Jump to content

How The Entering Speed For Each Turn Is Found?


Recommended Posts

I kinda disagree to a extent about the 2 step on a unfamiliar road,

 

to fully apply the 2(3) Step you need good reference points and its all about consistency, every lap your focusing on the same turn point and the same apex point same exit point, while of course maintaining a nice wide view to slow things down and have a good sense of speed. However on a unfamiliar road there is no consistency you may never take that particular corner again. Also on the track you don't really have to spend too much of you dollar's worth of attention on whats between your reference points as your riding in a closed course so the likely-hood of a patch of sand or a downed tree branch or the front bumper of a F-250 coming into view is pretty minimal, while on the street , especially a unfamiliar twisty one there's a good chance any number of things could be around the bend so you will no doubt spend a lot more of you dollar on every detail that comes into view. If I were to pick a exact turn point for the next corner and focus on it until I knew I was going to hit that exact turn point I would more then likely know very little about what the rest of the road/corner had in store for me. I believe my technique is more like choosing a turn area, not a neat little X on the road but more of a larger circle of about where I plan to turn, it's usually towards the outside and a little deep for a road I've never been down. By focusing little on exactly where i'm going to turn I am keeping almost all of my attention focus'd on what's coming into view, Debris , Road condition, Traffic etc. etc. and by the time I've arrived at the turn in area I was aiming for I have a pretty good idea of what kind of line I'm going to take through the corner and make a steering input based on that. Now you may say in some manner this is a version of the two step but I'm fairly sure if you were to ride around using a similar technique during the 2 Step track session your Coach would most likely flag you down and ask why you are not doing the assigned drill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey T-McKeen, one part of your post especially caught my attention so I have a question for you - do you actually do the two step in a track environment using the below technique? Do you think that is correct execution of the two step?

... pick a exact turn point for the next corner and focus on it until I knew I was going to hit that exact turn point...

 

On the subject of reference points, do you really think it's necessary to have a reference point in order to execute good vision? (Let's not forget that the Two Step is a vision technique.) Do you need a reference point to use a "wide view"? Why/why not?

 

So far no one has taken up my earlier pop quiz challenge. If everyone re-read the relevant TOTW II chapter with the current topic in mind, I'm certain that alot of questions regarding RP's would be answered. So I'll pose the challenge again: look up TOTW II, Chapter 23 - The Two-Step and let us know how many times Reference Points are mentioned. smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe my technique is more like choosing a turn area, not a neat little X on the road but more of a larger circle of about where I plan to turn, it's usually towards the outside and a little deep for a road I've never been down. By focusing little on exactly where i'm going to turn I am keeping almost all of my attention focus'd on what's coming into view, Debris , Road condition, Traffic etc. etc. and by the time I've arrived at the turn in area I was aiming for I have a pretty good idea of what kind of line I'm going to take through the corner and make a steering input based on that. Now you may say in some manner this is a version of the two step...

I'll make a few assumptions about how you do each of the things you've described, but with that in mind, yes this is exactly a 2-step. This is very similar to how we explain the concept to our Marines in our ARTD and AMOS programs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey T-McKeen, one part of your post especially caught my attention so I have a question for you - do you actually do the two step in a track environment using the below technique? Do you think that is correct execution of the two step?

 

Yes and Yes however I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "focus on it until I knew I was going to hit that exact turn point" I may be mistaken but I recall a student at school asking the question when do you switch your focus from one RP to another, and the answer the Instructor lead us around too was you move to the next RP when you are certain the criteria for your current one is going to be accomplished, IE once you know your going to hit your TP you focus on your Apex, once you know your going to hit you apex you focus on your exit,

 

From TWOTW II

 

1. You Spot your Turn Point as Early as possible. This could be before you brake, while braking, anywhere-as early as possible (thats one step).

 

2. Just before arriving at your turn point you look into the turn to see where (exactly) the bike should go. (That's the second step)

 

 

I'm still of the opinion that if I wait until "Just before arriving at your turn point" before looking into a turn which is completely foreign and unknown to me I'll end up causing more SR's then I have eliminated by using the Two Step technique

 

On the subject of reference points, do you really think it's necessary to have a reference point in order to execute good vision? (Let's not forget that the Two Step is a vision technique.) Do you need a reference point to use a "wide view"? Why/why not?

 

Wide view and good vision is not dependant on having a reference point at all. I maintain a wide view on the freeway everyday, but I have no RP's for the Lanes of traffic I'm riding between. I would say you do not need to have a reference point , but you do need a focus point, your eyes are always focus'd at something, if you are truly not focusing your eyesight at anything your not going to see anything.

 

 

So far no one has taken up my earlier pop quiz challenge. If everyone re-read the relevant TOTW II chapter with the current topic in mind, I'm certain that alot of questions regarding RP's would be answered. So I'll pose the challenge again: look up TOTW II, Chapter 23 - The Two-Step and let us know how many times Reference Points are mentioned. smile.gif

 

4 or 5 depending on if you Count the headline. All the talk about RP's in that chapter is based around how having too many and letting your vision get hung up on one detail of the road/track serves to invite the SR's to creep out. My take on this drill is that it's all about reducing the extra Visual clutter and only spending your focus on the bare minimum of visual ques required to traverse a corner, which works wonders for your consistency and pace on a familiar road or track corner, but in the context of a completely unfamiliar one I'm not inclined to gloss over all the minor details that are coming into view.

 

I'll make a few assumptions about how you do each of the things you've described, but with that in mind, yes this is exactly a 2-step. This is very similar to how we explain the concept to our Marines in our ARTD and AMOS programs.

 

If you rode the camera bike down a completly foriegn road and then sat down with the coach to review the footage how do you think he would rate your 2 step technique, do you have the obvious pronounced movement of your helmet that shows your vision snapping from your turn point to your Apex "Just before arriving at your turn point" ?

 

My question too you, Does simply looking somewhere and then looking somewhere else constitute a 2 step ? Or does the technique and drill have more substance then that ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach watching a video of a student on an unknown road would watch to see that the rider looked in (at a chosen apex or midcorner point) BEFORE turning the bike. The two step is designed to separate looking in from turning in. If the rider looked into the turn and turned the bike simultaneously, or if the action of looking in caused him to start drifting into the turn, that would indicate that he is not using the two step.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach watching a video of a student on an unknown road would watch to see that the rider looked in (at a chosen apex or midcorner point) BEFORE turning the bike. The two step is designed to separate looking in from turning in. If the rider looked into the turn and turned the bike simultaneously, or if the action of looking in caused him to start drifting into the turn, that would indicate that he is not using the two step.

 

Could you judge this from how the bike is going down the road, or would you also have to see the face/head/eyes of the operator?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you judge this from how the bike is going down the road, or would you also have to see the face/head/eyes of the operator?

Just by looking at the bike and helmet behaviour - the coaches typically observes this from behind.

And no, just moving your eyes is not the same as turning your head.

 

Kai, been on the receiving end of those sticks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

My question too you, does simply looking somewhere and then looking somewhere else constitute a 2 step?

 

 

The 2-step is about where you want to turn and where you want to go afterwards, before you have done them. I suspect we all will agree "somewhere" definitely is insufficient regarding the 2-step. However, from my perspective, based on what you described as your method for managing unknown corners, it appears you are doing just what the 2-step intends. You pick a place in the road (as opposed to a more precise X on the track) where you want to turn and then you look into the corner to see where to go next. It seems to me you are suggesting the lack of precision on the street (compared to higher degrees of precision on the track) invalidates calling this a 2-step.

 

 

So basically a camera mounted just above and behind the head facing forward would be ideal, then?

 

 

That is essentially how CSS has setup their video bike. I've ridden the video bike before; and, you definitely will see whether you turned your head before you turned. The video bike is based on an S1000RR and the riding position is too uncomfortable for my damaged neck so these days I won't ride it; however, last week at the 2-day camp at NOLA a coach followed me a couple times and he video'd me using a GoPro. It still is very easy to see if you look before you turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point Hotfoot, I guess it was taught to me like that but not quite in those words. More like, look at the first RP, then keep an eye on it with peripheral vsion as you look for the second. Either way round it still means "look where you're going" as at this point in the school, reference points are being used a lot and people can hang on to them too long.

 

You can do it on the road but not always, you might not be able to see very far round the bend, so you then don't have a turn-in point because you don't know where the bend goes. Think of an extreme, following a cliffside or forest road round a tight bend. The first time you figure out where it's going could be when you see it open up. You can't really turn in (across the bend), you can can only really follow around the outside until you can see more. Or you can head for where you think the apex will be and cross your fingers.

 

Wide vision isn't related to the 2-step or RPs, as T says above, except perhaps to say that it could be a way to stop you getting tunnel-vision on your next RP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

last week at the 2-day camp at NOLA a coach followed me a couple times and he video'd me using a GoPro. It still is very easy to see if you look before you turn.

When I video myself using my ContourHD mounted on the tank, I often see my own helmet as a reflection in the RPM-meter.

Works the same way, since you just need to look for the helmet turning before the turn is initiated :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A coach watching a video of a student on an unknown road would watch to see that the rider looked in (at a chosen apex or midcorner point) BEFORE turning the bike. The two step is designed to separate looking in from turning in. If the rider looked into the turn and turned the bike simultaneously, or if the action of looking in caused him to start drifting into the turn, that would indicate that he is not using the two step.

 

Could you judge this from how the bike is going down the road, or would you also have to see the face/head/eyes of the operator?

 

At the school we use a camera mounted above and behind the rider, so you can see the rider's head and their steering action, so it is really easy to see it when a rider looks and turns at the same moment, instead of looking BEFORE they turn.

 

If you couldn't see the rider's head, there are other indicators. For example, if the rider is just riding around a curve in the center of his lane, that would indicate he doesn't understand turn points - he is making no attempt to straighten out the turn, and is probably having to make a lot of steering corrections. Before you can tackle 2-step, the rider needs to be able to understand turn points and how to choose one.

 

If the rider drifts into turns early, and ends up running wide on exits, that can indicate that he is not yet able to separate looking from turning, so when he looks into the turn he is also unintentionally steering the bike in; he needs to use 2-step to make sure he hits his chosen turn point before turning the bike.

 

Another indicator is accuracy to the apex - assuming normal turns with good visibility, if the rider's lines never get near the apex of the turn, or if he appears to be very inconsistent with apexes, that would indicate a weakness in 2-step. Either the rider is not choosing an apex point or he is so late in looking at it that he can't get the bike there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting point Hotfoot, I guess it was taught to me like that but not quite in those words. More like, look at the first RP, then keep an eye on it with peripheral vsion as you look for the second. Either way round it still means "look where you're going" as at this point in the school, reference points are being used a lot and people can hang on to them too long.

 

 

FYI, Turn points and 2-Step are Level 1 drills. Reference Points are not covered until Level 2. So, 2-Step is not explained using the Reference Point data. However, we do mark turn points on the track and you're correct that riders can get stuck on those; having the turn points marked helps correct the tendency to drift in early, but once they are there sometimes riders can get stuck staring at them - most commonly if they feel they are have come in too fast and are focusing on trying to get slowed down for that turn point. So we use 2-step to help them understand the timing of WHEN to let go of the turn point and look to the apex.

 

 

Have you ever been on a road ride, where you came into a turn "too fast" and ended up staring at something you didn't want to hit? Like a guard rail, a point on the center line of the road, or the edge of the road? Would using 2-step to force yourself to look into the turn instead of staring at something straight ahead have helped you get around the turn? This is one way 2-step can be helpful on the street.

 

 

You can do it on the road but not always, you might not be able to see very far round the bend, so you then don't have a turn-in point because you don't know where the bend goes. Think of an extreme, following a cliffside or forest road round a tight bend. The first time you figure out where it's going could be when you see it open up. You can't really turn in (across the bend), you can can only really follow around the outside until you can see more. Or you can head for where you think the apex will be and cross your fingers.

 

 

2-step is a vision technique. If you can't see, you can't really use it, can you? :) If you can't see the shape of the turn, you can't really choose an apex or turn point, you simply have to wait until you are far enough into the turn to see how it's shaped, and THEN you can choose your points and apply the 2-step.

 

A new rider, unfamiliar with the 2-step, might find their eyes drawn to the inside of the corner, and unintentionally steer the bike there, and end up riding around the inside edge of the corner - not ideal, since it tightens the curve AND makes the visibility even worse. 2-step helps with this as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can do it on the road but not always, you might not be able to see very far round the bend, so you then don't have a turn-in point because you don't know where the bend goes. Think of an extreme, following a cliffside or forest road round a tight bend. The first time you figure out where it's going could be when you see it open up. You can't really turn in (across the bend), you can can only really follow around the outside until you can see more. Or you can head for where you think the apex will be and cross your fingers.

This type of situation is included in the tech briefings CSS provides to our AMOS students, since our programs are oriented to street riding. Usually Dylan does the tech briefings and he uses a lot of white board/dry erase examples, and I probably can't give his explanation the justice it deserves - other coaches also have briefed this and the message is consistent. My paraphrased version of the solution is: pick a turn point based on what you can see of the turn, adjust your entry speed, look into the turn to see what's going on, turn the bike relative to what you can see, go easy on the roll-on until the turn reveals where it's going, eventually you can identify a [late] apex, and then you can begin to roll-on in earnest; you can make appropriate adjustments if necessary for the conditions of the turn - pause or slight roll-off, re-point the bike, get back on the gas. Hopefully that makes sense...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new rider, unfamiliar with the 2-step, might find their eyes drawn to the inside of the corner, and unintentionally steer the bike there, and end up riding around the inside edge of the corner - not ideal, since it tightens the curve AND makes the visibility even worse. 2-step helps with this as well.

Our AMOS/ARTD road course has a decreasing radius at "turn 1". Nearly everyone does what you just described the first few times around - some students struggle with it the whole day, even after they get a tech brief on how to adjust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes and Yes however I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by "focus on it until I knew I was going to hit that exact turn point" I may be mistaken but I recall a student at school asking the question when do you switch your focus from one RP to another, and the answer the Instructor lead us around too was you move to the next RP when you are certain the criteria for your current one is going to be accomplished, IE once you know your going to hit your TP you focus on your Apex, once you know your going to hit you apex you focus on your exit,

 

From TWOTW II

 

1. You Spot your Turn Point as Early as possible. This could be before you brake, while braking, anywhere-as early as possible (thats one step).

 

2. Just before arriving at your turn point you look into the turn to see where (exactly) the bike should go. (That's the second step)

 

Okay, I have to confess that I misread your earlier comment and for some reason thought you were describing staring at the turn point until you were right on top of it. Anyway, good to have that info quoted from TOTW II. Notice that the actual two steps don't mention RP's. To me that says that it's something you can do regardless of whether or not you have RP's on the road. And like Hotfoot mentioned, the main point of that drill in Level 1 is to separate the vision and turning. Of course the benefit that one will gain depends on their willingness to try new things and push outside their comfort level. But from what people have described here I'd say that there's a lot of people doing the two step, but not necessarily recognising it. As long as the vision and turning are separate, does that mean the goal has been accomplished? (I would say so.) And won't better results be possible if that behaviour is correctly identified? It seems similar to counter steering in that everyone uses counter steering to turn their bikes, but someone who recognises that can then use it even more effectively to greater advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

was you move to the next RP when you are certain the criteria for your current one is going to be accomplished, IE once you know your going to hit your TP you focus on your Apex, once you know your going to hit you apex you focus on your exit,

 

Ha! This really hits home for me because of an experience I had recently. At TMP there is this very long (maybe 200-degree), slowish right hand "carousel" kind of corner. It is *agony* for me because I am not comfortable with really big lean angles expecially at lower speeds. Coming out of it I was always staring right at the exit cone, like it was some kind of dangerous monster, afraid to feed in more throttle lest I run wide, but also too chicken to take more lean angle, just wishing the bloody corner would end. It just felt like I was running out of room....slowly....not trusting the front tire...total tension. Of course all the time I knew (intellectually) that I was nowhere near the maximum speed for either my bike or myself through that corner. It was a mental block (maybe related to the fact that I lowsided there the year prior).

 

Then, I tried something different. After apexing in the carousel, I only sighted the exit cone for a split second to get my bearings, then turned my attention completely to the entrance cone for the following left hander up at the end of the short straight connecting the two turns. Suddenly, the last half of the slow corner just didn't even exist, I was on the throttle way sooner charging towards the next corner, and never came close to running wide.

 

A good example I think of "once you know you are going to hit your mark, move on to the next target". In this case it was "knowing" (intellectually) that I was slow through that corner anyway, so stop worrying about the exit - there was plenty of room if I just didn't worry about it and instead looked farther down the track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-step is a vision technique. If you can't see, you can't really use it, can you? :) If you can't see the shape of the turn, you can't really choose an apex or turn point, you simply have to wait until you are far enough into the turn to see how it's shaped, and THEN you can choose your points and apply the 2-step.

 

A new rider, unfamiliar with the 2-step, might find their eyes drawn to the inside of the corner, and unintentionally steer the bike there, and end up riding around the inside edge of the corner - not ideal, since it tightens the curve AND makes the visibility even worse. 2-step helps with this as well.

Is this 2-step visual technique used in actual racing or track days?

 

I ask because, in Florida track days, I have seen a lot of "riding around the inside edge of the corner", especially in turns close to 180 degrees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2-step is a vision technique. If you can't see, you can't really use it, can you? :) If you can't see the shape of the turn, you can't really choose an apex or turn point, you simply have to wait until you are far enough into the turn to see how it's shaped, and THEN you can choose your points and apply the 2-step.

 

A new rider, unfamiliar with the 2-step, might find their eyes drawn to the inside of the corner, and unintentionally steer the bike there, and end up riding around the inside edge of the corner - not ideal, since it tightens the curve AND makes the visibility even worse. 2-step helps with this as well.

Is this 2-step visual technique used in actual racing or track days?

 

I ask because, in Florida track days, I have seen a lot of "riding around the inside edge of the corner", especially in turns close to 180 degrees.

Yes the 2-step visual technique is used in actual racing and track days. I think obviously it is not used by everyone. I'll generalize it this way: those who know the 2-step use it; those who don't know the 2-step, well they don't know what they don't know.

 

Riding the inside edge also can be a method to protect your line so you don't get passed on the inside, although I suspect this is not the scenario most frequently seen at track days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the 2-step visual technique is used in actual racing and track days. I think obviously it is not used by everyone. I'll generalize it this way: those who know the 2-step use it; those who don't know the 2-step, well they don't know what they don't know.

I would argue that there are three groups:

1) Those that consciously know and apply the 2-step.

2) Those that do not know the 2-step, but still apply it.

3) Those that don't know it and don't use the technique.

(those that know it, but don't use it should be taken outside and shot.... just kidding)

 

The "inside-huggers" are most likely in group #3. They don't know better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys.

 

Re-reading my previous question it sounds silly somehow.

 

I believe that the reason of my question comes from my observations of that 180 degree turn in our local track, where I see riders (races and track days) not doing the visual technique (at least not in an obvious manner) and not following the line corresponding to a double apex turn.

 

At least to my ignorant eyes, it seems that they run the interior of the turn and are stuck on the gas, except during the last 20 or 30 degrees of the turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes the 2-step visual technique is used in actual racing and track days. I think obviously it is not used by everyone. I'll generalize it this way: those who know the 2-step use it; those who don't know the 2-step, well they don't know what they don't know.

I would argue that there are three groups:

1) Those that consciously know and apply the 2-step.

2) Those that do not know the 2-step, but still apply it.

3) Those that don't know it and don't use the technique.

(those that know it, but don't use it should be taken outside and shot.... just kidding)

 

The "inside-huggers" are most likely in group #3. They don't know better.

 

If you know racers, some "fake" it ... Predictability in a race is a vulnerability in some situations... when it takes everything to win,a gamble/ feint sometimes pays off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be a lot of riders faster than me though I could watch a video of some of them and critcise their technique! There are common mistakes people make, one of these is trying to copy lines they see in races, another is sometimes trying to use loads of lean angle in every bend. I reckon these sorts of things are why you're seeing people riding round the inside kerb, and as you say it's hardly an ideal line.

 

I didn't really grasp the idea of the 2-step as separating looking from turning, I think I presumed too much in that this was too obvious to need pointing out to people. That said, Level 1 spends a good deal of time teaching people stuff they ought to know already, but really don't, so in that respect I shoudn't be surprised.

 

Anyway we've been dragged off a bit onto RPs etc. and I am still wondering about an answer to Lnewqban's original question, about judging entry speed on the track. Judging, say, a braking point is one thing, it's a spot on the tarmac or whatever, but how do you "measure" your speed? If you're going to incrementally speed up on each lap, you therefore need to have a handle on how fast you're going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seem to be a lot of riders faster than me though I could watch a video of some of them and critcise their technique! There are common mistakes people make, one of these is trying to copy lines they see in races, another is sometimes trying to use loads of lean angle in every bend. I reckon these sorts of things are why you're seeing people riding round the inside kerb, and as you say it's hardly an ideal line.

 

I didn't really grasp the idea of the 2-step as separating looking from turning, I think I presumed too much in that this was too obvious to need pointing out to people. That said, Level 1 spends a good deal of time teaching people stuff they ought to know already, but really don't, so in that respect I shoudn't be surprised.

 

Anyway we've been dragged off a bit onto RPs etc. and I am still wondering about an answer to Lnewqban's original question, about judging entry speed on the track. Judging, say, a braking point is one thing, it's a spot on the tarmac or whatever, but how do you "measure" your speed? If you're going to incrementally speed up on each lap, you therefore need to have a handle on how fast you're going.

This really is a challenging question as there is no uniform answer (entry speed = X + Y, or whatever). I suggest you measure your speed by your own survival reactions, or the lack thereof. If it doesn't light up an SR then you can add a little more speed next time. Once the SR's start appearing then you drop back a notch to where SR's are not present and you have your best entry speed.

 

It's interesting your example suggests judging a braking point is somehow different. If you change your speed would that not change your braking point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...