Inspired by qcbaker's "Rider Education Videos" thread, I thought that maybe I could personally be a valuable resource to new or even experienced riders based on my history as a rider and my certification through the Motorcycle Safety Foundation.
"Why not just google?" You can wade through the answers, but you may find contradictory information or not be able to translate it into layman's terms. Or maybe your question is more broad in nature to where the best way to answer it is in conversation, not in pages of text (yes, I realize this is a page of text).
"What kinds of questions?" Anything related to two wheeled motorized vehicles. Motorcycle operation, street scenarios, "what would you do" stuff, what kinds of gear I recommend and why, my opinions on controversial laws and topics, really anything you want to know regarding the use and operation of a motorcycle on public roads (and some track stuff), with the exception of local laws and regulations (I don't live where you live... probably... so go on your local city/state/province/country's police website...).
How does counter-steering work, should you be hanging off, what is trail-braking and should you use it, is a SNELL helmet really better than the other options? Stuff like that.
Hell, maybe you just want to know what it's like to teach people to ride. And I'll tell you. Just don't ask me "What's it like to teach people to ride?" because I don't feel like writing a memoir...
The answers I give you will be my opinions mixed with some technical details and physics. I am not physicist so my explanations may be remedial at best, and I can't actually share MSF material and curriculum with you, but I can use my knowledge of it to provide understandable answers to pretty much whatever you will ask.
What's it like to teach people to ride?
Just kidding :icon_mrgreen:. What's the most common aspect of riding that new riders have trouble with? Being that I'm going to be teaching the barebones basics to my girlfriend, I think it would be good to know what others struggle with so if she has trouble, I know how to approach the situation.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 20, 2017, 07:21:09 AM
What's it like to teach people to ride?
Just kidding :icon_mrgreen:. What's the most common aspect of riding that new riders have trouble with? Being that I'm going to be teaching the barebones basics to my girlfriend, I think it would be good to know what others struggle with so if she has trouble, I know how to approach the situation.
Coming from someone who first threw a leg over a motorcycle only about a year and a half ago, I'd bet that low speed maneuvering is atop that list. Haha...even lots of experienced riders seem to have trouble in that department.
I think my biggest trouble is finding the appropriate place to focus my vision. Finding that balance between being able to monitor what's far out ahead of me, with the ability to identify smaller, more inconspicuous hazards directly in front of me (gravel, potholes, sewer lids, or other potential slick spots) is hard, especially on a spirited ride. Even moreso on roads that I don't ride often enough to have memorized. Thoughts?
I don't know if this fits wth Watcher's experience but in my MSF course back in September of last year, far and away the hardest thing for anyone there to learn was how to shift and use the clutch. Basically you had maybe three of us in the class who had ridden motorcycles before (me, my dad, one other guy) who had no problems at all but everyone else struggled a lot, all but one quit over it.
The other thing that seemed to get everyone was failing to downshift 2->1 on the panic stop exercise. Seems like our instructor had to correct nearly everyone on that more than once.
"The Box" of course was the big challenge for everyone to complete in the MSF class which is low-speed maneuvering on steroids, but me and two other people were on Groms and it was a snap for the two of us who had riding experience. Grom makes that very easy.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 20, 2017, 07:21:09 AM
What's the most common aspect of riding that new riders have trouble with?
You'd think it would be some aspect of control, like clutch or maintaining stability at low speed. All of that comes from spending hours on the bike manipulating the controls, and some of the more abstract things like counter-steering will be learned naturally, even if the rider doesn't understand why it is the way it is.
Nope. The #1 problem I see fault new riders is their head. Yes, them overthinking or getting themselves nervous, but more so their physical head. And which direction it's pointing.
A natural reaction for us as humans is we tend to look at whatever is the biggest concern for us, the biggest and most common example is "target fixation." For example, I had an older lady on day 2 put a bike in a fence. By day 2 we stop teaching you how to operate the motorcycle on a remedial level and start teaching you how to use it on the street. By day two you should know how to turn, how to stop, how to use the clutch, all we do is teach you more life saving skills and more maneuvering skills. We weren't even on the exercises yet, we start day 2 off with the riders just doing a few laps around the perimeter of the range to warm the bikes and the tires up (something they did near the end of day 1, by the way, riding the perimeter in 2nd about 15-20 mph). I start them up, send them out, and I see my last two riders in line get startled and I turn around and see her in the dirt with the bike in the fence.
She was fine, took both me and my other coach to get the bike untangled and it was a BRAND NEW Honda Rebel, 0 miles on it. I was the first ever to ride it, she was the second. Not a single scratch on it, by the way.
I ask her "What happened?" She answered "The bike wouldn't turn." The bike wouldn't turn. Even AFTER getting pulled out of the fence it was still in alignment and the bars moved freely from full lock left to full lock right. I wasn't trying to be condescending, was trying to get her to self assess, but I asked her "Why wouldn't the bike turn, what was it that you did wrong?" At this she got really frustrated and started to go off on me, the second coach had to calm her down. We put her back on but at this point she was becoming a hazard by not staying in the path of travel and such so we consulted her out of the class. Her parting words were that she didn't appreciate being spoken to like a child, that we weren't giving her enough attention or instruction, and it was our fault she couldn't ride. By the way, we try to give everyone the help they need and if 9/10 students get it or pretty much get it and 1/10 is struggling really hard who do you think we spend the most time with? But at the end of the day we have a schedule and if you can't keep up with the pace of the class you aren't going to pass. But I'm digressing.
You will have a natural tendency to go where your nose is pointed, and it affects EVERYTHING, not just which direction you're going. Low speed balance, staying within a boundary, what SPEED you are moving at during a given moment, ALL effected by where and what you're looking at.
Someone is 100% concerned with not hitting a line, and that's where they are looking, guess what they run over? Same with a cone.
Someone is starting to lean way over during the u-turn, they look down at the ground, guess what happens? I tell people the u-turn is 90% head-turn. It's not, but it might as well be. They can understand clutch control and counter-weighting and dragging the brake and everything, but as soon as they look down all of that goes away. Once I get them turning their heads past 90° either way they start OWNING it.
On our evaluation one of the scored criteria is coming to a stop with your front tire in a 2x3 foot blue box. Everyone looks down at it, and everyone forgets how to use the front brake and snatches it hard.
Even judging corner entry speed. How can you expect to be at a good speed to ride through a turn if you can't see the apex?
Just this last weekend I had another rider get really frustrated with me when I kept telling him he wasn't going fast enough through the turns. We have a little curvy "track" setup that looks like a bean, with a straight on one side, a sweeping u-turn, a set of reverse turns, another sweeping u-turn, then the straight again. We split the class up into smaller groups because the bean is too small for more than 4 riders at a time, so if you aren't riding we encourage you to watch and self/peer-assess.
He was going quick enough in the straight, braked well for approach, then he kept off the throttle, coasted through the turn, now he's jerky on the throttle because the bike is too loaded for 2nd gear, he doesn't pick up his speed enough to balance properly and his knees are everywhere trying to compensate. And I keep telling him "Once you're off the brakes, get back on that throttle, you need to carry momentum in these turns otherwise you'll never be smooth. Speed = stability, right? I don't need you going 20 in the turn, but I need you on the gas!" A few times around and he doesn't improve, we switch groups and he sits and watches and doesn't seem to pick up on anything, and his second time through I stop him and say the same thing. "You need more speed!" This time he replies "I'm going slow because of my own judgement. I see the cracks in the asphalt and the weeds growing out and I slow down so I can avoid it." And it clicks to me. I'm seeing a head turn, but he isn't turning his head enough to see the apex, and he's fixated on a VERY minor detail. As a result, he can't give me what I need, he can't give himself what he needs. I tell him "Trust me when I say this, the weeds and the cracks won't make you crash, and this is probably 10% of what you'll find on the actual road. It IS important to see the cracks and weeds, but just identify that they're there and move on. You need to be looking THROUGH the curve! If you aren't looking for that exit point how are you supposed to know how fast to go?" He says "How can I avoid the weeds if I'm going too fast?" That is a previous skill we learned, adjusting grip pressure to change the lean.
He got really frustrated with me, but we were scheduled a break anyway so I just sent him into the staging area with everyone else. While we were taking a break he went to the other coach, Steve, and asked him about what I told him. I could hear them getting loud because the student just simply didn't understand, was getting frustrated and started to argue, and now Steve is having to talk over him... Steve ended up actually walking him out to the curve and showed him what the crack was (incredibly minor, and only on like the outside 10% of the curve). Actually stood there and demonstrated how far ahead he should be looking, and then to the whole class explained how being off the throttle was the same as braking in a curve (a huge no-no), it'll cause you to go wide and over-input, and that the motorcycle will not want to respond to you if you aren't holding that throttle steady or rolling on gently.
The next exercise is more of the same with a little lane-change and merge mixed in. Third time is the charm, he started looking farther, and he started keeping his speeds up. Wasn't quite to the level we wanted, but an improvement none the less.
We teach "Look where you need to go" from the moment the students throw a leg over in exercise one to the last exercise of day 2 before the evaluation. Sitting in the staging area feeling out the friction zone, "Don't look at the clutch! That's not where we're going, we're going straight ahead!"
Head turn head turn head turn, eyes up eyes up eyes up, look where you want to go look where you want to go look where you want to go. :thumb:
Quote from: rscottlow on March 20, 2017, 11:39:22 AM
Coming from someone who first threw a leg over a motorcycle only about a year and a half ago, I'd bet that low speed maneuvering is atop that list. Haha...even lots of experienced riders seem to have trouble in that department.
And this biggest issue here is not that experienced riders can't balance, or can't use the friction zone of the clutch, it's that they aren't looking far enough ahead.
Quote from: rscottlow on March 20, 2017, 11:39:22 AM
I think my biggest trouble is finding the appropriate place to focus my vision. Finding that balance between being able to monitor what's far out ahead of me, with the ability to identify smaller, more inconspicuous hazards directly in front of me (gravel, potholes, sewer lids, or other potential slick spots) is hard, especially on a spirited ride. Even moreso on roads that I don't ride often enough to have memorized. Thoughts?
This just comes with time. Keeping your eyes moving and your head on a swivel. Stuff that's far ahead (12 seconds) isn't really a big concern. Look ahead, identify what you need to (traffic, signals, signs), and focus back nearer. 4 seconds ahead is your judgement area and where you'll spend most of your time looking. Trying to read traffic for potential hazards, looking for escape paths, all that good stuff. I'd say you spend at least 60% of your time here searching. And close (2 seconds ahead) is your reaction time. Stuff here is usually where the "target fixation" hazard is, but anything concerning here is going to require action so it's important to identify, decide what to do, and do it.
I think in our MSF class we didn't have as much of the where-to-look issue because 3/4 of us that were left by the end had lots of experience riding on 2-wheels on the road.
There's a saying mountain bikers swear by: "Look at the tree, hit the tree". That seems to apply here.
After >1K of riding my GS in the past 6 months I still find my biggest challenge actually riding is knowing how far is too far to lean. On a bicycle you will wash out and crash if you lean too hard, I have a very natural sense of that, and I think it may be interfering with my judgment on the motorcycle. This bites me the most because we have a roundabout in our neighborhood that I have to ride through about 80% of the time I leave my house and it's off-camber. I just don't feel like I can get it to turn as tight as it needs to at any speed above about 5mph and of course it's really tough to get the bike to make a smooth turn at 5mph.
I find it interesting how much stuff in my own experience started as second nature due to my bicycling and previous (dirt bike) motorcycle experience, how much became second nature after 1K miles of road riding, and what specific things still give me trouble even after 1K miles.
Quote from: mr72 on March 20, 2017, 11:56:30 AM
I don't know if this fits wth Watcher's experience but in my MSF course back in September of last year, far and away the hardest thing for anyone there to learn was how to shift and use the clutch. Basically you had maybe three of us in the class who had ridden motorcycles before (me, my dad, one other guy) who had no problems at all but everyone else struggled a lot, all but one quit over it.
The other thing that seemed to get everyone was failing to downshift 2->1 on the panic stop exercise. Seems like our instructor had to correct nearly everyone on that more than once.
"The Box" of course was the big challenge for everyone to complete in the MSF class which is low-speed maneuvering on steroids, but me and two other people were on Groms and it was a snap for the two of us who had riding experience. Grom makes that very easy.
Shifting and clutch use by and large isn't an issue for any of the classes I taught. I wonder if in your case it was poor instruction. For us we even statically teach our students how to operate the clutch and shifter in exercise one, which is 100% in staging and just deals with getting to know your motorcycle.
Clutch use is big from exercise one on, we have multiple exercises that deal with shifting, and for the actual first time second gear exercise we statically go over "Roll off, clutch in, shift, roll on, clutch out" to get the students feeling it out before we have them do it while riding.
The downshift when stopping, yes, lots of people forget the downshift or even forget to pull the clutch in. It's funny to me that out of all things, the one control that EVERYONE uses the most beyond any other is the brakes+clutch, and the one thing you do in EVERY exercise, even in exercise one with the motorcycle off, is come to a stop. Come exercise 14 when we have the skills practice and it brings the quick stop back we'll still have people forget to clutch in to stop. :technical:
My mantra that I pass to the students is "don't think about clutch, downshift, front brake, rear brake, that's too much to worry about all at once. Just think 'Squeeze and press.' Both hands are squeezing in, both feet are pressing down. Nice and simple."
"The Box". We stopped calling it "The Box" because it's intimidating, lol. Seems funny but it's true! If we say you have to u-turn in "The Box" they get really hung up on the lines and bomb it. But once again it's all that head-turn.
Clutch control, yes. Counter-weight, yes. Rear brake to control speed, yes. But I've seen people with great head turns and good balance COAST through it and score 0 points on the evaluation, and I've seen people with awesome motorcycle control forget their head turn, run wide and put a foot down, and score 10 points on the eval (16 is a fail, btw).
Quote from: mr72 on March 20, 2017, 12:36:47 PM
There's a saying mountain bikers swear by: "Look at the tree, hit the tree". That seems to apply here.
After >1K of riding my GS in the past 6 months I still find my biggest challenge actually riding is knowing how far is too far to lean. On a bicycle you will wash out and crash if you lean too hard, I have a very natural sense of that, and I think it may be interfering with my judgment on the motorcycle. This bites me the most because we have a roundabout in our neighborhood that I have to ride through about 80% of the time I leave my house and it's off-camber. I just don't feel like I can get it to turn as tight as it needs to at any speed above about 5mph and of course it's really tough to get the bike to make a smooth turn at 5mph.
Yeah, exactly, target fixation. But there are a lot of things that actually don't translate well from bicycle to motorcycle. One is the brakes, in the USA at least bicycle brakes put the rear on the right and front on the left which is counter to the motorcycle standard. Another is low speed, where I could literally ride in a circle with a bicycle vertical, the bars turned almost 90°, and my own body leaning to the inside. On the motorcycle I'm actually hurting my turning circle by trying to keep the bike vertical, I'd instead want to lean it down as far as possible while keeping my own body vertical. The difference is when a 180 pound man is on a 30 pound bicycle HE has more influence over the whole physics of the ride than the bicycle does. When that same man is on a 300, 500, 800 pound motorcycle it's quite the opposite. Bicycle stability comes from you a lot of the times. Motorcycle stability usually comes from the motorcycle...
You'll be scraping pegs before you're leaned over too far at any speed where counter-steering is appropriate. At speeds where you're still turning the bars (~10mph or so) it all comes down to your own personal sense of balance for how far is too far, but less than you're own physical means to keep the bike balanced just adding in more speed will start to stand the motorcycle up. So, if you're at 5mph and feel like you're leaning too far over, let that clutch out. Ideally understand counter-weighting to help, as the motorcycle turns better when leaned even at low speed, but because of the loss of stability at low speeds its easy for the motorcycle to want to simply fall over, and that is where "speed = stability" comes into play. Speed in this case isn't taken to mean you should be fast, it's just that the motorcycle is most stable while it's pulling. If it's coasting it's nearly 100% YOU that needs to balance it. If it's accelerating or maintaining a steady speed it's essentially balancing itself.
In your roundabout scenario, I might suggest that you turn your head farther. Don't just look ahead in your lane, follow that curve and look as far ahead into the roundabout as you comfortably can. That's not to say that you should have your head turned 90° or father over and look at any kind of structure in the center of the roundabout, just that you should be looking far enough ahead to get a good sense of how tight the curve is. Subconsciously this will have you put more weight to the inside bar, and through the principles of counter-steering will get you leaned over farther and you'll be able to make the turn tighter and at higher speeds.
Hell, pick a time of day when there's little to no traffic and stay IN the roundabout for a few laps. If it's multiple lanes, stay outside first and gradually move inside and try to keep the same speed.
This is from an ARC where I was a student. The exercise focuses on "Decreasing radius turns" so each set of cones I pass the turn gets tighter and the goal is to maintain your speed as best as you can. Camera angle isn't the best but you can see how far I end up turning my head in relation to the direction the bike is moving.
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 12:42:08 PM
But there are a lot of things that actually don't translate well from bicycle to motorcycle. One is the brakes, in the USA at least bicycle brakes put the rear on the right and front on the left which is counter to the motorcycle standard.
That never gets me at all. Again I have so many thousands of hours on a bicycle it's really just as natural as walking for me. I've been riding a bicycle almost daily for over 40 years now. And actually on a bicycle you really avoid the front brake especially when riding off road so it's really a lot more like to slow the machine, use the right hand brake. That's pretty much the same as a motorcycle. To come to a complete or hard stop, use both levers, same as a motorcycle (you're going to downshift or have the clutch in for a complete stop). The motorcycle brake pedal for the rear just feels like braking in a car.
Quote
You'll be scraping pegs before you're leaned over too far at any speed where counter-steering is appropriate. At speeds where you're still turning the bars (~10mph or so) it all comes down to your own personal sense of balance for how far is too far,
That brings up an interesting point. Until yesterday, I had never ridden a cruiser. Only dirt/enduro bikes and my GS (and some scooters, a moped I had when I was a kid, etc.). My dad brought his Shadow 750 over and I took it around the block and it was unnerving to say the least. You lean it only a tiny bit and it's like it forces the handlebars to turn. I felt like it was trying to steer itself. Nuts. The GS doesn't do that at all. I really felt like I needed to push the inside bar to keep the handlebars straighter. Is this a normal thing? Is this some kind of typical difference in handling between cruisers with tons of rake and upright sport-standard and dirt/enduro bikes?
Quote
In your roundabout scenario, I might suggest that you turn your head farther.
If you could see the roundabout you'd see why that really isn't possible. I'm definitely looking at the "apex" which is kind of just the inside of a continuous curve. But there's sort of a little bit of landscaped parkish area in the middle of the roundabout so you can't see through the center and it straddles a hill (which is why it's off-camber on one side) so you can't see more than 90 degrees around the bend. And you have to constantly look right to watch for teenage drivers ignoring the yield signs coming in to the roundabout (tons of them).
QuoteDon't just look ahead in your lane, follow that curve and look as far ahead into the roundabout as you comfortably can.
Yeah, doing that.
[/quote] ...Subconsciously this will have you put more weight to the inside bar, and through the principles of counter-steering will get you leaned over farther and you'll be able to make the turn tighter and at higher speeds.
Hell, pick a time of day when there's little to no traffic and stay IN the roundabout for a few laps. If it's multiple lanes, stay outside first and gradually move inside and try to keep the same speed.
[/quote]
Yeah I need to go out there and practice for sure.
Quote from: mr72 on March 20, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 12:42:08 PM
You'll be scraping pegs before you're leaned over too far at any speed where counter-steering is appropriate. At speeds where you're still turning the bars (~10mph or so) it all comes down to your own personal sense of balance for how far is too far...
That brings up an interesting point. Until yesterday, I had never ridden a cruiser. Only dirt/enduro bikes and my GS (and some scooters, a moped I had when I was a kid, etc.). My dad brought his Shadow 750 over and I took it around the block and it was unnerving to say the least. You lean it only a tiny bit and it's like it forces the handlebars to turn. I felt like it was trying to steer itself. Nuts. The GS doesn't do that at all. I really felt like I needed to push the inside bar to keep the handlebars straighter. Is this a normal thing? Is this some kind of typical difference in handling between cruisers with tons of rake and upright sport-standard and dirt/enduro bikes?
Not really. Rake does have a profound effect on how easily a motorcycle will "turn in", and the handlebars themselves may change your perspective of how it feels, but the principles of operation are identical on a dirtbike, on a cruiser, on a scooter, on a MotoGP bike. We even use multiple styles of bikes at the MSF, Honda Rebel, Kawi KLX250, Honda CB300, Kawi Ninja 250, and as much as possible I rotate through these bikes each time I teach as proof to the students it's not any harder or easier on A or B or C.
At speeds around 10mph or so you need to turn the bars to change direction. At speeds around 15mph and up you have to counter-steer. All that changes is how MUCH you have to counter-steer and how MUCH you have to turn the bars to get a desired turn.
The bike is inherently stable at speed. If you could lock the throttle, you could enter a turn and fully release the handlebars and the motorcycle won't go off line. If it feels like it is steering itself, it's because it is, and you should LET IT!
The huge perception change may actually be because you're are subconsciously holding your GS's bars too tight. If you ever get tired in the arms or wrists while riding it's because you are gripping too tight, have weight on your arms, or are fighting yourself while pressing the bars to counter-steer. You should have just enough grip on the throttle to actually turn the throttle, mirror on the clutch side, it should be effortless to press the bike left or right, and once it's pressed down in the turn you shouldn't have pressure to either side any longer, at this point you should only keep pressing inside to turn tighter, or press outside to turn less and/or return to a straight line.
I really suggest you watch "A Twist of the Wrist II". Most of the stuff they talk about seems like it would be more specific to a race bike on a track, but the reality is track riding techniques will HELP your road riding. Maybe on the road you aren't concerned with a perfect apex and higher exit speed, but the concepts of control and lean are not specific to road conditions or scenario. They just work.
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 02:34:58 PM
If it feels like it is steering itself, it's because it is, and you should LET IT!
Yeah, my dad suggested that sine the center of gravity is lower it just feels like it is leaning a lot less than it actually is, so I am basically leaning too far. That makes sense. I'm sure my GS does the same thing if I lean it the same amount (or something like it... wheelbase is considerably shorter).
Great tips Watcher, thanks!
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 02:34:58 PM
...
If you could lock the throttle, you could enter a turn and fully release the handlebars and the motorcycle won't go off line. If it feels like it is steering itself, it's because it is, and you should LET IT!
...
There's a section of Twist of the Wrist II where they do that with the No-Body-Steering Bike. Blew my mind the first time I watched it. They have the pillion rider (who is holding the steering bars) let go entirely while the main rider holds a steady throttle on the fixed bars.
Quote
I really suggest you watch "A Twist of the Wrist II". Most of the stuff they talk about seems like it would be more specific to a race bike on a track, but the reality is track riding techniques will HELP your road riding. Maybe on the road you aren't concerned with a perfect apex and higher exit speed, but the concepts of control and lean are not specific to road conditions or scenario. They just work.
+1. That video has so much good info in it.
Quote from: mr72 on March 20, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
That brings up an interesting point. Until yesterday, I had never ridden a cruiser. Only dirt/enduro bikes and my GS (and some scooters, a moped I had when I was a kid, etc.). My dad brought his Shadow 750 over and I took it around the block and it was unnerving to say the least. You lean it only a tiny bit and it's like it forces the handlebars to turn. I felt like it was trying to steer itself. Nuts. The GS doesn't do that at all. I really felt like I needed to push the inside bar to keep the handlebars straighter. Is this a normal thing? Is this some kind of typical difference in handling between cruisers with tons of rake and upright sport-standard and dirt/enduro bikes?
I had a sort of opposite experience with my dad's R75 lol. I wouldn't really call it a "cruiser", but its much less sporty than my GS for sure. Anyway, when I rode it, I felt like it didn't want to lean over at all. I really had to wrestle it to get it to lean. But, it does wear its weight much differently than the GS, since the cylinder heads stick out perpendicular to the bike.
But I do have the "bars turning by themselves" kind of sensation when I ride the Blast. I think that may just be me flicking it over a bit harder than I should since it feels so much smaller/lower than the GS.
First of all a big thank you to watcher for the time and effort that he has put in in his answers (so far). I have been riding motorbikes on and off for a long time now, and I find it fascinating reading his explanations of why I do the things I do. Top me it just "feels right". But that is a culmination of too much "doing it wrong" and thankfully learning form my mistakes.
In response to the cruiser question, the only time I ever rode one (a Shadow 750) my feeling was that the centre of gravity was a lot lower and the whole bike was over responsive to my attempts to control it using my body weight compared my GS, although a discussion on the effect of steering rake on handling would be appreciated.
When I was learning to ride/drive, the one mantra that was given for cornering, or in fact any turning, was "slow in, fast out". This again underlines the need to keep the throttle on whilst turning/cornering so that you keep control of the bike. The other observation is that as I got better(?) at this whole riding/driving thing, so I started to focus further and further down the road, again underlining points made above.
Once again, thanks.
Quote from: barry905 on March 20, 2017, 06:05:03 PM
In response to the cruiser question, the only time I ever rode one (a Shadow 750) my feeling was that the center of gravity was a lot lower and the whole bike was over responsive to my attempts to control it using my body weight compared my GS.
I had a similar feeling when first riding my Buell. It's gas tank isn't a gas tank (it's the air filter), the fuel is in the frame, the engine is a dry sump with the swing-arm being the oil tank, and the exhaust is under the engine. The weight is WAY low compared to any other bike I've ridden, and that makes it an interesting combination of incredibly stable and amazingly flickable, once you understand how to ride it.
I'm used to my Honda and GS sort of naturally tipping in on low speed maneuvers and being able to set my counter-weight nearly immediately, with the Buell I was starting to counter-weight and the bike would more or less just stay vertical and it was puzzling.
You can think of the mass of the bike and the mass of the rider as interacting like a lever. A motorcycle with even weight distribution with you sitting on top is a fairly balanced arrangement, and it becomes very predictable how it responds to changes you as the rider influence.
But a motorcycle with LOW weight distribution is like you just took your lever and moved the pivot point way closer to the bike, so any input on your end has a more measurable effect on the motorcycle.
Think of it like one of those Roly Poly toys (you know, weighted round bottoms, you can push it over and it'll stand back up) vs a typical mannequin with a heavy base. You can push the mannequin off balance and it may require some force, and it'll return back because of the weighted base but when it does it'll be fairly even to the way you pushed it. Now push the Roly Poly with the same force, it falls right over but also snaps right back up. So your push had a more profound effect on the Roly Poly, despite the Roly Poly being a technically more stable platform.
Once I thought of this, I started to lean my Buell down into my u-turns and THEN counter-weight after it was already down, and this tended to work A LOT better, and all it would take to stand it back up was look straight, relax my body, and roll that throttle on. It's the same when considering a cruiser.
Quote from: barry905 on March 20, 2017, 06:05:03 PM
A discussion on the effect of steering rake on handling would be appreciated.
We can't cover this without covering Counter-Steering and how it works! Oh boy!
Motorcycles don't really turn because you rotate the front wheel to face left or right, it has some influence on direction but it's rather odd. The reality is motorcycles turn because the tires are curved, and riding on this curved portion is what best allows you to change direction. I won't get into the science of it too much, but you can easily confirm this if you've ever rolled a hoola-hoop down the road. It goes pretty straight, but once it slows and it starts to wobble it'll inevitably lean to one side and then what does it start doing? It turns! Usually in a big circle which gets tighter as the hoop falls, and eventually it topples. So it is the motorcycle LEANING OVER onto it's curved tires that actually turns it, not the direction the wheels are facing. Moving on.
This is well covered in "A Twist of the Wrist II", but to summarize it they rig a motorcycle up with a second set of bars attached to the frame with just a throttle to show what effect physically leaning off the motorcycle does. It's almost nothing. Why? Because a motorcycle has gyroscopic stability when moving.
Now lets ignore motorcycles completely for a minute, and go for a ride in a car. You make a turn to the left, which way do you end up leaning? You make a turn to the right, which way do you end up leaning? Opposite the turn, right? It's because of centrifugal force. An object wants to go straight, so when you turn the forces trying to keep you going straight make you lean outside of a turn.
Apply that to a motorcycle, if you steer left, the motorcycle indeed does start to go left, but the forces at play lean it the opposite direction, and because it's now leaned to the right it will turn to the right... Counter-steering. Everyone understand? Excellent!
Rake. This may be hard to visualize, but bear with me. Imagine looking straight down through a motorcycle towards the road, and picture the headstock being perfectly perpendicular to the road surface (0° rake). When you turn the handlebars from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock, the tire's alignment on the road surface also turns from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock. If the headstock is
parallel to the road surface (90° rake), you can turn the bars from 12 to 2, but the tire doesn't rotate at all, it merely falls onto it's side.
The effect of counter steering is most drastic if the headstock is perfectly perpendicular to the road surface. On a sport bike if you turn the bars left that tire really bites hard because of it's drastic change of direction, it really wants to go left, you lean right, and now you go right. On a chopper with a really raked out front end the wheel doesn't actually turn nearly as much from the same rotation in the bars, so you don't have a really strong pull in that direction, you don't lean over as far, and you don't turn as tight.
Why not make a sportbike with a perfectly 0° rake? Well, a 0° rake can actually be TOO aggressive to where imperfections in the road surface will be easily translated back to you, making control more difficult. The motorcycle is more stable when there is SOME rake. Another reason is suspension. As you brake the whole bike leans forward, and when you load that front end up it changes the steering geometry. A fully compressed front end on a GP bike may get pretty steep. A factory Yamaha R1M already has a 24° rake on it, under heavy braking that rake can draw in to less than 20°. This is also why many racers "trail brake" (or brake into the turn). With the forks compressed, the tire squashed down, and the steering rake very steep, their tire's contact patch is much larger and the effect of counter steering is very aggressive. However, if the rake was already vertical, or too close to vertical, this suspension action would actually send the forks into an undesirable angle and hurt performance overall.
Most street cycles don't NEED a rake that's that aggressive, so they don't have one. Most street cycles don't handle well raked way out, that's why they typically aren't. A good middle-of-the-road rake around 25-30° seems to fit the bill for most riders in most situations, from our beloved Suzuki GS to the Harley Sportster.
Pretty good descriptions :)
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 07:34:25 PM
Motorcycles don't really turn because you rotate the front wheel to face left or right, it has some influence on direction but it's rather odd. The reality is motorcycles turn because the tires are curved, and riding on this curved portion is what best allows you to change direction.
It would be both. The problem with "turning" the handlebar alone without leaning is just as you described before, due to the location of the center of mass it would tend to make the bike roll away from the turn and fall over ("high side" crash). So you must lean it to prevent this, and to get the force vector applying in the right direction on the tire so that centrifugal force results in increase tire adhesion rather than tossing you over.
It's so happens that leaning a round-profile tire causes it to turn as well.
The rake and trail of the fork causes a mechanical leaning of the bike whenever you turn the fork even a little bit, so this enforces this "lean the bike to turn" behavior because even at very low speeds a small steering input causes the bike to lean... even when it's parked! Put it on the side stand and you'll notice it leans over more when turned left than it does when turned right. That's because of the trail and rake of the fork.
At speeds above moseying pace turning the handlebar is not effective to turn a motorcycle simply because of the geometry. 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. But you can't make this tight of a turn going 20, 30, etc. mph without crashing. Simple physics limits the minimum turning radius at speed due to tires and road surface adhesion and the fact that there are only two wheels on the ground and no way to keep a large contact patch with vertical force on the road surface (like with a car). 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.
Quote
Now lets ignore motorcycles completely for a minute, and go for a ride in a car. You make a turn to the left, which way do you end up leaning? You make a turn to the right, which way do you end up leaning? Opposite the turn, right? It's because of centrifugal force. An object wants to go straight, so when you turn the forces trying to keep you going straight make you lean outside of a turn.
Actually, the reason the car leans away from the turn is because the roll center is below the center of mass. The roll center is the axis about which the vehicle will roll when lateral force (like centrifugal force) is applied. On a motorcycle, since it only has two wheels, the roll center is the contact point between the tires and the ground. In a car, since it has four wheels and the center of mass is somewhere between the two left and right sets of wheels, the roll center is a result of suspension geometry and usually somewhere near to the center of the axles. If you could make the roll center and the center of mass coincide then the car wouldn't lean at all in a turn... this would require a car somewhat like a go-kart with three foot tall wheels and solid suspension, so basically it's not possible. If you could make the roll center be above the center of mass then the car would lean inside the turn like a motorcycle would, which would actually be a bad thing since it would result in unloading the outside tire and cause a loss of traction.
Of course in a car you have four wheels and weight transfer. The car's suspension does the work of distributing the weight of the car onto the four wheels during a turn and the rolling of the car is actually a necessity in order for the suspension to work. When the car rolls right in a left turn, that enables the suspension to move so the geometry of the suspension along with spring rates, roll stiffness, etc. can be used by the designer or suspension tuner to tune the handling response and distribute traction to the four wheels. Compared with motorcycles, car suspension is incredibly complex. The problem is the behavior at lower speeds is remarkably different than that at higher speeds, and pitch caused by braking and acceleration plays a huge role in transitional behavior along with forward force vector on the drive wheels. A car that understeers in a steady state corner will suddenly begin to oversteer when you lift the throttle or brake, but if it is rear wheel drive it will probably also begin to oversteer once you apply throttle to accelerate. It's a really tricky thing, car handling. :)
Quote
Rake. This may be hard to visualize, but bear with me. Imagine looking straight down through a motorcycle towards the road, and picture the headstock being perfectly perpendicular to the road surface. When you turn the handlebars from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock, the tire's alignment on the road surface also turns from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock. If the headstock is parallel to the road surface, you can turn the bars from 12 to 2, but the tire doesn't rotate at all, it merely falls onto it's side.
Actually it would make that tire lean which would cause a turn just like leaning the bike. But this would be a very large-radius turn and you'd not be able to tighten the radius sufficiently to actually make a useful turn before the tire were laying flat on the road. This is why less than 90 degrees of rake (or more than 0 degrees head angle) is usually required... also why you can steer a chopper but not very tight. :)
Quote
The effect of counter steering is most drastic if the headstock is perfectly perpendicular to the road surface. On a sport bike if you turn the bars left that tire really bites hard because of it's drastic change of direction, it really wants to go left, you lean right, and now you go right. On a chopper with a really raked out front end the wheel doesn't actually turn nearly as much from the same rotation in the bars, so you don't have a really strong pull in that direction, you don't lean over as far, and you don't turn as tight.
Right, because the rake (and to an extent, trail) determines the degree to which turning the wheel results in leaning the tire vs. turning the tire. A steeper head angle (closer to 90 deg.) is more turning, shallower is more leaning. The compromise here is the steeper the head angle the more likely it is to want to turn, or the less effort is required to make it turn (as you describe, "turn in"). But the shallower, the more likely the bike will want to stay straight, and thus feel very stable.
And I actually think on my dad's bike this is why I felt the handlebar was so STRONG in trying to turn itself, because of the shallower head angle (which is really caster angle) which makes it want to stay on-center, but on-center when leaning is slightly turned due to the tire profile and the combination of rake and trail.
Quote
Why not make a sportbike with a perfectly 90° up and down front fork? Suspension. As you brake the whole bike leans forward, and when you load that front end up it changes the steering geometry. A fully compressed front end on a GP bike may very well be vertical (or close to).
I'm not sure this is true, is it? Seems like sport bike head angles are in the range of 65-70 degrees (similar to mountain bikes, actually) so you'd have to pitch 20 degrees or more to get it to be a right angle. I suppose that's possible but seems quite unlikely in a turn.
But the point is you'd have zero directional stability once the head angle approached 90 degrees just like your example above with a 90-degree head angle. The bike would want to turn or change direction with any input. So as you steepen that head angle, in braking for example, it would become jittery and uncontrollable. I have experienced this on a bicycle many, many times (we are talking while progressing towards and endo...), and the result usually is that any change in road surface at all, a pebble or crack etc., causes the wheel to turn and turn a lot, to maximum lock. And that will cause a high-side crash because when the wheel turns without leaning (because zero rake) then it sort of "trips" the bike. On a bicycle we call this an "endo".
So the goal is to ensure that you always have at least enough rake under all conditions to prevent this condition.
I don't want to do the math but I am not sure that without doing a "stoppie" (fork fully compressed, rear wheel off the ground) you will get very close to 90 degrees. And I think the rotational inertia would cause you to truly do an endo if you did.
Anyway, thanks for the explanations. I'm always here to unnecessarily discuss the physics with far too much detail. You should see how annoying I am on the Jeep forum, where they talk about 4-wheel vehicles with suspension technology that was perfected in the covered wagon.
Quote from: mr72 on March 21, 2017, 06:12:08 AM
Quote from: Watcher on March 20, 2017, 07:34:25 PM
Motorcycles don't really turn because you rotate the front wheel to face left or right, it has some influence on direction but it's rather odd. The reality is motorcycles turn because the tires are curved, and riding on this curved portion is what best allows you to change direction.
It would be both.
It's so happens that leaning a round-profile tire causes it to turn as well.
For the end goal of my explanation, I purposely suggested that rotating the bars does not turn the motorcycle. When talking about a motorcycle riding through a turn the front wheel is NOT at a constant position pointed towards the apex like it would be in a car. Once the bike is leaned over, the wheels are more or less in line with each other, so it's not the front wheel's direction that makes you turn, it's the profile of the tires. You aren't turning by rotating the handlebars, you're turning by leaning to one side or the other. By rotating the handlebars you're more correctly
steering the motorcycle, not turning it. It's "counter-
steering," not "counter-turning." It may be splitting hairs but I feel it's an important distinction.
Quote
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. If you've never seen motorcycle obstacle course racing it'll blow your mind.
Just as before, being on the side profile of the tire is what is most effective at turning the bike, so the farther you lean the bike over the tighter it will turn. Once again it speaks to counter-weighting. If you have the balance to keep the bike mostly upright some bikes can be at full lock and not be able to turn tight enough. 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.
This is fun, as long as you have the momentum and available traction you CAN get the bike leaned all the way over, maybe even drag a knee, going 15ish and make the same turn as an average rider staying mostly vertical and going at a walking pace.
Quote
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.
Leaning too far does have an effect on it because the farther over you are leaned the less of the tire is in contact with the ground, so ANY slide is less likely to happen at a lesser lean angle, but whether or not you lose that grip more or less depends completely on the throttle use. Typically too much throttle starts the rear wheel slipping and what you do next will dictate high side vs low side. Don't let off the throttle at all or roll on more (usually this is accidental) will send that rear wheel out farther and you'll end up on the ground. Low side.
Chop that throttle off completely (typically what most people do in a car to regain a slipping rear end, and a normal panic response) makes the tire bite hard and the violent return to in line with the front tire will throw the rider off the motorcycle. High side.
The proper save is to gently roll off so the tire can bite more without completely snatching the road, so it will gradually return to line.
What you are talking about is more losing the front end, and that will always result in a low-side in it of itself. You want to tighten the turn, you turn the bars
outside of the turn because of counter-steering, but if you're already at your lean threshold or close to you can just physically break the front tire loose and you'll instantly end up on the ground, but in a LOWSIDE not a highside.
Quote
Quote
Now lets ignore motorcycles completely for a minute, and go for a ride in a car. You make a turn to the left, which way do you end up leaning? You make a turn to the right, which way do you end up leaning? Opposite the turn, right? It's because of centrifugal force. An object wants to go straight, so when you turn the forces trying to keep you going straight make you lean outside of a turn.
Actually, the reason the car leans away from the turn is because the roll center is below the center of mass. The roll center is the axis about which the vehicle will roll when lateral force (like centrifugal force) is applied. {snip}
Thanks for the physics lesson, but it wasn't necessary to understand that the forces that make you lean "outside" in a car is what makes counter-steering a motorcycle work.
Aside from me not wanting to type these huge lectures I've seen people's eyes glaze over from too much detail. 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.
Quote
Quote
Rake. This may be hard to visualize, but bear with me. Imagine looking straight down through a motorcycle towards the road, and picture the headstock being perfectly perpendicular to the road surface. When you turn the handlebars from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock, the tire's alignment on the road surface also turns from 12 o'clock to 2 o'clock. If the headstock is parallel to the road surface, you can turn the bars from 12 to 2, but the tire doesn't rotate at all, it merely falls onto it's side.
Actually it would make that tire lean which would cause a turn just like leaning the bike. But this would be a very large-radius turn and you'd not be able to tighten the radius sufficiently to actually make a useful turn before the tire were laying flat on the road.
Once again there's a reason why I chose to say what I said. Being on the side of the tire makes the vehicle turn, yes, but it doesn't
steer the motorcycle. Simply pushing that tire onto it's side would work a lot like body steering, that is to say it wont. You'll get some change of direction, but it won't be anywhere close enough to call it control.
Quote
Quote
Why not make a sportbike with a perfectly 90° up and down front fork? Suspension. As you brake the whole bike leans forward, and when you load that front end up it changes the steering geometry. A fully compressed front end on a GP bike may very well be vertical (or close to).
I'm not sure this is true, is it? Seems like sport bike head angles are in the range of 65-70 degrees (similar to mountain bikes, actually) so you'd have to pitch 20 degrees or more to get it to be a right angle. I suppose that's possible but seems quite unlikely in a turn.
But the point is you'd have zero directional stability once the head angle approached 90 degrees just like your example above with a 90-degree head angle. The bike would want to turn or change direction with any input. So as you steepen that head angle, in braking for example, it would become jittery and uncontrollable... any change in road surface at all, a pebble or crack etc., causes the wheel to turn.
So the goal is to ensure that you always have at least enough rake under all conditions to prevent this condition.
You're completely right here. My example was extreme, and may be even on the edge of ridiculous. I'm actually going to go back and revise it a little. I'm going to get a little more in line with the actual terminology, as well, since technically a "zero rake" is vertical. The higher the number the farther out it goes.
Quote
Anyway, thanks for the explanations. I'm always here to unnecessarily discuss the physics with far too much detail. You should see how annoying I am on the Jeep forum, where they talk about 4-wheel vehicles with suspension technology that was perfected in the covered wagon.
Always interesting to read your technical explanations, but I'm not here to talk specific mathematical physics or ponder on when the moon is closest to the Earth and therefor gravity is lessened should I run a lower PSI in my tires because less weight means a naturally smaller contact patch or whatever.
"Ask a RiderCoach" is more or less how I'd be answering questions in an informal classroom setting, much as I do on the weekends teaching new riders. I'm not here to get THAT specific, but I'm here to help you understand why things are the way they are.
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?
Quote from: Watcher on March 21, 2017, 11:46:46 AM
Quote
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.
QuoteQuote
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.
I have no debate about your suggestion of how to handle the case of loss of rear traction in a turn with the throttle.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
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.
Quote
Always interesting to read your technical explanations, but I'm not here to talk specific mathematical physics or ponder on when the moon is closest to the Earth and therefor gravity is lessened should I run a lower PSI in my tires because less weight means a naturally smaller contact patch or whatever.
Your topic, your rules I guess. I'll go back to posting on other threads then.
Quote from: mr72 on March 24, 2017, 07:57:36 AM
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.
I think Watcher was just trying to point out that "too much steering angle" (By which, I'm assuming you mean turning the bars in the direction which you are attempting to turn. Correct me if that's not what you meant.) when attempting to tighten a turn isn't really a major cause of high-side crashes. As Watcher said, almost all high-sides are caused by chopping the throttle after the rear wheel loses traction, not "too much steering angle".
I do think doing turning the bars into the turn
could cause a high-side if you turned the bars too far too quickly, so if that's all you were saying, I agree. But I don't think that's a very common occurrence... Most people's first instinct when trying to tighten a turn is to let off the throttle or brake to try to slow down, which will run them wide (any maybe off the road), not cause a high-side.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 08:51:56 AM
I do think doing turning the bars into the turn could cause a high-side if you turned the bars too far too quickly, so if that's all you were saying, I agree. But I don't think that's a very common occurrence..
Yeah I wasn't talking about practically what tends to happen in the real world, I was talking about the physics of turning the handlebar vs. leaning at or near the limits of traction.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 07:31:12 AM
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.
Quote from: mr72 on March 24, 2017, 07:57:36 AM
Quote from: Watcher on March 21, 2017, 11:46:46 AM
Quote
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.
QuoteQuoteQuote
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.
QuoteQuote
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...
Quote
Quote
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.
Quote
Quote
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.
Quote from: Watcher on March 24, 2017, 11:40:53 AM
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. :dunno_black:
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.
Quote
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.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 12:00:40 PM
QuoteI 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".
Quote from: mr72 on March 24, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 12:00:40 PM
QuoteI 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 :laugh:
Well, maybe pure panic...
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 12:00:40 PM
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!
Quote from: mr72 on March 24, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
... 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.
:dunno_white: 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.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 12:49:31 PM
Quote from: mr72 on March 24, 2017, 12:24:57 PM
... 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.
:dunno_white: 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.
Quote from: Watcher on March 24, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
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?
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 12:49:31 PM
:dunno_white: 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.
Quote from: qcbaker on March 24, 2017, 01:05:36 PM
Quote from: Watcher on March 24, 2017, 12:39:20 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: rscottlow on March 27, 2017, 05:48:14 AM
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.
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)?
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.
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!
Quote from: rscottlow on March 27, 2017, 10:51:07 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: mr72 on March 27, 2017, 11:44:42 AM
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.
Quote from: Watcher on March 27, 2017, 11:52:07 AM
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.
Quote
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.).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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).
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.
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:
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
im a new rider so probably all those things lol
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.
Any help is good help I appreciate the answers and help
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.
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
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.
What about downhill cornering? I ride one road full of twisties on the way to work where it's mostly uphill, and I feel like I can breeze through it with no problem. On the way home, where I'm riding primarily downhill, I always find myself braking much harder on my approach in order to feel comfortable enough with my speed to roll on the throttle through the corner. I try to stay down a gear in order to fight the forces of gravity, but there are a couple of negative camber turns mixed in where I really have to brake hard before I turn in to scrub off some speed. Even then, I find it hard to roll onto the throttle since gravity is already causing me to accelerate.
The biggest danger (for me) when turning downhill is you naturally want to lean on the handlebars. Putting weight on the bars doesn't allow the front wheel to "find" it's natural path, and you have to put more effort into steering control. So you really gotta work that core and your legs to hold yourself up.
You will be braking more downhill, as you said the force of gravity wants to accelerate you more, and through the turn the same principles apply where you want to roll on that throttle smoothly and steadily through the turn. You just have to do it less since gravity is also speeding you up.
Engine braking will save you from having to brake as hard, and in cases where maybe you're going down a mountain it'll keep the heat off your brakes which is a good thing.
As far as being jerky on the throttle coming back on, it's just something you'll have to learn as you experience it. I would not be using the friction zone to help smooth the process out, as disengaging the clutch will cause gravity to accelerate you even more and compound the problem.
Maybe you are hesitating too long before rolling back on. I trail brake a lot naturally, so I'm coming off the brakes AFTER I've already started the turn and I'm immediately rolling that throttle back on. If you are braking for a good entry speed, releasing the brake, and giving gravity time (even a second) to speed you up a little before entering the turn then it could be causing you to misjudge how much throttle you need to add back on. As soon as you're done braking for the turn get on that throttle and keep it smooth.
I also get iffy turning downhill and I think the reason why is a combination of three things:
1. braking ... you are using some of the tire's adhesion (static friction) that you ordinarily want for cornering with braking
2. head angle ... you are steepening the head angle, see where we had this debate before in this very same thread. this affects steering stability and feel
3. weight bias ... you are shifting most if not all of the weight of the bike onto the front tire. you lose traction in the rear so directional stability really suffers and you feel like there's a big loss of grip
In all I would say the reality is you are really compromised turning going downhill for purely physics reasons not to mention the feeling you have doing it. Normally you "roll on" the throttle to shift some weight to the rear in a corner and you simply can't shift weight to the rear when going down hill, even worse you are probably braking and not accelerating so it's compounded.
IMHO. But I'm no ridercoach. I just ride and understand physics of vehicles.
I don't like cornering downhill. My commute to work, when I take it, involves a corner at the bottom of a big hill. I hate it, even though I have a ton of experience cornering downhill on a 2-wheel vehicle (bicycle). The motorcycle just feels a lot worse cornering downhill.
Quote from: mr72 on April 11, 2017, 01:20:28 PM
I also get iffy turning downhill and I think the reason why is a combination of three things:
1. braking ... you are using some of the tire's adhesion (static friction) that you ordinarily want for cornering with braking
2. head angle ... you are steepening the head angle, see where we had this debate before in this very same thread. this affects steering stability and feel
3. weight bias ... you are shifting most if not all of the weight of the bike onto the front tire. you lose traction in the rear so directional stability really suffers and you feel like there's a big loss of grip
1. While this is true, braking and thus loading the front tire can actually
increase the amount traction you have to use. That's the principle behind trail-braking. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvWmN85HLv0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvWmN85HLv0)
2. But if you are going down an incline, while the steering head angle is steeper in relation to a level surface it's still the same as it always is in relation to the current road surface. The only difference is the suspension may compress more when braking downhill and cause a very slight increase to the overall effect braking has on changing the steering geometry.
Or did I miss something again :dunno_white:
3. Yes, I'll agree with that. Weight is already on the front, so it will be easier to overload the front wheel. There is an increased risk, then, of overbraking before the turn or weighting up the bars while in the turn which will make the motorcycle feel less responsive and reduce your overall confidence.
Quote from: Watcher on April 11, 2017, 12:53:19 PM
Maybe you are hesitating too long before rolling back on. I trail brake a lot naturally, so I'm coming off the brakes AFTER I've already started the turn and I'm immediately rolling that throttle back on. If you are braking for a good entry speed, releasing the brake, and giving gravity time (even a second) to speed you up a little before entering the turn then it could be causing you to misjudge how much throttle you need to add back on. As soon as you're done braking for the turn get on that throttle and keep it smooth.
I think you're right about this. There are a couple of particularly tricky corners that are steeper and tighter than the rest. On those in particular, I know I start braking early in order to ensure that I can reach an appropriate entry speed, but there's definitely a delay between the time that I release the brake and the time I roll on the throttle. I'll work on tightening that interval and see what happens.
Strictly MSF focused thread or WERA/N2/Etc?
Quote from: Suzi Q on April 13, 2017, 07:26:34 PM
Strictly MSF focused thread or WERA/N2/Etc?
I only have working knowledge of MSF but as an "educated" rider I'll gladly talk about other curriculums and techniques if you have a topic worth discussing.
RE: downhill cornering
http://www.ridinginthezone.com/how-to-survive-downhill-curves/
Scott, that blog you posted in my thread has a post that has some tips on managing downhill corners. I'd be interested to hear Watcher's perspective on what they have to say as well.
Quote from: qcbaker on April 17, 2017, 10:18:04 AM
RE: downhill cornering
http://www.ridinginthezone.com/how-to-survive-downhill-curves/
Scott, that blog you posted in my thread has a post that has some tips on managing downhill corners. I'd be interested to hear Watcher's perspective on what they have to say as well.
Haha, this is actually how I found RITZ in the first place. I was doing a google search to supplement Watcher's thoughts on the matter, and came across that site. Good looking out! :cheers:
Quote from: rscottlow on April 17, 2017, 10:28:58 AM
Quote from: qcbaker on April 17, 2017, 10:18:04 AM
RE: downhill cornering
http://www.ridinginthezone.com/how-to-survive-downhill-curves/
Scott, that blog you posted in my thread has a post that has some tips on managing downhill corners. I'd be interested to hear Watcher's perspective on what they have to say as well.
Haha, this is actually how I found RITZ in the first place. I was doing a google search to supplement Watcher's thoughts on the matter, and came across that site. Good looking out! :cheers:
:thumb:
Great article. It mentions a lot of the same things I did, perhaps in more detail, to include slowing down more and being sure to get back on that throttle regardless of acceleration via gravity. The throttle serves to stabilize the motorcycle, you can't omit it and expect to feel confident in the turn.
They even mention trail braking, which is an advanced technique but has many benefits.
In MSF we teach "Slow, look, press, roll" (basically identical to what they say) as our cornering mantra, which later evolves into "search, setup, smooth".
The idea is the same: pick a good entry speed based on what you can see and your judgement thereafter, pick a line (outside inside outside, middle middle middle, outside outside inside, etc), press (countersteer) to initiate the lean and the turn, stabilize the bike with some throttle.
The "perfect" apex (outside inside outside) might be the bread and butter but it's honestly safest IMHO to ride a purely middle path and follow the curve. It gives you some space cushion to go wide if the turn unexpectedly tightens up, or to go tighter in case of a hazard.
I don't usually recommend early apex as it's a good way to make a decreasing radius turn a double-apex turn, and a delayed apex is often the fastest way to ride a curve but the hardest to judge as if you come in a little to hot or too wide you
really have to press that bike down hard to make the turn.
The rest comes from comfort level.
I'm off work tomorrow, I might go up the mountain and make a video on this. If I do I'll upload it to the training videos thread.
I thought of another question to ask you Watcher, as it's something I actively am trying to improve whenever I ride. Regarding downshifting when slowing up for a curve or something, do you (and I guess by proxy the MSF) advocate throttle blipping to rev match or easing off the clutch to let the engine "catch up" to wheel speed?
Personally, I LOVE how smooth a perfectly rev matched downshift feels and sounds, but I can see how getting the blip wrong and causing the engine to surge or abruptly engine brake a little bit could be problematic.
It may or may not be the "correct" way of doing it, but I always blip the throttle to match revs.
As far as I know MSF doesn't advocate any particular method of downshifting.
Every instance of downshifting in the class is coming to a stop so there's that...
That being said, a clutch only downshift when slowing causes heavy engine braking as the clutch is released, and I've had the rear wheel slip when doing this as well, so a little throttle blip in there to bring the engine up helps immensely with being smooth.
It can be hard to do, but if you can figure out how to throttle blip while braking you can rev match your downshifts while setting up for a turn.
Just keep thinking "clutch in, roll on, downshift, roll off, clutch out".
I've got a question for ya' ahead of this week's BRC.
Is it customary to tip the instructors? If so, what is appropriate per person?
Thanks
Customary? No. I've never been, I never have.
I can't speak for every coach that teaches, but for me, my colleagues, and the people I trained with it is less about the money and more about honest mentorship.
We're out there to make riders safe. I do get a paycheck but it's not a livable wage. At best it's just some extra cash for me to buy motorcycle stuff.
That being said, most of the business we get is from word of mouth, so the best "thank you" any student can give me is a recommendation to others.
Okay, thank you.
Bit of necromancy here but I had a "riding technique" question that I wanted to ask Watcher, since he's a RiderCoach, but also I want to see what others do:
When you pull up to a stop light, do you simply hold in the clutch while in first gear while waiting or do you shift into neutral and let go of the clutch until the light changes, then shift into first?
Personally, if I know the light is not long, I'll just hold the clutch in. But if it's a long light, I'll usually put it in neutral.
I do the same as you qc.
How about this watcher, what do (would) you do when a guy dumps a bike? When I took the msf, there was a guy just learning, no confidence and struggling with the clutch. He finally dumped a 250 and walked off the course. I felt really bad for him but the teacher kind of shrugged and we went back to drills,....
Hey, I forgot about this topic as well! I remember it got a little heated before, and it looks like I never did supply a link to my little test of the UK style braking vs the US style braking. I still have the video if anyone is interested in seeing it.
Quote from: qcbaker on February 23, 2018, 07:35:04 AM
When you pull up to a stop light, do you simply hold in the clutch while in first gear while waiting or do you shift into neutral and let go of the clutch until the light changes, then shift into first?
Depends on the light, depends on the situation. If I'm in N at a red then 2 conditions have to be met:
I trust that the light is going to be long and I have time to give myself a break or adjust something with my gear/load.
I am satisfied that nothing behind me is threatening. Could be vehicles are already stopped, there are no vehicles, or an approaching vehicle is slowed sufficiently that I trust they are aware of me.
Quote from: cbrfxr67 on February 23, 2018, 11:26:50 AM
How about this watcher, what do (would) you do when a guy dumps a bike? When I took the msf, there was a guy just learning, no confidence and struggling with the clutch. He finally dumped a 250 and walked off the course. I felt really bad for him but the teacher kind of shrugged and we went back to drills,....
That's a tough one to answer, it's highly subjective to the person and the severity of the crash, and the level of instruction they have been receiving.
For the vast majority this is how it goes down. Rider makes a simple mistake, the bike drops, they hit the ground. One of the coaches runs over. First concern is their safety, of course, and if they're ok and want to continue I'll lift the bike, sometimes taking the opportunity to show how to properly lift a bike, and give it a quick once over. Anything small that has broken off I pocket, and if the bike otherwise is fine to ride I sit the student back on it. If it's inoperable, we walk it back to the staging area and get them on a new bike.
We're big on self-assessment and reflection, so at this point we ask "What went wrong?" Often times the student will tell us "Oh, I spooked myself and grabbed way too much front brake" or "I didn't have my bars straight when I stopped" or "I target fixated" or whatever. In which case I'm like "Cool, now you know what NOT to do!" Usually followed by a "Was that so bad?" or something like that. "Look on the bright side, the hard part is over. Literally, you
hit the hart part and nothing bad happened! The rest is cake!" Something to get them in a better mood and eager to ride and not think about the fact they were sitting in the dirt 10 seconds ago.
At the conclusion of the exercise we have everyone in the class give that person a big round of applause for getting back on the horse, and I make a big deal about giving them the little broken end of the brake lever or whatever as a souvenir of their first crash. A little more encouragement from us to lift their spirits. I usually have them say what it was they did for the other students to hear it from a peer rather than a coach, and everything is A-OK from then on.
It's really rare but I've had people walk off the range in anger/frustration, and we just let them go. Nothing says they're obligated to stay for the whole class no matter what, nor would I attempt to keep them against their will. Usually this person is someone who is struggling right away and is getting extra attention from us to make sure they understand everything we need them to, but something isn't "clicking" and no matter how we phrase, demonstrate, or conceptualize the skill either they refuse to understand or just cannot understand. You can only tell someone "SMOOOOOOOOOOOOTHLY release the clutch!" so many times in so many ways before you need a drill and a mallet to get them to understand. XD
If they decide for themselves that riding isn't for them before we end up telling them riding isn't for them, then "goodbye". It gives me more time to focus my efforts on other students who ARE serious about learning and are willing to be there. By the way, rarely do we drop someone in the first few exercises. We understand that they're new, and the curriculum is set up to gradually teach at the start and increase the pace as skills develop. EVERY time I've had a student walk off it's been in ex.2, which is basic basic clutch control, and it's a skill they would have had more time in ex.3 to work on. No remorse from me if they choose to walk off in a huff.
I've had people who were injured and either cannot or choose not to continue as a result. We invite them back at a later date when they've rested and healed. Usually we also work out some kind of deal financially, where they aren't having to pay for an entire second class. It's usually not free (they DID drop our bike!) but it's encouraging.
I've also had people who have no business getting back on the bike but eagerly jump back on and I have to put my foot down and say something like "Right now you don't have sufficient control, and you're a clear danger to yourself and may be a danger to my other riders. At this point in time we're going to have to cut you loose." We might express to them that if they had more practice with X, Y, or Z that they would be ok, and that we'd be glad to have them back at a later date to revisit earlier exercises, and to contact our administrator to work out a date and a price. Often we will see riders that are very understanding of this, and do come back out. Sometimes we get people who are very belligerent and say we are terrible instructors and storm off in a fit.
I've also had people who will straight up tell me "I don't think this is for me," and choose not to continue. No injuries, nothing broken on the bike, but they're telling themselves the risk is not worth the reward. I'll usually try to dissuade this, especially if it was minor mistake and they've been doing fairly well up until that point, but once again I'm not going to force anyone to stay. We'll offer them a break to reflect and see what they want to do, and it's a 50/50 chance if they choose to remain or leave. If they remain we'll typically see them stick it out to the end, newfound determination and all that.
Is there not a risk of wearing out the throw out bearing, or is that not as applicable to motorcycles?
Thanks for the reply watcher! You always post very interesting info!
Quote from: qcbaker on February 26, 2018, 08:21:45 AM
Is there not a risk of wearing out the throw out bearing, or is that not as applicable to motorcycles?
Do motorcycles have throw out bearings?
Honestly, I don't know.
But the clutch is used so much in motorcycling, especially in low speed maneuvers, holding it for a minute at a stop or not wouldn't make that much of difference in the grand scheme, I don't think.
Still, I'll take fixing a transmission a little sooner than usual over fixing a broken back because I got rear ended while I was in neutral.
Quote from: Watcher on February 26, 2018, 07:05:22 PM
Quote from: qcbaker on February 26, 2018, 08:21:45 AM
Is there not a risk of wearing out the throw out bearing, or is that not as applicable to motorcycles?
Do motorcycles have throw out bearings?
Honestly, I don't know.
I don't know either, transmissions aren't something I'm incredibly familiar with.
Quote
Still, I'll take fixing a transmission a little sooner than usual over fixing a broken back because I got rear ended while I was in neutral.
Good point lol. I actually almost got
rear ended ran over this morning on my way to work. Traffic was stop and go and I pulled up behind the car ahead of me and stopped. I looked in my mirror and saw that the truck behind me was not slowing down, I flashed my brake lights and scooted around to the right side of the car ahead of me. The truck did manage to stop and didn't hit me or the car in front, but it was a close one. I turned around and threw my arms up in a "Dude, what the hell?" way and he apologized. I think he just genuinely didn't notice me and felt bad.
Isn't that how addy departed? I think he was in a middle turn lane and a lady hit him. :cry:
Quote from: qcbaker on February 27, 2018, 06:14:51 AM
I actually almost got rear ended ran over this morning on my way to work. Traffic was stop and go and I pulled up behind the car ahead of me and stopped. I looked in my mirror and saw that the truck behind me was not slowing down, I flashed my brake lights and scooted around to the right side of the car ahead of me. The truck did manage to stop and didn't hit me or the car in front, but it was a close one. I turned around and threw my arms up in a "Dude, what the hell?" way and he apologized. I think he just genuinely didn't notice me and felt bad.
This is also why I tend to stop biased to one side of the lane or another. If it looks like that driver behind me isn't stopping, better I move onto the lane lines and let him rear-end the driver in front of me. Cars at least have crumple zones...
Quote from: cbrfxr67 on February 27, 2018, 07:56:08 AM
Isn't that how addy departed? I think he was in a middle turn lane and a lady hit him. :cry:
Yes...
http://www.vashonbeachcomber.com/news/motorcyclist-dies-in-car-accident-on-vashon-highway-updated/
:cry: :cry: :cry:
My training company hired a videographer to come out and film a couple of classes and get interviews with us. I think it came out awesome!
We knew we were getting interviewed but we didn't know what kinds of questions she was going to ask. Steve and myself stumble with our words a little, but I kind of like it that way. You're seeing the real us, not a rehearsed performance. Side note, the
real reason our interviews are black/white is because we were both sunburned pretty bad, lol!
I'm going to be picking up my first street bike soon, have ridden dirt bikes and quads in my younger days so I've only ever had motorcross style helmets. What is your opinion on a newer style helmet like the Scorpion http://scorpionusa.com/products/helmets/street-helmets/covert/covert-solid.html (http://scorpionusa.com/products/helmets/street-helmets/covert/covert-solid.html) vs a modular helmet like this HJC http://www.hjchelmets.com/hjca/ismax2/ (http://www.hjchelmets.com/hjca/ismax2/).
I know a full face helmet will provide the best protection in a minor accident, but I like the idea of being able to open up the front or remove it should I desire.
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Botched the second link for the HJC modular, http://www.hjchelmets.com/hjca/ismax2/ (http://www.hjchelmets.com/hjca/ismax2/)
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
The Scorpion Covert looks pretty cool.
... that's about it.
We sell them at CycleGear, they're half helmets with attachments to make them look like 3/4 or full-face helmets.
It's like a GS500E vs a GS500F. The F has fairings, but the fairings don't offer any additional protection to speak of. The face-mask of the Scorpion might protect you from stones and bugs, and while the "neck roll" does offer more coverage and padding for the base of your skull and the sides of your head it's not really designed for protection as much as it is for looks.
And also, from personal experience, it's nearly impossible to install a bluetooth kit.
Modular helmets are getting more and more popular, and better and better designed. They aren't as safe as traditional full-face helmets; aside from the actual latch and hinge mechanisms being able to fail the split-shell designs leave the whole helmet overall weaker, but unlike the Scorpion Covert the chin-bar WILL actually protect you in a crash. Maybe not a crash at 100mph, but around town they'll be more than adequate. You also get the advantage of being able to drink while on the bike and being able to stop in a gas-station/convenience-store without taking the whole helmet off. Less obvious disadvantages are they're heavier and they are generally noisier due to the chin-bar not technically sealing against the helmet shell.
Generally the more you spend on a helmet the better off you are, as they'll be made with better, stronger materials, they'll be safer, and they'll be better designed in regards to both airflow and noise reduction. Especially with modulars, you get what you pay for. If you can stretch your budget do so. The few months of Ramen noodle dinners in exchange for potentially years of comfort on the bike is a trade I am, and hope you would be, willing to make.
Shoei's original Neotec is on closeout for about $500. 9/10 on that one.
I'll check that one out also when it's time to make a purchase. I don't get the bike till next week after I'm back from my trip. I've got the budget for the helmet as I'm getting a pretty good deal on the bike. I do need to pickup appropriate riding gear before I take the MSF course, helmet being the most important then the gloves are next. I should have suitable items for the rest of it.
In your experience, what do most people bring they think meets the gear requirements but doesn't?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk
Quote from: KHnTX on May 16, 2018, 04:58:14 PM
I've got the budget for the helmet as I'm getting a pretty good deal on the bike. I do need to pickup appropriate riding gear before I take the MSF course, helmet being the most important then the gloves are next.
In your experience, what do most people bring they think meets the gear requirements but doesn't?
The requirements as stated from the MSF are very open for interpretation, but my organization in particular is pretty relaxed about it.
MSF requires:
Long sleeves (pretty self explanatory. Don't need a jacket, just a long sleeve cotton shirt will be fine.)
"Sturdy" pants (jeans or your average pair of cargos are fine, no track pants or sweatpants or dress-slacks or anything like that).
"Sturdy" over the ankle footwear (Cons are probably a bad idea, but your average hi-top gym-shoe is probably ok. Boots are preferred, but a steel-toe work boot is too bulky. We'll give someone a hard time about hi-top Cons, but if they can't get an alternative in time we'll probably still let them ride so long as the shoes are in good condition and laced all the way up.)
Helmets and gloves are provided for you, should you require, but you're better off having your own helmet so you don't have to deal with wearing someone else's - ahem - "face fluids".
Any gloves that are full-fingered are fine, but as with the pants/boots something like a thin white evening glove or a pair of welder's leather gloves are probably bad ideas.
Probably the two things I send riders away for most of all are shoes and sleeves. Seems most people wear jeans regardless, but low-tops and a t-shirt are both a no-go.
My military clients are usually well prepared, they'll wear their issued footwear and often will ride in their ABUs.
So, I attended the first session for the BRC last night. I found out that PA recently switched from the MSF program to Total Control. Do you have an opinion on that?
I haven't taken total control so not really.
IIRC Total Control is the brain-child of Lee Parks while the MSF was developed from cumulative research and study of rider behavior and statistics and such.
I've also heard that TC's advanced course is more of an "introduction to track riding" in the sense that they do a lot of work on turning and body position, while the MSF focuses more on emergency maneuvers and braking and such.
Either way, so long as you are being taught by a certified instructor you can't really go wrong.
I'm interested to get your feedback on it when the class is concluded.
So I had my first range session this weekend for the Total Control course. I like the exercises they had us do and I think it definitely works as a way to go from literally zero moto experience to being able to ride the bike somewhat competently. Lots of focus on head turning and general best practices.
However, as someone with a couple years of street riding and many years of trail riding experience, I found the pace a bit slow. But I feel like that's a problem with me more than it is the course. They also wanted us to be covering the clutch at all times. They said its because it can be used as a "panic button" of sorts if you accidentally give too much throttle. This was a bit frustrating to me because as someone with some level of experience (not that I'm an expert by any means), I'm not really who they're worried about doing that and I don't usually cover my clutch when riding. Parking lots and stop and go traffic are like the only times I cover it, so being told to cover the clutch for what amounts to basically no reason was kind of annoying.
Lastly, I did the class in POURING rain. While being very wet (my gear is still a bit damp today and I took the class Saturday morning) and very cold was absolutely miserable, I valued the experience of being able to practice the basics in the rain. It's a good confidence builder. However, my girlfriend got way too cold and had to drop out (and she wasn't the only one). That was a bit of a bummer since she'll have to retake that range session at some point before our next class, but it wasn't her fault. She actually got pulled over on her way home because she was driving really slowly and apparently when the cop came to her window, her lips were blue and she was slurring her speech. I'm glad she stopped when she did, otherwise she may have had to go to the hospital.
That's a total bummer, sounds like your coaches weren't as attentive as they should have been...
Glad the GF is ok.
In their defense, its hard to tell if someone is developing hypothermia if their face/body is covered by all their riding gear. Plus, if they're completing the exercises without needing much extra instruction, you might not notice the slurred speech. And she was riding well, much better than she was when I was trying to teach her anyway lol. But, she was talking a lot about good it felt to be able to ride around and stuff, even in the rain, and how much fun she had before it got too cold. So it sounds to me like she caught a little bit of the riding bug so hopefully she'll find a way to make up the range session and complete the course.
What's your stance on the clutch covering thing? I can sort of see it as a "this is good for beginners" thing, but for intermediate/advanced riders I think it's kind of overly cautious for very little benefit.
BTW I am more than happy with my sedici Strada helmet after nearly 2 years and 4k miles. I personally feel like a high visibility helmet is critical safety equipment so I'd never consider a matte black helmet no matter what.
I also really like my Bilt cafe jacket but in Texas it is most useful from about late September until May. But June thru August you're going to want a full mesh jacket or you won't ride.
Another thing is even though my helmet has a built-in sun screen I never use it. Clear visor and sunglasses gets the job done much better.
Imho. Recent noob myself.
Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Quote from: qcbaker on May 21, 2018, 09:47:59 AM
What's your stance on the clutch covering thing? I can sort of see it as a "this is good for beginners" thing, but for intermediate/advanced riders I think it's kind of overly cautious for very little benefit.
I might encourage it but I don't enforce it.
It's an ok idea while they're learning the bikes, but by mid day I couldn't care less. In fact, I usually encourage the opposite once the students are comfortable. Same like the brakes; they should be covering the control if they expect to use it, such as approaching intersections and being prepared to stop, but when carrying on they should have all four fingers around the grips.
So, I successfully completed the BRC and am now (finally) a fully licensed motorcyclist lol. As for feedback, I have mixed feelings. I feel like there are some things about the class I really liked, and others I really didn't like. But, I think most of the things I didn't like were because I'm already a reasonably competent rider and the course is focused on teaching you to ride without having prior knowledge. So I think I failed to go in with a "beginner's mind" so to speak.
To elaborate a bit, I got a bit frustrated with the instructors the second range session because they seemed hyper focused on enforcing arbitrary things. For example, we started the second range session with a cornering exercise. Because I hang off when I corner at speed, my inside knee reflexively came off the tank a bit during the first pass and they harped on me about keeping my knees on the tank. I could understand if they had a real issue with my technique (not turning my head enough, not rolling on smoothly, etc.) but to criticize me for using actual proper body position just because the instruction book says "knees against the tank" kind of annoyed me. However, I do understand that the course is geared towards people who aren't familiar with that type of thing, so I'm trying not to hold it against them. Another example was braking before corners. There were a few times we were going so slow I didn't feel the need to brake prior to the corners and the instructors told me each time I needed to brake. The cornering acronym Total Control uses is SPAT: Adjust your Speed, Adjust your Position, Aim (basically, turn your head and look at the corner exit), then Turn. "Adjusting your speed" doesn't necessarily mean I have to brake. I asked the instructor "The S in SPAT is for "speed", not braking, right? I'm adjusting my speed by rolling off the throttle, why do you keep insisting I need to brake?" and he was really dismissive and just told me to brake. Maybe he thought I was being a jerk, but I was just genuinely confused by his insistence on me braking. If we're going 10mph, it seems a bit ridiculous to dismissively insist that I brake before this curve that I could easily take at 30 especially after I made it clear that I understood the material. His dismissive attitude really rubbed me the wrong way because it seemed so arbitrary and in the moment its very difficult to remember that the course is not designed for a rider who can already corner fine.
And I realize that some of that may sound a bit pretentious but I don't really mean to imply that I know more than the instructors or that my cornering is perfect as is, or anything like that. I just feel that my experience level was a bit higher than this course was designed for.
Quote from: qcbaker on June 04, 2018, 01:02:08 PM
And I realize that some of that may sound a bit pretentious but I don't really mean to imply that I know more than the instructors or that my cornering is perfect as is, or anything like that. I just feel that my experience level was a bit higher than this course was designed for.
Designed or not, it sounds like your instructors were pretty rigid.
This may be the case as required by "big wigs" in some places. I have word that the program in IL, though it's the same curriculum that I teach here in AZ, is very "no personality" and incredibly "by the book," which can be a condition of it being a state sponsored program and to ensure conformity across all venues and coaches.
I can say that in the class I teach I'll break a bad habit if I see one but an experienced rider is an experienced rider and I don't fix what isn't broken.
Sorry to hear that your experience was less than stellar.
My dad had a similar response about our BRC experience. Of course he had been riding motorcycles off and on, often times for years as his sole transportation, for over 40 years before he took the course. He had a lot of habits, both good and bad, which were not precisely what the course called for. But after it was all over and he was out riding his own bike again he said that he really did feel much better on the bike and, as he said, "more confident". The biggest thing the course exposed in my dad was difficulty in low-speed maneuvering. I think by riding off-road and on the road for decades he had developed a lot of habits and shortcuts in technique that work at speed but are detrimental at sub-walking pace.
OTOH I had never (legally) ridden a motorcycle on the road and had only ridden primarily off-road on an old enduro bike when I was a kid over 25 years before I took this course. I had a few weeks of riding-around-the-block experience on my GS. But I had over 35 years of regular and constant bicycling experience including very technical mountain biking and well-crafted low-speed maneuvering skills on a 2-wheel vehicle. So this stuff was a snap for me. I could have probably easily done trials in that one weekend's training. I had a harder time (and still do) getting comfortable with the lean angle required for >20mph turns. I constantly felt like the bike was going to wash out, and even two years and 3K miles later I still feel that way.
I think this all has a lot to do with how you approach the course and your prior experience. In the end I learned a lot and so did my dad but we each learned different things to add to or augment our prior experience. To this day when we ride together I marvel at how effortlessly he takes turns at speed on his Shadow 750 with 20 year old crap tires and how hard I have to work my far more sporty and recently-shod GS500 to keep up, and my guess is he wonders how I manage to do stop signs and parking lots without putting a foot down.