going slowly, but then if you're doing all this then you won't be able to go fast.

No - its one constant application of the brakes with no release between gear changes.

Rev-matching is pretty difficult on a turbo diesel, as the throttle response is quite 'fluffy'. Additionally, changing down a gear without rev-matching helps with deceleration (admittedly at the expense of a little extra clutch wear)

I understand that two hands on the wheel is always better than one, but its not like taking one hand off results in a 50% loss of control. If one hand off the wheel was such an issue, IAM should be advocating auto-boxes for everyone (along with the banning of radios, ventilation/temp controls etc)

[anonymous-user]

Nigel_O said:

Rev-matching is pretty difficult on a turbo diesel, as the throttle response is quite 'fluffy'. Additionally, changing down a gear without rev-matching helps with deceleration (admittedly at the expense of a little extra clutch wear)

Generally, on a modern diesel, the "rev response" in neutral is BETTER than for a Gasoline engine! This is because being unthrottled, a compression ignition engine can add fuel (and hence make torque) instantaneously on a cylinder by cylinder basis. A gasoline engine has to wait for the cylinders to fill with air when you open the throttle plate!


Like all things, the best technique depends on the drivers skill level and attention. I'm sure the AD techniques are based around a technique that anyone can do and still be smooth, hence the "get all your braking done at once" bit!. In reality, with the correct technique, you can do a limit brake, halfway round a wet bump corner, and downchange during that without disturbing the chassis at all. In fact this is what race drivers do at every corner in effect. The problem is that everyone isn't a racing driver, so the "system" cannot really recommend that one uses techniques appropriate only for that skill level.

if you are an experienced driver, and have developed your own techniques, that enable you to drive smoothly and safely, using what ever skill you have, then you should stick to those imo!

[ORD]

The 'by-the-book' way seems obviously worse to me than changing down into an intermediate gear that may well be good for the obstacle.

The most common example is braking for a roundabout. I will brake down to an appropriate speed for 4, 3 or 2 depending on the size of the roundabout and visibility. I then select that gear and am ready to either accelerate or brake more when I see whether or not I can join the roundabout. I don't see the sense at all in waiting until the last moment to choose an appropriate gear. Separating braking and gears would mean being in a gear you can't use at the moment when you take the decision to stick or twist. Why not select a useful gear before you have to use it?

[anonymous-user]

ORD said:

The 'by-the-book' way seems obviously worse to me than changing down into an intermediate gear that may well be good for the obstacle.

The most common example is braking for a roundabout. I will brake down to an appropriate speed for 4, 3 or 2 depending on the size of the roundabout and visibility. I then select that gear and am ready to either accelerate or brake more when I see whether or not I can join the roundabout. I don't see the sense at all in waiting until the last moment to choose an appropriate gear. Separating braking and gears would mean being in a gear you can't use at the moment when you take the decision to stick or twist. Why not select a useful gear before you have to use it?

I'm pretty sure it's a left over from the days where gears had massive gaps between then, took he-man to press the clutch, where you had a good chance of getting neutral instead of a gear, and where even a "quick change" took about 5 seconds and a double-declutch! Added to which brakes took a good shove, required two hands on the handwheel to deal with those horribly un-balanced drum setups, and if you locked up or failed to slow, starting to brake VERY early was a good idea all round.

These days we arrive at warp 9, nail the middle pedal, yab a paddle a few times at bingo, we are ready to go again!

However, as i always say, what ever technique you use, smoothness is still absolute! I don't care if you use your nose to brake and change gear with a donkey, as long as you are smooth, fully in control and it doesn't hinder your observation, planning or progress!

[ZedLeppelin]

Could I pass either an IAM or RoSPA test by being safe and smooth ie outputs or would my personalised version of what suits me best, be over ruled by IPSGA, BGOL and PP? I suspect the latter but it's good to dream.

What do you think?

[MC Bodge]

ZedLeppelin said:

Could I pass either an IAM or RoSPA test by being safe and smooth ie outputs or would my personalised version of what suits me best, be over ruled by IPSGA, BGOL and PP? I suspect the latter but it's good to dream.

What do you think?

A Rospa examiner 3 years ago told me that I needed to push-pull (where I had considered fixed hold to be fine) and to avoid bgol as it was a "racetrack technique" to get a Gold or Silver.

Form your own conclusions.

When pressed, by me, he did concede that there wasn't actually anything fundamentally wrong with my driving.

As far as I am concerned, being in the right gear is important. Overlapping shifting and braking (or not) is of no consequence and heel-toe is perfectly possible (different to braking cutting torque) in all of the Modern cars I've driven -VAG or otherwise.

[R_U_LOCAL]

Some of the old and well-worn misconceptions about systematic driving are starting to creep into this thread, so can I just make a couple of things clear?

Police driving schools, IAM etc. are not still teaching system because it was designed for 1930s cars with bakelite steering wheels, no power stering and wooden brakes. Nor are they still teaching seperation of braking and gearchanging because of some misheld belief that drivers should have both hands on the wheel as much as is humanly possible (although I have heard this explanation banded about by so-called "experts" on a couple of seperate occasions).

There are two fundamental advantages to keeping (wherever possible) the braking and gearchanging phases seperate.

The first is that it allows the driver time to make the gearchange smoothly by raising or lowering the revs as appropriate to match engine speed to road speed in the new gear.

The second is that it encourages a consistant mental approach to every hazard - the driver stays on the brakes until their speed is correct for the hazard before selecting the appropriate gear. In other words, if a hazard requires a reduction in speed from braking, the driver will remain on the brakes until they are certain their speed is correct. Only when they're sure their speed is correct will they know which gear is appropriate, so they then come off the brakes, select that gear and accelerate.

You have to remember that the police and the IAM are not, on the whole, teaching expert drivers. Nor are they always teaching enthusiasts or people who have an interest in driving. They're taking average drivers, whose previous driver training often only consists of licence acquisition, and attempting to teach them skills which will make them safer and more attentive drivers.

They're not trying to turn every student into a Hamilton or Loeb and it would be inordinately time consuming and difficult to try to tailor driver training to each individual student.

As a method of teaching drivers to get out of the habit of leaving everything to the last minute and then trying to do everything at once in the sort of brakegearchangesignalsteeraccelerate manoeuvre that we see thousands of times every day on the roads, I believe that system is an excellent tool and ideally suited to it's purpose.

Is it the only, single, best and most appropriate method of driving for every driver in every car?

No, of course it isn't.

If you have your own method of approaching hazards safely and negotiating them smoothly, you're perfectly happy with it, your passengers are happy with it and you're not constantly having near misses or being stopped by the police, then stick with it!

If you prefer changing down through every gear sequentially, or you prefer to heel & toe, or if you've developed your own safe and smooth approach, then by all means carry on.

It's a little different if you do undertake one of the recognised advanced driving courses which require the use of system. Examiners may not expect perfect application of system, but they will expect to see that a student understands system and can apply it fairly consistently, including the seperation of brakes and gearchanging.

But if you're not trying to pass a course and you're happy with your own system, then please continue. But don't write it off completely unless you have seen it demonstrated by someone who is competent and at least tried it yourself. In exchange, I'm perfectly happy to try your methods!

One other thing on system which someone else has already mentioned. I'm not sure it does perfectly suit cars with modern sequential semi-auto gearboxes. If these gearboxes are designed to allow automatically rev-matched gearchanges under braking, is it still desireable to keep the braking and gearchanging phases seperate as much as possible?

I'll have to give that one some thought, and I'll probably have to borrow one of these cars for a day or so before I make my mind up.

[ORD]

The answer to your last question is 'Definitely not'. I drove a PDK car for 2 years and found that by far the smoothest and safest thing to do was to tick down the gears 'manually' so that you were always in an appropriate gear at the point of deciding whether or not to go.

For me, that's the key thing that I don't like about the by-the-book way: contrary to what you imply, Reg, it involves precisely what you say is the bad habit - doing everything at once. Braking and changing down (or interspersing braking and changing down) involves less overlapping of safety critical tasks than does the standard method. If you leave the gear change until the last moment, it is then overlapping with the 'go or stay' decision and possibly steering. I can't see any good reason at all not to brake-change-(maybe) brake for most hazards.

[ZedLeppelin]

There are only two ways by which I can tell if my driving is safe. Either I have driven for decades without a single contact incident/ constant near misses/ people having to run in order to avoid me.... you get the picture. Or I need some form of assessment such as that offered by IAM or RoSPA because, as I have been told by the evangelists, I was "lucky". I'd hire a coach with your enlightened attitude, if I could turn back time.

Through sheer curiosity, I opted to voluntarily be taught and assessed by both the IAM and RoSPA. At no point was I ever told that as long as whatever I do is safe, that's fine, carry on, nothing to see here. Much as I'd wished they had. I was told that I was dangerous for BGOL, mis- holding the steering wheel for 3:15, not driving fast enough.....I passed one test with their top grade after all but a few observed drives.

Now I'm in complete agreement that the most efficient way to teach drivers to a certain standard, is to work to a system and as long as the person requires an altered technique due to bad outcomes, fine. The Met designed Roadcraft because their drivers couldn't chase and catch baddies without killing innocent people along the way, so they systemised their technique. Fine. But for those organisations to treat every single driver who doesn't drive exactly to IPSGA as dangerous hooligans, who are lucky to still be alive etc, is way out of line. So while I can see the validity of systemised approaches, as we agree, sometimes, if it's not causing any issues, the driver should be left alone to do it their way. It's likely that sometimes they do incidentally stumble into IPSGA and let's be fair, all drivers take and give Information, all except a few occasionally misjudge their Speed, their Gear and their Acceleration one way or the other. But the outcomes are hardly continual carnage, are they, except for rare occasions. Millions of drivers who haven't done anything harmful when driving are to understand that unless they can quote Roadcraft, that they're just plain lucky?!

The other thing I'd like to say is that the business model of getting every driver to be systemised, is bonkers because it simply won't happen. So instead, why not adopt your attitude towards this and let sleeping dogs lie unless alteration is required due to poor outcomes?

As you can see, I'm not grinding an axe because I accept that there are drivers who need to hold a steering wheel differently but only those for whom serious issues arise. Examine outcomes, it's a much more sane way to go about this.

[TartanPaint]

Good discussion.

I want to throw something else into the mix as an idea.

Hypothesis: On modern manual boxes, 6th gears which are ludicrously tall have been brought about by MPG and CO2 targets, and should be seen as economy cruising gears only.

How about the concept of something like this (as an improvement or modernisation of our own planning without any alteration to the system):

6th gear on some vehicles is an economy gear which compromises control of the vehicle in exchange for reduced fuel consumption, when it is safe to do so. It should not be used when a significant reduction in speed can be anticipated.

With that in mind, the very first step of our roundabout plan could be as far away as, "I can see a cluster of streetlights in the far distance indicating a roundabout on this route, which will require me to reduce speed significantly, so I'm going to stop using my economy gear at this time, and select 5th". Assuming, 5th can get you a lot closer to your "stop/go" point with a more acceptable amount of coasting, the problem is solved long before we have even started our final IPSGA for the hazard itself.

All we've done is pick a gear which is more appropriate for the information we have.

Any takers?

[300bhp/ton]

R_U_LOCAL said:

The answer to your question depends very much on what you want to achieve. If you're undertaking a course of instruction and looking to pass a test which requires application of the five-phase Roadcraft system, then, yes, you should remain in top gear whilst braking and then dip the clutch just as the revs drop to tickover speed.

Do people really teach to drive like this? Surely using engine braking is far superior in every way.

[R_U_LOCAL]

TartanPaint said:

With that in mind, the very first step of our roundabout plan could be as far away as, "I can see a cluster of streetlights in the far distance indicating a roundabout on this route, which will require me to reduce speed significantly, so I'm going to stop using my economy gear at this time, and select 5th". Assuming, 5th can get you a lot closer to your "stop/go" point with a more acceptable amount of coasting, the problem is solved long before we have even started our final IPSGA for the hazard itself.

All we've done is pick a gear which is more appropriate for the information we have.

Any takers?

Its certainly an option, depending on your speed, your car and your gear ratios. A bit like switching overdrive off.

I wouldn't take that option if my speed was into three figures, but at more moderate speeds it's definitely an option for those who don't like staying in a high top gear whilst braking.

300bhp/ton said:

R_U_LOCAL said:

The answer to your question depends very much on what you want to achieve. If you're undertaking a course of instruction and looking to pass a test which requires application of the five-phase Roadcraft system, then, yes, you should remain in top gear whilst braking and then dip the clutch just as the revs drop to tickover speed.

Do people really teach to drive like this? Surely using engine braking is far superior in every way.

You've lost me. Are you suggesting that engine braking is superior to braking with the brakes?

Seperation of braking and gearchanging is often one of the most difficult concepts for drivers to learn as it's significantly different to the methods adopted by drivers as they build up their own experience and skills after passing their test.

As I've already mentioned, it's not absolutely necessary (unless you're trying to pass a course which requires it) and there are a number of other approaches which work for different individuals.

I've just bought a GoPro with the intention of producing some new Youtube content. It'll be a couple of months before I have anything worth uploading, but one of the first will include a demonstration and explanation of the application of system to various hazards.

Hopefully I'll be able to demonstrate the benefits and show that, if performed correctly, system is far from the clunky, old fashioned and awkward approach that some posters seem to think it is.

[300bhp/ton]

I hadn't heard of BGOL until seeing this thread last week. Did a Google and it seems strange that you'd leave the car in the wrong gear, with your foot on the clutch pedal and only use the brake pedal to control speed.

Or to also leave it in the wrong gear and only use the brake pedal to slow down.

What is wrong with changing down and using the brakes?

[TartanPaint]

R_U_LOCAL said:

I wouldn't take that option if my speed was into three figures, but at more moderate speeds it's definitely an option for those who don't like staying in a high top gear whilst braking.

Good point. I've been testing this for a few days, and I really like it so far.

I have not however tested it from a starting speed of 3 figures, you'll be pleased to hear. Back in a tick, off to do some "research".


Looking forward to the gopro vids! Most of the videos I use for educational purposes are getting on a bit, and feel very dated. I think you'll make some half-decent revenue by being the go-to channel for up-to-date driving demos.