Full Lean To Full Lean

I've been waiting for this post....

 

did you see his very first post? he's got 12mm showing above the STOCK clip-ons . That means for most folks that race that model R6 with aftermarket clip-ons BELOW the triples, he's REALLY got over 30mm of forktube showing, and the ass end jacked up all to hell.

Dont you think its a miracle he hasnt been tucking the front? holy CRAP thats alot of tube showing!

 

i use my upperbody to absorb alot of the force into the corners also

 

So, I read some articles on this "Center of Gravity" thingamabob. In terms it refers to center of mass. I guess I'm splitting hairs, but I was hoping for the experts on this forum to give us "proof" of physical theory.
I can understand how it will help with "drop in" to a turn. However, the "return" from lean is still the problem Wheelie wants to correct; as he states entry drop in is not the problem. Increasing ride height will improve drop in, but hinder return, so the raising ride height to cure the problem is incorrect. I don't think that lowering the CM will help either, because it may hinder drop in. I would suggest turning the throttle a bit more to aid in return from lean.

 

Here's a reference in your behalf.
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/22dec00apriliarsvmille.html
With close attention to this statement in the article:" A motorcycle with a higher center of gravity will also respond quicker to a rider's efforts to lean it over (while standing it back up is another issue)."

 

i have no authoritative input for where a bike's CG should be for side to side transitions but, the "drop in" arguments are weak.

if you let go of a bike while it's standing still, that's analogous to droppin' it into a turn. if you push the bike over while it's standing still, that's analogous to throwin' it into a turn. sure, a lower CG or CM or whatever will let you push it over quicker and pick it up easier but, we don't ride standin' still and i don't know any track riders that just drop it into a turn...that's street ridin'.

when riding in this lean to lean scenario, it is mass that you're moving side to side...not to mention rotating it in excess of 90 degrees on its front to rear axis. the shorter the distance that the CM has to move, the quicker the transition can be made. since it's the wheel's contact patches that travel the farthest distances from side to side, it's seems better to have the CM farther from the contact patches to limit its travel distance, relatively. the wheels do a far better job of driving out from under or back up and through to the other side than we could ever hope to do physically and here, steering geometry is what gets the job done.

geometry aside, it's also about steering input. don't be bashful when throwin' that thing around. push and pull those bars with your feet pushin' on the opposite peg like there's no tomorrow to get that thing to flick...it's only once a lap, right? no one has the physical strength to toss it off the track but, if you're geometry is too lively, you might just leave yourself behind when power steering.

i could see having an issue with an otherwise good handlin' bike that won't transition but, at that point, i'm guessin' everything's be done in the skillset to ride around it and you know what? it might still just be necessary to ride around it to negate fuckin' the handling up everywhere else.

got a bump in your line that's slowin' ya down? don't go changin' a good set-up...ride around it on a different line or use your motocross skills and scare the beejeezus out of everyone.

 

I'm bike dumb.
It seems most on here agree that raising the bike helps turn in and side to side.
Why are the manufacturers always looking to lower things like the gas tank, etc?
Is there a vertical point in relation to the wheel, or the bars, or your crotch, or what, that the majority of the weight should be?
It seems like they're raising the entire bike, but trying to lower the "high" weight....
Again I'm retarded, just interesting stuff.

 

Read post #38. I already referenced that article (and quoted the same exact sentence you just did) to support my position because I agreed that it would turn in easier, but would be harder to transition from full lean to lean because, as the sentence you quoted says, "standing it back up is another issue". The article implies that raising the CG is a trade off between ease of turn in and ease of getting it back up. That's exactly what I've been arguing, so I'm not sure where you're going with that.

To RM Racing and the rest, I've been researching this crap for two days and haven't found anything that proves me wrong, but nothing that proves me right yet either. If I do I'll be sure to post it up, even if it's to say I'm wrong, but in the mean time I'm at least smart enough to know when it's time to give up. Continuing to argue on the internet with a couple guys that know more than me about bike setup (unless I find a better reference than MC daily) is not gonna work out in my favor.

 

well ima lift my bike in small increments april 10th, and i will let you know how it goes april 13th

 

Like I said, mine was about where his is now (just going by the pictures) and I said the same thing when it was recommended to me! Then I noticed a shitload of fork tube showing on most of the 03-05 R6s in the paddock and figured I'd give it a shot. I don't remember the measurements on mine but I'd be interested in hearing what worked for others.:up:

 

Hey Jason... shoulda got a GIXXER! you wouldnt have these problems :P

And you love 190s as do I but I ran 180 dragon super corsa's last track day and I didnt miss the 190s. The amount of squish that I felt made it totally worth it. If you cant get your shit dialed in I would say try that maybe for shits and gigs.

and wtf is up with your shifts in that video? sounds like it hesitates a lot. Leathers are a little big too.

 

190's are free, leathers are borrowed, and shifter was coming loose, so i couldn't make it into 4th gear till like third try. and the r6 was cheap. which i smoked lots of GSXR's on it, i only lost to a newer R6

 

Here is where the tire situation is coming out.

You LOVE gettin cheap tires, FREE tires, and now the boys are telling you, your issue is due in large because of your tires.

You admit your tires "compensate" for your laziness.

So this while CG thread is due inpart because your laziness and bargain-hunting on tires vs your riding issues. It seems quite simple to me, Buy some 180s give it a go THEN come on here and tell everyone there full of sh#t, OR dont try to sort out an issue that you arent financially willing to to even attempt to sort.

just my .2

 

and i think everyone who has responded to this thread needs to read:

"Motorcycle Dynamics" - V. Cossalter Great read, EXTREMELY technical

 

not changing tires, just geometry.

laziness = me exhausting as little energy as possible while i race.. not actually being lazy.

 

This thread has been entertaining to say the least. You have professional tuners answering your questions and yet you don't just ignore the advise, but actually try and argue it.

Do yourself a favor....go to a track (not your local valley roads or school parking lot) and try both set-ups. Then report back your real world findings....oh yeah, then apologize and admit you were wrong all along.

There is a reason why almost every GSXR in the paddock has $400 fork cap extenders.

 

Speaking off, what is the magic number there?

 

If it's not on the internet, then it must not exist.

Stop googling. Start doing. The real world is a gas, man.

 

LOL Shhhhhshhhh... Don't tell them the secert!!!!

 

The CG is not a fixed location, it will obviously change as you add or remove fuel, change to lighter components, etc. The heavier the weight added or removed and the further its distance from the original CG, the greater the impact on CG location. So yeah, things like lowering the fuel and under-bike mufflers do lower the CG, but I think what they're going for with that is more mass centralization.

The ideal location for weight is at the desired CG location, because that is where it has the least effect. Where the desired CG location is is something that will change based on what you're trying to accomplish, but I'd guess from the factory it's wherever the engineers determine will provide the best balance of handling and weight distribution. We were just talking in terms of side-to-side transitions, which is obviously a very small part of the total package.

Of course, I'm no engineer, but I'm sure one or two mechanics that think they are will be along shortly to correct me.