Discussion
hugh_ said:
So is the correct way to approach a hazard requiring you to stop to: find an optimum balance of dipping the clutch (coasting if you like) and taking an intermediate gear as appropriate to the vehicle and circumstances?
The recommended way of stopping (as in red traffic lights) is to stop in the gear in which you are approaching the stop line.
- the "take an intermediate gear" option is required for SOME vehicles approaching SOME hazards
(Example = Passat Tdi, 70 in 6th gear, approaching roundabout on dual carriageway)
The latter is not meant as an opt-out for someone learning NOT to
"change down through the box when stopping".
1950trevorP said:
The latter is not meant as an opt-out for someone learning NOT to
"change down through the box when stopping".
Could you explain why I would want to learn NOT to "change down through the box when stopping"? Why be so prescriptive?"change down through the box when stopping".
Let's think about three scenarios...
1) Everyday driving, good road conditions, braking gently on the approach to a hazard. What's the risk in this situation? Is it a risk of losing control as a result of instability due to a mis-timed gearchange? Is it a risk of losing control as a result of having only one hand on the wheel? Or is it a risk of something unexpected happening - something that's impossible to predict or anticipate - during that braking phase that will require evasive manoeuvering? In this situation, there is absolutely no danger of loss of control due to BGOL. But if something were to happen, I'd want to be in full control of my car, and that means being in the right gear for my speed, and that means BGOL.
2) Everyday driving, very poor road consitions (icy), braking gently on the approach to a hazard. What's the risk in this situation? Is it a risk of losing control as a result of instability due to a mis-timed gearchange? Is it a risk of losing control as a result of having only one hand on the wheel? Or is it a risk of something unexpected happening - something that's impossible to predict or anticipate - during that braking phase that will require evasive manoeuvering? In this situation the major risk is loss of control due to BGOL due to the adverse road conditions, and the additional risk from an unexpected event becomes secondary. That means two-hands on the wheel throughout, no BGOL.
3) Emergency braking from speed, good road conditions. In this situation I couldn't care less about being in an appropriate gear. Two hands on the wheel to ensure good control at maximum braking.
I can see the benefits of avoiding BGOL, but only in extreme situations. There's no way I'll stop BGOL'ing in good conditions because - in my risk assessment - the benefits of BGOL out-weigh the disbenefits. If it's snowing I'll take a different approach.
RT106 said:
Could you explain why I would want to learn NOT to "change down through the box when stopping"? Why be so prescriptive?
No. If you are not interested in the advantages of "The System"
and are taking the "prove it to me" stance, I cannot.
There are plenty of people who will attempt that task -
Julian Smith of Ride Drive being one of them:-
http://www.ridedrive.co.uk/tipoffs19.htm
- this may also help:- http://artofgearchanging.blogspot.com/
Edited by 1950trevorP on Tuesday 18th March 14:41
Edited by 1950trevorP on Tuesday 18th March 14:53
1950trevorP said:
No.
If you are not interested in the advantages of "The System"
and are taking the "prove it to me" stance, I cannot.
I just asked a question...?! Discussions tend not to be very interesting when deviation from the accepted view is dismissed without a counter argument. Heaven forbid someone who dares to think slightly differently or questions convention.If you are not interested in the advantages of "The System"
and are taking the "prove it to me" stance, I cannot.
In response to your article, I am quite capable of undertaking smooth heel-and-toe gearchanges that do not unbalance the car. Why, therefore, should I spend time in an inappropriate gear?
Edited by RT106 on Tuesday 18th March 16:44
RT106 said:
1950trevorP said:
No.
If you are not interested in the advantages of "The System"
and are taking the "prove it to me" stance, I cannot.
I just asked a question...?! Discussions tend not to be very interesting when deviation from the accepted view is dismissed without a counter argument. Heaven forbid someone who dares to think slightly differently or questions convention.If you are not interested in the advantages of "The System"
and are taking the "prove it to me" stance, I cannot.
In response to your article, I am quite capable of undertaking smooth heel-and-toe gearchanges that do not unbalance the car. Why, therefore, should I spend time in an inappropriate gear?
If you want to join a club, then you'll have to pass the test to their element requirement standards.
If you don't want to join a club, then you don't have to worry about their element requirement standards.
If you want to be as good as you can be then keep searching for what offers optimal performance for you. In some areas that may be very close to a clubs element requirement standards & in others it may be very different.
The most important thing though is that you keep thinking about your driving & continually strive for improvement.
Of course you'd have to remember though that most talk of advanced driving on this part of PH is going to be in relation to IAM/RoADA test element requirements & standards (whether you agree with them or not & they are unlikely to change because an individual outside the club disagrees with them).
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 18th March 15:51
vonhosen said:
Nobody's forcing you to though are they ?
That's a very good point!And you're right, as I have no intention of signing up to the IAM/ROSPA way of thinking I shouldn't try to bait those who have.
This forum is a weird thing though. I don't spend a great deal of time on these things, but this is the only forum (or sub-forum) I've experienced where an opinion that's different to the norm is dismissed so abruptly. Why be so protective?
RT106 said:
vonhosen said:
Nobody's forcing you to though are they ?
That's a very good point!And you're right, as I have no intention of signing up to the IAM/ROSPA way of thinking I shouldn't try to bait those who have.
This forum is a weird thing though. I don't spend a great deal of time on these things, but this is the only forum (or sub-forum) I've experienced where an opinion that's different to the norm is dismissed so abruptly. Why be so protective?
I don't care what anyone outside the clubs I belong to does, providing it's safe & legal.
Interesting that a question of "the system" (albeit put in a direct tone) should be met with such a response!
Thare are two core arguments for it. One is that it is part of "the system" and the very strength of the system is in its systematic-ness. This means it can be taught, understood and tested easily. The other core argument is about how specific elements came to be part of the system and (mainly) what the benefits are.
So take the BGOL chestnut:
1. it's part of the system, so if you want to do Roadcraft/IAM/ROSPA it's there to be learnt
2. it has a very dodgy origin from cars with cable brakes that needed both hands to keep in a straight line when the brakes where applied
3. it has benefits...some of which are to do with not wasting effort of selecting intermediate gears, keeping better control of the steering with two hands, it forces better planning as you have to plan ahead to work out your gear change plan rather than just reacting to a speed decrease and dropping a gear. There are more benefits, but you get the picture.
However, no civilised, rational, intellectual persion wants to be a part of a take-it or leave it regime. So to debate the point (at RT106 has rightly done), what are the disbenefits of the BGOL regime or the benefits of incremental changing?
Well one benefit is that an iteractive approach (going through the gears going down) is arguably more failsafe. You are more likely to be in the right gear for the speed.
So you are braking for a hazard in 5th gear from 50mph. You stay in 5th as you are still braking. At a point when you are doing 20mph, something happens that you didn't see or anticipate that means that you want to accelerate to get out of trouble. Tough, you are in the wrong gear to accelerate at 20 and have to change gear before doing so, thus losing valuable seconds and you die. If you had gone down the box, you would have been in the right gear and could've accelerated out of the way. Contrived example, but it makes a debate which is what open-minded people do!
HTH
Bert
PS please don't simply argue that the example can never happen. It's supposed to be part of a debate!
Thare are two core arguments for it. One is that it is part of "the system" and the very strength of the system is in its systematic-ness. This means it can be taught, understood and tested easily. The other core argument is about how specific elements came to be part of the system and (mainly) what the benefits are.
So take the BGOL chestnut:
1. it's part of the system, so if you want to do Roadcraft/IAM/ROSPA it's there to be learnt
2. it has a very dodgy origin from cars with cable brakes that needed both hands to keep in a straight line when the brakes where applied
3. it has benefits...some of which are to do with not wasting effort of selecting intermediate gears, keeping better control of the steering with two hands, it forces better planning as you have to plan ahead to work out your gear change plan rather than just reacting to a speed decrease and dropping a gear. There are more benefits, but you get the picture.
However, no civilised, rational, intellectual persion wants to be a part of a take-it or leave it regime. So to debate the point (at RT106 has rightly done), what are the disbenefits of the BGOL regime or the benefits of incremental changing?
Well one benefit is that an iteractive approach (going through the gears going down) is arguably more failsafe. You are more likely to be in the right gear for the speed.
So you are braking for a hazard in 5th gear from 50mph. You stay in 5th as you are still braking. At a point when you are doing 20mph, something happens that you didn't see or anticipate that means that you want to accelerate to get out of trouble. Tough, you are in the wrong gear to accelerate at 20 and have to change gear before doing so, thus losing valuable seconds and you die. If you had gone down the box, you would have been in the right gear and could've accelerated out of the way. Contrived example, but it makes a debate which is what open-minded people do!
HTH
Bert
PS please don't simply argue that the example can never happen. It's supposed to be part of a debate!
BertBert said:
Interesting that a question of "the system" (albeit put in a direct tone) should be met with such a response!
Thare are two core arguments for it. One is that it is part of "the system" and the very strength of the system is in its systematic-ness. This means it can be taught, understood and tested easily. The other core argument is about how specific elements came to be part of the system and (mainly) what the benefits are.
So take the BGOL chestnut:
1. it's part of the system, so if you want to do Roadcraft/IAM/ROSPA it's there to be learnt
2. it has a very dodgy origin from cars with cable brakes that needed both hands to keep in a straight line when the brakes where applied
3. it has benefits...some of which are to do with not wasting effort of selecting intermediate gears, keeping better control of the steering with two hands, it forces better planning as you have to plan ahead to work out your gear change plan rather than just reacting to a speed decrease and dropping a gear. There are more benefits, but you get the picture.
However, no civilised, rational, intellectual persion wants to be a part of a take-it or leave it regime. So to debate the point (at RT106 has rightly done), what are the disbenefits of the BGOL regime or the benefits of incremental changing?
Well one benefit is that an iteractive approach (going through the gears going down) is arguably more failsafe. You are more likely to be in the right gear for the speed.
So you are braking for a hazard in 5th gear from 50mph. You stay in 5th as you are still braking. At a point when you are doing 20mph, something happens that you didn't see or anticipate that means that you want to accelerate to get out of trouble. Tough, you are in the wrong gear to accelerate at 20 and have to change gear before doing so, thus losing valuable seconds and you die. If you had gone down the box, you would have been in the right gear and could've accelerated out of the way. Contrived example, but it makes a debate which is what open-minded people do!
HTH
Bert
PS please don't simply argue that the example can never happen. It's supposed to be part of a debate!
Didn't I say I don't care as long as people are safe & legal ?Thare are two core arguments for it. One is that it is part of "the system" and the very strength of the system is in its systematic-ness. This means it can be taught, understood and tested easily. The other core argument is about how specific elements came to be part of the system and (mainly) what the benefits are.
So take the BGOL chestnut:
1. it's part of the system, so if you want to do Roadcraft/IAM/ROSPA it's there to be learnt
2. it has a very dodgy origin from cars with cable brakes that needed both hands to keep in a straight line when the brakes where applied
3. it has benefits...some of which are to do with not wasting effort of selecting intermediate gears, keeping better control of the steering with two hands, it forces better planning as you have to plan ahead to work out your gear change plan rather than just reacting to a speed decrease and dropping a gear. There are more benefits, but you get the picture.
However, no civilised, rational, intellectual persion wants to be a part of a take-it or leave it regime. So to debate the point (at RT106 has rightly done), what are the disbenefits of the BGOL regime or the benefits of incremental changing?
Well one benefit is that an iteractive approach (going through the gears going down) is arguably more failsafe. You are more likely to be in the right gear for the speed.
So you are braking for a hazard in 5th gear from 50mph. You stay in 5th as you are still braking. At a point when you are doing 20mph, something happens that you didn't see or anticipate that means that you want to accelerate to get out of trouble. Tough, you are in the wrong gear to accelerate at 20 and have to change gear before doing so, thus losing valuable seconds and you die. If you had gone down the box, you would have been in the right gear and could've accelerated out of the way. Contrived example, but it makes a debate which is what open-minded people do!
HTH
Bert
PS please don't simply argue that the example can never happen. It's supposed to be part of a debate!
you did VH, but it's just not that useful an answer in the context. Where RT106 has questioned (possibly in a direct manner not encouraging debate) the BGOL paradigm, he/she has been met with several unhelpful responses.
In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
BertBert said:
you did VH, but it's just not that useful an answer in the context. Where RT106 has questioned (possibly in a direct manner not encouraging debate) the BGOL paradigm, he/she has been met with several unhelpful responses.
In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
It's been done to death here & elsewhere (pros & cons), I've nothing new to add to that debate.In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
As for your earlier example of being caught in the wrong gear by something suddenly happening, it's just as likely then that you could be caught at the moment of changing & between gears when something happens if you are habitually going down through them. I also find it comparatively very rare (compared to having to brake for it) that I have to accelerate out of trouble.
RT106 said:
I just asked a question...?! Discussions tend not to be very interesting when deviation from the accepted view is dismissed without a counter argument. Heaven forbid someone who dares to think slightly differently or questions convention.
The simple answer is because it's easier and simpler. Things which are easier tend to go wrong less when the driver is ordinary or the circumstances extraordinary. It helps to drill people who need to drive fast, but who aren't really interested in driving and aren't (like your goodself and all assembled PHers) driving Gods who can effortlessly h'n't 100% of the time in all cars and circumstances, to drive safely.
I tend to separate in an unfamilar car for several reasons
-- it gives me time to learn the gear box and get rev matching closer
-- it is easier in an unfamiliar pedal layout
-- it gives me time to feel the cars weight and balance approaching a hazard, without doing other things
I tend to overlap in my car because:-
-- I am lazy
-- I drive too fast into corners and don't allow myself time to separate
-- Because I'm lazy.
7db said:
I tend to separate in an unfamilar car for several reasons
-- it gives me time to learn the gear box and get rev matching closer
-- it is easier in an unfamiliar pedal layout
-- it gives me time to feel the cars weight and balance approaching a hazard, without doing other things
I tend to overlap in my car because:-
-- I am lazy
-- I drive too fast into corners and don't allow myself time to separate
-- Because I'm lazy.
Totally with 7db on this except that I also overlap in my car because I do like to be able to accelerate at any time. The only big accident I have ever been in was because a drunk driver came through a red light and I couldn't get out the way fast enough. I think leaving the option open to accelerate or brake gives you an extra route out of the danger.-- it gives me time to learn the gear box and get rev matching closer
-- it is easier in an unfamiliar pedal layout
-- it gives me time to feel the cars weight and balance approaching a hazard, without doing other things
I tend to overlap in my car because:-
-- I am lazy
-- I drive too fast into corners and don't allow myself time to separate
-- Because I'm lazy.
vonhosen said:
BertBert said:
you did VH, but it's just not that useful an answer in the context. Where RT106 has questioned (possibly in a direct manner not encouraging debate) the BGOL paradigm, he/she has been met with several unhelpful responses.
In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
It's been done to death here & elsewhere (pros & cons), I've nothing new to add to that debate.In the context of the AD/IAM/Rospa/Roadcraft system(s) what do you think are the pros and cons of the method avoiding BGOL (apart from where safety dictates otherwise), versus a method that embraces changing down the box during braking?
Bert
As for your earlier example of being caught in the wrong gear by something suddenly happening, it's just as likely then that you could be caught at the moment of changing & between gears when something happens if you are habitually going down through them. I also find it comparatively very rare (compared to having to brake for it) that I have to accelerate out of trouble.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Edited by p1esk on Tuesday 25th March 16:41
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff