harnois

The best way to get your heavy bike through esses is to use the same technique racers and track riders use to get through esses - push/pull (countersteer) really hard on the handlebars (forward/backward not up/down). You can change your position on the bike to get more leverage, like move back on the seat and somewhat lower if necessary to get your fore-arms parallel with the ground. And you might have to think about how you are clamping onto the bike with your legs because when you push on the bars you have to brace yourself against the other parts of the bike. The countersteer is mostly causing the quick lean angle change by moving the tires around underneath as in the balancing baseball bat explanation from Iwarner. The idea that you can "move the bottom a bit and wait for it to fall into position," while it might be applicable to the balancing bat, isn't really applicable to the motorcycle. The reason is, that (assuming good frame geometry, tire condition, yada yada) once the bike is leaned, the front wheel will naturally turn in on it's own by whatever amount it needs to maintain whatever lean angle you currently have, unless you push on the handlebars (countersteer) to knock it off of that natural/neutral path. Thus if you want it to continually lean down more and more you have to continually push on the bar. If you want it to maintain lean angle you should ideally be able to just completely relax your pressure on the bars, if your bike has ideal "neutral steering." So in a left right transition you should be leaning left with relaxed grip, then push hard forward on the right grip and/or pull back on the left grip, turning handlebar to left to move tires to the left, to flick the bike to the right, then relax again to hold lean angle. Leaning the bike more than your body is useful for parking lot speeds, because leaning the bike more actually makes it turn sharper for a given steering angle (test it with a bicycle it becomes obvious why that is). It's quite useful for making a u-turn on a narrow road. Once up to any real speed it's not useful for anything, and it will imbalance the bike toward the outside and thus ruin your neutral steering, or in other words it will cause the bike to want to gradually stand up out of the lean, and you will then have to apply a small amount of constant countersteer pressure on the bars to counteract it, instead of being able to completely relax, and the bike is more stable if you can have no pressure on the bars (and slight throttle on). I like wikipedia's countersteering article, although given the nature of wikipedia it seems to change often: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Countersteering

Two things I haven't seen mentioned: First is, a good couch would need to be able to use a variety of communication styles and methods. For example, some people understand things and communicate in a very systematic sort of way, they tend to be good at math, engineering, physics, etc. Others think and communicate more organically, from experience or intuition, and they may be better in art, language, and sociality. And some people are just darn good at memorizing stuff. Now I hate the idea of generalizing and categorizing people, and I'm not suggestion that anyone really fits exactly into one category, but there's nothing wrong with recognizing that we are different. I would describe myself as mostly systematic, but I'm obviously not entirely missing my noodles in the other categories. Math is easy for me. I'm not so bad in art, but my creativity is always sort of geometric. Trying to learn a new language is utter torture, and English grammar and spelling about drives me nuts sometimes how twisted it is. I'm not too bad in sociality but I think it's a more conscious learning process for me (can you tell? ) whereas it seems natural for others. You know the phrase about a picture is worth a whole lotta words, and so all types benefit from a demonstration (picture, video, model), but that is more important for the organic thinkers (or do I just think that because I'm systematic?), where as the systematic thinkers are more likely to be able to execute something from a systematic explanation. And a coach that thinks more organically will probably be able to explain things better to a student who thinks on those terms. We are all "pattern matchers," so of course first hand physical experience and lots of practice is important for everybody. Second is, understanding that nobody is going to understand a complex subject unless they first intuitively understand all the parts that it is built upon. For example, try to explain to someone how/why motorcycles balance themselves and how countersteering works - all kinda interrelated. First they must have an intuitive understanding of inertia, rake & trail, some tire understanding, and probably a ton of stuff that most adults take for granted - afterall, you can't explain it to an infant. Put this concept into any context - kids learning how to read - first they have to gain a decent familiarity with what sounds are made by each of the 26 letters, only then can they understand the concept of how those letters can form spoken words, and then sentences, and then essays. Language, which we take for granted, is insanely complicated, and it's just a tool to learn other stuff. At work (software company) when trying to help a customer, before I explain something I might have to first ascertain what prerequisite knowledge they already have and how computer savvy they are, and then "talk on their level." I could go on with so many examples of this in just about any subject. A lot of times when one person thinks something is so simple but another person can not understand it, this is the reason - one person probably has some prerequisite knowledge or contextual understanding that the other does not have. Unfortunately some immature people may jump to the conclusion that the person who can not understand is "stupid." These types would make a very bad coach! If you are reading a paragraph and are missing the meaning of just one of the words, you may totally miss the point of the whole paragraph (notice that Keith Code's books have word definitions built in). This is why it makes sense that the superbike school, like any educational system, does things in a specific order, regardless of "skill level." I think most people take for granted how much their understanding of the world is built up in layers, how every little thing we learn is built upon loads of stuff we learned before that and intimate contextual awareness. A good coach needs to be able to recognize the missing parts.

Definitely. With good throttle control and a loose grip, the bike adjusts and stabilizes on it's own and this is something I've come to realize thanks to the superbike school. Unless riding at crazy lean angles, it takes a severe and sustained loss of grip or a collision with a fairly large object to bring it down - a good reason not to ride with severe lean angles on public roads, and to learn good throttle control and a loose grip! However, on the brakes or off throttle and leaned over it can go down real quick on a slick spot, so those are the moments to have the most concern with surface details. And when I think about my visual habits on public roads, I tend to pay a lot of attention to the surface condition as I enter a turn, when I'm off throttle or braking and not yet turned in (but maybe still on a somewhat curved path). Once I turn in and get on throttle my attention moves up around the turn. On the track it's much different, there is really no time when I'm paying much attention to surface details - on turn entry I'm looking ahead to the apex.

I think what the OP is saying is that even if you saw something that close, by the time you reacted (got your fingers to the brake, or even just pulled in in if they were already there) you would have already gone past what you saw. I think the question is how long does it really take you to react. In the OP he states it is 1.2 seconds, does it really take that long to grab the brake? 1. Average reaction time = 0.20 seconds (from OP) OK seems reasonable. 2. Average time to lean a bike (or get on the brakes) - 1.00 second Some people can lean it a lot faster I think. 3. Total time to react and start turning or stopping the bike = 1.20 seconds Just because it took somebody 1.0 second to lean a bike doesn't mean it takes 1 second to pull the brake lever, twist the throttle slightly, or steer the tires around an obstacle. I can think of a lot of cases where I reacted to something that seemed quite closer than 70 or 100 feet at 40 to 60 mph. Hell the bike is so damned maneuverable at those slower speeds. However, while many of us may be a good judge of distance in a practical working sense, and know what we can react to at any given speed based on a lot of previous experience, I doubt myself or most other riders are that great at asigning actual numbers to it like specific feet or seconds. I can walk into a room and tell you off-hand if it is 10 feet wide or 12, but in outdoor environments plus moving at speed, it's a much different story. In outdoor environments I typically way underestimate horizontal distances.

While I generally agree with the premise you have put forth, I think there are still some things you can do within that short time to react to things you might only see within that short distance. For example, a surface irregularity, such as fine grain gravel of similar color as the pavement, it might not be visible until you are very near it. And within that short time before you get to it you could: brake for a moment, get from off-throttle to on-throttle for stability, or steer the front tire around an obstacle. You won't change your direction by much but just getting from off to on throttle can be a real help in a lot of circumstances involving sketchy surfaces on public roads.

I experimented a little with my SV650 this weekend. The bike has an aftermarket shock with adjustable ride height and preload, but both are difficult to adjust so I didn't mess with that, but I suspect the back is sitting considerably higher than stock. I started out with the forks raised 6mm in the triple clamps, so the front sits lower than stock, and then on top of that I let all the preload out in the forks, so the front has a lot of sag. So all this means the bike is tipped forward a lot, so steeper head angle and not a lot of trail. Then I went for a ride. Off throttle it had a very strong tendency to want to stand up. Steady throttle was a little more neutral but not much better. Actual acceleration made it become neutral, but it took considerably more than just the usual stabilizing cornering throttle to make it neutral. Heavier throttle didn't change anything. I suspect that once the forks top out on throttle there's no more geometry change due to throttle and that's where more throttle stops affecting the steering neutrality. So then I cranked the preload all the way up, so the front sags a lot less, and moved the forks flush with the top of the triple tree. Altogether this would make the front sit about 21mm higher, thus increasing trail. Then I went for another ride on the same turns. It still wanted to stand up off-throttle or at steady speed, but it wasn't as strong and took took less throttle to make it neutral. So this was an improvement. On top of that it seemed much less "twitchy" on bumpy stuff, which is interesting to me, because I would not have described the bike as twitchy in the first place, and because it is the first time I've noticed that kind of change from suspension adjustments on any bike. For public road riding these changes seem really nice. Theoretically the steering would be slower but at public roads I can flick any bike super fast, so it's a non-issue. This makes me realize that one of the previous owners, having dropped the front a little and raised the rear, no doubt thinking he was making his bike "more sporty," actually just messed it up, gave it that desire to stand up in turns. After that I changed the front tire pressure from 29 to 36 psi, and this made the biggest difference, made it more neutral (less camber thrust). I would like to repeat all these experiments eventually with a brand new front tire, because this one already has some of that flat spotting in the profile that I mentioned in an earlier post, which I have little doubt is another source of the bikes tendency to stand up in turns. I would also like to repeat the geometry changes making more drastic changes, to take most of the subjectivity out of the test. I might take my KLR650, for example with 9 inches of suspension travel, and drop the front end like 3 inches, see if it changes more toward neutral instead of it's current tendency to fall in. Obviously that would have to be temporary, but if it works, I could considering adding a preload spacer to the rear shock to get the same result, which would have the added benefit of more ground clearance. As a result of this thread you really got me think of ways of improving all 3 of my bikes!

I often have to remind myself to look as far ahead as possible - look at the apex when approaching the turn, and as soon as I turn in, look around the turn as far as possible. The better I do with looking ahead, the faster my entry speeds get and sooner I tend to get on the throttle and therefore the lower I end up leaning. Like you said focus on turn entry speed, but the info you need to judge that is - where you are, where the apex is, and your previous experience with that turn. All basically visual skills. By looking at the apex you know when to dive in toward it and how fast you can be going when you do it. By looking ahead around the turn you'll know that you can make it to where you are looking no problem and that you'd make it there better with some throttle! But there are some turns, mostly the ones after longer braking zones, where I routinely charge in at a speed that just seems way too fast to me. I'm thinking there's no way I can make it, but I KNOW that I can make it because I've been around the track and charged in the same way a hundred times before. But obviously we gotta work up to that gradually, because those are the moments where a fundamental flaw in our riding or a moment of panic will bite us. When riding on the track, the braking zones and turn entries seem like the most physically and mentally intense moments, and for me one of the fun challenges of riding on the track is learning to focus amidst all that intensity.

Good point. I'm totally open to being completely wrong about this. I hope I can test with my SV this weekend. Actually, until this thread I've always just assumed without much thought that since steeper head angles make for lighter steering that it would also make for a greater tendency to fall in. Which is opposite of my camber thrust vs. trail theory. Cruisers seem to come in a really huge variety of tire sizes and rake/trail settings. Some have really fat front tires and a lot more weight squishing the front tire down, so that would create a larger and wider front contact patch, which would create more camber thrust, which would have to be offset with more trail. The ones with a very shallow rake angle, chopper style, they're going to have a really "floppy" front end - turning the handlebars will make front of the bike drop a lot. Gravity is trying to turn the steering. I don't know how much this plays into it but maybe it's another variable. I couldn't find rake/trail specs on the savage but it's clearly not all that extreme. You can have a shallow head with a lot of forward fork offset to compensate, or a steep head angle and less fork offset, and either way have the same amount of trail. So your concern about the sideways movement of the contact patch - it's not necessarily any worse with the chopper. Here's a pic to demonstrate: http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/HXj7w...feat=directlink

I guess the formulas are good when you want to get an idea of *how much* difference a certain change can potentially make. Like in that article I just linked to, they show that tipping the bike forward just 0.2 degree by lowering the front end can make a noticeable difference in the amount of trail. Which means that front braking probably makes a very significant difference in trail. Also try setting the preload to have the most sag (what post people refer to as "soft"). Per my "camber thrust vs. trail" theory that should make it better because it would increase trail, helping it overcome the camber thrust, moving the handling more toward neutral instead of wanting to stand up. Although I could be totally wrong about this theory. Also it would reduce the jacking up of the rear on throttle if that's what's happening, per Eirik's explanation.

Here's a good article I just found: http://www.sportrider.com/tech/146_0310_art/index.html

You are right that shortening the forks in itself does not change the trail. It changes because the whole bike rotates forward when braking, so the head angle rotates forward along with it. Yeah the frame angles are mechanically fixed, but there's 4 or 5 inches of suspension travel front and back, so the whole frame can rotate relative to the ground due to braking or acceleration. If you hit a dip and both front and rear compress equally, no change in trail, but braking and throttle can cause the front and rear to do the opposite of each other, and there will be a change in trail. Perhaps considering an extreme example will make it more clear. Consider a guy doing a "stoppie" draw that on paper, draw your lines, now how much trail is there? At some point it will even become negative (the tire contact point will be in front of the steering pivot). Back to the original subject, I have an SV650 that has a slight tendency to want to stand up in turns. So now that you got me thinking about this "camber thrust vs. trail" theory, I'm thinking of doing a bit of testing to see if I can use that to make it better or worse. You said your bike does not have adjustable suspension, but I don't think I've ever seen a bike that didn't at least have preload adjustment on the back (to deal with the possibility of riding with a passenger). So if you have that, try cranking that all the way in one direction, then ride, then all the way in the other direction, then ride. I wonder if there'll be a noticeable difference in the bikes tendency to want to stand up, for better or worse. Also there's the possibility of sliding the forks up in the tripple clamps a little bit. Both of these changes would pitch the bike slightly forward or backward which would change the trail a little.

Under braking the back end of the bike lifts and the front compresses, so the whole bike is rotated forwards which makes the head angle more vertical, which reduces trail. Here is a good picture of it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:TrailDIAG2.jpg It's from this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_and_trail Reducing the trail means that the trail has less leverage against the "camber thrust," but it also makes it have less leverage against the rider's steering inputs, which is why racers often try to adjust their suspension lower at the front and taller at the back to make the countersteering easier or faster. But if taken too far it can create stability problems. It's possible for the back of the bike to either squat, jack up, or do nothing as a result of the acceleration. Racers sometimes adjust swingarm angle to make it do different things. I've noticed some cruisers jack up at the back with acceleration, especially the shaft drive ones (except BMW).

It does seem freak'n hard to figure out how to explain some of this stuff without it sounding a lot more complicated than it really is.

I see what you mean... when leaned left the contact patch is on the left edge of the tire and thus to the to the left of the steering pivot, so it would get pulled back towards the center under braking, turning the front wheel to the left. I hadn't thought of that one. Yet another interesting tidbit!

Check out the article on "camber thrust" on tonyfoale.com. Note the 3rd image and the explanation that follows it. So this camber thrust thing makes the front tire really want to turn in a very tight circle, toward the inside of the turn, like a coffee cup or cone rolling on a flat surface. This drives the tires up under the bike and thus the bike wants to stand up. But the trail, just like the front wheels of a grocery cart, is trying to pull the front wheel in whatever direction the inertia of the bike wants to go (straight). This drives the tires out from under the bike and thus the bike will fall in until it falls over. If the camber thrust and the pull of the trail are properly balanced against each other, the front wheel will naturally turn in just the right amount to allow the bike to continue around the turn and hold it's lean angle with no pressure on the handlebars, and thus the bike will be neutral. If the camber thrust gains some leverage over the trail, the bike will stand up. If the trail gains some leverage over the camber thrust, the bike will fall in. Of course we can counteract any of this by pushing on the bars ourselves. There's no doubt a lot more going on than just this little battle between camber thrust and trail, but the concept in my opinion is quite practical in understanding a lot of bike behaviors and bike handling problems and how to fix them or adjust to them. For example: Stuman mentioned that "a bike will stand up when you get on the front brake which should effect the suspension in just the oposite way." Getting on the front brake causes the bike to dip forward, which decreases trail, thus the trail loses leverage. The braking also causes the front tire to squish down more increasing the width of the contact patch, which increases the leverage of the camber thrust. Trail loses, camber thrust wins, the bike stands up. Now lets take my example of the worn front tire making my sportbikes want to stand up. The reason is that I have a certain lean angle that I'm comfortable with on public roads and I use that angle a lot. So the part of the front tire that's on the ground at that lean angle wears more and thus the tire profile develops a flat spot. That flat spot means that when I reach that lean angle, the contact patch gets wider (and shorter), increasing the leverage of the camber thrust, and thus the bike wants to stand up. Adding throttle helps to make the bike more neutral because it decreases the size of the front tire contact patch. Increasing front tire pressure helps to for the same reason. But overall the bike is generally not enjoyable to ride because it's neutrality changes with lean angle which is annoying and prevents me from completely relaxing in the turns. Let's consider the KLR650 I mentioned, with knobby tires, that wants to fall in. I theorize that the knobby tires reduce the leverage of the camber thrust and thus installing street tires would make it more neutral. But I'm not going to find out any time soon because I have no interest in being restricted to pavement with this thing. Hotfoot, I bet, if you experimented some more, you would find that your cruiser wants to stand up all the time, not just on the throttle, and that getting on the throttle actually makes it less severe. Consider that your throttle control habits also might have changed as a result of the superbike school. You'd have to go into a turn off throttle with no pressure on the bars, observe the behavior of the bike, then get on throttle and remain no pressure on bars, and see what changes. Of course there are lots of things you could do to make it more neutral if you wanted.

You said you'd like to have a more technical understanding of how it works, well I could write pages and pages about this stuff, but basically I think you are right that it is because your cruiser has "much shallower steering angle and/or greater trail?" But search a little on rake and trail and how they are used to make the bike balance itself, and motorcycle geometry and motorcycle physics, there's no shortage of fascinating stuff out there! For starters, try tonyfoale.com, then go to Articles and read the one about "Experiments with steering geometry." I thought that one was quite interesting. There's also a very well done article on wikipedia about countersteering. I've owned several very different kinds of bikes. My observation is that the sportbikes usually hold their lean in the turns, but some bikes I have owned in the past wanted to stand up with no pressure on the bars, and my current KLR650 with knobby tires wants to fall in (I theorize that it would be more neutral with street tires). Like you, I also became quite aware of these differences after taking the superbike school. My understanding is that the bike designers set the rake and trail to get the desired outcome, and I bet it depends a lot on the front tire profile. Sportbikes are most neutral because optimal handling is the primary goal of their design. I've never owned a cruiser but I'd bet they are set up for "stability" and wouldn't be surprised at all if some of them stand up in turns if no pressure on the bars, just like Eirik's comment about his Intruder 1400. In bike reviews in magazines I've often seen bikes praised for being "neutral in the turns." I figure this is what they are talking about. Every sportbike I've owned would acquire a tendency to stand up with a worn front tire, which is why I often look forward to fresh tires. This issue only arises in street riding, not track riding, due to milder lean angles usually used. Increasing front tire pressure alleviates the problem somewhat in the interim. Hanging off seems to counteract it somewhat too. Try hanging off on your cruiser. This comment that some riders make that they accelerate out of turns to help the bike stand up, it implies that we can not simultaneously slow down and stand up, or speed up and lean more, etc, and we all know we can do all combinations of steering/speed changes and it would be impossibly dangerous to ride a motorcycle if we couldn't. And countersteering gives us such direct and powerful control over the lean angle of the bike, so it seems kinda pointless to get fixated on the idea of using the throttle to change lean angle. But I do think that we may have to use some mild pressure on the bars sometimes in order to deal with the reality that some bikes in some circumstances are not all that neutral.

