News:

New Wiki available at http://wiki.gstwins.com -Check it out or contribute today!

Main Menu

Ask a RiderCoach!

Started by Watcher, March 19, 2017, 09:36:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Watcher

Quote from: qcbaker on March 28, 2017, 05:16:13 AM
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 :dunno_black:. 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'll also say that one should "practice as you play", or practice a technique for how you ride.  It's foreseeable that if you get really used to 2-finger braking pressure, that instinctive 4 finger grab may mean you accidentally apply more pressure than you need.  Keeping a 4 fingered stopping technique and just using 2 fingers for slowing for a curve or whatever, you may be better off in the long run.

That being said, we push and push 4 fingered braking in the MSF but if by day two the rider is still using just 2 fingers, and they are actually able to stop proficiently while releasing the throttle, we won't fix what isn't broken.

There's a talking point I overlooked, keeping two fingers around that throttle while braking is a good way to not roll off fully.  So the whole 4 finger brake basically requires you to let go of the throttle and you won't come to a stop racing the engine.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

Watcher

#41
So I recently got into a "heated discussion" with someone on another forum and apparently it's common in the UK for them to teach the whole "Clutch out until you're just about to stop" technique, had no idea  :dunno_black:
The person I was going back and forth with said that prematurely disengaging the clutch is an automatic failure.  I asked her if stalling was an automatic failure, and the reply I got wasn't in the form of a "yes" or "no" but did answer my question.  It's not.  They'd rather you stall out but come to a nice controlled stop than pull in the clutch first and then come to a stop.

She sent me an article, I don't wish to share it because I feel like there was some contradictory information within and I don't really trust her (she was making some really ridiculous claims earlier before we got into techniques), but I did want to bring up one point of discussion.

Both the article and herself were saying that the most important thing when coming to an emergency stop is stopping (I agree), that fiddling with the transmission and clutch is diverting your focus (I disagree, not if it's practiced), that leaving the clutch engaged means you're less likely to lock up or loose traction on the rear (I disagree, I talk about this on page 2), that going from 6th to 1st while going from 60-0 in an emergency is essentially impossible (I disagree, I personally went from 4th to 1st at 40 in a real emergency stop), and that the final step in any emergency stop is to check behind you for additional threats (I agree).
The problem I see with this all is that if you come to your nice controlled stop from 60mph, you weren't concerned with the transmission, and say you did snatch the clutch at the last second and kept the engine running, now you look behind and see a semi-truck with locked up wheels coming at you, you have literally 2 seconds to get out of the way, are you going to be able to click down 5 times and then ride out of the way?  Were you even in 6th gear?  Maybe you were in 4th, are you going to have time to stomp on that shifter a few times until you don't feel it engaging anymore?  Short answer is no.
Her response to this was essentially "Maybe the best option is to jump out of the way."  Has anyone here tried jumping sideways off of an unstable platform?  I have, by accident, many times when I was learning how to ride a skateboard.  Usually it's comical on a skateboard, the board goes one way, you really don't move that far the other way, and you land on your face.  Kick off a 2-wheeled motorcycle, let me know how well that works for you.

I think the best response to a rearward threat if we're in/on a vehicle, no matter what vehicle, is to move forward before moving laterally.  Moving in the same direction of the incoming threat gives you more time to respond, and allows you to maneuver into an escape path.  The best way to give us that ability, is to come to a stop in first gear with the engine running.


Her reply was something along the lines of "You're too focused on what comes after the stop, not the stop itself."  That's not true, I just think that you can be at the braking threshold and still work the transmission.
She asked me, condescendingly, "How many of your students can just ride away after demonstrating their emergency stop?  I'll bet they still have to fiddle with the transmission when stopped because they're in 2nd or Neutral."  All of them, essentially.  Everyone on the range is stopping for two whole days, literally from the first exercise of day one until the final evaluation on day two, and every time someone stops they pull the clutch in, downshift if necessary, and use both brakes.  I don't see why an emergency stop should change that technique at all, so we don't.  When we first visit the quick-stop specifically a student might be so focused on the stop they forget the downshift the first time, maybe the second or even third time, but in mere minutes the action of downshifting while stopping is natural.  Once it's committed to muscle memory and becomes an autonomic response it's no longer a matter of "the student has to juggle braking and transmission and clutch," it's just "both hands squeeze, both feet press..."



In the end, we both agreed that as long as an action is practiced it will be performed well under pressure, and while we disagreed on the technique it did bring up something that's worth mentioning.

I'm in the USA and I teach MSF curriculum.  She is in the UK and teaches...  Whatever it is the UK curriculum is.  So while I have a lot of good information and advice for you the standard may be different in the country you reside in, and you should not take what I say here, necessarily, as a rule, because the laws and regulations in your own country may require you to do things differently.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

qcbaker

#42
Watcher, I think I agree with you that pulling in the clutch and downshifting while stopping is probably best, all things considered. But, I do disagree with you that leaving the clutch out makes you more likely to lock up the rear wheel. Your explanation (if I've understood you correctly) is that engine braking + brake pressure is MORE braking force on the rear tire than just the normal brake pressure, so the tire is more likely to lock up.

However, I would say that you're ignoring the fact that while the clutch is out, the engine is also still trying to spin the rear wheel forward, even if RPMs are dropping due to the bike slowing. Consider the following:

When you pull the clutch in, the rear wheel is not being spun by the engine, but it is being spun by the torque generated by friction between the tire the ground (We'll call that number X since I have no clue what the actual numbers would be). So it takes X or greater ft-lbs of rear brake to lock up the rear wheel when slowing with the clutch in.

With the clutch OUT, there is not only torque from the tire/ground friction, there is also the torque from the engine that is trying to keep the wheel spinning forward (We'll call that Y).  It would take X+Y units of brake pressure to lock up the wheel (and stall the engine) if you were to slow with the clutch out. So, if you slow with the clutch out, you can apply X brake pressure without locking up the rear wheel.

However, I think it's important to note that if you were to brake at just under X brake pressure with the clutch in, I'm pretty sure you would have a shorter stopping distance than if you braked at X with the clutch out.

So, pros and cons to both. Clutch out braking (with identical brake pressure) is less likely to result in a locked rear wheel, but you may not stop as quickly. Also, clutching in and downshifting while stopping leaves you in 1st when stopped, allowing you to more quickly start moving again if necessary.

Watcher

#43
Quote from: qcbaker on March 30, 2017, 11:46:06 AM
I would say that you're ignoring the fact that while the clutch is out, the engine is also still trying to spin the rear wheel forward, even if RPMs are dropping due to the bike slowing.

So, pros and cons to both. Clutch out braking (with identical brake pressure) is less likely to result in a locked rear wheel, but you may not stop as quickly.

I actually did go and revise my post on page 2, and I did touch on this.

The way I look at this is that while the engine is connected to the wheel and the engine's job is to spin the wheel, when you are engine braking the roles are reversed and it's the wheel spinning the engine.  If you wind the bike up, roll off the throttle completely and start engine braking, then flip the cutoff switch to "off", does the engine braking force increase now that there's no spark?  If it does it will be barely noticeable, with the throttle closed the engine isn't really taking in much fuel so it's not really making any power.  At most it's applying a turning force close to what the engine can apply at idle speed, which is sometimes not even adequate to pull the motorcycle from a stop.


Anyway, the point being the relationship of engine to wheel is reversed, much like why when push-starting you do it in 2nd or 3rd.


But regardless I did come to the same conclusion as you.  If I'm completely wrong and leaving the clutch engaged does result in less wheel slip, the bottom line physics are the wheel only slips when you exceed the available traction, and if the rear wheel is under moving force to prevent you from slipping it's just pushing your braking force farther from the threshold and increasing your total stopping distance.  And just the same, if you exceed that threshold you'll lock it up, only now you'll also stall the bike which can complicate matters.
So even if I'm conceding to that school of thought, I'll still say if your focus is on stopping you can minimize your total stopping distance by disengaging power to the rear wheel.  And once that's done, I mean, might as well start downshifting...
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

qcbaker

#44
Quote from: Watcher on March 30, 2017, 12:14:42 PM
I actually did go and revise my post on page 2, and I did touch on this.

The way I look at this is that while the engine is connected to the wheel and the engine's job is to spin the wheel, when you are engine braking the roles are reversed and it's the wheel spinning the engine.

Well, the engine is still running so, the wheel isn't really spinning the engine, combustion is still spinning the engine, just with reduced power. Wheel RPM and engine RPM are still very close, so the wheels aren't exerting any meaningful force on the engine. (Yes, the resistance from the wheels does exert some force on the engine, but its not really relevant unless you've changed the gear ratio, as in a downshift or upshift)

In general, engine braking force is generated by the fact that the pistons are still trying to take in whatever the current RPM's worth of air through a closed throttle. This generates a manifold vacuum force and the pistons have to work to overcome this force, which results in less force being applied to the rear wheel.

Remember, we're just talking engine braking generated by coasting in gear, not hard engine braking from downshifting. The same forces apply to both situations but the whole wheel speed vs. engine RPM is much more important when you downshift, because in that situation, wheel speed is much greater than engine speed, so the wheel is trying to spinning the engine up, and THAT force is causing the engine RPMs to want to rise, but they have to overcome an even greater manifold vacuum which is resisting that, and too much wheel speed vs engine speed could cause the rear wheel to lock up anyway, blah blah blah. Whole different situation

Quote
If you wind the bike up, roll off the throttle completely and start engine braking, then flip the cutoff switch to "off", does the engine braking force increase now that there's no spark? If it does it will be barely noticeable.

It would increase, since the pistons are now simply being pulled down by the crankshaft (wheels spinning the engine) instead of pushed down by combustion (engine spinning the engine). You would indeed slow faster if you hit the killswitch when coasting in gear. How much slower, I'm not sure though. I haven't tried that myself lol.

Quote
With the throttle closed the engine isn't really taking in fuel so it's not really making any power.  At most it's applying a turning force close to what the engine can apply at idle speed, which is sometimes not even adequate to pull the motorcycle from a stop.

That isn't really true. With the throttle closed, the engine is still taking in the same amount of fuel/air per stroke as it would at that RPM if the throttle were open, its just pulling the air from a much smaller opening, so the pistons have to work harder to pull in that air. That resistance results in a net loss of power to the rear wheel. The forward torque on the rear wheel is obviously less than it would be if the throttle were held open at that RPM, but it's much greater than the minuscule torque generated at idle.

Quote
Anyway, the point being the relationship of engine to wheel is reversed, much like why when push-starting you do it in 2nd or 3rd.

Sort of? Like I said earllier, that would be more applicable if you were at 8000 RPM in 5th and downshifted to 3rd. But for just simply coasting in gear, it's kind of two different situations...

When push starting, you're really just using the mechanical linkage between the wheels and the pistons in place of the starter motor. When you release the clutch while running the bike forward, you also have to open the throttle some so the engine braking forces don't keep the engine from running under its own power.

Quote
But regardless I did come to the same conclusion as you.  If I'm completely wrong and leaving the clutch engaged does result in less wheel slip, the bottom line physics are the wheel only slips when you exceed the available traction, and if the rear wheel is under moving force to prevent you from slipping it's just pushing your braking force farther from the threshold and increasing your total stopping distance.  And just the same, if you exceed that threshold you'll lock it up, only now you'll also stall the bike which can complicate matters.
So even if I'm conceding to that school of thought, I'll still say if your focus is on stopping you can minimize your total stopping distance by disengaging power to the rear wheel.  And once that's done, I mean, might as well start downshifting...

Like I said before, I think braking with the clutch in and downshifting is probably better as a whole, considering the benefits (better understanding your brake pressure limit, being more quickly able to stop moving again, stopping quicker) outweigh the benefits of braking clutch out and not downshifting (less likelihood of locking the rear wheel).


Watcher

#45
Quote from: qcbaker on March 30, 2017, 01:38:32 PM
Well, the engine is still running so, the wheel isn't really spinning the engine, combustion is still spinning the engine, just with reduced power. Wheel RPM and engine RPM are still very close, so the wheels aren't exerting any meaningful force on the engine.

But if you figure in neutral any given throttle percentage can = a specific engine RPM, if in gear we are at 0% throttle (which should be idle RPM) but because of our speed we are actually at 4000 rpm, it's not the ENGINE producing that RPM because it SHOULD be at idle RPM based on it's throttle position.  The reality is that it's the motorcycle's speed as translated through the wheel and then through the gearbox that makes the engine spin at a certain RPM.

Remember, we're just talking engine braking generated by coasting in gear, not hard engine braking from downshifting. The same forces apply to both situations but the whole wheel speed vs. engine RPM is much more important when you downshift, because in that situation, wheel speed is much greater than engine speed, so the wheel is trying to spinning the engine up, and THAT force is causing the engine RPMs to want to rise, but they have to overcome an even greater manifold vacuum which is resisting that, and too much wheel speed vs engine speed could cause the rear wheel to lock up anyway, blah blah blah. Whole different situation

I don't think it matters, I think engine braking is engine braking.  Say 50mph in 6th at 5000 RPM, if you close the throttle and squeeze in the clutch to just coast the RPMs drop to idle.  But if you just close the throttle the RPMs stay at 5000 RPM and slow as the whole motorcycle slows.  Once again, the wheel speed is keeping the engine speed higher than it wants to be, the wheels are turning the engine.  If you then downshift and raise the RPM to 8000, but the throttle is still 0%, it may be that the difference between the wheel speed's influence on engine speed is now at a greater difference compared to what the engine wants to do, but in both cases it's the wheel causing the engine RPM to increase or remain high despite chopping off the throttle.

Quote
If you wind the bike up, roll off the throttle completely and start engine braking, then flip the cutoff switch to "off", does the engine braking force increase now that there's no spark? If it does it will be barely noticeable.

It would increase, since the pistons are now simply being pulled down by the crankshaft (wheels spinning the engine) instead of pushed down by combustion (engine spinning the engine). You would indeed slow faster if you hit the killswitch when coasting in gear. How much slower, I'm not sure though. I haven't tried that myself lol.

I have done it, to make the bike backfire (can be quite fun through a carby bike).  It doesn't really change anything that I could tell.  I think the reason is that despite there still being combustion the piston is actually moving down at a faster velocity than the combustion can pressurize the cylinder.  If we say the amount of fuel entering the cylinder at idle speed is creating enough pressure to push the piston down at idle speed velocity, then if the engine is running faster, but on idle speed fuel load, you might be burning fuel but it's not really contributing anything.
It's like, have you ever been on a bicycle going really fast down a hill and because of the gearing the bike is going faster than you can pedal?  You can keep cranking those pedals as fast as your legs can move but unless you can pedal fast enough to catch up to the rear wheel speed you are not adding any kind of driving force.  You're just wasting energy.  So while the engine RPM is higher than the currently delivered fuel load it may be burning in the cylinders but it's not adding any kind of force to the pistons.


Quote
With the throttle closed the engine isn't really taking in much fuel so it's not really making any power.  At most it's applying a turning force close to what the engine can apply at idle speed, which is sometimes not even adequate to pull the motorcycle from a stop.

That isn't really true. With the throttle closed, the engine is still taking in the same amount of fuel/air per stroke as it would at that RPM if the throttle were open, its just pulling the air from a much smaller opening, so the pistons have to work harder to pull in that air. That resistance results in a net loss of power to the rear wheel.

That may be, but I suppose what I meant in a broader way is that despite the RPM the engine is at it's making exponentially less power because you've shut off the flow via the throttle.

My replies in bold.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

qcbaker

#46
Quote from: Watcher on March 30, 2017, 08:54:42 PM
But if you figure in neutral any given throttle percentage can = a specific engine RPM, if in gear we are at 0% throttle (which should be idle RPM) but because of our speed we are actually at 4000 rpm, it's not the ENGINE producing that RPM because it SHOULD be at idle RPM based on it's throttle position.  The reality is that it's the motorcycle's speed as translated through the wheel and then through the gearbox that makes the engine spin at a certain RPM.

Unless RPMs are RISING during engine braking, the wheels are not turning the engine, they are simply resisting the engine's attempt to spin them at a slower rate.

When wheel speed and engine speed are close (coasting in gear), and unless you have a slipper clutch, the wheels and engine are mechanically linked when the clutch is engaged, so the wheels are still being driven forward by the engine, just at reduced power. The vast majority of engine braking force comes from the fact that the engine wants the wheels to be moving slower than the ground wants them to move.

Quote
I don't think it matters, I think engine braking is engine braking.  Say 50mph in 6th at 5000 RPM, if you close the throttle and squeeze in the clutch to just coast the RPMs drop to idle.  But if you just close the throttle the RPMs stay at 5000 RPM and slow as the whole motorcycle slows.  Once again, the wheel speed is keeping the engine speed higher than it wants to be, the wheels are turning the engine.  If you then downshift and raise the RPM to 8000, but the throttle is still 0%, it may be that the difference between the wheel speed's influence on engine speed is now at a greater difference compared to what the engine wants to do, but in both cases it's the wheel causing the engine RPM to increase or remain high despite chopping off the throttle.

Not exactly. When the wheel speed is much higher than engine speed, and causes RPMs to rise, then yes the wheels are spinning the engine. But the wheels simply causing RPMs to remain higher than they would be at idle is not them spinning the engine, it is them resisting the engine's attempt to slow them down. It's two different things.

If you close the throttle at 6000RPM in 5th, and pull in the clutch, the RPMs drop more quickly because there is no force that the engine has to work against to reduce crankshaft speed. If you let the RPMs drop to idle, then let the clutch out again, wheel speed is much greater than engine speed so the wheels then do turn the engine to match their speed (with great resistance due to high manifold vacuum). After wheel speed and engine speed match, they are no longer actively forcing engine RPMs to rise, so they are not "turning the engine" they are simply resisting the engine's attempt to spin them slower than friction with the ground wants to spin them.

Quote
I have done it, to make the bike backfire (can be quite fun through a carby bike).  It doesn't really change anything that I could tell.  I think the reason is that despite there still being combustion the piston is actually moving down at a faster velocity than the combustion can pressurize the cylinder.  If we say the amount of fuel entering the cylinder at idle speed is creating enough pressure to push the piston down at idle speed velocity, then if the engine is running faster, but on idle speed fuel load, you might be burning fuel but it's not really contributing anything.

Like I said in my previous post, even during engine braking, the amount of fuel and air being taken in and burned per cycle is still the same, so the piston is not being pushed down at idle velocity.

Quote
It's like, have you ever been on a bicycle going really fast down a hill and because of the gearing the bike is going faster than you can pedal?  You can keep cranking those pedals as fast as your legs can move but unless you can pedal fast enough to catch up to the rear wheel speed you are not adding any kind of driving force.  You're just wasting energy.  So while the engine RPM is higher than the currently delivered fuel load it may be burning in the cylinders but it's not adding any kind of force to the pistons.

That's a little different, since the pedals and wheel are not mechanically linked when wheel speed is greater than pedal speed. That situation is more analogous to a slipper clutch. It's much harder to describe engine braking with an analogy involving humans pedaling because humans don't generate power the same way an engine does. You could change the analogy to be a tricycle, because then the wheels and pedals are mechanically linked, but you would have to somehow set it up so that the human legs deliver the same ratio of power as an engine while coasting in gear.

Quote
That may be, but I suppose what I meant in a broader way is that despite the RPM the engine is at it's making exponentially less power because you've shut off the flow via the throttle.

Well, yeah. But, the power produced by the engine while engine braking at any given RPM is still much more than it makes at idle.

Its important to note too, that all of this discussion of engine braking via coasting in gear is kind of only tangential to the topic at hand since we aren't simply coasting in gear, we are also braking. When you apply the brakes without clutching in, you are reducing wheel speed, which at a certain brake pressure is causing wheel speed to RESIST the forward torque of the engine. Which leads to what we're really talking about: will leaving the clutch out make you more or less likely to lock up the rear wheel when stopping?

Like I said in my previous post, the brake pressure required to overcome the engine torque AND wheel/ground friction torque is greater than the brake pressure required to overcome only the wheel/ground friction torque. So, at any given brake pressure less than X+Y, you are less likely to lock up the rear wheel with the clutch out.

Lastly, I don't mean to derail this thread into a discussion about engine braking, so if you would rather I shut up about this, I will lol. And we both agree that you should clutch in when coming to a stop anyway, so :dunno_black:

Watcher

#47
Quote from: qcbaker on March 31, 2017, 05:53:09 AM
Lastly, I don't mean to derail this thread into a discussion about engine braking, so if you would rather I shut up about this, I will lol. And we both agree that you should clutch in when coming to a stop anyway, so :dunno_black:

I get what you're saying, it does make sense to me, but I still think it's a very weird distinction.

Say I am walking forward at 2mph.  Someone comes up behind me and starts pushing me to go faster, but I still want to go 2mph, so I am resisting their force as much as I can to go 2mph.  I'd say the force driving me forward at this point is the person pushing me since my power is more focused on resisting that force, whereas it seems like you'd say it's still me that is moving me forward 2mph, only I'm also resisting the force to go faster.

It might be splitting hairs at this point.  And yeah, I'll agree that we're getting way off topic.



In order to move it along, I AM teaching tomorrow and Sunday so if you have anything you want me to experiment or focus on let me know and I'll do my best to fulfill that request.  I am going to do some quick-stops with both techniques and I'll report my findings.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

Watcher

#48
I have tested the braking in as fair a manner as I could think, and have a result that was more in line with my thinking.
Whether or not the result was due to lack of practice or a subconscious bias may be debatable, but I do have video and will share ASAP.

I'm moving this weekend and won't have solid internet access for a few days, so please stand by.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

dominickbuff

ok where i live i have a road that has a right turn that is like 120 degrees and it goes uphill and for the life of me i can never make the turn without going into the other lane(its a thin side road) what am i doing wrong im afraid that if i give it to much power ill low side.... and i need to take this hill daily(i live at the top of the hill) my current bike is a honda rebel but will be selling it by end of season for a gs500 because my skills are not good enough for a 600cc

qcbaker

Quote from: dominickbuff on April 03, 2017, 03:50:53 PM
ok where i live i have a road that has a right turn that is like 120 degrees and it goes uphill and for the life of me i can never make the turn without going into the other lane(its a thin side road) what am i doing wrong im afraid that if i give it to much power ill low side.... and i need to take this hill daily(i live at the top of the hill) my current bike is a honda rebel but will be selling it by end of season for a gs500 because my skills are not good enough for a 600cc

Slow down sooner so you can make the turn with a speed you're comfortable with?

Watcher

Quote from: dominickbuff on April 03, 2017, 03:50:53 PM
ok where i live i have a road that has a right turn that is like 120 degrees and it goes uphill and for the life of me i can never make the turn without going into the other lane(its a thin side road) what am i doing wrong im afraid that if i give it to much power ill low side....

I think the biggest concern, if I'm imagining it right, is since your turning uphill too much lean will cause you to scrape a peg or worse.
The answer may simply be to slow down more so less lean is required to make the turn, and try to be sure you aren't target fixating on a problem area.  It may be you are turning wide because you're too worried about turning wide, if that makes any sense.

Next time you're there can you pull over and take a picture?  I'm interested in seeing it.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

dominickbuff

ya i slow down and downshift before the turn to keep my rpms up but stilll go wide .... your right maybe i am overthinking it

qcbaker

Quote from: dominickbuff on April 03, 2017, 08:43:22 PM
ya i slow down and downshift before the turn to keep my rpms up but stilll go wide .... your right maybe i am overthinking it

I'm sure Watcher will agree, some of the best advice is to look where you want to go. Physically turn your head and look through the turn.

Also, if you're not comfortable with leaning the bike over more, make sure you've slowed enough BEFORE leaning the bike over at all. Braking or chopping off the throttle during a turn will run you wide initially instead of tightening the turn.

To be completely honest, its kind of hard to tell you what to change since we can't watch you attempt the turn. Are you leaning the bike over but not leaning with the bike? Are you not looking through the turn enough? Is your throttle control poor through the turn? We just don't know.

dominickbuff

im a new rider so probably all those things lol

qcbaker

Quote from: dominickbuff on April 04, 2017, 10:45:10 AM
im a new rider so probably all those things lol

http://gstwins.com/gsboard/index.php?topic=71431.0

Watch the video I posted in this thread, it should help you better understand what all is involved in cornering.

BTW, I am not trying to answer for Watcher, since this is technically "Ask A RiderCoach" and I am definitely not a RiderCoach lol. I'm just trying to help. If watcher has something more specific for you, I'd listen to him.

dominickbuff

Any help is good help I appreciate the answers and help

Watcher

I think you nailed it, qc.
We preach look where you need to go, look through the turn BEFORE you turn, and don't just turn your eyes, point your face in the direction you want to go.
That's why target fixation is as big a problem as it is, naturally you go wherever your nose is pointing.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

yamahonkawazuki

i remember the first thing on bike we were taught was the clutch rocking (idle slowly let out till it starts to grab, then in again. progressing to a clutch walk. scariest thing for me was the 2  1  panic stop. (downshifting from 2 to 1, hitting both brakes properly and stopping within a defined area. the slow speed turning ill agree with can be kinda hairy at first.
Aaron
Jan 14 2010 0310 I miss you mom
Vielen dank Patrick. Vielen dank
".
A proud Mormon
"if you come in with the bottom of your cast black,
neither one of us will be happy"- Alan Silverman MD

Watcher

Quote from: yamahonkawazuki on April 05, 2017, 07:17:27 PM
i remember the first thing on bike we were taught was the clutch rocking...


scariest thing for me was... {snip} ... stopping within a defined area.
Aaron

We still teach the rocking!  Rocking, powerwalking, then riding, all in one exercise.  Out of the frying pan, into the fire.

Stopping within a defined area, I'm trying to remember.  We only really do a measured emergency stop (X distance based on Y speed), and in one early evaluation you need to come to a stop in about a 2x3 box to demonstrate good control.  Other than that there's really no need to stop within a specific spot, at least not in the modern curriculum.


Slow speed turning is always kinda hairy, but my usual partner and I started teaching it in a particular way and our last two classes as a whole were nailing U-turns.
I'll tell students it's 90% head turn.  The reality is you need to control the clutch, maintain throttle, maybe drag the rear brake, counter-weight, nah nah nah.  Forget all that.  Set your throttle, that's 5%, get in that friction zone, that's 5%, now TURN YOUR HEAD, that's 90%.
If they get it, now we can coach them to counter-weight and such to tighten up the turn.
Another fun trick is we show them how turning your head far enough to face back naturally turns your shoulders and thus the bars.  So if you can pretend you're an owl you'll naturally make that turn.
"The point of a journey is not to arrive..."

-Neil Peart

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk