jcochrane wrote:A question...does it really matter that much whether separation, partial overlap or full overlap with H&T is used provided that the following three things are achieved?
1. In each case, after completing braking and gear change, the speed is the same at the same point on the road.
2. RPM is matched as required.
3. The same safety margin is maintained.
Horse wrote:jcochrane wrote:A question...does it really matter that much whether separation, partial overlap or full overlap with H&T is used provided that the following three things are achieved?
1. In each case, after completing braking and gear change, the speed is the same at the same point on the road.
2. RPM is matched as required.
3. The same safety margin is maintained.
It's all about terminology; 'brakes, then select appropriate gear', or: 'select lower gear for flexibility, then brake'. As long as you can use the appropriate terminology, you can explain anything away.
plumber wrote:I haven't been on the Forum in a while but seeing this thread has confirmed my belief in AD confusion. The op outlined the issue I had but in trying to get a sensible, clear WHY I was castigated by the AD Geeks who delight in accepting Dogma concerning Seperation, H & T and DDC all over the place with apparently smoothness and perfection. It is good to hear from some who have had diffiulties, it confirms it is not just me. Groups appear to be not very good at getting associates to understand what is wrong with Overlapping and WHY seperation is best. Much easier then to make associates feel small by dogmatically telling them and marking them down if they use it.
Whilst I have spent many hours doing the seperation equivalent of becoming ambidextrous I still hold the view of Seargent Gilbert and Vonhosen in that of itself is a perfectly safe and smooth method when planned for and applied correctly
StressedDave wrote:Zebedee wrote:Oh no, somebody's said the PP thing. That's going to add another twenty pages to this thread!
Shhhh! Nobody else has noticed yet - lets keep it that way.
@JC - No it doesn't matter in the slightest if you look at the outputs - it only matters to those who have an investment in the method by which the outputs are created.
onlinegenie wrote:I've read an explanation as to why we should separate brake and gear. I'll quote it as close as possible to verbatim, but I've got quite a few advanced driving books and I can't remember which one this came from or how long ago I read it. "When the driver is braking, the car's weight is thrown forward and the car becomes, to an extent, unstable. If the driver disengages the clutch while the car is unstable it removes drive from the rear wheels and makes a skid more likely to occur."
onlinegenie wrote:I have to admit that the phrase "remove drive from the rear wheels" might just as well be written in a foreign language (although I'm sure many on this board will understand it) but I have always accepted this advice as a reason why BGOL should be avoided when possible. Please note those words "when possible"! At that same observer meeting the examiner talked about BGOL and how some test candidates were determined to avoid it at all costs. He mentioned a particular junction near where I live and pointed out that he always overlapped at that junction as it would be unsafe to attempt separation.
trashbat wrote:Personally I don't agree that many of those make for tangible benefits, at least in a tame FWD car in ordinary conditions.
However I think you miss the biggest one, hinted at in 'fail safe'. That is, having to separate takes more time, so you have to brake earlier to accommodate it, so you have to plan earlier to accommodate that. We can all benefit from that, but especially associates, which is why I think it's an excellent teaching doctrine. Whether it's required so much beyond that, I'm less sure, but it's open to debate.
Silk wrote:I refer you back to my example of steering with knees - unless you're going to argue that it's an output, when it seems obvious to me that it's an input. If the methods that you use to steer, change gear and brake enable you to do it more efficiently/safer than other methods, then they are better inputs, are they not?
Good inputs produce good outputs, as far as I'm concerned. I don't see that it's possible to judge the ability or otherwise of a driver purely on outputs.
Silk wrote:In order to avoid confusion, I'll give some examples of what I consider to be inputs and outputs: -
Inputs: Hands on the wheel, gearstick, handbrake, signals; feet on the pedals etc.
Outputs: direction, progress, smoothness and interaction with other road users/objects etc.
I'm not really sure where you would put the other stuff, such as: taking/using/giving information; sense of danger; hazard awareness etc. Are these inputs, outputs or none of the above?
hir wrote:There are only three things one can do with a car (stop sniggering at the back).
1. Make it go faster (accelerator)
2. Make it go slower (brake [or gears/engine braking for the great unwashed non-system anti-establishment unbelievers who are lurking out there])
3. Make it change direction (steering)
waremark wrote:"As for BGOL, I've read an explanation as to why we should separate brake and gear. I'll quote it as close as possible to verbatim, but I've got quite a few advanced driving books and I can't remember which one this came from or how long ago I read it. "When the driver is braking, the car's weight is thrown forward and the car becomes, to an extent, unstable. If the driver disengages the clutch while the car is unstable it removes drive from the rear wheels and makes a skid more likely to occur."
I don't find that very convincing, nor even very relevant to brake gear overlap. Can you find the source of this explanation and quote from it more specifically?
Return to Advanced Driving Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests