Outta Control
Renegade Drone Pilot
I didn't say it. I was stating what you told me.
Oh and with no hands. I forgot about that.
Last edited:
Counter steering vs weighting the pegs/body steering
- Thread starter jabs83
- Start date
I didn't say it. I was stating what you told me.
Oh and with no hands. I forgot about that.
Outta Control
Renegade Drone Pilot
Well there are safer way to do this with a open lot with cones.
Yes, there are, though cones might not be as safe as you'd like to think either.
When Keith's No-BS bike first came out, we did a free off-track drill for Doc Wong at Moffett Field. We had the bike there and before the crowd showed up, I ran a cone weave on it. The cones were spaced very far apart.
I succeeded in running the cones but the gymnastics it took to do it were ridiculous. Nobody rides that way. I haven't seen anyone else do that, though a few have crashed trying.
Anyway, getting out on a big piece of asphalt on a bike with a throttle lock and trying to turn it with no hands is a good way to find out how much effect your body really has on the thing.
ontherearwheel
Well-known member
FWIW......my Tracer GT has cruise control. On my ride today, I turned it on and set at 60 on the portion of 84 going out to the coast where it opens up. Nice speed for that section as all turns can be made easily at that speed.
I could not weight the pegs enough to make any of those turns. I could not use enough body English to make those turns. I could slightly change my lines, but nothing that would have made those turns.
I made those turns by using only my left hand......nothing on the throttle.....I let cruise control maintain the speed.
Any real direction of change that was needed required bar input.
Moving the body just seem to enhance the movement of the bike turning. This required me to put weight on the pegs in order to move my body, and if slightly off the seat to the inside, most of my body weight is on the inside peg, holding my body up so that I don’t with my arms.
But, this is just me........your experiences maybe different.
I could not weight the pegs enough to make any of those turns. I could not use enough body English to make those turns. I could slightly change my lines, but nothing that would have made those turns.
I made those turns by using only my left hand......nothing on the throttle.....I let cruise control maintain the speed.
Any real direction of change that was needed required bar input.
Moving the body just seem to enhance the movement of the bike turning. This required me to put weight on the pegs in order to move my body, and if slightly off the seat to the inside, most of my body weight is on the inside peg, holding my body up so that I don’t with my arms.
But, this is just me........your experiences maybe different.
That's a pretty typical experience. :laughing
stangmx13
not Stan
Don’t forget, a rider that is braking with lean angle must still apply force to the bars to maintain their lean angle. The force required on the bars is somewhat proportional to the braking force and the lean angle.
It’s not a common situation to be holding a constant lean angle while braking - usually u add lean angle while coming off the brakes. But this just means that the countersteering while braking takes more effort cuz u are also working against the forces in my first paragraph.
It’s not a common situation to be holding a constant lean angle while braking - usually u add lean angle while coming off the brakes. But this just means that the countersteering while braking takes more effort cuz u are also working against the forces in my first paragraph.
Last edited:
I think I posted this or a similar video earlier. In a high speed (150+ mph) turn, riders stay tucked behind the wind screen and do not hang off. There's no apparent weight shifting, which would mean that all the changes in lean angle are due to bar inputs. There's a reasonably good example of this at 2:15 into this video at Daytona race track in a steeply banked turn:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FzHm-tb3VQ
The point here is that hanging off may stabilize a bike in a turn, but it's not required to initiate a lean. On bikes with lot of trail effect, then body leaning or hanging off results in an indirect form of counter steering. In the case of the Keith Code "no BS" bike, especially the original green one, there is very little trail effect, so the bike is almost impervious to weight shifting.
Here is a link to a video of the green "no BS" bike that I posted earlier, skip to 2:38 into this video:
https://youtu.be/8_5Z3jyO2pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FzHm-tb3VQ
The point here is that hanging off may stabilize a bike in a turn, but it's not required to initiate a lean. On bikes with lot of trail effect, then body leaning or hanging off results in an indirect form of counter steering. In the case of the Keith Code "no BS" bike, especially the original green one, there is very little trail effect, so the bike is almost impervious to weight shifting.
Here is a link to a video of the green "no BS" bike that I posted earlier, skip to 2:38 into this video:
https://youtu.be/8_5Z3jyO2pA
Last edited:
To be clear; your explanations are spot on and well written. for subject material at the beginning level to riding, it's a good curriculum. I could't explain it near as well, but I'm also not akin to working with riders who are brand new. Like level one skiers learning how to snowplow, we don't lose the ability to snow plow AND snowplowing does teach us edge control, but pretty quickly edge control bows in importance to body position on the fall line, knee angle to the hill, etc. A skier who only knows edge control and snowplowing, should that be the limit to their skill set, is highly limited in the terrain they can cover, competently. Teaching at this level is simplified; the students know very little and the curriculum is aimed at basic competency. Once that competency is complete, most riders develop their own style and adopt techniques that work for them or adapt a technique. The cookie cutter program starts to have less value the quicker a rider is aiming to go so long as they've mastered the basics. That is how I've always viewed the counter steering conversation; it's most certainly applicable to new riders, but past that, has very limited relevance once learned. It's something the internet regards as highly relevant, but like the weight shift of an automobile in a corner, it's a riding reality that we accept is always present in motorcycle dynamics and yet, that very idea that a rider can add lean angle by pushing on the bars causes a learning wall when they want to decrease lap times. Using one's body on the inside peg to add lean angle along with a trailing brake lever, a rider is able to repeatably able to put a bike within 6" of the same place from the previous lap, lap after lap after lap. Like a pole plant, the motorcycle steers around the rider's body weigh on the inside. In practice, many sports use one's body to help significantly in direction change: Slalom skiing, snow skiing, jet skiing (stand up), etc.
I rode the street today to see where I used my bars (actively) and where I used weight. With one hand on my hip, I pushed and pulled the right bar to change lanes and was pretty comfy. I'm able to change lanes as well with weight on the inside peg or pushing a shoulder to the side I want to ride towards, but it's lazier, albeit, much more predicable and controllable. Picking up the pace and running through a set of corners, there was little chance at doing anything smoothly with bar input only and I went back to the trusty weight shift and braking to get the bike to change direction. As riders become quicker, repeatable actions in a corner help take the guesswork out of things. I find that the smoothness and predictability of using weight to add lean angle to be much more controllable and predictable. However, there are certain corners where a bar input will help the bike to change direction and we see this with front end movement/ snaps. It's just not the common input in most corners.
On the comment about using your body VS pushing on bars: there is truth to the movement of ones body as taking more energy than remaining static in the seat and pushing on bars. However, given you're a rock climber, you know the axiom of using your legs to gain footage and arms to stabilize. A rider who uses their arms to steer the motorcycle wears out quicker, blisters quicker, and arm pumps quicker and ultimately,has less control of the overall motorcycle. Legs and core being much bigger and stronger muscle groups, it only makes sense to recruit them for the majority of riding. That's an important point when looking for endurance riding a motorcycle at pace. Why do riders prefer actively counter steering their bike? Most new riders are tepid about anything more than sitting in the center of the seat. For these riders, it's the only control they have available to them to steer the motorcycle but it's also rife with excessive lean angle for a longer period than needed as well as, difficult to master trail braking and rear traction without significant risk when mistakes are made. Additionally, using the handlebars to add lean angle to a 400 lb liter-bike alone is a high effort task, not low effort. Remember the part about watching people yard sale when they start picking up the pace and run out of options? It tends to start with a fear of adding lean angle and I suspect that has to do with how far from the pavement the rider is. A rider who is able to position their weight to the inside of the corner has a tremendous advantage of efficiency over a rider who does not. Remember: bigger muscle groups allow more endurance. Using a legs/ core approach to hanging onto a motorcycle (which as I've adapted to, can be done by using the inside of the outside thigh against the tank alone which is different from previously; squeezing the tank with my legs) leaves arms and hands to operate the controls and remain light on the bars. Light bars mean a bike that readily steers to the inside of the corner with no bar input needed. As the entry speed slows, the bike's arc tightens and the bike becomes much easier to predictably hit the same apex point in the corner, lap after lap. Should a rider keep their inside elbow stiff (or in rare cases, their outside arm stiff), the bike will add lean angle, but won't roll through the corner as comfortably as the pace picks up for the rider. Missed apexes, distant apexes and slow corner speed seem to be common here.
Regarding moving my head 6 inches: sure it is, depending on why and where we're changing direction. Tighten a line mid corner or to get under another rider? No, I wouldn't advocate pushing on the inside bar and stiffening a rider's inner arm to do so. Pull the bar? Same thing. Keeping arms/ hands loose on the bars allows the front tire to mange the surface undulations and slides much more predictably. Bar input seems to be a necessity at times, but also puts bikes on the ground easier than light hands. Modern sport bike steer very good all on their own...they really don't need much help, these days. In the 80's...lots of help needed. I've got now two excellent videos of a rider crashing 12" in front me during a race. My reaction; roll off slightly, look more inside and let the bike steer tighter. One of them I had to add significant brake and then let off the brakes abruptly so the bike would change direction quickly. Things were predictable to the point where I didn't lose any time on that lap, to boot.
On a 600 at a decent pace, Sonoma 8/ 8a and Thill, 11-13 have a definite rolloff. T8/ 8a still requires a big weight shift to hold the bike tight to the right on 8a, as you come over the hill. Essentially, the front tire is doing very little steering on the way down the hill, so it requires some pretty decent leaning while hoisted. Siglin has some good shot from it. T11-13 don't have quite the same line, but there's still a shit ton of body english to keep the bike heeled over while heading to WFO. I'm still not pulling the bars much at all, if any...there's not much weight on the front end coming off of T13 and the bike's tracking heavily to the outside of the track. In fact, when in the gas hard and wanting a bike to change direction, weight should have a greater effect than bar input, no? That's certainly the case coming down the hill from T9 at thill or over the hill at T1, Laguna.
Almost every single sport bike built in the 2000's on up, have been designed at near telepathic handling. The 2006 + Yamaha R6 is so good at handling, when rider's complain it's not working, it's almost always the rider's misgivings. The bike's go wherever a rider wants with a simple look in that direction. The geometry of these bikes is setup such that heavy bar input from the 80's and 90's isn't as critical, when at pace. Sticking the advanced ideas of:
1.) Look where you want to go (universal in sports)
2.) Keep arms loose after braking and allow the bike to steer
4.) Use legs and core as much as possible to support the rider/ upper body
5.) Slow down movements on controls.
6.) Don't hang off the motorcycle too far (Deion did a nice post on this yesterday on FB too)
7.) Use whatever BP is comfortable and tailor it as speed requires it
There isn't really a good curriculum that's universal for advanced riding/ racing. YCRS/ Star School/ Zemke Riding Development/ Rickdiculous Racing are the West coast names for training that club racers have been using, but each one of these schools teaches a bit differently on how to get the speed and control and most of them allow for a rider to tailor the skills for their ability and needs. Not all riders ride the same and most of the schools give a chance to practice different techniques. Some work better for different riders.
While your comments about having a curriculum for new riders is very important, as these riders start to fill holes in their riding program, there isn't a one-size-fits-all as you the skill set works up the talent scale.
Corey West, Bryce Prince and Nick Mcfadden all had different styles in the latest Moto America Race. So did Cameron, Tony, and Josh. But, they all get it done, albeit a bit differently. That's why having a static instructing program for riders trying to break through with corner entry problems or slow transitions, is an individual thing and also why the higher skill level schools require such a high instructor/ student ratio.
Anyway, good conversation. I'd still love to go ride some time; something we've never had the chance to do in over a decade. At some point, luck will put us out there together. Instructing isn't really riding anyway Andy...you owe it to take a day and just ride without having to teach !
the cruise control example seems at odds with things we know about riding a bike: Brakes, throttle and bar input/ weight shift control the motorcycle. For the sake of the race track argument (because really, the speeds on the street are easily adaptable to many styles of control), there's never a time when a rider is going a static, constant speed. I'd skip that example based on that information.
A few things: Daytona is a banked oval. That's a poor example of how a bike changes direction/ steers. In practice, anytime a rider is altering their line at 150mph in a racing enviroment, pushing on bars is not something that's essential. As said below, it doesn't take much weight to change direction at 150mph. It's a rounding error. Both will do the same job, but in every single road race series active today, almost all riders are shifting weight to the inside on corner entries. The amount of weight may vary and body position may be different, but for certain, every rider is using their body to control the motorcycle. We certainly never would see a rider putting their body on the outside of motorcycle in an entry.
True, but that's not the only reason. Don't forget the most important axiom: lean angle = steering angle. In club racers, the latest shitty trend seems to be hanging off so much, they don't have much lean angle and the bike never has the max lean angle (meaning, max steering angle) moment and thus, they are forced to over slow for the corner. It's HORRIBLE. They sure look cool, but they can't get the bike's to change direction withing sacrificing a ton of speed. There is a component to hanging off and getting some tire back under the bike, but it shouldn't be at the sacrifice to steering angle. The reason I always come back to "steering", which is never discussed, is riders rarely understand why it's important and how it even occurs. I'd argue it's the most important part of race track riding. Without getting the bike pointed reliably, we're going nowhere fast. When a rider pushes on the inside bar, they almost always keep their inside arm stiff, rest their body on it and don't allow the front wheel to turn into the corner on its own. It's probably one of the biggest bad habits I see at the track: stiff inner arm/ supporting one's weight with their inside arm. Mays well turn your steering dampener up to 30!
Funny story on that note: I'm a big standup Jetski guy...it's where I learned to race and operate a throttle. Jetski's turn with the bars turning in the direction of the corner and driving the boat into the corner with some lean angle with a rider's knees. It's very much like a stand up motorcycle, if you haven't done it. What's funny is watching my motorcycle friends learn how to steer the ski on their first (and for some, second and third) outing...they almost all turn the bars the wrong direction and then, lean into the turn. It's bizarre with comical results. It really just illustrates what we already know: the majority of riders don't make the connection that the bars have to be turned in the direction of the turn for the motorcycle to turn, just like a jetski. Maybe that's why I focus so much on the steering aspect and maybe I'm uniquely prepared for steering the bars the correct direction...I'm not sure.
BTW, nice riding at Miller. was rooting for ya! Sonoma on the schedule?
Last edited:
ontherearwheel
Well-known member
Y’all really should ride a bike with cruise control. This way you could set the speed, take your hands off the bars.....and then see how much weighting the pegs and body English matter.
You might just be surprised.
Interesting to be leaned over, with no hands on the bars......the bike just stays at the lean angle. Of course to get it to that lean angle, bar input was used. There was no way that weighting the pegs or body english would lean the bike fast enough to make any turns. Bar input was always needed for any major change of lean angle.
While doing this a few times, a gust of wind would hit the bike at a angle causing it to lean over more and bar input was needed to stay on the line through the turn.
Until you ride without needing your right hand to maintained a steady speed, you don’t know how much bar input you really are using. You might think it is weighting pegs or body English, doing the leaning, but you just might be wrong.
Oh........what you do to turn fast lap times on the track is not always needed on the street.....two different worlds, two different riding purposes.
You might just be surprised.
Interesting to be leaned over, with no hands on the bars......the bike just stays at the lean angle. Of course to get it to that lean angle, bar input was used. There was no way that weighting the pegs or body english would lean the bike fast enough to make any turns. Bar input was always needed for any major change of lean angle.
While doing this a few times, a gust of wind would hit the bike at a angle causing it to lean over more and bar input was needed to stay on the line through the turn.
Until you ride without needing your right hand to maintained a steady speed, you don’t know how much bar input you really are using. You might think it is weighting pegs or body English, doing the leaning, but you just might be wrong.
Oh........what you do to turn fast lap times on the track is not always needed on the street.....two different worlds, two different riding purposes.
Last edited:
stangmx13
not Stan
motorcycles dont accomplish most of their turning with steering angle, not by a long shot. generally, its in fast turns where u have the least steering angle actually. but change your post from "steering angle" to "camber thrust" and its all correct. lean angle == camber thrust, which is how motorcycles really turn.
tire manufacturers do seem now to be focused on steep edges of tires to improve camber thrust. when i was able the switch from Dunlop's 190/60 or 200/55 to their new 180/60, the bike just turned more with no other changes. a slower rider that leans so little that they dont take advantage of that steep edge is really missing something.
thnx. i was rly happy w/ Race 2. looking back, i wish i had more race time in my pre-season to get up to speed like that before Laguna. im already signed up for Sonoma. its gonna be rough with my limited track time there (1 day) and having never raced there. but im looking forward to the challenge.
Will see ya at Sonoma...and good luck. You'll go good there.
On steering; motorcycles must steer, despite camber thrust explanation, etc. Why is it important a rider understands the concept of the front tire swinging into the turn? Because the number 1 mistake/ problem I see on track is slow steering and missed apexes due to riders holding their body up with their inside elbow and keeping it locked in place, which slows the front wheel from steering into the turn. They're fighting the bike. That number 1 mistake is tied with the other number 1 mistake: not looking far enough ahead and moving their eyes.
Dude, all of this riding talk better not jack up your race. Just RIDE!
stangmx13
not Stan
thats y i didnt say motorcycles only turn with camber thrust.
theres somewhat an inverse relationship btw steering angle and lean angle. we all know that one of the only times u get a ton of steering angle on a moto is a u-turn with minimal lean angle.
if i had a dollar for every time someone told me to "just ride", i could prob pay for a round worth of tires. any racer that isnt looking for methodical improvements in their riding, in the setup, in anything else concerning going fast around the track isnt doing their job. Rossi never just rides :laughing
Last edited:
I'd have agreed on the "just ride" statement you made 12 months ago, but this year is the first year I decided to not care as much where the chips fall and not noodle out about setup/ riding style/ having to be "XXXX" rider.
It's probably one my best seasons to date and yet, I'm riding as fast as I've ever gone on tracks that are arguably, in worse shape on the same bike as back then. I'm on better physical shape, but that's it...and practice is another careless effort; if I make it great, if not, I'll catch the next one. Just so long as I go out and practice hard, I don't worry about how much time I get.
But...and this is big, The big show is always different and more pressure. I remember how that all works, but still...sometimes all that changing and noodling out does very little to affect performance. That's all...and I'll never give you that stupid line "Just have fun". See ya there Rob!
It's probably one my best seasons to date and yet, I'm riding as fast as I've ever gone on tracks that are arguably, in worse shape on the same bike as back then. I'm on better physical shape, but that's it...and practice is another careless effort; if I make it great, if not, I'll catch the next one. Just so long as I go out and practice hard, I don't worry about how much time I get.
But...and this is big, The big show is always different and more pressure. I remember how that all works, but still...sometimes all that changing and noodling out does very little to affect performance. That's all...and I'll never give you that stupid line "Just have fun". See ya there Rob!
LakeMerrit
*Merritt
In one of Ken Hill's early podcasts, he mentions focusing more on peg weighting and upper body turn/positioning and does not emphasize countersteering when coaching new track riders. I think this assumes new track riders already understand countersteering from street experience.
There has been an ongoing debate about this. First note that a small model made up of two cones, one cone in front of the other, with parallel axis, will travel in a (nearly) straight line (with a lot of slippage, if the friction factor is high, the effect is similar to braking, and the test model quickly slows down). The issue here is that any so called camber thrust effect from a tire would be trying to turn the entire frame, which would mean sliding the other tire perpendicular to it's path of travel, and if the other tire is not sliding, then it resists that effect, and the bike travels in a straight line. At the front tire, camber thrust will tend to steer the front tire inwards a bit, until the side load and/or slip angle become large enough to cancel the effect, but this effect (torque) is so small that it's probably imperceptible to a rider compared to the other effects related to lean angle and steering input.
To summarize, a two wheeled vehicle with locked steering and round profile tires will continue to travel in a straight line while leaned over and fall. Any of this camber thrust effect would be limited to a tiny angle due to sideways flexing of the contact patches of the tires in response to the relatively small amount of torque generated by this camber thrust effect.
This web site includes the result of a two cone vehicle experiment, and an explanation:
http://www.terrycolon.com/1features/bike.html
Another issue is the meaning of camber thrust. One definition, common to both bikes and cars is the centripetal force coexistent with linear centripetal deformation at the contact patch. For some motorcycle, tire, lean angle, and speed combinations, the linear centripetal deformation provides enough force for a coordinated turn, in other cases, some slip angle (rotational deformation of the contact patch) is required. To clarify this, the linear deformation involves twisting of the contact patch at the leading and trailing edges of the contact patch, that cancel each other out, but the actual turning radius will still be greater than the "steered" radius due to the deformation.
Last edited:
KnifeySpoony
_______________________
He oversimplifies a lot. Neglects several pertinent topics, especially those that apply to motorcycles like torque from the rear wheel. Show him a picture of
motorcycle leaned over in a corner with its front wheel off the ground and watch his head explode. Also the gyroscopic force that he dismisses as laughable has more effect on a motorcycle.
stangmx13
not Stan
that author did a good job of showing that 2-wheeled vehicles use steering angle to accomplish some turning. but he didnt show the relative magnitude compared to camber thrust and def didnt show that camber thrust has zero effect. I will say that I did forget about the idea that lean angle increases the effective steering angle.
I think itd take one more experiment to show that camber thrust has some effect. maybe itd even reveal some relative magnitudes. compare 2 vehicles w/ the same lean, but with diff camber on the tires. see which vehicle has a tighter turning radius. compare natural steering angle too just in case they are different. and if they are diff, maybe only change the camber of the rear tire.
I think itd take one more experiment to show that camber thrust has some effect. maybe itd even reveal some relative magnitudes. compare 2 vehicles w/ the same lean, but with diff camber on the tires. see which vehicle has a tighter turning radius. compare natural steering angle too just in case they are different. and if they are diff, maybe only change the camber of the rear tire.
Last edited: