racer

Sliding the rear wheel to help turn the bike is a viable technique for some people. Is it the fastest? Again, perhaps, for some people. But it is definitely NOT the standard technique for steering into a corner. I recall Keith covering the technique of sliding the rear wheel into a corner in a series of articles in RRW magazine around 1995 or 1996. He may have covered it again elsewhere. In any case, in my opinion, using the rear brake to effect that slide would be better. First, brake pads are cheaper to replace than clutch plates, sprockets and drive chains when they wear out. More importantly, the rear brake is easier to modulate and control in a consistent, reliable and repeatable fashion. Also, the technique you are using could cause the rear wheel to "lock" and/or "hop"; thereby, unsettling the suspension, upsetting the bike or causing an essentially uncontrollable skid which would be quite a distraction for most riders. At least with the rear brake, you can control exactly when, where and how much you slide the rear wheel. Further, the intended purpose of the engine is to make the rear wheel go faster. The intended purpose of the rear brake is to slow that wheel. By using the engine to skid the rear wheel, you have less overall control of the bike. You cannot accelerate or control the engine and the only way to control or stop the slide is to pull in the clutch, removing the engine from the equation. You must WAIT for the wheel to stop skidding AND the revs to match AND the clutch to stop slipping before you can retake control and start accelerating. ("Waiting" sounds SLOW to me.) Or, if you get into trouble, all you can do is pull in the clutch to free the wheel, stop the skid and hope you have enuf time, attention, and road leftover to coast through the turn. (Yikes!) The alternate method being something like: slowing the bike to the desired speed with the front brake while matching revs by blipping the throttle while backshifting, then, with the bike under complete control, using the rear brake to initiate and control the desired amount of slide, while still having control of the engine to accelerate whenever you choose. In any case, I do not recommend experimenting with or using the "rear slide to turn" technique unless you are already an expert at using the standard method of front brake, throttle "blip" to match revs and countersteering to turn. Sliding the rear into a corner is absolutely NOT a replacement for these standard basic riding skills. Which, of course, may be learned and practiced in detail with highly qualified teachers at a Superbike School session, as well as, studied in Keith's TOTW books.

Great stuff! As usual. Funny how I can replace the word "riding" with the word "living" and it all still makes sense to me.

Yeah, mate. That's what I thought I heard, too. The late bell. Best of intentions and all that. It's been fun, but...apparently...well... Time to go back to school. (I don't FEEL tardy.) I'd love to check out PI. I've never been hit by a seagull at speed before. Stay in touch...young man. Summer's just around the next bend.

hey, thanks, jr. let us know if you find that article.

geezer? GEEZER? who you callin geezer, MATE? pukekohe raceway outside auckland city next december...we'll just SEE who the geezer is!

whaddya mean crazy? you mean like wild and crazy? lots of fun at parties and the pub? or like maybe i oughta be locked up crazy.... um, don't answer that. ok. i've just finished a bit of research on the gyroscope thing (finally). little bit of reading. little bit of experimentation. so...now i must pay the price of moving beyond the scope of my knowledge in my last post or two. i knew i should have held off. anyway... pardon me while i eat a little crow. i'll just mumble around a mouthful here... ok, after a little experimentation with a bicycle wheel which i can spin pretty darn fast, i am fairly astounded at how powerful the precession thing is. wow. like damn dude. i will need to to rethink this whole deal a bit. i am astounded at how hard the bloody thing leans over. at the moment i have no idea how to resolve the forward momentum of the bike with the conservation of angular momentum of the front wheel. AND... leaning the back wheel over also produces an equally powerful gyro turning force. and worse yet, the "stability" thing was a bit elusive. sort of a 'yes, but'...thing. that's on the back burner. i am told that the defying gravity trick of tying a string to one end of the axle and hanging the spinning wheel vertical from one end of the axle requires university level physics to explain. i'm still reading the high school stuff. so...maybe jrfuisz, having a degree in physics, might have a go at explaining it in simple english for us little people. the momentum/trail thing is looking better all the time. more crow i'll have to eat from last freaking year if jr doesn't save my butt... and hows come a bicycle or chopper with seriously negative trail (leading axle) still balances, if a bit less stable? huh? yeah...answer me that one, mr science! in any case, after some more reading on the circular motion thing, yeah, i'm still with the front wheel steering into the corner being responsible for continuing the arc after turn in. and the friction at the contact patch being the centripetal force. and i must have missed the steering thread. but i prefer the epiphany anyway. the rush of discovery, as it were. the adventure of exploring the unknown, even if it's only unknown to me. feeling like, "yeah, i coulda been newton if i'd been alive four hundred years ago..." (like a fig newton). pay no attention to all those footy prints on the path...no, really, you're the first one. keep the kingdom, mate. i'll trade my horse for a frontier! on the fact that the front wheel is out of line creating an upward force, sort of like just enuf counter-steer force to balance against gravity or something...might not be the right way to say it from a pure physics pov, but...i mean, yes, the system is obviously in equilibrium, but...ok, why doesn't the bike fall down? the inertia of the forward momentum? which we have been sort of blaming for the countersteer initiation. (perhaps not so correctly) but, i'll try to rephrase that feeling better somehow tomorrow. in the meantime, the conservation of momentum thing is starting to decimate my whole theory of counter steer. i mean, i suppose with all that precession happening, it doesn't take a whole lot of energy away from the forward momentum of the bike anyway. just a wee bit, perhaps.... but i started all of this as an alternative to gravity having a longer lever being responsible for how fast a bike turns in....oh, man. please, don't let me have to eat that, too. hey, so maybe i have a future in sales....how does that work? well....how do you want it to work? eh? i'm not sure i agree or even understand what you're on about with the c/g stuff and 250 vs r1 thing, woody. but, i can't really think about it now. and i can't get quite get a grip on the twisting bike thing jr...unless you mean like twisitng around that c/g-wheelbase-contact patch line thing you're on about as it leans in? i need way more on that. anyway, it's late. i'm tired. i need to sleep. my brain feels like it's going to explode because it turns out the bloody world IS flat after all... i know i just need to get beyond the attachment thing and i will transcend the whole deal tomorrow morning...but for now, i need to go home and rethink my life.

