mugget

Hi Kruizen, It may be that associating max lean angle with the turn apex is counterproductive. I'm not sure if you're thinking this way, but what I used to do was try and actually aim to reach max lean at the apex. This is completely backwards and is going to even result in slow/dangerous riding on some corners. On certain corners it may be true that you reach max lean angle for that turn (not max lean for the bike) at the apex, but this will not be true of every corner. Try not to think of reaching max lean as a goal. As you improve your quick turn ability and your accuracy and ability to judge speed improves you will actually be able to ride a given corner at the same speed (perhaps even faster) using the same or less lean angle as before. I'd say that's pretty much it. Although there is a very helpful way to know for sure in any turn when to get back on the throttle - this is when you know that you are going to hit your intended exit point for the corner (or at least when you know you're not going to run wide off track). For example there was one particular big, open fast corner when I did Level 1. I would turn and when I was sure I would hit my corner exit point I picked up the throttle as I headed to the apex. There was maybe once or twice where everything lined up so that I was back on the throttle the very moment I had finished turning. But notice that I was back on the throttle heading towards the apex? Using the apex to judge braking/turning/throttle will throw you off. There's nothing particularly special about "hitting the apex", for instance if you stay off the throttle just to get within 10cm of the inside curbing when you could have actually been back on the throttle 10 metres ago, you have just gone slower than needed... As a side point talking about the apex, every single rider does "hit their apex" 100% of the time. Their apex simply means the place in a turn where their line comes closest to the inside of the corner. A rider could take the same corner 100 times and have a different apex in each. The point is that there isn't really any one set apex point for each corner, which just goes to show why judging your riding by an imaginary "apex" will throw you off. Try not to think of it in terms of judging your throttle according to your lean angle. I think it's better to go by the method of adding throttle when you know you'll reach your exit point (or not run off track) because not going off track at the exit is more important than whether or not you've just reached max lean for that corner. If you use that guideline everything will fall into place anyway - if you are heading to the corner exit you will already be coming up from max lean. If you only pick up the throttle when you're sure you will hit your exit point then there is no way that you risk adding throttle while adding lean (at least I haven't experienced, and can't imagine any situation where this wouldn't be true). I hope that helps!

You had me until that last diagram... now I'm a bit confused... I learnt a fair bit about this topic from a couple of different pages on this site, good if folks want to have a look at maths and technical stuff: http://www.stevemund.../leanangle.html Note this one paragraph: Remember that more lean at the same speed is not a good thing... it just means you will run out of lean angle at a lower speed. Therefore a higher center of gravity is desirable to maximise lean capacity and ability for faster cornering. Maybe I'm getting this mixed up with body position? Changing body position to create a lower C.G. is one way to reduce the actual lean angle. I'm sure this image isn't new to many here: Which basically demonstrates what you're saying about how the different C.G. affects lean angle. But now I can't reconcile this with the passage I quoted above? Ahh... help? Edit> Just realised that the rider photos above don't accurately show the "actual" lean angle, only the bike lean angle. I will have to have another look at this in the morning... I also recall from previous discussions that people have mentioned taller C.G (to a point) providing quicker/easier steering?

Hey Alfred, Welcome to the forum! I bet you do some great riding trips to the mountains around there? I was there about a year ago with some mates and we hired bikes, went up to Hakone and I couldn't believe how fantastic that road is! I am interested in going back just for more riding, but I would do it in summer next time... haha. You're not alone there... I think there's a lot of people who struggle with the same type of feeling. I know I did. You're going to love CSS - it can be a bit hard to fully understand the concept of things just from reading about it, but the one on one coaching and classroom sessions will help you enormously I'm sure. But I guess you're already there right now finding that out! Hope you're having fun at the school! Cheers, Conrad

I feel for ya, I was in a similar situation - got fairly hardcore into bodybuilding & was training hard, eating bucketloads of food but then due to working more overtime & life in general I just stopped training, but kept eating the same... got up to 24% BF (body fat) and could not see my abs, saw a photo of myself with my gut sticking out and thought that's just not me! But the good news is that I'm now down under 10% BF, feeling great & energy is through the roof (seriously considering lifting weights twice a day, and I am already on a 5 day split. Previously I would not have been able to bare the thought of anything more than my 3 day split, even when I was a lot younger). A favorite saying of mine is "what a man can do, any man can do" - that means you! So, here's how... Bear with me, this will likely be a lengthy post but it's important to explain things so you can have a solid evidence to base your decisions around. First up, understand that you will lose fat from all over your body. I know that people say they have these "stubborn" places, but don't get discouraged by that. What you will find is that you will start to lose fat from your extremities, working in towards your stomach and thighs - those places may appear stubborn but that's just because they'll be the last places you lose fat from. You'll notice that your hands will get leaner (you may not think your hands are fat, but I promise you it's there), you'll feel that your shoes arean't as tight (yep fat is there as well). The point is that you can't try and select an area of fat you would like to lose, your body will lose fat in it's own way. As far as what kind of exercise to do, it's definitely important to find something that you enjoy - just from the point of view that unless you enjoy it, you won't stick with it. Having said that, the most effective way to change body composition (getting leaner or more muscular) is through weight training. Cardio has no effect on your body composition. Here's why: Body Composition Equation What you eat - determines your weight Strength - determines your lean mass Fat - is the difference in between So using that equation you have a couple of options if you want to lower your body fat %. You can keep eating the same, and get much stronger meaning that you will increase your lean mass and your fat mass will be proportionately less. Or you can adjust what you eat in order to lower your body weight (while maintaining your current strength which is very important), and your fat mass will also be lowered this way. Can you see how cardio fits into the above equation...? Don't feel bad if you can't see it - it's kind of a trick question... cardio doesn't have anything to do with fat loss at all! If you like lifting weights and have already started a program - that's great! The best thing you can do is stick with that, and best of all you don't have to spend hours and hours each week on a treadmill. Standard Diets, Adaptation & Intermittent Fasting Okay - now diet is where there is a lot of room for improvement above & beyond body composition. If you eat a SAD (Standard American Diet) you will be overfed and undernourished. This probably goes for most of the western world as well, but if a panel of nutritionists and doctors got together and devised a diet with the aim of making people fat and sick - they would come up with the SAD. That's no exaggeration... it may be shocking to hear, but it is what it is. (I should also say that I am approaching this from the viewpoint of superior health & nutrition, not what most people would consider "normal". If someone wants to keep eating the SAD and die of heart disease, cancer or other illness in their 50's or 60's and be "normal" then that's their choice. But be aware that heart disease & diabetes are completely avoidable through superior nutrition and you can also greatly reduce your cancer risk as well as other illnesses.) You're on the right track by staying away from junk food (yes it's fast, but let's be honest - junk is what it really is). However eating smaller portions through the day may not be as productive as you think... How will your body ever use the fat (which is just stored energy) if you're constantly eating and giving your body energy through the day (no matter how small the portions may be). Also the body is amazingly adaptable - if you keep restricting calories eating less and less your body will just adapt to that. If you eventually get down to eating a leaf of lettuce and running 10 miles a day, your body would do it. (Okay, so you wouldn't feel great & probably would be ill, but your body would do it's best to adapt to those circumstances.) If you restrict your eating to 3 meals a day (or less) you give your body a chance to use the stored energy it already has. If you want to lose fat - snacking between meals is definitely out. One thing you may want to look into is Intermittent Fasting. This is an eating protocol whereby you set an eating window (perhaps 8 hours) and you don't eat anything outside that. I had some decent success with this, eating the first meal of the day at 1pm and not eating anything after 9pm at night. But IF is not a diet, it's just an eating protocol - you still eat all you would normally eat, just in the eating window. The whole idea that you must eat breakfast is basically nonsense. If you have a large meal (and you would on IF because there's no way to eat a whole days worth of food in 8 hours or less other than eat large meals) your body is still digesting that the next morning. Energy is fine, I was very skeptical at first but I ended up lifting weights in the morning (fasted) and it was just the same as if I had been eating 6 - 8 meals a day starting at 7am. The other thing people worry about is that their body will somehow "eat up" all their muscle while they're fasting. This is another nonsense. Why would your body skip past a readily available energy source (fat) and go straight to a difficult energy source like muscle? It just doesn't happen like that. IF is an option you may choose to utilise, some people find it convenient not to eat in the mornings but you still need a good diet... I would say that most people (well, practically everyone) has completely adequate genetics - once they remove toxic habits and allow the body to heal itself and begin to operate properly. This comes back to nutrition, most people simply don't get proper nutrition and their bodies pay the price. To get your head around this idea of superior nutrition you need to understand that the only way to consider food is on a nutrient per calorie basis, not on a calorie per weight basis. For example if I melt some butter and mix it into a glass of water, I could call it 98% fat free (by weight). Yet 100% of calories still come from fat. So you can see the difference... on one hand you have the common method that so many manufacturers and media use to judge food - 98% fat free, many people believe this makes a "good" food. But if you look at it from the view of nutrition, that same food is 100% fat. Bit of a difference! Diet Recommendations As I mentioned I had some success on IF and at that time my diet was something like 40/20/40 - 40/30/30 (protein/carb/fat ratio). High protein and high fat is actually good if you want to build muscle and lose fat. I was eating like that for at least 3-4 years and was slowly losing fat. I was doing IF for about 6-8 months and the fat loss sped up some, but nothing major. More recently I have switched to a "nutritarian" diet. This basically involves eating a lot of fresh veggies & fruit, as well as nuts and seeds - basically the salad is the mean meal, it requires you rethink your idea of salad & veggie portion sizes. The optimal version of this is vegetarian, but you can also eat up to 10% of calories from animal sources if your activity level requires or if you just like to. Now to dispel some myths... First of all you can get all essential and nonessential nutrients and amino acids from a plant diet (the only thing you will probably require are vitamin supplements B12 and D, plus Iodine and possibly a good EPA/DHA). Yes you will also get enough protein from a plant diet! Most people are conditioned to the conventional wisdom of protein requirement. Basically all the popular diets and guidelines you see will grossly overstate the daily protein requirement. Bodybuilding diets are even more extreme in their excess. Yes you may require large amounts of protein for "optimal" growth, but remember that I'm talking about this from the point of superior health. Scientific studies link high animal protein consumption with increased cancer risk. Most people don't realise that vegetables contain protein and even fats. A good bit of trivia is: What has more protein per calorie? Steak or broccoli? (It's broccoli!) Variety is also important. There's phytochemicals that scientists don't even know about, therefore if you limit the fruit & veg that you're eating you literally don't even know what other micronutrients you're missing out on. The problem with basing a diet around the macronutrients (protein, carbs, fats) is that your body needs much more than that for optimal health. The micronutrients are where the real nutrition is. If you eat a lot of animal products and grains, paying attention to the protein, carb, fat breakdown you likely won't be able to eat enough fruit and veggies, leaving your nutrition requirements lacking. However if you focus on eating for nutrition, your protein, carb, fat requirements will take care of themselves (fruit, veggies & nuts etc. contain protein, carbs & fats - but animal products & grains don't contain the nutrients found in fruit & veg). Ever notice that certain fruits or veggies will get featured in the media as being a "miracle food"? Well there are certain foods that have excellent properties.. but the point is that if you're eating a healthful diet full of variety you'll be getting all those variety of foods anyway - you don't need to go out of your way to select certain things. The other key points to a nutritarian diet are no sugar, no salt, and no dairy (have you ever seen a lively looking, energetic cow? Why should we drink the stuff they produce?!). Knowing what I know now, I have no problem giving up those things. But the key is education - if you're interested in this type of approach to superior health I would recommend reading Eat To Live by Joel Fuhrman: http://www.drfuhrman.com/ The Weight Loss - 8kg in 6 weeks Now for the really good bit - there are various meal plans/diets provided that take the guesswork out of what to eat, I am now on a "high activity" diet since I'm lifting weights again, but at the start of this I went straight from my previous regular diet (40/20/40) onto an "agressive weight loss" diet. In about 6 weeks on that I lost 8kg (~17lbs). That's a lot of fat! I was not training in that time, so I did lose some muscle mass as well, which was not so good... but you can get that back. It's best to at least maintain your strength with weight training. On that diet I was eating 3 times a day, nothing after about 8:30-9pm at night (it's best not to eat an hour or more before bed, for fat loss as well as other health reasons). On my current "high activity" diet I'm eating 3 times a day as well. My strength is coming back, I'm still losing body fat. Like I said I've got plenty of energy and I'm recovering from workouts fast enough that I'm considering working out once in the morning and again in the afternoon. Although I have adjusted my diet for greater health and longevity I still enjoy bodybuilding and I'm sticking with that, just that from now on I will build muscle healthfully and stay lean year-round. There's really no downsides to the nutritarian style diet, you'll be healthier and live longer. The only possible negative is that it takes longer to prepare fresh foods, but that is the cost of good health. And that's much better than what fast & convenient foods will cost you (being overweight, sick and unhealthy). Another thing to mention is that there's no nonsense about calorie counting. I've never been a fan of that myself. At least with all the time spent preparing food, you won't have to waste time weighing everything and calculating calories! A note on why calorie restriction/smaller portions don't work Just a bit more info on this... To give you some background, generally speaking the stomach can hold about 1 litre (1 quart) of food. Now your brain doesn't receive signals to stop eating based on how many calories enter your stomach - your brain will get the signal to stop eating when your stomach is full. So if you eat pizza or salad you will still need to eat the same amount to fill up. The difference is that with pizza you will have eaten way too many calories by the time you are full, with the salad you will still feel full but even though you've eaten a lot you will be nowhere near eating too many calories. This is the great thing about a diet with lots of veggies - you will not have to go hungry or feel like you're depriving yourself of food (and you'll still lose fat & be healthy). Small portions and calorie restriction may work for a little while - but is it sustainable? Remember that the body is incredibly adaptable, and likes to maintain a kind of equilibrium. So if you just eat smaller portions your body will adapt to that. And it's likely that you won't feel so great if you try and continue to restrict your food intake for a long time... most people who diet like that will eventually "fall off the wagon" as their bodies try to regain some balance in the face of ever decreasing meal sizes, and they regain the weight with a vengeance. If you could hear your body speak to you while you were reducing your portion sizes it would go something like this: "Okay, there's less and less food available - I'd better store some of this away as fat because I am going to need that energy if I keep getting so little food." Whereas if you were eating large portions of salad & veggies etc. it would go something like this: "Wow - plenty of food, I don't need to keep hanging onto all this extra fat I had stored, I'm already getting plenty of energy. And with all these extra nutrients I can have a spring clean and spruce up the place as well!" Hopefully you can see that a diet full of veggies & other natural foods is sustainable and truly healthful. Honestly I have zero reasons why I would change to any other kind of diet. I've been on this since November last year and there's just nothing in other diets that I miss. That tells me that this is definitely sustainable. All the really effective fat burners have been banned for a good while... I have used MRM Meta-Burn EF for a good while when I was on the 40/20/40 diet and it did help with fat loss - but it seems that has been discontinued now. But honestly all those supplements and fat burners are basically ineffective compared with the rapid progress you can make with a truly healthful diet... I would urge you to look into changing your diet before going further down the supplements path. There is no truly effective supplement for fat loss, if there was - everyone would be on it. The entire supplement industry exists only because people are looking for shortcuts and an easy way out, on top of the fact that most people are so poorly educated when it comes to nutrition. If I could have a do-over... oh if only... compare years and years of rigid diet with fat burners thrown in - I lost the same amount of fat (maybe a bit less) in just 6 weeks through superior diet! Years versus weeks - that's a no-brainer to me. The Metabolic Cost The other thing to consider is that having a high metabolism is not a good thing for longevity. Not only do frequent small meals fail to assist fat loss, science shows a link between high metabolism and reduced life expectancy. Does having a raging metabolism even help fat loss? Well in my experience, having a slow metabolism sure doesn't slow fat loss! It may feel like your body is "doing something" when your body is running at max, but IMO it's not worth the cost. Educate yourself - base decisions on science & solid evidence You're going to find lots of different diets making all kinds of wild claims, but what I've learnt recently is that it pays to be very skeptical and critical. Sometimes you need to take things on faith if the subject or knowledge is just beyond you - but always try to find the reason for certain recommendations. For example don't just take the advice of the guy at the gym just because he told you a buddy put him on a diet and it worked for him... you can find people on just about every different diet who have low body fat and a great physique - but more often than not these people look good in spite of what they do, not because of it! Often different diets will rise to prominence in the media, or you may remember seeing conflicting information in the media. One that I keep remembering is the example of red wine. It seems like one minute the news reports are saying that a glass of red wine a day is good to cure x problem. Then the next day they're saying that red wine is bad for y problem. But there is an important lesson to be learnt there - don't take health and nutrition advice from the media! Nutrition is one of the most poorly understood subjects, even among doctors and nutritionists. In order to have a solid understanding of the subject one has to read thousands of scientific studies and stay up to date with new ones. The study methods need to be considered so that the findings are kept in context. This is simply beyond ordinary folks like you and I, which is why the only person and diet I've mentioned has been Dr. Fuhrman and the nutritarian diet. He lists the sources for all his claims - there's enough scientific studies listed in his book to keep a person busy for a long time if they wanted to read them all. Add to that the testimonials and success rate for his patents (completely reversing diabetes and turning back the clock on heart disease) and you start to get the idea that there's really something there based on science and not just guesswork. If you do happen to be seeking the guidance of a doctor or nutritionist etc. I think it's sensible to try and understand the reason why they make certain suggestions and recommendations. It may turn out that they really know their stuff - or it could turn out that they have old information or just plain don't have a good understanding of nutrition. Final Notes Just to briefly touch on a couple of other points that I saw mentioned in the thread - I saw mention of the blood group diet, I used to follow that myself as well and found it a good guideline. However as far as I know, there is absolutely no scientific basis for that diet. Whether or not you want to use that as a guideline for yourself, just be aware that it's not based on science. Another idea that seems to be popular (not that I saw this mentioned, but generally speaking) is "everything in moderation". The problem with this is that not all food is good for you, not even in moderation. Alcohol - if you are serious about losing fat and staying healthy, just give it up. Honestly alcohol is bad stuff... it's like steroids for fat. It will also actually cause you to lose lean mass faster than anything else. So you don't only get fat, but you get weak and fat. You can always tell young women who like to party and drink lots, it just stands out a lot on them. They may be slim, but they will be "skinny fat" - a dead giveaway for heavy/binge drinking. I have not had any alcohol since I made the decision to seriously lose my body fat about a year ago. And I've got some really nice scotch and port, different types of absinthe sitting in the house that I haven't even tried yet - but the cost is not worth it now that I'm serious about my fitness goals. If for some reason I felt like I wanted to drink because of a social occasion etc. I would limit it to a couple of drinks at most, not more than once a month (but even that is a compromise and is likely going to set you back). Binge drinking is probably the absolute worst thing you do as far as fat gain and muscle loss goes. You could literally undo months of hard training and careful diet! I don't know of any other drug that could possible do that kind of damage! I mentioned "toxic habits" earlier - what this means is basically things that are harming your body. If you feel bad when you give something up, if you are addicted to something, it's a sure sign that it's not good for you. It may be shocking for a person to realise that they have a sugar/salt/caffeine addiction, but if they try to give up those things and find they have headaches, feel poorly etc. then an addiction is exactly what it is. Once you remove the source of a toxin (for example sugar) your body starts to detox and you get the aches & pains. If you have some sugar again it keeps your body busy and it's not detoxing. If you feel better when you start having sugar again it could be easy to rationalise that it's good for you if it makes you feel better, but nothing could be further from the truth. Ultimately you will feel much better when you give it up and your body has had a chance to remove those toxins. On the subject of fat - these are a couple of facts that would have lead me to radically different decisions had I known them when I was younger. Firstly did you know that you cannot actually lose fat cells? As you gain body fat your fat cells expand and you look "fatter". However if you gain so much fat that your fat cells can't hold it all, your body will add new fat cells. The thing that really took me by surprise is that you can never actually lose those newly gained fat cells. Not really good news for those of use who have seen 20, 30% BF! Of course the size of those individual cells will reduce, obviously you can lose fat. But the shrunken cells will remain. The theory goes that this then makes fat gain in the future much easier. I guess at least that gives some motivation not to get any fatter than we already are! 2nd fat fact: The saying "a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips" is true in more ways than one. When you eat fat, it is stored directly in fat tissues in the body. It doesn't even get processed/metabolised in any way before being stored. Scientists could take a biopsy of fat tissue and tell you exactly what kind of fat that is... chicken, beef, doughnut... I don't know about you, but that's kind of gross to think about... makes me rethink any desire for a Krispy Kreme or that bucket of KFC. If this all seems a bit extreme to what you're used to, just think about what kind of goal you want to reach and be realistic about your situation right now... If you want to make an extreme change, you must take extreme measures. I hope that wasn't too much of a boring read for you, I know there's a lot there but I am extremely passionate about this since learning and seeing how effective it has been for myself. I'm no scientist, so I've just tried to explain everything in a way that I would understand as a layman myself. Let me know if you have any questions or if there's anything else I can help with. I also noticed other people asking some questions so I'll just leave this post here and if anyone has questions I am happy to spend some time helping where I can. All the best with your weight loss! TL;DR Eat LOTS of fresh veggies Eat a large variety of foods including fruits, nuts & seeds (all as fresh as possible) Lift weights and increase your strength No need to count calories No need to starve yourself - eat until satisfied Try and limit animal products to less than 10% of calories Do NOT consume added salt, sugar Alcohol will turn you skinnyfat and weak

Interesting comment... why would you say that this would happen? Considering that if we're trying to steer the bike we can not make it move no matter how much of our body was hanging off the side? Also if the correct body position/weight distribution was being applied (what I mean is the riders weight on the seat and not unnecessarily on the footpegs) then would it help the situation? Could incorrectly weighting the footpeg also be a contributing factor to this kind of crash?

Yep, I'd say that's definitely a level up! Nice job! Rishi - I seem or recall some discussion around trail braking not being directly included in the curriculum, but being something that you can ask your coach about. But reading at the link Hotfoot posted it should be covered in the Attack Angles drill?

When you say commuting home at 10/10, do you mean riding hard, riding at 10/10ths? Riding hard and turning over a white line (pedestrian crossing marking) are enough to make me think that's a bad combination, if that was the case I would not even worry about the wind or suspension because the most likely cause seems obvious... And you mention that you don't like street riding and just ride on the street for transport - just a suggestion... maybe you could consider another bike? I used to commute on my Gixxer, then after a couple of years I got an XR400 motard. So much easier to ride the motard, bumps don't upset it as much and little slides are more controllable (if you do slide at all). Riding a sportsbike on the streets is hard work and takes maximum concentration (IMO). If you're just interested in getting from once place to another, the hard work may not be worth it. Thinking about whether or not someone should stop riding because of crashing... My thoughts on this are that as long as you learn from your mistakes and don't keep making the same ones, then you're making progress. Although some people are definitely more inclined to make decisions without thinking of the consequences, which is another thing they'd need to deal with. Maybe they just need to ease up and ride well within their ability with a good safety margin. If someone kept making the same basic errors and crashing, and training and practice didn't help them, then I'd say that unfortunately maybe they should seriously consider giving up riding.

I think I know what you mean. I usually experience something like this go-karting. I always go at night, so it's just the track lit up with black on each side. Once I get into a good rhythm and the concentration is high, its just like you describe. And now that I think about it, it seems like I am concentrating so much at those times that I completely ignore cornering forces... Which would explain that feeling of the track coming to you. But I'm not so sure this is actually a good or desirable thing. With that level of concentration and focusing only on what's directly in front of you you're not able to see road hazards on the side of the road, which seems to be contrary to the purpose of the "wide view". At least it seems that way to me...

If your brake and turn points etc. are optimized for higher speeds, and feel awkward at lower speeds, wouldn't the easiest solution be to select new (correct) brake and turn markers for the speed limit? Also it could mean that you might want to use some "lazy steering" or tone down the quick steer & use an earlier turn point if there isn't enough space in your lane?

Haha Rishi, I saw that furore as well... I think the most simple thing to do is to tell the doubting person to go out to their bike, place the front wheel against a solid object (or hold the front brake on I suppose), then gently apply throttle and watch what the rear of the bike does No mystery, problem solved. Can't remember where I learnt that, but it makes sense to me!

I would have to agree there's no myths there... If anything it shows that a person can be tense, push on the 'bars like they're pushing a wheelbarrow and not move off the seat, and still be a C grade racer... But that's not too say that it's an ideal or particularly safe way to ride. I have a suspicion that Matt would not only prefer to be able to move freely on the bike, but would be able to ride faster and safer as well. After all, why wouldn't he want to ride like he used to? When he was injured he was the reigning Western Australia Superbike champion (and is also 27 times WA Motocross champion). Currently being a C Grade racer is a long way from that. I don't mean to take anything away from him because getting back on a bike after what he's been through deserves all respect. But I think it's safe to say that we'll never see a disabled person challenging for any type of state or national championship. Not being able to move on a bike (or choosing not to) is a severe limitation.

Interesting questions... First up on the subject of riding style - I would say that we can definitely form different habits that may come to define something of a "style" for individual riders. But does that mean that a person can't learn new habits and a new style? Absolutely not! That is part of good rider training, to help the rider recognize bad habits/techniques and then avoid them, while replacing them with correct/better techniques. That's not to say that it's easy for everyone to do, some people have many years experience in practicing bad habits - but if someone is serious about improving their riding, then it's time we'll spent. About the Ducati Vs Aprilia Vs riding skills... First of all, would you agree that distractions can hinder learning? Next think about whether riding a powerful or "difficult" bike could present some distractions..? From that point of view an argument can be made that its better to start on a small, less intimidating, "easier" to ride bike, and develop a very good understanding of the correct riding techniques. If the skill level is high, that will stay with the rider regardless of what bike they are riding. Next onto the subject of different bikes being "difficult" to ride... This is something that makes me chuckle to myself when I overhear people talking about it. Recently I was in a shop and heard someone talking about the current model R1 saying "they don't turn". I've heard similar things from supermoto riders saying that a SM will turn faster than a sportsbike. What do you think about those statements? Obviously the R1 does turn. What they really mean is that it is difficult for them to turn, compared with other bikes. How about SM compared with sportbikes? I would say that they mean the same thing - that its easier to turn a supermoto than a sportbike. But just because one bike is easier to turn than another, does that mean that the other bike (in your case the Ducati) can't turn faster? The thing is that some bikes just require more effort to ride than others. This is also where developing your quick turn ability to a high level will be a real help. This could be why some people think of certain bikes as "fun" but dislike others - simply because the fun bikes are the ones that require less effort to ride. Do you think that could describe your experiences with the Ducati and the Aprilia? There's nothing wrong with wanting a bike that is easy to ride, and if you are having fun on it, isn't that what it's all about? But I would say that it is important to at least recognize the reason behind what makes a bike harder/easier to ride. People will be able to weigh in and offer helpful opinions, but ultimately everyone has to make that discovery for themselves. Or if you want to take it to the next level, being able to recognize that and then being able to adapt your riding to produce a consistent result in your riding regardless of bike. So, Ducati or Aprilia? You have the 1198 now, so it may be worth making an examination of your riding to try and pick the differences you felt between it and the RSV. If you take the ease of turning as an example there's a few things that could affect this, for example handlebar width, angle, seat/footpeg/bar position (are your forearms parallel with the ground when turning the 1198? Are they more so on the RSV?) It could be that the 1198 is physically harder to turn (maybe narrow 'bars or other factors), so what do you think could compensate for that? Maybe you could try pushing harder on the 'bar when turning so that it "falls" on its side at a speed you want. Hopefully that helps you out a bit.

Hmmm... Tough question. My ultimate bike of all time is the Desmosedici RR. Not a current production bike, but most used ones would be like new anyway! If I had to choose a current bike for the track I think I would really like to try out an RSV4. I first rode an Aprilia a month or so ago, test riding an RS4 (125cc 4T) for a friend - yes you've gotta rev it like all small capacity bikes, but there's a certain satisfaction in riding down the street with the throttle to the stop anyway. But the handling/chassis/geometry was something else... Sooo good!! I've never ridden anything like it, it feels like it spoils the rider with a lot of confidence by integrating well with the rider & giving good feedback. So many other bikes I've ridden take a lot of effort to achieve the same feeling, but the RS4 did it straight away. And seeing as I'm entering a kind of supermoto phase now, I'd also have to consider the SXV550. For street, that's something I still haven't figured out, my Gixxer is my do-all bike, but its too much on the street. I start having fun & end up riding way too fast (too fast for the speed limit, not too fast for me). I think going back to a small capacity bike would be more fun, they can be revved out a bit more without going so fast. Street Triple maybe? But judging from the replies & what I've seen it does seem that BMW are doing something right. The EBR 1190 looks like a really interesting bike as well, especially when its being ridden around the I4 Jap bikes in a manner you wouldn't think is possible!

I'm no coach, but this may help answer you question: On the broadcast I watched, Stoner said that the track is very bumpy if you go wide at Turn 4 (where Pedrosa crashed), and that it's very easy to crash if you get out there. He also said that there's really only a narrow section of track on that corner that is smooth, the rest of it gets rippled up by cars etc. so trying to brake late and running wide in that particular spot... we saw what happens! Hope that helps.

Welcome to the forum metalizzer. You've taken a good step in reading and educating yourself, I bet you have learnt a lot and noticed improvements in your riding already? Reading is one thing, but when you're ready to take it to the next level I can definitely recommend seeking out your closest CSS venue to get some 1 on 1 training. On the subject of motorcycle related music, this one is at the opposite end of the music spectrum - but I think it's fairly hilarious.

Hey there Rishi - I had to do a double take when I saw your name popping up, then I figured you would have started an intro thread, glad I checked! I haven't seen any other familiar faces around here... I knew that you had started racing, didn't know about your injury though - hope you have healed well by now! And the all important question... do you know what caused the crash? And do you know how to make sure it doesn't happen again? (Not trying to start a discussion about that, having done 5 levels at CSS I'm sure you have been able to analyse that yourself!) Looking forward to seeing you around the forum.

Hmmm... Interesting... This one shows the hard braking sections a little better. It does look like they're trying to do the majority of hard braking with the bike upright, but the rear wheel leaves the ground and does tend to go sideways a little bit (pretty much the same as you'd expect on sportbikes etc.) Not as dramatic backing in as can be seen elsewhere though. It sure does make me think that others are just backing in for show... But then I also have to think that there's something else to it. Because there are plenty of other supermoto races on YouTube where everyone is backing it in at certain parts of the track. I've got to think that if it was quicker just to ride more "traditionally", that at least some people would do that. The investigations continue.

Well there's one that I just learnt! Cheers! Not that I've ever had the problem, but good to keep in mind... I can't think of anything especially... well actually there are lots and lots of small things, but they're all covered in the Twist books and at CSS. So basically I just wish that I had gone to CSS within a couple of months of starting riding. Although back then it would have meant a big interstate trip, that is actually the reason I put it off for so long. But knowing what I know now about CSS, if I could send a message to my younger self I would tell myself to get my butt interstate and get to CSS!

This is something that I've been thinking about on and off for a while.... is the supermoto "leg out/backing in" style really the fastest way for those guys to get around a track? I haven't yet tried to get into this discussion on a supermoto forum or with SM riders in real life, but I am guessing it would be quite an... interesting discussion. Some things I've noticed that seem to be a recurring theme: Supermotos "turn faster than sportbikes". This one I can understand as being confused for "easier to turn". IMO if a SM (supermoto) rider can't turn a sportbike equally as fast as their motard, they either aren't putting in enough effort, or just need to develop their quick turn ability to a higher level. Supermoto requires some kind of special rider training. On a couple of SM forums I visit there have been threads asking about SM training. Most have a section dedicated to supermoto riding technique as well - as if the physics of a two wheeled single-track vehicle and other basics don't apply to supermoto? It's almost as if new SM riders try to skip the basics of cornering and go straight to corner entry, specifically backing it in as the key SM skill. Which leads to the main point... "Backing it in" is required for fast lap times on a supermoto. So what is the story behind this? Why don't SM racers just use the good 'ole quick turn technique and a later corner entry? From what I have seen it always looks like they're sliding for quite a long distance - is this because a SM is a tall bike and regular vertical braking isn't as effective because it would lift the back wheel off the ground too easily? If they weren't backing in I would straight up label it lazy cornering... Or would a quick turn upset the bike too much because of soft & long travel suspension (don't forget they take some sizeable jumps as well). The other thing is that maybe backing in allows for safer trail braking? (AFAIK "proper" backing in relies on using the front brake and engine compression, not locking the wheel with the rear brake.) I also read an interesting bit of info that said putting your inside foot forwards can add an extra 20lbs of weight/traction/grip to the front wheel when cornering. Does anyone have thoughts on that? Initially I put it down to a habit being carried over by dirt bike riders, but maybe the light weight of the bikes could make extra weight transfer towards the front more of a necessity? Or maybe it also makes it easier to control the rear slide that way? There seems to be a general idea among SM riders that it doesn't matter where your rear wheel goes, as long as your front tyre has enough grip. Part of me thinks that they slide the rear whenever they can, just for the fun of it. The other thing I notice is that the way a corner is ridden depends on whether it's a hairpin (usually foot down, backin in) or a fast corner (knee down or foot out depending on preference), or esses (usually feet up on the 'pegs from what I've seen). Supermoto tracks are also much smaller than road race circuits, maybe backing it in is more effective at slower speeds than higher speeds? They don't move around on the bike much either, maybe because of the short distances between corners? Or maybe they figure that there's no point since the bikes have so much lean angle available? I have an XR400 motard that I've only ridden on the streets, but definitely no problems with front wheel traction there. But a quick turn does feel kind of awkward because of the tall seating position. For example there's much more movement (measured from the seat & handlebars) going from 90 to 45º than doing the same thing on a sportbike. Not sure how much the situation would change when ridden faster on a track though... I am currently building a KTM supermoto and I'm going to be doing supermoto track days (a quarter the price of a regular track day!) so I plan to experiment with some different techniques and see what answers I can find to all these questions. But I'm interested to hear any other thoughts. Has anyone here ever raced supermoto? Or have any of the Coaches had students on supermotos?

Cheers for that link Hotfoot, I'll check it out! Somehow I didn't realise that trail braking was covered in Level 3, more reasons to get back to CSS (like I needed more reasons anyway!) Eirik - that's a great explanation, exactly the type of thing I'm thinking about! To expand on that a bit and hopefully explain myself a bit better, this is how I see braking: Spending attention on brake lever pressure to produce a smooth braking action Focus on brake lever > Observe fork compression > Check if tyre traction is okay. Then it's an even more lengthy process if you do need to reduce brake pressure. Observe tyre close to limit > Release brake lever pressure > Notice fork travel > Check tyre traction. Most likely the brake pressure has been reduced too much, so the process keeps going. Increase brake lever pressure > Observe fork travel > Check tyre traction. By putting a lot of attention to the brake lever pressure, it tends to focus more of your attention around that and you have a heightened awareness of the brake lever and fork travel. Spending attention on front tyre traction to produce a smooth braking action Focus on tyre traction > ... and that is it! It's just like Eirik said, your attention is on the front tyre - and so your hand automatically reacts to what the tyre is doing. This way you don't need to spend attention so much on noticing fork travel or monitoring brake pressure because it's like you have a direct link with the tyre. You don't have to go through the chain of Brake Level > Fork Travel > Front Tyre. You still produce smooth braking by focusing on progressively increasing the load on the front tyre. IMO this allows a quicker reaction to changes in traction, and also allows more consistent braking regardless of the road/track surface or lack of grip whether that be caused by dirt, water, sand, etc. A simple experiment you can do to demonstrate this: Take a screwdriver in your hand and run the tip over a tiled surface. As you move from tile to tile, what do you feel? You can feel the actual gaps in the tiles, right? Notice that you're not feeling the screwdriver handle and shaft so much - but you're actually feeling the tile surface itself! This is because you have a high level of integration with the screwdriver, and this type of integration is exactly what's needed to ride a motorcycle at a high level. It's just that a motorcycle is a much more complicated tool, so it's not quite as easy to achieve that high level of integration. But feeling the tile surface with the screwdriver is the equivalent of feeling the road surface with the tyres (especially front tyre) on a bike. All of that is just what I've found in my own experience... Putting my attention to the front tyre rather than worrying so much about fork travel or monitoring brake lever pressure has made a big improvement to my braking and confidence riding in different conditions.

It seems like most folks have some kind of regular exercise routine, I'm sure that helps a lot. I don't do anything special after a track day. Depending on how often I ride, sometimes I'll do a track day and then afterwards discover that I'm not quite as "bike fit" anymore... but I just look at that the same as the day after a hard or new weights session. I haven't really had much opportunity to test this out myself - but I think some kind of active recovery could be beneficial. I have always found that if I have muscle soreness in my legs, it improves the next day if I have been walking around a bit or doing some other light activity to increase blood flow. If I just sit around not doing much, the muscle soreness remains longer. Next time I wake up with some soreness I think I'll go for a light ride on the bicycle. Usually I'll drink anywhere from 3-4 litres of water a day, so on a track day that goes up. I drink Powerade/Gatorade/etc. on a track day, but never considered drinking it after the track day... maybe I'll mix up an extra batch next time and try that out. Now I'm wondering what the MotoGP/WSBK/racers do after a race weekend? Could probably take some lessons from them, but they truly are top level athletes, if a regular person had to do what they do, I'm sure they'd be recovering for weeks!

I'm a bit late to this tread, but I haven't been on the forum here for a while so I'm just doing a bit of catch up! Do you mean deciding, or realising? The reason I ask is that if you're deciding that you're going to need to run wide it implies that you're making a 2nd steering input based on that decision (which is usually not ideal). In that cause it doesn't seem like the problem is in the tyres... I think you've just about answered your own question. If you run wide onto a dirty/dusty part of the track you would most likely notice the reduced grip out there. If you're out there on a dusty part of track making a 2nd turn input to increase lean angle even more, it seems like there's a fair chance your tyre did slide. But that is not to be confused with over-riding your tyres! In all likelihood there is absolutely nothing wrong with your tyres! From my experience using Power Pures on track, there is absolutely no problem with the front tyre. But the important thing to note is that I was only making one steering input and remaining relaxed on the 'bars. But I was entering corners faster than I ever had before, quick steering as fast as I dare and I did not once have a complaint from the front tyre. But the rear was another story, it seemed to consistently slide on initial throttle openings at moderate lean angle. But that was consistent and controllable, didn't worry me at all. I could have ridden around it and worked on going even faster on those tyres, maybe I will go back to them again (last couple of track days I have used an old set of BT-003 that I had sitting around). I think tyres are much more capable that most people realise. I wouldn't hesitate to use Power Pures again. I can easily ride at a comfortable pace towards the upper end of fast group at a track day (one group down from racers, people running slicks & tyre warmers etc.) Back to the subject of running wide and needing to tighten your line... perhaps there is a way to tighten your line mid-corner without making a 2nd steering input and upsetting the bike? You seem comfortable with corner entry under zero throttle and zero brakes... what do you think would happen if you turned in, remained relaxed on the 'bars (not making any steering inputs), and didn't touch the throttle or brakes? Skipping back over to the subject of switch to sportier tyres so you have more "confidence" - I absolutely agree with what Keith Code says about riding on a "lesser" tyre until you find it's limit and are comfortable with it. Power Pure just happened to be that tyre for me - it matched up with my skill level and I got really comfortable being able to slide the rear under throttle. In fact it also helped me to see the benefit of standing the bike up more before opening the throttle, and properly coordinating those actions. Whereas if I had gone straight to a tyre like BT003, there is much more grip and so I can easily open the throttle with more lean angle and not get a slide. But that doesn't teach me much, and the limits of those tyres are so much higher that if I had gone straight to them without first knowing the limits of a lesser tyre, there's really not much chance I would be able to safely find the limits of the sticky tyres. Final comment - I believe that any kind of slide with the front tyre is not a problem with the tyre. Why do I say that? It's because of the fact that if a person is able to quick steer a bike fast enough to cause a tyre to slide, it will be the back tyre that slides first.

Okay, so what do you find yourself focusing on? The grip and control over the brake lever? Or the grip and control of the front tyre on the road? If you have the most focus on the brake lever, do you think that could cause problems if the road surface/traction level changes suddenly?

utahphunk - I think you've misread my post or misunderstood what I'm trying to say... Although we do both agree about not spending attention where it's not needed! The point I was making is that you can save attention by spending it mostly on the one place that really matters - front tyre traction. After all, that is the main thing keeping our bikes off the floor! I'm suggest that it's not necessary to spend attention on brake lever pressure or fork travel. I'll put a few questions out there to try and open up the discussion: Do you think it's necessary to spend attention on brake lever pressure? Why? Do you think it's necessary to spend attention on fork travel? Why? Where do you currently spend the majority of your attention when braking? (As far as bike controls go?) I'm confused about how you came to the conclusion that my suggestions could result in a stoppie rather than hard braking/lock up? Was it because of the way I talk about the fork diving through the travel? Just to try and clear things up - any time I'm discussing riding techniques, methods etc. here I always assume a bike in good mechanical condition. When I mention large amounts of fok dive I'm talking about bikes in good condition, but for one reason or another they may just be setup that way. It could be a sportbike that has been setup to deal with a certain situation, but has to compromise with diving through the travel in another area. Or some bikes as just like that. When I was writing that post I was thinking of my own XR400 motard. The suspension is in good condition, and the forks never bottom out. But being a street motard it has quite a lot of fork travel, and compared to my Gixxer it dives through the initial part of the stroke very quickly. But even so - I use the braking technique I mention while riding this bike and in practice it's just the same as if I am riding it, a sportbike, or a scooter. Yes, on the XR there is comparatively quite a lot of fork dive, but by focusing my attention in the correct area I can still brake smoothly and efficiently regardless of fork travel. I thought CSS did not teach trail braking? Or are you talking about another school? Come to think of it I can't recall any school/coaching that has claimed to teach trail braking...? But I would say it's one of those things that can't actually be "taught", there are just techniques and a method to follow - the rest depends upon the student and how well they can execute the technique, their willingness to push themselves and their feel for traction.

Hey boroboy - this is a fairly common question, especially after people come to the realisation that they're not leaning as far as they thought! But it shouldn't be a surprise really, simply because the high lean angles made possible by modern motorbikes are not natural to a person. Add to that the fact that motorcycling is not at all intuitive and you have a recipe for very quickly entering unknown territory where feelings of discomfort will start to take over... I've made a couple of lengthy posts on the subject previously so I'm just going to try and post some snippets here, hope this helps: Full post is here: http://forums.superb...961 One other thing... how open are you to the possibility of adjusting your goals? The reason I mention that is because when you start to use more efficient/"better" riding techniques (as can be learnt by attending CSS - seriously, I can't recommend it enough!) you will find that you actually ride faster and use less lean angle! Riding "sloppily" and lazily actually means you will need to use more lean angle for a given speed. Riding efficiently means that you will use less lean angle and have a better safety margin for the same speed. When I started out riding I did have the goal of getting a knee down... no harm in that, or setting that as a goal for yourself. But understand that putting a knee down is not a technique by itself that can be taught (at least I don't believe so). It's a product of correct riding technique which involves quite a few different aspects, if you're doing things well and things come together right - it will just happen. But having said that, from the time I start riding 6 years ago I have still not used a knee slider! Now I am not even concerned by it. It will happen when (if) it happens. It was interesting that a local Aussie racer posted this photo on his Instagram earlier in the year: Someone commented along the lines of "do you ever get your knee down"? What do you think the reply was?? Wayne said that he has been using the same pair of knee sliders for two years. Moral of the story - do not be overly concerned about knee slider wear as proof of cornering prowess (speed). You can ride very, very fast (in complete safety I might add...) all without putting a slider to the ground. It's a pretty big subject and there's quite a few different things that have helped me personally to get more comfortable with lean angle. But I'll leave you to mull over the above for a little bit. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on that!