shane.hogan

As the topic title says i'm keen to get some opinions on the most realistic way to build up to controlled rear slides while on the power. Its mentioned in one of the twist books that one approach may be to use a rear tyre with less outright grip ie a sports touring tyre. The rationale being you can, in theory at least, get them to move around easier than a focused track tyre. Now while i admit this idea does make sense on a logical level I would still be a bit aprehensive trying to provoke the tyre to slide. Has anybody tried this approach? If so, what bike did you try on? I appreciate the school cant recommend we all go out and give it a bash for fear of the health and safety police coming knocking........but as a way of becoming familiar with the sensations of reaching the limits of traction on the power what are your personal opinions??? And is there any truth in the old addage that sticky tyres let go very quickly compared to a less grippy tyre which gives some warning that its about to give up the ghost before sliding away in a more controllable (recoverable) manner? For me personally I've allways been more confident pushing the limits of traction on the front as, in my perception at least, i get a better feel for whats happening. For example, when you are hard on the brakes and perhaps slighly off dead upright due to the type of corner i get a sort of rolling against the grain or a sort of slide/grip/slide sensation (not and actual slide i dont think, more a sensation) and that lets me know its time to ease off a bit......... On the rear however, be it due to a lack of confidence or just not knowing what to look for i get a bit lost and never seem to get on the power hard enough to make the rear mis behave........ will using a less grippy tyre help me become familiar with the sensation i'm after or just launch me into the gravel

Are there going to be any foreign camps next year or is the published list more or less what we have to choose from?????

no apology needed......... from my point of view at least, i think this one has just about run its course

seeing as this page is being used to float off into space and go on about other stuff.......... would i be required to go through level 1 again having done it back in 2001/02??????? would like to avoid that if poss and get on with getting stuck into the rest next year.......

Greg, fantstic post, thank you. It does now appear to be alot clearer. It seems my confusion has come about because you guys fill in the gaps on an individual basis. Would it be fair to say you only take those next steps when the pupil shows the ability? As you point out somebody like me who has only done level 1 and read the books (ad nauseum ) will have a slightly narrow view of the practical side of what you guys teach. On the other hand we students are encouraged to think of the twist series of books as our bible so you can see how somebody might perceive something not dealt with directly in the books as something that is perhaps missing entirely. This was my mistake, but its only after pestering you guys about it personally that its been made clear that what you guys actually do is put the meat on the metaphorical bones ie the twist books. Previously this was not something i was aware of. I'd presumed you simply taught the basic concepts in the book and that was that........Am i the only one with this perception??? And on the point of developing the basic skills..... Do you guys have a set curriculum or is it very much dependant on the individual and his/her level of ability......

Greg, i appreciate you taking the time to respond on the thread but im finding the approach you are taking is a bit frustrating. I appreciate the whole "ask questions to stimulate thought" approach but i would appreciate straight answers or opinions if you could.

I agree with the first point you make, it does rarely happen like that due to many factors. And i also appreciate the vastly differring levels of ability and understanding you come across on any typical school day.....its one of my lasting memories of my level one course and not a positive one unfortunately. So yes, i understand why the information is delivered in the way it is. Back to my point though........i'm trying to be as exact as possible in pinning down the bit i would like clarified..... By the schools method....your braking is done and eased off just as you arrive at your turn point at this turn point you steer as quickly as possible with an ideal of just 1 steering input once over you then crack the throttle asap etc etc etc Bearing the previous in mind, you cant turn very quickly when holding some brake (its a huge risk) as opposed to being off the brakes, but as i'm sure you agree there are some instances where the fastest way through the turn is to hold onto that brake a "little" longer. here is where i'm finding ambiguity....the rule in any situation is as fast as possible and finish your braking by your turn point can you see what i'm having trouble with???

Fella, this whole forum is testament to overthinking......thats the point of it, to a degree We can all deduce for ourselves that you adapt techniques and methods to suit situations and available technology, its a judgment call. But rightly or wrongly i feel the school are a touch vague and fuzzy about this in contrast to the very matter of fact approach to almost every other aspect of bike/rider interaction. doesnt anybody else feel the uncertainty?

I see your logic here dave.....but is it really the case that braking deep in to the corner ruins your speed through the corner? Why can you not achieve the same mid corner speed by arriving at that speed via a different method? Is there a physics reason that its impossible or talent reason that just makes it difficult? Braking deep to your intended point (apex) is not the same as braking too deep because you screwed it up i might add......

Trail braking is what it is......we are in danger of going circles already. holding onto the brakes deep into the turn, tapering off as the lean increases.......untill you arrive at your intended apex point and look to get back on the gas. I'm struggling to see the relavence of having me define what trail braking is.

hello there fella, using your theoretical example of a corner speed of 200mph ( ) you want to keep that 200mph from entry all the way through and out the corner. Now, if you assume that the bike can approach the corner above 200mph, say 220mph, it is entirely possible to go in to the corner on the brakes past your previously designated turn point doing lets say 210...dropping down to 200 again by the time you are at the apex and off the brakes.......so you have carried more speed up to the corner and the same speed from the mid point onward and so have gone faster.........yes? Anyway, as i i've now said a few times, I dont want to debate the finer details, its been done already and tends to result in people replying by stating what they believe to be correct rather than adressing the original point.

thanks for the reply. In terms of does is matter........in the greater scheme of things no, it doesnt. This is just for my peace of mind and clarity on the issue. And as i pointed out in the original post i'm talikng in absolute terms...ie. lap times Just in case you guys are getting rubbed up the wrong way by the tone of my post i should point out that i am a convert, but with reservations as i dont do the blind faith thing too well. Some of the early responses are shaping up in the manner that its my lack of understanding.....that may be so.. but as this general area of the approach keeps getting called into question you have to ask.........are we all just stupid or is there perhaps a weakness with the delivery of this particular portion of the technique?

ahh good, i piqued some interest. I'm not at all sure what you mean by defining my terms, could you be a bit more specific? Also, as the guy above pointed out this is NOT a post about what is trail braking and when to use it. The point i'm perhaps clumsily trying to clarify is, would the code approach (at least on paper) be the fastest way round a track if the style and teachings were taken on completely by elite riders???? I'm taking a macro view of the technique as a whole so lets try not to get lost in the details. Mentioning the entry to apex section of a corner was just me highlighting one of the portions of the approach i dont understand very clearly. And by that of course im referring back again to top level riders being faster using a brake to the apex approach.

Right then, first post so I'll go straight in at the deep end. I consider myself a decent track rider and have more than a basic level of understanding when it comes to the how and why of riding fast. I have actually done level 1 of the school a good few years back but never went any further due to a break from bikes. I've read twist 2 and for the most part found it to be an eye opener. My issue with the code approach is not original and its one that pokes its head out from time to time in different guises. As the thread title suggests, my main bone of contention is the entry to apex section of a corner. The code approach to cornering, at least to my mind, requires that your braking is done by your turn point and then once settled you're back on the gas gently. This much we are all familiar with. Its also worth pointing out that i'm aware that there are different types of corner that require a slight modification of the technique. By and large though, we are taught Brake, turn fast, back in the gas asap. Its very clear what the benefits of this approach are with respect to stability, lean for a given speed and traction. But what about when your absolute goal is the quickest lap time possible? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that alot of riders will improve their lap times as a result of proper application of the techniques taught. Its only as the times get faster and closer to the sharp end that i feel the approach has a gaping hole in it. I'm going to use the example of pro racers......yes i know they are the elite and beyond the level most of us will ever achieve, but they are also the best of the breed and most importantly, the fastest. Racers at national and international level attack corners in a way somewhat contradictory to codes teachings. I'm opening myself up to correction here but i dont know of one top racer who does NOT brake right up to the apex (there is bound to be one, but in the minority). Now, even allowing for tyre technology and machinery advantage you simply cannot turn your machine hard and fast if you are braking right up to the apex of a turn. As i acknowledged earlier there are different types of turn and sometimes you will be required to trail a brake, but i think we can all agree that talent however plentifull, cant do much about the laws of physics, so its fast turning or trail braking to the apex, we cant have both. We do in reality have amalgamation of the 2 to a degree but thats not what the school teaches. In a very long winded and round about sort of way i'm trying to get one of you guys to either claim that the code method is technically superior and potentially faster over a lap and indeed a race but just lacks a top level racer to put it to the test or wether in fact its a system and way of riding that only benefits riders of a certain ability to a certain point. so to sum up.....Is it An approach and methodology best suited to dragging average Joe up (quite)a few notches, but not quite enough for top level racers OR An approach that even the fastest of the fast would benefit from if adopted in its entirety (not just cherry picking some aspects) I've seen attempts at answering this point in the past that just descend into a blurring of the lines type affair. So please bear in mind that what i'm questioning is the usefulness of the approach if adopted in its entirety by the best. ie. would rossi and stoner be even faster if it were possible for them to completely change styles ( i realise such a fundamental change is not feasible) Or does the approach only carry you to certain point at which time you need to modify your technique to progress any further. Answers on a post card