hey jrfuisz, how fast can you turn a motorcycle wheel with your hand? a little less than parking lot speed (10mph) where countersteering DOES NOT WORK. nor does the bike lean over. it acts like a car and and turns in the direction you move the handlebars while remaining in an upright position. in my opinion, because the momentum trying to knock the bike over the other way is small enuf that you can overcome it by shifting your weight and counter it with small turning adjustments. balancing with an effort. (if you did let it countersteer over, it would fall. and THIS intutive knowledge, this FEELING that the bike will fall over is EXACTLY what makes learning to ride a two wheel vehicle in the first place such a weird and freaky thing. and, frankly why 'training wheels' are kinda stupid. except to let one overcome the jitters and get used to being on the bike.) why is balancing utterly effortless as you go faster? anyway... no 'faith' in gyros here. pure empirical data, mate. try something that spins a bit faster. like as fast as a motorcycle wheel at speed. have you ever held a pair of gyroscopically stabilized navy glasses (binoculars)? why do satellites spin? why are they and rockets stabilized by gyros? why does a spinning top stand up? i think there's enuf bloody force to keep you and ten of your best friends balanced, in concert with the trail effect of the geometry and momentum, on a motorcycle at speed. ever see those old pictures of the guys building human pyramids on a motorcycle? i'm not saying it can't be overcome... in any case, i do not contend that gyroscopic precession has anything to do with turning into a corner. that was Woody's post. (and speaking from experience, you can't trust the bloke's intentions. he might just be yanking your chain. i mean he can be a bit of a cheeky wanker ) anyway, i agree that precession may have some effect, but, i think that effect is secondary to the overwhelming force of MOMENTUM combined with the compound lever of the front handlebars and steering stem when flicking a bike into a corner. but, who knows, i could be wrong. what i am saying is that gyroscopic forces STABILIZE the bike. and YES, most definitely, the gyroscopic stabilization of the rear wheel must be overcome to lean into a corner. if you believe that there is some other reason for a bike to balance, please tell us what it is. moving on... why can i use just a little force with my fingers to reverse the spin of water draining in a toilet or sink? the water 'tends' to spin that way. it's easily overcome. if your hand was a hundred miles wide you could probably reverse the rotation of a hurricane. i believe the coriolis force is relatively weak compared to the forces we are talking about. back to gyroscopic forces...and in all fairness, i may be using the term incorrectly, perhaps angular momentum is more accurate, as you can think of mass and inertia, but... why do stock cars all turn left on ovals and superspeedways? do you think this is an arbitrary decision? like the good ol' boys were sitting around one night with a jug o' shine and flipped a coin? what direction does the crankshaft spin in a stock car motor? a very massive hunk of metal turning at thousands of rpm. how many rpm in a bike wheel at 10mph? 50rpm? 60rpm? 70rpm? like, way less than a hundred? anyway, i think i've made my point. please, tell me WHY it's wrong. Seriously, you said, "...you can discount momentum." ok, tell me why. ok. i'll buy that. can you be more specific? which forces exactly are you referring to? Really? um...ok. i hope it's pretty straight when i'm doing 150+ down the back straight... and... a bike on a stationary roller is just that. stationary. i thought about this last week because it seems logical. untie a bike on a dyno and watch it fall over. just one thing...even with driven rollers in the front, heck, even if you make a rolling road, it would have to move in all directions at phenomenal speed to imitate reality. otherwise the whole trail and momentum thing is gone. sort of illustrates my whole point. in any case, not a good experiment. it is very...simplified. seriously, i try not to MODEL stuff. i try to keep it real. sometimes it helps to have an analogy or scalar/vector model for analysis, but, i haven't used any so far. and that's my whole point. i think it can be understood without the math. i mean, IF you actually WANT to understand it. for many people, the question, "How does this work?" is answered best by saying, "It works just fine". anyway... as for your last two paragraphs.... i don't get how the bike pivots around the c/g except, perhaps, during turn in. mid corner, the pivot point is about fifty or a hundred feet or so to the inside of the turn. depending on the radius of the turn. why does hanging off increase the turn rate? and by turn rate, do you mean the speed at which the bike flicks in or how fast it will corner? what torque "issues" are you referring to and what "problems" may they be causing? and i agree that a higher c/m gives momentum a longer lever to work with during the countersteer process and that a low cruiser has a lower c/m hence a shorter lever. but we've covered a lot of this in some previous posts during my last vacation back in december/january. check out 'rule #1' and 'center of gravity high or low' on page 2 of the cornering forum. in any case, if there's something in particular you don't get about my theories...please ask, and i'll try to explain them better. if you want to do some informative reading/research, try going to google and typing "physics, education". heaps o' stuff there, mate. i found a couple cool sites for the laymen. good riding to you

if you are considering the bike as a lever while leaned over, being acted upon by balanced forces of gravity and centrifugal force, ie. the down force (gravity) equals the sideways force (lateral g), hence, the bike doesn't fall down...well....i have to disagree by definition. first, there is no such thing as centrifugal force. it is an effect felt by your body created by inertia. and where is that force directed? tangentially. that being said... why does a bike balance at lean angle....i've been kicking this around for a few days without referring to the physics website... and the train of thought goes something like this... ok, let's start at the beginning. why does a bike balance while straight up and down? well, it's been hypothesized that the gyroscopic force of the wheels resists any change in their orientation. left, right,up, down, etc. it has also been suggested that trail keeps a bike balanced. well, i think that the trail effect certainly keeps the front wheel straight in line with the rear...which would seem to be important. and what creates this trail effect? the axle is behind an imaginary line drawn through the steering stem, and like the wheel on a shopping cart or a bed caster, it will stabilize naturally. WHEN IN MOTION. the bike must be rolling for any of this to work. hence, inertia and momentum come into play. well, i haven't heard any better theory than the gyro/trail thing. so, what balances a bike when it is leaned over? (and why the heck does it roll in a bloody circle at all when leaned over??? hmmm...answer that one and i think we'll be on our way.) oh, ive been meaning to say this for a while...some people have been using the words centrifical, centrifugal and centripedal (sic) interchangably to describe the same perception of the centrifugal effect. centripetal forces are something completely different, though do tend to go hand in hand with centrifugal effects. a centripetal force is a force acting upon a body in motion to unbalance inertia and create circular motion. gravity is a centripetal force acting upon the moon to cause it to orbit the earth. ok, so what centripetal force is acting upon a motorcycle to overcome its forward momentum (inertia) to make it roll in a circle??? oh, wait, we haven't said what keeps a bike balanced when leaned over. hmmm... what if it's the SAME thing?!?!?! HA! wouldn't that be sorta trippy? well, prepare to shift paradigms kiddies... hold onto your hats. here's a thot. about six months ago, i was reading a post from a guy who had built a little indicator for his steering stem to indicate when the wheel was straight. or not. and funny thing, the front wheel is NOT straight when leaned over in a corner. HUH? yup. if memory serves, your front wheel points slightly toward the inside of the turn. well, what the heck is up with that??? now Willy said it does this because of the trail. funny that trail keeps the wheel straight when up and down, yet, makes the wheel deflect inward when leaned over. i'm gonna have to draw some diagrams for the geometric relationship there, i think, but, the weight of the bike being applied sort of forward of the axle or the forks being angled less than the steering stem, if you can imagine this, would tend to point the wheel toward the inside of the turn when leaned over as the steering head becomes a lever or hinge itself. regardless...the bloody front wheel isn't in line with the rear!!! does noone else think that sounds just a little weird? the bike finds equilibrium at lean with the front wheel turned toward the inside of the turn? HELLO! WOULDN'T THAT MAKE THE BIKE WANT TO STAND UP?? TO COUNTERSTEER UP?? and might that be the force counteracting the force of gravity? just enuf "countersteer" to keep the bike from falling down? if so... that would mean that the balancing force at lean is EXACTLY MOMENTUM AND INERTIA. sorry, woody. and the bike tracks a circle because the bloody front wheel is steering into the turn! just like a car. anyway, i'm sure the gyroscopi forces help to keep it all stabilized at that point as well. and what about the momentum of the bike being flicked in? what about that torque? what happens to that energy? (conservation of energy here folks?) what "catches" the bike when rossi flicks it in hard? what if you welded the front steering stem, that is to say, welded the front wheel straight? assuming you could get the bike to lean over at speed with your body weight, or something, would it still turn, roll in a circle? would it go straight? would it fall down? hmmm... it all fits with my momentum theory of countersteering. but i have absolutely no proof. someone want to weld the wheel on a bicycle straight and try it out? also, has someone tried the hang off at speed and does the bike lean the other way trick? why does hanging of in a corner require less lean angle? maybe woody is onto something there...hmmm. well, enuf of this newtonian nonsense. i'm gonna go check out parallel universes, M theory, and hyper-black holes on the science channel. big tuesday evening with my remote.

Upon rereading my previous post, I think I missed something with my worn tire theory. Maybe this is better. It would seem logical that a worn (flattened profile) motorcycle tire would be less inclined to lean over. Simply because the crown is no longer round. There is no longer a smooth arc to the side of the tire, no more "sweet spot" to corner with on the side. (A car tire at the extreme.) There is only a flattened base (very stable for riding in a straight line) and an abrupt transition to a radically steeper max lean angle. (Not very confidence inspiring.) It would seem that this tire would require more effort to initiate and perhaps even constant effort to maintain any lean angle if sufficiently worn. It seems to me that this might account for why some bikes seem to want to stand up in a corner. Or at least explains their lousy handling characteristics. In any case, I'm sure there are other mechanical reasons for a bike not being stable in a corner. This just seemed the most likely. Otherwise, I'm goin with rider input or lack of acceleration. G'day Woody! I still feel that inertia, the tendency of the bike to continue in the direction it's going, is the main force behind the bike countersteering down or up. (A cornering bike at lean is actually trying to go straight toward the outside of the corner.) I still feel gyro forces have some effect. But, not certain just what or how much. That being said...a 60/40 (rear/front) weight distribution implies a little bit of acceleration in my mind.

Hey there Mapless, I can't speak for Keith and I haven't read Twist II; but, I would tend to agree with this idea. I believe one of the non-rider factors contributing to a motorcycle's tendency to stand up or continue to fall in once lean angle has been established is the construction and profile of the tires and the degree of wear which will also affect the shape, and hence, the profile. If you view the crown of a tire from head on you will notice that some tires have a taller or shorter or rounder or sharper profile. Without getting into the differences in handling characteristics of different profiles or bias ply vs radial (do bias ply tires still exist or am I a dinosaur), it is my belief that one of the things that may be happening with bikes that want to stand up or fall in is that the shape of the tire has been significantly altered due to wear. Specifically, the pattern of wear which will reflect how the bike is ridden. Imagine the average street rider who uses their motorcycle for general transportation and, perhaps, some weekend canyon carving. Even though they may use all of the tire in the canyons by getting leaned over all the way to the edge (no chicken strips), they probably aren't dragging footpegs around town. The majority of their riding is not done at full lean angle. Hence, the wear pattern of the tire will reflect that. Most of the time they will be leaning over to a point someplace before the edge to varying degrees. Wherever that point of usual lean is, the roundness of the tire will be worn a bit flat prior to that point and a discernible ridge or shoulder will develop over time. And since, no matter how many corners we take, the majority of most street riding is done on straight pieces of tarmac, the entire tire profile will tend to be worn kinda flat. Flatter than when the tire was new. And flatter and flatter the more the tire wears. The profile becomes "squared off" a bit. Now, picture that "squared off" profile with a shoulder somewhere partway down the side of the tire and imagine trying to balance the bike on that ridge. It doesn't wanna do it. It wants to roll off that point, either toward the edge (falling in) or back toward the crown (standing up). Replacing worn street tires significanty changes the way that bike feels and handles. Restoring those confidence inspiring smooth and consistent transitions from one lean angle to another, it's like a brand new bike. (Insert Dunlop logo here.) In any case, I think that is one reason why some street bikes may feel unstable at lean. There may be other mechanical reasons having to do with suspension or geometry, rake and trail, etc., or... rider inputs and instability on the bike. Which leads to the next issue... Your "opponent's" belief that getting back on the gas is not a priority might be leading him/her to, in fact, NOT GET BACK ON THE GAS. This would have major implications for mid-turn stability. Primarily, the tendency for the bike to run wide as it decelerates creating the need to push the bike down further to maintain turn radius, and, hence, the perception that the bike is standing up. (Because I keep having to push it down, it must be standing up.) Perhaps you should suggest he/she try getting back on the gas and see if that cures the need for ongoing steering input. Or perhaps you might simply refer your "opponent" to Keith's books and the Superbike School and this website. It will probably save his/her life and, who knows, maybe we make a new friend out of an old "opponent" because, I have to agree with you... we DO have an awesome community here! I would agree with that statement as well. I would be interested to know if Keith gave a different or conflicting reply to your PM. I don't want to 'steer' anyone wrong. Good riding to you, dude. And welcome to the community! Come back soon and bring all your friends! CHEERS!

SLIDERWV, In my own efforts to keep my weight off my hands and the bars (especially while moving about on the bike) I attempted to keep my weight in my feet. Sort of like riding a dirt bike, I'm never really sitting on the seat. Except down straightaways to rest and even then, when I switched to GP bikes and began studying Rich Oliver's style, I stayed on my feet down the straights as well, keeping my butt off the seat for aerodynamic reasons. (Don't know if it really worked, but, it made me feel like I was trying harder.) The point is, in my efforts to keep my hands free (able to let go of the bars at almost any point in time, thumb and finger on the throttle) I switched from a long straight back to the hunchback thing because it was the only way I found to keep my weight off the bars. In my opinion, the less weight one puts on the handlebars to hold yourself up, the more control you have. The more ability to make a steering input at any moment AND the less chance of amplifying (sp?) any head shake or oscillation in the front end. And for me, having my weight in my feet also kept me in better control riding the bike, as opposed to sitting on the seat and being taken for a ride. It was anything but comfortable but my body adapted. Now, I've never read TWIST II or attended a school since 1995 so, I'm reading about locking on with a knee, etc and I just haven't really had a chance to think about that. Or how that fits. Maybe I did that. I'm not sure. Need to think more about that. Or really need to get back on a racetrack!!! I don't know if it's really possible to ride hard enuf on the street to have my weight in my feet as much. And noone should really be riding at track speeds on the street. It would be suicidal. Now, with all due respect, riding at racing speeds or even fast track speeds is frankly another world from taking fast corners on the highway. And there is NO WAY anyone could really know what that's like without actually riding on a racetrack. The amount of effort required to go REALLY FAST, in my opinion, simply doesn't compare. It is an extremely physical thing. (As well as mental) Perhaps deceptively so. And, for me, though the basic skills and goals are the same, it requires an entirely different "style". Riding on the street using the same "style" would be sort of like trying to ski the bunny slope the same way I ski a double diamond. The basic skills and goals are the same, but....."things" are a little different. I'm generally quite sore after my first day of riding on track each year. Poor off season training program. (Like...what off season training program? haha) So...are you developing a bad habit? I don't know. It's difficult for me to really understand what's happening from a verbal description. Like..."laterally around my leg". I have no idea what that means. Though I'm sure it is a perfectly accurate description, I'm not quite able to grasp it. And in the end, you simply can't compare yourself on the road to riders riding full on full tilt. I'm not even sure how to describe it except to say I almost threw up the first time I rode on track. A Ninja 600 at Watkins Glen. Granted, a VERY fast track with MAJOR elevation changes including something less than positive camber as you dive down the fastest roller coaster of your life trying to go as fast as you possibly can without crashing for twenty minutes or so. My legs were shaking so hard from the effort as well as the adrenalin when i got off that it was all I could do get the kick stand down before I sat my butt down right there next to the bike o catch my breath. I was probably out of shape. But still, utterly unprepared the intensity. I think the school is set up a little differently now than in the late eighties, though. I get the impression the program has developed quite a bit, and the first orientation ride is probably a bit more structured now than it was then. I mean as I remember, we followed the leader for two laps before being set free. HELLO! That being said, YES...get to a superbike school. There simply is NO substitute. And as usual, I recommend using a school bike. No matter how well prepped or sorted a bike is for the street, I don't think it's really sorted for the track. And it removes an entire slew of variables from the equation. I don't know what the school does these days with the BYOB program to help you prep your own bike, but, I would definitely make certain you had fresh fork oil, chain, brake pads and tires. (Though you want to be sure the chain is stretched, the pads bedded and tires scrubbed.) And, though it can't hurt to ride track days or attend other schools......I've done them all, and NOTHING even comes close to CSS. Just my own completely unsolicited opinion. GO FOR IT!!! Cheers, BH

I think I see a misunderstanding here... There would seem to need to be some clarification between steering (turning) and cornering. Perhaps it would be best to think of turning as "changing direction". As in counter steering or "steering with the rear". I have a car racer friend who likes to think of a corner having three parts. Entry or direction change. Mid-corner. And exit. For lack of better terms at this moment. Counter steering at the entry is a direction change. Steering with a rear wheel slide is a steering or direction change. Once the bike has achieved equilibrium in a turn...sorry, once the bike is leaned over and stable you get on the gas to shift weight bias toward the rear (this might be called mid-corner or cornering). Well, depending on different variables and factors, and how you want to label things, from just beyond this point it is possible to continue adding throttle to lift the front wheel, while still leaned over. Um, at least that's what Woody says. haha. I generally wait until I'm kinda close to straight up and down. But I'm a wussy.

cool dude. good luck. perhaps i'll see you at mid-o.

I believe I may have misunderstood what was meant by "move the bike out a little". I was thinking of moving the entire bike from wheels up outward in the corner. Perhaps, "move the bike out a little" meant the same thing as "less lean angle"? Funny, after I left for work yesterday, I was thinking about hanging off prior to turning in or prior to even applyng the brake(s) as I approach a corner, and, the point being again, as usual...why? So, since you brought it up...haha...it would seem to me that hanging off while traveling in a straight line creates uneven weight distribution, "unbalancing" the bike as it were, so one must lean the opposite side a bit to maintain balance or a straight line...or does it? I recall hanging off prior to braking at the end of a straightaway, but, I don't recall needing to apply any pressure to the bars, or weight to the pegs to keep the bike straight up and down. Perhaps the gyroscopic effect of the wheels was too high to be unbalanced by such a small issue as my butt offset by 10" or 12"? Yes, I think at slower speeds, with less gyro effect, around the parking lot or in the neighborhood or a bike with very light wire wheels (like a dirt bike) maybe yes, my butt would overcome the gyro effect and unbalance the bike enuf to need a steering input to maintain a straightline. Man that bike felt like a rock of stability at speed. Hmmm... So, the dough is starting to rise. Be back soon.

Hey Woody! How ya goin, mate? Ya winnin? The way it was explained to me as a squid was that the more you hang off, the less lean angle required for a given speed/radius. Hence, you could add more lean angle to facilitate more speed, or add more speed at a given turn radius by leaning over more and turning the throttle more.... result: more corner speed. Seems a simple enuf idea. Now WHY that happens...hmmm. Is it moving toward the inside of the corner that does the trick? Like a sidecar monkey counter balancing the tendency of the bike to want to roll up and over on the pivot point of the wheel track like a hinge? (And why do some bikes want to "stand up" in a corner when some seem to remain "neutral"?) Is it giving gravity more of a (longer) lever? Or is it moving the center of gravity lower that gives centrifugal effect less of a (shorter) lever? Or is it something else? Like hanging off toward the inside of a turn moves more mass further away from the wheel track radius to a shorter radius track? Like moving toward the inside of a turntable creates less inertial forces? Think about placing something small on a stereo turntable, near the edge travels further and faster than near the center. Hmmm... Sounds like the ice skater at the olympics inverse....far out...I mean...far in. hee hee hee. I'll need to refer to previous posts on another thread to reaquaint myself with the idea of "COMBINED C/G HEIGHT". And "Hanging off moves the bike out a little"? Um...not in my universe. Hanging off moves the bike IN a little in my universe. More lean angle moves the bike out a little. Less lean angle, less offset. Hmmm... I'll need to let this meat marinade for awhile. (And go find that physics website again.) Gotta go to work. Cheers.

i've never actually used race compound on the street, but, my gut thinks you'd have square profile tires pretty fast. there's a reason they call them street tires, eh? the people who designed them really do have yours and the best interest of your riding at heart. otherwise, they wouldn't be in business long, haha. that being said...GO FOR IT! i mean why not? it's only money and you only live once. i'm all about experimentation. let us know how it works out for you. seriously tho...i understand the desire to experience super sticky tires to give that feeling of extra confidence. i think the real answer to what you are seeking might be found at a superbike school. confidence. control. and that certain knowledge that you KNOW what it's like to ride on a track.

cool beans, dude. i wish to clarify a poorly worded sentence in my last post: what i meant was that, in my opinion, using tire warmers to ride your bike on a track day is wasting time. i did not mean that riding track days is a waste of time. i think most people would sort that out but in hindsight it was a little unclear. also, being that i seem to recall the speed triple having an entire racing class built around it some years back, it seems a little illogical that the rims wouldnt fit race rubber. at least DOT race rubber. i don't really know. but switching wheels might be easier than switching tires to go back to the street monday thru friday. marvic makes a quality product. comparable to marchesini and a bit more affordable.....however, tho i love the italians, you might consider checking out a company here in the states by the name of performance machine products. california. might be even more affordable. and a fine product. usa. i have never heard of swmototires. looks like a website address. not sure where you are located, but, i've had very good experiences, been treated very well, and always been given accurate and reliable information from the folks at race tire sevices based in nashville, TN. i believe they have an affiliate on the west coast as well. on the east coast there was man by the name of smith....near philadelphia. um...sport cycle products. super dude. anyway, make certain they are well balanced when mounted. and spend a couple laps scrubbing in and warming the virgin rubber. some people use a chemical to wipe the silicone coating off ahead of time. some people say thats a bad idea as the chemical will react with the rubber. whatever. it'll be gone in a couple laps anyway. have fun.

um...am i understanding correctly that you are a street rider riding track days? "keep the street rubber good as new..."? speed triple for track days? if that's the case, tire warmers are a waste of money in my opinion. if you are wealthy and want a new toy to look cool, sure. but seriously...spend the money on a superbike school. you will get WAY more for your money. and much faster with knowledge and skill...priceless, lasts forever. real. if i've misunderstood, sorry. i'm writing with all the other guys out there in mind who might be reading this, too. the ONLY thing tire warmers are good for is being able to go 100% from the starting line on the first lap and a half of a race. as opposed to holding back a bit till the race rubber gets warm. do not waste your money for track day riding. utterly pointless. honestly, i raced for like 7-8 years on stock rims with no warmers and have BOXES of trophies from those years. on stock wheels. i was expert for three years before first set of marchesinis because i needed to be able to mount rains as i was running a gp bike with slicks on national pro circuit. i understand if your stock rims won't fit race tires. gotta do what you gotta do. believe me you will have PLENTY of new fun with sticky rubber. don't waste time, effort and attention for something you won't really utilize. to give you an idea of lap times and how hard is hard, if you never rode race rubber before, it will most likely be a while before you ride beyond the limits of the tire. at any temperature. to give an idea.... the first school i rode with css on a 600 at mid-ohio i was ecstatic to break 2:00 a lap. three years later i was going like 15 seconds a lap faster. on stock rims. no tire warmers. on a 125. and that was slow compared to the really fast guys. going another ten seconds faster than me. just my opinion. personally, i found tire warmers to be a major pain in the butt that increased the amount of work i had to do prior to a race. instead of thinking about my riding. or relaxing. oh, not to mention the generator i then had to buy to power them or simply have to think about a source of power. and half the time, if we sat on the grid, the tires got cold anyway. pffft. waste. spend the money on learning riding skills. that's my advice.

You seem to have more knowledge of tire construction than I do. My knowledge of polymer science is limited. I am not a chemical engineer. The degradation vs heat cycle issue was explained to me in terms of oil being "cooked" out of the rubber compound during a heat cycle. Cold, hot, cold. Of course, that guy was just a tire co rep. And that was 15+ yrs ago. Exactly why race tires are "more susceptible to degradation"...softer rubber wears out faster? Your explanation works for me. For me, it's a case of "How does that work? It works just fine." As for the carcass being prone to failure due to heat cycling, again, I don't know. The last "carcass failure" I recall was Dave Shlosser on a front straight somewhere and that was a very long time ago. (I think that one made the 'agony of defeat' reel at wide world of sports.) And it could have been a flat tire due to debris for all I know. In twenty years of attending racetracks, I don't believe I have ever witnessed a motorcycle tire carcass failure. Yes. Warm tires just off tire warmers are stickier than cold tires. Or even tires with one lap on them. They definitely increase my confidence when jamming into turn one on lap one. Are there more important things to spend money on? As the saying goes, you gotta be in it to win it. The long haul vs the short hop. If that money might be needed for race entries later in the season or you are unprepared for the expense of crash damage...well...only you can say...trophy vs championship. Are the guys you are running with using them? Are your lap times good enuf to put you with the next group if you didn't lose out to their superior first lap times? Tire warmers were one of the very last things I spent money on and it was only because EVERYONE else was using them in my class. Some things I would acquire before tire warmers: 1.The very best helmet that money could buy. Ditto for leathers and gloves and tools. 2.The best and most well tuned suspension. 3.Books and people that would tell me how to own and tune the very best suspension. 4.The most well tuned motor. (Note I did not say the fastest or most expensive...hint.) 5.Again with the books..etc. 6.A really good canopy for my pit. 7.A really reliable race transporter. 8.A pit mate. 9.An entire season of race entry fees. A good spares kit, etc. You get the idea. That being said, when tire warmers first started hitting the market in the early mid-nineties, there were some brands that got very hot. Hotter than others, perhaps too hot if you left them on indefinitely, and would definitely "cook" a tire. But they did work faster. There were also brands that had thermostatic control. I knew of some guys that came off track and put their hot race tires back on the warmers to prevent heat cycling. Just how hot to make a tire was a subject of debate. The figure of 180 F comes to mind...but...can't really say what's what today. Your call mate. Some due diligence on that account would seem appropriate. So, I hope my experience helps on the practical side. Any materials science majors out there? If it's really important, I might try googling a tire compay, say Bridgestone, since that is the brand you intend to use, and attempt to make some contacts there. And when you get the answer...let us know!! Shiny side up, sticky side down.

mushroom with a twist grip in your hand...?

i have heard it said that it is physically impossible for the human eye of a professional baseball player to follow the ball from a pitcher's hand, watching the ball in flight to decide if it's a "good" pitch. there simply isn't enough time. therefore, the decision to swing must literally be made before the ball leaves the pitcher's hand. hmmm...commitment. the corollary of Keith's words here to success in any of life's endeavours is spot on. point taken mate. i hear you loud and clear.

jef, can i call u jef? i'm numerically typing challenged on this flat top laptop... do you know me? um, what a tempting straight line with so many possibilities... i'm gonna have to say we have never met cuz i'd never forget a cheeky toddler face like that... but seriously i don't know. the last time i rode ona track here was putnam late 98. i think. in any case, we emailed a few times last summer thru this site but i didn't mean to imply that you see me or would have thot of me as a known expert, it was more of a...an expression or something. call it a literary technique or just bustin on ya. i haven't noticed anyone else writing about 125 experiences on this site besides me...whatever. a WEALTH of info, huh? are you offering me money? in any case...i don't mean to imply the 95 isn't a good bike. i raced the 94 with my own mods and a 96 with lots of extras, a-kit, airbox, etc. and tuned a 98 chassis with some fairly trick newer motors from japan and hand me downs from an hrc team in oz while in nz. i used to think i was on the edge with the port mods i used to do til i saw some stuff over there. wow. really wild stuff. but we're sort of out of the loop here. or were then. john ulrich documented his experience racing the 95 in rrw. back issues in 95-96 perhaps? maybe some useful stuf there. if not entertaining. he put a lot of races on it and had many and varied tales of technical mayhem. i'll say this, it took a long time fo me to grow the guts to spend the bucks for a new gp bike. i was warned off of used stuff by horror stories of ignorance combined with other folks messes leading to nightmare experiences. and tho i was very worried i wouldn't like riding them, i bit the bullet and went new. but both ways have advantages. in all honesty, 125's should come with a warning from the government that reads "may be habit forming". being a smaller sized dude it fit me well (tho a 250 would be better, haha) and i was totally hooked. never met anyone under 5'9" who didn't love them. (and at least one guy at 6' who made custom bits so he could fit on his.) at my fighting weight under 130lbs then i could role up wheelies with laguna gearing on a kitted 125. tho i never lost my love for the 94 chassis either. (and a lot of guys felt that way.) i felt so much more connected to the road on the 94. i never had any desire to go back to riding a truck. but i am a little tempted to try a school bike. if only for the experience of riding something with the weight of my 400 and the power of my 750. it would be close to riding a factory superbike from "my day" i think. anyway... i'm sure your daughter will LOVE it. and what an awesome way to spend time with her on a project like that. learning together. that is so freaking cool. what a dad! cheers.

jesus is just alright with me. funny, i never had to repalce a clutch. no matter how many times i took em apart cause i was SURE it was gonna start slipping soon, i never had one that didn't go a full season. is that strange? guardian clutch angels...?

ah...jef4ry...i wish youda asked me or somebody before buying the used 95 rs125. kudos for grabbing a 125 tho. excellent choice of brand and make...just that the 95 was the first model year of a completely revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary design). so many bugs to work out, etc. i'd have recommended a 96. one year made so much difference then. i never owned the 95 but as i recall...some things you WILL have issues with... 1. if it isn't already done, move the coil/igniter from outside the frame to inside the frame. behind the gooseneck (depending on which model pressurized airbox you buy) might be a good spot. 2.main crank bearings and bosses. the bearings were too small i think and the cases had a tendency to stretch around the main bearings or something like that. and you'll want to rotate the bearings through four positions (90 degrees) on a regular basis. 3. if memory serves, when i was doing the hrc 125 team in new zealand winter 04-05 the buzz out of hrc-oz was that parts were being discontinued at the ten year mark from hrc. no new production. i'd scoop up whatever inventory you can get your hands on. pistons, rings, bearings, seals, gaskets, etc. like everything you think you might need for a year. you probably have no idea what that will be but... 4. there were some other changes..but, this isn't the place. i would urge you to have the cases blue printed at least and the crank rebuilt and balanced so you don't end up doing it mid season. better yet, get your hands on a new one and use the oneinside for a spare. also, new seals all around. and and and and. you must realize you just bought a hole to throw money into. and full time job to tune if you don't already know how. you didn't plan on riding this year did you? when you get ready to ride, let me know. i will gladly lend any advice you want. i'm back and just got a new apartment (s). very busy moving in and renovating and preparing other units as well as full time job and , and, and, and...but i will not blow smoke up your pipe or waste your time and money. um, how can i say this skillfully...if you want to be a winner, ask a winner. when i switched to 2 strokes i was EXTREMELY lucky to have the benefit of factory technicians from hrc to teach me how to tune and maintain rs125's. (hence the gig in nz) i only say this because i watched too many people listen to well intentioned bs and waste SOOO much time and effort that could have been, SHOULD have been spent on riding. now, i think there are many more gp riders now than then and probably many good honest folk who will be more than glad to help than when i was learning. buy all the books you can get your hands on. anyway, i hope this becomes a wonderful experience for you and your daughter. i will be glad to help any way i can. good luck. cheers, BH

yes, if they are hot, i agree.