On brake, off brake, change gear, power, turn-in...

[Wilburo]

I'm doing my IAM at the moment and am having some real trouble with something that sounds so simple - not overlapping my braking and gear changes.

I'm braking in a straight line (though FWD cars do quite like trail-braking) and taking the appropriate gear before turning-in, but can't help performaing the gearchange towards the end of my braking, as it becomes more gentle (soft-hard-soft).

Does anyone have any tips?

[7db]

It can seem alien - but the problem you are having is not mechanical but rather one of your mind not having a good mental picture of what it should look like.

A separated change has a different rhythm to it than an overlapped one, and it sounds to me like you are trying to keep the same rhythm but separate the actions.

If you get the chance, drive with someone who can separate and listen to the rhythm.


Failing that, do everything much earlier. You can always make it quicker and later again if you want to. It will feel like you are crawling into the junction. Try to change gear a von-articulated lorry away from the hazard, then concentrate on power and turn-in.

It's also important -- when you have these big margins to do enough braking (ie not finish your braking knowing that you can always do a bit of trail braking if you get scared). The mind-set that really works for me in cornering is to make a good effort to have a lightly rising throttle (ie very mildly accelerative) prior to turn in - not just neutral (which is oh-so-easily just sub-neutral). Do this a few times wrong and you'll get scared by the speed mid-corner and you'll want to start off slower. Do this by braking more rather than unbalancing the car with the throttle.

[Z.B]

Easy. Just brake slightly harder than before (eg 10-20%). That leaves you enough road after you come off the brake (you need more than you think). You should feel like you're slowing down too much: you won't be, really.

It also helps to keep your left foot away from temptation - i.e. the clutch, until you are completely done braking. For a sustained rev change try to press the clutch and gas together, NOT clutch first, which I find tends to lead to a slow or messy change.

In summary BRAKE BRAKE BRAKE. If you get the BRAKING right you'll soon get everything else too! Have fun!

[reggie82]

Brake gear overlap is something i really struggled with too. To be honest it never felt natural to me, i always had to think about it, and now I have passed my test I very rarely still do it.

I think the main problem is that i don't understand the benefits it brings, it just seems to slow me down and increase the risk of someone rear ending me at a junction as they won't be expecting to you slow down so early.

Can anyone explain the benefits, as there must be something I don't understand otherwise it wouldnt be taught.

The only thing I can think of is unless you are heal-toeing, you either have to coast for brief moment or else it is difficult to match the revs and ensure a smooth down change?

[vonhosen]

reggie82 said:

Brake gear overlap is something i really struggled with too. To be honest it never felt natural to me, i always had to think about it, and now I have passed my test I very rarely still do it.

Natural is what you would do without any instruction. Natural may or may not be best.
It's by thinking about what we are trying to achieve, where our strengths lay & what we wish to adapt in our current performance in order to raise it, that will determine what is best for us. What we want is to be able to perform to as high a standard as possible consistently.

reggie82 said:

I think the main problem is that i don't understand the benefits it brings, it just seems to slow me down and increase the risk of someone rear ending me at a junction as they won't be expecting to you slow down so early.

How hard have you thought about how you could raise your current performance & what options there are to achieve that gain ?

reggie82 said:

Can anyone explain the benefits, as there must be something I don't understand otherwise it wouldnt be taught.

The only thing I can think of is unless you are heal-toeing, you either have to coast for brief moment or else it is difficult to match the revs and ensure a smooth down change?

If you are going to rev match & overlap then you'll need heel toe.
If you can't heel/toe to a sufficiently high standard that you produce as smooth or smoother rev matched changes than when separating, then you may be performing better separating.

You say it seems to slow you down, yet slower on the approach to the hazard may not be a bad thing.

You say that you may be rear ended, but separation (which is part of the system) may be compromised as part of a pre planned approach on the grounds of safety. That effectively means that if the threat of being rear ended is sufficiently high then perhaps you are better off overlapping in those circumstances.

Some of the classic answers in support of separation are:
1) You are only concentrating on one task at a time.
2) Both hands will be on the steering wheel whilst you are braking
3) You will be planning and creating room for a separated gear change, the by products of that are that your approach speed to the hazard will be slower & you will be looking to lose that speed further back from the hazard creating a safety buffer.
4) You don't need to be able to heel/toe in order to rev match.

[reggie82]

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I still don't really see the benefit though. If i change gear whilst still braking i do it just before i make the turn. This means my speed is very low so the benefits you have listed are negligible / zero imho.

I'm not trying to argue the system, just trying to understand it better so I can make the most of it.

Does anyone have any real-life examples of how avoiding break-gear overlap has saved a collision happening or similar?

[vonhosen]

reggie82 said:

Thanks for your detailed reply.

I still don't really see the benefit though. If i change gear whilst still braking i do it just before i make the turn. This means my speed is very low so the benefits you have listed are negligible / zero imho.

I'm not trying to argue the system, just trying to understand it better so I can make the most of it.

Does anyone have any real-life examples of how avoiding break-gear overlap has saved a collision happening or similar?

You may find that the higher the initial speeds you approach from & the more you are trying to make progress, the more you struggle to keep it all together & balanced on entry where you do an overlap. (Assuming you aren't really talented & very adept at heel/toe).

The system was designed for Police officers responding at speed. It is designed to offer a way for people who are perhaps not naturally gifted drivers to be able to make good safe progress between hazards, but be able to keep it together with a consistent repeatable system on approaching them.

Perhaps you haven't been exposed to seeing any virtues it may offer in order to appreciate it.
It's not the only way of doing things, it is an option that may be of benefit.
The important thing is to keep trying to improve. You may get ideas from others you see who you consider successful, or you may find innovative approaches from simply reflecting on your own performance.

[reggie82]

Thanks VonHosen, appreciate your views.

That's one way i do find it helps actually, slowing earlier forces me to assess the situation better.

[RobM77]

This part of the system is probably the part argued about most on here. It doesn't really make much sense from a car dynamics or logical point of view. Vonhosen's response above is pretty spot on though: it provides a repeatable system for police officers whose sole object is not to be good drivers, but good police officers and attend situations that require their presence swiftly and in safety. They will arrive at their destination about 1% later than if they used blended and balanced driving, and when they're driving they will be about 5% less safe than a balanced approach, but at the end of the day those are good certainties, and it's better to be certain of what's going on than less certain and trust the individual's driving ability, which could and probably does vary greatly (the Police do not have the time nor the money to train their officers in advanced car dynamics; the time would be wasted and would be better spent learning law enforcement). Put most drivers without a detailed knowledge and experience of car dynamics in a car and ask them to respond to emergencies and there's a high likelehood that after doing it for a few weeks they'll crash; give them a rigid system and they won't crash. It doesn't mean it's the right way to drive, it's just a good system for what it was designed to do.

All in my own humble opinion of course.

[jamesallport]

Doesn't that make the system spot on for the vast majority of drivers who, just like police officers, use their cars to get from A to B so that they can do something else? In my experience, that's the attitude of the vast majority of folk who sign up with IAM or RoSPA. Very few are enthusiasts.

[gdaybruce]

RobM77 said:

This part of the system is probably the part argued about most on here. It doesn't really make much sense from a car dynamics or logical point of view. Vonhosen's response above is pretty spot on though: it provides a repeatable system for police officers whose sole object is not to be good drivers, but good police officers and attend situations that require their presence swiftly and in safety. They will arrive at their destination about 1% later than if they used blended and balanced driving, and when they're driving they will be about 5% less safe than a balanced approach, but at the end of the day those are good certainties, and it's better to be certain of what's going on than less certain and trust the individual's driving ability, which could and probably does vary greatly (the Police do not have the time nor the money to train their officers in advanced car dynamics; the time would be wasted and would be better spent learning law enforcement). Put most drivers without a detailed knowledge and experience of car dynamics in a car and ask them to respond to emergencies and there's a high likelehood that after doing it for a few weeks they'll crash; give them a rigid system and they won't crash. It doesn't mean it's the right way to drive, it's just a good system for what it was designed to do.

All in my own humble opinion of course.

That is pretty much the conclusion I'd come to on this topic, given the benefit of Von's excellent analysis. One further thought, though, is that I suspect the system was developed at a time when cars were inherently much less stable, especially under hard braking, and certainly didn't have modern electronic safety nets, such as ABS and stability control. In those circumstances it would have made much more sense to ensure that both hands were on the wheel when braking hard and that the balance of the car was not upset by a poor downchange under brakes. Plus, no power steering would be a further reason to keep both hands on the wheel .

The fact that cars now have electronic aids, better tyres, etc. does not mean that old techniques are to be discarded but I would suggest that they are less essential for "normal" driving. After all, how often does one drive on the road as if in a police car in 'hot pursuit'? (No need to answer that!)

[RobM77]

jamesallport said:

Doesn't that make the system spot on for the vast majority of drivers who, just like police officers, use their cars to get from A to B so that they can do something else? In my experience, that's the attitude of the vast majority of folk who sign up with IAM or RoSPA. Very few are enthusiasts.

That is precisely what I was getting at, and I expect Vonhosen was too.

[vonhosen]

gdaybruce said:

RobM77 said:

This part of the system is probably the part argued about most on here. It doesn't really make much sense from a car dynamics or logical point of view. Vonhosen's response above is pretty spot on though: it provides a repeatable system for police officers whose sole object is not to be good drivers, but good police officers and attend situations that require their presence swiftly and in safety. They will arrive at their destination about 1% later than if they used blended and balanced driving, and when they're driving they will be about 5% less safe than a balanced approach, but at the end of the day those are good certainties, and it's better to be certain of what's going on than less certain and trust the individual's driving ability, which could and probably does vary greatly (the Police do not have the time nor the money to train their officers in advanced car dynamics; the time would be wasted and would be better spent learning law enforcement). Put most drivers without a detailed knowledge and experience of car dynamics in a car and ask them to respond to emergencies and there's a high likelehood that after doing it for a few weeks they'll crash; give them a rigid system and they won't crash. It doesn't mean it's the right way to drive, it's just a good system for what it was designed to do.

All in my own humble opinion of course.

That is pretty much the conclusion I'd come to on this topic, given the benefit of Von's excellent analysis. One further thought, though, is that I suspect the system was developed at a time when cars were inherently much less stable, especially under hard braking, and certainly didn't have modern electronic safety nets, such as ABS and stability control. In those circumstances it would have made much more sense to ensure that both hands were on the wheel when braking hard and that the balance of the car was not upset by a poor downchange under brakes. Plus, no power steering would be a further reason to keep both hands on the wheel .

Indeed it was developed in the times of cable brakes & heavy unassisted steering. That's not to say that it's evolution doesn't still offer the best proposition for many drivers, or that it shouldn't be considered in the pursuit of enhancing individual performance.

Edited by vonhosen on Wednesday 1st July 18:09

[7db]

My experience of driving with people suggests that a lot of people who don't like separation can't do* it. It also suggests that a lot of people who prefer heel n toe can't do* that either.

I think if you can do* both then by all means pick and choose.

If you can only do one badly then separation gives you most breathing room, and more assessment time on hazard approach. I'd much rather screw that up than screw a heel n toe change up.

Since none of us is as good as we think we are, we should probably all make sure we can separate, just in case, eh.

• by which I mean can't consistently demonstrate it at a high level of competence.

[jaf01uk]

We were taught that you can do one thing really well or a combination of things reasonably well.
If you think about what is happening when you are "overlapping" for a sec - you have one foot on the brake (poss same foot on gas pedal as well if H/Toeing) the other foot is on the clutch pedal, one hand on the gear lever and the other hopefully on the wheel! This combination of limbs all over the place can be quite unstable and if a new hazard presents itself you are in a very awkward position with a number of rapid adjustments to make.
The other way of doing it is - spot your limit point and slow towards it on acc sense and/or brakes, once the speed is right and the limit point starts to give you more stopping distance and your speed is set, right foot back on gas to match the revs and change gear, veh is now stable and slight degree of accel applied to overcome the natural speed losses while cornering and maintain speed till the road starts opening up and yeehaa - lot more controlled and is just as progressive when you get used to it,
Gary

[Wilburo]

Thanks for the suggestions everyone - the thread makes interesting reading.

Naturally, I'm now trying this everywhere but had a funny incident this morning. Coming up to a roundabout where I wanted to make a left-turn, I braked, changed down and blipped the throttle... Only I overcooked it so when the clutch came back up I launched myself through the corner like it was Le Mans or something.

Once turned-in, I kept it stable (slight throttle) and let it run slightly wide on the exit, then burst out laughing

[RobM77]

jaf01uk said:

We were taught that you can do one thing really well or a combination of things reasonably well.
If you think about what is happening when you are "overlapping" for a sec - you have one foot on the brake (poss same foot on gas pedal as well if H/Toeing) the other foot is on the clutch pedal, one hand on the gear lever and the other hopefully on the wheel! This combination of limbs all over the place can be quite unstable and if a new hazard presents itself you are in a very awkward position with a number of rapid adjustments to make.

I see your point, but for a huge number of drivers, me included, all of these actions of driving the car are shifted back in the brain to an autonomous region and really don't register or interfere. For example, when I'm racing I think about the limit of the tyres' adhesion, my line, and my braking and acceleration points - I don't think about what my feet and hands are doing much at all. In fact, sometimes when battling for position everything becomes autonomous and I'm just thinking about where the other car is. During testing, I might be thinking about something mechanical on the car and how it could be changed. Naturally, I concentrate on braking during threshold braking, and especially when trail braking, but heel and toeing and blending steering into brakes etc just doesn't even register!

I'm not trying to say I'm a better driver because I race, but what I'm saying is that if one regularly drives on the very limit of adhesion using heel and toe, threshold braking and utmost smoothness, driving on the road at a fraction of the speed leaves a huge amount of brain power open to the critical tasks of observation and planning. I honestly don't think that if I started operating the car in a different manner it would make much difference to my effectiveness at advanced driving methods.

I'm not just coming from the standpoint of a racing driver, I think I can speak for anyone who has practised their own individual system enough, it becomes like breathing or walking after a while.

[vonhosen]

RobM77 said:

jaf01uk said:

We were taught that you can do one thing really well or a combination of things reasonably well.
If you think about what is happening when you are "overlapping" for a sec - you have one foot on the brake (poss same foot on gas pedal as well if H/Toeing) the other foot is on the clutch pedal, one hand on the gear lever and the other hopefully on the wheel! This combination of limbs all over the place can be quite unstable and if a new hazard presents itself you are in a very awkward position with a number of rapid adjustments to make.

I see your point, but for a huge number of drivers, me included, all of these actions of driving the car are shifted back in the brain to an autonomous region and really don't register or interfere. For example, when I'm racing I think about the limit of the tyres' adhesion, my line, and my braking and acceleration points - I don't think about what my feet and hands are doing much at all. In fact, sometimes when battling for position everything becomes autonomous and I'm just thinking about where the other car is. During testing, I might be thinking about something mechanical on the car and how it could be changed. Naturally, I concentrate on braking during threshold braking, and especially when trail braking, but heel and toeing and blending steering into brakes etc just doesn't even register!

I'm not trying to say I'm a better driver because I race, but what I'm saying is that if one regularly drives on the very limit of adhesion using heel and toe, threshold braking and utmost smoothness, driving on the road at a fraction of the speed leaves a huge amount of brain power open to the critical tasks of observation and planning. I honestly don't think that if I started operating the car in a different manner it would make much difference to my effectiveness at advanced driving methods.

I'm not just coming from the standpoint of a racing driver, I think I can speak for anyone who has practised their own individual system enough, it becomes like breathing or walking after a while.

But you've paid a lot of money & spent a lot of time getting to the stage of unconscious competence in that skill set. Most people will want a quicker cheaper fix, that's before you get into what are the priorities with the time & money available.
Track & road have different focuses & as a result primary core skills are a little different. That's not to say that skills you learn on track may not prove useful to you on road, it's that in choosing the focus for training on road with limited time & budgets, then they may be at the back of a rather long queue.

[RobM77]

vonhosen said:

RobM77 said:

jaf01uk said:

We were taught that you can do one thing really well or a combination of things reasonably well.
If you think about what is happening when you are "overlapping" for a sec - you have one foot on the brake (poss same foot on gas pedal as well if H/Toeing) the other foot is on the clutch pedal, one hand on the gear lever and the other hopefully on the wheel! This combination of limbs all over the place can be quite unstable and if a new hazard presents itself you are in a very awkward position with a number of rapid adjustments to make.

I see your point, but for a huge number of drivers, me included, all of these actions of driving the car are shifted back in the brain to an autonomous region and really don't register or interfere. For example, when I'm racing I think about the limit of the tyres' adhesion, my line, and my braking and acceleration points - I don't think about what my feet and hands are doing much at all. In fact, sometimes when battling for position everything becomes autonomous and I'm just thinking about where the other car is. During testing, I might be thinking about something mechanical on the car and how it could be changed. Naturally, I concentrate on braking during threshold braking, and especially when trail braking, but heel and toeing and blending steering into brakes etc just doesn't even register!

I'm not trying to say I'm a better driver because I race, but what I'm saying is that if one regularly drives on the very limit of adhesion using heel and toe, threshold braking and utmost smoothness, driving on the road at a fraction of the speed leaves a huge amount of brain power open to the critical tasks of observation and planning. I honestly don't think that if I started operating the car in a different manner it would make much difference to my effectiveness at advanced driving methods.

I'm not just coming from the standpoint of a racing driver, I think I can speak for anyone who has practised their own individual system enough, it becomes like breathing or walking after a while.

But you've paid a lot of money & spent a lot of time getting to the stage of unconscious competence in that skill set. Most people will want a quicker cheaper fix, that's before you get into what are the priorities with the time & money available.
Track & road have different focuses & as a result primary core skills are a little different. That's not to say that skills you learn on track may not prove useful to you on road, it's that in choosing the focus for training on road with limited time & budgets, then they may be at the back of a rather long queue.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more

What I don't like though is being told to drive in a different way. Some colleagues and friends of mine are IAM members and/or RoSPA certified and they tell me that my use of a balanced throttle and blending steering into braking would not be compatible with their system and I would have to change my basic car control in order to receive tuition in the other important areas that they offer. Not only would this confuse me and make me slower on track (to keep track skills up one has to stay aware of grip and balance on the road; it's invaluable practise. Obviously this is done at very low speed, but it's the awareness that counts), but I also feel it's advantageous to be cornering at 40mph with a potential limit in the car of 70mph rather than the 65mph that IAM methods would produce. As you rightly point out, it's simply not worth the average Joe or even a Traffic Officer training and practising to that level of car control, but if one has already undergone ten years of obssessive development in that area (I can spend hours of my day just thinking about one corner, sometimes even days on end), it would be totally unacceptable to me to throw it all away when I drive on the road, no matter how small the difference in resultant safety.

[BertBert]

Unfortunately the technique of separation has gained a creadence far, far above its (safety) value.

It was developed originally as Von says for cable braked cars when braking was a significant activity, getting the car slowed and keeping control with two hands took some doing. That hasn't been the case for what? 40 years?

It gained widespread use by the police as part of Roadcraft. Was that because it was inherently good and safe. No, principally because it was teachable by rote to average drivers and by being single-threaded, sequenced, compartmentalisable and observable it was easily testable.

Now it attracts all kind of justifications outside of this to keep its place as a superior technique. That's an intellectually poor place to be.

The real problem is (as I have said from my soapbox before), there is no INNOVATION in advanced driving.

We've had 4-legs good, 2-legs bad for a very long time. When will we get 2-legs better?

Bert