In blind turns, I think it's best to stay on the right side of the lane (or whatever side of the lane is nearest the shoulder in your country). The reason is that for left turns, it's the only way to keep your head in your own lane when leaning. For right turns, vehicles including dump trucks in the oncoming lanes cut the corners and take up half your lane sometimes, and since it is a blind turn, and the closing speed between you and the other guy is your speed added to his, you might not have that much time to react, and it'd be a likely and very bad time to get spooked and target fixate. Some of the roads I ride on don't even have a center line which makes this problem worse. It can be challenging at first to get the hang of going around left turns on the right side of the lane. So yeah, apexing the turns, I don't get to do a lot of that on the street, because most of the turns on the fun roads here are blind. There are larger roads with bigger sweeping open turns but those are the roads with real traffic, and popo, and to have fun on that kind of road I'd have to use the "get arrested" portion of the speedometer. 99% of the time on public roads I think ya just have to accept is as cruis'n along and enjoying the scenery, with an occasional series of fun tight twisties here and there. Otherwise you'll just get hurt or put in jail.

Good point but it still seems like a reasonable theory to me. The inline 4 with an even firing sequence has one ignition stroke per 1/2 a crank turn, and each ignition stroke lasts about half a crank turn, so it is basically always "on" with practically no pause between. Whereas the twin would be "on" for half a turn then "off" for half a turn. A single would be on for half a turn then off for 1.5 turns. I guess one would have to dig into the intricacies of tire technology to know if that is enough time to regain any traction, but if it's enough time to lose it in the first place... Plus the strength of the pulses is still controlled by the riders throttle hand. Plus on top of all that, riding a twin you can feel each individual pulse (vibration) except maybe at high rpms, so how fast is that really? I was trying to figure out how many pulses there would be per revolution of the tire, depending on gear ratios, thinking this might give a better perception than the "bangs per second." It seems similar to anti-lock brakes. Per wikipedia, "A typical anti-lock system can apply and release braking pressure up to 20 times a second" and "ABS-equipped cars are able to attain braking distances better (i.e. shorter) than those that would be easily possible without the benefit of ABS." The use of the phrase "easily possible" is interesting - just like we're saying here, that the pulsing throttle is more forgiving. Thanks for the interesting links, Bullet. And I wasn't try'n to be a smart alec there, just say'n. Like you said, the concept is the same either way.

Yep, ideally we should be able to comfortably stop and stay in our lane on the piece of road we can see in front of us at any given moment. But, that still does not guarantee that you wouldn't need to get on the brakes quickly. There can still be things that happen that you can not predict or plan for. Anytime you pass a car that is waiting to pull out of a side road, there is a small amount of time where you are depending on that car not to pull out, and there is no way around that. And then there are the large stupid animals like deer! And besides, nobody is so perfect that they really live up to that line-of-sight rule exactly all the time or is 100% attentive 100% of the time.

Throttle Rocker, not to be confused with a throttle lock, very different things. But yeah I agree with heavy gloves the Rockers are especially useful. Even in summer, just one hour on a bike without one makes my wrist hurt and takes away from the enjoyment of the ride.

My perception of it was that the pulsing power of the twins (and the I4's with the uneven firing sequence) would make it more forgiving when powering out of turns on the edge of traction, not that it would actually give it more traction. But it could still be a big advantage because that could certainly translate into better drive out of the turns. Dirt bikes are usually singles, even the 4 strokes, so their down to 1 ignition per 2 whole engine revolutions (I think it's funny that this works at all!). Imagine an I4 dirt bike and how hard it would be to keep the rear tire under the bike under hard acceleration on loose surfaces) " With a normal inline 4 cyclinder engine, the pulses are every 90 degrees of crank revolution, on a twin (typically), they're longer, say 180 degree's. " Bullet, isn't it more like one ignition per 180 degrees for the I4, and one whole turn per ignition for a twin? Think about it, 90 degrees, implies that all the cylinders are firing for every revolution. True for a 2 stroke, but not a 4 stroke.

I don't feel that I have any problem with accurate throttle control while covering the brakes with 2 fingers. With street riding, blind turns, traffic, and what not, I think in some circumstances it can drastically improve reaction time for braking. I can recall a specific incident where a bulky winter glove got in the way of getting my fingers up to the lever as a car pulled out in front of me as I was exiting a blind turn. I also use those "throttle rocker" things or similar devices, so ya don't have to squeeze the grip at all to turn it, helps on long rides mainly but also helps to relax the grip in general. I've even used them during track riding.

So the neighbor who dropped the Katana, did she pick it up herself? Or did you pick it up? You say it should be easy, but was it easy for her? You talk as if everyone including a 100-pound chick should be able to lift a 500-pound bike with her little pinky finger. Maybe you are just a strong dude? Construction worker perhaps? Yeah Rossi's heartrate 125, saw that DVD too, but he's a freak. Biaggi was in the 180's and I bet many of the other racers are too. Most of them have fitness regiments so it is obviously pretty hard work for them or they wouldn't be always worried about their fitness. Some of the AMA guys at least sure seem out-of-breath if interviewed immediately after a race. Yeah off topic, but its all good! But on topic, I sure would love to learn how to do those tight courses like that. I think any time spent riding any kind of bike in any circumstance will add to the comfort on bikes in general. Aside from street riding and track riding, I also ride a KLR650, which weighs as much as a sportbike but has 9 inches of suspension travel and knobby tires. I do actually take it in the dirt, mud, sand, ruts, fall over, curse, pick it up, try again, etc - totally different riding, but I see a lot of overlap in the understanding of the bike behavior. I think it's fun that there's so many different ways to challenge yourself with a motorcycle, and the confidence built in one type of riding helps with the other.

I've thought it odd to see some of the rider struggling to pick up their bikes after a fall too, but most of the top riders are pretty small dudes, on account of lighter being faster. Plus like Fajita said, they may be very tired from riding a 200 hp machine and hard braking and transitions. Casual riders just don't realize how tiring it is to ride fast on a track. Plus their bikes are not *that* light. Surely lighter than a KZ1300, but the required minimum weight for a 4cyl in 2007 for example was 148 kg (330 lb). Some 600cc sportbikes off the floor nowadays are in the 350's dry. Although with your KZ it may be "as simple as grabbing a bar end and lift it up" that is because the bars on that bike are fairly high, and its center of gravity is probably lower, providing a lot of leverage. The bars on a sportbike are around gas tank height so there is not necessarily any advantage there. I have had to pick up sportbikes a few times and it is not that easy and using the tank rather than the bars does seem to work better because it is in the middle.

Throttle control. I took the school after 80,000 miles of street riding experience. For all that time I had been going through the turns just holding the throttle steady rather than increasing it mildly throughout the turn. Every time I hit a patch of gravel the front end stepped out and scared the ###### out o' me! Now when I see gravel, I eat it for breakfast, just keep on roll'n it on with confidence and ride right through it, get a little slipity slidy from both wheels and don't even care! Seems like such an obvious thing now, but that just shows how sometimes you just gotta learn from the experience of others rather than figure it out yourself!