Reply to comment

We seem to agree. Nevertheless, I don't see a point for the 'liberalism', so to speak, as practiced towards a 10:02 position. I mean, why to state that "the hands must be between 9:15 to 10:02," if it is clear that the optimal positioning is ONLY at 9:15, and not higher?

I do acknowledge that a 10:02 grip might be necessary for smaller people, with a narrow body relative to the steering wheel, but with modern steering rims and adjustment abilites, this is purely an extremity. Most people would find the optimum control only at 9 and 3.

A 10:02 grip is strictly a traditional grip. It stems from the 70's and 80's where awareness to safety was lower and, when cars had heavy steering mechanisms and big rims, without airbags and without the seating adjustments that make modern cars so comfortable to sit in.

The result, in those cars, were that holding the wheel at 9 to-3 would have resulted in opening the arms beyond the width of the shoulders, reducing their leverage and amplitude. Holding the wheel high (at 10:02 or higher) allowed to rest the weight of the arms over the rim and turn it by using the shoulders to "push" the wheel, and caused no trouble with the airbags (that were not applied in cars) or with the reach of the controls, as the blinkers and wipers were intentionally bent upwards to fit this grip and even under all of these limitations - it was arguable whether such a grip is indeed preferable to holding the wheel at 9:15.

In a modern car, in 9:15 grip is such that allows both arms to operate as equall weights on both sides of the wheel, even while turning it. The rims are adjusted to support such a grip with "sockets" for the thumbs over the spokes of the wheel and with the wiper and signal controls being instantly reachable by the fingers. In this position, the amplitude for quick steering (for avoidance purposes) increases to a total of 260 degrees in each direction, instead of about 180 degrees in 10:02. So, why to even consider holding the wheel at 10:02?

Reply