Jump to content

Trail Braking---not That Fastest Way, But They All Do It


Recommended Posts

Racer---a question to you:

 

What causes the front end to push on a motorcycle? (most of the time). Too much, or too little weight on it? What fixes the majority of those problems?

 

Cobie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Racer---a question to you:

 

What causes the front end to push on a motorcycle? (most of the time). Too much, or too little weight on it? What fixes the majority of those problems?

 

Cobie

 

 

Oh sure...there you go keeping it simple again.

 

 

Answers:

 

Too much weight.

 

Acceleration.

 

 

 

 

(Sheepish grin)

 

I do seem to enjoy chasing my own tail around convoluted circles sometimes. Especially before I have a second cup of coffee in the morning...lol. I'm really not purposely trying to confuse people. More like letting my mind wander out loud. Bad habit.

 

To my own mind, I have never trail braked to put more weight on the front wheel, but, for a moment, from a certain point of view, it seemed like it might make sense above a certain lean angle. Like getting above the wheel to create more traction with a dirt bike on a soft surface?

 

However, after thinking about it, I can't think of a situation at the sustained mild lean angles (where that technique might be effective on a road bike) that would require more down force to create more traction. If you are vertical enough to add more vertical weight component than lateral component by trail braking, you generally aren't going fast enough to overcome the available traction anyway (unless maybe it is very slippery or wet conditions) in which case more weight is the last thing you need!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oops

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! More guys loose the front by making mistakes (not on the gas, tight on the bars). How about how many guys do you see crashing on the brakes on the way in? Rarely one can loose the front from too little weight. Can happen, but don't it's that common.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! More guys loose the front by making mistakes (not on the gas, tight on the bars). How about how many guys do you see crashing on the brakes on the way in? Rarely one can loose the front from too little weight. Can happen, but don't it's that common.

 

 

How many guys do I see crashing on the brakes on the way in?

 

Like relative to the frequency of crashes on the gas, ie highside?

 

From my own memory corner working, far more crashes on the brakes than on the gas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! More guys loose the front by making mistakes (not on the gas, tight on the bars). How about how many guys do you see crashing on the brakes on the way in? Rarely one can loose the front from too little weight. Can happen, but don't it's that common.

 

 

How many guys do I see crashing on the brakes on the way in?

 

Like relative to the frequency of crashes on the gas, ie highside?

 

From my own memory corner working, far more crashes on the brakes than on the gas.

 

Your not seeing these crashes because someone isnt employing trailbraking properly, unless you area corner worker for AMA or motoGP. It is because the less skilled rider will freak out and over brake therefore causing their tire to washout so your point doesnt add anything to a discussion on trailbraking and where and when to use it for experienced racers.

 

Trailbraking does allow for faster around the track period. By placing more Gs on the front tire you are adding grip and also contact patch. Like Collin Edwards says the front tire actually spreads under load and provides more contact patch and in turn greater grip and in turn greater corner speed. Like Stuman says this thread isnt addressing the question of whether trailbraking is faster, as that question is already answered for us in every top level race. This is addressing where and when to employ the technique. There doesnt seem to be an easy formula for this as there are sooo many variables to consider, however I think it is a very intersting discussion and one that a very experienced smart racer could add much insight to.

 

 

Racer you made this statment

"The effect of "adding traction" (to gain speed) with trailbraking decreases proportionally with lean angle until the bike reaches 45° of lean angle. After that, more brake equals less traction, period. (No matter how fast you are going or how good you are.)"

 

Where in the world did you come up with this? It doesn't decrease proportionally, for reasons I explained above. If it did there would be no need to trail brake because you wouldnt gain anything. How in the hell did you come up with 45 degree angle as a point where more brakes equal less t reaction?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right! More guys loose the front by making mistakes (not on the gas, tight on the bars). How about how many guys do you see crashing on the brakes on the way in? Rarely one can loose the front from too little weight. Can happen, but don't it's that common.

 

 

How many guys do I see crashing on the brakes on the way in?

 

Like relative to the frequency of crashes on the gas, ie highside?

 

From my own memory corner working, far more crashes on the brakes than on the gas.

 

Your not seeing these crashes because someone isnt employing trailbraking properly, unless you area corner worker for AMA or motoGP. It is because the less skilled rider will freak out and over brake therefore causing their tire to washout so your point doesnt add anything to a discussion on trailbraking and where and when to use it for experienced racers.

 

I am an AMA National cornerworker. In fact, I am an AMA National rider.

 

 

Trailbraking does allow for faster around the track period. By placing more Gs on the front tire you are adding grip and also contact patch. Like Collin Edwards says the front tire actually spreads under load and provides more contact patch and in turn greater grip and in turn greater corner speed. Like Stuman says this thread isnt addressing the question of whether trailbraking is faster, as that question is already answered for us in every top level race. This is addressing where and when to employ the technique. There doesnt seem to be an easy formula for this as there are sooo many variables to consider, however I think it is a very intersting discussion and one that a very experienced smart racer could add much insight to.

 

That is not quite what Stuman said. Here is what he said:

 

Again this thread is about where and when to trail brake, not whether or not trail braking is an effective technique. This thread is all about whether one should trail brake or not, whether or not to do it in every corner or just some corners and if only some then which ones and why I think is really the point we are discussing.

 

The critical difference is that he suggests that trailbraking can be an effective technique. He does not make a blanket statement that it is "faster". In any case, trained school instructors and smart pro level racers (like Stuman) have explained how and when trailbraking can be effective here in this thread.

 

 

Racer you made this statment

"The effect of "adding traction" (to gain speed) with trailbraking decreases proportionally with lean angle until the bike reaches 45° of lean angle. After that, more brake equals less traction, period. (No matter how fast you are going or how good you are.)"

 

Where in the world did you come up with this? It doesn't decrease proportionally, for reasons I explained above. If it did there would be no need to trail brake because you wouldnt gain anything. How in the hell did you come up with 45 degree angle as a point where more brakes equal less t reaction?

 

Below 45 degrees of lean angle, the component of horizontal loading due to braking will "outweigh" the component of vertical loading due to braking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the basic thing with trail braking, and the area it can be problematic: as the smaller of the 2 tires, and the smaller contact patch, maximum traction cannot be achieved, until the bike is stabilized, correct weight for the contact patch. The normal solution to a front tire pushing (sliding) is to get the gas back on, as there is too much weight on the front.

 

Does that make sense?

 

CF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the basic thing with trail braking, and the area it can be problematic: as the smaller of the 2 tires, and the smaller contact patch, maximum traction cannot be achieved, until the bike is stabilized, correct weight for the contact patch. The normal solution to a front tire pushing (sliding) is to get the gas back on, as there is too much weight on the front.

 

Does that make sense?

 

CF

 

 

Yep. Bigger contact patch at the rear equals more available traction at the rear, equals more speed when the weight is properly balanced front to back.

 

 

No matter how big you make the contact patch at the front, the rear will always be bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great discussion.

 

I think the most remarkable trailbraking is done by the 125 GP guys. The bikes can carry so much entry and corner speed you often see the riders wide open going in the turns and they have no choice but to do all of their braking leaned over.

 

The balance on trailbraking is now and forever will be when the rider can get back to the gas. As some have already pointed out, the technique can be overused and in some cases keep the rider from getting back on the gas. Overuse of trailbraking will bring the bike to ever steeper lean angles which can reduce the drive out on bikes with no traction control. On the 800 Moto GP bikes they appear to be running on ever increasing lean angles down to the apex in some turns and bringing the bike back up quite a bit quicker than the 125 and 250 guys.

 

Basically it looks like the whole first half of the turn is getting the bike pointed down track and then working the lean against the traction control for the drive out.

 

It isn't only the tires that have made trailbraking more and more effective as a technique it is the traction control in combination with rear tire grip. The rubber on Moto Gp bikes is not even close to what we race on over here. Moto GP rear tires run 10 to 12 pounds of air in them. This is a whole other universe of tire technology that we don't yet have.

 

I am training an AMA rider right now who has been on the podium two out of the last three races. At Laguna this past AMA race we worked out less trailbraking for turn 6 to get back on the gas earlier to go up the hill to the corkscrew. He had to "get brave" and talk himself into less trailbraking in that turn but the result was several hundred RPM more going up the hill. That is a substantial change in speed.

 

So back to the real subject, where, when and how much trailbraking pays off and when not?

 

I have another interesting example you might like. When Will Eickenberry was racing his 636 ZX6 at Willow I was doing section times on him and Jeremy Toye through turn 1. Will is one of the few riders who did not trailbrake in turn 1. His split just for turn 1 was consistantly 2 tenths quicker than Toye, Toye was on his 1000. Toye was doing 21's and Will was doing 23's.

 

Turn 1 is a pretty classic trailbraking type of turn because it has so much banking it is easy to feel confident trailing in there.

 

This isn't an argument for or against trailbraking its two examples. One where less gave more speed and acceleration and the other where none at all was quicker.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I thought I was just being disingenuously self-deprecating when I said I wasn't up on current tire technology....lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the basic thing with trail braking, and the area it can be problematic: as the smaller of the 2 tires, and the smaller contact patch, maximum traction cannot be achieved, until the bike is stabilized, correct weight for the contact patch. The normal solution to a front tire pushing (sliding) is to get the gas back on, as there is too much weight on the front.

 

Does that make sense?

 

CF

 

 

Yep. Bigger contact patch at the rear equals more available traction at the rear, equals more speed when the weight is properly balanced front to back.

 

 

No matter how big you make the contact patch at the front, the rear will always be bigger.

 

Here is my argument against this statement. If this were 100% accurate then trailbraking would not be used at all since keeping the weight on the rear tire would be ideal and one would do everything in their power to ensure that they were on the gas through just about every type of corner. I am no physicist and I am not a very fast rider, however I do like to argue :)

 

Here is the main reason why I think trailbraking is the fastest way around the track and why one is better off using the front tire for traction in many corners than they are the rear, which is really what trailbraking is all about. This isnt fact merely a laymen hypothesis as to why it is the fastest way around the track these days. I would love to see a physics professor go nuts with this stuff, it would really be interesting to see some formulas in regards to this. Or even a computer model.

 

When trailbraking you can put an enormous amount of down force on the front tire. In fact you can put much more force on the front tire with braking than you ever could the back by using the amount of throttle available mid turn (and even if you could the amount of acceleration plus the fact that you are now going faster would push the requirement for more friction or down force past any benefits gained due to the increased need of centripetal force). So when using the brakes (trailbraking) you are putting an enormous amount of down force on the front tire to spread the tire, increase traction and increase speed which will allow for more centripetal force to be applied due to greater friction. As in F1, downforce = good for corner speed, for the same reason. So my theory is that by loading the front tire with down force you are actually making it have more available traction than by using a small amount of acceleration to load the rear. Thus you get more traction while traibraking than you would if using throttle to load the rear. (this applies to many turns not all) My hypothesis is supported by the fact that every single top level rider is using the technique and those that do are most certainly turning faster corner speeds.

 

So why did Keith see that in turn one @ willow that the faster rider was on the gas and not the brakes.... Im not exactly sure, but perhaps it has to due wit the turn having a nice bank to it. This would turn some of the centripetal force into down force due to the banking and perhaps this has something to do with it since we know that additional down force would cause friction and friction allows for more centripetal force. Obviously the formula for downforce vs. losing traction vs. braking force, vs. centripetal force would not be proportional, but I think it is a formula that each rider is working out at the very top level of moto gp and AMA each time they enter a turn. Damn their good!!!!!

 

 

I pulled this off a website

"Note that the centripetal force is proportional to the square of the velocity, implying that a doubling of speed will require four times the centripetal force to keep the motion in a circle. If the centripetal force must be provided by friction alone on a curve, an increase in speed could lead to an unexpected skid if friction is insufficient."

 

So with trailbraking you are actually increasing friction with downforce, thus allowing for more centripetal acceleration before a skid happens.... and you might also be lessing the amount of centripetal force (friction) needed since you are slowing the bike down while cornering (due to braking duh). Im positive this effect would also benefit corner speed since with trailbraking you slow as you increase lean angle meaning the need for centripetal force (friction) decreases as you get closer to apex since and your lean angle increases. We know the need for centripetal force (friction) decreases as your speed does.

These two very large benefits are what I hypothesis the benifits of trailbraking are to raers on two wheels and perhaps four as well since it is thier front tires that need the most down force going into a turn as well.

 

 

http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys...cles/u6l1c.html

 

This post took me a shitload of edits to get out of my head right... apologizes to those that read it earlier

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I can sure relate to the endless edits to get something out of my head right. I keep telling myself to use a word processor and wait until I have it right before posting...but for some reason that never seems to happen...lol. Probably because I always start off thinking I can get it all out in the five minutes I have to spare....not.

 

On that note....I don't have time to go through your post point by point right now, but, I will offer a couple of thoughts.

 

 

First is that you are correct about the banking offering more friction. The reason is because it effectively reduces the lean angle between the bike and the pavement allowing more force to be applied since there will be more vertical component at less lean angle.

 

I know you think that applying more down force to the front tire will create more friction, and it will. But, there is only so much down force you can apply at lean and even though you may be able to create more positive G's at speed under braking than negative G's under acceleration, like I said before, you can only apply any degree of down force above 45 degrees. Below 45 degrees, it goes sideways.

 

So no matter how much down force you put on the front tire, it will always be limited by lean angle and the traction will always be greater at the rear because there is more friction available from a larger contact patch.

 

Also, there is a whole nother component we haven't discussed yet. Up to now, we have only been considering the traction wrt lateral vs vertical.

 

You have to consider the positive and negative wheel torque from acceleration and braking leading to rear wheel spin or impending front lock up. You cannot ignore this component or fail to consider it in your trailbraking analysis.

 

Gotta run.

 

racer

 

 

PS I'm not sure what you mean by centripetal acceleration. Do you mean angular acceleration perhaps?

 

"lessing" = decreasing or reducing?

 

 

It sounds to me like you might enjoy this website: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/BBoard.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Due to a glitch, this post was originally a copy of the previous post, hence, I edited it to a period or "oops".

 

However, as I was reading through the thread looking for a specific previous post/quote, I noticed that jrock has continued to extensively edit the salient points of his previous post which mine was a reply to (even adding the physics link I posted for him) many days after his original post (with many edits) rather than creating a new post with his new points at the end of the thread.

 

Had I not been reading back through the thread, I would never have noticed the addittional new points/edits and anyone reading this thread for the first time might find my reply post an apparent non-sequiter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting post. My mind is swimming in cricles taking in all the ideas. I am no physist, but I know one thing for sure. ALL students I have personally trained and most students I have seen others train go FASTER without trail braking. Now, the Top TOP TOP guys may be able to eek out that last fraction of a second or 100s of a second by trail braking and acutally go faster in the corners, but the average student, or really fast student / racer / ama back marker depend on the brakes WAY too much. I'm not say trail braking doesnt work. It does and has a place in certain corners. IE decreasing radius, double apex, passing ect... But most riders brake too much into a corner. I certainly do, and was proven that fact by a before and after lap season. Even when I was in denial and said I wasn't braking too much. I was. Trailbraking on top of that!!!

To further my point check out Keith's artical about his down hill coasting races.

 

Now, lets say a mathmatician prooves that in fact trail braking does provide extra friction and the TOP motorbikers are utilizing this traction, it's probably safe to say all the points brought up in this thread have some validity, BUT they are on a huge sliding scale. No pun intended. And it would be mind boggling to calculate. May be it's an artistic feel or gift that top guys have. That may be the best indicator something else is going on.

 

 

Then again, the arguement of trailbraking has been around so long, maybe it just another style of riding and both work. Each in a different way. IE Advatages gained doing one style cancels out the negative of the other and visa versa? Of course on the super human level that MotoGP WSBK AMA ride at. ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has all been very col to browse, especially after posting this blog so long ago. STU, thanks for regulating for me, I gotta say-that was flattering.

 

However educational all this tech stuff is about centripital, and vertical vs. braking contact mumbojumbo, one question still remains: If the "Quick flick" and the "Trailbrake" techniques are both good tools to be used for going super fast on the racetrack, how does one size up the corner for which type of tool to be used? Stu man has made the most poinient remarks, in that when the turn in point is not the the slowest point, then trailing might be faster. But can't I as the rider dictate where the slowest point in the corner is? and further, MAYBE WE NEED TO EVALUATE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOW MUCH TIME IS GAINED ON CORNER ENTRANCE BY SUPERB TRAILBRAKING VS. TIME GAINED IN CORNER EXIT BY PERFECTLY APPLIED BIKE STABILIZATION AND EARLY GAS-ON-DRIVE?

 

I know it also has to do with the distance and avg. MPH of the folloing points:

 

1) The distance and avg MPH from the intitial point of brake application, all the way back to the dirve out of the PRIOR corner up to the corner in question,

2) the distance and avg MPH from the corner in questions' slowest point, and the drive out all the way to the NEXT point of throttle shut-off (next corner maybe)

 

 

right? right? hmmm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's another way to look at this: with long, decreasing radius turns, is there a quick flick with early gas coming back on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jrock7896 said:

 

So why did Keith see that in turn one @ willow that the faster rider was on the gas and not the brakes.... Im not exactly sure, but perhaps it has to due wit the turn having a nice bank to it. This would turn some of the centripetal force into down force due to the banking and perhaps this has something to do with it since we know that additional down force would cause friction and friction allows for more centripetal force. Obviously the formula for downforce vs. losing traction vs. braking force, vs. centripetal force would not be proportional, but I think it is a formula that each rider is working out at the very top level of moto gp and AMA each time they enter a turn. Damn their good!!!!!

------------------------------

 

jrock,

 

just for your information and calculations, banking doesn't create "down-force". A car's wings are a totally different force. In Banking, gravity is simply pulling you down the "hill" created by the banking offsetting a proportional amount of cetripetal force and allowing for more speed as a result. The forces all balance. It feels like you hit a wall when you run into banking but what you are really experiencing is the gravity pulling on you and the bike at a different angle than it does on a flat corner. Conversely, on an off camber corner, gravity is pulling you down the "hill" but to the outside of the turn.

 

The calculation of gas versus brakes is simple, all things being equal, the guy who gets back into the gas the earliest has more turn exit speed and covers the distance to the next turn in less time than the other guy who waited longer. In corners where you have a choice, like turn #1 at Willow, different riders have different tolerances for how quick they can flick their bike based on how much they trust the front tire. Some riders are more adapted to feeling out the front with the brake than on getting a huge sudden load on the front from flicking the bike into the turn. They like to ease into it. Both can get max grip from the tire, just a different approach for different sensitivities to front traction.

 

Something that has to be kept in mind when you add up the plus and minus columns of trailbraking is this: Unless it is from too much lean angle, riders don't lose the front on the gas, only on the brakes.

 

Another thing that must be kept in proportion on this discussion is: Pointing to trailbraking as THE reason why fast guys can go fast is like saying that if you know how to use a saw really well, you can build a house. Can you build the house without the saw? No. Does the ability to expertly use a saw guarantee the house is well planned and well built? No. There are many other tools and skills that must be known to build it. Same with riding.

 

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

The braking / throttle graphs on the MotoGP telecasts do not come from actual on-bike data acquisition, but rather from the accelerometers in the TV hardware that is on each bike. Therefore the visual representations shown are merely guidance and at best an approximation of the actual input from the riders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
The braking / throttle graphs on the MotoGP telecasts do not come from actual on-bike data acquisition, but rather from the accelerometers in the TV hardware that is on each bike. Therefore the visual representations shown are merely guidance and at best an approximation of the actual input from the riders.

 

 

Interesting. So if the "brake meter" is merely displaying negative forward acceleration, it may be indicating "braking" when, in fact, the rider is merely "slowing" due to being off the gas. Huh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The braking / throttle graphs on the MotoGP telecasts do not come from actual on-bike data acquisition, but rather from the accelerometers in the TV hardware that is on each bike. Therefore the visual representations shown are merely guidance and at best an approximation of the actual input from the riders.

 

 

Interesting. So if the "brake meter" is merely displaying negative forward acceleration, it may be indicating "braking" when, in fact, the rider is merely "slowing" due to being off the gas. Huh.

 

If you are racing or trying to go around a track fast there really shouldn't be a time your either not on the gas or not on the brakes.... the fact is that these guys brake super deep, you can see their brake lever for christs sake. I dont understand why you guys just dont want to accept that all moto gp guys trailbrake just about every singe corner... accept it and move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont understand why you guys just dont want to accept that all moto gp guys trailbrake just about every singe corner... accept it and move on.

LOL! :lol:

 

I don't understand why you just don't want to accept that repeating the same statement again and again does not make it true and that convincing others of your viewpoint is an irrational goal in any case... accept it and move on. ;)

 

It has been very clearly explained why trailbraking is a usefull skill in certain circumstances, but, is not a blanket e-ticket for finding the fast way around a racetrack, and, in fact, is demonstrably detrimental to turning the fastest lap in most circumstances. This is scientific fact, not opinion or perception. However, it is still used and even overused by top racers who probably don't even realize how much they do it.

 

It has also been mentioned that there are unique technical reasons why the MotoGP guys might apparently be able to trailbrake as much as they seem to including the types of tracks they race on and the advanced level of technology/traction that neither you, nor I, nor anyone outside that circuit have access to.

 

And, although it might seem illogical, it would be a fallacy to think that MotoGP riders are necessarily the most knowledgeable just because they are in MotoGP. In any case, your own "scientific" theory of why trailbraking must be the fastest way has been pretty thoroughly falsified and debunked. Trailbraking reduces the amount of available traction. Period. If you don't want to consider the physics behind that fact, ask an engineer or scientist you trust... or simply accept it and move on.

 

By all means, use the technique that you feel works best for you or that you are most comfortable with. But, the difference between fast riders and slow riders, or even between the fastest and 'almost fastest' is not the level of their trailbraking skill.

 

Get it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some riders are more adapted to feeling out the front with the brake than on getting a huge sudden load on the front from flicking the bike into the turn. They like to ease into it.

 

Could it be that having a couple fingers on that brake lever gives some riders a sense of security, of having more control in the form of a simple, intuitive two-fingered safety valve, letting off the brake to reduce front loading and stress on the contact patch when sensing an impending slide or lock-up?

 

As opposed to perhaps feeling less secure by tossing it in without a safety valve, intuitively feeling like it is an 'all or nothing' proposition and more difficult to sense and choose an entry speed with no options except counter-intuitively rolling on more throttle when feeling the front end start to push?

 

Sort of like, "Wait... I feel the front starting to slide and you want me to do what?! Go faster??? :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, one reaches max traction either way, but, won't max traction with the brake applied be at a slower speed as braking reduces available traction one might use to carry more speed?

 

Whereas by not trailbraking and then rolling on the throttle, one can carry more speed to start with and then add even more speed when rolling on the throttle to shift weight off the front? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are racing or trying to go around a track fast there really shouldn't be a time your either not on the gas or not on the brakes....

 

You mean like 'part throttle', ie. not WFO and not braking? Or off the gas and not on the brakes, ie. coasting?

 

While it sounds macho and aggressive and can be a useful rule of thumb when first trying to go fast on racetracks, it is not true for all circumstances. I can think of several situations where rolling out the gas without applying the brake is the best way to keep the bike stable setting up for a high speed sweeper or scrubbing speed for a fast kink or to weight or set the front for a hard switchback.

 

One example of a place to roll off the throttle without applying the brakes to go fast would be Turn 1 at Nelson Ledges. It is a 5th gear, 100+ mph sweeper at the end of the front straight. On a lightweight 4-stroke or GP bike, a fast rider rolls out of the gas and backshifts to set up for the entry. No brakes.

 

Turn 1 at Brainerd is a faster example of a similar turn that holds true for large-bore and open class bikes, I believe, ie. off the gas, backshift and no brakes.

 

The back straight "kink" at Nelson's is another example where rolling out of the gas without using the brakes is the ticket for middleweight and heavyweight bikes.

 

And the "dogleg" kink between the infield horseshoes at Daytona is yet another example. I don't think Superbikes can roll through there WFO like smaller bikes. But I don't think they use the brakes either.

 

 

So... there you have 2-3 different types of situations where the fast or best way is to roll off the throttle without touching the brakes.

 

 

Cheers,

r

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...