Why is it wrong to brake and down-change simultaneously?
Discussion
I don't hold any advanced driving qualification, but I have been told it's so you don't do two things that could potentially make the car unstable at the same time. There are exceptions though, such as turning into a left hand junction going down a hill...
I don't think it's wrong either, might make it less smooth if you don't get the rev match right, but you'd have to be approaching the limit of grip already in order to make it dangerous.
I don't think it's wrong either, might make it less smooth if you don't get the rev match right, but you'd have to be approaching the limit of grip already in order to make it dangerous.
Edited by CB2152 on Sunday 6th October 12:35
CB2152 said:
I don't hold any advanced driving qualification, bt I have been told it's so you don't do two things that could potentially make the car unstable at the same time. There are exceptions though, such as turning into a left hand junction going down a hill...
Exactly right. This is what I was taught for my IAM test. There is a difference between advanced driving and car control, so for the system used by the iam etc. it is probably due to the emphasis being on the former. This is not a bad thing in a 'walk before you run' sense.
To a biker doing several things at once comes naturally so deliberately not doing the same in a car feels odd.
To a biker doing several things at once comes naturally so deliberately not doing the same in a car feels odd.
MC Bodge said:
Toltec said:
To a biker doing several things at once comes naturally so deliberately not doing the same in a car feels odd.
Quite right.....and the IAM bike course is fairly indifferent to such matters in my experience.
It isn't wrong, it is just a system, it was a useful teaching aid to get new candidates to think about what they're doing and why.
It actually stems from a much earlier period when brakes didn't work on all wheels with the same efficency, so you wouldn't brake in a straight line.
Don't get hung up on it, enjoy the course, then take whatever you've learnt and incorperate into your everyday driving style as you see fit.
It actually stems from a much earlier period when brakes didn't work on all wheels with the same efficency, so you wouldn't brake in a straight line.
Don't get hung up on it, enjoy the course, then take whatever you've learnt and incorperate into your everyday driving style as you see fit.
DaineseMan said:
MC Bodge said:
Toltec said:
To a biker doing several things at once comes naturally so deliberately not doing the same in a car feels odd.
Quite right.....and the IAM bike course is fairly indifferent to such matters in my experience.
Its not 'wrong' but the vehicle is more balanced if they are seperated and the driver is then doing one thing at a time and not two so the concentration for each is going to be better
The only time I do both together is below 10 mph when going into first gear in a give way type situation
A bit of practice makes this easy to do
The only time I do both together is below 10 mph when going into first gear in a give way type situation
A bit of practice makes this easy to do
It will depend on how much of an anorack your observer is.
I never liked this part of the system, so although I'd use it to demonstrate control and thought over what you're doing, I wouldn't worry much about it.
Bikes are different depending on what braking system they actually have, it isn't so easy to have a "one size fits all" for those.
I never liked this part of the system, so although I'd use it to demonstrate control and thought over what you're doing, I wouldn't worry much about it.
Bikes are different depending on what braking system they actually have, it isn't so easy to have a "one size fits all" for those.
R0G said:
the vehicle is more balanced if they are seperated
is it, really?R0G said:
and the driver is then doing one thing at a time and not two so the concentration for each is going to be better
2 separate issues.R0G said:
The only time I do both together is below 10 mph when going into first gear in a give way type situation
Why not be a bit more freestyle?DaineseMan said:
I know about the saying 'brakes to slow, gears to go' and that, in line with IPSGA, speed and gears are separate stages - but can anyone actually explain to me why it is wrong to brake and down-change simultaneously?
Well I certainly can't, because I don't think it is wrong, so long as you make appropriate changes to your speed, and have a suitable gear engaged.Best wishes all,
Dave.
R0G said:
When braking the vehicle is 'nose heavy' so releasing the brake makes the vehicle balanced - I think that is a physics fact
That may be so, but surely it isn't simply a matter of a vehicle being balanced or unbalanced. There are degrees of balance, or the lack thereof.So long as we avoid having the vehicle unbalanced to such an extent that it is becoming unstable, I don't see that much harm is being done. As I see it, we need a sufficiently good state of balance that we have decent stability which gives us the ability to perform sudden manoeuvres when needed to respond to emergency situations. Apart from that, I don't think it matters that much.
In any case, when we talk of balance, do we mean having approximately equal weight on all four wheels? I hope not, because many cars never have that, even when stationary on level ground.
p1esk said:
R0G said:
When braking the vehicle is 'nose heavy' so releasing the brake makes the vehicle balanced - I think that is a physics fact
That may be so, but surely it isn't simply a matter of a vehicle being balanced or unbalanced. There are degrees of balance, or the lack thereof.So long as we avoid having the vehicle unbalanced to such an extent that it is becoming unstable, I don't see that much harm is being done. As I see it, we need a sufficiently good state of balance that we have decent stability which gives us the ability to perform sudden manoeuvres when needed to respond to emergency situations. Apart from that, I don't think it matters that much.
In any case, when we talk of balance, do we mean having approximately equal weight on all four wheels? I hope not, because many cars never have that, even when stationary on level ground.
Mandat said:
p1esk said:
R0G said:
When braking the vehicle is 'nose heavy' so releasing the brake makes the vehicle balanced - I think that is a physics fact
That may be so, but surely it isn't simply a matter of a vehicle being balanced or unbalanced. There are degrees of balance, or the lack thereof.So long as we avoid having the vehicle unbalanced to such an extent that it is becoming unstable, I don't see that much harm is being done. As I see it, we need a sufficiently good state of balance that we have decent stability which gives us the ability to perform sudden manoeuvres when needed to respond to emergency situations. Apart from that, I don't think it matters that much.
In any case, when we talk of balance, do we mean having approximately equal weight on all four wheels? I hope not, because many cars never have that, even when stationary on level ground.
...and I do like your 'nett' rather than 'net', though I suspect you're in a tiny minority by spelling it that way.
Are you a bit aged, like me?
R0G said:
When braking the vehicle is 'nose heavy' so releasing the brake makes the vehicle balanced - I think that is a physics fact
No, you have that the wrong.The car is in balance when the centre of gravity of the car stays in the same place. Travelling around a constant radius curve, braking at a constant rate, or accelerating at a constant rate (not going to happen) will all put the car in balance, exactly the same as travelling along a straight road at a constant speed.
Making an abrupt change to a control will take everything out of balance. The CofG will shift, and as the suspension and tyres adjust to that, everything squirms around a bit, which shifts the centre of gravity a bit too. That's what we try and avoid.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff