| Author | Message | ||
     Al_Lighton |
Well, I don't know one way or the other about leaning to the outside on a street bike. I don't do it. But I do know that in the dirt, to do a real tight corner involves putting all your foot weight to the outside peg, getting your inside foot light and in most cases OFF the peg and ready to jam into the dirt if the bike slides out too far, too fast, and breaking the rear end loose with a blip of throttle. The bike is leaned to the inside, but the body certainly isn't. I doubt the rider is leaned outside, more like vertical when the bike isn't. But that's dirt sliding. I don't slide the rear of my street bike intentionally, and have no desire to jam my leg to the ground on asphalt to support an overslid 500 lb motorycle. For the most part, I think dirt riding makes a better street rider. But there are things you do in the dirt that are best left there. Al | ||
| Mikej |
Finally, for something slightly different but still related, why is Loris Capirossi sitting on the high side of the bike in this picture? Look at the skid mark across the white paint right behind where he is, I'm guessing he just came out of a tight turn and is adjusting his line for the next one by using a little body english to affect the path just a tad. It's also hard to tell if the camera is tilted or if the turn is banked, but it does appear that the turn is at the crest of a hill due to there being nothing in the background of the pic and he is pinging the apex of the turn and the crest of the hill at the same time and is doing his best to settle down into an attack maneuver to burrow down into the downhill chicane that is sure to follow. Or it could be the lasagne as was also suggested.  Need more to tell more about the photo and situation. | ||
| Blake |
Hans is probably right... JQ, I've repeatedly stated that I understand perfectly and accept the physical validity of the slow-speed sharp-turn hang-off-opposite technique. So please cease pleading for me to go out and try it to prove it to myself. Likewise, I have no theories that need proving other than "stuff happens" and when it does, if you cannot get a foot down to catch a stopped or slowly rolling falling motorcycle, it will hit the ground. I am simply pointing out the significant risks the proposed extreme technique presents. Do you really imagine that having to stop for a car or other unforseen obstacle while maneuvering in a parking lot is an unlikely scenario?  How about if you forget to flip the fuel petcock on, or your bike hiccups on some bad fuel, or your front tire slides on an oily spot, or a bug flies into your eye, or some negligent cager bumps your rear tire, or you hit a puddle of engine coolant, or a strong wind gust surprises you, or you hit an invisible patch of ice, or at such a slow speed you simply lose your balance... Are these ALL "worst case scenarios" to you? I've experienced every single one of those scenarios. I can go around any turn more quickly by leaning more. Doesn't mean it's safe or reasonable to do so. You may enjoy riding away while others are "paddling. How will you feel while dumping your bike while others are making an extremely easy three point turn? I mentioned the car to illustrate how silly it is to worry about tightening the already extremely tight turning envelope of a motorcycle. I mean really, how silly is it to risk dropping your bike to save a few feet in turning radius. Sure, I'll lean the other way. But no way am I going to hang off or stand up simply to avoid putting a foot down and/or having to execute a three point turn. You know, you can stop more quickly on a sport bike by aggressively using only the front brake, getting the rear tire to almost just lift. Every sport bike rider should practice hard/panic braking regularly and safely to learn the limit(s) of braking on their bike. Using 100% front brake to the point of almost initiating a stoppie is the quickest way to stop. It is proven and valid and works. It should not be used as a customary maneuver. Why? Because it presents significant risks in lots of plausible scenarios. | ||
| Rick_A |
What's the point in arguing differing opinions? Everyone has their own preferences/riding styles. The technique José illustrates is basically the only way to pass some state motorcycle courses, that's for sure. In NY the entire test is based on U-turns on a narrow road...it's really stupid. | ||
| Blake |
It's entertaining to stretch logic and point of view in a debate. I still love José. Oops, that was for that other thread, the "alternate lifestyle" one. Seriously, it's interesting to me that some people get uneasy about an enthusiastic debate. Come on people, it's just a case of opposing opinions and silly egos, or in this specific instance, a case of José being unyielding even in the face of irrefutable wisdom.. ![:]](http://www.badweatherbikers.com/buell/clipart/proud.gif) I took my Motorcycle licensure test in PA. Had to do figure eights in a confined area, same as NY requires I think. T'weren't nothin'. Certainly didn't require any hanging off maneuvers. | ||
| José_Quiñones |
Blake, With all those "scenarios" why do you even bother to get out of your house and ride your bike, don't you know it's dangerous? Like I said before, I would hope somebody doing this or any other type of turn would be aware of their surroundings before attempting the turn. You can't win the argument so you changed the subject. The hazard/safety aspects of this technique were never an issue, you turned into that when you could not refute the EFFECTIVENESS of the technique. That Effectiveness became an issue when you said M2me was B*llsh*tting when he mentioned the FACT that sitting on the high side (or "hanging off" ) of the bike works in tight u-turns, and everybody here has produced plenty of documentation and personal experience to back it up. That you choose not to believe it is your problem. This technique requires skill and practice, practice and more practice. For a lot of bikers the only time they even try it is when they are taking the State test. The rest of the time they are paddling around. Finally, the Sport Rider article about countersteering vs. bodysteering might help to explain what Mr. Capirossi is doing. | ||
| Davegess |
I suspect that Mr. Capirossi is doing is what is taught in the American Supercamps… if you are gonna side the rear get your butt up on top of the bike and keep the machine under you. Helps keep the thing under control when it tries to spit you off. Same technique al the motocross that flattrackers use just with a bit more speed and a harder surface to crash on. It is “safe” or “proper”? Don’t know but all the fast guys do it. Course crashing is the price of going fast for a roadracer. As far as the stand on the outside peg thing, If done that. Works great. Have had to stop quick once or twice and have not fallen down (did come close). Have fallen down not doing it when the bike hits the steering lock. That technique pretty much eliminates that problem. I learned it from an MSF instructor during an MSF class. He could do tiny circles on Yamaha Venture. It allows you to complete a u-turn without stopping and backing up. I would endorse it as safe and useful but something to be used at slow speeds when surprises are unlikely. Dave | ||
| M2me |
So, the debate continues. First off, let me remind you what book I was quoting from earlier. It is called The Motorcyle Safety Foundation's Guide to Motorcycling Excellence. That's right, The Motorcycle Safety Foundation! In chapter 15 they have two photos, one from the front and one from the rear of someone hanging off the motorcycle in a slow speed turn. This rider is in a position almost identical to the drawing that JQ posted 12/24 at 10:14 pm. I also both agree and disagree with Rick_A. Yes, it is basically the only way to pass most state motorcycle tests. No, it is not really stupid. I used to think that way especially after I failed it the first time.  But, over the years I have realized what they are looking for. They are looking to see if the rider really knows how to control a motorcycle. Sure, just sliding your butt to the outside won't guarantee you a motorcycle endorsement. You also need to understand throttle, brake and clutch control. But, knowing how to use your weight in slow speed turns is also very important to controlling the motorcycle. | ||
| Nevco1 |
Hough's illustration looks like a technique used for passing the CA DMV test with a larger (read: your own, not borrowed) bike. Never saw a BattleTrax layout, but if they are that tight, I ain't interested. What is interesting is that Hough is advocating lowering the CG and attempting to keep the bike more vertical while telling you to use countersteering to decrease the turning radius. Worked great when I used to ride the single track mountain trails, but then I decreased the radius even further by sliding the rear out. At any rate unless you are trying to do weird stuff on you girl friends driveway, you won't be using this technique on the road. However, should you find yourself in need, perhaps you should have paid more attention and stopped first. Just adding gas to the fire... | ||
| M2me |
Oops, that should be 12/26 at 10:14 pm. | ||
| S320002 |
Blake, "Gyroscopic forces and gyroscopic precession are a great hindrance to high speed motorcycle maneuverability and are of little benefit other than to help stabilize a bike at high speed." Not true. Gyroscopic forces are what allow high speed motorcycle maneuverability. Imagine you have leaned way over in the first part of a high speed chicane. How do you bring the bike upright so you can quickly lean in the opposite direction for the second part of the chicane? Why you take advantage of something called gyroscopic precession by counter steering of course. Greg | ||
| Court |
Reg Pridmore (body steering is good) and Keith Code (Body steering is bunk) have argued this for years. . . I suspect, given that those two command some respect in the community, that we are not poised on the presicpice of resolution. One thing (that may be the SUM of "the things) that I know is that I have done a great deal of slow speeding on Buells. I rely on, I guess, what intuitively works and am eager to make some notes next time. I'd be happy to go head to head with anyone in a contest of who can to the most consecutive full lock 360o's | ||
| Hans |
Oh geez, now we get a debate between a retired mechanical/satellite engineer and a former satellite antenna engineer, and the truth is so simple. Have a good fight: No cheating, no change of subjects and no formulas please, gentlemen. Hans | ||
| Timbo |
And what does ANY of this have to do with LINKING IMAGES??? Sheesh! Where is the moderator? Dangit.  Timbo | ||
| Cyclone1 |
You tell em, Timbo  Frank | ||
| Kerryx1 |
AHHHHH! I see an audition for "Ripley's Believe it or not" or at least a shot for the "Guinness Book of Records" brewing. This has got to be good! Court, can you refuel inflight? Count me out as I can only go around three and a half times before the rear tire shreds and blows! Record attempts north of the equator must be done in a counterclockwise direction while to be fair, those of you from the land of OZ (Paul) have to make the record attempt in a clockwise manner. Inflight refueling is allowable as long as the tanker circles with the contestant. And you thought there were dizzy Buellers before! With the proper music it could be called the "Jose-Blake Texas two-step" This ought to put Battletrax on back burner! Land speed records came out of this board. I'll bet Erik would piss himself autographing the winners plaque, "World's Dizziest Bueller!" 'Ole Baldie  | ||
| Jdbuellx1 |
Right way, wrong way, this way, that way, looks good, looks bad, if you go around the turn without dumping the bike, you obviously did something right. All of this gives me a headache, if I actually tried to concentrate on what I was doing while turning I'd probably crash. I just do what feels right at the particular speed I'm going. Always works for me. | ||
| Blake |
JQ, Well, the absurdity of picturing someone "hanging off" the opposite side of their bike to help make a slow speed turn is the reason I cried BS in the first place. You are correct, I was not even thinking about the physics when I did so. So contrary to your assumption, it was indeed the safety issue that prompted my response. Whatever your opinion, it sure makes for an enlightening discussion. Greg,  What helps control the bike is steering. When you countersteer you are pointing the front wheel away from the direction you wish to turn so that the bike will lean in the direction you wish to turn so you can then turn the wheel in the direction you wish to turn and actually turn. As gyroscopic effects build, it becomes more and more difficult to effect a turn. If what you claim were true, it should become more and more easy to effect a turn with increasing speed. A gyroscope does not multiply the force you input to the handlebars, it basically translates it to another axis of rotation. Meanwhile the fixed rear wheel is resisting, with roughly twice the gyroscopic effect as the front, any change in orientation. How could that possible make turning easier? Funny how almost all of the published BS claiming that countersteering works through gyroscopic precession fail to ever mention that. How much torque do you suppose it takes to quickly rotate/roll bike and rider about their centroidial axis? Answer... a BUNCH. Trust me, you are not putting any where near that kind of torque into the handlebars. If it weren't for gyroscopic effects, it would take the same exact almost unoticeably slight torque to initiate high speed turns as it takes for low speed turns. This is simple physics. The governing force that initiates lean is the lateral force on the front tire when it is steered offline. It is also funny that may of the publications touting gyroscopic precession as a mechanism to effect countersteering never address the fact that once the bike is leaned, the front wheel MUST then be turned INTO the turn. Many seem to think that it stays pointed opposite the sense of the turn. How ridiculous. Like I said, it's simple physics. It's also simple logic. Regardless of the physics, what does your experience tell you? When you increase speed it becomes more and more difficult to get your bike to turn. Why do you think that is? Answer... gyroscopic action of the wheels. Imagine super powerful super high speed gyros bolted to the sides of the front forks and to the sides of the swingarm, all spinning in the same sense as the wheels when in forward motion. You could park the bike without putting down the kickstand. You could sit on it with your feet on the pegs at a standstill. What you could not do, is ever get the thing to turn in any useful fashion. The Sport Rider link that JQ posted is a perfect example of an inadequate and misleading discussion of countersteering. The author throws out a couple equations and makes some analogies without really understanding or explaining the relative significance. Body steering? A nuance of racing and optimum sport bike handling... yes. The primary mechanism required for basic control of a street bike... not even close. JQ, I think you are right, Capirossi ran wide and was using momentary body english (quick move left so bike would move right) to keep his tires of the paint. I think that was answer #1 offered in my initial reply to that question. Of course that has almost nothing to do with the mechanism involved in trying to minimize the radius of a slow speed turn. Who's changing the subject now? | ||
| Jima4media |
No one has mentioned the camber effect of tires when turning. Once the handlebars are turned, the camber effect of the wheels will keep the bike heading torwards the ground unless you counter-act that tendency with balancing movement to the other side, if you are going slowly, or by keeping the bike more upright while hanging off at a higher speed. I learned everything I know about motorcycling in kindergarden while learing to ride my first bicycle. All the forces are the same. Once you get into a physics text book, life becomes more confusing to your head versus what your body already knows. | ||
| Blake |
 No comment. | ||
| Java |
Just to see if I understand the discussion, here's a story. Waitng for my wife in a large EMPTY mall parking lot, I got bored. Decided to see how tight I could turn the bike. Started circling left at not much more that walking speed. Eventually the turn got tight enough and lean angle got high enough, that at that low speed centripetal (centrifical? whatever) force wouldn't hold me on the seat. I had to start shifting to the right. On this night my throttle control was smooth enough that eventually I was sitting so far to the right, I could no long reach the left grip, and let go of it. I was now sitting on the right side of the bike, not at all on the seat. So, it does work....HOWEVER, like Blake, I don't see how it could ever have any application to "real" riding on the street. While Jose's MSF drawings are correct, I think there's a difference between staying relaxed and upright while "leaning just the motorcycle" and actively leaning or shifting your weight to the outside of a turn. Please pardon my lack of diagrams and glossy pictures with circles and arrows, etc. | ||
| M2me |
Why would the MSF teach such an unsafe technique? Why would most states require that you perform an unsafe technique to get a motorcycle endorsement? The answer is it is NOT unsafe! What the MSF is teaching and the states are testing is the ability to control a motorcycle. If you stop to think about it, the key to safe motorcycling is controlling the motorcycle, making it go where want at the speed you want. Knowing how to control the motorcycle will always make you safer rider. Also, I don't understand why people keep making a distinction between "hanging off" and "not leaning with the motorcycle". They're the same thing! I agree with JQ, shut down your computer and go out and stradle a bike. I think you will begin to understand it much clearer that way. | ||
| Rick_A |
I think what most people are trying to say is that there are few practical applications of that technique during everyday riding situations. | ||
| Reepicheep |
And I think the only people still fussing about it are people that want to argue. I think the whole original argument was simply a results of two different interpretations. If you assume "hanging off the wrong side" means that the bike is leaning left while you are leaning right, all measured relative to a perpedicular (90 degree) line from the pavement, then of course it is unsafe and silly. If you assume "hanging off the wrong side" means that the bike is leaned while you remain basically upright, then I think most people understand it is helpful in low speed riding though it runs a little higher risk of dropping the bike. The more interesting topic that came out of it is body steering versus handlebar steering. I think the answer to this is obvious enough, and was pretty well proven by the guy that welded a second set of bars to the frame of a sportbike for his class (won't turn) and told his students to make as hard a turn as they could using only their body and that second set of bars. Answered the question definitively, especially when the bike was moving with any significant speed. I think that argument is confused as well. I don't think body steering does much to make the bike turn, but body position is pretty critical on the the bike to have effective control without being thrown off, and as such body position will have a huge impact on how fast you can transition the bike. Body position also determines the center of gravity of the bike, and therefore how much lean the bike needs for a given turn at a given speed. Watch a a really good mogul skier sometime. Their upper body stays nearly perfectly vertical and their lowerbody is all over the map. These guys are all about quick transitions. | ||
| Hans |
What does a fast riding bike in a leaning and turning position without any influence of a rider? The most hilarious thing you can think off. It happened during a race that the rider was thrown off his fast moving bike by an highsider. The bike, relieved now, came into an upright position, shivered like an horse and started to ride a snake course. The curves dampened out to a line, straight as a ruler, which happened to be (almost) perfectly parallel to the centerline of the track. The rider crawled up and could see the public applauding for his lonely bike that ran along the tribunes. After about 200 yards the bike crashed against the fence. Best proof how speed stabilizes a bike (and diminishes the manoeuvrability ). I would never have thought that a bike could restore its riding position again on its own by whatever gyroscopic effect. Hans | ||
| S320002 |
Blake, You are wandering off course again. I have never claimed that steering a motorcycle at high speed does not require more forceful input, if that is what you mean by "more difficult". What I do disagree with is this statement: "Gyroscopic forces and GYROSCOPIC PRECESSION are a great hindrance to high speed motorcycle maneuverability..." Also if you will take note of Fig. 2 in the Sportbike article you will see that the initial rotation of the bars to the left causes the front wheel to rotate slightly to the left around the rear wheel. As a result, gyroscopic precession forces cause the REAR and the front wheel to tilt to the right. Once again, because you attempt to use too little information to solve a complex equation, your results are flawed. There are other inputs to consider as well but I don't want to confuse the issue more than you have already. Greg | ||
| Racerx1 |
Sorry....had to chirp in here on this one! This is purely a seat of the pants touchy feely comparison between hang off to the inside versus the outside. I'm a recent convert from road racing to supermotard. When I first started riding motard, i was using the knee down approach fairly successfully, but was running into problems the faster we went. Front end would push and chatter, finally resulting in a nasty lowside after the front end washed. Motard bikes don't have a lot of weight on the front wheel like a road race bike does. A lot of the dirt trackers who race in our series used a classic dirt track style, which is to extend your arm to the inside of the turn, climb up on the eddge of the seat, and and push the front end down into the pavement. I was amazed at how well this works.....really able to load the front end better. Other huge major benefit is the ability to 'save' the bike when either end breaks traction. You can react much quicker to the bike sitting on top of it and ride it on the edge much more comfortably than knee down, where you feel it go, but are not in a physical position to save it. I had the opportunity to ride with Scott Ru$$ell and Kevin Schwantz, and it was amazing watching them. They 'crashed' and saved it an average of 5 times a corner! Both of them used a mix of styles every lap, switching from road race to dirt track corner to corner. Would this method work on a 120mph corner? probably not, but it has advantages on the 30-70mph corners a motard bike sees. a Picture of local hero Benny Carlson demonstrating the technique.....  | ||
| Blake |
Greg, If you are correct then steering effort and getting a bike to lean at high speeds would be much easier than at moderate speeds. If you are correct, then please explain to me why it is sooo difficult to get a bike to lean at high speeds. Please explain that before you tell me again how and why my results are flawed. Oh, I forgot, you cannot tell me why because "(you) don't want to confuse the issue more than (I) have". Yeah, right. Turning the wheel to the left causes the rear wheel to precess into a hard lean to the right? I see your point. But it is a negligible 2nd order effect and your theory is way off base. According to your theory, once tracking steadily through a curve, the action of the turning motorcycle would cause the bike to right itself through the precession of the wheels. It does not. You cannot have it both ways. Pick one. I should note, in anticipation that you will bring it up in support of your theory, that some motorcycles' tendencies to want to self right in a turn are due to the effects of their steering geometry, not gyroscopic precession. The fact that many motorcycles do not exhibit this tendency, my M2 included, refutes your theory conclusively. Mount counter-rotating gyros on the front and rear axles of a motorcycle to exactly offset the gyroscopic effect of the wheels. The bike will steer as quickly, actually more so, at high speeds as it does at low/moderate speeds. How can that be if, as you contend, the gyroscopic precession of the wheels is what steers a bike at high speeds? Can you please explain that? Also, some GP bikes utilize a counter-rotating crankshaft, the engine spins opposite in direction to the wheels. Why? To help reduce the total gyroscopic effect carried by the bike at high speeds. Why? To enable quicker/easier steering. I'm sorry you are as stubborn as I am. | ||
| Blake |
RacerX1, That is a very cool picture. Foot down, looks like the rims are scraping the bike is leaned soo far over. What is the benefit of that verus dragging a knee and using it to support the bike like the top road racers do? Answer... the road racers have the bike at a similar extreme lean angle but are going WAY faster around the same turn since they are hanging off inside. Check out the recent CW. Nicky Hayden proved this point quite conclusively, even on a motard bike. | ||
| Blake |
As to those who contend that the moto licensure tests mainly skill in handling the bike, I agree mostly. However, in keeping with the idea offered that the tests are designed to compel one to perform unusual maneuvers requiring above average skill in order to pass... do they also compel you to burnout, stoppie and wheelie to pass the test? Back to the hanging off issue. I disagree strongly with anyone who thinks "hanging off" is no different than leaning or slightly shifting to one side of the seat. I think M2me did not really mean to imply that we actually "hang off" the opposite side of a bike in order to facilitate low speed maneuvers. So the stand up and lean the bike method is presented in the motorcycle safety foundation's literature, or whatever. I'm sorry some riders are so trusting of everything an authoritative entity might recommend. That reminds me a little of the federal government's food pyramid; it was gospel to many for years after its release/publication; it has now been proven to be severely flawed and a major contributor to excessive obesity in America. |
