Newbie.

[Monaro]

Hi Horse.

Thanks for the welcome.

Don't worry, I'll be asking LOADS as I progress, and never been afraid of asking 'Why'.

Again thanks for the welcome.

[Monaro]

I'm based in Hertford

There are several active members very near to you, including one whose username rather gives away his nearest town. I'm sure they'll be in touch!

David

Hi David.

I'll look forward to long discussions about my driving with some 'locals' agrrhhh.

[TripleS]

....ask' why' when someone says something you don't understand

Absolutely. They might be wrong.

[waremark]

I'm based in Hertford

There are several active members very near to you, including one whose username rather gives away his nearest town. I'm sure they'll be in touch!

David

I wonder where that could be!?!

[Monaro]

....ask' why' when someone says something you don't understand

Absolutely. They might be wrong.

[Silk]

....ask' why' when someone says something you don't understand

Absolutely. They might be wrong.

No one is ever wrong on this forum. Just differently right.

[Horse]

....ask' why' when someone says something you don't understand

Absolutely. They might be wrong.

Indeed; I've said many times, I hate it when a trainee asks me to explain something and I can't - but subsequently I've gone back and totally re-thought training content as a result.

As an example:
From . . .
Safety System Smooth Speed Sparkle
Via . . .
Safety Smooth System Speed
To . . .
Safety Smooth Style

Cornering needed a rethink on identifying the various 'sections', for planning and execution, leading to '1, 2, 3':
1. Approach - first point at which the bend can be seen
A 'trigger' for start of planning and implementation
2. Entry
Just be at the correct speed and - for higher standard trainees - position
Comfortable with speed to allow opening the throttle
Start to steer
3. Exit - first point at which exit can be seen
Plan for next bend

This may work as '1-2-3' or '1-2/3' or even '1/3'.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

A fellow poster was trying out a new theory on me about corners over the weekend. He claimed it had revolutionised the experience of his associates. I found it hard to grasp, as it involved imagining something that could not be easily calculated / predicted, and it therefore sapped my concentration on the drive. We agreed I would just drive, after a few attempts.

So we need to be sure that our fancy methods or mnemonics actually resonate with the people we're imposing them on (and yes, it's an imposition; the associate is unlikely to have a counter-theory to propose instead), or be prepared to change to an alternative, rapidly.

[martine]

I'm based in Hertford

There are several active members very near to you, including one whose username rather gives away his nearest town. I'm sure they'll be in touch!

David

I wonder where that could be!?!

I didn't know you lived here

[Horse]

A fellow poster was trying out a new theory on me about corners over the weekend. He claimed it had revolutionised the experience of his associates. I found it hard to grasp, as it involved imagining something that could not be easily calculated / predicted, and it therefore sapped my concentration on the drive.

No need to name names, but could you try and explain the method?

One I can't get on with is 'thirds' . . .

So we need to be sure that our fancy methods or mnemonics actually resonate with the people we're imposing them on (and yes, it's an imposition; the associate is unlikely to have a counter-theory to propose instead), or be prepared to change to an alternative, rapidly.

Most of mine involve simplifying things

And you ought to see how I implement '123' training . . .

With bike training, the instructor can usually only tell what the trainee is seeing by how they respond (or not). Although the instructor can give feedback via the radio link (usually one-way), there's a risk of causing distraction and also a certain delay between 'comment heard-thought-reaction from the rider'.

So I invented a way of determining whether or not the trainee was reacting at '1' and '3'.

Simply, I ask the rider to travel at a - relatively - slow speed. Remember that this isn't teaching an 'advanced' technique, simply improving identification of key parts of a bend. Also, they need to be comfortable at riding with one hand on the bars.

Now the fun bit. I ask them to look well ahead and identify the first moment when a bend can be seen (I use certain sections of road which have longer straights then bends, and few side turnings), and look for the 'arrow head' to point the direction of the bend. They need to show me they've seen it, by raising their left arm up in the air and pointing left or right (over their head).

Now, having seen, acknowledged and identified the corner, they'd be a bit remiss not to do something about it! While negotiating the bend (again, I've chosen the route carefully), as point '3' is identified, whether a second bend the same direction or one to the opposite direction) they raise their left arm again and point. That then determines, if they're using 'lines', how to set up for the next bend, with the entry position determining the exit line (apex etc, although I don't use that term) of the current bend.

If this stuff didn't work, I wouldn't use it

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

A fellow poster was trying out a new theory on me about corners over the weekend. He claimed it had revolutionised the experience of his associates. I found it hard to grasp, as it involved imagining something that could not be easily calculated / predicted, and it therefore sapped my concentration on the drive.

No need to name names, but could you try and explain the method?

It involved assessing the point on the bend where vision would be most restricted, from a good distance away from the bend, the idea being that the slowest speed would need to coincide with this point. No matter how I tried, the "coach" said "Nope, it's not there, it's there". Personally, I couldn't see what he wanted from me, and I was obviously not able to imagine bends like he is. It took a lot of brain power to try and imagine where this point would be, from several hundred yards away, which I felt was interfering with my own bend assessment, which is more based on limit points and tends to involve more instinctive reaction to the view from closer to the bend.

One I can't get on with is 'thirds' . . .

I rather like "thirds" and teach it whenever I feel associates are not "flowing" between bends. Mostly they're too slow out of bends onto the following straight, and inconsistent about when they start to prepare for the next. However it patently doesn't work for everybody. I only ever suggest techniques, never implying they're the only way of dealing with a particular problem.

I find it interesting that you get bike riders to wave their arms about off the bars - I spend a lot of time encouraging car drivers to keep their hands on the wheel and not to use them to illustrate their commentary or to point at hazards. I'd rather they were in control, thanks

[Monaro]

Thank you ALL for the welcomes and advice I've received.

All gratefully received and adding to my learning of AD every time.

Many thanks folks.

[Mr Cholmondeley-Warner]

Sorry if Horse and I have hijacked your intro thread somewhat. We'll get a room somewhere ...

[Monaro]

Sorry if Horse and I have hijacked your intro thread somewhat. We'll get a room somewhere ...

No problem at all. I will in the future do the same no doubt.

ALL the opinions are great and if a forum stuck religiously to the initial thread it would be boring.

[hir]

One I can't get on with is 'thirds' . . .

I rather like "thirds" and teach it whenever I feel associates are not "flowing" between bends.

I'm a huge fan of the technique known as "thirds". However, the thing to remember about "thirds" is that you don't divide the road into "thirds". It's not actually about thirds. Otherwise it's very straightforward.

Edited to add: The problem with calling this technique "thirds" is that those of a literal disposition, people like myself for example, for some reason or other regard thirds as being three equal parts. In this case they're not, equal parts, that is. A better description of this technique would be that we divide the road into three zones with each zone not necessarily being the same length as each of the the other two zones. We then allocate a particular activity to each of the zones in sequence. We then, in theory, find we have plenty of time to arrive at the bend at the correct entry speed having made maximum progress through the previous two unequal thirds. See, I told you it was simple and to make it simpler still, it's called "thirds".