Joined IAM - Too slow?
Discussion
vonhosen said:
....for my own purposes I'm quite happy to do a bit of steering and change gear (usually at a large roundabout) at the same time - if I feel like it and the circumstances are right. I certainly don't need to have the steering 'set' at that time
Do you remember the old trick of rubbing your tum in a circular motion with one hand while your other hand pats your head? Well I can't do that, but I can change gear and steer at the same time without detrimental effects - which seems more useful!
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I'll have the gear at roundabouts as soon as I have a gap, never need to take it while steering actively personally.
So will I, so it's not that I really need to do it, but it can be done quite satisfactorily if I wish to do it. I think that's the best arrangement - having choices, all of which work reliably.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
Major Bloodnok said:
I always make a point of telling associates at the start of the course that what we're going to do is to take their driving style apart and put it back together in a different fashion. This will necessitate intially taking things rather slowly until they're used to the system and can start to compress it all again.
Dennis* - presumably that is an approach you have become accustomed to and found satisfactory, but it might not work well with everybody. After my own brief experience as an Associate I think one needs to have a clear understanding at the outset between Observer and Associate that this is to be the teaching method. Without preparing the ground in that fashion and having agreement at that stage, I suspect the relationship would be more difficult for both parties.
I trust you will accept that what I'm trying to do here is to help minimise the problems one might have with certain types of Associate, for example some of the more aged ones!.
* I hope you don't mind me calling you Dennis.
Best wishes all,
Dave - a fellow Goon Show enthusiast.
Actually, it's Denis I've had to warn Jim Spriggs about that before...
Most people just call me "Major", though. (Absolutely true - I'm an editor on salerugby.co.uk using the same name, and am frequently hailed at Edgeley Park with the cry "Oi! Major!" - usually closely followed by "your round, I believe".)
Yeah, I agree, and I should point out that that is just one aspect of a pretty thorough explanation that we give to all associates about what they can expect from the course, starting with the classroom session prior to run 1. I also vary the spiel a bit, but the basic point I try to get across is that they are likely to feel a bit uncomfortable for the first couple of runs, but that this is normal and will improve. It's like the "run 4 dip" - many, many associates get to run 4 convinced that their driving is getting worse. We try to explain to them that what's actually happening is that their awareness is improving, so they are more conscious of what they're doing and that's skewing their judgement of their own ability.
Over the last 17 years, I think I've met most types of associate, from the in-one-ear-out-the-other to not-even-making-into-one-ear, so, yeah, I know that you've got to be careful how you present the information, but your point is well made.
(Mondays, 7pm, BBC7 - the best reason for investing in a DAB radio)
I've had to warn Jim Spriggs about that before... Most people just call me "Major", though. (Absolutely true - I'm an editor on salerugby.co.uk using the same name, and am frequently hailed at Edgeley Park with the cry "Oi! Major!" - usually closely followed by "your round, I believe".)
Yeah, I agree, and I should point out that that is just one aspect of a pretty thorough explanation that we give to all associates about what they can expect from the course, starting with the classroom session prior to run 1. I also vary the spiel a bit, but the basic point I try to get across is that they are likely to feel a bit uncomfortable for the first couple of runs, but that this is normal and will improve. It's like the "run 4 dip" - many, many associates get to run 4 convinced that their driving is getting worse. We try to explain to them that what's actually happening is that their awareness is improving, so they are more conscious of what they're doing and that's skewing their judgement of their own ability.
Over the last 17 years, I think I've met most types of associate, from the in-one-ear-out-the-other to not-even-making-into-one-ear, so, yeah, I know that you've got to be careful how you present the information, but your point is well made.
(Mondays, 7pm, BBC7 - the best reason for investing in a DAB radio)
As I started this thread I don't mind jumping back in.
Having read the whole thread it appears that other IAM groups have a much more structured method of 'tutoring' than does mine.
Theory lesson before first drive, rotation of observers, meeting up for a general driving session with different observers, a laid down 'teaching' plan have all been mentioned. My group seems to do none of these. I'm surprised that there is not some standard laid down by the IAM.
I'm not critising my group as I have only just started and if I pass and generally improve my driving skills than I guess 'the job's a good 'un'. It's just that the groups seem to go their own way and not learn from each other to formulate a teaching plan that draws on the experience of many.
Having read the whole thread it appears that other IAM groups have a much more structured method of 'tutoring' than does mine.
Theory lesson before first drive, rotation of observers, meeting up for a general driving session with different observers, a laid down 'teaching' plan have all been mentioned. My group seems to do none of these. I'm surprised that there is not some standard laid down by the IAM.
I'm not critising my group as I have only just started and if I pass and generally improve my driving skills than I guess 'the job's a good 'un'. It's just that the groups seem to go their own way and not learn from each other to formulate a teaching plan that draws on the experience of many.
7db said:
Yes, that's the explanation of the effect (that there is a component of induced drag from the turned wheel) but it's not the slip angle that you experience as the driver of the car. Understeer is not an effect of the the tyre having a slip angle (ie differential heading and direction of travel) but is an effect of the net yaw rate of the vehicle differing from the neutral yaw rate:- a result of different rotational moments (about the z-axis) from the front and rear tyres.
This effect can be much larger than the individual slip angles at any of the tyres, and is noticeable in the cockpit.
This can be taken to an extreme where a full skid develops and the car will undergo quite large devations from the neutral yaw rate at modest (in absolute terms) slip angles.
Sorry this is a bit of a tangent, I don't understand your post (the first bit anyway) as it seems to contradict my experience. During a driving course, with the steering wheel in a fixed position, I varied the radius of the circle I was driving using the throttle. A gentle squeeze on the throttle resulted in a wider circle and vice versa. This was what I expected. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're saying the opposite.
You say understeer is not a function of slip angle.
Not heard that before? Surely it is a function of slip angle i.e. the front tyres slipping more than the rear.GarryM said:
Sorry this is a bit of a tangent, I don't understand your post (the first bit anyway) as it seems to contradict my experience. During a driving course, with the steering wheel in a fixed position, I varied the radius of the circle I was driving using the throttle. A gentle squeeze on the throttle resulted in a wider circle and vice versa. This was what I expected. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you're saying the opposite.
You say understeer is not a function of slip angle.
The behaviour you're describing is conventional understeer caused by more power being applied than is necessary to overcome rolling resistance, while the front wheels are close to the limit of grip. This increases the slip angle at the front wheels and promotes understeer.
I think the situation that was being described on this thread was the opposite: engine braking and/or rolling resistance causing a very slight *backwards* force on the tyres leading to understeer, which was removed by applying just enough power to overcome the rolling resistance. In theory, this effect makes the car 'turn in' slightly as a little power is applied. More power of course would lead to the classic understeer that you described.
It's fine in theory, I just have trouble accepting that this effect is strong enough to be perceptable under the gentle cornering conditions that we have been discussing. All the slip angles are very low, and the variations in slip angle caused by the applied torque will be similarly small.
I do agree with your definition of understeer by the way, just a comparision of front slip angle versus rear slip angle. I don't quite 'get' the explanation based on yaw rate and/or yaw moment and I think that's confusing understeer/oversteer with steering authority.
GarryM said:
You say understeer is not a function of slip angle.
Understeer/Oversteer isn't strictly a function of slip angle, is a function of difference in slip angle between front and rear tyres. More of a semantic point than anything else I know, but the absolute numerical values of slip angle make no difference. I think that's what 7db was trying to allude to. Slip angles are a
to measure anyway, unless you chuck a couple of £20k sensors at the problem. I measure it on the training car using the difference between actual yaw rate and acceleration derived yaw rate. GreenV8S said:
The behaviour you're describing is conventional understeer caused by more power being applied than is necessary to overcome rolling resistance, while the front wheels are close to the limit of grip. This increases the slip angle at the front wheels and promotes understeer.
On a steering pad you are truly in steady-state handling and the induced drag from the tyres has been balanced by the throttle. Adding more power causes acceleration which increases speed. This actually has the effect of reducing the slip angles at front and rear, albeit by thicknesses of gnat's genitalia, not increasing them. The reason the car runs wider is that is has been engineered to understeer. The steering angle required to keep it on a fixed radius with increasing speed is a function of speed squared. With a constant steering angle applied the car will have to run on a wider path. Similarly with deceleration you get a tighter line, although the effect is ameliorated somewhat by the arrival of induced drage. Canny manufacturers use this to prevent the lift-off oversteer that plagues certain 80's hot hatches.
GreenV8S said:
I think the situation that was being described on this thread was the opposite: engine braking and/or rolling resistance causing a very slight *backwards* force on the tyres leading to understeer, which was removed by applying just enough power to overcome the rolling resistance. In theory, this effect makes the car 'turn in' slightly as a little power is applied. More power of course would lead to the classic understeer that you described.
It's fine in theory, I just have trouble accepting that this effect is strong enough to be perceptable under the gentle cornering conditions that we have been discussing. All the slip angles are very low, and the variations in slip angle caused by the applied torque will be similarly small.
But the change in self-aligning torque is very perceptible. As human beings we can't detect slip angles (except in very gross cases such as a drift car or on a skidpan), but we are very good at detecting changes in force levels through the steering. This is more what is detected at the driver's seat. The other reason it makes a difference (and less so on the steering pad) is that we are at relatively low levels of cornering acceleration. This gives us more variety in cornering line, weight transfer and level of acceleration (hence why slow-in, fast-out feels so good). The picture below shows the cause of the effect. You have a fair amount of variation in the two cornering components, so there are several points of balance of the car and hence a degree of variation in the amount of steering you use.
Philbes said:
As I started this thread I don't mind jumping back in.
Having read the whole thread it appears that other IAM groups have a much more structured method of 'tutoring' than does mine.
Theory lesson before first drive, rotation of observers, meeting up for a general driving session with different observers, a laid down 'teaching' plan have all been mentioned. My group seems to do none of these. I'm surprised that there is not some standard laid down by the IAM.
I'm not criticising my group as I have only just started and if I pass and generally improve my driving skills than I guess 'the job's a good 'un'. It's just that the groups seem to go their own way and not learn from each other to formulate a teaching plan that draws on the experience of many.
Over a day since posting and no answer? I thought that there would be some views on such a fundamental issue.
Philbes said:
Over a day since posting and no answer? I thought that there would be some views on such a fundamental issue.
Different groups adopt different teaching strategies as to what suits them and as to what they've had success with in the past.
As to "standards" - why yes the IAM has them.
A few years back they started a programme to ensure that all examiners were marking to the same scheme and the same standard. They are now introducing a national qualification scheme for Observers - to ensure that Observing is also consistent...but this is not fully in place yet. Sure - you'd have thought after 50 years they would have everyone sewn up by now but that's not the way it seems to work!
victormeldrew said:
All this stuff about balancing the throttle, not shifting mid bend and so on - I can't help thinking that a great deal of this stuff is second nature (i.e. done naturally and unconciously) if you started out on bikes, where they are less of an optional technique.
how true
it does wonders for your observation, anticipation - in fact just about all aspects of driving
everyone should do a year or two on one
hanse cronje said:
All this stuff about balancing the throttle, not shifting mid bend and so on - I can't help thinking that a great deal of this stuff is second nature (i.e. done naturally and unconciously) if you started out on bikes, where they are less of an optional technique.
how true
it does wonders for your observation, anticipation - in fact just about all aspects of driving
everyone should do a year or two on one
To me driving is like an extension to walking, odd analagy I know, but what I mean is that one should sort of mould themselves to the car, be totally in control and aware of what is going around them. For example a friend of my wifes has passed her test some years ago, but just will not drive into town. I like many of our readers here, have been driving over 30 years, I "enjoy" driving, I read the road as I drive, not just the 10ft in front of me, look past sweeping bends for signs of traffic, etc etc, no need to to teach you to suck eggs here, but I think you get my drift. Part and parcel of driving confidently and competently, in my opinion, is being at one with the vehicle your in? hope that doesnt sound sort of daft. Having driven for over 30 years, I still occasionally read up on my highway code, doesnt hurt. When I learnt to drive in a 3 ton Bedford RL truck in the forces, the instructor would say "What was that sign we just past", if you didnt know it, he would make you WALK back and check it out.
Dont miss any now. Course sounds good, might have to sign up for one myself.
Oh and yes I was a biker once, Triumph 650cc Thunderbird, (sold for £40) and 650cc BSA Clubmans Lightning (sold for £120), isnt hindsight wonderfull!
Philbes said:
Over a day since posting and no answer? I thought that there would be some views on such a fundamental issue.
They are not following a set syllabus, so no standards as such need be in place. I think that if the pass rate is high, then it is more a case of if it isn't broke, don't fix it. I would imagine that if the examiners felt that the standards of the candidates was porr or were in decline, then this would be fed back to those running the course. A review and appropritae measures could then be put in place to rectify any issues or deficiencies.
It is also worth bearing in mind that Observers are not instructors and have, therfore, not gone through the training procedures that driving instructors have.
GreenV8S said:
Observers are not instructors and have, therfore, not gone through the training procedures that driving instructors have.
Just out of curiosity, do you have to be qualified as an approved driving instructor (ADI) before you can be an IAM/RoSPA advanced driving instructor?
I don't know about ROSPA, but this is not the case for the IAM.
When I was doing my Observer training, I went out on one drive as a 'back seat' observer of the Senior Observer with Associate. I then acted as Observer with a Senior Observer assessing me as I accompanied an Associate on a couple of drives. I then went out with a Senior Observer to demonstrate my driving and commentary. I answered a few questions, had my observation assessed then did an exam (30 question multiple choice and 10 extended answers to questions on IAM, advanced driving and the Highway Code).
GreenV8S said:
Observers are not instructors and have, therfore, not gone through the training procedures that driving instructors have.
Just out of curiosity, do you have to be qualified as an approved driving instructor (ADI) before you can be an IAM/RoSPA advanced driving instructor?
They are "observers" not instructors aren't they? Anyone receiving payment for instruction must be ADI qualified. However i know of a few who receive payments for "coaching" who are definately not ADI's.
GreenV8S said:
Just out of curiosity, do you have to be qualified as an approved driving instructor (ADI) before you can be an IAM/RoSPA advanced driving instructor?
My understanding is:
No. The key thing is that "Observers" (pah - they are instructors, really) are UNPAID. This is important. In order to be legally entitled to charge for driving instruction then you must be an ADI.
StressedDave would know - as I believe in order to offer chargeable "Advanced" instruction he's needed to become an ADI - despite not intending to teach novices.
Is this right, Dave?
>> Edited by Don on Friday 12th May 14:49
Don said:
StressedDave would know - as I believe in order to offer chargeable "Advanced" instruction he's needed to become an ADI - despite not intending to teach novices.
It's actually a grey area - and more than a few 'advanced' instructors claim that they are offering advice rather than actually instructing and thus avoiding the need for an ADI. Those who don't rely solely on the fees generated by instruction (such as Class I drivers doing the odd day on the side for firms such as RideDrive) tend to use this argument.
Personally I took the view that as this was going to be my livelihood, I didn't want to be the test case for a prosecution and thus lose my livelihood (after all if one was summonsed for the offence it would hardly be good form to continue the practice up until the court case). I did indeed do all the dodgy learning and teaching required to instruct novices in safe driving for life as demanded by the Double Standards Agency, sorry, Driving Standards Agency. I have now forgotten all that I had to learn and get on with the job of improvement without rote.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff