low power overtaking
Discussion
Following on from this thread:
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=134598&f=10&h=0
Several folk have questioned overtaking technique in a low power vehicle. I hesitate to give overtaking advice in places like this because it's highly dangerous if misunderstood. So please take that as a health warning.
But this is my normal technique in a low powered vehicle.
1) Follow at about 1 to 1.5 seconds. Select the best gear.
2) When clear pull out to the right for a good look.
3) If clear, accelerate
4) Continue to assess that the road is clear and that the overtake is "on".
5) At some point (the point of committment) you have to decide if you're going to brake and return to the left of if you're actually going to overtake. This point is defined by how much braking you're prepared to accept. I recommend only modest braking. That pushes the point of committment further back, and in turn that means you need more clear road to complete the overtake.
6) Continue to accelerate past and move back smoothly.
7) If there's oncoiming traffic I count the interval between fully returning to the left and the oncomer passing. This is a judgement calibration check. Anything under 2 seconds is dodgy.
The two absolutely critical differenes between this technique and the "obvious" "lunge and swerve" technique are:
1) all the acceleration is on the right
2) the point of committment is on the right.
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=134598&f=10&h=0
Several folk have questioned overtaking technique in a low power vehicle. I hesitate to give overtaking advice in places like this because it's highly dangerous if misunderstood. So please take that as a health warning.
But this is my normal technique in a low powered vehicle.
1) Follow at about 1 to 1.5 seconds. Select the best gear.
2) When clear pull out to the right for a good look.
3) If clear, accelerate
4) Continue to assess that the road is clear and that the overtake is "on".
5) At some point (the point of committment) you have to decide if you're going to brake and return to the left of if you're actually going to overtake. This point is defined by how much braking you're prepared to accept. I recommend only modest braking. That pushes the point of committment further back, and in turn that means you need more clear road to complete the overtake.
6) Continue to accelerate past and move back smoothly.
7) If there's oncoiming traffic I count the interval between fully returning to the left and the oncomer passing. This is a judgement calibration check. Anything under 2 seconds is dodgy.
The two absolutely critical differenes between this technique and the "obvious" "lunge and swerve" technique are:
1) all the acceleration is on the right
2) the point of committment is on the right.
Quote
"Select the best gear."
Unquote
Probably the most important part of the advice.
Too often, drivers seem to think they can overtake just by wellying the the throttle in their current gear.
Also seems to be a common fault amongst Auto drivers who stick in D all the time.
Piccy mate
"Select the best gear."
Unquote
Probably the most important part of the advice.
Too often, drivers seem to think they can overtake just by wellying the the throttle in their current gear.
Also seems to be a common fault amongst Auto drivers who stick in D all the time.
Piccy mate
That does not account for the sad gits that when you try and overtake them put their foot down and close the gap. happened last night to me he is doing 50 nice gap in front of him. i try and overtake and he speeds up making it unsafe and I had to cut in in front of him T
R
>> Edited by rviant on Friday 5th November 13:08
R >> Edited by rviant on Friday 5th November 13:08
leosayer said:
Now, what about overtaking method in a high-powered car??
Much the same, only faster.
The key point is that you pull out and THEN accelerate.
I shudder when I think of my old technique of 15 years ago as a young driver when I'd accelerate hard at the car in front as I got to a known overtaking spot and then either a) swerve out if it was clear or b) slam on the brakes if it was not.
Christ, it's a wonder I'm alive today with that kind of lame-brained technique.
Fortunately my father was horrified when it slipped out that this was what I was doing and taught me how to overtake properly.
The short of it is that if your car is too underpowered to overtake without using "lunge and swerve" then you do not have the ability to overtake at that point. So don't.
>> Edited by JonRB on Friday 5th November 13:09
leosayer said:
Thanks Paul, I was just going to ask what the correct method was.
Now, what about overtaking method in a high-powered car??
Someone once gave me some advice, which I could not understand, when I first got my rice rocket.
"watch for your left wing"
I thought 'if I'm overtaking, surely my right wing is in danger of being clipped by the oncoming car'.
The first time I went for a proper overtake, I did the usual run-up technique (whilst checking mirrors to make sure no-one was overtaking me), but I totally underestimated my car. I had to turn out rather sharply to avoid the car in front.
Lesson learnt Edited to add: I completely agree with JonRB
>> Edited by supraman2954 on Friday 5th November 13:12
leosayer said:
Thanks Paul, I was just going to ask what the correct method was.
Now, what about overtaking method in a high-powered car??
This is my normal technique in a high powered vehicle.
1) Follow at about 0.75 to 1 seconds. Select the best gear.
2) When clear pull out to the right for a good look.
3) If clear, commit to the overtake and accelerate briskly.
4) Continue to accelerate past and move back smoothly.
5) If there's oncoming traffic I count the interval between fully returning to the left and the oncomer passing. This is a judgement calibration check. Anything under 2 seconds is dodgy.
The following distance is more variable in a high powered vehicle. I might move up to 0.5 seconds immediately before I anticipate a good opportunity, but would drop back quite a bit during periods of "no go".
rviant said:
That does not account for the sad gits that when you try and overtake them put their foot down and close the gap. happened last night to me he is doing 50 nice gap in front of him. i try and overtake and he speeds up making it unsafe and I had to cut in in front of him T
That's why you need superior firepower.
It would have been allright in the F Car i would have just blasted past him and the car in front. But in a Vito van its not quit the same.
There was a clear gap to overtake and nothing coming for about 3/4 mile. But said TR thinks I am invading his space. How dare I overtake him.
People like that are a danger to overs.
If people were more courteous, overtaking wouldn't be as dangerous. If someone wants to get past me I actually backoff as they are overtaking me. the less time someone is overtaking me the less danger we both are in. all IMHO
There was a clear gap to overtake and nothing coming for about 3/4 mile. But said T
R thinks I am invading his space. How dare I overtake him. People like that are a danger to overs.
If people were more courteous, overtaking wouldn't be as dangerous. If someone wants to get past me I actually backoff as they are overtaking me. the less time someone is overtaking me the less danger we both are in. all IMHO
piccy mate said:
Quote
"Select the best gear."
Unquote
Probably the most important part of the advice.
Shame it's in the wrong place in the Roadcraft system of car control. They say: "run the system twice", but they're fudging.
[edited to clarify ... it's in the wrong place for overtaking - it's in the right place for most driving]
>> Edited by safespeed on Friday 5th November 13:32
Hmmm...
My technique is a bit different.
When I'm approaching a known zone of opportunity while behind a slow moving vehicle I always hang back at about 5 car lengths and begin to accelerate just before the corner that exposes the overtaking road ends.
So in other words I accelerate before I know whether or not I can make the overtake.
If it's clear, I carry on and by the time I'm on the other side of the road there is a large speed differential and consequently the amount of time I spend on the wrong side of the road is severely reduced.
But I always anticipate moderate braking in the event the road is not clear and I always time the acceleration and judge the initial distance between cars so that in the event the road is not clear, I have ample space to brake.
Is this wrong?
My technique is a bit different.
When I'm approaching a known zone of opportunity while behind a slow moving vehicle I always hang back at about 5 car lengths and begin to accelerate just before the corner that exposes the overtaking road ends.
So in other words I accelerate before I know whether or not I can make the overtake.
If it's clear, I carry on and by the time I'm on the other side of the road there is a large speed differential and consequently the amount of time I spend on the wrong side of the road is severely reduced.
But I always anticipate moderate braking in the event the road is not clear and I always time the acceleration and judge the initial distance between cars so that in the event the road is not clear, I have ample space to brake.
Is this wrong?
This is absolutley the main reason why low powered small cars are the most dangerous cars on the road.
There light weight(in order for the miniscule power they do have to make any kind of accelerative impact)means they're made of steel thinner than tissue paper, and will crumple irrepairably if they impact with anything heavier than a coke can.
Ok so they don't take up a lot of space and are kinder to the environment, but are death traps to drivers and passengers.
Give me a big car with lots of torque any day.
There light weight(in order for the miniscule power they do have to make any kind of accelerative impact)means they're made of steel thinner than tissue paper, and will crumple irrepairably if they impact with anything heavier than a coke can.
Ok so they don't take up a lot of space and are kinder to the environment, but are death traps to drivers and passengers.
Give me a big car with lots of torque any day.
-DeaDLocK- said:
Hmmm...
My technique is a bit different.
When I'm approaching a known zone of opportunity while behind a slow moving vehicle I always hang back at about 5 car lengths and begin to accelerate just before the corner that exposes the overtaking road ends.
So in other words I accelerate before I know whether or not I can make the overtake.
If it's clear, I carry on and by the time I'm on the other side of the road there is a large speed differential and consequently the amount of time I spend on the wrong side of the road is severely reduced.
But I always anticipate moderate braking in the event the road is not clear and I always time the acceleration and judge the initial distance between cars so that in the event the road is not clear, I have ample space to brake.
Is this wrong?
It probably isn't actually wrong, but it's a technique that a lot of people get into trouble with.
If you use the technique I described, then you get better clues and warnings. With your technique the "point of committment" is rather prone to drift and that's when folk get into trouble.
Once the "correct" technique is second nature there's some room for flexibility. Introduce flexibility too soon and some folk get it wrong with horrible consequences.
Understood.
After posting I thought about it a bit and realised that this technique can put me in a position where I have to commit prematurely.
By following your guide, I will be aware of the full circumstances of what is or may be approaching into view on the other side of the road, as opposed to a snapshot decision based on a cursory glance after a corner (albeit an experienced glance to a road I know well). Even if this means that the amount of time I spend on the other side is longer, it is better, because it is ultimately safer.
Thanks!
D
After posting I thought about it a bit and realised that this technique can put me in a position where I have to commit prematurely.
By following your guide, I will be aware of the full circumstances of what is or may be approaching into view on the other side of the road, as opposed to a snapshot decision based on a cursory glance after a corner (albeit an experienced glance to a road I know well). Even if this means that the amount of time I spend on the other side is longer, it is better, because it is ultimately safer.
Thanks!
D
-DeaDLocK- said:
Hmmm...
My technique is a bit different.
Is this wrong?
It's wrong in that a similar technique contributed to my accident
www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?t=134598&f=10&h=0 but it does seem to be the only way to overtake in something really gutless.
Dan
safespeed said:
Hmmm...
My technique is a bit different.
When I'm approaching a known zone of opportunity while behind a slow moving vehicle I always hang back at about 5 car lengths and begin to accelerate just before the corner that exposes the overtaking road ends.
So in other words I accelerate before I know whether or not I can make the overtake.
If it's clear, I carry on and by the time I'm on the other side of the road there is a large speed differential and consequently the amount of time I spend on the wrong side of the road is severely reduced.
But I always anticipate moderate braking in the event the road is not clear and I always time the acceleration and judge the initial distance between cars so that in the event the road is not clear, I have ample space to brake.
Is this wrong?
It probably isn't actually wrong, but it's a technique that a lot of people get into trouble with.
If you use the technique I described, then you get better clues and warnings. With your technique the "point of committment" is rather prone to drift and that's when folk get into trouble.
Once the "correct" technique is second nature there's some room for flexibility. Introduce flexibility too soon and some folk get it wrong with horrible consequences.
An extreme example of this is when the "point of commitment" is passed before you pull out!
An example would be a long straight road with a single oncoming vehicle, where you can clearly observe from your own side of the road that the other side is clear behind that vehicle. Hence you time your acceleration accordingly, so that as the oncoming car passes you pull out behind it with a large speed differential.
Sounds fine - lowest TED and all that - but the number of additional variables that now have to be tracked and compensated for is in danger of getting out of hand, compared to the "correct" technique. If either of the other vehicles alters speed (upwards or downwards) it has a drastic effect on the effective "point of commitment" and requires you to continually reassess whether to accelerate more, less, or abort the overtake.
Once again, not inherently dangerous, but capable of becoming so very quickly. In the extreme case you can unwittingly end up passing the point of commitment before you pull out, so you are effectively committed to the overtake before your observation is actually complete!
Yeah. My car can get to 100mph in 14 secs - hardly gutless by most standards. This should mean that I should adopt the safer method as in most circumstances I will have enough pace to carry me through should the road be clear.
As for vehicles that are truly gutless? I guess the solution is to not overtake, or only overtake farm vehicles.
I've had one or two close calls and I always come out totally reminded that being 5 or 10 minutes late is preferable to spending 5 or 10 months in a coma. Especially if my coma buddy is in there because of a careless decision I made.
D
As for vehicles that are truly gutless? I guess the solution is to not overtake, or only overtake farm vehicles.
I've had one or two close calls and I always come out totally reminded that being 5 or 10 minutes late is preferable to spending 5 or 10 months in a coma. Especially if my coma buddy is in there because of a careless decision I made.
D
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff