|
|
Riding the front / rear wheel.
|
Whilst getting used to the new bike I've noticed that I'm riding the
front wheel much more than before. This seems to be because the riding
position is further forward than previous bikes.
On old R1's and the Caponord I would put more weight over the rear
wheel at most times but now I'm 'front heavy' into bends. Even my old
GSXR750 seemed fairly neutral.
What's the FOAK's view on weight over wheels?
|
CSS teach you to load up the rear round bends and *not* load the front to
avoid front-end wash-outs.
|
That's what I do. A shut throttle in a corner is a recipe for a front
end slide.
|
It all depends on whether what you think is loading up the front end matches
what someone else might think.
It also depends on your interpretation of going 'into bends'.
It's bound to load up the front braking before you go in, but you should, by
conventional roadrace teaching standards, be starting to load the rear and
gradually increasing drive once you are in the bend. As they say over and
over again (and I think they nicked it from Kenny Roberts senior) "I've
never seen someone lose the front on the throttle, but seen it plenty of
times when they're on the brakes" or words to that effect.
|
"No one ever lost the front on the gas".
The point is that on the way into a corner, almost all the weigth is
on the front, as you brake in a straight line. At the turn in point,
you start to release the brakes as you roll in - the idea is to keep
the same load on the front tyre, and also balance the removal of
compression on the forks (as you let the brakes off) with the increase
as the cornering force loads through the suspension. Once you
complete the turn in, you then crack the throttle just enough to load
the front. The fact that the bike is cornering means that it needs
more throttle to keep a steady speed (the cornering force needs to
come from somewhere), so you actually accelerate to maintain speed.
|
Some dodgy physics there. Think of the kinetic energy.
You need more throttle because rolling a deformable rubber tyre on its side
is not the most efficient way of turning your forward momentum sideways.
|
I'd like to argue with you, but I can't really be arsed. We both no
that to change direction is an acceleration. The force for that
acceleration needs to come from somewhere.
|
Force perpendicular to velocity does not equal power.
How does a satellite orbit at a constant(ish) speed without a big engine?
|
and the effective radius / circumference of the rear (both) wheels is less
when you are halfway up the sidewall, so you have to increase revs to
maintain speed...
|
|
The gravitation attraction provides the force. Without it the
satellite would go in a straight line.
|
But no work required, or the system would slow down. It's not rocket science!
Perhaps you would like to consider what happens to a spinning wheel in a vacuum
with frictionless bearings, and move on to the closest analogy that springs to mind,
a ball spinning in a roulette wheel. It is friction alone that slows the ball.
Try putting some numbers into your theory and see that it doesn't match observed
|
Are you hoping for a frictionless road then?
|
reality.
|
The system *does* slow down. The Earth's axial rotation is gradually
slowing down. The effect of an artificial satellite is negligible, given
the relative masses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As soon as you're at the apex, you're accelerating out, such that
eventually all the weight is on the back wheel.
|
What's the bike? And are you sitting right up against the tank? I found
that my bike control changed massively just by making sure I kept a space
between me bits and the tank that you could fit a packet of fags in (top to
bottom).
|
|
If you brake before you think you have to you will live :D
|
|
Whatever you feel most happy with.
|
|
|