racer

I can think of two quick examples of my losing the front while on the gas. 1. Downhill left out of the "highlands" at Louden. (First practice. In the rain) 2. Right turn after backstraight at Indy entering the "parking lot" section. The second incident occurred while passing on the outside where it is notoriously slippery and we are expressly asked not to pass there at the riders' meeting. Of course, in my younger days, being told, "You can't pass there", was like guaranteeing I would. Right up until the day it finally bit me. In fact, i believe that was the first and only time i ever touched a handlebar down in a race. Chasing Bruce Lind for first place at the WERA national 125gp. (1995?) Boy did that suck. I had a string of riders from John Ulrich to John Bickle walk past my pit to thank me for the entertainment, but, that was just the final event in a long string of passes and repasses driven by an emotional state of "I'm gonna win or crash trying." Funny how that became a self fulfilling prophecy. The really funny thing is that I had the fastest bike that day by a mile and all I had to do was ride around and pass on the straights. easy win. it was about 90f and 100% humidity. nobody else had anything close to a small enuf main jet but the guy i borrowed it from who was too scared to run it. No. I had to take the lead by the end of lap 2 or else. God what an idiot i was. or maybe just young. I remember JU riding up to my pit on his 4 wheeler, stopping and shaking his head, and just driving away without saying a word. that's saying alot considering the verbose wordsmith he is. anyway, i'm thinkin if two wheels are on the ground, they share the traction. the loss of traction in both my cases was caused by slippery and/or lightened load conditon. on the gas. down hill. rain or slick. in anycase, just dropped in to say "hi". get back when i can. nothing personal. no time. no dsl. be home soon. cheers.

yeah, i hate to admit it but most of the time the only person we manage to fool is ourselves. it's her job to know and to let you think she doesn't know. kinda like my grandma used to do with grandpa's bottle of hootch under his workbench when i was a kid. i think it was the sneaking for a bit of being bad and damn the rules that meant more than the buzz. in anycase, she never let on and everyone was happy. it's a rare woman that can not only accept a man but appreciate or enjoy the boy. especially in this age of ...um, motrcycles. that's what we're talking about. motorcycles. ahem...so...as i was saying...are you protecting her from worrying or yourself from hearing bout it....haha. both? works for me. anyway, really sorry to hear about the three week "headache". chances are that'll piss her off more than anything else. chances are she could care less about the paint job...as opposed to the ...uh, nevermind. there i go again. get well soon dude. keep the shiny side up, or the sticky side down or ...hell, do whatever you want. frankly ive had some of my most interesting experiences four paws in the air...learned most of my fabrication skills sequel to the sky ground event...

Don't know if this is the proper forum for this, but...it certainly belongs somewhere around here... Several months ago I attended a "screening" of a yet to be released Anthony Hopkins' film called 'The World's Fastest Indian' at a local film festival. The film's title caught my eye, but, when I read the synopsis, I knew I had to see it. I'm sure the name of Burt Monro will be familiar to some of you. I'm embarrassed to admit, I only vaguely recognized the name and knew nothing of his story. In any case, I just found out the film is being released this weekend somewhere. Coming to a major motion picture theatre near you soon, to be sure. I was lucky enough to see the movie in an intimate, screening room type of atmosphere (like much smaller than a showcase theatre at the mall) filled to near capacity with maybe forty or fifty other people at most. I cannot think of ANY movie I have EVER seen that garnered such audience reaction. A cheering standing ovation. Even the destruction of the Death Star at the Warner Theatre with at least a thousand people (circa 1977) didn't come close. It's a really great true story and easily the best movie I've ever seen about any kind of motorcycle racing. Or maybe any kind of racing period. (And, of course, it's Anthony.) I think it has Oscar written all over it. A must see for anyone who ever raced, races now, or dreams of racing someday. Or dreams of anything for that matter. I can't wait to see it again on an even bigger screen with the final cut and full soundtrack. Though something tells me I was lucky to see the director's cut without the pop tunes I just heard on the ad trailer this morning, I don't think even Hollywood's finest could diminish the power of Burt's story. Cheers, BH

nothing like a little anonymous truth from one of the gods.

A true testament to YOUR character, my friend.

I can't figur out how to use the quote function since the software upgrade...I need to ask stuman for a primer. anyway, i mad a remark a couple posts back re: brkes vs coasting decel and it wasn't reallt correct. What I meant to say was...Coasting decel IS acting on the front wheel as are the brakes. the difference is the friction is only at the contact patch (rubber and tarmac ) as is the brakes (disc and pads). the friction is acting on the wheel and slowing it just like the brakes. and dont ask if rolloing out of the gas at 100kph is the same as rolling out at 50 kph with a 50 kph headwind. imoutta here, its friday. I have an interview for a new job and i have to go get my head into the right frame of attitude. excited, enthusastic, devoted..all that good stuff. cheers

ta

GO STEELERS!

But I've never even been to Kansas. OK. That's a lie. I have been to Kansas. But I'm certainly not there anymore. Um, I haven't finished that online physics class yet. Can I get back to you? I need another cup of coffee. Blah, blah, blah... OK. Bike slows down. Period. Closed system, more resistance. End of story. But, but, but... Radius of the wheel decreases. RPM's rise. Wheel speed increases. But that's a smaller wheel. The speedo is no longer accurate. Frictional resistance increases. Total energy input remains consistent. Total output decreases. But, effectively, the gyroscopic effect of the wheels will induce anti-gravity so the mass of the bike is actually reduced..... Just kidding...gotcha.

Yeah, like I said, figuring I knew what he was after, those were about the conditions I would assume. Though, being that Cobie's question didn't specify any specific type of answer, he might jump on you for specifying speed....as that sort of gives an inherent hint. And now the mea culpa... I had decided the appropriate thing to do was to go directly to Cobie by sending him an email or pm with my query, and then, as I was responding to someone else, thotlessly stuck it in there in what I thot at that moment would be sort of, je ne sais quoi, oblique without being sideways or something, perhaps, but in hindsight it feels icky. I think it was a real breach of manners if not protocol. Whether he has an issue with it or not, I do. So... Sorry Cobie. That was real backhanded of me and I apologize. Anyway... Hey Woody. Nice pic. See, I KNEW you were yankin on me. I might as well apologize to you too while I'm here. Perfect timing. I get to be the jerk of the hour. Speight's on me all around boys. Just call me a piss head Kiwi at heart. Yeah, like I said before, I still be a workin' on them thar people skills thangs. sometimes it seems like no matter how hard I try, I can't help being a bull in a china shop. But I do try. Bloody hell but i try. My face is red and I am laughing at me. Yeah, how bout the infinite radius of that virtual wall...I think I just walked into it and spilled my beverage. DOH! I'm outta here. I have to go home and rethink my life. g'nite my friends.

