rchase

One other thing you could check. Bar ends. If they are too tight they could be constricting the end of the throttle tube and causing an issue. The tightness of the bolts on the housing. Too tight and they could be compressing something. Bolts for brake levers, bar ends and housings everyone wants to be super tight so they don't come loose but there is a balance. When these parts are over tightened they can constrict the movement of the parts that they connect. That's why they invented thread locker. Some blue thread locker will keep the bolt from coming loose and let your parts move freely the way they were designed to in the first place. Bodywork is much the same problem. You want to hold the bodywork on but you don't want to crack or break it or mar the finish in the process. If you have checked the cables and how tight everything is and it's still too tight one other question. Did you lube the bar end when you put the grip back on? If you did all of these things and it's still too tight it's the throttle kit.

Where did you get the idea that L4 does not include classroom time? You spend almost 30+ minutes with your coach and L4 consultant after each ride figuring out what worked and what to work on next. You also get the experience of listening to other students working through similar and different issues. It's free form with no specific topic but it's usually valuable information and at the very least the knowledge that you aren't alone in the challenges that you face out there on the bike at speed. There's no specific curriculum but some of my greatest gains have come from L4 training. Here's a short list of things I have personally accomplished in L4 -braking harder, later and being able to modulate the brakes to arrive mid corner at the exact speed I want -visual skills -corner entry speed -passing skills and strategy -body position -throttle control and how it ultimately affects my line -decluttering my mind of the useless details that were slowing me down (thank you Keith!) There's so much classroom time in fact that I felt pressed for time. Between getting my bike on it's warmers, talking to my on track coach, working with the L4 consultant and checking pressures, keeping the bike in fuel and staying hydrated it's usually go go go all day long. One of the things that I always liked about the school is their ability to explain end to end the logic of technique. This is quite helpful when evaluating what works for you and what does not. Be careful though. My obsession with logic and reason slowed me down a LOT. You don't have enough time to think through things when the pavement is moving by at high speed. MotoGP riders and riders like you and I don't have a lot in common because of the far distance between "where" we are riding. Those guys have years of experience under their belts and their technique is usually to adapt to some pretty extreme things. Injuries, prototype bikes with much different handling and acceleration characteristics. You can emulate them as much as you like however unless you are riding a bike with 240hp with the pressure of racing in you aren't going much faster as a result. You might even being slowing yourself down. The harsh reality is the average person learning to ride at the track is not even using 10% of the performance capabilities of their bike and tires. Focus on the basics and don't worry about what they are doing in MotoGP. When it comes to how it actually relates to a real rider on a production bike those guys might as well be racing space ships.

There's the Tyler I know! It's funny you mention the brand of bikes. I make no excuses about my love of the RR platform. I do own more than one Yamaha so I could easily adapt if I did not bring my own bikes. While that's a difficult situation for everyone involved I can kind of see why that became a problem. You either want their help or you don't. There's of course a point where the argument back and forth between coach and student becomes pointless. One thing that I learned this year at the school is the value of having an open mind taught to me by both Gerry and Cobie. Gerry and I had a difference of opinion about body position and Cobie got involved to help convince me to do it "their way". Doing it their way taught me a few very valuable things I would not have picked up otherwise. I'm back to "doing it wrong" but with a few elements of the "doing it right" that worked really well for me. I don't plan on trolling their technique at all. I'll embrace that as best I can as I do CSS's curriculum. Where I intend to troll is where they tend to distort the facts about a school that's helped me tremendously. I have run into YCRS instructors at track days who have said some pretty inaccurate things about CSS. Perhaps they should try taking the school themselves? However I'm thankful for your insight on that students experience. I don't want my experience to be tainted by bias so I may not say a word about anything. My hope and goal is to perhaps pick up a few things from doing it another way. Right or wrong if it helps it helps. If it does not help it's better understanding of a way that does not work well and why. In any event. This thread is about an entirely different subject so I'm going to drop this conversation like a hot potato once I make this last point. I took the opportunity to harass Tyler a bit but I also wanted to make an important point at the same time that I did not do a good job conveying. People often describe products and services as "the best" and it becomes somewhat cliche. The level of instruction and professional coaching I have gotten at the school has been beyond amazing. To just call them "the best" does not truly describe the level of dedication the coaches have and the quality of the curriculum. Here's another way to think about this. A friend of mine who races won a race recently. To say he won the race does not accurately describe what actually happened. He won the race on a stock bike that was way outclassed by everything else on the track and he busted his backside to do it. That in itself is much more of an accomplishment than merely winning the race. In much the same way CSS has provided me amazing improvements in my riding despite my lack of experience on a bike. They weren't exactly working with the best of materials when they started building a better rider out of me. You can say they are "the best" but that alone can't possibly describe the experience a student might have taking the school. I hope this better explains things. I think I'll leave Tyler alone from now on and just happily accept he thinks I'm completely biased. He's probably right anyway.

