636rider

Hi dbtriple, you may want to make sure your leather is good fit---(especially the pant not baggy, 1 piece leather is highly recommanded and a must for me at drills). it will help you hangoff with 1 leg locking the bike with ease-- and the inner foot off the inner peg, and with both hands completely off the handlebar at same time. You will find this exercise helpful at level 3, especially in the hook turn drill. You will have fun and new skills at level3.

For cornering, my priority of importance of skills: On track: Know the machine----------------with scuffed in, warm-up tires. Even Rossi will have problem if his machine is not right. Understanding Countersteering---very important, should not allowed to ride if not knowing this. Body position, so not putting weight on handle bar, and hangoff with 1 leg lock---- even rider does not know how to ride, the bike will move fine. Throttle control---------------------will not make you slip (high or low side) and fall. Wide view-------------------------- ready to good fast Quick turn-------------------------- now can go fast Reference point--------------------now can pass others with any line Clutchless upshift/ downshift------now can go faster Brake--------------------------------no need, almost no need In the street: Brake without locking tires---- able to stop before hitting the little civic at the coming blind corner Understanding Countersteering---obvious now Wide view---------------------------knowing the two little civics at your both sides may cut into your lane without giving signal, while prevent hitting the car at front which will --------------------------------------stop with malfunction brake lights. (obvious, no need if always lucky or have avoid box-in to start with) Body position, so not putting weight on handle bar (no hangoff unless you want a ticket)---- even rider does not know how to ride, the bike move well. Throttle control---------------------will not make you slip and fall when hit a patch of oil Reference point--------------------not going to opposite lane Quick turn--------------------------correction for not going to opposite lane. Clutchless upshift/ downshift------ride with ease and lazy with the fingers Know the machine---------------- who cares cool tire or not, we are hurry to work; or the tank is empty, we have AAA card.

Now that looks like something a little different that might help? Bullet I am not sure it is different or just have not described my understanding well or just try to make the TC easier for myself. Kieth indicates that there is a particular throttle opening during the lean transition that make the bike feels stable, if say the idling is adjusted to that ideal throttle opening and we can quick turn for the entry speed, is it still need to START apply throttle during lean? or during that fraction of second to compensate for the continuous change of tire contact radii with road? For most of us, the rate of lean is not fast enough to catch up with our applying throttle (if we start applying too much or early) and hence easy to run wide. Will Keith's following drill line 3 an 4, and the target for one lean angle to get 3 can confirm that maintanence throttle happens after full lean? If the idling is not set to that ideal throttle opening, does it mean before reaching full single lean angle, any crack open should not be more than that ideal opening, then after full lean within next fraction of second, we can continue the smooth roll-on? "Quote: " Here is a drill to improve your ability to predict your line. 1. Find yourself a curvy road. A familiar one is best. A calm track day would also be perfect. 2. Back off your speed enough so you are certain you won?t run wide. Set your speed that way for each turn you enter. 3. Get the bike fully turned into the corner so you are happy with where it is pointed. 4. Begin your roll-on as soon as possible after #3 is settled. 5. Estimate where exactly you think the bike is going to be at its widest point on the turn?s exit. Don?t choose blind turns to do it. You are trying to predict at what point ahead you will come the. closest to the center line (in right hand corners on the road) or the road?s edge (in left hand corners on the road). Your final and widest exit point. 6. Maintain a fluid, seamless and continuous roll-on throughout the corner. 7. Do not adjust the steering or lean angle of the bike (unless you really have to). 8. Evaluate your estimate from #5. How did you do? How close were you to the point you thought was going to be your exit? 9. Experiment with slower and/or more aggressive roll-ons until you get the feel for what it takes for that bike to hold a predictable line." Quote". It will help me to see the whole process better if there is furth

Hi BCNU, if I can crack it on the second when leaned over, it means 1) my entry speed is not high enough, I can use higher speed. 2) I do not use full advantage of the throttle-off (which prevent lightening the front) to help the turn, 3) it affects my further transfer body weight to inside front (using hook turn) if needed to further help tightening the turn if wanted. With speed, and crack open a little too earlier will usually make a wide turn. I believe Keith means "cracking smoothly for maintanence throttle AFTER complete the full lean", ideally without upsetting the suspension. In CSS level 3, Keith also asks students to go out at the track and intentionally make all types of mistakes, like running wide, miss your turn points, wrong line etc, and then correct it with quick turn, hook turn etc. You will find that drill is helpful to fight SRs. Hope to hear how you feel and compare the different attempts.

LOL. I hadn't realized that's Freddie Spencer in the pic. (I wasn't following motorcyle racing in his day so, while I'd certainly heard of him (as you point out, he's a legend), I'd never actually seen him on TV or in a photo). I'm almost embarrased that I was spouting out suggestions on how the rider could 'improve' his body position. However, a couple of points. Firstly, notwithstanding that it's Freddie Spencer, there's no doubt that the knee would be on the ground if the hips were rotated more to the left. (I know, he wouldn't have had any trouble getting his knee down anyway - I'm talking about technique for mortals). Secondly, I suspect that guys like Spencer, who have so much natural skill and grow up from early childhood with motorcycling, develop styles that 'feel right' for them. If you look at the current crop of MotoGP riders, their body positioning styles have quite a bit of variation. I guess the point to take out of all that is that, in the end, body position has got to be something that gives each individual the best feel for what the bike is doing and the most confidence and trust that he/she can control it through the corner. However, the CSS recommendations provide a very solid foundation from which to make adjustments for an individual style. Cheers, Taras Hi Taras, You have good observation and don't be embarrassed with your comment on the Legend Freddie Spencer's picture-- it is difficult to tell from that picture what the Legend was doing at that moment. He might not be at cornering but might be just switching from left to right and at that instant, is showing a different BP which is less familiar.

Hi BCNU, when you practice TC by rolling it on smoothly, when did you start the rolling on? Start smooth rolling as you start leaning? Start smooth rolling in the middle of leaning? Have you tried to start smooth rolling after you finish leaning (start smooth rolling after complete and reach lean angle)? Good entry speed, off throttle (not using rear brake yet) and quick turn, complete and reach lean angle, then/and start smooth rolling seems help me. The same downhill turn that used to scare me a lot becomes the turn I can use to pass.

Keith on T of T2 page 6 indicates that "each bike's exact ideal weight distribution may vary a bit from the basic 40/60 percent rule."..... and on page 7 " it is the feeling of 0.1 to 0.2 G acceleration....... which is a smooth fifth-gear roll-on in the 4000 to 6000 rpm range on pretty much anything over 600CC." Cornering to me is at least 3 parts: leaning to the angle..... maintain lean angle....... accelerating out of lean angle. It seems the 40/60 is applied to the "maintain lean angle"; just right before countersteering and "leaning to the angle", if with just little more weight at front by throttle-off, it seems allow tighter quick turn or hook turn. When combined with good timing of maintanence throttle right with leaning, there is less disturbance to suspension. Anyone see it differently?

You dropped a unit in your first euqation here: (50 +400 +200)lb x 100 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95333.3 lb ft/sec. Taking the numbers out leaves: Mass x Velocity = Force lbs x mph = HP But the equation is F=ma, or m X a = F: Mass x Acceleration = Force, so you should have lbs x (mph)^2 = (HPxtime)/Distance (Horsepower isn't equal to Force. Power is the product of force and distance over a period of time, or Power = (Force x distance)/time, so rewriting for Force: F = (Power x Time)/distance So far, we still haven't solved for speed or drag Think about it this way, a Suzuki Hayabusa is 100 lbs heavier than a gixxer 1000. Even if you have a highy modded GSXR 1000 making the exact same hp at the rear wheel as a hayabusa (let's say 180 HP for both), and they are geared the same, the Hayabusa will have a higher top speed because it has less drag. This site explains it better than I probably did: http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/drag#accel Notice that the top speed is a function of when the power available from the engine is no longer sufficient to overcome friction from drag. No weight factors in at all Just happen that I was editing to simplify at same time. You are correct: Power is force x distance / time; or = workdone per time= WEIGHT x DISTANCE / TIME. However, the (50 +400 +200)lb x 100 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95333.3 lb ft/sec is not a force equation. The (mph) there is to show where a 100 number comes from and should not be in equation for checking units. It is a horse-power equation that: the "lb" in equation is weight, not mass. It is confusing to use "lb" in calculation and easier to check units by SI system. I like W=NM/S instead of ponies. You are correct that with less air drag (=less effective load) , same HP bike will have higher speed; that when taking into effect of wind resistance (drag), rolling friction etc, it will be more complicated, so complicated that I would rather riding. Hope that Hotfoot will have some fun experiment results too.

You dropped a unit in your first euqation here: (50 +400 +200)lb x 100 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95333.3 lb ft/sec. Taking the numbers out leaves: Mass x Velocity = Force lbs x mph = HP But the equation is F=ma, or m X a = F: Mass x Acceleration = Force, so you should have lbs x (mph)^2 = (HPxtime)/Distance (Horsepower isn't equal to Force. Power is the product of force and distance over a period of time, or Power = (Force x distance)/time, so rewriting for Force: F = (Power x Time)/distance So far, we still haven't solved for speed or drag Think about it this way, a Suzuki Hayabusa is 100 lbs heavier than a gixxer 1000. Even if you have a highy modded GSXR 1000 making the exact same hp at the rear wheel as a hayabusa (let's say 180 HP for both), and they are geared the same, the Hayabusa will have a higher top speed because it has less drag. This site explains it better than I probably did: http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/drag#accel Notice that the top speed is a function of when the power available from the engine is no longer sufficient to overcome friction from drag. No weight factors in at all Just happen that I was editing to simplify at same time. You are correct: Power is force x distance / time; or = workdone per time= weight x distance /time. The (50 +400 +200)lb x 100 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95333.3 lb ft/sec is not a force equation. the (mph) there is to show where a 100 number comes from and should not be in equation for checking units. It is a horse-power equation that: the "lb" in equation is weight, not mass. It is confusing to use "lb" in calculation and easier to check units by SI system. I like W=NM/S instead of ponies. You are correct that with less air drag (=less effective load) , same HP bike will have higher speed; that when taking into effect of wind resistance (drag), rolling friction etc, it will be more complicated, so complicated that I would rather riding. Hope that Hotfoot will have some fun experiment results too.

This is confusing to me, probably because dropping weight doesn't REALLY change your horsepower (the engine makes what it makes), it just means that you can get more speed from the horsepower you have, because you are pushing less weight. Here's where I am getting stuck - in the equation above, HP = (force x velocity)/33000 (this is using ft/min not ft/sec). It looks like you are using weight as the "force" in that equation, which makes the math seem pretty simple - but I'm wondering if you can really do that, since we are talking about pushing a rolling bike instead of lifting a weight. For example, wouldn't the Force vary with speed, because of wind resistance? I'm not arguing the 7lb= 1 hp estimate, nor do I really want to start a physics discussion, but I'm just not convinced that doubling the speed would equate to cutting your weight advantage in half. I'm just not sure it would be directly proportional. I tried to find formulas for "horsepower gained by reducing weight", but had no luck, I just found rule of thumb estimates, which implies to me that the the calculation is either really complex or that hp and weight don't directly relate to each other. I did, however, see calculators that would give you your new top SPEED for a given horsepower if you reduce the weight, which made a LOT more sense to me. For fun, I ran the calculation for my bike, which was just repaired, taking the horsepower (measured on the dyno) from 93hp to 112hp. The math says I should get about 10mph additional top speed. I'll be taking it out Saturday and I have a GPS laptimer, which has my previous top speed stored. I'm going to measure the new top speed and see how close it is. So, for the sake of science and supporting the Forum, I'm planning to go out and ride the thing as fast as it will go. It's a tough job, but somebody has to do it... The calculation just tells carrying same ADDITIONAL weight at half speed will need half ADDITIONAL power, or same ADDITIONAL power can carry half ADDITIONAL weight at double the speed, assume no other wind resistance etc. Hotfoot, I agree with you that " it just means that you can get more speed from the horsepower you have, because you are pushing less weight. ": As speed increases, so is the wind resistance--(increases as square of wind speed). Say at 100 mph, the wind force is 50 lb (just guessing). In order to move a 400 lb bike plus a 200 lb rider (big guy) at this 100mph, not taking into account rolling friction at tire etc. It will need (50 +400 +200)lb x 100 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95333.3 lb ft/sec; or 173.3 hp. (say this is the bike's max power.) Now the same rider has the slim girl friend as passenger, say 100 lb. Assume wind force is less, say 40 lb (just guessing again ) at lower speed, say 87.84 mph. Now with the girl friend, if traveling at 87.84 mph, not taking into account rolling friction at tire etc again, It will need (40 wind +400 bike +200 rider +100 girlfriend) lb x 87.84 (mph) x5280 ft/3600sec=95335.7 lb ft/sec; or 173.33 hp. It is reaching the bike's max power. The guy with his girl friend can only travel at 87.84 mph, but himself alone at 100 mph with the same bike. Above is simplified and try to illustrate principle, with a lot of guessing........A 173 hp bike will run faster than 100mph, but for sure cannot run as fast with additional weight. No wonder why everyone wants a MotoGP bike with 300 hp when he/she gets a girl/boy friend as passenger.....just want more hp. We still need to find a way to describe in term of acceleration-- a more-powerful bike will reach same speed of a less-powerful one in shorter time. In addition, after reaching this speed that the less-powerful bike cannot further increase, the more powerful bike will carry on to a higher speed until it reach its own max speed which is limited by its power again. Hi Hotfoot, would you help us out to get the answer? Would you able to do the experiment by riding with your passenger too? Someone has to do it and I do not have a girlfriend willing to be my passenger yet.

Cobie, thanks a lot for your comment. Now I can bother you with one less question when returning for level 4.

I shoot for balance. I was told by a local track "pro" that most of my weight was supposed to be on my inside foot. I was fighting the bike all day, and wasted a whole day. I've figured that keeping balance helps me adjust to just about anything that I come across quicker. When I do not put weight on the inner peg , just keep inner ball of foot on peg, but lock the outside leg with ball of foot and knee, I feel balance and can move my head and body to the inner side easily before countersteering. Hope that Cobie or Stuman can comment on how to take advantages of putting weight at inner peg if any.

During turn, I feel more relax and secure when locking the bike with the ball of foot and knee at the outside leg only . The inside foot with no force on peg at all (or just as what I feel). For me, it seems easier to hangoff and quick turn with no weigh on handle bar this way by locking with one leg only. Anyone feels similar?

On the 7:1 weight/hp ratio-- If use engineering calculation: 1 hp =moving 550 lb over a distance of 1 ft per second. So 1 hp =moving 7 lb at 53.57 mph. (or in term of ft/sec = moving 7 lb x53.57x5280 ft/3600sec = 550 lb ft /sec). It seems correct that at 53.57 mph, 1 hp = 7 lb; ( looks like when doubling the speed to 107.14 mph; 1 hp now = 3.5 lb; or at double speed, 3.5 lb overweight has same effect as 7 lb overweight at low speed on the bike, both ask for the same 1 hp power) I guess the actual hp needed at engine, if taking in account transmission loss, will be higher. Ah, I never think about disadvantage of overweight on bike until now.

I have just finished the level 3 at Sears Pt on 11-11-08. Lucky enough to have Cobie as my riding coach since I enjoyed his writings at "Cornering". Although I prepared with reading Keith's TTW,TTW2, SoftScience many many times before coming to the school, (that was after reading Andy Ibbott's motoGp manual, Nick Ienatsch's sport riding technique etc.etc ), due to lack of track practice, I still forgot to apply the throttle rule 1 (level 1 material) which Cobie noticed when I run wide at turns. He helped me to work on achieving a good entry speed (much higher than my own comfortable level) , throttle off, quick lean, with maintenance throttle then throttle rule 1. It really made the difference. I used to struggle in 3rd or 4th gear at turn 4 and 9. The "throttle off" with its smaller rake angle really allows quick turn with higher entry speed. Few laps later I was even able to try 5th gear at turn 4. (5th gear may not be good for exit acceleration but I just wanted a taste of entering that corner with higher speed, by the increasing confidence). So glad that turn 4 and 9 were not a big problem as before. I found it was very helpful to be refreshed by Cobie and Racer's writings on this topic. By the way, I need to thank Cobie for the smooth clutchless downshift technique too, my other bonus when returning to CSS.

Hi Racer, Yes, you are right that it is the "on the gas" that helps me cross the dip. "At speed" is not the intention but a by-product since in average, I turn faster because not try to roll-off for the dip any more. I find the middle of page 8 on TOTW where Keith analyzes the turn with crest. Thanks for your ideas of handling crest at different portion of turn and I would be glad when able to handle them smoothly one day. Have safe and fun fast ride!

Racer, Thanks a lot for confirming the "as vertical as possible" and "get on the gas " for the dip. I tried the problem turn this morning- leaned and not on gas too early, thus with some weight at front end that helped to hook into the turn, then got on the gas and crossed the dip with speed, (at less lean angle= as vertical as possible). The bike was quite stable!! It seems that hitting the dip with speed would disturbed the front end less than crossing the dip with roll-off to reduce speed. I shall try on a crested turn soon but expect it will make the second half of turn a little wide. Thanks again.

Anyone to help on the proper way to handle a simple turn with a dip? or a crest? I may have spent more time in reading Keith's books than riding my bike but still do not know the best way to handle a simple left turn with dip at speed properly--- on track or as making a left turn into a side road from a crowned road and there is a dip for rain in front of the side road. The situation is that I have committed the lean angle with maintained throttle, then meet the dip that is in front and across the path. It seems it is better to cross a dip as vertically as possible, similar to cross a crested road as according to page 8 of Twist of the Wrist, "Uphill, downhill crested.... the better strategy to go over a crest is "as vertically as possible". Page 38 suggests "sometimes it is better to go directly through a rough section of track wobbling and out of shape than to figure a smoother -but slower -way around it" How can I use one simple lean to finished the dipped turn as above, and not upsetting the suspension? Should I reduce overall speed or should I use double apex so that I can use "as vertically as possible" at the second half of turn. Timing roll-on helps dip on straight but seems conflict with maintained-throttle during turn. Hope that someone can sharing their experience for me to practice more before returning to CSS school. Thanks.