faffi

If you read German, or are willing to read google-ish https://www.motorradonline.de/test/handlingtest-konzeptvergleich.318659.html https://www.motorradonline.de/fahrwerk/fahrwerksspezial-teil-4-balance.403707.html https://www.motorradonline.de/schraubertipps/masse-gewicht-schwerpunkt.407803.html https://www.motorradonline.de/werkstatt/technik-fahrdynamiksicherheit.222272.html A bit surprising to me is that by lowering the CoG from 800 mm to 500 mm, using 160mm wide tyres on average (120 front and 200 rear), to corner at a speed that demand 30 degree lean with the taller CoG would require only an additional 3 degrees of lean, up to 33 degrees.

I cannot really debate this, by my personal experience indicate that my line will tighten with a dab on the rear brake and widen by adding throttle. Whether this is due to other influences that comes as a result of my actions, I cannot tell, but the net effect for me is that a bit of rear brake does tighten my line. A bit like does it matter if you get well through placebo or medication, as long as you get well? ? Personally, I have never had any reserve against adding more lean mid-corner when required, even quite rapid changes. And I've never had a slide as a result, either. I am far more concerned about turning quickly when upright, probably because I've done so under heavy braking and possibly less than perfect traction conditions and experienced a few slides. I realize that my actions are not rational, that turning in should give more grip than turning in more at 35 degrees of lean, but something has become wired wrongly in my brain that is difficult to sort ?

That filled in information that was missing for me when trying to understand why I had so much difficulty adapting to the early braking-before-turning way of riding after always trail-braking more or less to the apex. In the end, I wound up with a compromise just the way you described it above, but thought it was just me not being able to properly adapt to the "proper way" of turning in. Now I feel much better - thanks ☺️

Sometimes, a rider is a perfect match for a bike, like Stoner on the Ducati. Doesn't mean the bike is particularly good, but that the combination is. That seems to be the case with the current Kawasaki, where Rea perhaps is able to use the extra torque that comes with a lower rev limit to good effect, whereas the others may struggle to get the bike to hook up and get drive. Just speculating, but there obviously he has found strengths with the bike others cannot utilize. You see the same thing with Honda in MotoGP, where only MM is consistently winning and taking podiums; it could be that that bike also is very difficult to master, but if you have that extra bit of talent - natural or learned - it may be possible to explore terrain restricted to "lesser" individuals.

Several riders have to titles on the trot, but I believe Rea is the only to take 3 and now 4. He really is dominant in the series, despite having to ride an emasculated bike, enforced on him in an attempt to slow him down. He is so far ahead of the other Kawasaki riders most of the time, I have wondered if Kawasaki give them less competitive material to prevent further engine restrictions for the team. Didn't he also set a new points record for a season this year? And winning the final 12 races of the season is also darn impressive. I still doubt he has what it takes to beat Marquez, Lorenzo, Dovi and Rossi, though.

This is pretty funny

I doubt Rea would ever become MotoGP champ. Spies, Toseland, Hodgson, Bayliss - many a splendid rider has tried, but the level at the top of MotoGP does seem to be a bit above the peak of any other class. That doesn't mean I think little of Rea; I cheer him on and love to see him dominate WSBK. As to the Repsol ride, that has gone to Lorenzo.

Thanks for asking, but not really. There are some tests between older and newer sportbikes, but what I really would want to know is whether an old sportbike from the 1990s is still quicker around a race track than a current standard style bike of similar capacity and power. Or if even a Plain Jane bike of today is stopping, turning and cornering better than a race rep dating back 25 years. I know, for instance, that Cycle World found the ZZR1100/ZX-11 to be about 4 seconds slower around a track than the FZR1000 back in the early 90s. But I do not know how that ZZR would stack up against a 2018 Triumph Sprint GT, for instance, provided same tyres for both. Here is one interesting comparison, but still sport vs sport - sorry if the video is a repetition from earlier.

https://riders.drivemag.com/news/suzuki-f50-super-stepthru-racer-test-uber-underbone

In 1984, Kevin Cameron wrote an article in Cycle magazine about active suspension, how Lotus was testing real world models. Cameron considered it the future. Not the least because the systems we use today are quite inferior, even the suspension used in MotoGP. Simply put they cannot follow the road and they come with a harshness as well as harmonics detriment to handling, grip and stability. He also expected the active suspension to lower the bike under acceleration and braking and raising it for cornering clearance and bigger bumps. Not only for racing, but for everyday riding. Cameron also expected to see power steering and stabilizing systems that allowed radical steering geometries far beyond what a human can control by him/her self. Like fighter airplanes that would shake apart in seconds if left alone to be controlled by a human with no computer assistance. He also wrote about putting multiple 'puters in the bikes to make sure that if one went down, there would still be several working - the bad one would simply be shut off together with an error message, but without disturbing performance. Furthermore, he expected the fork to be replaced by better systems (which only BMW have tried on a large scale) and traction control more sophisticated than even the best we see today. Not everything happens as quickly as we (some) anticipate.

My grandfather saved his life because he didn't wear a seat belt - his very old Mercedes (1957) was reduced to almost nothing, but there was still a bit of space down at the passenger foot-well. That's also where he ended up. But although no belt may be the better option in 10 or even 20% of the incidents, that leaves 80 or 90% where they turn out to be a benefit. So I wear mine, but I am not good at removing my thick winter clothes or pull the belt really tight - both important to get the most out of the security from the belt. Just an inch of slack on the lap strap can cause massive internal injuries, I'm led to believe.

Center stand, most likely. Used to sit along the swingarm.

I've owned Römer, Bieffe, Tommy, Nolan, AGV and Arai. At least. Not too worried about brand. Used to be most interested in price and not having pain, but it's only recently I've learned how snug a helmet should be - and that it can still be comfy if of the correct shape. Despite all that, I have crashed hard with helmets too big (virtually all of them have been too large, especially lacking support at the forehead) and they have still done their job. Two helmets have cracked, but I'm still here. And several helmets have saved my face from being scraped off. It is hard to understand people who ride sans helmets, nor would I consider an open face helmet or a flip-up helmet. However, people have different opinions and preferences - though I think this was well said by somebody unknown:

Just learned that Arai and a few others make helmets for all kinds of head shapes - I just need to find a shop with a bigger selection, apparently.

I am looking for a new helmet, but it has proven very difficult to find one that fits perfectly. This is what I have learned, both recently and over decades: SHOEI - pure pain. They are too narrow at the sides of the top of my head. I cannot even keep on on for 5 seconds, not even one that's too large. ARAI - acceptable, but tend to hurt around the temples if tight enough. Loud. NOLAN - not exactly luxurious. Loud. But OK to wear. Tend to sit low over the brows. AGV - Comfy enough, but will drop over the brow when correctly sized otherwise. Not great for wearing glasses, which I must wear. SHARK - Great for glasses, comfy if I use one size too large, but like Shoei - to a much, much lesser degree - hurt on the sides of the top of my head when the correct size is used. SCHUBERT - feels too narrow on top and too wide at the bottom. Not comfy for me, but not painful, either. HJC - interior feels hard, and like Schubert a bit wide at the bottom and narrow on top, but less pronounced. CABERG - impossible to wear glasses, interior feels a little hard and seems like it will be loud because there is too much room around the ears and the helmet is a little wide at the bottom. Most helmets are too tight around my cheeks, and tend to bite myself. Literally. Sizes listed also vary a lot. I need a Small Shark helmet, a Medium CABERG and a MediumLarge AGV, for instance. But that is irrelevant as long as I can try it on for size. Based upon this information, can you recommend a brand of helmet I should try to search out? A helmet that is, I presume, for a rather round scull seen from the top, not egg shaped.

Things have changed

- then we may have to re-evaluate the widespread notion that the modern riding style began with Kenny Roberts Sr. https://silodrome.com/john-surtees-vincent-knee-down/

Thank you very much for your effort on helping out, much appreciated. It sure does help to explain what have happened during a quarter century of development, but I feel pretty sure the tyres have a lot to do with the improved lap times, perhaps as much as half the time gained. Also, what I am still really curious to learn is when sportbikes become too old to keep up with the current standards, if both are fitted with the same tyres.

Perhaps I should suggest such a test be made by the German magazine MOTORRAD; they often compare new and old, but usually "like to like", as an old Gixxer to a new etc. But to me, it would be interesting to learn how a 1987 or 1992 Ninja 600 stacks up against a 2017 Z650, for instance.

Not the same, but at least it compare handling. Weather conditions will also matter here, which does not appear. Data from MOTORRAD magazine.

Thank you for the link, it does tell about performance development in a straight line for the past two decades. It also show how big tolerances there still are - just compare particularly roll on times for for instance the GSX-R600 from one test to the other. What unfortunately cannot be read from these numbers is how fast they will go around a given circuit.

I have not heard it said like that before - this is how I've heard it stated repeatedly: It is easier to teach a fast rider to stop crashing, than a slow and safe rider to go fast.

That would be nice

Thanks, but not really. If you compare an old superbike to a new model, the older will be slower. It may be better at some details, but overall the modern bike will reign supreme. That's why I wonder how and old superbike would stack up against a current standard or sports tourer. Is the suspension better or worse on a 1992 CBR900RR than what you find on the CB1100RS of today, for instance? Or the new Z900. What about brakes? Handling? I'm curious because I personally believe 25 year old superbikes, as they were new, can still beat many current "normal" bikes when it comes to suspension and handling, and match them when it comes to the brakes. But I cannot be sure.