faffi

It will slide, which will reduce drive and at worst lead to a highsider, I presume. I like how we are moving towards different bikes needing different ways to be ridden (I cannot answer how compliant the bike is, but my guess is not very, especially when leaned over. Which will further reduce grip if the road isn't prefectly smooth. )

They need more grip for acceleration, which comes with reduced lean angle, is my guess. So they need to reduce the time they are leaned over. But why isn't it quicker to use the 125 style on the larger bikes - or is it? Do they have to compromise during a race?

Again, as per usual, I'm just thinking out loud from a very limited point of knowledge, so nobody should take anything I say for gospel I just like to test my ideas and see what comes back - I find it's a quite fast way to expand my knowledge when people respond. So, back to the question about 125 vs SBK. In my opinion, a 125 would be faster if the brakes are used as little as possible and by using wide lines to keep the cornering speeds high. As I understand it, no other class of bikes have a higher apex speed in world class racing than 125s. As a matter of fact, 125s go faster by not slowing down since they do not have tons of power to bring them back quickly to speed. On a WSBK, it is my idea that you will go a little quicker by sort of squaring off the corner a little, making the corner shorter and the straights longer. This is because they have lots of power that will virtually instantly bring you back to speed. So being able to accelerate for longer and wait longer before the brakes are hit should, IMO, bring better lap times. I also believe that you must be much gentler on a ultra-light 125 than on a Superbike. If you use the same amount of force or body movement, it would probably upset the little bike at best and just lift it off the ground at worst during violent changes of direction. So I would imagine less body movement is better on the 125 but that more body involvement is preferable on a larger machine.

I definitely believe coaching is vital even at this level, because even the best of the best can improve. And when you cannot improve on your own any longer, you need to get feedback from others. The coach can only suggest things, though; it will be up to the rider to put it to good use. However, I do also believe that the coach will have to consider each rider as an individual. Height, weight, body composition (relatively long/short arms/legs/torso etc) and power as well as endurance will probably dictate minor changes in how the bike is operated. Furthermore, I would imagine that the lines and how the body is "tossed around" will vary between let's say a 125cc and a Superbike. Still, as I said, if somebody wants to become the best and stay there, he will need to become a moving target. And he (or she) will then most likely need help/inputs/advice from others in order to continue to evolve.

Still interesting to me Then again, I'm easily amused But you could say it would be similar to somebody of similar ability being as fast on the last generation of 750cc Superbikes as on the current litre bikes. By that I mean that perhaps if a bike/rider combination works very well the bike doesn't have to be the best, and if the bike/rider combination doesn't work properly, it will not help being on the bike considered to be the best. This again, to me, suggests that one style could work nicely on one machine but be wrong for another and that perhaps there isn't one way to ride that suits all. Or to put it a bit differently; different bikes may demand quite different ways of riding. How's that for a challenge

Speaking of lap times and McCoy; McCoy's best race lap time on the Yamaha 500 in 2002 was 1'32.877. In 2009, Vermeulen's best race lap time on the Suzuki 800 was 1'32.815. OK, so Vermeulen set the slowest "best time" in that race and McCoy set the fastest ever race lap on a two-stroke, but perhaps there are more than one way to ride a bike fast

BTW, here's a link for anybody who wants to watch the 1990 PI race http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRYyKQMTXPU...feature=related

So how much do you reckon is down to correct riding position and how much down to improved material, then?

If you compare the lap times from the 1990 Phillip Island race with that of the 2009 race, you will find that there has been a 4 second improvement. Considering the extra electronic aids, the improve power and tractability, the vastly improved tyres, chassis and suspension bits as well as the greater level of competition, I have serious trouble accepting the riding styles dating back 20 years or so as significantly flawed. More likely, riding positions etc. have evolved together with the machinery and their altered demands. Still, 4 seconds in about 2 decades with billions invested seems like a pretty poor outcome, doesn't it?

I wasn't exactly looking at you pulling them down or "apart" but perhaps comment on some good bits and perhaps if there is something that is obviously not good. Something we can learn from, not to degrade the riders. The little snippets you gave was a good start - I hope for more - although I cannot ask/demand it, of course. It is entirely up to you.

There is also this of Corser and Haga, but it's 11 minutes long.

I found some onborad videos. Could somebody tell us (or me, at least ) more about what these men to right or wrong compared to the theoretical ideal from these footages? Or is there too little info to be read from them? Personally, two things stand out for me; Mamola's (wide) lines and Lawson's smoothness. Then again, I honestly doesn't know what to look for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf1snSxCH0Q I tried to find more showing the use of throttle and brake, but I guess I didn't find the correct search words

Brilliant, I'll give you that I do not feel I have placed a blank statement anywhere in my arguments I cannot guarantee that there isn't a poorly formulated sentence somewhere, but the general context is not that of statements, is it? That people rely on eyesight and the inner ear for balance is not debated by many. Other than that, I've said that people may vary in how they react to having two horizons to contend with and that som may be doing fine with it.

We will have to agree to disagree, then A picture of Freddie Spencer, who I consider to know a thing or two about riding. This is Spencer on moving Spencer, Roberts and more (from 1:57-on) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpagRklpAjQ...feature=related Also, if you watch the instruction movie where Rossi ride the R6 that I posted elsewhere today, you will see that in most places, Rossi cocks his head to make it more in line with the real horizon more often than not. Still, I'm not going to say that my opinion is the one and only way to go, but it I consider it vital for me. BTW; MSF is the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.

Rossi riding an R6 http://www.ebike-ridingtips.co.uk/video.php You can get as many tips like these as you want, but without a good instructor to watch you and explain your improvements as well as your errors, it can only do so little. Which is why it is good there are schools like the Superbike School connected with this forum

What Jason Woods meant (I believe - he really should be allowed to answer for himself ) is not touring comfort, but making sure that the bike you have fits as well as possible. Many people ride around with brake and clutch handles in obviously awkward positions. The same goes for handlebar position (though some are fixed) as well as brake pedal and gear shifter. Some bikes also allows for footpeg repostitioning. Finally, setting at least static sag within the ballpark and keeping damping as light as possible without causing pogoing will usually benefit most riders. My own point about the limit isn't the limit determined by Rossi & Co, but the limit where I know that the bike I'm on is holding me back, that I am now in a position where I can use more power/handling/cornering clearance/tyre grip effectively to go noticably faster..

You are more flexible than me, Kai But as long as you are having fun, it's all good

My brother has an on-board video clip while riding his Daytona 900. Tyres were BT016 front and BT020 rear. Normal summer day here, which will say around 20C. Sunny, dry road. He had been riding briskly for some time, then backed of to a sport-touring pace. Then, very visible on the video, around a right-hander, the front just tucks and you can hear metal slams to the tarmac as the bike falls dramatically over to the side. Then, just as suddenly, the tyre grips and the bike gets back up to its previous banking angle and the ride continues as if nothing had happened. He never found the cause of it - he went back to watch, but the road surface was clean. It would be hard to believe if I hadn't seen it on the video myself.

You are right, Bobby; Rossi honed his skills on minibikes and then scooters before moving up to 125cc. And as you mention, most have gone the same route. Two notable exceptions are Biaggi and Bayliss; Biaggi rode first time at the age of 18 if memory serves and Bayliss at least didn't start racing until well into his 20s. I guess if you are gifted enough, "rules" can be broken I love small, simple bikes - most of the time. Beating a Honda Blackbird and a Yamaha FJ1200 with my 30 year old and abused Kawa twin over a twisty section was far more satisfying than doing the same road on my Sprint 900, despite the latter doing it faster, easier and better. Also, slow bikes are fun in that you can wring their necks without ending up in jail; an R1 goes faster in 1st gear than my 400 did in 6th. But there are times when slow bikes are less fun. Like when you want to pass an 18-wheeler uphill facing a gale. Or just riding long days, always having to buzz the engine to keep a respectable cruising pace. There are also times when small bikes are no fun. Like when you want to carry a passenger or you want some room to stretch. Still, on our roads where the speed limit is mostly 50 mph or less, I'd love a Ninja 250 as a bike number two. It is probably roomier than most litre bike race reps and has ideal power for the sort of gnarly backroads I enjoy most. For touring, a dual purpose machine would be perfect in that it will still be fun on gravel roads and cope nicely with the frost heaves up in the mountains. But for now I do not have room for more bikes since my son bought a Ducati Monster to share space with my Daybird, and my other son is soon to buy his first motorcycle (which will be limited to 125cc for the first two years). With 3 bikes inside the shed is close to bursting. Still, one day the kids will leave and I will have more room for more toys

You are right about that. In addition to taking the time to adjust everything to suit the owner, many also suffer dramatically because they want to buy into some sort of style, be it choppers with apehangers on tour or radical racers with stiff suspension used for commuting.

Proof there is a first time for everything I know many who prefer a litre bike on the road because they can be ridden in a more relaxed manner due to their massive torque and flexibility. But realistically speaking, nobody needs 200 hp on the road - it's all down to lust for excess

Glad you are basically OK. Bikes can be fixed with money, which isn't always the case for us humans. Was the road wet or dry? Wet roads can be the pits because they can hide oil/diesel spills that are slick as black ice. I have done a lot of riding in the snow and on ice and I'm pretty confident about where the limits are in slick conditions and also sliding at low speed/low lean, but when it hits totally unexpected it can lend you on your ear before you can say oops

In my experience, the main reason to tilt your head is to make it easier for the brain to have a fixed point to work from when things starts to go wrong. This is particularly important on the road where conditions change constantly. And if it is - as I think - important on the road, perhaps it is a good idea to incorporate it on the track? You could probably go fast without tilting your head on a track because you repeat the corners and you know where you are and what to do. But even in a controlled environment like a track, things do go wrong that require immediate reaction. And in my opinion, you can react quicker and are less likely to make the wrong actions if the eyes are already reasonably in line with the actual horizon. Perhaps an open mind to the issue wouldn't be totally misplaced. After all, MSF must have a reason for teaching this in their classes. Maybe you can prove them wrong (which should give you a place in the history books), but there is also the possiblity that they may have a point

I don't have a thing for any brand, I just used Kawasaki since they have several reasonably sporty bikes over a large range of sizes. I could have mentioned the Hyosong GT250R, the Suzuki GS500F, the Suzuki SV 650S, the Triumph Daytone 675 Daytona and the Honda CBR1000RR without it making much of a difference to the question. I do have a reason for the question, though, that goes beyond my own preferences. Although modern 600s have become amazingly easy to ride, there is no question that they have a lot of power and that they are quicker and faster than the 1100s from 25 years ago. In other words, things can happen in a hurry. Which is good if it's within your capacity, not so good if it scares you. And if you are scared, you survival reflexes are likely to take over and it becomes much harder to learn, I fear. Over the years, I have observed many in a position where they should know that reckommended riders start out on lesser bikes with friendly handling and about 50 easily controlled horsepower. Why? Because the bike will not bite you if you open the throttle a bit extra or enter the real powerband, and a friendly chassis you should be able to focus on learning the track and begin noticing what goes on with the bike as you begin to push it. These advicers will typically suggest you stay with a "gentle" bike - like the Ninja 500 etc. - until you positively know the bike is holding your back. When you run out of cornering clearance despite using the right technique, when you start sliding the tyres before exiting your comfort zone, when you lack acceleration out of the corners even with a stretch throttle cable and when the suspension cannot keep up with your pace anymore - only then is it (according to them) sensible to upgrade to something with sharper handling and more power. Another benefit of riding something with less motor is that you lines and cornering attitude and speed becomes far more important than if you can just grab a handful of throttle in order to get in touch with the group in front. Still, modern 600 race reps may have evolved to a point where the benefits of starting out with something lesser isn't required anymore. To limit power, one could for instance just stick it in 6th gear and with that significantly reduce the chance of getting more than one can handle etc. I'd like to hear various opinions on this

For a track novice out to learn how to first ride using proper technique and later going fast, what would you recommend as the best tool, the most beneficial bike for a steep learning curve? (I'll just use Kawasakis here since they have a pretty wide range of sporty machines.) A Ninja 250? A Ninja 500? A Ninja 650? A Ninja 600? A Ninja 1000? Something else?