Driving with 'sparkle'

[waremark]

My view is that if you're not doing it right, I can tell without you needing to tell me... As someone who does it professionally, I might be considered an outlier though.

I could be unkind and suggest that someone who likes delivering a commentary (particularly if uncalled for) is a bit like a three-year-old attention-seeking child overdosed on Sunny-D and as many artificial colourings as inhumanly possible.

Or in Pistonhead speak, one does not need to attention-whore to be a well-built company director with a goatee...

Thanks a bunch. BTW, I don't talk fast. Objective no 1 - say what you are going to do and why. No 2 - mention what you cannot yet see but anticipate and are ready for. Don't try to fit in everything at the same time - on one bend you might mention limit points, on another you might mention surface or camber.

[waremark]

Maybe this will add something to the debate from a slightly different perspective.

....... And lots of good stuff

To which I say - if all that works for you, excellent. It is not the only way to get a good result at Masters.

[waremark]

For me the ability to deliver a commentary is orthogonal to improving as a driver - I consider it in the same way I consider pull-push steering and the absence of brake-gear overlap - if it works for you as a tool for improvement then more power to your elbow, but it's not an essential part of the toolbox.

If it is important to you then I consider there are three stages in development:

1. Say what you see
2. Say what you are doing
3. Say why you are doing it

I'd say level 1 is fine for a basic IAM/RoSpa test

I consider level 1 to be an unduly modest expectation for 'a basic IAM test'. I think the why is so much more interesting than either of the what's. Except where the what's are explicitly illustrating knowledge of ?? 'Advanced driving'.

I agree that commentary is by no means an essential part of excellent driving. However, I have many friends who obsessively practice to improve their driving related skills, of whom SD is one, and it surprises me that few of them find commentary a skill which is worth developing.

[zadocbrown]

StressedDave - When coaching different drivers in preparing for corners using an outcome based approach, do you find they develop widely varying 'systems' or do they eventually converge on something approximating to 'the system'?

[zadocbrown]

There's a large degree of convergence - there are only so many ways you can lose speed and change gear after all.

Quite. So would you say that 'the system' itself is sound, and widely useful, and the problems are with how it is implimented or communicated at times - particularly that in pursuit of orthodoxy people lose sight of its intended purpose, which is to be properly set up for the hazard?

My copy of Roadcraft says, ".... You have responsibility for using the system actively and intelligently....the system must be used flexibly..."

I think we're back to sparkle again.....

[jcochrane]

I was once told by a Hendon instructor that one of the reasons they worked on it was to prove that there was still sufficient in reserve mentally to be able to operate the r/t system and take in orders from Oscar when running to a job/pursuit etc.

Very much the same as I've been told by more than one Police instructor. Interestingly when training with Police instructors/examiners none of us did a commentary. Although the purpose was to improve driving skills the matter of a commentary was never raised. Like SD I've been on a few police shouts but never once heard a commentary given, in the style under discussion. Unless, single manned, it would be the operator doing the talking/communication as to where and what is happening leaving the driver free to fully concentrate on the driving. So from my experience it does appear that the commentary drive is more of a training aid than any thing else.

[jcochrane]

Getting back onto "sparkle" I think it is very difficult to define and "sparkle" in a drive can be manifested in different ways. To me, at its very highest level, it is a drive that goes beyond just being a great drive to one that rises to the realms of artistry. As with all great artists they (the driver) each will have their own individual style.

At a more common lower level a drive can be excellent copy book stuff but comes across as a bit mundane and dull. The driver just going through the motions. It needs life to be breathed into it by the driver to become a drive with "sparkle". A drive that is refreshing and to raise it to an even higher level it becomes inspiring.

[hir]

[Brian Clough mode]you're entirely entitled to be wrong [/Brian Clough mode]

I prefer: "We talk about it for twenty minutes and then we decide I was right."

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things when a candidate responds to a hazard, so long as he does? IME, more problems are caused by early reaction, something that delivering a commentary will promote, than by reacting to things later than is perhaps desireable.

I don't think you actually mean what you've just posted. Are you canvassing against the early identification of hazards on the grounds that one might react too early with ones inputs? Surely not, I think we should be told.

Anyway, I'm not talking about making an early response/input in dealing with the hazard. I'm talking about identifying the hazard as early as possible. You are an advocate of positioning to extend the vision that you already have, and I agree with that. One of the justifications for adopting a position for vision in those circumstances is to be able to identify hazards and lines as early as possible. This enables one to include those hazards in the driving plan as early as possible. It doesn't by any means follow that one would therefore necessarily react with earlier inputs than one would have done if one had picked the hazard up later. Unless, of course, one picks it up so late it's panic stations. But that's almost certainly not what we're discussing here.

We're coming back to the judging inputs rather than outputs thing again... by giving the commentary in the terms you are, you're judging that the inputs to the system are correct rather than concentrating on the results that those inputs are providing...

No we're not. It's got nothing to do with judging inputs rather than outcomes. In the AD test situation it's about the examiner making an assessment about how early [or not] the candidate is identifying hazards and building that information into his driving plan. In my scenario the examiner is assessing the candidate's mental process (planning), not his physical actions (inputs). The examiner can still assess the driving outcomes notwithstanding his knowledge that the the candidate identified the hazard half a mile back up the road.

[waremark]

Convergence? Pre AD, many experienced drivers on the approach to a hazard make multiple non rev matched down changes, apply the brakes without finesse and maybe multiple times, signal as they manoeuvre, and don't think about position. How and in what order would you address these issues if at all?

[jcochrane]

Once they're actively seeking the right speed of entry to a hazard, all the other things tend to fall into place.'

I'm in full agreement with the rest of your post but have just highlighted the above sentence.
This is the single most important part of driving. When doing my IAM observing this is the first and major thing to work on and once mastered the rest, as you say, tends to fall into place.

The foundation for the "art" of driving excellence (or safely, with pace, sparkle, advanced driving etc.) lies in the "skill" of knowing how and when to drive slowly.

[TripleS]

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things when a candidate responds to a hazard, so long as he does? IME, more problems are caused by early reaction, something that delivering a commentary will promote, than by reacting to things later than is perhaps desireable.

Justifiably or not, I'm going to take a bit of comfort from that.

I've tended to feel that so long as we identify and evaluate hazards early enough to be able to deal with them in a correct and orderly fashion, that's good enough.

Are you talking about seeing hazard A, which is a long way off, and devoting too much time and effort to planning to deal with it, with the effect that your plans for hazard B, which is much nearer, are jeopardised?

[TripleS]

....TripleS' post about driving from Bumfuck to Intercourse without using the brakes - works great when you know the road, know the severity of the corners etc. Gentle engine braking over a long distance certainly isn't part of Police Roadcraft (and to my mind the techniques espoused in Roadcraft work best when applied in a Police stylee (albeit without the speed in excess of the posted limit element) and my usual answer to anyone who regularly advocates the technique is 'how the jiggering f$ck do you know what the appropriate entry speed is this far back to be able to finely judge the liftoff point with such little retardation?'.

I guess you might have to cheat a bit and make some downwards gearchanges to help get the speed down. But no, that's not allowed. It's gears to go, brakes to slow. I must try to remember that.

Anyhow, it's a road I've driving regularly since 1960 and it's a cracker: plenty of hills, some of them quite steep, a wide variety of bends, and some stretches that look as if they might be suitable for NSL plus a bit. It is a road that I imagine most driving enthusiasts would enjoy. Obviously my 'trying to avoid the use of brakes' trick works best in that situation, and it can't possibly work as well on a road you don't know. Even so, one can still try, and we might get something out of it.

BTW, this is not trick I try often, but it's just something else to provide a bit of added interest.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[TripleS]

You are an advocate of positioning to extend the vision that you already have, and I agree with that. One of the justifications for adopting a position for vision in those circumstances is to be able to identify hazards and lines as early as possible. This enables one to include those hazards in the driving plan as early as possible.

I think the above quote (which I have extracted from a longer contribution) was addressed to StressedDave, (and I expect he'll cobble together some kind of answer ), but it does confuse me a bit.

Some time back, (maybe 8 years ago?), was what I think was the first ADUK day, organised by "Porker" (NIck), and it was held at Felsted in Essex. There were four attendees: Nick, StressedDave, James Allport and me.

During our lunchtime discussion, I asked about positioning, and it was said that we can position to maintain the view we already have, but not to go looking for a view we do not already have; and I have generally accepted that, but it now sounds as if we're saying something different.

We now appear to be implying that it is legitimate to be a bit more adventurous with positioning with the objective of extending the existing view. To me that is tantamount to going looking for an additional view, i.e. a view we do not already have. Now, if it is to be done cautiously and safely by, if necessary, backtracking promptly from this bold positioining, and there is benefit to be had, I welcome this relaxation and added freedom in positioining, but what do you think? Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[waremark]

We tend not to believe in firm rules. On positioning for vision (after safety, but before stability) the general guidance would be not to put yourself somewhere where you might give someone else an unwelcome surprise, or find yourself short of time to move out of their way. That probably means that to consider crossing the centre line you already have a fairly long view and are travelling fairly quickly.

[hir]

We now appear to be implying that it is legitimate to be a bit more adventurous with positioning with the objective of extending the existing view. To me that is tantamount to going looking for an additional view, i.e. a view we do not already have. Now, if it is to be done cautiously and safely by, if necessary, backtracking promptly from this bold positioining, and there is benefit to be had, I welcome this relaxation and added freedom in positioining, but what do you think? Am I misunderstanding what you're saying here?

Best wishes all,
Dave.

Firstly, I'm not sure that I warrant the accolade of the collective "we", as in... "We now appear to be implying". These were my words and mine alone.

However, I understand the point that you are making which deserves an explanation from myself. The words that I posted should be expanded to read... [in my opinion] It's OK to position off-side in order to maintain and/or seek to extend the view that we already have. We must never move off-side to look for vision from a position where we do not already have an extended view.

In other words the the vision, and safety margin in terms of distance to the limit point, must be there in the first place before any decision is made to off-side, or continue to stay off-side, in order maintain and/or extend that vision. If the vision that we already have closes down and doesn't extend then yes, of course, we must return to our own side.

That's just my interpretation of how this is applied in practice.