Quick Flick/ Counter Steer

[tmckeen]

The feeling of going into a turn at the track is MUCH different than on the street. On the street countersteering is 100% the way to turn the bike, no question.

On the track, since the turns are memorized, and smoothness is key, we don't usually find situations in which we have to turn the bike abruptly enough to require counter steer. Situations on the track that require countersteer are things like traffic avoidance, and quick flick situation as in a chicane.

 

I think you have these reversed, on the street you can be lazy with your steering inputs, the term "Street Lazy" exists for this reason, but on the track you should be steering as quickly as possible on virtually every corner.

 

Now to be fair I have given the technique you describe a try in a few different situations and when it comes to "spring loading the bike" I have to say I disagree with your physics. If I hang off the bike as far as I possibly can and counter lean the bike to maintain a straight trajectory you claim that I have somehow preloaded force into the bike and it will come snapping over into the corner. I have found that doing this and then letting go of the handlebars entirely causes the bike to gradually stand itself upright. If i combine that with massive pressure to the inside footpeg and a hefty nudge on the outside of the tank with my knee and "core" the bike does lean over somewhat and turn slightly, but not enough to take any corner at speed, I can achieve the same results with just the inputs to my foot peg and gas tank, the added "stored energy" for the counter lean has minimal impact. I can think of only one situation where you can get the bike to fall over with 400 lbs of inertia.

[ktk_ace]

The feeling of going into a turn at the track is MUCH different than on the street. On the street countersteering is 100% the way to turn the bike, no question.

On the track, since the turns are memorized, and smoothness is key, we don't usually find situations in which we have to turn the bike abruptly enough to require counter steer. Situations on the track that require countersteer are things like traffic avoidance, and quick flick situation as in a chicane.

 

I think you have these reversed, on the street you can be lazy with your steering inputs, the term "Street Lazy" exists for this reason, but on the track you should be steering as quickly as possible on virtually every corner.

 

Now to be fair I have given the technique you describe a try in a few different situations and when it comes to "spring loading the bike" I have to say I disagree with your physics. If I hang off the bike as far as I possibly can and counter lean the bike to maintain a straight trajectory you claim that I have somehow preloaded force into the bike and it will come snapping over into the corner. I have found that doing this and then letting go of the handlebars entirely causes the bike to gradually stand itself upright. If i combine that with massive pressure to the inside footpeg and a hefty nudge on the outside of the tank with my knee and "core" the bike does lean over somewhat and turn slightly, but not enough to take any corner at speed, I can achieve the same results with just the inputs to my foot peg and gas tank, the added "stored energy" for the counter lean has minimal impact. I can think of only one situation where you can get the bike to fall over with 400 lbs of inertia.

 

IMHO he only ride track days on his super expensive track bike which is imho tuned to his style for massive oversteer , hence even the smallest countersteering input by his body would achieve the amount needed to turn the bike

Said bike is not ridable imho on public roads for obvious reasons.

 

if he try riding on any production bike with his said style , it will only result in massive and multiple compounding problems.

[Hansi]

 

Ride your bike in a straight line and move your but cheek over to the right and a generous portion of your upper body.

Now - for the bike to keep going forward you may notice 2 things.

1) the bike has to counter balance itself. It will lean slightly to the left

2) you will need pressure to the left bar.

 

So now your body mass is to the right side of the bike, the bike leaning to the left and pressure to the left bar is applied and you keep going straight.

 

According to basic physics, the masses of the bike + rider are at tendency to converge. Meaning - you will feel forces to go towards the bike and the bike towards you.

 

So at this point, and at the track, be it the braking zone, you are off to the right side of the bike, pressing on the left handle bar, and the bike slightly leaned over to the left. At this point you have created potential eneregy towards a right side lean. If you release the pressure on the outside bar, the bike will "attempt" by the laws of physics to come towards YOUR center of mass and will fall towards your body.

 

 

The bike will lean to the left because you are "counter steering" it to the left, thats what you are doing with that left bar pressure. It is not balancing itself. If you let it be it would turn slightly to the right. You can use this to some advantage as you save lean angle when you enter the turn and stay on the brakes harder/longer. And your feeling of "stored energy" is not wrong as you have already prepared your counter steering. Compare what you do to the hip-flick techniqe taught in level 3.

 

Also compare what you are doing with how we like to prepare body positioning by moving the butt way ahead of the corner. And how that does NOT make you need to balance the bike by pressing any bar to keep it going straight. How much would then that kind of body positioning with the butt out but head still behind wind screen help in any way with lean angle and corner speed?

 

The negative comments here is because everyone here "knows" that "body steering" is not very effective and totally without precision. I dont think much effort was made to understand why you find it useful to move the center of gravity towards the turn before you enter the turn.

[ktk_ace]

Ride your bike in a straight line and move your but cheek over to the right and a generous portion of your upper body.

Now - for the bike to keep going forward you may notice 2 things.

1) the bike has to counter balance itself. It will lean slightly to the left

2) you will need pressure to the left bar.

 

So now your body mass is to the right side of the bike, the bike leaning to the left and pressure to the left bar is applied and you keep going straight.

 

According to basic physics, the masses of the bike + rider are at tendency to converge. Meaning - you will feel forces to go towards the bike and the bike towards you.

 

So at this point, and at the track, be it the braking zone, you are off to the right side of the bike, pressing on the left handle bar, and the bike slightly leaned over to the left. At this point you have created potential eneregy towards a right side lean. If you release the pressure on the outside bar, the bike will "attempt" by the laws of physics to come towards YOUR center of mass and will fall towards your body.

 

 

The bike will lean to the left because you are "counter steering" it to the left, thats what you are doing with that left bar pressure. It is not balancing itself. If you let it be it would turn slightly to the right. You can use this to some advantage as you save lean angle when you enter the turn and stay on the brakes harder/longer. And your feeling of "stored energy" is not wrong as you have already prepared your counter steering. Compare what you do to the hip-flick techniqe taught in level 3.

 

Also compare what you are doing with how we like to prepare body positioning by moving the butt way ahead of the corner. And how that does NOT make you need to balance the bike by pressing any bar to keep it going straight. How much would then that kind of body positioning with the butt out but head still behind wind screen help in any way with lean angle and corner speed?

 

The negative comments here is because everyone here "knows" that "body steering" is not very effective and totally without precision. I dont think much effort was made to understand why you find it useful to move the center of gravity towards the turn before you enter the turn.

 

Its not negative... I've ridden a few "trackified" bikes ; i speak from my puny experience .

 

I wont call the motovudu way negative; its proven with said rider with said bike to be fast on said tracks.

 

but if you miss one component, its gonna turn very ugly especially on the streets.

 

Its like mouse sensitivity... form a scale of 1-10(SLOW<> FAST) , most people are on the 3-7 range

 

to do it the way noamkrief says, you will have to tune the bike all the way to 10 aka hypersensitivity ; extremes wins races on tracks , its just a different solution to a common problem...

 

The reason why this hypersensitive tune will be a hazard on the streets (i might miss a few )

 

-slicks on public tarmac

-super expensive suspension which needs service every 500 miles

-massive hang off which might get you in trouble with the law

-near inability to deal with sudden road changes with impromptu fast precise inputs(animal/pedestrian/pet on the road etc)

[cellige]

Someone in here mention that it is basically impossible in good conditions to flick the bike too quick, as long as they are not on the brakes. My question is, does engine braking count as on the brakes, or do they mean just not on the throttle at all? Is cracked open ok? Some bikes engine brake more than others, I imagine the heavy engine braking on some could be an issue for a seriously fast flick?

[csmith12]

I think, what they are referring to is, a loaded front end vs. non loaded. Sure, the brakes are the fastest way to load the front. So unless I am not understanding something, you can flick as hard as you need as long as you don't overload the front. Overloading can mean one or both of two things; loss of traction, loss of suspension travel (bottomed out). I race a ninja 250 and quite frequently overload the front suspension travel (via brake lever inputs). This will NOT create the ideal cornering feel for that bike. And also, when I had the stock exhaust on the 250, engine braking was substantial, but I never thought it would cause a quick flick problem.

 

I feel it's debatable that engine load counts as braking but it does do two things, slow the bike down AND load the front. So ya, it is a factor, how much of a factor? Maybe not so much.

[ktk_ace]

I think, what they are referring to is, a loaded front end vs. non loaded. Sure, the brakes are the fastest way to load the front. So unless I am not understanding something, you can flick as hard as you need as long as you don't overload the front. Overloading can mean one or both of two things; loss of traction, loss of suspension travel (bottomed out). I race a ninja 250 and quite frequently overload the front suspension travel (via brake lever inputs). This will NOT create the ideal cornering feel for that bike. And also, when I had the stock exhaust on the 250, engine braking was substantial, but I never thought it would cause a quick flick problem.

 

I feel it's debatable that engine load counts as braking but it does do two things, slow the bike down AND load the front. So ya, it is a factor, how much of a factor? Maybe not so much.

 

Depends on bike setup (front/back suspension,rider weight,engine fuel mapping,slipper clutch) and wheelbase length imho.

[csmith12]

Ace, can you go a bit farther please? Not quite following you as it applies to cellige's quesiton. I think I understand where your coming from though... would I quick flick a chopper with a very steep rake the same way as an R6? Of course not.

[rchase]

I'm just reading over this topic and I'm quite impressed actually. In a normal forum a opposite viewpoint like the one that noamkrief shared would be followed with 10 pages of ridicule. Instead we have a rather intelligent discussion about the topic. That's pretty awesome really.

 

In one of the videos an example of body steering was actually explained. When using body steering the act of doing such actually unconsciously produced the counter steering motion. What would be a quite interesting addition to the no BS bike would be a steering head lock that would allow the rider to lock the steering head in a straight forward position and then try to steer. You could even do this with a slightly modified steering damper. Body steering would be even less effective with the front wheel not able to move at all. You would just need a really straight and wide section of track to ride it safely.

[ktk_ace]

Ace, can you go a bit farther please? Not quite following you as it applies to cellige's quesiton. I think I understand where your coming from though... would I quick flick a chopper with a very steep rake the same way as an R6? Of course not.

 

err... I'll try .

 

for example , if you have a bike with cr@ppy compression and rebound damping (think stock scooter with stock tires and suspension) ,

and you modify the CVT for extreme high acceleration 0-80 Km/H

AND a very low "slope" (non roll on speed that the engine runs on for ex stock is 1850 RPM, you adjust it to 1500 RPM)

 

you create a recipe for extremely high loading of the front tire if you just chop the throttle at 50 and above as the clutch will only let go at 2500RPM+ (50+ with acceleration will be at least 6500 RPM and above)

as the centrifugal dry clutch coupled with the low slope setting will cause immense engine braking ...

 

which loads up the commuter grade front forks and might overload the commuter grade tire if coupled with quick flicking...

 

this is an extreme example fyi

 

 

same applies to fuel mapping for EFI bikes ; you map your fuel too low , it will engine brake like crazy (cough euro4 cough have to pass emissions ... )

theres why there are slipper clutches to modify the amount of braking and slip for modern sport bikes, you cant account for everything using fuel mapping alone...

 

Bikes with better mass centralization also tend to "pogo" less hence load up the front less during engine braking (example: NC700X with underslung exhaust + longer wheelbase )

 

Bikes with worse mass centralization also tend to "pogo" more hence load up the front more during engine braking (example 2011 R1 with dual underseat exhaust + shorter wheelbase )

 

GPS and TC comes in here too, but its a pretty high end solution which can 90% be sorted out with... education.

[cellige]

So expressed independently of specific bikes, what is the optimal amount of front load for the tire while one is quick flicking?

[ktk_ace]

So expressed independently of specific bikes, what is the optimal amount of front load for the tire while one is quick flicking?

 

I believe that requires independent rider sampling as the rider weight/skill level and some specific conditions need to be addressed too.

 

Its in the Twist 2 book and DVD. Read it alot of times, im not brainy so i have to re-read it at least 20 times +

[Cobie Fair]

The engine will only use the rear tire, and that is minimally effective: the front will do 100% of the braking on a modern sport bike (probably most bikes made in the last 30+ years).

 

As for quick turning, just rolling off the throttle will load the front way more than 50%, maybe 70-75%+? Depends on speed and a few other factors.

 

We haven't had anyone loose the front (under good conditions) from turning too quickly. Having throttle on, takes weight off the front, not as good for steering.

[csmith12]

Hmmm, my personal taste in front end setup must be different than the norm????

 

Lemme ask you Cobie, Is your 50%+ front loading number specifically for track setup or street setup? Take my case here, when I put the lil ninja 250 on the track the first time (with stock forks/springs) and rolled off the front dived pretty good (50% or more) and when I hit the brakes, the would bottom out (100%). It was at that point it started to effect turning. Now after proper springs installed, the roll off dive is nowhere near 50% of the total load of the tires traction abilities. I have a similar setup on my R6, not very much front dive from a roll off, while in stock form the suspension was really soft comparatively. While on the brakes though... totally different story. Effectively, the bike will stoppie before running out of traction (good conditions). As it relates to the quick flick, having taken the same bike to the same track, the soft front end felt lethargic, where the stiffer setup feels much more nimble and responsive. Very little front end dive and now load it up via the brakes. While on the track, I try to be black and white as possible... either on the brakes or on the gas.

 

Lemme throw this at you too: We know we don't just grab a whole handful of front brake. So on corner setup, that little bit of engine braking from the roll off, effectively pre-loads the front where I can be more aggressive with the front brake sooner. It took me a long time to reach my bike setup on the R6 where the rear tire just "floats" while in the braking zone HARD on the front brake. That setup on the 250 still eludes me.

 

I know there is no specific answer to the optimum amount of load on the front to turn, but Is my thinking outside the box, pace specific, something I can improve on or do I need to go see the suspension tech again? lol

[Pepsi Drinker]

I'm just reading over this topic and I'm quite impressed actually. In a normal forum a opposite viewpoint like the one that noamkrief shared would be followed with 10 pages of ridicule. Instead we have a rather intelligent discussion about the topic. That's pretty awesome really.

 

In one of the videos an example of body steering was actually explained. When using body steering the act of doing such actually unconsciously produced the counter steering motion. What would be a quite interesting addition to the no BS bike would be a steering head lock that would allow the rider to lock the steering head in a straight forward position and then try to steer. You could even do this with a slightly modified steering damper. Body steering would be even less effective with the front wheel not able to move at all. You would just need a really straight and wide section of track to ride it safely.

I have ridden many bikes where the steering head bearings are worn and notchy. It makes riding the bike very difficult and steering inputs extremely unpredictable. Steering is nary impossible with any kind of precision.

 

But to answer the OP's original question, it is damn near impossible to quick turn too quickly under good conditions, IMO.

 

CSmith I too raced a 250 ninja for a long time and stock springs are way undersprung. Even if the suspension isn't moving through 50% of its travel with better springs and better damping anymore, by closing the throttle I bet you are still transferring more than 50% of the load to the front tire even if only using approx 20% of the suspension travel. It is the weight transfer not the suspension travel.

[csmith12]

Ah I see, I figured this was a fairly high level discussion, so I took for granted that everyone already knows the weight transfers forward when rolling off. I guess it's possible to be 50% or greater. My bumm and legs tell me the story, the raw forward force generated by rolling off the throttle does feel even close to when really hard on the brakes. I have to squeeze quite a bit harder when the brake comes on. 50% harder? Impossible for me to measure. Hence my question, 250 or R6, can I be doing something better or do I have the bike setup too stiff? I don't think I do, the R6 front smoothly sinks downward from roll off, to lifting the rear wheel without so much as a twitch out of the front and honestly, I like it that way.

 

If I am following everything ok, I presume this is what Ace was eluding to with his comments. Bike setup and engine braking can have a more or less profound effect on load of the front, where load = traction + suspension travel + weight & some other physics stuff I don't understand. lol Like in my case, I roll off, let the weight go forward to pre-load the front, then I can quickly get to harder braking without a front hard dive.

[ktk_ace]

Ah I see, I figured this was a fairly high level discussion, so I took for granted that everyone already knows the weight transfers forward when rolling off. I guess it's possible to be 50% or greater. My bumm and legs tell me the story, the raw forward force generated by rolling off the throttle does feel even close to when really hard on the brakes. I have to squeeze quite a bit harder when the brake comes on. 50% harder? Impossible for me to measure. Hence my question, 250 or R6, can I be doing something better or do I have the bike setup too stiff? I don't think I do, the R6 front smoothly sinks downward from roll off, to lifting the rear wheel without so much as a twitch out of the front and honestly, I like it that way.

 

If I am following everything ok, I presume this is what Ace was eluding to with his comments. Bike setup and engine braking can have a more or less profound effect on load of the front, where load = traction + suspension travel + weight & some other physics stuff I don't understand. lol Like in my case, I roll off, let the weight go forward to pre-load the front, then I can quickly get to harder braking without a front hard dive.

You have a very good modern sportsbike imho...

[mugget]

Someone in here mention that it is basically impossible in good conditions to flick the bike too quick, as long as they are not on the brakes. My question is, does engine braking count as on the brakes, or do they mean just not on the throttle at all? Is cracked open ok? Some bikes engine brake more than others, I imagine the heavy engine braking on some could be an issue for a seriously fast flick?

 

That was one of the main points I took away from Level 1. Assuming good conditions, and quick flicking to the absolute max - the rear tyre will slide before the front lets go. Also keep in mind that the old-school superbike racers used to bend handlebars because of their counter-steering/quick flick efforts & the strength of their inputs.

 

Probably the engine braking does have some effect when you take your quick flick to a very high level, perhaps that is the reason why the rear will slide eventually, if you keep quick flicking faster and faster? And as far as zero throttle/cracked open, my understanding has always been that you want zero throttle while turning - this is the only way that fits in with the CSS methodology (AFAIK). It would make sense that cracked open is not ok, this would just make it harder to turn which is at odds with what you're trying to accomplish.

 

But for all practical purposes, you can quick flick without worrying about what the engine braking is doing. Again, assuming that you're doing everything else correctly. For example you're not going to downshift into redline right before you turn the bike. But it's worth noting that even if you did, it doesn't necessarily mean you're going to crash. If you watch fast racers you can see the rear wheel sliding a bit as they're turning into a corner. I used to think that they were backing it in, but this happens after they initiate the turn. It seems logical that they have turned the bike so quick that the rear slides, but it's pretty amazing to think that they're putting all that turning force through the front tyre, while the rear is sliding, and they do it over and over without crashing.

 

csmith12 - I would question whether or not engine braking can effectively preload the front. Especially if you're riding is "black and white", either "on or off". You would need to coast to allow the engine braking to have much of an effect, which would mean that it's wasted time really... I would think it's much better to get straight onto the front brake, and just use it with appropriate modulation to set your speed. The only method of preloading the front that I've heard of is some people applying the rear brake before they let off the throttle. But that just seems like a way to use up lots of attention, is the gain really worth it?

 

Sometimes it's easy to over-think a situation and get lost in the details.

 

As for your setup, the only suspension guideline I've paid attention to is the fact that you want to have it setup as soft as possible, in order to have the most compliance.

 

On the subject of those alternative steering theories presented in Motovudu - is that the first DVD? I have watched that and I didn't notice anything all that radical, better have another look I suppose...

[csmith12]

I am not talking about coasting, I know that is a waist of time. But when coming up on turn 1 from the front straight, do you just chop throttle and hit the brakes? I don't.. it doesn't feel smooth to me. So I just roll off, takes a second or less or about the same amount of time as popping up from the tuck. Do I over-think it while on the bike, naw. maybe right now I am. Guilty

 

Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to my next suspension setting changes when I feel the bike and I no longer have a symbiotic relationship. I just wish I could get the 250 setup to feel that way.

[ktk_ace]

I am not talking about coasting, I know that is a waist of time. But when coming up on turn 1 from the front straight, do you just chop throttle and hit the brakes? I don't.. it doesn't feel smooth to me. So I just roll off, takes a second or less or about the same amount of time as popping up from the tuck. Do I over-think it while on the bike, naw. maybe right now I am. Guilty

 

Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to my next suspension setting changes when I feel the bike and I no longer have a symbiotic relationship. I just wish I could get the 250 setup to feel that way.

 

motogp has very hi end hardware to "solve" this problem decelerating from high speeds to turn 1 : carbon ceramic brake rotors

 

cuts alot of unsprung mass

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

 

the brembo, ohlins and electronics help too, but before all that, it still can be emulated to a degree with enough practice

 

 

PS. if you up the fueling so much that engine braking is almost nonexistent (or setup a slipper clutch for such) (its a common setup for racing here)

 

, you can technically chop the throttle straight up and not upset the bike, leaving you with more of the $10 of attention to do other things beneficial to turning

 

I personally use both the front and rear brakes to prep for entry speed , use vision to find the turn in point and the 2 step for accelerating out of the turn.

 

I practice until its 2nd nature.

[csmith12]

Yep, already stepped up to the brembo master to get the feel I was after. It's about the best I could afford. Class rules will have me putting the stock one back on though. And yea, altered map to kill a lot of the engine braking but not completely nonexistent, there are some key turns on my local tracks where a bit of engine load is enough to set the entry speed. Plus this bike has to pull double duty street and track, since I chose to race the 250 for the next few seasons.

[rchase]

 

I am not talking about coasting, I know that is a waist of time. But when coming up on turn 1 from the front straight, do you just chop throttle and hit the brakes? I don't.. it doesn't feel smooth to me. So I just roll off, takes a second or less or about the same amount of time as popping up from the tuck. Do I over-think it while on the bike, naw. maybe right now I am. Guilty

 

Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to my next suspension setting changes when I feel the bike and I no longer have a symbiotic relationship. I just wish I could get the 250 setup to feel that way.

 

motogp has very hi end hardware to "solve" this problem decelerating from high speeds to turn 1 : carbon ceramic brake rotors

 

cuts alot of unsprung mass

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

 

the brembo, ohlins and electronics help too, but before all that, it still can be emulated to a degree with enough practice

 

 

PS. if you up the fueling so much that engine braking is almost nonexistent (its a common setup for racing here)

 

, you can technically chop the throttle straight up and not upset the bike, leaving you with more of the $10 of attention to do other things beneficial to turning

 

I personally use both the front and rear brakes to prep for entry speed

 

 

You don't have to use the super exotic stuff to save on unsprung mass. I upgraded my FZR400 to more modern EBC contour rotors and while probably not even close to being light as MotoGP rotors made a massive improvement on the bike. I chose the EBC rotors because of their aluminum hubs and less rotor buttons and their Xdrive system. I purchased a set for my R6 as well and am considering some Titanium Rotor bolts to save a little bit of mass there too. Compared to stock steel rotors and their design you can shave almost a pound of weight. With the EBC rotors on my FZR it actually stops like a modern bike now.

 

I used to be big on the rear brake myself as one of my bikes is a big heavy 800# Harley Davidson where it's super helpful to use the rear brake at low speeds. I'm slowly breaking that habit as they don't provide much braking power considering the risk and moving your feet off the correct position of the peg and then back again is distracting to me. Occasionally I'll use the rear to settle the bike but that's becoming less and less frequent. One area where the rear brake is super helpful though is if you have to get off the track in a hurry and head into the grass. I broke something on my FZR the last track day I was on and had to exit the track with a lot of excess speed. I scrubbed off a lot of speed on a chicane and then switched to the rear brake once in the grass to stop the bike.

[ktk_ace]

 

 

I am not talking about coasting, I know that is a waist of time. But when coming up on turn 1 from the front straight, do you just chop throttle and hit the brakes? I don't.. it doesn't feel smooth to me. So I just roll off, takes a second or less or about the same amount of time as popping up from the tuck. Do I over-think it while on the bike, naw. maybe right now I am. Guilty

 

Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to my next suspension setting changes when I feel the bike and I no longer have a symbiotic relationship. I just wish I could get the 250 setup to feel that way.

 

motogp has very hi end hardware to "solve" this problem decelerating from high speeds to turn 1 : carbon ceramic brake rotors

 

cuts alot of unsprung mass

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsprung_mass

 

the brembo, ohlins and electronics help too, but before all that, it still can be emulated to a degree with enough practice

 

 

PS. if you up the fueling so much that engine braking is almost nonexistent (its a common setup for racing here)

 

, you can technically chop the throttle straight up and not upset the bike, leaving you with more of the $10 of attention to do other things beneficial to turning

 

I personally use both the front and rear brakes to prep for entry speed

 

 

You don't have to use the super exotic stuff to save on unsprung mass. I upgraded my FZR400 to more modern EBC contour rotors and while probably not even close to being light as MotoGP rotors made a massive improvement on the bike. I chose the EBC rotors because of their aluminum hubs and less rotor buttons and their Xdrive system. I purchased a set for my R6 as well and am considering some Titanium Rotor bolts to save a little bit of mass there too. Compared to stock steel rotors and their design you can shave almost a pound of weight. With the EBC rotors on my FZR it actually stops like a modern bike now.

 

I used to be big on the rear brake myself as one of my bikes is a big heavy 800# Harley Davidson where it's super helpful to use the rear brake at low speeds. I'm slowly breaking that habit as they don't provide much braking power considering the risk and moving your feet off the correct position of the peg and then back again is distracting to me. Occasionally I'll use the rear to settle the bike but that's becoming less and less frequent. One area where the rear brake is super helpful though is if you have to get off the track in a hurry and head into the grass. I broke something on my FZR the last track day I was on and had to exit the track with a lot of excess speed. I scrubbed off a lot of speed on a chicane and then switched to the rear brake once in the grass to stop the bike.

 

 

Googled the xdrive and... I can say its an interesting system!

 

 

Lots of ways to shave unsprung weight thats for sure

 

 

some others i have seen:

 

analog> digital speedometer ,

 

 

magtek/carbon wheel hubs ,

 

 

ceramic bearings

 

air shocks :(Showa SFF Air )

 

kevlar pads instead of sintered metal pads for short races

 

tires (michelin has that on their website)

 

aluminium air nipples (the stock ones on some are brass)

 

lightened racing calipers (GP grade stuff is EXPENSIVE!)

[rchase]

 

Googled the xdrive and... I can say its an interesting system!

 

 

Lots of ways to shave unsprung weight thats for sure

 

 

some others i have seen:

 

analog> digital speedometer ,

 

 

magtek/carbon wheel hubs ,

 

 

ceramic bearings

 

air shocks :(Showa SFF Air )

 

kevlar pads instead of sintered metal pads for short races

 

tires (michelin has that on their website)

 

aluminium air nipples (the stock ones on some are brass)

 

lightened racing calipers (GP grade stuff is EXPENSIVE!)

 

 

Absolutely. The new Dunlop Q3 uses carbon fibre inside to reduce weight.

 

One important thing to keep in mind. One of the bikes I own is an MV Agusta and many of the owners of those bikes go absolutely bonkers trying to shave weight from them using exotic components. There's a huge point of diminishing returns on weight savings even in the unsprung weight category. I have watched people go absolutely insane spending 50K just modifying their bikes for weight savings. At that point the bike becomes so expensive it haunts you out on the track.

 

You can certainly stack the deck in your favor by hitting the "big things" like heavy rotors, fuel tanks, batteries and other big stuff to save weight but don't worry about the small stuff. You pay a lot for the small items and don't get much return for your investment. Probably one of the easiest and logical weight savings things you can do is to get rid of your heavy lead acid battery. Not only can you shave almost 5lbs off the bike you don't have acid that may corrode your frame in a crash and have a bike that you can leave for almost a year without starting. Shorai makes a lithium Ion cell that I have in both my MV and my FZR. My main interest was getting the acid away and being able to have extended storage time but the weight was a nice plus as well.

[mugget]

I am not talking about coasting, I know that is a waist of time. But when coming up on turn 1 from the front straight, do you just chop throttle and hit the brakes? I don't.. it doesn't feel smooth to me. So I just roll off, takes a second or less or about the same amount of time as popping up from the tuck. Do I over-think it while on the bike, naw. maybe right now I am. Guilty

 

Thanks for the input and I am looking forward to my next suspension setting changes when I feel the bike and I no longer have a symbiotic relationship. I just wish I could get the 250 setup to feel that way.

 

I think the recommendation for most people is to simultaneously roll off the throttle and apply the brake? So yeah, no chopping the throttle anywhere.

 

But maybe it would be possible to be more aggressive and make a faster transition from throttle to brakes? Being smooth is a great goal to have, but if you can be more aggressive and have the bike more around a bit, does that give any advantage? Something to think about. Especially if you're limited to certain changes on your bike?

I also think there's a big advantage in being able to adjust ourselves and our riding style to suit the bike, rather than constantly trying to change parts etc. to get our imagined "ideal setup" on the bike. Sometimes people can chase their tails trying to get their bike setup, when all along they could have just looked at what they could do differently to achieve the same result?