Brake gear overlap and tiptronics
Discussion
I’ve driven to the ‘the system’ for the last 20 years or so.
Approaching a bend, set your speed then select the appropriate gear. No issues at all.
However, more and more cars now are tiptronic, flappy paddle autos. When driving a manual the system makes total sense, but with tiptronics you can’t do a 5th to 3rd change for example. You have to 5,4,3. As such, with regards to the system and tiptronics, bearing in mind you don’t have a clutch to worry about, is brake gear overlap acceptable, as it seems to make sense?
Approaching a bend, set your speed then select the appropriate gear. No issues at all.
However, more and more cars now are tiptronic, flappy paddle autos. When driving a manual the system makes total sense, but with tiptronics you can’t do a 5th to 3rd change for example. You have to 5,4,3. As such, with regards to the system and tiptronics, bearing in mind you don’t have a clutch to worry about, is brake gear overlap acceptable, as it seems to make sense?
Thanks Reg, these are useful.
One thing I would say is that you mention the rev matching function in the manual M2C and appear to cite this as a "permission" to BGOL. The arguments I've heard to date against BGOL as part of the classical AD system have never included the need to heel and toe. I might be taking this out of context but I do think that either BGOL should be avoided at almost all costs on the public road or, in fact, there should be an open acknowledgement from the AD community that it has its place, especially when the focus is on safe performance driving.
Separately, the lack of ability to turn off rev matching on modern manual M cars without entirely disabling the DSC is an issue some of my enthusiast colleagues have taken great issue with.
I am more on the fence than some when it comes to manual vs good dual clutch systems. I don't find the third pedal adds that much more involvement for me apart from H&T and if that is removed then even less. I often get flamed for making such comments...
Lastly, I think the modern ZF autos are so responsive the "sluggishness" described in taking up drive when time analogous to a manual change is not accounted for is not really a genuine issue.
Just my comments and find the videos very educational as well as provoking discussion points.
One thing I would say is that you mention the rev matching function in the manual M2C and appear to cite this as a "permission" to BGOL. The arguments I've heard to date against BGOL as part of the classical AD system have never included the need to heel and toe. I might be taking this out of context but I do think that either BGOL should be avoided at almost all costs on the public road or, in fact, there should be an open acknowledgement from the AD community that it has its place, especially when the focus is on safe performance driving.
Separately, the lack of ability to turn off rev matching on modern manual M cars without entirely disabling the DSC is an issue some of my enthusiast colleagues have taken great issue with.
I am more on the fence than some when it comes to manual vs good dual clutch systems. I don't find the third pedal adds that much more involvement for me apart from H&T and if that is removed then even less. I often get flamed for making such comments...
Lastly, I think the modern ZF autos are so responsive the "sluggishness" described in taking up drive when time analogous to a manual change is not accounted for is not really a genuine issue.
Just my comments and find the videos very educational as well as provoking discussion points.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I get this "exemption" to BGOL which is well described, but I am talking about performance driving where, for example, BGOL is used at higher speeds on the approach to an open bend. If, as Reg's video appears to suggest, the argument against this has previously been the ostensibly risky manoeuvre of H&T that can now be mitigated by modern rev matching technology then this opens up the debate more widely in my view. DocSteve said:
ostensibly risky manoeuvre of H&T
Two things. Avoiding BGOL is really to avoid non-rev matched gear changes in normal use in a manual car or an auto with a crap gearbox and allows the driver to maintain smoothness and stability. I get why it's excepted in specific circumstances as described.Secondly, H&T isn't "ostensibly risky". All it does is to allow braking to continue while allowing a simultaneous rev-matched gear change. It's not risky per se, it's if the operator doesn't know how or when to employ it properly, it'll detract from the drive.
wiliferus said:
I’ve driven to the ‘the system’ for the last 20 years or so.
Approaching a bend, set your speed then select the appropriate gear. No issues at all.
However, more and more cars now are tiptronic, flappy paddle autos. When driving a manual the system makes total sense, but with tiptronics you can’t do a 5th to 3rd change for example. You have to 5,4,3. As such, with regards to the system and tiptronics, bearing in mind you don’t have a clutch to worry about, is brake gear overlap acceptable, as it seems to make sense?
Option A you leave the system in manual set your speed on the brake and then select the required gear prior to turn in and balance on the throttle (sport mode is often quicker to match gears to speed but it depends if the driving is spirited or relaxed)Approaching a bend, set your speed then select the appropriate gear. No issues at all.
However, more and more cars now are tiptronic, flappy paddle autos. When driving a manual the system makes total sense, but with tiptronics you can’t do a 5th to 3rd change for example. You have to 5,4,3. As such, with regards to the system and tiptronics, bearing in mind you don’t have a clutch to worry about, is brake gear overlap acceptable, as it seems to make sense?
Until June I had spent the last 9 months driving two company vehicles skoda DSG/ KIA DCT trans and had gotten used to running the in manual to gain advantage if needed and auto 80% of the time. These can be pushed down the gears pretty quick.
Then I have gone to my manual mazda and an auto saab 6 sentronic, the older is slower being dated CVT systems down shifting is much like the volvo gear tronic not a rushed affair. So I will normally only use the older auto in manual if I just want to drop one gear,
Option B leave in auto the system should select the appropriate gear for the speed/corner just avoid kick down in bends that you in ideal circumstances be used when the vehicle is pointing straight
Edited by surveyor_101 on Wednesday 19th August 11:04
dvenman said:
Two things. Avoiding BGOL is really to avoid non-rev matched gear changes in normal use in a manual car or an auto with a crap gearbox and allows the driver to maintain smoothness and stability. I
I think it was originally promoted in the days when cars were less stable under braking to get drivers to keep two hands on the wheel during braking. It was promoted to me with the following benefits additional to being able to rev match while braking without needing H & T:Both hands on wheel until slow
Braking earlier gives additional margin of safety
One thing to do at a time
I am unclear whether anyone teaches/requires separation in a manual car now.
I am very clear that using a paddle shift in manual mode with more than one gear to go down before a bend it is sensible to start changing down with overlap during braking.
On the manual/auto thing, the pleasure of a manual for me is mostly about rev matching accurately - and so is ruined by auto rev matching (I still make my best effort and beat myself up if I sense the auto system correcting what I have done). However a further pleasure comes from either using H & T or making time and space for separation before a hazard. I find it far more satisfying if slower and less efficient to drive a car with a clutch pedal.
waremark said:
I think it was originally promoted in the days when cars were less stable under braking to get drivers to keep two hands on the wheel during braking. It was promoted to me with the following benefits additional to being able to rev match while braking without needing H & T:
Both hands on wheel until slow
Braking earlier gives additional margin of safety
One thing to do at a time
I am unclear whether anyone teaches/requires separation in a manual car now.
I am very clear that using a paddle shift in manual mode with more than one gear to go down before a bend it is sensible to start changing down with overlap during braking.
On the manual/auto thing, the pleasure of a manual for me is mostly about rev matching accurately - and so is ruined by auto rev matching (I still make my best effort and beat myself up if I sense the auto system correcting what I have done). However a further pleasure comes from either using H & T or making time and space for separation before a hazard. I find it far more satisfying if slower and less efficient to drive a car with a clutch pedal.
Having meet Chris Gilbert his view was whilst still good discipline, it dates back to decades ago when I cars had drums front and rear and braking and steering was not a good idea. Both hands on wheel until slow
Braking earlier gives additional margin of safety
One thing to do at a time
I am unclear whether anyone teaches/requires separation in a manual car now.
I am very clear that using a paddle shift in manual mode with more than one gear to go down before a bend it is sensible to start changing down with overlap during braking.
On the manual/auto thing, the pleasure of a manual for me is mostly about rev matching accurately - and so is ruined by auto rev matching (I still make my best effort and beat myself up if I sense the auto system correcting what I have done). However a further pleasure comes from either using H & T or making time and space for separation before a hazard. I find it far more satisfying if slower and less efficient to drive a car with a clutch pedal.
dvenman said:
DocSteve said:
ostensibly risky manoeuvre of H&T
Two things. Avoiding BGOL is really to avoid non-rev matched gear changes in normal use in a manual car or an auto with a crap gearbox and allows the driver to maintain smoothness and stability. I get why it's excepted in specific circumstances as described.Secondly, H&T isn't "ostensibly risky". All it does is to allow braking to continue while allowing a simultaneous rev-matched gear change. It's not risky per se, it's if the operator doesn't know how or when to employ it properly, it'll detract from the drive.
DocSteve said:
I don't think it is risky but I know some AD organisations, including RoSPA consider it to be unnecessary ......
Does anyone consider H&T necessary? Enjoyable, satisfying and can contribute to a smooth flowing drive yes, but necessary no. The Rospa approach for the situations where Roadcraft endorses overlap of braking and gear changing (eg downhill sharp bend) is to let the clutch out without rev matching but towards the end of braking at low engine revs - in which case even an old Lamborghini would not be thrown off the road (refers to a particular accident some of us heard about).I can believe that risk is increased rather than reduced in the early learning stages. I recommend early practice while not trying to drive quickly into bends - and prioritising on the braking rather than the rev match.
waremark said:
DocSteve said:
I don't think it is risky but I know some AD organisations, including RoSPA consider it to be unnecessary ......
Does anyone consider H&T necessary? Enjoyable, satisfying and can contribute to a smooth flowing drive yes, but necessary no. The Rospa approach for the situations where Roadcraft endorses overlap of braking and gear changing (eg downhill sharp bend) is to let the clutch out without rev matching but towards the end of braking at low engine revs - in which case even an old Lamborghini would not be thrown off the road (refers to a particular accident some of us heard about).I can believe that risk is increased rather than reduced in the early learning stages. I recommend early practice while not trying to drive quickly into bends - and prioritising on the braking rather than the rev match.
DocSteve said:
waremark said:
DocSteve said:
I don't think it is risky but I know some AD organisations, including RoSPA consider it to be unnecessary ......
Does anyone consider H&T necessary? Enjoyable, satisfying and can contribute to a smooth flowing drive yes, but necessary no. The Rospa approach for the situations where Roadcraft endorses overlap of braking and gear changing (eg downhill sharp bend) is to let the clutch out without rev matching but towards the end of braking at low engine revs - in which case even an old Lamborghini would not be thrown off the road (refers to a particular accident some of us heard about).I can believe that risk is increased rather than reduced in the early learning stages. I recommend early practice while not trying to drive quickly into bends - and prioritising on the braking rather than the rev match.
Separation of controls is a great way to get people to a reasonable level of competence with dialled in safety.
Paddle shifts allow BGOL to be entered into safely.
H & T can be fluffed and still remain in safe hands eg. Senna at Monaco on one of his famous laps. Fluffed the H&T change and went through the corner in neutral.
PhilAsia said:
Separation of controls is a great way to get people to a reasonable level of competence with dialled in safety.
It is. But the problem is when the means (avoiding BGOL) becomes a goal in itself. And the excessive hoo-ha about BGOL will – with Tiptronic and electric cars – soon become extinct.Incredibly, I've managed to ride a motorcycle for years without too many crashes caused by BGOL 
If it has its place on two advanced wheels, why not in AD?
If it has its place on two advanced wheels, why not in AD?Motorcycle Roadcraft said:
During the latter stages of braking change to the appropriate gear.
And this down-change typically uses the motorcycle equivalent of H&T: both applying the front brake and blipping the throttle with the right hand simultaneously. As used by IMO, the benefit of avoiding brake/gear overlap is now nothing to do with any physics of the car and everything to do with the human driving that car!
Modern cars, frankly, you can do what you like with the controls and the car will sort it out. With DSC, ABS, DSG, auto etc etc the car can and will cope. It'll even open the throttle to prevent too low a gear selection from causing excessive yaw (called "active torque-up" in the DSC palance).
But, the meatware behind the wheel, us, well we are pretty much the same old bag of worms we've always been. Teaching the seperation of inputs allows the driver to slow / calm down their inputs and actually forces them to drive slower and less agressively, and it is this that is the benefit......
Modern cars, frankly, you can do what you like with the controls and the car will sort it out. With DSC, ABS, DSG, auto etc etc the car can and will cope. It'll even open the throttle to prevent too low a gear selection from causing excessive yaw (called "active torque-up" in the DSC palance).
But, the meatware behind the wheel, us, well we are pretty much the same old bag of worms we've always been. Teaching the seperation of inputs allows the driver to slow / calm down their inputs and actually forces them to drive slower and less agressively, and it is this that is the benefit......
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff