Avoiding Downchanging and Braking. Why?
Discussion
I'll add my ten-penneth about block shifting. Personally, I don't do it but I can see the advantages. However, my dad has a Mondeo TDCi (as do most of the other people in his company) which seems to cut the fuel if the revs drop below about 850rpm. So if you come up to a bend that you need to negotiate in 2nd gear (say) and you do all your deceleration in 6th, there's a chance that the revs will drop too low, the fuel will cut and the car will stall. Then you really won't be in control. Whereas if you change through the gears sequentially, the engine is always "on the boil".
carl_w said:
I'll add my ten-penneth about block shifting. Personally, I don't do it but I can see the advantages. However, my dad has a Mondeo TDCi (as do most of the other people in his company) which seems to cut the fuel if the revs drop below about 850rpm. So if you come up to a bend that you need to negotiate in 2nd gear (say) and you do all your deceleration in 6th, there's a chance that the revs will drop too low, the fuel will cut and the car will stall. Then you really won't be in control. Whereas if you change through the gears sequentially, the engine is always "on the boil".
I have been driving the "block-shifting" way for 22 years in a variety of petrol and diesel cars, vans, minibuses, etc, and I have yet to meet one where the engine cuts out in those circumstances, if you do it right.
GreenV8S said:
Thinking about driving should be the last thing a driver does, there should be no need to think. Everything a driver does should be automatic, it should happen without him/her/it even being aware of it. *that* is good quality driver training.
The mechanics of driving should occur without you having to consciously think about them, but that doesn't mean you should be mentally 'switched off'. I hate zombie drivers!
I agree and hence why I said 99% of a driver's focus should be on sitrep...situational awareness.
GreenV8S said:
I even had observers saying, in effect, "yes I agree your reasons for using that technique are valid, but it is not the way we teach so you must stop doing it". It seemed to me that the basic principles they were working from were sound but the car control techniques they derived from it were overly simplistic.
This was exactly the feeling I got when I did my introduction with the IAM, and it put me off for the same reasons as Peter.
I felt like the guy was saying "Yes, I agree that your method is just as safe, and I see your point about wanting to be able to react to a situation that your car is likely to experience, but we don't teach that so you would have to change your driving style to match this overly generalised way of doing things" - which, like Peter says, would be wasting my time and theirs.
He didn't like the idea of heel and toe either, "It's not something we generally encourage" - fine, I can understand and have seen what happens when people see it as some kind of panacea to all RWD problems or they try to learn it from scratch on the open road, but used in the correct circumstances and done properly, it can be a benefit. I've been doing it for years, I don't fluff it, and only use it where appropriate, yet it's "not encouraged".
I guess this is in the wrong thread really, but this was the reason I didn't take things any further with the IAM, I felt that the rigid adherence to a way of doing things meant I would end up feeling frustrated - I'm sure I could get something from their instruction, but I left feeling a bit patronised and would rather spend a bit more and have more tuition from somwhere like Ride-Drive.
The thing that yuo have to bear in mind with regards to the IAM is that, in my experience, people who are IAM observers are not necessarily PHers. They are people who generally take an interest in road safety and/or advanced driving.
Often they are busy people who are juggling a few commitments are probably don't want to get bogged down in any detail about issues.
Ride Drive will teach you the same principles as IAM/RoSPA only perhaps a bit more progressively. If people want to do it cost effectively then I suggest they do IAM/RoSPA, get a little experience of driving to that particular standard and then go and look at Ride Drive or some of the other AD schools.
Often they are busy people who are juggling a few commitments are probably don't want to get bogged down in any detail about issues.
Ride Drive will teach you the same principles as IAM/RoSPA only perhaps a bit more progressively. If people want to do it cost effectively then I suggest they do IAM/RoSPA, get a little experience of driving to that particular standard and then go and look at Ride Drive or some of the other AD schools.
another point to bear in mind is that, although this thread is concentrating on a particular techniqu, that's not what IAM/Roospa is (or should be) about - working the controls is only half of it.
Just as important are the observation / anticipation skills, the attitude etc - even if you don't like the "control" aspects, there might still be stuff worth learning, or at least listening to
Just as important are the observation / anticipation skills, the attitude etc - even if you don't like the "control" aspects, there might still be stuff worth learning, or at least listening to
My understanding of the current "System" is that it allows an overlap of Position - Speed - Gear - Acceleration. This wasn't always the case, but even Police training can be flexible & change with the times.
Block changing (Braking to the point where you can select the most appropriate gear before accelerating) has served me just fine in my past 14 years as a Police Advanced driver.
It keeps everything smooth & simple, which is vital as pace quickens.
The System can initially appear to be rigid, but its merely a framework for overlapped planning in driving. Simplicity is essential, because as pace increases, you have less time to think & react, and will go back to what instinctively works for you. Adopt the system, and it'll serve you well.
I'm a FireBlade rider too, and it still fits a Sportsbike as well as it does a car.
I love driving / riding quickly where appropriate, and would happily adopt another way if i thought it was better.
I'm yet to find it. ;-)
Block changing (Braking to the point where you can select the most appropriate gear before accelerating) has served me just fine in my past 14 years as a Police Advanced driver.
It keeps everything smooth & simple, which is vital as pace quickens.
The System can initially appear to be rigid, but its merely a framework for overlapped planning in driving. Simplicity is essential, because as pace increases, you have less time to think & react, and will go back to what instinctively works for you. Adopt the system, and it'll serve you well.
I'm a FireBlade rider too, and it still fits a Sportsbike as well as it does a car.
I love driving / riding quickly where appropriate, and would happily adopt another way if i thought it was better.
I'm yet to find it. ;-)
carl_w said:
I'll add my ten-penneth about block shifting. Personally, I don't do it but I can see the advantages. However, my dad has a Mondeo TDCi (as do most of the other people in his company) which seems to cut the fuel if the revs drop below about 850rpm. So if you come up to a bend that you need to negotiate in 2nd gear (say) and you do all your deceleration in 6th, there's a chance that the revs will drop too low, the fuel will cut and the car will stall. Then you really won't be in control. Whereas if you change through the gears sequentially, the engine is always "on the boil".
The 6th gear in a Mondeo is more of an overdrive than anything else and I'd imagine the engine would almost stall or worse battle against the brakes as the revs drop.
When I had one on loan I found it better to drop to 5th or 4th before braking to an island. If you match the revs then the change won't slow the car on release of the clutch.
The point of the technique is that you're not braking and shifting at the same time. You also shouldn't be using a down shift to retard the car. Yes once changed and with no throttle input you can use the engine to retard the car (say going down hill) but the speed of the vehicle shouldn't change as you release the clutch following a gear change (releaseing the clutch shouldn't force the revs to rise). So 6th to forth with the revs matches shouldn't slow the car unless you come off the throttle after the change.
Whilst the system my seem ridgid at first and at times inflexible, once you have mastered it, it'll all make sense.
If you don't mind skipping backwards in the thread, I found the discussion on turning in on the brakes or not very interesting. I drove with a chap from work the other day who is RoSPA gold standard, and he braked in a straight line, came off the brake and turn in when the car's springs had settled after the braking. This felt jolly dangerous to me, as the balance of the car was all wrong.
Whilst proper trailbraking might not be advisable on the public road, surely turning in as you come off the brakes (i.e. blending the two into each other) is surely the smoothest and safest way to drive? The same goes with accelerating out of a bend, bring the throttle in as you unwind the steering.
This is simple physics, and I believe that equalizing the weight distribution in a car at all times is the safest way to drive.
When you're racing you want both ends of the car on the limit, so you keep the car balanced at all times (100% of the limit at the front, and 100% at he back). Now, on the public road, taking what would be a 70mph bend on the track at 40mph, surely it is safest to use those same techniques at the much reduced speed (60% of the limit at the front, and 60% at the back). If, instead, you come off the brake then turn in at a steady speed, the weight distribution will in proportion to that of your car (so maybe 40% at the back and 80% at the front in a typical saloon - I am including the car's inertia - i.e. its will to carry straight on) 80% at the front is getting dangerous... (understeer) why not equalize things and have 60% all round - no understeer and no oversteer? If both of the aforementioned techniques come across a patch of oil mid bend, or water under a tree - the 80/50 car will understeer (maybe into an oncoming car, or a ditch), and the 60/60 car won't.
This is the way I have always driven on the road - much slower than on the track, but using the same techniques to stay safe.
With regard to the downchanging as your braking discussion - what makes road driving tricky is the potential for the unexpected to happen (a child jumps out in front of you or something). I would rather be in the right gear for the speed if I have to change my plans all of a sudden - having to fumble for the right gear in a split second is not appropriate if some idiot has locked up behind you and you need to accelerate out of the way. Also, being stuck at 1500 rpm is also dangerous if the worst comes to the worst and you have to swerve to avoid a child/deer or something. Try swerving at 1500rpm - you have no control over the car.
In addition to the above, blipping the throttle to go from 6th to 3rd whilst braking requires a blip that isn't often possible. Coming off the brakes to do the blip compromises your control in my opinion, as you are approaching a hazard (i.e. a bend, roundabout), without the ability to brake if needed (if you do, you'll be stuck mid gear or something), or indeed if you want to turn in as you come off the brakes, as previously discussed, you can't do it if you're blipping off the brake.
One comment I would also like to make, was that the way this RoSPA guy that I knew drove seemed wholey based around the fact that he couldn't heel and toe. It felt unnatural, frustrating and not particularly smooth.
All control inputs in a car should be blended in my opinion - you should *flow* down the road.
Whilst proper trailbraking might not be advisable on the public road, surely turning in as you come off the brakes (i.e. blending the two into each other) is surely the smoothest and safest way to drive? The same goes with accelerating out of a bend, bring the throttle in as you unwind the steering.
This is simple physics, and I believe that equalizing the weight distribution in a car at all times is the safest way to drive.
When you're racing you want both ends of the car on the limit, so you keep the car balanced at all times (100% of the limit at the front, and 100% at he back). Now, on the public road, taking what would be a 70mph bend on the track at 40mph, surely it is safest to use those same techniques at the much reduced speed (60% of the limit at the front, and 60% at the back). If, instead, you come off the brake then turn in at a steady speed, the weight distribution will in proportion to that of your car (so maybe 40% at the back and 80% at the front in a typical saloon - I am including the car's inertia - i.e. its will to carry straight on) 80% at the front is getting dangerous... (understeer) why not equalize things and have 60% all round - no understeer and no oversteer? If both of the aforementioned techniques come across a patch of oil mid bend, or water under a tree - the 80/50 car will understeer (maybe into an oncoming car, or a ditch), and the 60/60 car won't.
This is the way I have always driven on the road - much slower than on the track, but using the same techniques to stay safe.
With regard to the downchanging as your braking discussion - what makes road driving tricky is the potential for the unexpected to happen (a child jumps out in front of you or something). I would rather be in the right gear for the speed if I have to change my plans all of a sudden - having to fumble for the right gear in a split second is not appropriate if some idiot has locked up behind you and you need to accelerate out of the way. Also, being stuck at 1500 rpm is also dangerous if the worst comes to the worst and you have to swerve to avoid a child/deer or something. Try swerving at 1500rpm - you have no control over the car.
In addition to the above, blipping the throttle to go from 6th to 3rd whilst braking requires a blip that isn't often possible. Coming off the brakes to do the blip compromises your control in my opinion, as you are approaching a hazard (i.e. a bend, roundabout), without the ability to brake if needed (if you do, you'll be stuck mid gear or something), or indeed if you want to turn in as you come off the brakes, as previously discussed, you can't do it if you're blipping off the brake.
One comment I would also like to make, was that the way this RoSPA guy that I knew drove seemed wholey based around the fact that he couldn't heel and toe. It felt unnatural, frustrating and not particularly smooth.
All control inputs in a car should be blended in my opinion - you should *flow* down the road.
RobM77 said:
All control inputs in a car should be blended in my opinion - you should *flow* down the road.
Absolutely agree. I think of it as if the car is sat on top of a giant spring that allows it to bounce, pitch and roll. Every time you accelerate it pitches backward, every time you brake it pitches forward, every time you turn the wheel it rolls sideways. The art of smooth driving is to control this movement and keep it damped down. It is better to transition smoothly from braking to cornering to acceleration rather than brake, let the car settle, come off the brakes, let the car settle, turn in, let the car settle, straighten up, let the car settle, accelerate etc. The 'one thing at a time' approach keeps it simple but seems unecessarily crude.
RobM77 said:
If you don't mind skipping backwards in the thread, I found the discussion on turning in on the brakes or not very interesting. I drove with a chap from work the other day who is RoSPA gold standard, and he braked in a straight line, came off the brake and turn in when the car's springs had settled after the braking. This felt jolly dangerous to me, as the balance of the car was all wrong.
Whilst proper trailbraking might not be advisable on the public road, surely turning in as you come off the brakes (i.e. blending the two into each other) is surely the smoothest and safest way to drive?
Ah. This is where the non-performance-car perspective is useful... if you're cornering hard in a Morris Minor you have to follow the RoSPA guy's method. The turn-in has to be done under power, having allowed the springs to return to neutral after braking while still on the straight. If you don't do it this way it's hello Mr Ditch...
Better suspension designs - and in particular better dampers than the POS lever-arm units on the Moggy - mean the suspension "keeps up" with the demands made on it better, but the principle is still the same - working with the suspension rather than telling it what to do, sort of thing.
RobM77 said:
All control inputs in a car should be blended in my opinion - you should *flow* down the road.
I agree totally - but I don't find the Morris Minor cornering technique to be incompatible with smoothness.
RobM77 said:
With regard to the downchanging as your braking discussion - what makes road driving tricky is the potential for the unexpected to happen (a child jumps out in front of you or something). I would rather be in the right gear for the speed if I have to change my plans all of a sudden - having to fumble for the right gear in a split second is not appropriate if some idiot has locked up behind you and you need to accelerate out of the way. Also, being stuck at 1500 rpm is also dangerous if the worst comes to the worst and you have to swerve to avoid a child/deer or something. Try swerving at 1500rpm - you have no control over the car.
Agree with that too.
GedG said:
Imagine the police in pursuit, down a fast steep hill into a tight left hand hairpin. How do they come off the brakes, then change gear and turn in keeping the car composed and balanced?
Good point.
Funnily enough I've watched a few of those 'Police Camera Action' programmes on TV and this happens... Not always, in defence of Police drivers, some of whom are very good, but I confess it does happen more often than not!! You can picture me shouting at the telly 'no, balance the car!! balance! fixed input steering!! smooth it out!! don't be so rough!!". Thankfully for the police, the guy they're chasing normally hasn't got a clue and usually wildly overcorrects some oversteer and buries 'his' car in a lamp post!
:-D lol
RobM77 said:
Imagine the police in pursuit, down a fast steep hill into a tight left hand hairpin. How do they come off the brakes, then change gear and turn in keeping the car composed and balanced?
Good point.
Funnily enough I've watched a few of those 'Police Camera Action' programmes on TV and this happens... Not always, in defence of Police drivers, some of whom are very good, but I confess it does happen more often than not!! You can picture me shouting at the telly 'no, balance the car!! balance! fixed input steering!! smooth it out!! don't be so rough!!". Thankfully for the police, the guy they're chasing normally hasn't got a clue and usually wildly overcorrects some oversteer and buries 'his' car in a lamp post!
:-D lol
It's surprising how often the "useless" police driver manages to hang on till the "better" driver stuffs it into the scenery, isn't it?
Never understood that.
Basically I think there seems to be a mis-understanding as to how the 'system' is put into practice and where there should be load on the car during cornering.
Whilst it is agreed by most the 'system' benefits a guy in moggy minor more than in the latest hardware from BMW. The principle is still the same as is the reasoning. Just because a car has better suspension and tyres doesn't mean the same physical forces don't exist.
By using the brakes 'only' to slow the car you have full control over the power of the stopping force. If you drop a few dodgy gear changes in there you could pontially unbalance the car or worse lock up the driven wheels - I've been know to deliberatly lock the wheels using the gears to start a drift (all on the track off course).
They guy menitoned earlier who was 'Brake' settle 'Gear' settle 'Turn' settle 'power' settle, sounds like he has misunderstood the technique or needs a lot of practice. The whole thing should flow. There is no settle to do after braking as you've slowed the car during braking, you're mearly selecting the approriate gear at the gear change point and you can be getting on the clutch for the change as you're coming off the brake (braking should be tapered). The point is you shouldn't be Braking using the gears "Brakes for Slow - Gears for Go".
Turning in on the brakes is positively dangerous, you are unloading the rear of the car and adding load to the wheels you want to steer with - Lift off oversteer, braking drift anyone!!!! A car should be balanced and the engine underload when taking a corner, this is when it is most balanced.
