Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content since 11/17/2017 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    There’s an article with an objective performance data comparison of vintage vs modern sportbikes. Maybe later today I’ll see if I can find it again.
  2. 2 points
    That would look like me getting out of the driveway - LoL
  3. 2 points
    Simon possibly thinks he knows what CSS teaches but only has former students' information about CSS to try and glean what is taught. That's the dictionary definition of the word hearsay. He never did any of our schools. Often these students who hop around to different trainers misunderstand pretty much anything they are told and then give each subsequent trainer a foul impression of other trainers who came before them. The biggest problem/confusion is that there is not one. Simon says to turn with the throttle off, Keith says to get the throttle on when the steering is completed. Those two are the same thing. Now to take up your points on anti-squat and "better" steering geometry. It appears that your surface understanding of a truly complex subject of motorcycle geometry will only get you tangled up in a ball of yarn unless you seek to further educate yourself--outside motorcycle forums. Your biggest clue would be to seek out what "trail" is and what "normal trail" is and what happens to it when the front brake is applied, and seek to differentiate between "turning", "leaning" and "carving an arc". Also what an increase in trail mid turn would do for a motorcycle.
  4. 2 points
    Other than the slip between tyre and road, the engine is mechanically linked to the tarmac. By that it means that for any given speed, rpm is constant for a particular gear, regardless of throttle position. Let's say you need 5000 rpm to go 60 mph in 4th gear. Regardless of where the throttle is, be that full off or full on or anywhere in between, you will have exactly 5000 rpm at 60 mph in a straight line. Unless the tyre is spinning or the clutch is slipping. Now, if you lean over, the circumference of the tyre is reduced. This has a similar effect to lowering the gearing. But while lower gearing mean that the engine must turn more revolutions in order to get the wheel turned a certain amount of times, now the wheel must turn faster to maintain the speed, bringing the engine along with it. This could probably be explained much simpler, but as long as you remember that when the engine turns over X times it always makes the tyre turn Y times in gear Z. A smaller wheel must turn faster than a larger diameter wheel for any given speed, and so the engine must turn X+n to compensate.
  5. 1 point
    are you suggesting "Using arm's force to countersteer and make any bike turn, we cancel the self-correcting property of the steering geometry. Motorcycles don't really need a rider to avoid cornering:" contradicts my statement that you quoted? If so you must misunderstand me. I agree a bike defaults to going in a straight line with no lean. You push the right bar (same as turning bars to the left) to lean/go right. When you use hands to push/pull the bars, it's the bar movement that causes the lean which causes the turning action. If you are riding without hands, you have to get the bike to lean to turn but without the bars, you can't create nearly as much force. But the bar-direction is still the same, it's just that the order is flipped. Just like CSS says, you can't turn nearly as effectively without hands but of course it can be done. Interestingly, and what you quoted of mine, is that when you use your no-hands body english method to lean right, the bars still end up going left (right bar forward) in order to allow you to lean. Either way (with bar pressure or without), you're still counter steering to turn. It's just a matter of how well you can do it. The no-hands method certainly limits your effectiveness.
  6. 1 point
    I've been thinking about this new chapter (I could almost swear it wasn't in my book before- LoL) and it seems that there's a jewel in there about the bike steering about the rear wheel (once leaned over). And it makes sense to me. But there's a part of me that having a hard time with it and it's the mantra about 40/60 F/R weight distribution and using the throttle properly to arrive at that ratio and NOT exceeding it. Then that chapter goes on to point out that one could lift the front while leaned over and the bike will continue through the corner. I've seen it done many times (on TV, haven't experienced it myself). So if this is the case, why do we care about 40/60? Looking through the forum, I came across another thread where I somewhat asked a similar question regarding roll-on rates...which tells me that I've got plenty to understand about the topic of throttle management.
  7. 1 point
    If so, I stand corrected, what lean angle are we talking about?
  8. 1 point
    There is a section in Ch 13 called "Front End Duties" that talks about how the front end still contributes, and also addresses getting on the gas too early. Notice that when it says in TOTWII that the bike will maintain its lean angle even with the front wheel off the ground, it does NOT say that you have maximum corner speed/traction in that situation (you don't), and the section referenced above on front end duties talks about that. While you do see racers commonly wheelie out of corners, you don't see them wheelie in the middle of the corner at max lean angle, because you just can't load the rear that much at max speed and lean, it would lose traction before it would wheelie. Another thing to note is that while acceleration alone can and does cause wheelies, another thing that can contribute is the release (rebound) of the front suspension as the bike is coming out of the corner, and that may be some of what you are seeing in racing. Some riders - not going to name any names here - when launching a big show-off wheelie, use a sharp suspension compression/rebound to help loft the front.
  9. 1 point
    I believe that the answer to your question can be found in the last section of that chapter: Stable suspension. Perhaps re-reading Chapter 3 could help you see the whole picture more clearly.
  10. 1 point
    Remember that the 60% is not exact, the ideal weight distribution depends on the bike and also the tyres. I don't know the answer for sure, but logic suggests that if the front wheel is not lifting all the power is going into forward motion (minus power train losses, and anything wasted by rear suspension movement). So even if the front is off the ground, but is not lifting or dropping, all the power is going into forward motion. My observations while at the track seem to support this - an RSV4 had overtaken me before the chicane going onto the start/finish straight and just after that chicane is a crest which most bikes will wheelie over. I had tucked in behind the RSV4 on my 1098 and he wheelied while I didn't, which allowed me to pull alongside. Not sure whether this was rider skill or wheelie control but the front wheel of the RSV4 then hovered at a consistent height and the RSV4 was able to pull away. Of course it has a lot more power than my 1098 anyway so that's a factor too (he may have been wasting power and still have enough to pull away). But that particular rider is a nutcase so there's that factor too
  11. 1 point
    To those who have ridden a lot of bikes over the years - if you took the best sport motorcycles from yesteryear and put them up against the current bikes of the same size but less sporty, fitted them with the same tires (where possible) and sent them around a race track, which would win? I'm asking because people have told me for quite some time that modern bikes, even budget bikes, are so much better than the stuff just a decade old. In my experience, my FZ07 has suspension no better than what many bikes could offer in the 80s, so I do not buy this. However, I could very well be wrong. So what if you teamed up something like these pairs, do you reckon the latest would beat the oldest every time? Or would it be the older sport bikes taking the honour? 1992 CBR900RR vs 2017 CB1000R 1993 GSX-R750 vs 2017 GSX750S 1994 ZX-9R vs 2018 Z900 1994 FZR600 vs 2017 FZ6R 1994 916 vs 2017 Multistrada 950
  12. 1 point
    This is pure speculation but I'd imagine that the front wheel begins to lift at a point well above 60% weight distribution. But if you could instead find a balance point where all of the power being used it for propulsion than lifting the front wheel, where would that be in relation to the ideal 60%?
  13. 1 point
    Thanks, but not really. If you compare an old superbike to a new model, the older will be slower. It may be better at some details, but overall the modern bike will reign supreme. That's why I wonder how and old superbike would stack up against a current standard or sports tourer. Is the suspension better or worse on a 1992 CBR900RR than what you find on the CB1100RS of today, for instance? Or the new Z900. What about brakes? Handling? I'm curious because I personally believe 25 year old superbikes, as they were new, can still beat many current "normal" bikes when it comes to suspension and handling, and match them when it comes to the brakes. But I cannot be sure.
  14. 1 point
    We got some winter here and I took my Virago-come-scrambler out for a spin. Hard work! I have been riding a lot on winter roads on bicycles when growing up, as well as 3 winters on motorcycles before, but this - at about 530 lb - is by far the heaviest two-wheeled vehicle I have taken onto snow and ice. The tyres didn't impress, either, and combined with my limited skills when it comes to playing made things less than elegant. But at least I got to spin up some figure eights for the first time in my life, although they also proved the expected lack of talent. Still, I had fun, but during my commutes I stay away from playing since the front tucks every time the rear starts to spin up - I'd rather stay upright than topple over trying to look cool
  15. 1 point
    The bike on ice was very interesting...and funny The last video...what made it change direction like that? This is why race bikes should always have a dead-man switch.
  16. 1 point
    Any of them. Just see the Off-Track coach for the day and schedule a time to ride it.
  17. 1 point
    I know sometimes it feels like you're pushing down on the bars to turn but you're not. You're pushing forward which makes that side of the bike lean down which makes your hand feel the downward motion. I know some people claim they're able to turn with foot pressure and/or body english to cause the bike to lean but both methods are simply riding no hands. A) it's way way less effective than with hands. You claim 60% as effective but this is easily disproved on a skid pad or an obstacle course. Estimating based on how you feel is not useful and of course, it varies on speed. Try changing lanes no-handed at 60 then repeat the process using push-pull. B ) riding no hands still requires counter steering. It just happens with less force and happens in reverse. Instead of turning the bars left to lean right, you lean right to turn the bars left. To the foot-peg steering method, the only thing outer peg pressure achieves is enabling you to put more inner bar pressure. Just like you jump from your left foot to make a right handed layup, when you push on the left peg, you effectively harness your body's ability to push on the right bar with your right hand. If you ever doubt it, take your hands off the bars, push with your left foot and stick your head out over the right. You will probably list lazily to the right but it's a quite a bit less effective than what you're actually doing (even if you don't realize it). These facts are true on a sportbike, a Harley, and my 15 lb road bike.
  18. 1 point
    So this might be a dumb question, and I apologize if it is..lol I sometimes have issues trusting my front tire when I am at lean and need to make a steering correction (tightening up the turn). I have really been practicing the hook turn technique and while it helps in situations where the correction is small, on situations where I need to lean the bike over more, I find myself reluctant to countersteer further. It's really a matter of trusting the front tire. So my question is: while I am maintaining throttle, in say a 40 degree lean angle, can I countersteer further? Does the rate of speed matter (Am I able to at 50mph and not at 100mph)? This is something that has kind of plagued my growth as of late. I get into the corner with some speed, get on the throttle and if a correction needs to be made, I cease roll on and maintain throttle and get my head and shoulders lower to the inside of turn. This obviously works because this isn't a story of a crash I had, but can I just use the handle bars and countersteer further? (or do both) I know that counterseering is used to set lean angle at the beginning of the turn, but is it smart to do it mid corner as long as you aren't on the gas? And where's the limit? I hope I've explained this right. I'm working on getting to you guys in April at Streets for the weekend.. stoked.
  19. 1 point
    My....how things have changed in 27 years
  20. 1 point
    That is impossible to answer. If the large wheel meant 7000 rpm, the smaller wheel would give 8600 rpm. If the engine had a torque dip at 7k, it may be able to go faster with the smaller wheel at the same throttle opening. Same if the load his high, like climbing a steep hill, you would likely benefit from the extra rpm and resulting extra power to give a small increase in speed. Another thing to consider is mapping; 50% throttle will not give the same amount of fuel at high rpm as at lower rpm, meaning mapping could be better or worse if you increase rpm for any given speed. However, for most engines the extra energy required to rev higher due to more internal friction, you would not go as fast with the smaller tyre - if you have an instant fuel consumption read-out on your bike (or car) you can see how much more energy is required to go a certain speed in a lower vs a higher gear.
  21. 1 point
    In 1976 I figured I had the world by the tail once I discovered how to use Reference Points while riding and racing. That realization set me on the twisty road of rider-improvement discovery and began my maiden voyage of exploration into rider training. I began coaching students one-on-one, developing a curriculum that relied heavily on Reference Points and how to use them at tracks. I applied the data from that coaching and the Superbike School which was born in 1980 just after retiring from racing. Prior to those coaching experiences, Reference Points (RPs) usually only meant having braking markers. Lines were a topic of discussion but no procedure existed on how to figure out a line, how to dissect one or how to stitch a track together with RPs. From experience gained at the schools and later, coaching several factory riders, I wrote more on how to find and use RPs. That info came out in the first A Twist of the Wrist book in 1984. Today we know much more about RPs and what kind of visual skills a rider needs to develop. RPs assist us in defining the Space we’re in and the Speed we’re traveling through it. Accuracy with those elements relies heavily on having a minimum of three Reference Points (RPs). An accurate orientation in space begins with two external Reference Points. We find two points or objects or areas first and this then gives us a reckoning of our own location where we become the third point of orientation. Together, that creates an accurate tracking of the direction of our progress in relation to the other two. With those three, our eyes begin to create 3D space, which in turn improves our perception of relative speed and direction of travel. Also, and importantly, our sense of time and timing switches on quite automatically. In short, RPs help us create perspective. Finding and using Reference Points is quite natural and native to our survival: rarely do we walk into a closed door or bump against the furniture nor do we count how many steps it will take to walk across a room. RPs are automatically taken into account and coordinated. Some riders have a hard time finding and using RPs. While their very survival has relied on that ability they still insist that it’s difficult. This peeked my interest to find out why they struggle with something they already do. In riding there are many barriers but only two freedoms: The freedom to change the speed and to change the direction of the bike. Without RPs it’s impossible to do them well. Having the bike pointed where you want it to go is another ingrained-use we make of RPs. Whether conscious of it or not, we always have an intended destination, a location we are seeking to reach. Arriving at a location simply refers to staying in your lane, missing a pothole, not running wide, picking your turn entry, finding a line, recognizing you are on a line at all or simply avoiding hitting a car. Accurately gauging when and how much to gas, brake and turn so we can arrive somewhere depends on having three RPs. So why the difficulty? Accuracy and purpose both have something to do with it. Starting off with the idea to keep the bike on the road is a good goal; when it comes to cornering motorcycles it isn’t enough. Lining up for a corner right on the edge, in order to open the turn’s radius as wide as possible is correct thinking for most turns. Starting that turn 3 feet inside the edge defeats that purpose; especially on the road where 3 feet is 25% of the whole lane. Not accustomed to being that accurate, riders default to “safe in the middle of the road”. There are other visual and control weaknesses that can contribute to this common error. Not being adept at steering the bike can make any rider edge-shy. If they subscribe to so called ‘Body Steering’ they’ve experienced the bike lazily changing directions often enough to avoid being too close to the edge of their lane. RPs themselves have a viable range of application. Too close or too far away on the road’s surface are their chief parameters. Too far to one side or the other of your intended line can also create problems. The how, when and where of using RPs is nicely wrapped up in the two dozen drills I’ve developed which can be coached by someone trained to recognize the rider errors resulting from not having sufficient RPs. That’s good news. The bad news is we now run smack into every rider’s mortal enemy, that of Target Fixation. Target fixated is bad; it signals the onset of varying degrees of panic. The kicker is that the main reason we panic is because we’ve lost our other RPs. When target fixed we only have that one RP and we need two. Drilling and coaching on correct visual techniques with simple and doable exercises heads off the classic visual faults humans seem stuck with. It seems impossible to eliminate target fixation, tunnel vision and over-active scanning. However, through understanding and drilling of what, where, how far ahead, how wide and even how long we should look at our RPs we can make deep inroads into the problems and find solutions to them. At the schools we haven’t sat still on these problems. At this point in time, we’ve developed 64 visual exercises our coaching staff use regularly to help their students understand and to improve what you could easily say is the most important part of any rider’s skill portfolio. © 2017 Keith Code. All rights reserved.
  22. 1 point
    Hi All, i have booked myself on a level 1 course at silverstone in july, after reading so many reviews i cant wait. currently working in afghanistan at present and hope the hot weather follows me. I own a blade but need to learn how to use it!!!........Roll on july
  23. 1 point
    Thank you for calling my bike nice, although we both know it is rather ugly Your Nighthawk, however, is in a stunning condition A friend has one, and while I like the way it looks (not unlike the VT500FT Ascot I once owned), it doesn't do anything for me while riding. Seat is big and inviting, but so soft my bum quickly gets on fire. And the engine is rather lackluster in performance, and also manage to feel even tamer and slower than it is. Suspension lack damping, but is very good at flattening out frost heaves and as such worked very well for me. Albeit basic, the brakes also work remarkably well. When Cycle World tested one in 1991, they actually stopped the Nighthawk in a shorter distance than the period race reps.
  24. 1 point
    Cool story. Read this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-bicycle-problem-that-nearly-broke-mathematics/#
  25. 1 point
    He's not the first world champion to demonstrate with his words that he doesn't understand much about the physics of how how a bike actually steers. It's just proof that actually understanding how bikes work is not a prerequisite to becoming one of the best riders on the planet. Strange but true.
  26. 1 point
    I wonder whether that 25 Correction Points is listed/mentioned somewhere? I did the Steering Drill during a 2-Day Camp - and I think several points to "fix."
×