BGOL

[hir]

I'll go with partial separation (nice to see it spelled correctly!).

That will be spelt then...

Them wot nos bessed allow both spelling!

Found this on the Googly interwebby thingy, so it must be true:

The past tense and past participle of spell (only in the word-related sense) can be either irregular (spelt) or regular (spelled).
British English allows both irregular and regular forms. In American English, the irregular forms are never or hardly ever used.

[TripleS]

Terms like engine braking and "no BGOL" can sometimes cause confusion sometimes as the word brake is overloaded, on one hand it refers to the act of braking on the other the act of slowing down. It's the act of slowing down that is the no-no, not the act of braking.

Who says it's a no-no, and what right do they have to be so insistent?

Why are people being told that use of a lower gear to aid the slowing process is, in effect, not allowed, and that the slowing down must be achieved using the brakes? I'm well aware that "brakes to slow, gears to go" is a popular line, but is it really justified? Can people not be advised to use that approach, rather than being told they must do it that way?

Many people will no doubt accept it, but why allow another enforced detail to be perpetuated, with the possible effect of putting more people off advanced driving, even if they're minded to look at it in the first place?

[michael769]

Who says it's a no-no, and what right do they have to be so insistent?

The DSA, IAM, RoADAR most reputable driving instructors, most competent racing drivers.

The first are paid by you to be so insistent, the next 2 by their members. The other two are just trying to give people the benefit of their skills and experience.

Why are people being told that use of a lower gear to aid the slowing process is, in effect, not allowed,

No one claims it is not allowed. Just that is is a bad idea (exceptions apply)

I'm well aware that "brakes to slow, gears to go" is a popular line, but is it really justified?

Yes. Brakes and discs are considerably cheaper to replace than gearboxes and clutches.

Engine braking only works on 2 wheels as opposed to the 4 of braking reducing stability, safety and passenger comfort.

Can people not be advised to use that approach, rather than being told they must do it that way?

This is exactly the case. There is no law or rule to prohibit it. If people want to ruin their cars by driving badly they are as free to do so as they are to choose if they with to follow the advice of others.

[exportmanuk]

Gawd 10 hours and already 2 pages.

[superplum]

Who says it's a no-no, and what right do they have to be so insistent?

Why are people being told that use of a lower gear to aid the slowing process is, in effect, not allowed, and that the slowing down must be achieved using the brakes? I'm well aware that "brakes to slow, gears to go" is a popular line, but is it really justified? Can people not be advised to use that approach, rather than being told they must do it that way?

Many people will no doubt accept it, but why allow another enforced detail to be perpetuated, with the possible effect of putting more people off advanced driving, even if they're minded to look at it in the first place?

So many doubts, so many questions! The use of a lower gear to aid the slowing process (in lieu of braking) is acceptable when demonstrating "acceleration sense" but is inefficient in other circumstances and is not actually controlled. It also negates the advanced aspect of being in the right gear for whatever you may be doing which, ideally, should be achieved with just one gear change.

Most people wishing to become "advanced" do so willingly and are keen to learn but few find faults or criticise what they are being shown because they are keen to move to a better standard. Most rules can be questioned but usually they are shown to be based on sound experience.

[fungus]

Ok, my comprehension is improving, but, if I am approaching a turn in top gear, is there not a risk of the engine labouring as the revs drop to the correct corner negotiating speed before changing down to, say, first?

If you are driving a torquey turbo diesel then you would need to take an intermediate gear if you need to change from 5th/6th down to 1st otherwise the engine will be revving too low and will stall, or the car will judder and pick up speed if you do not depress the clutch.

[TripleS]

Are you still in doubt about the benefits of separation after looking at the linked threads?

Yes! I understand "what" and "how" and "when" but I can't find "why".

Decelerating for a turn, braking and engaging the appropriate gear for exit from the turn, would seem to save time without any obvious dangers and maintain progress.
I can appreciate that turning the wheel at the same time as a gear change is obviously a no no.

Why?

[zadocbrown]

Ok, my comprehension is improving, but, if I am approaching a turn in top gear, is there not a risk of the engine labouring as the revs drop to the correct corner negotiating speed before changing down to, say, first?

If you are driving a torquey turbo diesel then you would need to take an intermediate gear if you need to change from 5th/6th down to 1st otherwise the engine will be revving too low and will stall, or the car will judder and pick up speed if you do not depress the clutch.

I've recently switched to just such a car and I feel the issue is apt to be overstated. The clutch sometimes has to go down a little earlier, that is all. I rarely need an intermediate gear, and I mostly do full seperation.

[revian]

My experience is the same as Zadocbrown with my diesel. I wasn't putting the clutch down early enough. It's fine now and no BGOL.

But with the engine merely at idle 2nd gear does 12mph happily... So I sometimes have to use 1st gear for tight turns

[TripleS]

Who says it's a no-no, and what right do they have to be so insistent?

The DSA, IAM, RoADAR most reputable driving instructors, most competent racing drivers.

The first are paid by you to be so insistent, the next 2 by their members. The other two are just trying to give people the benefit of their skills and experience.

Why are people being told that use of a lower gear to aid the slowing process is, in effect, not allowed,

No one claims it is not allowed. Just that is is a bad idea (exceptions apply)

I'm well aware that "brakes to slow, gears to go" is a popular line, but is it really justified?

Yes. Brakes and discs are considerably cheaper to replace than gearboxes and clutches.

Engine braking only works on 2 wheels as opposed to the 4 of braking reducing stability, safety and passenger comfort.

Can people not be advised to use that approach, rather than being told they must do it that way?

This is exactly the case. There is no law or rule to prohibit it. If people want to ruin their cars by driving badly they are as free to do so as they are to choose if they with to follow the advice of others.

Well Michael, thank you for your reply, but I would suggest that:

The bodies to whom you refer ought really to advise that they consider it preferable to use brakes instead of gears for achieving speed reduction, rather than giving the impression that nobody should use gears (at all) for slowing down.

To say that it is a "no-no" makes it sound as if the technique should not be used at all, and I think there are circumstances in which it is a legitimate option. It should be the driver's choice.

Brakes are indeed cheaper to replace than clutches and gearboxes, but the amount by which the life of transmission components is shortened by their occasional and moderate use for slowing down, is very unlikely to be significant.

In the vast majority of instances the use of engine braking for slowing down will have no appreciable effect on stability, safety or passenger comfort. That point is much more a theoretical issue than of any real significance with reasonably skilled and sensitive driving in normal conditions, and if the braking were to be at all harsh, the factors you mention would be less jeopardised by engine braking. It could be the better choice.

I don't think it's the case that people might "want to ruin their cars by driving badly", but what they might prefer to do is make their own choice as to the methods that best suit them for slowing down.

We really ought to guard against this tendency to (seemingly) be issuing edicts as to the precise methods that are or are not acceptable in how certain things are done. Like it or not, it all helps to undermine the development of thinking drivers, and thinking drivers are what's needed, not slavish followers of (what often appear to be) inflexible rules.

Sorry, Michael, but it looks as if we may have to agree to differ for the moment.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[waremark]

Dave, do you accept that it is bad practice to change down without rev matching?

[GJD]

If you are driving a torquey turbo diesel then you would need to take an intermediate gear if you need to change from 5th/6th down to 1st otherwise the engine will be revving too low and will stall, or the car will judder and pick up speed if you do not depress the clutch.

So depress the clutch.

You don't need to take an intermediate gear.

[Gareth]

I've recently switched to just such a car and I feel the issue is apt to be overstated. The clutch sometimes has to go down a little earlier, that is all. I rarely need an intermediate gear, and I mostly do full seperation.

One of our cars really needs 1st for many turns in towns, yet much of the time will be OK driven in 3rd at 30 mph. I am unable to fully separate from 3rd to 1st so I have to use partial separation. OTOH I can fully separate from 2nd to 1st. I have found it the same when in 4th at about 40 mph and wishing to select 2nd for a turning. Also, I don't like to depress the clutch for a relatively extended time when changing from 6th to, say, 2nd so will often plan in a change from the cruising gear to an intermediate gear well in advance of the hazard.

The situation in petrol engined cars is different in that one does not so much find oneself in a gear that is only a little above idle before starting to brake for a hazard that needs a much lower gear.

The degree to which the assertion is overstated might vary from car to car ...

[michael769]

The bodies to whom you refer ought really to advise that they consider it preferable to use brakes instead of gears for achieving speed reduction, rather than giving the impression that nobody should use gears (at all) for slowing down.

Which is entirely what they do. No one is ordering anyone to do anything. All they do is to provide advice so that drivers can make a choice from an informed perspective. (assuming their minds are open enough to consider and evaluate the advice).

To say that it is a "no-no" makes it sound as if the technique should not be used at all, and I think there are circumstances in which it is a legitimate option. It should be the driver's choice.

I think you are misinterpreting my meaning. I used no-no in the commonly used sense of being a bad idea, in my opinion.

Sorry, Michael, but it looks as if we may have to agree to differ for the moment.

As I already said that is your prerogative, I can only hope that you have or will consider the advice with an open mind and perhaps give it a try so that you can make your choices from an informed perspective.

[Graham Wright]

Are you still in doubt about the benefits of separation after looking at the linked threads?

Yes! I understand "what" and "how" and "when" but I can't find "why".

Decelerating for a turn, braking and engaging the appropriate gear for exit from the turn, would seem to save time without any obvious dangers and maintain progress.

Still haven't found "why"!