I've not personally done any of the Rospa, IAM stuff (my father in law is a Police class one trained driver and rider and he taught me to drive) but I'd suggest to anyone who hasn't got someone they know who can train them to give the IAM or Rospa another go, it all makes sense when it becomes second nature.
Whilst it is agreed by most the 'system' benefits a guy in moggy minor more than in the latest hardware from BMW. The principle is still the same as is the reasoning. Just because a car has better suspension and tyres doesn't mean the same physical forces don't exist.
By using the brakes 'only' to slow the car you have full control over the power of the stopping force. If you drop a few dodgy gear changes in there you could pontially unbalance the car or worse lock up the driven wheels - I've been know to deliberatly lock the wheels using the gears to start a drift (all on the track off course).
They guy menitoned earlier who was 'Brake' settle 'Gear' settle 'Turn' settle 'power' settle, sounds like he has misunderstood the technique or needs a lot of practice. The whole thing should flow. There is no settle to do after braking as you've slowed the car during braking, you're mearly selecting the approriate gear at the gear change point and you can be getting on the clutch for the change as you're coming off the brake (braking should be tapered). The point is you shouldn't be Braking using the gears "Brakes for Slow - Gears for Go".
Turning in on the brakes is positively dangerous, you are unloading the rear of the car and adding load to the wheels you want to steer with - Lift off oversteer, braking drift anyone!!!! A car should be balanced and the engine underload when taking a corner, this is when it is most balanced.
I've not personally done any of the Rospa, IAM stuff (my father in law is a Police class one trained driver and rider and he taught me to drive) but I'd suggest to anyone who hasn't got someone they know who can train them to give the IAM or Rospa another go, it all makes sense when it becomes second nature.
Turning in on the brakes is not dangerous if you do it properly - in fact it is safer than not doing so. Usually, this will simply be taking your foot off the brake *as* you turn the wheel into the bend. The two should be linked, much like your accelerator should be linked to the steering unwinding as you come out of a bend.
The idea when you're turning into a bend is to balance the car front and rear. Most modern road cars are not balanced unless you turn in on the brake or on a trailing throttle.
If your car is not balanced in a bend then if you hit oil, or need to take emergency action, your car is more likely to encounter a handling imbalance, and is more likely to exceed the limit of grip. Turning in after you've braked will set up a balance in most road cars of say 70% of the limit at the front, and 30% at the back. So, if you go 30% faster or the grip gets 30% less, you will understeer. If you've balanced the car properly on turn in then you would be 50% front and rear. 30% extra gives us 50% rear and 80% front - i.e your still in control. Hedge or road, it's your choice!
As with many advanced techniques, you *need to know what you're doing* (turning in on the brakes is a critical thing - too much and it might end in tears) - but if you do then this is far far safer than turning in after you've braked.
So far as drifts go, in order for a drift to occur, you have to be going fast enough to exceed the limit of grip from the tyres - and you shouldn't really be doing that on the public road anyway. On a track, the fastest way round a corner is in a balanced drift (roughly 4% slip front and rear on a modern tyre), so this is no bad thing!!
The idea when you're turning into a bend is to balance the car front and rear. Most modern road cars are not balanced unless you turn in on the brake or on a trailing throttle.
If your car is not balanced in a bend then if you hit oil, or need to take emergency action, your car is more likely to encounter a handling imbalance, and is more likely to exceed the limit of grip. Turning in after you've braked will set up a balance in most road cars of say 70% of the limit at the front, and 30% at the back. So, if you go 30% faster or the grip gets 30% less, you will understeer. If you've balanced the car properly on turn in then you would be 50% front and rear. 30% extra gives us 50% rear and 80% front - i.e your still in control. Hedge or road, it's your choice!
As with many advanced techniques, you *need to know what you're doing* (turning in on the brakes is a critical thing - too much and it might end in tears) - but if you do then this is far far safer than turning in after you've braked.
So far as drifts go, in order for a drift to occur, you have to be going fast enough to exceed the limit of grip from the tyres - and you shouldn't really be doing that on the public road anyway. On a track, the fastest way round a corner is in a balanced drift (roughly 4% slip front and rear on a modern tyre), so this is no bad thing!!
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff