Inputs & Outputs (split from BGOL thread)

[jcochrane]

Steering with the knees and judging outcomes. This reminds me that some years ago I was asked to set up a team of examiners for a driver competition for handicapped drivers.

Two drivers particularly impressed. One before becoming disabled had obtained HPC membership standard and was very evident in the quality of his drive. The other driver drove as good a drive as you are ever likely to see despite having arms only a few inches long. Steering not with his knees or left bollock but with his foot. His car was adapted with a plywood wheel in the foot well which was somehow connected to the steering mechanism of the car. The quality and accurate smoothness of his steering was sublime. Sorry but no evidence of PP only fixed grip and rotational

[fungus]

Steering with the knees and judging outcomes. This reminds me that some years ago I was asked to set up a team of examiners for a driver competition for handicapped drivers.

Two drivers particularly impressed. One before becoming disabled had obtained HPC membership standard and was very evident in the quality of his drive. The other driver drove as good a drive as you are ever likely to see despite having arms only a few inches long. Steering not with his knees or left bollock but with his foot. His car was adapted with a plywood wheel in the foot well which was somehow connected to the steering mechanism of the car. The quality and accurate smoothness of his steering was sublime. Sorry but no evidence of PP only fixed grip and rotational

That just proves the point doesn't it. It's not the method, but the out come that's important.

[MGF]

From what I have read that isn't that point isn't being disputed. The questions appear to be, how can a driver achieve consistently good outputs through design rather than luck?

Do we focus on tried and tested methods of input or on observing outcomes, as above?

[vonhosen]

Do we focus on tried and tested methods of input or on observing outcomes, as above?

I guess that anyone who has undertaken some form of coaching tuition would suggest that observing outcomes is the 'better' way. However, within the auspices of IAM/RoADAR, I guess that focussing on tried and tested methods of input is a far more translatable skill across observers and given the efforts being taken to normalise across groups it's certainly something the IAM is concentrating on at the moment to the potential detriment of some observers who have knowledge and skills beyond the IAM test.

I think if I were starting from the current position of the IAM, I'd be doing the same and risk sacrificing the top 5-10% of Observers for the sake of consistency and quality control.

Whilst the DSA appear to be heading for the other route with their examiners & ADI check tests.
How does that potentially affect the future for the IAM etc?

[vonhosen]

I'm not and have never been a member of either so I'm strictly an outsider in view.

I think the mainstream driver training industry and the IAM have a lot in common. Until very recently pull-push was mandatory and the comments in the industry rags about coaching would tend to suggest there is a critical mass of dinosaurs who don't feel any real need to change any time soon. In the short term they're probably right, but as new blood comes into the industry, it's going to be much harder to mandate methods of doing things when it's not required in testing.

I guess in the short term there isn't a problem, but I can foresee 20 years down the line there being a real dearth of candidates desperate to be talked into skill for life.

I don't think it'll take 20 years.

[sussex2]

I don't know about inputs and outputs but I can tell by the way driver gets hold of the controls including the wheel whether a drive is going to be good or not.
I don't mean in test situations or observing but simply being a pax in the vehicle.
You can tell by the way the driver 'puts the car on' as to whether things are going to be ok or not.
By and large it has served me well.

[TripleS]

I'm not and have never been a member of either so I'm strictly an outsider in view.

I think the mainstream driver training industry and the IAM have a lot in common. Until very recently pull-push was mandatory and the comments in the industry rags about coaching would tend to suggest there is a critical mass of dinosaurs who don't feel any real need to change any time soon. In the short term they're probably right, but as new blood comes into the industry, it's going to be much harder to mandate methods of doing things when it's not required in testing.

I guess in the short term there isn't a problem, but I can foresee 20 years down the line there being a real dearth of candidates desperate to be talked into skill for life.

I don't think it'll take 20 years.

I was being charitable... I'm fairly sure there's a reasonable stock of oldish farts trained under the old methods to tide them over until then.

There might also be a few oldish farts that ain't going to get hooked on any particular method unless they really believe it suits them.

As for the "20 years" - by the time we get that far down the line, there will probably be less cars needing driving at all, let alone offering much scope for AD aspirations. Prospects look to be deteriorating ever more rapidly from the viewpoint of those with an interest in proper driving. Sorry to be so pessimistic: I hate the way things are heading, so I just hope I'm wrong about it all.

Meanwhile I do my own thing, and sphericals to 'em.

[sussex2]

I don't think the DSA are going to let it go as far as someone pawing at one quarter of the wheel or shuffling a similar proportion
For interests sake I remember when I started teaching ab initio learners many moons ago (think Triumph Dolomites) it was not completely necessary to use push-pull especially at lower speeds. You could even teach such exciting things as across the box gear changes and one handed steering when reversing with the seat belt off.
Changing gear across the box was then new territory for the DSA and some examiners would not accept it.
Things change and the only thing is that whatever you do you make proper use of all the controls; get hold of the things properly and keep control of the machine.

[TripleS]

I don't think the DSA are going to let it go as far as someone pawing at one quarter of the wheel or shuffling a similar proportion
For interests sake I remember when I started teaching ab initio learners many moons ago (think Triumph Dolomites) it was not completely necessary to use push-pull especially at lower speeds. You could even teach such exciting things as across the box gear changes and one handed steering when reversing with the seat belt off.
Changing gear across the box was then new territory for the DSA and some examiners would not accept it.
Things change and the only thing is that whatever you do you make proper use of all the controls; get hold of the things properly and keep control of the machine.

When you refer to changing gear across the box, what does that mean? That's a new one on me. Is it the same as block changes?

See, I'm still in the (slow) learning business.

Best wishes all,
David.

[Horse]

From what I have read that isn't that point isn't being disputed. The questions appear to be, how can a driver achieve consistently good outputs through design rather than luck?

Do we focus on tried and tested methods of input or on observing outcomes, as above?

This came up as one of the in-car conversations yesterday.

From my bike training background, when assessing a rider there are - to a certain extent - only outputs, the results, what they actually 'do' - to assess. OK, by and large riders are sat out in the open so fully visible, but you can assess far more closely on choice of speed position etc. than on 'how' they achieve those changes etc.

[sussex2]

I don't think the DSA are going to let it go as far as someone pawing at one quarter of the wheel or shuffling a similar proportion
For interests sake I remember when I started teaching ab initio learners many moons ago (think Triumph Dolomites) it was not completely necessary to use push-pull especially at lower speeds. You could even teach such exciting things as across the box gear changes and one handed steering when reversing with the seat belt off.
Changing gear across the box was then new territory for the DSA and some examiners would not accept it.
Things change and the only thing is that whatever you do you make proper use of all the controls; get hold of the things properly and keep control of the machine.

When you refer to changing gear across the box, what does that mean? That's a new one on me. Is it the same as block changes?

See, I'm still in the (slow) learning business.

Best wishes all,
David.

An example would be changing from 4th to 2nd or 3rd to 1st or 6th to 4th or even vice versa
In other words selecting the appropriate gear without going via another.
All according to situation plus vehicle and speed of course.
I don't think you'll find it was that long ago when many DSA examiners would have been shocked at such behaviour; something which accounts for much of the poor driving you see today IMHO. I remember one failing a good pupil because 'I like to see them going through the box'.
Am happy to explain more if you would like.

[Silk]

OK, I see where the confusion lies. There are two separate systems that you have conflated. You have the neuromuscular system, ie the method by which your brain interacts with your muscular system to 'operate' the controls and you have the vehicle dynamics system,where the outputs from the first system are translated into accelerations which in turn develop through velocity into position and attitude.

I'm not sure there is any confusion. To put it simply: we're looking at what the driver is doing to the controls versus what the car is doing on the road.

Now if we separate those two systems, the vehicle dynamics system is only concerned with amplitude and rate coming out of your neuromuscular system and not the method by which they have been developed. In short, if you're providing the right amount of steering at the right rate, the car doesn't give a flying f$ck whether it has been generated by steering using pull-push or by pressure from your left bollock.

That may be the case on a very basic level. For example, if the driver has one hand on the wheel, then the output at that moment will be the same as if he had two hands on the wheel. The problems start when the driver comes across something unexpected requiring a reaction. The driver with two hands on the wheel is going to be inherently better able to cope and, therefore, safer. So the inputs, IMO, most definitely do matter.

Now if we apply a similar process to the interaction between your vehicle and the rest of the world, then we should be looking at whether the driver is in the right place, at the right time and at the right speed. None of those three things are dependent on what they're doing with the controls.

Again, you're ignoring the unexpected. Good inputs will allow the driver to be better able to react.

In summary, whilst there is a link between what goes in and what comes out, 'good' inputs do not necessarily mean good outputs. A simple example - a corner needs 90 degrees of steering wheel lock. Which would you prefer? A pull push steerer who gives you 87 degrees or someone steering with their knees who gives you the 90 needed.

I'm struggling to see your point. What you're describing are two BAD inputs but for different reasons. Although bad inputs don't necessarily result in bad outputs (in your example above, the steering with the knees is the only input that gets the job done), the reverse is not the case. Good inputs must always result in good outputs, otherwise they're not good inputs.

In my opinion, it's far more productive to teach drivers good inputs and let the outputs take care of themselves. Although I would be more concerned with looking at the mental processes that create the inputs in the first place.

There's also a good argument that a driver with good observation and hazard awareness steering with his knees will be inherently safer than a driver lacking in these skills steering with both hands. If you can't identify the hazard, you can't react to it. But that's a different argument.

[Silk]

Steering with the knees and judging outcomes. This reminds me that some years ago I was asked to set up a team of examiners for a driver competition for handicapped drivers.

Two drivers particularly impressed. One before becoming disabled had obtained HPC membership standard and was very evident in the quality of his drive. The other driver drove as good a drive as you are ever likely to see despite having arms only a few inches long. Steering not with his knees or left bollock but with his foot. His car was adapted with a plywood wheel in the foot well which was somehow connected to the steering mechanism of the car. The quality and accurate smoothness of his steering was sublime. Sorry but no evidence of PP only fixed grip and rotational

That just proves the point doesn't it. It's not the method, but the out come that's important.

I'm sure there are as many good and bad ways of using such controls as there are with conventional ones. Without knowing all there is to know about the device John has described, I'm sure that the relevant authorities have been satisfied that the driver is in full control of the vehicle when using the equipment and the driver will have been tested on his competency to operated the device in the correct manner. As is the case with any other driver.

In the end, there must be a compromise though. I don't see how it can be any other way.

[TripleS]

I don't think the DSA are going to let it go as far as someone pawing at one quarter of the wheel or shuffling a similar proportion
For interests sake I remember when I started teaching ab initio learners many moons ago (think Triumph Dolomites) it was not completely necessary to use push-pull especially at lower speeds. You could even teach such exciting things as across the box gear changes and one handed steering when reversing with the seat belt off.
Changing gear across the box was then new territory for the DSA and some examiners would not accept it.
Things change and the only thing is that whatever you do you make proper use of all the controls; get hold of the things properly and keep control of the machine.

When you refer to changing gear across the box, what does that mean? That's a new one on me. Is it the same as block changes?

See, I'm still in the (slow) learning business.

Best wishes all,
David.

An example would be changing from 4th to 2nd or 3rd to 1st or 6th to 4th or even vice versa
In other words selecting the appropriate gear without going via another.
All according to situation plus vehicle and speed of course.
I don't think you'll find it was that long ago when many DSA examiners would have been shocked at such behaviour; something which accounts for much of the poor driving you see today IMHO. I remember one failing a good pupil because 'I like to see them going through the box'.
Am happy to explain more if you would like.

No thanks, that was fine. It is, in effect, block changes then. I've been doing those since my 3.8 Jaguar days, commencing in 1968: start in 1st., early change to 2nd., bit of boot, then change to 4th., bit more boot, then engage the overdrive. Happy days.

[sussex2]

A diesel I have will pull like a train in 6th from about 30mph.
There would be no point whatsoever in normal driving in using the gears in any set order; after all they give you 6 to chose from.
The correct one that will complete the job is what you are after whilst keeping the drive train in pretty much a straight line