faffi

Because talent alone is never enough (in a widely spread competitive sport) and hard work is never enough, you also need expert guiding and an environment to reach your peak. This is my view on the Spanish dominance: If you took a person with talent, gave him a motorcycle at the age of 3 and let him/her ride as much as he wanted. This little person was also determined and didn't need encouragement to ride for hours a day. As he or she aged, larger and better bikes were introduced and the trainer would give advice as best he could. After 15 years of practice, this young person is thrown into a MotoGP race, his/her first ever race. Would it be crowned with a win? Very unlikely. More likely than not, this dedicated person would be far behind the pace, but if the talent was immense he could be mid-pack and over time develop to a winner. In Spain, they have big riding schools and many kids that want to ride and race motorcycles. So there are more young Spanish riders than let's say American upcoming road racers. First advantage through multiplication. They also have many skilled coaches that that will aid the students' learning curves. Second advantage through tuition. In addition, they constantly measure themselves against their peers - of which there are many - and can learn from them as well as being pushed to extend themselves as others get ahead. Third advantage though a competitive environment.

But money will be spent most on the best in any given sport. So whereas lots of money can help you achieve better results than virtually no money, it can only take you this far before your personal limitations sets in. And these limits vary from one person to the next. Very few will be able to bench press 300 kg / 660 lbs no matter how early they start or how they train, and very few will run the 100 metre dash in under 9.8 seconds, regardless of desire and hours spent working out. For the same reasons, very few racers will be able to become world champions. It takes a lot more than merely being very good.

YellowDuck, I think you said it well. Also, khp, I agree you need grit or determination or whatever word you want to put on it because talent alone won't cut it these days. Well, it probably never did because you always had to be willing to put your skills to their test at the absolute limit - and often beyond. But you can have grit to the hilt and not get anywhere if you don't know your right leg from the left. We can actually look at this mathematically. The best riders in the world are supposed to be found in MotoGP. If we are very generous, we set the average career in the class to 15 years. Over that period, there will be 270 races. If we allow for a different rider to win each race, it will allow 270 racers to be the best. Once. In 15 years. Out of 7 billion, that means one out of 26 million people can win - once - over 15 years. The chances of winning the big lottery price is significantly greater There is a reason why so few can proclaim to be the very best, regardless of their sport - it takes a combination of massive talent and even greater determination as well as tons of work to be the best.

Thanks, Hotfoot, I'll re-read that chapter

Dragging out an old topic from hibernation. I have just finished Croz' biography and am currently reading Toseland's, and both seems to be what you would call "naturals". Neither had formal training in riding, both were near the peak of their sport just about from the first race. Personally, I believe you must have talent first and foremost. That alone will never make you number 1 - for that to happen, you also need plenty of determination. This again will lead to lots of practice, which again will lead to improved performance. But a person lacking the required talent can practice all he/she want - my claim is that that person will never reach the peak of the sport and likely will not even be able to hang with a raw talent with limited practice. It's the same with any sport. For instance, roughly 15% of the population will not run much faster even if they run a marathon every day, whereas 15% will benefit immensely from the same training. In order to become the best in the world, you must belong to the upper 15% - no amount of determination will ever make you competitive if you are in the bottom 15%. I expect the same to be true for riding motorcycles. A good portion of the population simply doesn't have the coordination, the eye sight, the flexibility, the endurance, the guts and the sensory capacity to become very good, not to mention excel.

I would never say to a world champion that he is full of BS, but there is no doubt he will have to do some counter-steering. Perhaps the way he locks himself to the bike make it easy to produce the force required, so much that he doesn't notice it? I don't know, but I know I often drop the bike quickly on its side with hardly any effort, whereas at other times I pull and push like crazy without a lot of reaction. So obviously, there are ways to steer a bike with less effort (wish I could do that always, not just most of the time). Other than the actual steering issues, Corser makes perfect sense to me.

He said that you would have to hold the bike up once you shift your weight, you need to keep the bike from turning by pulling outwards on the bars and once you let go, the bike will turn. No need to push or pull, the bike would turn smoothly and easily. He also said that by shifting your weight to the inside early - without putting force on the handlebars - you would avoid instability. Furthermore, he stressed that you always had your feet in the normal position when riding and shifting your weight and only after the braking had finished should you move the inside foot back on the toes. During braking, he said to support your weight on the thigh, not grip the tank. This required sitting quite far forward. You should not put force on the bars during braking, the force should be absorbed by the inside of your thigh resting against the back of the tank.

My bike is definitely not underdamped in the rebound department and offer significantly slower rebound than what you see in videos online, for instance. Also, my preferences has been the same with 30-odd bikes, ranging from little to lots of damping.

Yes, it seemed very strange. Also that you had to keep the bike from turning when sitting to the side. Me guess he puts some pressure on the bars when moving his butt as you cannot turn without moving the bars.

Vital jump technique to be learned

Very annoying to listen to, but from the 8-9-minute mark they are on topic

Dunlop vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wl74DgQqkg

Yes, and I agree - I also try to stay off the brakes these days and for the most part I manage. However, I still prefer to enter corners on a trailing throttle over a steady throttle.

I eased off the brake until I'm comfy with the situation, which could be early in the corner or not until the exit if I blew it completely (on an unfamiliar road), but typically I would brake until the apex and I would be raising the bike to accelerate. Over the past few years, I have braked earlier and gentler and begin my acceleration earlier, but still later than textbook. I still prefer to brake later and harder, but it is upsetting for those I ride with and also upsetting for me if I ride in a group, hence the change. I do know I ask more of the front tyre the way I ride, but I like the feedback I get. That feedback is missing for me when I'm not braking. And more importantly I like the slower pace Interestingly, back when I really used to brake deep, I would leave my friends way behind. Provided I rode at the front. If I followed, it felt like the pace was insanely fast since they had a higher mid-corner speed, but they also braked uncomfortably early for me. We were completely out of sync.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeMSfgb5tks

You are correct in that deceleration reduce fear, even very slight deceleration makes things a lot easier to stomach.

I also think that if people could actually get a feel of just how much force they could use without overpowering the steering response, it could help remove the fear many have of steering quickly. A bar fitted to a stationary bike with a torque scale could do do that. Most would probably be surprised just how much force can be used.

Leverage. Pure mathematics. Also why Schwantz, as one example, used higher and wider bars than many of his competitors and why they used such wide bars on the old superbikes of the 70s and 80s.

Not so easy to see hear, but still interesting angles

This is not about the bike's handling, but how I perceive speed. Let me give two examples: 1. I ride along at a constant 60 speed and approach a corner that I know from experience can be safely taken at the speed I have, yet my brain scream that I'm going too fast. This happen before I even begin turning in. It is very, very uncomfortable, but I force myself to relax and take the corner. Once committed, I notice what I already knew, that there is plenty limit and I can accelerate early, using middle rpm and still get a fast exit. But the feeling is poor, the experience gives me no joy. 2. Same corner, but now I'm approaching the corner doing 100 mph, brake hard and turn in doing 75 mph just as I start to ease off the brakes. Once at the apex, my speed is down to 50 mph, pegs may be touching down, I raise the bike as quickly as possibly and whack the throttle open in a low gear for max acceleration. I feel happy, safe, relaxed.

The greatest, most important item on my motorcycle is the front brake. It gives me comfort, it relaxes me, calms my SR and is quite frankly as close to a friend as a mechanical object can be. It is what I lean on when I have to stop or slow on perfect asphalt, on a wet and bumpy road, on gravel, on snow and on black ice. Unless the road is rather slippery, I have no qualms heading for the front brake even mid-corner. I know I have discussed variants of this them before, but recently I have spent a lot of time analyzing my riding and why I act how I do when propelling my motorcycle down the road. And I think the answer for my intimacy with and reliance upon the front brake is down to the fact that I know how it works. I am confident with how it influence my motorcycle. For several years now, I have tried to brake earlier and get back on the throttle earlier. I have also found a compromise; I still brake later and deeper than what's supposed to be ideal, but a lot earlier than I used to. So I'm OK with it. At times, it is also better than the typical very (too) late braking I have been used to. However, there is a limit to this, a point where turning in off the brakes become scary. Frightening. I cannot tell exactly where the limit is - it seems to change from corner to corner as well as the speed allowed by the corner - but I know that my limit is lower than for many others. Lower than people I can leave behind with ease if I'm in front, riding the way I feel comfortable. Even repeating the same corner at the same pace that I know to be safe from experience fail to ease the sphincter-tightening feeling I get. Entering the same corner at the same pace, but slowing on the brakes, feels tons better than doing it under neutral throttle. So I have concluded that for my purpose - road riding - it is better to do what I feel in control with than to continue to work towards a style that feels awkward and downright dangerous, regardless of what the theory suggests. Does anybody else have similar "hang-ups" that they cannot or will not rid themselves of?

Formative years and dirt track Road racing and mental prep Racing and brief bike/car comparison Not Keith Code type of clarifications here, and may reveal why most thought Spencer was primarily an intuitive rider, but still interesting to listen to.

Seems to be able to lift the bike virtually instantly