Ask a RiderCoach!

[Watcher]

So, I took the Blast out for a ride last night after working on it a little bit. I was really paying attention to the feedback from the bars and I noticed it REALLY likes to turn the bars in whenever the bike leans. Like, if I countersteer the bike into a left lean, I can feel the bars sort of "trying" to turn left while the bike is leaned over. I don't feel like I'm in danger or anything, but I don't get that sensation at ALL when riding my GS.

Any explanation for that behavior? Is it the bike? Is it something I'm doing? Or is that normal for a bike with a much less sporty riding position?

Could just be the sensation from the riding position.  I sort of get the same feeling from some of the more "relaxed" bikes I use in class, but especially at lower speeds.
The wheels don't return to exactly in line with each other when turning, there is a slight bais in, and that's just from the fact that you're turning, really.

If you want to make the smallest turning circle possible you can only control the bike and complete it at walking speed, and it requires handlebar steering input. 

This is false.  ..
My Buell is one, if I go full lock with no lean it takes me 2 lanes to u-turn.  But get that motorcycle leaning IN and your turn tightens.

That's because of the lock limit, not because you can't turn it without leaning.

I didn't suggest, ever, that to not lean the bike will result in tighter turns. But you absolutely cannot maneuver a motorcycle within the tightest turning radius it will make without turning the handlebars. I am not sure how you are really, truly suggesting that is "false".

Look, it's obvious from your response that I triggered some kind of defensiveness. It's not necessary. I have no interest in challenging your authority as a RiderCoach or affecting how you instruct your students.

What I was focused on was your statement that the tightest turn possible has to be taken at a walking pace, but at a walking pace you're often relying too much on your own balance and counter-weighting and all too often the bike ends up too vertical.  A slight increase in speed to a jog or even a slow run can actually result in higher stability allowing you to lean it farther down, getting a tighter turn.  The video I posted was just to be an example that the turns hes making are comparable to "The Box" but are at much higher speeds.  Often the turns are more effective and easier with a little bit of speed.  That's all I meant.
I also didn't mean to suggest you don't need the bars turned as well, but I did mean to suggest that getting on the side profile of the tire is more effective than simply turning the bars.

I wasn't "triggered", nor do I feel like I'm some sort of end-all authority just because I have a certification.  I don't always get things right, but I do have a working knowledge of motorcycles that's a level higher than the average rider.  But I'm not here to say "Ha!  I know more than you!"  I'm trying to help people here, it's why I got my certification in the first place, and part of trying to help people is when I see information that isn't wholly true I try to correct it.

Lean too far going too fast in a turn (trying to tighten the circle) and you will low-side crash (cyclists call this "washing out"). Turn too much steering angle when going too fast to try to tighten the turn and you will roll the wrong way and high-side crash.

No, you don't quite understand what causes a low-side or high-side.  It's almost nothing to do with steering input.

Again, you missed my point entirely. But go ahead, assume I don't understand what I'm talking about. I didn't say this is THE CAUSE of low-side or high-side crashes. I am talking strictly about the physics of it. sheesh.

Then I don't understand what you're trying to say here, I don't think qcbaker did either.  "Too much steering angle... try to tighten the turn and you will roll the wrong way and high-side crash."  It sounds like you're trying to say too much steering input IN will cause you to highside, and that's not the case.  Too much steering input when entering a turn or to tighten the turn will wash the front end out and low-side crash.  Too much steering input on exit may cause you to over-steer and end up turning the opposite way.  I guess I COULD see if you're pinned at full lean to the right, and you steer the bars to the right to full lock (in other words, counter-steer LEFT), the force of the bike wanting to stand back up could throw you off, but you were talking about trying to tighten the turn which makes the whole scenario backwards.  You wouldn't be turning the bars that way to tighten the turn, so a high-side from that scenario is essentially a practical impossibility.

What you are talking about is more losing the front end,

No, it isn't. But whatever. I really did read what you posted and worked pretty hard to understand it. I'd appreciate the same.

It's not like I breezed over your response, I read it a few times.  I'm usually pretty meticulous about trying to grasp the concept before I formulate a reply.  If I misunderstood, I genuinely misunderstood...
I went over your "roll center" thing a few times before I really was sure I knew what you were talking about.  At first I was like "The car doesn't lean because of the roll center, the roll center is just the axis through which it rolls."  But I got what you meant after a re-read, you can't have one without the other.  Roll center sans lateral force is no lean just as lateral force without a roll center is no lean.  There's no way I would have gotten that complex in my own explanation, and it did genuinely take me more than one read to grasp what you were trying to say.
Hence why...

Thanks for the physics lesson, but it wasn't necessary ...  Teaching on the range if someone wants me to better describe why counter-steering works I'll use the car example.  If they want more details I'll tell them to talk to me after class.

I thought we were having a discussion on the gstwins.com message board and not in your class or on the range.

Maybe this was a little cold, it is GSTwin's thread, not my thread.  I do appreciate your more technical knowledge, but I never meant for this to be a really formal "how does it work" thread.  "Ask a RiderCoach!" in my head was just that, I get asked a question and I answer it how I would as a RiderCoach, simple Q&A.  Nothing wrong with discussion, and I invite corrections, but it wasn't what I expected or really even wanted going into this thread so I reacted a little sour, I think.  So I apologize for that.

You're completely right here.

Comes rather as a shock considering you spent the entire rest of your post telling me how I am wrong.

Your topic, your rules I guess. I'll go back to posting on other threads then.

No no!  I didn't think most of your post was wrong.  I did want to clarify a few things within, I felt like some of the things you were trying to correct me on were counter to my point, and perhaps I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say in once instance or another, but the last thing I need here is contradictory information so if something doesn't make sense to me or seems wrong to me I AM going to try and rebut it.
Furthermore, if I can't make sense of it I'm sure a newer rider would have trouble making sense of it too.  So trying to to get the point across in easily digestible chunks has always been my goal from the start.

You said you figured you put me on the defensive, but it's pretty evident I struck a nerve with you and I truly didn't mean to.

One of the ways we can learn from each other is to question each other, and I know I end up questioning myself a lot if I have a compelling argument against what I believe to be correct.  I tend to stick to my guns pretty hard but I will always try my best to see the position of my detractor.

If it's plainly evident that I misunderstood you, I invite you to please clarify so we can all benefit.  If it makes sense I'll acknowledge that and change my own perceptions.  I wish you would have tried to clarify and rebut instead of simply storming off.  I feel like I got the "You don't understand! {door slam}" teenager thing.
I can admit when I'm wrong.  I hope I'm not the only one here who can.

[qcbaker]

Could just be the sensation from the riding position.  I sort of get the same feeling from some of the more "relaxed" bikes I use in class, but especially at lower speeds.

Well, I guess that just reinforces in my mind that sportier bikes are what I like to ride lol.

And yeah, its more pronounced at lower speeds. Cornering above like 30mph I don't feel it as much, but just puttering around the neighborhood I feel like I really have to push the inside bar to get it to lean over, whereas the GS feels much more like it will basically steer itself if I shift my weight.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here, I don't think qcbaker did either.  "Too much steering angle... try to tighten the turn and you will roll the wrong way and high-side crash."  It sounds like you're trying to say too much steering input IN will cause you to highside, and that's not the case.  Too much steering input when entering a turn or to tighten the turn will wash the front end out and low-side crash.  Too much steering input on exit may cause you to over-steer and end up turning the opposite way.  I guess I COULD see if you're pinned at full lean to the right, and you steer the bars to the right to full lock (in other words, counter-steer LEFT), the force of the bike wanting to stand back up could throw you off, but you were talking about trying to tighten the turn which makes the whole scenario backwards.  You wouldn't be turning the bars that way to tighten the turn, so a high-side from that scenario is essentially a practical impossibility.

Yeah, that's basically how I took what he said. I feel like to high side by doing that, you would basically have to be trying to wreck your bike lol. But, like mr72 said, he wasn't as much discussing the practical aspect, just the physics of it.

[mr72]

I guess I COULD see if you're pinned at full lean to the right, and you steer the bars to the right to full lock (in other words, counter-steer LEFT), the force of the bike wanting to stand back up could throw you off, but you were talking about trying to tighten the turn which makes the whole scenario backwards.  You wouldn't be turning the bars that way to tighten the turn, so a high-side from that scenario is essentially a practical impossibility.

Yeah, that's basically how I took what he said. I feel like to high side by doing that, you would basically have to be trying to wreck your bike lol. But, like mr72 said, he wasn't as much discussing the practical aspect, just the physics of it.

That's right. That's what I was trying to communicate.

And FWIW I think most normal people (not those with extensive motorcycling experience) would naturally turn the handlebar in the direction of the apex in order to try and tighten the turn. That's how you steer any other two wheel vehicle, such as the ones most adults have been riding since their youth. And in the case of my dad's motorcycle, leaning the bike forcibly (well nearly so) turns the handlebar in this direction so it enforces the habit of turn-to-steer.

Looking back, this really was one of the things my dad had the most trouble with during our MSF course, he tended to lean insufficiently ant turn the bars too much. I think it was a combination of things: he was used to riding his motorcycle that turns when you lean it and gives the strong sensation of the handlebar turning and he was doing the MSF class on essentially a dirt bike (DR200) with knobby tires that don't feel like they will grip when you lean on pavement. He had a heck of a time in "the box".

[Watcher]

I guess I COULD see if you're pinned at full lean to the right, and you steer the bars to the right to full lock (in other words, counter-steer LEFT), the force of the bike wanting to stand back up could throw you off, but you were talking about trying to tighten the turn which makes the whole scenario backwards.  You wouldn't be turning the bars that way to tighten the turn, so a high-side from that scenario is essentially a practical impossibility.

Yeah, that's basically how I took what he said. I feel like to high side by doing that, you would basically have to be trying to wreck your bike lol. But, like mr72 said, he wasn't as much discussing the practical aspect, just the physics of it.

That's right. That's what I was trying to communicate.

And FWIW I think most normal people (not those with extensive motorcycling experience) would naturally turn the handlebar in the direction of the apex in order to try and tighten the turn.

Yeah, alright, I see what you were saying.

At the same time, at the speeds and lean angles you'd have to be at for such an input to result in a high-side I highly doubt the rider in question has such a poor understanding of motorcycle control.  You'd have to counter-steer pretty damn hard to get yourself into that situation, nothing short of amnesia is likely to result in you steering wrong once you're there
Well, maybe pure panic...

I feel like to high side by doing that, you would basically have to be trying to wreck your bike lol.

That's why I was certain it couldn't have been that he was talking about.  In my head it's like saying "When emergency braking, rolling on the throttle and leaving the clutch out can result in breaking the rear tire loose and you can lose balance."  Well, yeah, and I've seen people forget to roll off when braking and/or forget to pull the clutch in and that results in all kinds of weird reactions from them, but rolling on when braking?  00.01% chance of it happening accidentally, 99.99% chance of it being deliberate from someone trying to stunt and come to a burnout-stop or something, lol!

[qcbaker]

... turn the handlebar in the direction of the apex in order to try and tighten the turn. That's how you steer any other two wheel vehicle, such as the ones most adults have been riding since their youth.

You have much more cycling experience than me, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think bicycles steer that way at speed... Even bicycles require countersteering to corner properly, dont they?

There's even a big section of Twist of the Wrist where they talk about how the transition from a tricycle or bike with training wheels is difficult for children because of the fact two wheeled vehicles require countersteering but 3/4 wheelers don't.

[Watcher]

... turn the handlebar in the direction of the apex in order to try and tighten the turn. That's how you steer any other two wheel vehicle, such as the ones most adults have been riding since their youth.

You have much more cycling experience than me, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think bicycles steer that way at speed... Even bicycles require countersteering to corner properly, dont they?

There's even a big section of Twist of the Wrist where they talk about how the transition from a tricycle or bike with training wheels is difficult for children because of the fact two wheeled vehicles require countersteering but 3/4 wheelers don't.

Yeah, you definitely do need to counter-steer a bicycle.  It might be less apparent, though, because bicycles generally are operated at a lower speed and have no weight to them so they react so quickly.  Often the counter-steer before leaning is imperceptible.
In fact, even at walking paces on a motorcycle where you're fully turning the bars left and right it's usually preceded by the slightest counter-steer.

Skip to 0:51 if you want to get to the meat and potatoes.

But the kinds of trails I used to ride on my mountain bike would have me pushing 30mph and at those speeds it's definitely obvious.

[qcbaker]

Well, yeah, and I've seen people forget to roll off when braking and/or forget to pull the clutch in
...

This brings me to another point: one "tip" I got when I first started riding was actually to NOT pull the clutch in when coming to a stop until a little before you would start stalling. The rationale being that not pulling the clutch in would prevent you from accidentally locking the rear wheel up with the rear brake. I was never really quite sure what to make of this. I guess it makes sense for a sudden or panic stop, but I don't think it really applies for normal, controlled stops (stop signs, red lights, etc.). Do you think its bad advice?

[mr72]

You have much more cycling experience than me, so maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think bicycles steer that way at speed... Even bicycles require countersteering to corner properly, dont they?

In 40+ years of cycling, racing, mountain biking, road racing, bicycle touring, even growing up with freestyle and BMX and doing jumps and tricks and all that... probably 2-5K miles a year on a bike, I have not once heard any cyclist use the term "countersteer". We just "steer".

I suppose it's possible that all cyclists, subconsciously and imperceptibly, "countersteer" momentarily when initiating a turn to lean, but I've never heard of anyone thinking of it of it or doing it intentionally.

And FWIW it is no different for ME on a motorcycle. But after spending probably 100K+ miles piloting a two-wheel vehicle, I didn't have to learn how to steer.

[Watcher]

Well, yeah, and I've seen people forget to roll off when braking and/or forget to pull the clutch in
...

This brings me to another point: one "tip" I got when I first started riding was actually to NOT pull the clutch in when coming to a stop until a little before you would start stalling. The rationale being that not pulling the clutch in would prevent you from accidentally locking the rear wheel up with the rear brake. I was never really quite sure what to make of this. I guess it makes sense for a sudden or panic stop, but I don't think it really applies for normal, controlled stops (stop signs, red lights, etc.). Do you think its bad advice?

Edit:  This is apparently the UK method of emergency stopping.  I don't necessarily agree with it for a few reasons.


Absolutely.

Lets talk about one thing first and that's the "threshold".  That is simply the maximum braking pressure you can apply before the wheels lock up, this also results in the shortest stopping distance physically possible.  Realistically, a rider will never know where the threshold is UNLESS they've exceeded it at one point or another.
Theoretically if leaving the clutch engaged virtually eliminates the potential for locking up the tire, you won't ever get as close to that threshold as you could be, and you'll never be braking at maximum effectiveness.



The more in danger we perceive to be the further away from fine motor skill we get, and being able to get the timing to keep that engine just shy of stalling and THEN pull the clutch in will become difficult if not impossible under high stress.  If it's practiced it may become natural, but it seems to me like it's over complicating the process.  And like you said yourself, you don't think it applies to a normal stopping situation.  I don't see why we should be changing our stopping technique just because we need to stop faster.  In every normal stop you pull in the clutch and use the brakes to stop, so for emergency stops I think you should pull in the clutch and use the brakes to stop.

Because of the wheel still being "connected" to the engine if it were to stall you'd instantly lock the rear up.  Conversely, if you lock up the rear wheel from too much braking pressure you're invariably going to stall the engine.
I think the argument that you won't be able to lock the rear up is because you perceive that the engine is forcing the wheel to turn, but it doesn't make much sense to me unless the engine is actively pushing the motorcycle.  For example, if you are driving down the road at 30mph and holding the throttle steady you can really stomp on that rear brake and all you'll do at first is slow way down and load up the engine.  You won't actually lock the wheel up until you can slow the engine enough to make it stall.  That being said, when you are engine braking the engine isn't working to turn the wheel, rather the wheel is working to turn the engine.  The forces are reversed, the engine is no longer keeping the wheel turning and preventing it from locking up.

If you're engine braking and applying the rear brake you are essentially using two brakes on the rear end at once.  As if your attention wasn't already really focused on coming to a stop, now you have to balance braking forces between not just the front and rear, but the front, rear, and rear.  You're never going to really learn what that rear threshold is, as the amount of braking force you can apply with the pedal will vary based on how much the engine is slowing the wheel, and that in it of itself varies not only based on how much the clutch is biting but at what RPM the engine is turning and what gear you're even in.  It's too many variables to contend with, it's like trying to balance on a ball during an earthquake in a tornado.
Not only that, but if we understand that 70% of braking force comes from the front and only 30% for the rear what sense does it make to have TWO forces braking the rear?

You can consider a tire's contact patch and with it the available traction of each tire.  It's why there is so much more braking power up front, as the weight shifts forward during braking the front tire's contact patch expands dramatically and increases your traction up front, allowing you to brake even harder.  The exact opposite happens to the rear, weight lifts off of it, makes the contact patch smaller, and lessens available traction.  If you ever watch MotoGP sometimes those riders brake so hard before turns they actually lift the rear wheel off the ground!  At that point the rear is doing nothing to slow them down, but this whole time they are also aggressively downshifting which is engine-braking, and the one brake that 95% of all racers do NOT use in this scenario is the rear brake.  With such little rear wheel contact and already engine braking forces being at the threshold of slipping that tire, any additional braking to the rear would cause them to lose traction, so they don't use it.  More often they use the rear brake while in turns or otherwise to slow while keeping the throttle open, an example may be slowing briefly to avoid contact with another racer.

And the final thing is that it is critical to come to a stop with the ability to then start moving again.  That means coming to a stop upright with the bars square, in first gear, with the clutch in, and with the engine still running.
One scenario of why this is important is a quick stop in traffic.  Picture this: you're in heavy traffic, cars in front and behind, and on both sides of you which prevent a swerve reaction.  If the guy in front of you stands on his brake pedal and catches YOU by surprise, what are the chances that you catch the driver behind you off guard as well?  What are the chances that scenario ends in a rear-end collision?
One of the exercises in the Advanced Rider Course is just this scenario.  You come down a lane about 25mph, emergency stop, and once stopped you do a quick mirror/head check and quickly swerve from a stop to avoid the "rear end collision."


Just pull that clutch all the way in, take it out of the equation completely, and focus on braking.

[rscottlow]

I recently installed shorty levers on my GS. It has reinforced my need to brake with two fingers for better braking control, instead of with my whole hand. That being said, it makes operating the clutch lever a little different. So my question is, how many fingers on the clutch lever? If I only clutch with two fingers, my other two get in the way to prevent the clutch from disengaging all the way. So should I be using all four? But only three fingers fit on the short lever...thoughts?

[qcbaker]

I recently installed shorty levers on my GS. It has reinforced my need to brake with two fingers for better braking control, instead of with my whole hand. That being said, it makes operating the clutch lever a little different. So my question is, how many fingers on the clutch lever? If I only clutch with two fingers, my other two get in the way to prevent the clutch from disengaging all the way. So should I be using all four? But only three fingers fit on the short lever...thoughts?

Sounds to me like you need to perform a clutch adjustment... I have the same levers and I clutch with 2 fingers because that feels natural with the length of the levers, and I have no issues with the clutch not disengaging the whole way.

[rscottlow]

When I installed the new levers, I adjusted the clutch per the manual, but when I pull the clutch all the way in with just two fingers, my ring finger sits between the clutch lever and the bar. This creates just enough of a gap between the clutch lever and the bar to prevent it from fully disengaging. I could adjust it out just a little bit, and this would make up for it...so I guess this is really what's prompting my question. Should I even bother? The clutch operates correctly when my fingers aren't in the way. I understand the need to use just two fingers on the brake, because of the fine motor skills necessary when braking. But for the clutch...is there really a need? Or should I just use my whole hand (or at least the three fingers that fit on the lever)?

[Watcher]

2 finger braking is an advanced technique, and really should only be used for braking to slow just a bit, trail braking, or when braking while downshifting.  For maximum braking force and control with minimum effort all 4 fingers should be used, and all 4 fingers should be habitual for emergencies and such.

I feel the same way about the clutch.  Because of where I like my friction zone and because of my leather clad digits being in the way I can't fully disengage the clutch when two finger clutching.  It does sort of naturally act as a slipper-clutch this way, but 95% of the time I'm 4 fingers on the clutch.  One again, maximum force and control with minimum effort, and it should be habitually reinforced.


If you ever watch MotoGP you will hardly ever see either a shorty brake or shorty clutch on those machines.  More often than not, those guys are on factory levers or something equivalent.
2 fingers is a technique, it shouldn't be necessitated by your equipment.

That being said, I have those odd sized 3 finger levers on my Buell from the PO.  Usually my pinky just hangs out in space and goes through the motions.

And I can definitely see a short clutch for a stunter, especially one that also has a rear handbrake.

[rscottlow]

I'd heard from a few different sources that two finger braking was proper. I'm glad I asked before I get into that habit. 3 fingers fit comfortably on those new levers with my gloves on, so I'll go with that, and leave my pinky hanging out. Thanks!

[Watcher]

I'd heard from a few different sources that two finger braking was proper.

So have I, but one thing that I always tend to think about with stuff like that is how is the object designed?
Motorcycles have been around for over 100 years, if 2 fingers was proper technique then why are the factory levers as long as they are?  Surely 3 inches of unnecessary metal over hundreds of thousands of motorcycles is a lot of damn metal wasted, not to mention the fingers remaining on the grips are in the way of the lever if it's that long.

Things aren't arbitrarily designed (usually), so if it exists in a certain way there's probably a good reason for it.

[mr72]

Two finger brake levers are routine on mountain bikes (higher-end), even though long levers are available (normally on cheap bikes with side-pull brakes).

Certainly two-finger levers would be sufficient for a GS500 ... my shorty levers fit three fingers, you can't fit your pinky on them but I don't tend to leave my pinky on the bar.. it just hangs off. On my mountain bike I always brake with just two fingers and the other two are on the bar. Seems to work better and I'd really prefer a shorter 2-finger lever on the motorcycle. I can easily get enough brake to lock it hard with just two fingers.

[Watcher]

Two finger brake levers are routine on mountain bikes (higher-end).

That's true.  The brakes on my Rocky were incredibly strong, and those levers were short and would send you flying like Superman if you grabbed a handful of the front.
I usually just chalk that up to the fact being off-road on rough terrain with such a light vehicle means you need to retain more control over the handlebars.
Then again, a 30 pound mountain bike with hydraulic disc brakes...  If it DIDN'T have short levers you'd probably over-brake constantly.

I'm not a big road biker, but I think race bikes typically have full size levers.

[mr72]

The brakes on my Rocky were incredibly strong, and those levers were short and would send you flying like Superman if you grabbed a handful of the front.
I usually just chalk that up to the fact being off-road on rough terrain with such a light vehicle means you need to retain more control over the handlebars.

I don't really think that's the case. To handle the bike correctly off-road you need a very light touch and loose grip on the bars. You want to let the bike go where it wants to go to an extent.

I do think it's just that it's less likely for the lever to catch on branches or break off in a fall. Two fingers is enough to stop the bike, even an 8" rotor on a DH bike going 50+ mph. It'll stop just fine and then woe to you if you touch that rotor.

I'm not a big road biker, but I think race bikes typically have full size levers.

Yeah sort of. Since they are on the "drops" of the handlebar they curve around and you generally only brake with one or two fingers because of your hand position. It's impossible to get your hand in a position where you can brake with more than two fingers. And the brakes generally stink for stopping the bike compared with MTB disc brakes because rim brakes will overheat the rim and melt the tube before they will stop the bike when you really need it (long down hill, fast bike, etc.).

[qcbaker]

I wouldn't call 2 finger braking on a motorcycle "proper" but I don't think its a mortal sin. I two finger brake most of the time because it just feels natural to me . I feel like I get more than enough stopping power out of my bike, even only using two fingers. That said, in a panic stop I find that I do just instinctively grab the lever with all 4 fingers (even if only 3 of them "fit").

I bought shorty levers not so that I could more effectively brake/clutch with two fingers, but because I liked the way they looked, and they'd be less likely to get bent/broken if I laid my bike down again.

[rscottlow]

That's the thing - I bought mine because my stock clutch lever was bent from my lowside, and I think the short levers look better. Using 2 fingers to brake/clutch is counter-intuitive to me (although that's the case for me with most things on a motorcycle lol), so I'm sort of glad to know I'm not doing it "wrong" by wanting to use all four fingers.