racer

In that situation, I will complete most of my braking before executing my downshifts. Normally, I wait until the last possible moment before downshifting. In a racing situation, I would time my braking to end at my turn point so I let off the brakes and immediately turn having already completed my downshifts. OK. You still downshift one gear at a time? What gears would you typically be going down through? In my case I was typically going from 4th to 2nd, but I've lost track so then I worry (spend attention $) that I'm not going into 1st or neutral. I've been watching the races on TV and it seems they click 2-3 gears at once (in one clutch pull). Ok, for racing, we change our sprockets to be at (or near) redline in sixth (or top) gear at the end of the longest straight so as to utilize all the available power the engine has. So, at the end of a long straight, I am typically in top gear. To reiterate, I downshift while braking, but, I get most of the braking done before downshifting so as to get the revs down and not lock the rear wheel. It also cuts down on engine braking which I prefer to avoid. So, for a typical corner like Mid-Ohio T5, I'll be in sixth gear and bang about 3-4 downshifts in about 1 to 1.5 seconds. Lastly, I (and Valentino Rossi) downshift one gear at a time using the clutch and blipping for every gear. Check out Japan MotoGP at Motegi and you can see Val clutching multiple times for multiple downshifts.

Fabricate a bracket to relocate your master cylinder.

I don't know any racers who do that. I recall someone who said that Keith talked about setting the idle up as a "trick" or technique or something, but, the thing is, when I am riding on the track, my RPM's never fall below about 8000-9000 RPM. So... why bother? I suppose that if a rider/racer missed a shift or made some other mistake that put them in a situation where their RPM's fell that low (ie. below the torque band) which might cause the sort of poor carburetion/injection characteristic you speak of, I suppose it might be helpful to have the idle set up so the motor didn't fall below a speed where it makes usable power. I just don't know anyone who does it. As far as the typical on/off the gas lash transition you mention, there are many things that can cause sloppiness in the drive train and a delay between forward lash and back lash making it difficult to handle; but, doing things like keeping your chain/sprockets fresh and adjusted properly; and your cush drive fresh; and your throttle cable adjusted; and your rear shock linkage, shock mounts and swingarm bushings well lubed and tight; and your carb/injection map optimized, etc, etc should eliminate the bulk of that delay and sloppiness in the drive train and smooth out the transition between lash modes. However, there is always going to be a degree of lash transition and learning the throttle control to handle that is part of the skill set. r

In hindsight, I should have added "Off Brakes" between "Look" and "Steer".

Hi Derek, "Quick flick" refers to the steering action alone. It means using really positive effort at the handlebars to countersteer the bike and lean it over quickly rather than being lazy about it and just sort of leaning into the turn. Ideally, I am back on the gas well before the apex of a turn. racer

I see what you mean. That is a potentially confusing statement and probably could have been written better. I would say that the "transition" Keith is speaking of is from 'off' throttle to 'on' throttle. Not from straight line to leaned over. But, I will let Keith speak for himself. #4 is the statement you're looking for "4. Reducing the lag between off brakes and on gas. The moment you release the brake there will be a lag as you orient yourself to the speed you have. Focusing on that lag can shorten it." I made a little ditty for myself. Here's the expanded version: Off gas, Brake and shift, Look, Gas, Steer, Roll out. IMHO the gap Keith refers to is in my "look". Try this ditty: Off gas, Brake and shift, Look, Steer, Roll on. The gap is between Steer and Roll on.

I see what you mean. That is a potentially confusing statement and probably could have been written better. I would say that the "transition" Keith is speaking of is from 'off' throttle to 'on' throttle. Not from straight line to leaned over. But, I will let Keith speak for himself.

Nobody said to coast into a corner, Hub. When riding fast enough that you need to brake for a corner, the throttle is off while braking. Right? Then you let off the brake to countersteer the bike and execute a quick turn. Then you get back on the throttle. That is the standard procedure. Ignore it at your own risk.

You said you haven't taken a CSS school. That is what I am saying you need to do. Track riding without it is pointless at best and dangerous to yourself and others at worst. I never said that I didn't have formalized training, just wasn't CSS. Thank you for the advice but the point of my posting that wasn't to personalize. I think you know that I have a lot of respect for you, but I'd appreciate if we stick to debating the merits/demerits of the ideas and not the credentials of the speaker. ? No idea what you are on about. With all due respect, I was simply clarifying what I meant as you apparently misunderstood and put words in my mouth that were not mine. No offense taken. That said, whatever training you have is clearly not as good as CSS. Call it my opinion, I've taken most all the other schools and worked for two of them. Not even in the same league.

You said you haven't taken a CSS school. That is what I am saying you need to do. Track riding without it is pointless at best and dangerous to yourself and others at worst.

In that situation, I will complete most of my braking before executing my downshifts. Normally, I wait until the last possible moment before downshifting. In a racing situation, I would time my braking to end at my turn point so I let off the brakes and immediately turn having already completed my downshifts.

Hey TOC, Thumbs up, mate. Congratulations on a successful day. Glad to hear you are planning to do Level II. Good decision. Funny... you didn't mention doing a track day first. I had a feeling that might happen racer

I think you've established yourself around here as more than "just some guy on the internet". Just my opinion. Thanks. This has been my habit and I've been trying to train it out of myself. Are you now saying that I was making the correct control inputs all along? (error...not processing...error Will Robinson) What has been your habit? I'd like to quote Keith Code in saying, "It doesn't matter what you ride or where you ride, the principles remain the same" Yes, the principles remain the same. A priniciple is something from which specific techniques are derived and applied to fit a specific situation. So, although a principle remains consistent, specific conditions and/or specific goals do not remain consistent. Hence, a specific technique and/or its application does not remain consistent either. They are custom tailored to fit a specific condition or circumstance to achieve a specific goal. Look, whether one is talking about riding motorcycles or almost anything else in life, one cannot simply operate from a standard recipe of rote answers. Like anything, there is no single answer for all possible cirumstances and trying to operate from a set of rote rules will fall short at best and get you into trouble at worst. One must understand the principles and learn to think for oneself to effectively act in any given circumstance. Yes, it works perfectly well when you are riding at a relatively relaxed pace, rolling into a soft curve on the highway or a backroad somewhere where say you don't need to alter your speed to negotiate the corner. The principles are the same. The specific goals, techniques derived and their application are not. Right.... IMO, you really need to do that. At the end of the day, even reading the books is not really enough. To quote one of my mentors, "Naming is not knowing". You can't merely intellectualize about a complex physical process without real world experience and expect success. Reading a book about building engines is not the same as building an engine. Reading and talking about high performance riding and actually doing it are not the same thing. I believe that if you get yourself to a CSS school and spend some time on track, you will understand the difference and what I am talking about better. No. The goal of the "No Brakes" drill is to help develop one's sense of speed and to help to break a rider's habit of "comfort braking" as Andy Ibbot puts it. "Comfort braking" is the unconscious habit of touching the brakes even when you KNOW you don't need to. Your body just feels better, more secure or "comfortable" doing it. Standard Throttle Control is clearly explained in TOTW II. I don't have a copy handy to quote with page numbers, but, it doesn't say to use "maintenance throttle" when turning in. It does say to get back on the throttle as soon as possible and to smoothly roll on the throttle through the rest of the turn without rolling on and off. r

Sorry, Jay, I was short on time and there were several posts that all seemed to be saying the same wrong thing. Forgive me, I just didn't feel like getting into an argument with three people at once. And there's no sense arguing from a position of being "just some guy" on the internet, so, I referred the subject to someone you will believe, namely Keith Code. The bottom line is that closing the throttle puts weight on the front tire to allow you to quick turn the bike. The only type of corner where I will still be in the throttle when I make a steering input is a relatively shallow high speed kink or sweeper where I can't really quick turn anyway and maintaining a balanced suspension is more important to carrying speed through the entry than quick turning the bike. That said, for "normal" commuting type riding or riding some country road at a relaxed pace, one doesn't really need to "quick turn" the bike and being in the throttle when you bend into a lazy turn is normal. The truth is I quit riding on the street in 1993 and tend to think of everything in terms of high performace riding or racing which requires specific skills and techniques that, while useful in emergency situations on the street, aren't really the norm.

Taking a seminar sounds like a good idea. I could certainly stand to learn more about the subject myself. Unfortunately, suspension is one area where I know just enough to make adjustments for riding conditions to a suspension that is, in theory, already set-up to a proper baseline, ie. I rely on an expert to tell me the correct spring for my weight, machine and type of riding.

Hey guys, You can pick up a copy of A Twist of the Wrist and Keith's other books/videos here: https://secure.echoalley.com/superbikeschool/store/ For what it's worth, I've been riding for thirty years and raced for ten years winning so many trophies I only keep the national podium finishes on display anymore, and keep the rest in several boxes in the attic. Everything I learned to let me win all those trophies is in Keith's books. Good luck, racer

So I should be able to reduce preload a both ends, thereby giving me more overall height while maintaining geometry? I'm not sure I quite follow what you mean here, Jay. You should set your pre-load according to your shock travel, typically between 3/4"-1.25" of sag depending on what kind of riding you are doing. However, as I understand it, the more you pre-load the spring, the more ride height you will gain as you are basically extending the shock to compress the spring. So, when you sit on the bike, the spring compresses to the same place it always does, but the cshock is now less compressed and you are further from bottoming out. But closer to topping out. As I understand it, the proper length spring with no preload at 1" sag should give the maximum amount of headroom in either direction. It does seem logical to me to choose a spring that is soft enough to absorb the bumps with your body weight and that that spring rate will vary from one machine to another as the machine itself varies in weight. And, at the end of the day, the amount the spring needs to be pre-loaded will be a secondary function of the proper spring rate. Of course other details like the geometry will also affect how the suspension reacts. That is why I said "from a parametric point of view". In other words, merely considering the parameters or measurements we were discussing, namely the range of travel and the topping out/bottom out. I don't konw, Jay. You're the one with the Dave Moss book. And I'm certainly no expert on the subject. What is this business with the swingarm angle?

yes, Jay. You are right. I didn't mean a measured half, simply the point that allows enough head room in each direction so as to not top out or bottom out when riding. As for choosing a spring, it can be something of a personal preference which can vary with riding type, style and/or conditions. Choosing one that allows the minimum amount of pre-load necesary to capture the spring is one philosophy that I've found to be common. I'm sure there are others.

Yep. You got it. Once you reach the desired lean angle, stop pushing on the inside bar and smoothly roll on the throttle.

Ride height is about adjusting the overall geometry of the frame and steering head. Pre-load, or more properly SAG, is about your "Q-point" or the place where your suspension lives without being acted upon by outside forces, ie. bumps in the road. Pre-loading your spring is setting the level where the shock (compressed only by your butt) lives between the bump stops (top and bottom) of your shock absorber by extending the shock more or less. Oddly enough, pre-loading the spring has nothing to do with the spring. The spring is the spring and will compress the same amount to the same point when you sit on it no matter how much you pre-load it. It doesn't make your suspension stiffer or harder. So, you can pre-load and compress the spring to the same point as it would when you sit on it and there will be no sag. Or you can use less preload such that when you sit on it, the bike sags a lot. Your butt is still sitting at the same compression point on the spring no matter what you do. In reality, what you are doing is extending and compressing the shock. The bottom line is that you want the shock to be in the middle of its range when you sit on the bike so it doesn't bottom out or top out when you hit bumps in the road because that causes the tire to lose traction or even contact with the road because it can't move any further to absorb the bumps. So, the more you have to pre-load the spring to get the right sag, the closer to binding the spring you are, the less potential movement the spring has. Ultimately, a straight rate spring reacts the same to the same forces no matter how far it is compressed, hence, a spring that is too soft at the top of the range is still too soft at the bottom. The more you have to pre-load the spring to not bottom out, the closer you get to topping out. The more you can stay away from either, the better off you are, the more ptoential your suspension has to absorb bumps, the more adjustability you have to fine tune things, the less you need to use damping to make up for soft spring and use it for what it is intended for and... the less you need to pre-load the spring to get the right sag, the less you alter ride height or the geometry of the bike. So, ultimately, from a parametric point of view, no preload is best. What does Dave Moss say about it?

Understanding the purpose and function of the transmission definitely helps to understand the how and why of the process. Why we shift gears: In a nutshell, by reducing the diameter of the final driven gear (or sprocket), or increasing the diameter of the drive gear, such that the ratio of the input to the output grows smaller, or, the ratio of the output to input grows larger... you get more revolutions on the driven side, read rear wheel. When you accelerate in first gear, you eventually reach a road speed where the motor can't go any faster without blowing up. This is called "redline" and is indicated on your tachometer rpm's by a red line that says, "Go no further, beyond here be dragons... ...and little bits and pieces of motor strewn over the road". So there you are, fingers in ears, with your motor screaming redline at 38 mph: WAAAAAAAHHHH (stop daddy it hurts)... "Oh lord, what to do, what to do... ?" Enter Leo DaVinci and friends with the best thing since the sorcerer's stone or magical sword to slay dragons: the transmission... which, by shifting to second gear, non-magically alters the ratio between input and putput such that the motor rpms are lower at the same road speed and you get to start all over again. Now you are well below redline at 38 mph and can make the motor go faster again, hence, making the bike go faster. So, the higher the gear choice, the lower your rpm for the same road speed. The basic concept: A small wheel turns four times to turn a big wheel once. Make the small wheel twice as big and the same rotations will turn the big wheel twice as fast. Or half the rotations will turn the big wheel the same speed.

What exactly was the mechanical probelm?

If you have the ability to adjust ride height directly, then do so. You don't want to compromise your top out/bottom out head room by adjusting pre-load for ride height. Adjust pre-load to keep yourself centered in the travel and leave it there (except two up).

That sounds like a good exercise.

Post removed in the sober light of a new day.