Hey there Woody, Don't know if you are still out there, but... I was going back over some of this thread and came across a couple things I didn't respond to before. I'm trying to figure out what you mean by a difference in braking because of positive inputs. And I think I'm getting a handle on that...but you tell me. You mentioned before about brakes slowing the wheels and that being different than just decelerating. Well, it is different. In that the contact patch is certainly being stressed more. Not only is it being affected by the lateral cornering forces, but, the brakes are trying to make it lock and skid as well. So, yeah. It definitely puts more stress on that contact patch. However, in terms of weight distribution or bias, deceleration is deceleration. It's not the brakes or the fact that the wheel is being acted upon, it's that the whole deal is decelerating by whatever force that makes the weight want to keep going forward. I don't know if that helps. And I don't know for sure if you were kidding about the trike or not. But if you are trying to relate this info to a three wheeled vehicle, I can see where there would be some difficulty in applying it. Now, I'm not sure about the infinite radius thing being a vertical wall...the more I think about it the more my head hurts. But if you locked the steering head, and had infinitely sticky tires, sure, you could stand it on the front wheel with cornering force. IN fact, I believe there is a model gear train like those euro mountain climbing deals in switzerland, cog wheel i think they call it and this model actually did stand and flip in just that sort of scenario. The cog wheels being essentially infinite grip...if that helps...??? Or even if it was just a silly question with a silly answer... As far as how many folks have done the constant throttle scenario, it's sort of hard to tell from the way Cobie asks his question just what he means by constant throttle and there are several conditions which are unclear... Is the road level? Are we on a race course or a public road? Like are we doing turn one at Brainerd? The dogleg at Daytona? The exit of the chicane at Daytona heading up onto the banking? The bend as you peel over the top into the gravity cavity at Road Atlanta? All constant throttle but...not quite the same with elevation changes creating wide variables I can't begin to deal with in terms of weight bias. Or are we leaning it into a bend on the interstate while cruising at a constant velocity of say 75 mph? Thinking I know what he is looking for, I would assume the level interstate scenario as this would make the most sense. In which case, I think most folks have done that lots. So, what's to do on vaca in Tasmania?

Yeah, what he said. I'm not after what makes a bike "handle well" as that can be subjective. I have a specific goal of working toward answering bozdijar's question of relating turn in speed to c/g. And, at bozdijar's unfortunate expense, choosing to sort it all out myself without any books, and doing that in a public forum. And enlisting the discourse of others along the way. Without going further into why I choose to do this when I can easily find the information without a library card is another matter of a personal nature. I imagine, in addition to my personal goals, this entire process might be very interesting from an educator's point of view, or, how shall I say, someone interested in how a particular mind works or how the process of communication might be analyzed and/or improved. Or how to go about finding the source of a misconception and then custom tailoring the effort to bridge the gap, so to speak...

Yeah, my intuition keeps telling me the front axle is the deflection point and that the rest flows from that somehow, but im not quite ready to rectify that with the mass issue vs roll center unless of course moving the rider off the bike lowers the roll center....hmmmm... but im trying to get there with some kind of reasoning instead of what just feels right. its kinda like working backwards for me and filling in the gaps that a real scientist or engineer gets to step by step which has the advantage of being backed up by proof. but, i once said that you can do it without math...so, im trying not to eat my words...or choke on them... and thanks for your input. i agree that the fulcrum is the key. nothing personal about the analogy thing, my point was things i can reproduce in reality. I really can juggle the hammer. but i have a hard time with pretending there's no atmosphere , or actually performing an imaginary experiment to prove a theory. and no, i cant kick the wheels out from under a bike, but that was my whole point. (albeit a bit cheeky) and i think i can perform the kick the sledge thing with a stiff pair of boots and a light sledge. i was getting confused with the sledge on top of the hammer and i felt that the handle alone would be better to illustrate the length of the lever...separating it from the mass issue for a minute. and i tried to put that analogy in M1's voice and then use my own example of real bikes...125 vs zx10. but...ill allow that i may need to use an imaginary one if youll accept that only a govt scientist with access to avaccuum chamber can perform the merry go round and even then, to balance the stick while the thing is moving would be a superhuman feat to start with...or we can move on as if... and i think you can tell that im thinking a bit beyond what im on about...not because i dont want to be wrong, tho i dont wanna be any wronger than i have to be, haha...i dont want to confuse the issue any further than necessary or have to backtrack and undo a whole line of thot, which im already doing. but better to sort one thing for certain in my mind then move on. btw being wrong is good thing in my book. beginning of all learning. Why would i want to step in the ring with someone whocouldnt beat me? what would be the point? winning? what does that teach you? what does one learn from the easy path? or a soft comfortable life? be a friend and fight me. give me your best. (or play chess) show me my weak spots where i need to improve...but i digress... anyway, nice hint with the 'ankle'. cheers

I guess my main hitch is that it still feels like a running man tripping and "falling flat on his face". Like there's a fulcrum at the feet and his momentum is what slams him down. Even if he was running on the ceiling with gravity boots he would still "fall" up. N'est-ce pas? As long as forward momentum/mass/inertia was enough to overcome gravity. So, some math might be handy there. But to turn that around for the bike that isn't on the ceiling... Actually, it might be more like the running back or soccer player who plants his foot to initiate direction change... And, frankly, I don't think the wheels deflect nearly as much as the top of the bike. But that's a perception as a rider. Not an observation from head on...so...??? In any case, yeah, I'm thinking about the steering head thing and how rake plays in with that hinge and what lever effect might be happening there,and, still thinking about gyro precession effect and the gravity component...but still trying to gut it out so to speak intuitively in my head...but at the end...I'm afraid I might have to draw diagrams and calculations. But like circuit analysis, i keep thinking i can get a grip on one system of vectors at a time in my head... And then integrate, if i could just nail down the most important system or anchor to work from, but the whole bloody thing is in motion!!! Which still feels like the key to me. inertia of momentum. so, i'm working from the assumption that everything else will be less than that. ass u me... Are you SURE about the turn left thing about speedways? I know Johnny Stock Car is used to turning left but as a professional, i think he could handle turning right...although, most of those boys have some difficulty at road courses, i think it might have as much to do with setting up the suspension ...I mean, seriously...I can see the left turn issue for bike riders but...in a four wheel vehicle, you don't have to freak out about lean angle vs traction or anything...no, i cant buy that. i remember the feeling of being uncomfortable in right turns on a bike...and i never felt that in a car, even on track. What does precession do to a car with an engine mounted front to back with a crankshaft spinning one way ...or another? I realize we're about bikes, and the crank in a car is a lot heavier but is a BMW bike any different to ride tha a bike with a horizontally mounted engine? I know you don't believe in gyroscopes like i don't believe in gravity, M1, but....humor me...

OK, I hd some time to think about this more and... I think I get what M1 is saying about the short handle deal... With a short handle, M1 says it takes less movement of the bars to accomplish the same lean angle. I've been thinking in terms of time so, from that standpoint... I believe it would take less time of holding pressure on the bars to move a shorter arm to the same angle. hence, the hand balancing the handle analogy. whereby the hand balancing the shorter handle moves less distance to unbalance or rebalance the handle based on how long it is. The distance is a function of the length of the handle as I said before, and dueo the less distance traveled would take less time with the equivilant "movement of the bars" as M1 puts it. So, a shorter 125 GP bike flicks faster than ZX10. But, does that mean if you lower the cm of a ZX10 it will flick faster?

OK... How about this... What if... there's so bloody much energy bound up in the mass/momentum/inertia of a mc at speed that the length of the arm it has to act on to initiate turn in is practically irrelevant. Like smashing a bug with a sledgehammer, it really doesn't matter how long the handle is. There's more than enough to get the job done no matter how long the moment arm is. Unlike a car that has a wide base, the bike is relatively inherently unstable and compared to the resevoir of energy available requires very little to knock it over. The only issue is how fast. And...at the end of the day, what if the centralization of mass might be the defining parameter for turn in speed. Being that the cm is basically in the middle of the bike and everyone seems to think the wheels deflect yet seems to think of the top leaning over...might it be that like a spinning ice skater turned horizontally that there are TWO moment arms to work with and the center of roll is the fulcrum? Initiating the turn is one thing. Once the energy is fed in, the speed then generated is another. Like the skater approaching the jumping spin, the arms are extended and wound up to help initiate the spin and lift off then brought in for speed? So, the longer the arms, the less effort needed to initiate spin. But the slower the roll/spin will be. The shorter the arm(s), the more effort needed to initiate spin. But the faster the mass will roll/spin. The closer the cm is to cr, effectively speaking, the shorter the arm(s) will be. Then again, maybe there's just one arm and the shorter it is, the faster the spin, and, the longer it is, the easier to turn. And the cr is the fulcrum and the closer cm is to cr...it still works faster. Like spinning a propeller by grabbing one end and pulling? As long as the prop is well balanced and mounted at the cm...it will be the most efficient. Hmmm....sounds ok. So...if a human in racing gear weighs between 150-200 lbs and an engine weighs in the same neighborhood..where is the center of mass? Where is the bulk of engine weight? Pretty low on the machine if you ask me. And if the rider is above the engine, then the cm is very much in between them. Especially when the human is low and long. Hmmm...still sounds ok. So...where is the force applied? Is any applied at the top? Or the center? Or just at the patch? Hmmm... Time for bed. as for precession...ive done some reading and it seems to confirm what ive been thinking. but until i study up on it all, i'm gonna let it lie. hey, why do stock cars and sprint cars run speedways counterclockwise????? huh! sprint cars, now why didn't i think of that before. talk about getting airborne and flipping/spinning...ive seen them do a complete 360 in mid air and come back down on the wheels. everything i say might be completely wrong.....

I'm really getting confused... "It's inertia that causes the initial "snap" in of lean angle. A high CG will facilitate this." "a bike with a low CG will require less movement of the bars to affect change to it's state to either remove it from or return it to equilibrium." These would seem to be contradictory statements. But maybe it's apples and oranges... "The height of the CM is effectively defining the length of the lever arm that we use to make this happen. The lever arm would be defined as the distance between the tire patch (where we are exerting force) and the CM." If we are exerting force at the tire patch and that is like the end of your sledge handle, and the sledge handle or tire patch is moving out form under the sledge or cm... then where is the fulcrum of that lever? How much of a bike's mass is in the motor? how much of the motor's mass is in the crankshaft and flywheel? With a human low and long as recommended by the experts for turn in/cornering....just where do you figure the cm to be? Up high on top like a sledgehammer balanced on the end of its handle? Really? "the further away from the CM that our tire patches are, the easier it is to initiate lean angle." I agree with tzrider who said something about easier not being the same as faster. Hint: If the ice skater pulls in their arms they spin faster. Think of a hammer with two handles.

OK. As usual, I have only a moment... Re: #3 previous... I kinda combined the two things. So, I'll try to separate... Trail helps to keep the wheel in line with the rear while the bike is upright and rolling forward. Hence, going straight, but, the key is upright. Why does a ghost bike start to lean over while it is still in motion? Countersteering is accomplished by the application of an "unbalanced" force In physics language, meaning, there is nothing to balance that force. So...what force pushes the bike over? And Why when it slows? But long before it stops? If it was just forward momnetum, the bike could lean over at any time. Or another way to look at it...why doesnt the bike come to a halt and just fall over? What unbalances the equilibrium? And if it is gravity, we know gravity hasn't changed, so what has changed? What force has been removed to unbalance gravity? If it was the 'trail effect' that was keeping the bike upright, then the thing would be flopping constantly, as the wheel has to deflect to then 'steer it back up' as you say. But doesn't the trail effect keep the wheel in equilibrium unless you push on it? isn't trail what stops a tank slapper? if i let go of the bars during a tank slapper, the slapping stops. it's my weight on the bars that amplifies it, it's gyroscopic effect and trail that dampen it or smooth it out. i've watched mc's ghost for like a quarter mile perfectly straight...not a twitch. in fact one incident at loudon with an rz350 whose rider got sucked off by the wall onthe front straight and continued all the way down to the starter and ran him over and then continued on. here's to louie. he lived. by the way, i dont think ive ever seen a ghost bike lever itself back up. or go tank slapping. all the ones ive seen sort of gently curve out, no 'trail effect' pushing them back up. dont you have to countersteer a bike back up by pushing on the bars? and frankly the more i think about it...it doesn't even make sense. as the bike falls over the trail effect would put the wheel into equilibrium and continue to do so as the bike leaned over more. and unless something disrupted that equilibrium, the bike would continue to curve gently down like all the ones ive seen. steering damper? hmmm... how many ghost bikes have you seen steer themselves back up? I'm gonna leave it there. By no means do i have all the answers but i'm pretty sure about this one. Try the experiment i mentioned earlier with a wheel on an axle in your hands...even a bicycle wheel will work. The faster it goes the more it will resist any attempt to move it about. Which also leads to the precession effect, but...i'm getting ahead of myself. And about the hammer thing... For now, I'll say this about examples, analogies and experiments. I prefer to keep it real. I try to use examples of things that closely mimic the force vectors of a bike in motion. In reality. I try to keep the abstraction to a minimum because frankly, it aint real. I cant reproduce it. Forgive me tzrider, i think your self esteem canhandle being an example..."imagine being able to balance a yardstick on your finger on a merry go round and then imagine theres no atmosphere on earth and then imagine what might happen..." Riiight. Hence, I use the car flipping thing, or the ice skater,or the gyro in your hand...things I or someone can demonstrate in real life. I mean, we're already abstracting an abstraction of an abstraction to have this conversation... So, i get where you're going with the hammer thing, but, it's precisely for the reason I say above that i think it's not accurate and I'm going to continue to pick it apart any way I can. And frankly, i'd really appreciate it if you'd do the same for me. I don't have this clearly sorted and to go to some book and read the answer takes the fun out of it for me. As does quoting someone else because they are published. Thats even worse to me. So in that spirit, i've asked a slew of direct questions that you haven't answered. Because i say so twice doesn't cut it any more than repeating yourself louder... cheers

OK. I'm not sure where to start with all of this. So, I'll go in order of M1's comments... 1. I agree that precession is not what keeps a ghost bike up. Not to be defensive, but, I never meant to imply that it was. 2. The action you describe by the rake/trail catching the bike sounds like a tank slapper to me. Or the action that initiates a bike countersteering back up frm a lean. But not what keeps a ghost bike up. 3. The stabilizing effect of the gyroscopic action of the wheels combined with the trail of the front axle IS what keeps a ghost bike or any bike balanced and traveling in a straight line. Until the bike slows and the gyro effect diminishes enuf for gravity to overcome it and pull the bike off balance... As for the sledgehammer... Um...yeah. And if I stand next to a stationary bike and kick the wheels out from under it, breaking my toes, the bike will fall over like a sledgehammer. I guess. And...? The mass distribution of a motorcycle and rider is nothing like a sledgehammer. And I'm not sure what you are trying to imply with this analogy. Though, funny you should mention hammers as I'm learning to juggle...hammers...spinning hammers that is. I'm wondering how far that handle will go before the sledge hits the ground. Will it get horizontal? Vertical? Will it SPIN around the center of mass past vertical and horizontal again before it hits the ground if you kick it hard enuf? You brought up center of roll in a previous post and I asked you where that was. You never answered. So I repeat the question. And... What if the hammer had two handles? Wouldn't this be more like the mass distribution of a bike and rider? (Or an ice skater turned horizontal?) Why will a high c/g facilitate "the initial 'snap in' of lean angle"? And what are you implying with the word "initial"? A secondary action of some sort? I mean, once the bike is leaned, what else is there? Where is the fulcrum for the lever in your analogy if the contact patch is the handle of the sledge? I've postulated that gravity assists or directs or has some effect...but... What falls faster...a short handle or a long handle? What falls faster...a 5 lb sledge or a 10 lb sledge with the same length handle? Hint: Nothing falls faster. Acceleration due to gravity is a constant. Hence, if the short handle hits the ground sooner, it's because it has less distance to travel. And vice versa on the balancing trick. Not sure of the relevance of that analogy either. Are you implying that the distance your hand travels is somehow related to inertia? I don't get it. Or is it about the lean angle thing vs c/g? Well, what if the hammer has two handles? What if you have a slap hammer and you secure the weight at different points along the slide? I still don't get it. Five degres is five degrees is five degrees. The distance your hand travels is related to the physical length of the handle. Nothing else. Mass is irrelevant. I have to stop here now. Lunch is over. As for the c/g vs lean angle thing, tzrider has done some research on that...I'm not there yet. Cheers.

Also... I think it takes time for gravity to accelerate a falling object. Far more time than can be accounted for in the, what, half a second it takes a fast racer to flick a bike in? I know there's a s/s*2 formula for acceleration due to gravity. I don't have it handy but...again, my gut says there ain't enuf time to accelerate the bike's "falling" momentum with gravity. I also think there is literally tonnes of energy bound up in the foward momentum of the bike and its inertia. So, that feels like the likely force to be tapped for a quick flick. Like I said before, a ghost bike has to practically stop before gravity overcomes the gyroscopic effects of the wheels and makes it fall down, and when it does tip it seems pretty slow to me, so how much does gravity do to overcome the gyroscopic effects of the wheels of a bike traveling say 40 mph or 90 mph??? One reason I want to read up on gyros is the idea of gyroscopic precession having something to do with this process. But I can't say now.

Sorry, does that mean purpose built race bikes are not eligible or should have their own category... I swear I'm not trying to be difficult. Just wanna follow the rules... Ok anyway, I'd say "The Best Handling Bike" I've ridden that wasn't strictly a purpose built race bike would probably be an RZ350. Now that's based strictly on fun around town and the twisties. Light weight, emminently flickable and just plain fun. In its day it was a nice power to weight ratio for the street. I put about 50,000 highway miles on an 85 GPz 750 that was good cause the bars were high, longer wheelbase, and 18 inch wheels giving good stability on the highway. yet maintaining that sporty feel. also i could lie down on the tank bag and drape my feet over the rear pegs and cruise at 110mph for hours. and still be able to change lanes or run an off ramp in a hurry. also good for accidental downshift wheelies changing lanes in manhattan traffic or lane splitting the LIE. (495) I rode and raced an FZR400 that was pretty much the cat's meow for four stokes in its day. Though is a bit piggy these days. At least compared to my RS125's. (2 stroke factory roadrace gp bike in case you dont know) Which for all out handling and nothing but handling...well...i don't think anything compares to that level of flickability and corner speed. For ultimate handling in the flickable sense...light weight is the key for me. Honda RS125 RR (A-kit, please) However, I haven't ridden anything four stroke or on the street at all since 1993...so...I hear things have come a long way.

wow. yeah, you never told us about the semi either... actually, i hate to say this, the image is kinda hilarious the way you describe it. (pavement, head in trailer, pavement, wheels) reminds me of the highside description we hear at the track...all i saw was sky, ground, sky, ground, sky....as one who has been there...i'm, um, laughing. really glad you're alive to tell funny stories about it and brush it off. i refuse to hand out marital advice on a mc website, but speaking from experience...um, i don't think that story will help your cause come spring when you try to explain that you are going to spend thousands of dollars to go ride SUPER FAST on a BIG RACETRACK because it's so much safer than the street. well, then again, maybe it would help. but weighing the value of telling now against being the bad guy for hiding it if you wait til spring....double bind. you're on your own mate. i do manage to convince most people that tracks are safer than the street because: 1. everyone is going the same direction. 2. everyone has gone to school and been tested and supposedly has a good grip on what we are doing. 3. it is a closed course. no little old ladies crossing the street in front of you or semi trucks parked on the curb. no mailboxes to hit if you run off course. (my favorite street target) 4. it is a controlled environment where nothing changes from lap to lap. and when something does change, there are flaggers to communicate the type and severity of change before you get there. 5. all machines must pass strict tech inspection each time. and are safety wired for most anything that can fall off or leak. 6. and, of course, if you do fall down hard enuf to say ow, there are generally at least two ambulances, paramedic emt's and maybe even a helicopter on site no more than 30 seconds away. etc. though i still get the family members who look askance at me like i'm trying to justify/rationalize a death wish or think of racing as something akin to drug addiction. "wow. must really be a big RUSH going so fast." (you might as well b sniffing glue) well...yes and no. not really in the way one might think. on the one hand, yes, the first time irode a ninja w keith at watkins glen (bloody fast track) wiht no chicane back in those days, i nearly collapsed after my first session i was shaking so hard from adrenalin. indeed, taking a few fast corners on your favorite backroad doesn't even begin to prepare one for the experience of trying to go AS FAST AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN, AS CLOSE TO CRASHING AS YOU POSSIBLY CAN BRING YOURSELF FOR SAY 30 MINUTES. However, just like driving the interstate for the first time, that feeling goes away and you get used to the speed. it becomes normal. i remember the first time i drove at 55mph it felt like warp speed. after a while i was cruising at 85 like nothing. right? slow down to 55 and it feels like you can hop out and jog next to the car. anyway, the rush for me now is the attempt at perfection or the high of getting it right and knockng tenths of a second off my laptimes. about the same high i get playing a beethoven sonata on the piano. anyhow, i don't know what that has to do with the price of tea in china but...i felt like a little ramble.

Do you mean "road bikes" as opposed to dirt bikes? Or "road bikes" as opposed to purpose built race bikes? ie. RS,TZ, etc.

Howdy all. Kalkat's equation was first stated and explained by him in "rule #1" started by scarabrae. if you click on a member's name and click on profile options you will be able to choose "find posts" or "find topics" and see all posts and topics started by that memeber. it took me awhile to find that option again after the site software was upgraded last month. anyway, quickly, here. the merry go round example is a demonstration of centrifugal effect. not gyroscopic effects. and a better experiment would be to hold the bloody yardstick in your hand at the edge and let go. what happens to the yardstick? does it move outward perpendicular to the merry goround? i thinknot. I think it will move like a baseball thrown from a pitcher tangentially to the angular moment. a merry go round is a turntable with a permanantly fixed (we hope) axle. hold a mc wheel on an axle and spin the wheel. even at the weak speed of 5-10 mph i can generate with my bare hand, i can feel the wheel resisting my effort to move it about. THAT is gyroscopic effect. and it increases greatly at speed. hence why it is more difficult to turn in a mc the faster you go. and hence why a motorcycle does not need a rider to balance at speed. i must apologize for previously interchanging certain words like momentum and inertia. also talking of turning speed, i mean the speed at which you can make the bike turn in. or lean in. or roll in. or flick. NOT cornerspeed. now, there are two issues at question posed by bozdijar. 1. lean angle vs c/g . 2. speed at which bike turns in vs c/g. my concern or interest is about the idea that gravity is responsible for the speed at which a bike turns in. i believe when you yank on the handlebars or lightly push on them, that action determines the momentum at which the bike leans over. hence something other than gravity is responsible for the speed at which a bike turns in. and if moving the engine up in the frame helps that, it is not because gravity has a bigger lever. yes, once the bike starts to tip and then the more it tips, the more gravity will have an effect. and it would seem that gravity would direct the action downward, as lateral g's direct it upward, once you unbalance the equation by countersteering, but i think that component of acceleration due to gravity/lateral g is very much secondary to the momentum generated by the act of countersteering. again, this about the SPEED at which a bike turns in. that is what i'm on about. think of a car rolling over when you yank the steering wheel. yes, it will lean over, just takes more force because it is wide and has four wheels and more stable. a car that rolls when it fails to negotiate a turn is experiencing the same force that rolls a bike. momentum/inertia. not gravity. in fact it is gravity that fights the car flipping as it has a long lever from the width of the car. but the force from momentum and inertia will overcome that. yes, a lower car is more stable. lower c/g = less lever for inertia. anyway, that's all for now. hope i do more to clarify than to confuse.

wow. thanks tz. i regret i don't have the time i wish to devote to this so please forgive me. maybe later today. istarted writing but way too muddy. need sleep now and in pain from broken toe. very distracting. ow.