ADUK Archive

Hi,

Having passed the IAM's test with a F1RST award I am keen to go on to the masters course, as I do enjoy driving and would like to develop my skills. I was looking at the Masters Standard document on the IAM's website and one of the criteria to achieving the Masters standard appears to be displaying "sparkle", defined as as a driver or rider who is "on the ball", "lively and spirited" ...

Can anyone shed any light on what this means exactly, not just in the Masters context but in driving generally?

Thoughts or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

Not a term I use personally, but I interpret it as relating to the level of progress consistently achieved - rapidly though still smoothly up to the lower of limit or safe and comfortable speed, looking for lines of least resistance through traffic and so on. It may also reflect confidence displayed in deportment at the wheel.

What do others think?

waremark wrote:What do others think?

I think it is often used to reflect the idea that the driver should be very quick to react to changing circumstances, to lift the speed as vision improves. There should be no indication that the driver is thinking about what has gone on before instead of what is happening ahead.

Different levels require this to differing degrees, so the amount of 'sparkle' required to achieve a First will almost certainly be less than the amount expected for Masters.

I think a related and maybe necessary concept, at least in petrol engined cars, is to have the engine 'singing' where possible and appropriate. By this I mean making good use of the acceleration, which for petrol is normally at higher revs.

While it is possible to make adequate or even good progress using lower engine speeds, this is often a case of not using the best gear to make progress. Some argue that the torque in the lower range is sufficient, that it leads to a more restful result, but the reality is also that this is easier for the driver and that they could get more by working harder.

This aspect is often more difficult in diesel engined cars because of the differing torque curve, but I think something analogous to 'singing' may be achieved by being quite precise about getting the best out of the engine.

Lingo wrote:Hi,

Having passed the IAM's test with a F1RST award I am keen to go on to the masters course, as I do enjoy driving and would like to develop my skills. I was looking at the Masters Standard document on the IAM's website and one of the criteria to achieving the Masters standard appears to be displaying "sparkle", defined as as a driver or rider who is "on the ball", "lively and spirited" ...

Can anyone shed any light on what this means exactly, not just in the Masters context but in driving generally?

Thoughts or guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers.

The words for me say it in a nutshell.
A driver who is alert and knows their vehicle and how to extract the best from it.

I like Gareth's 'singing' description.

Is it also important for the driver to show they are enjoying themselves as well...in a relaxed yet concentrated way?

martine wrote:I like Gareth's 'singing' description.

Is it also important for the driver to show they are enjoying themselves as well...in a relaxed yet concentrated way?

The maintenance of sufficient concentration is obviously a vital ingredient, but I'd like it to be achieved in a relaxed and easygoing fashion.

TBH, I don't want to see a driver looking too intense and 'busy' with it all.

martine wrote:I like Gareth's 'singing' description.

Do you? I think it could do with some more qualification, specifically with respect to the trade off with mechanical sympathy and fuel economy. But then this is an area where I probably disagree with Gareth.

I also think that a higher engine speed can make some cars easier to drive, in the sense that more can then be done with one pedal, requiring less planning from the driver.

Custom24 wrote:
I also think that a higher engine speed can make some cars easier to drive, in the sense that more can then be done with one pedal, requiring less planning from the driver.

Why does this technique require less planning from the driver? It might require less activity [one pedal only], but not less planning.

Is there a certain amount of entertaining the examiner in this I wonder.
Nobody wants to be subjected to a dull as dishwater drive and showing you know how to use car and are not 'shy' of it is one way to entertain.
I took my original Rospa test on a Saab turbo (the 8 valve engine) which was a car not known by the examiner. It suffered from what we now call turbo lag on a monumental scale; but when on song went like a banshee with a banshee kind of whistle as well. A noise I loved (the timing chain rattle I could live without).
Part of that drive was showing the examiner that I knew how to 'use' the car I was driving as my choice of gears might otherwise have seemed a bit odd - turbo cars were unusual in those days and all suffered from lag that you had to know how to drive around.
I made the thing 'sing' I suppose and put some 'sparkle' into it.
The test report mentions I was 'upright and alert' at the wheel and that I showed 'good sympathy' to the car and pax.

ps I fought shy of showing him how well the hand brake worked on the front wheels but remember telling him I knew it did - exams are a two way street.

hir wrote:

Custom24 wrote:
I also think that a higher engine speed can make some cars easier to drive, in the sense that more can then be done with one pedal, requiring less planning from the driver.

Why does this technique require less planning from the driver? It might require less activity [one pedal only], but not less planning.

I am thinking that in a circumstance where in a higher gear I would actively have to plan to brake and possibly change gear, using a lower gear might mean I can get away with just coming off the gas. Sometimes this is a good thing ("don't change up just to have to change down again"), but that's not the context here.

hir wrote:

Custom24 wrote:
I also think that a higher engine speed can make some cars easier to drive, in the sense that more can then be done with one pedal, requiring less planning from the driver.

Why does this technique require less planning from the driver? It might require less activity [one pedal only], but not less planning.

Is it perhaps more forgiving of failures in planning though?

StressedDave wrote:G'wan, argue with me...

Since it's you and you asked so nicely...

The only bit (as you full well know) that I would possibly take issue with is the "use all the performance" bit.

If you'd said something like, "Use a consistent level of performance and grip, and enough to make it challenging for you as a driver in that car on that day" you'd get my vote.

Otherwise I have visions of you driving me down the B660 in Stefan Einz's MP412C and it all getting a bit police, camera, action...

James

Some interesting and insightful comments so far, cheers guys.

Lingo

StressedDave wrote:

JamesAllport wrote:If you'd said something like, "Use a consistent level of performance and grip, and enough to make it challenging for you as a driver in that car on that day" you'd get my vote.

Otherwise I have visions of you driving me down the B660 in Stefan Einz's MP412C and it all getting a bit police, camera, action...

Only from the helicopter view . I was thinking more in terms of using all the acceleration to get up there IYSWIM rather than seeing if you can lick the flap on the performance envelope.

Yes - but I don't think it is particularly good driving to use 616 horses to accelerate up to 60. For that reason I chose not to take my Masters test with my modest 510 horses, but did it wimpily in the Jag.

I would point out that the driving competition which Dave assesses is looking for drivers at an almost unrecognisably different level from that which is looked for in a successful IAM test. Subject to the comments by James, I like the things which Dave says he looks for, but an IAM candidate would be considered to show sparkle well falling quite a long way short of Dave's criteria.

And as it happens I agree with Custom 24, rather that with Gareth, about letting the engine sing. I am happy to let the engine sing when there is a good reason for using all the performance, but there so rarely is - particularly within the legal framework which is appropriate for all IAM and Rospa activity. Using 9,000 revs in the 12C would be simply absurd.

So what it comes down to is that Sparkle is what happens to light your particular examiner's fire - but it will almost certainly include not wasting too many opportunities to make legal progress.

waremark wrote:Yes - but I don't think it is particularly good driving to use 616 horses to accelerate up to 60. For that reason I chose not to take my Masters test with my modest 510 horses, but did it wimpily in the Jag.

Ah yes.. do you have news for us?