Just giving Tyler a hard time. It was not my intention to offend anyone and hope that I have not done such.

Normally I don't pick nits but this one bugs me a bit. First and foremost CSS is in my opinion one of the better schools out in the marketplace. Keith is one of the pioneers of teaching and he's done an amazing job with the school, books and the videos. Saying that they are "the best" is a bit over the top. They very well may be (I suspect it highly myself) but unless you have taken them all you have no real way of knowing one way or another. Next year I plan on doing YCRS in addition to CSS. They are possibly the most polar opposite to CSS that I can think of. While this may be a huge waste of money I want to see another perspective and approach. It also might be fun to troll the YCRS instructors when they try to say what CSS teaches. I have actually trolled a few YCRS instructors already taking pot shots at CSS at track days trying to pitch their school. "Uhm yea I'm a CSS Level 4 and that's not what they taught me". You are right about one thing and that's the repeat offenders. I have been back every single year to CSS since the first time I rode with them back in 2012. That alone speaks volumes about how helpful their program is to riders. They come back year after year. I feel so strongly that CSS is so valuable that I have helped pay for other riders to attend. Despite picking nits you can probably search the forum and find me saying they are the best too. You give me a hard time Tyler so I have to occasionally return the favor.

When's the last time you lubed the cables? A fast turn throttle is going to have to move the cable more in less amount of travel so it's going to be a bit stiffer to begin with. If the cables have dried up cable lube inside the problem will be amplified. Something to consider.

I have to agree with Hotfoot. I have been at track days where every single session was ended early with a red flag. Many riders have poor attitudes and ride way over their heads and increase the risk for everyone exponentially. Many people are put off by this. There are a few track day org's out there that even if they were giving away their days for free I would have to think long and hard about it being worth the risk. I won't name names so don't ask. While track riding is a perishable skill not all of it perishes. Professional training teaches you how the bike reacts in extreme situations. You would be surprised at how the training kicks in automatically out of nowhere when the need suddenly arises. Even if you ride mostly on the street CSS training is still very worthwhile. Learning the right techniques will stick with you no matter where you ride or how fast you do that riding. I have a close friend who I met years ago during Level 1 at CSS who traveled extensively and was too busy to do regular track days. He's now running a small business and time is still a problem for him. Even though he only gets out on the track once a year usually with CSS he's pretty quick. I ride every single event with the org that I help out with and he's still way faster than I am. CSS offers training and personalized feedback. The attitude on track is that of wanting to learn and is overwhelmingly courteous and positive. If the only time you have to ride is with CSS it's a great experience.

Glad you had a great time. Quite honestly the school is an amazing place for some amazing improvement.

Just watch out. I ended up with two of them much the same way. Not that I'm complaining at all. One of the best motorcycles I have ever ridden.

One other thing to consider is the bikes. MotoGP bikes are bespoke manufacturer supported things that only exist on MotoGP tracks. TT bikes start out life much like World Superbike's do. Delivered based off of what a customer would get from the manufacturers race department. Some of the smaller teams in the TT take delivery of bikes at dealerships. The machinery is so different that the adjustment would be very difficult. It would be hardest for the MotoGP riders who are used to having all of their setup done by their factory people who can manufacture custom parts if needed. Being stuck within the limitations of the TT's rules would be quite the adjustment for them. Fun fact. TC and ABS aren't allowed for the TT. That alone would be some MASSIVE adjusting for riders who are used to GPS enabled TC systems that might as well be a toggle switch rather than a twist grip.

The racing is too different to really work. There's a fundamental difference in philosophy. For example. At the TT it's all about the lap time where in MotoGP it's all about ending up at the finish line first. If you listen to the TT guys talk about the course they actively talk about how they will go slower in a section to set them up better to arrive at another section. In circuit racing this would mean potentially loosing a position and finishing 2nd even with a better overall lap time. Another thing to consider. The racers wishes. Racing is something that people have a passion for. You can't do well in something you have no interest in. What would happen if you required them to race in environment's they did not have a passion for would be quite predictable. The TT guys would hand the MotoGP guys their backsides on the TT course. It's just not worth the risk for a MotoGP guy to throw away a career on a single race where they could be killed or severely injured for a mistake. They would be slow and steady and finish alive every time. If you took the TT guys to a MotoGP course they would get worked by every single MotoGP rider. MotoGP riders have more experience battling it out with one another to fight for position. When you are passing at the TT it's only because it's going to improve your lap time. MotoGP passes can be psychological, strategic and get them in the right order for the all important "last lap". In all reality there's no real way to measure human potential. As much as we try and want to make those comparisons there's just way too many variables. Rather than bother yourself with the "who's the best" questions and arguments just enjoy the racing. Taking it too seriously ruins the fun anyway.

I ride a few tracks that are primarily car tracks. The car people have one way of numbering the turns and us bike people have another. In a lot of cases it gets so confusing with the official track map having one number and the unofficial one having another one that we end up using descriptive language to describe the corner. Often times this is the way a nickname gets started. None of ours are that interesting beyond "the second left hander" but I'm sure if we got more creative the names would stick better. Barber is much like this with "The Museum complex", "Charlotte's Web" and "The back straight" even though it's official track map keeps bikes in mind with it's turn numbering. These names can be a moving target as a track evolves. Road Atlanta is a good example of this with "Gravity Cavity" which is no longer as wild as it was in the past.

The Nine T is a retro throw back to the original BMW R90. This is the Nine T stock. Nate's bike since it's being used to race has a custom HP paint scheme. It's the same colors you will see on the HP2 and HP4. It looks a bit sportier as a result. The belly pan you see on the bike is not stock and is only installed to satisfy oil catch pan regulations. Another interesting thing is the bike from the factory comes with wire wheels and tube tires. Nobody in their right mind would race on that so wheel's obviously have been changed to make things work on the track.

Absolutely. Riders who are able to minimize their disadvantages in power and maximize the strengths of their bikes can have a lot of fun with riders on the more powerful bikes. The problem of course is being in the right place at the right time. This little fellow on the 250 is a MotoAmerica racer and a way better rider than I will ever be. He's having a peek beyond the S1000RR in his way. He decided to hang back a bit because after that corner the track opens up and there's no way he could keep up with a 200hp+ bike. He ended up passing me though later on in the turns and despite my power I never caught back up. Not that I was really trying though. Personally I view the differences in bikes as part of the fun of them. The rider on the 250 know's that there aren't many bikes that can get by mid corner. The rider on the 200hp+ 1L bike knows that if there's open pavement you aren't getting by unless they let you. Each of these is rather fun in their own way. You may be onto something with the big 4 and the 600's. Other manufacturers aren't really part of that agreement however and there's still not been a lot of movement in that market segment. I'll be the first one to admit that in the analog world the 600 was the perfect balance of weight and power. The world has changed a LOT in the past few years. I have seen the debates on "the best bike" before and have always seen the holes in the logic. It's truly impossible to test the "best bike" with a huge wildcard such as the rider and the track even if you don't factor in conditions and tires. In order to make an argument either way you have to look at only a small part of the picture. A good example of this is the recent 2016 MCN review of the cutting edge Superbikes. A new for 2015 bike that finished 1st last year in the same test is 2nd this year yet had lap times slower than the bike that finished 3rd for this years test. Uhm yea never mind the fact that this bike is faster this one is better even though we are complaining about things that directly affect it's overall rating. I'm just glad my name is not on the by line of the article dealing with unhappy owners questioning my objectivity. The names of the bikes have been left out to protect the innocent and keep us all friends. All of the manufacturers have their different area of interest. The Japanese bikes are all about performance and price. BMW's about making a bike that's great quality and is able to be enjoyed anywhere with some cool engineering thrown in too. Harley Davidson has their own unique timeless perspective which honestly you have to ride to understand. The Italians are all about design and making bikes that excite all of the senses. I own a few of all of these bikes and appreciate them all. Every one of them (including the Harley) bring something to the table that the others don't have. If anything we should celebrate the differences rather than complain about them. It gives us way more options to enjoy.

The F800 may not be a "real sportsbike" but put one of the school's coaches on one and you might swear it is. A few years ago at Barber I saw Dylan enter the track with an F800 and I followed him for a bit to watch his riding. He effortlessly left me in the dust and did not even realize I was behind him. It was quite amazing to see. How about the Nine T? The Nine T has the front end and brakes straight off of the RR. Here's a photo of Nate racing his Nine T leaving purpose built race bikes like Panigale's in the dust. Nate refers to the Nine T as a "Starbucks cruiser". BMW lists the bike in the Heritage section of their website. Here's a photo of the bike before it's paint job during it's first race. While these bikes may not be "real sportbikes" in the classical sense they are still quite capable machines. It's important to keep in mind that the bodywork and shape of "real sportbikes" is a recent evolution within the past 20 years. While the design might provide a bit of aerodynamics and some better lock on points for the rider this design element is not the most important aspect. As Nate has demonstrated during many races a good rider can overcome design limitations of nearly any motorcycle. Including a bike never intended to go racing.

That's actually an interesting point that I had not considered ktk_ace. Perhaps BMW considers this segment already served by other products. The F800 as well as the R1200RS and the G310 are pretty close to the 600 market space. The R1200RS is actually listed on the sport section of their website and is a 125hp boxer. One things's for certain. BMW's never been one to follow the herd and that's what many of their customers like so much about the brand.

On the sales thing I'm sure you are right. The RR is great technology but a big departure from what they are used to selling. Add into that a new type of customer who's using their bike in a very different way than what they are accustomed to. I'm actually quite fortunate that my local dealer BMW Atlanta is used to dealing with lots of track going RR's. Yes indeed we are a minority in the motorcycle world. While 600cc racing is still popular many of the street going 600cc bikes are decisions based on cost. Those bikes on the road provide way more performance than most riders need. The riders who have the extra disposable income always go for the 1L machines. Quite honestly they are the best value. They also provide the highest level of status on the road being more powerful which in a lot of cases is what drives those purchase decisions. Think about it this way. If you were selling a product and had a choice on which market segments you wanted to sell to what would you choose? An already heavily saturated market driven by cost with limited opportunity for innovation or a market not constrained like that? Thank you for the invitation to your Chateau. I'll be at COTA October 29th and 30th. Hopefully you will be there.

Thanks. That's kind of cool actually. I noticed only a front sensor on the Ninja and only a rear sensor on the KTM but it's nice to know at least something is making it into some of the other models. Your view of the cost of the S1000RR is slightly skewed to be really honest. Some of the early models are selling for under 10K these days. Even though they don't have the latest tweaks they are still quite competitive and light years ahead of the 10+ year old tech you can find selling new in some cases. I realize they are not trivial to buy new but you can't really fairly compare a used R6 to a new BMW without a bit of skew. Just as I would never try to compare my track bike to anything. The wheels I have on it alone cost a lot more than some bikes. Not exactly a fair comparison. You bring up a good point. Riders and what they want. Some riders like yourself want a more direct experience with their bikes. Some riders like myself want more cutting edge technology and are more than willing to pay for it. There's no right or wrong answer here. Who know's what the future will bring. In the automotive world the fully analog car is nearly extinct. They still exist of course but most cars are leveraging electronics to some degree. Many of the Supercar makers are using these electronic systems to enhance performance with technologies such as active aerodynamics that can help the vehicle turn. Buyers want these features and the manufacturers provide them. You certainly can be surprised at BMW not entering into that market. What you aren't considering is BMW is a premium brand. Look at BMW cars for a moment. Do they have an entry level subcompact that competes directly with Japanese manufacturers? I'll help you out with that. No. Nissan has their Versa Subcompact for $11,990 the cheapest BMW car you can buy in the USA is the 2 series coupe for $32,850 across the pond it's the 1 series for $27,560. Both of those cars are way more than double the price. It makes perfect sense to me that BMW would not want to try to compete on the automotive side and on the motorcycle side with the "low cost" competition. These bikes and cars simply don't match BMW's desired target market. We all have our preferences and passions and i completely respect that. I obviously have my opinion which I shared. I hope that people reading realize that this is just one person's opinion and by no means did I want to minimize the machines that make people happy. I just returned from the AHRMA races at NJMP this past weekend and got to see a lot of the passion that people have for their bikes despite their "obsolescence". Despite my love of powerful Superbikes I was somewhat fascinated by the bikes that our pit neighbor was racing. Several 250cc and 125cc 2 stroke GP bikes. They were so different in nearly every way from anything that i have ever seen. Are they behind the times technology wise? Absolutely. They still look like an amazing amount of fun though.

There's all levels of systems and capabilities. Many of the entry level systems aren't much real help. A lot of them use engine RPM and a clutch switch to determine if there's a traction issue. Often times that's way too late in the game to provide the rider an intervention that's going to be of any use. Some manufactures tune these systems to be overly intrusive. ABS is much the same story. Some systems work without wheel sensors. Without accurate data about what the wheel is doing you can only respond to brake pressure. You leave a lot of stopping distance on the table that way. The cutting edge systems are on the 1000cc bikes exclusively. You might find the occasional bike with ABS or with TC but it's never using the latest technology. The new R1's traction control system is so sophisticated it even allows the bike to drift and has a second set of sensors to detect the exact amount of yaw the bike is experiencing in the drift. I'm not familiar with those specific models but some questions for you. The 636. Does it have wheel sensors and lean angle sensors? Can you tune it at all? Same question for the 250's ABS systems. Which bikes have more sensors and the ability to tune and change the parameters? Would the 636's TC and the 250's ABS be of any use to a rider that rides primarily on the track?

I typed a long reply but the power went out. Nothing I have not said before so I'll save you the reading. I think the real issue that many people have with electronic rider aids is admitting to themselves that they could use the help. As well some of this stigma comes across in the 600cc vs 1000cc debate with the perception that riders on 1000cc bikes use the additional power as a crutch. Whatever the perception the reality is these systems help reduce crashes. Look at what happened with the school when they went from the 600cc bikes with no technology to the 1000cc bikes from BMW. These systems are gaining a bit more acceptance as riders try them out for themselves. The stigma of needing help is still there of course but give it some time and perhaps that will pass. Much like other stigmas involving safety like wearing helmets and other protective gear in the olden days.

I read that article but there's no real information there other than the author claims with very few facts to back them up. Quite honestly Asphalt and Rubber is pretty questionable at best. They posted several articles that were in favor of the EPA emissions ban on track going motorcycles. I quit taking them seriously after that and stopped using them as a source of motorcycle news all together. It was however an interesting read and there were some interesting theories. In his defense though none of the Manufacturers want to talk to a journalist about their strategic platform development. In regards to cost. Absolutely a 600cc is cheaper on virtually everything from initial cost to tires, service and parts. If you expand your view beyond the basics and look at the true cost that view changes a bit. It takes just one on track accident to erase all of the cost savings by going with the lower cost platform. Accident's that the more powerful 1L machines can prevent if you choose to make use of that technology. That of course is not even factoring in medical costs and lost wages and other costs that can come up due to an on track crash. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the 1L machines can't be crashed. Turn off the technology or go well beyond what the technology is designed to do and you certainly can have a nasty crash. Something however is better than nothing at all. What's interesting to consider as well is the way that many larger race teams use traction control. An interesting video where they interviewed Mat Mladin regarding his views on traction control. They use it to conserve tire life and to be able to make their tires last an entire race.

That actually makes a lot of sense. To me at least it seems a lot easier to lock onto the bike while it's in motion with the minor G forces that my riding creates than on a static bike that's on a stand. I know when the speed goes up those forces increase exponentially. Last summer at Double R fest I got an opportunity to ride on the back of Nate Kern's bike for a 2 up ride. While Nate was taking it easy because he had a passenger on the back the amount of cornering forces were incredible. Another interesting perspective in regards to G forces. At Atlanta Motorsports Park many of the drivers during the car sessions are more than willing to take along a passenger when we are doing Motorcycle track days there. They get one session per hour to keep bike and car traffic safely separated. I have hitched a ride with a couple of different cars and what strikes me is how "different" the forces are when it comes to a car vs a motorcycle. On a bike even at much higher speeds the G forces tend to work "with" us to help keep us planted on the bike. The opposite is true with a car many times with the lateral G forces and braking forces physically moving you around in the seat and cabin of the vehicle. After the first lap you figure out when and where to brace yourself so you aren't moving around as much.I found the G forces in a car to be a lot different than what I was expecting. My previous experiences as a passenger in a car on a track was a rally car. A vehicle spending most of it's time driving sideways on dirt vs a vehicle equipped with super sticky tires on an asphalt surface are a dramatically different experience. The "lean" that bikes are capable of takes sideward forces and presses us down further into the seat. On a bike we have many more points of contact than the driver of a car does. They only have the seat and the seat belt while we have the seat, tank, bodywork and rearsets to keep us planted. The lean takes allows us to use those forces to our advantage.

Wow. To put that in perspective for those that don't do exchange rates in their head. R6 $29,906 USD 2.72x more expensive than the USA market R1 $44,870 USD R1M 55,340 USD RR $40,084 USD 2.58x more expensive than the USA market I tend to agree with you on the Financial crisis. If you look at the progression of engineering you can even see that. Since about 2008 not much has changed engineering wise on the Japanese 600's other than minor revisions and color options. Until recently the story was much the same on their 1L models. It's really interesting that a lot of the technology seen on the new 1L machines has never made it to the 600's. Not being a bike designer one can only speculate why. It may be business related due to what would sell in the market or it may be an engineering problem. Add those features to a 600 and you add weight and substantially reduce the bike's performance in the process. The 1L machines have the extra power to offset that weight. The legendary 600cc inline 4 design could very well be completely played out from an engineering perspective. It could also be customer related with the general attitude many riders have towards electronic assistance. Several European makers have ventured into the smaller displacement market but not with an inline 4. The Ducati Panigale 899 (2cyl) and the MV Agusta F3 675 and 800 (3cyl) are good examples of these. There are probably others as well. Whatever the reason it's a shame but I think BMW is smart to avoid this market segment. There's a lot of rumors floating around about the next RR. If they end up being true I'll probably look something like this on release day at my local BMW dealership.

Not to ruffle any feathers but I'm not sure I see the point of a 600cc market segment anymore. It used to be about weight and handling but as time's moved on that's almost become a non existent issue the the more modern 1L machines. A new R6 is $10,990 for the base model with no electronics available for it at all. The Base RR is $15,500. So for about $4500 you get way more power, DTC, Ride modes and ABS along with it. BMW is smart not getting into that market. A customer that can't see the value of that much more performance and equipment for $4500 is going to buy the Yamaha anyway based on cost alone. Don't get me wrong I love small displacement motorcycles. Ten years ago they were quite relevant. Technology however has moved on and the current model 1L machines are amazing. The only reason 600's still sell so well is because of a lot of somewhat outdated thinking about them. They don't handle that much better than the European 1L machines and they have a considerable power disadvantage to all of them. For years they have just been changing the paint schemes with no real R&D investment in evolving the designs. If BMW wanted to make a "small bike" something similar to the KTM 390 would be a much better choice. I hope they don't thought. Invest those R&D dollars into the RR and make it even more amazing than it is. That's a tall order because even the first generation 2010 model year bikes are amazing in every way and still competitive against brand new 1L models.

Hotfoot. Thanks for sharing that perspective. I had not really thought about the distraction it might cause someone who's new and not yet hanging off. That probably would have intimidated me years ago when I was following you in Level 1 completely amazed at how impossibly fast I was following you through the corners. We were going so slow you probably could have eaten a sandwich at the same time. Seemed pretty darn fast to me at the time though. A funny story about perception. A few years ago my brother and I were in a motorcycle shop getting tires for my bike. A local club racer was unloading his race bike and my brother was hanging around and being a pain in the butt. The side of the bike that he was close to had "chicken strips" on it and he stupidly made a comment about it. The guy nearly ripped his head off. "I took 3 first place finishes on that tire and don't use that side of the tire much on that track. Come take a look at THIS side of the tire EXPLETIVE!". After ripping his head off he felt bad and explained to my brother more about the uneven tire wear and how different tracks do different things to tires and how it was not really a reflection of anything other than what was needed to get around the track slightly faster than the others. Hanging off is similar. It's a function of the speed in which you want to get around a corner before you run out of tire and ground clearance. If you are going slower you don't need as much lean angle and don't need to shift your weight to conserve it. I hang off all the time on the track even in the slow warm up laps because it builds good muscle memory and it keeps me in the better part of the contact patch. The reality though is it's not always necessary with slower corners. Street riding I don't hang off mostly because it tends to attract unwanted attention and I don't ride aggressively on the street. I have a feeling if I was working with new people or riding for 6 hours a day for 4 days in a row I probably would revisit the idea of hanging of "all the time" pretty quickly. Where I am now with my riding every chance I get to practice my hang off is a good thing. Staying on the best part of the contact patch is just good insurance too. This year at the school it was HOT and really humid. I noticed something really interesting. All of the students including myself were looking pretty terrible when we got back in. We were all sweaty and visibly worn out and in need of a rest. Most of the coaches looked like they had just gotten back in from a leisurely street ride. Most of them weren't even sweating. When I thought about the fact that they were riding every single session and having to chase down faster students and adapt their speed for slower students as well as taking mental notes of things to bring up in the riders briefing I was even more amazed. I started joking with Jon my off track consultant that the coaches were aliens because they weren't sweating and asked where the school parked the space ship at Barber. The reality is they aren't really aliens. They just have learned to adapt their technique to better serve their needs on track to conserve energy. This adaptation is similar to some of the adaptations you will see in many of your race hero's . Form vs Function to accomplish a certain goal. That goal could be comfort, speed or other enhancement.