Hough vs. Parks ? (vs. "Ride Smart"?)

[Mike]

Having read your book, I would have to say, your input will be greatly appreciated here.

 

Ed, you've got more reading to do. By my count, David's written at least three major tomes on riding:

-Proficient Motorcycling: The Ultimate Guide to Riding Well

 

-More Proficient Motorcycling: Mastering the Ride

 

-Street Strategies: A Survival Guide for Motorcyclists

 

He also writes for MCN and BMW ON. In fact, the guy writes so much that he's got an intercooler on his PC.

 

I've said it before and will repeat it one more time: there are two books every motorcyclist should read: David's Proficient Motorcycling, and Keith Code's A Twist of the Wrist.

[russell_bynum]

I've said it before and will repeat it one more time: there are two books every motorcyclist should read: David's Proficient Motorcycling, and Keith Code's A Twist of the Wrist.

 

I agree, except I liked A Twist of the Wrist II better than the first one.

[pmdave]

 

Here's an interesting question...We often talk about getting the bike upright to "Maximize the contact patch". IOW, the contact patch gets bigger when the bike is more upright. Someone (I think it might have been Keith Code, but I don't recall.) suggested that the contact patch actually gets BIGGER as you lean the bike over due to the shape of the tire. (The exception would be when the contact patch reaches the edge of the tire and you continue leaning father.) And the real reason we want to get the bike veritical is because the suspension is designed to work with the force of the bumps, dips, etc going directly up/down the fork legs/shock shaft rather than having some vector of that force be "wasted" pushing on the side of the forks/shock if the bike was leaned.

 

If that is the case, then is it more important to have the tires perpendicular to the road surface, or to have the suspension vertical?

 

Here's where racetrack techniques differ so much from "real world" techniques. On public roads, we have odd cambers, loose gravel, loose moose, diesel oil drippings, cow drippings, etc. So, it's not just a matter of absolute traction, but also planning cornering lines, lean angles, and using brakes and throttle wisely to not only get around the turn, but survive the ride.

 

Each of us has a different threshold for risk. At my age I'm getting ever more conservative. For me, returning home in one piece is more often a higher priority than getting an adrenaline rush. However, the goal of maximizing traction is the same, regardless of where you are in the risk envelope.

 

I'm of the opinion that the "size" of the contact patch isn't as important as where you put your tires--both in terms of surface contaminants and cornering lines. The stickiest tires won't make up for leaning over on loose gravel or oil. If you prefer to ride closer to the outside of the envelope, you need to be VERY good at reading the surface to avoid a crash, especially if the surface is wet.

 

Suspension travel is also important, because suspension is what allows the tire to maintain contact with the surface. If the wheel refuses to go down into a hole, traction can be lost for a moment. And if the wheel bounces in the air after hitting a bump, traction is lost. Consider that losing traction for a quarter second could be several feet at road speed.

 

With the bike leaned over, suspension travel is effectively less, and bumps also push the wheel vertically--not in line with the leaned-over bike centerline. If the wheel has 4.0 in. of travel when the bike is vertical, with the bike leaned over, "vertical" suspension travel at 30 degrees is 3.3 in. and at 45 degrees is 2.8 in.

 

So, keeping the bike "more perpendicular" to the surface results in better suspension compliance, which helps maintain traction. If it's not obvious, the picture gets really confusing as the surface changes camber and the turn changes radius. The bottom line is that the rider must read the situation and depend upon good habits. If you find yourself screwing up in this corner, think about what you did in the last corner, and adjust your techniques for the next ones.

 

BTW, thanks for the comments about the PM books. I know there are lots of motorcyclists who could gain knowledge and skill from reading--if they only knew the resources existed.

 

pmdave

[russell_bynum]

Here's where racetrack techniques differ so much from "real world" techniques. On public roads, we have odd cambers, loose gravel, loose moose, diesel oil drippings, cow drippings, etc. So, it's not just a matter of absolute traction, but also planning cornering lines, lean angles, and using brakes and throttle wisely to not only get around the turn, but survive the ride.

 

I understand what you're saying, but I still say (we've had debates about this before on this forum) that there's really not that much that's fundamentally different about street and track riding. Both of them are an exercise in maximizing traction.

 

The street throws lots more variables and unknowns at you than the track does...which means your solution to the "problem" may be a bit different, but fundamentally we're working with the same machine and the same tires and the same laws of physics.

 

I think we agree on this because later, you said However, the goal of maximizing traction is the same, regardless of where you are in the risk envelope.

. The skills are the same, it's just that the (relatively) controlled environment of the track allows you to concentrate more on the finite skills (braking, body position, throttle control, etc) since you don't have to be spending your attention trying to see if there's a pickup truck coming around that next corner on the wrong side of the road. It's very much like parking lot drills in that respect....empty parking lots are good places to practice because they allow you to remove most of the distractions that are present out on the road, so you can focus just on the skills.

 

Some folks have been given a bad perception of track-oriented schools like Code, Schwantz, etc because people (mostly people who haven't taken any of those classes, btw) keep saying that "track skills" don't transfer to the street. From my experience (limited such that it is), the skills that I've learned at the track are very much applicable to street riding. I'll implement them on the street at a much slower pace than I would on the track, and I'll make different decisions about lines, etc because of some of the unique challenges that are present in street riding. But laws of physics do not know if you're on the track or the street...if your motorcycle is most stable with the throttle applied and the weight distributed 60/40 rear/front, and if it is unstable when you roll the gas on and off mid corner, then that's going to be the same regardless of if you're in Turn 4 at Willow Springs, or mile marker 4 on Palomar Mountain.

 

 

If it's not obvious, the picture gets really confusing as the surface changes camber and the turn changes radius.

 

Yeah, for sure!

 

For me, I really enjoy the high-speed problem solving exercise of street riding. Even riding a moderate pace requires that you process a tremendous amount of information to pick the best line, speed, etc. And even if you're on a road that you know well enough to ride in the dark with no lights, it's still a "new" road since you don't know what's happened to it since the last time you came through. It's great because, even though the machine is the same and the skills are the same, the end experience is so different between street and track.

 

What a fun thread!

[chadhargis]

Wow...David Hough!

 

I have read all of your books, cover to cover, more than once. They inspired me to become an MSF instructor in order to impart some of your knowledge to new riders. Speaking of that, do I get a commission for hawking your books in my classes?

 

This is a great topic. Given the mass of wisdom already contributing to this discussing, I'm going to grab some popcorn, sit back, and watch the show.

 

Good stuff!!

[Ken H.]

David sir,

 

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements, perhaps you can expand:

With the bike leaned over, suspension travel is effectively less, and bumps also push the wheel vertically--not in line with the leaned-over bike centerline. If the wheel has 4.0 in. of travel when the bike is vertical, with the bike leaned over, "vertical" suspension travel at 30 degrees is 3.3 in. and at 45 degrees is 2.8 in.

 

So, keeping the bike "more perpendicular" to the surface results in better suspension compliance, which helps maintain traction.

I understand perfectly that a bump will push the bike up vertically, but depending on the camber of the road, "vertical" as in straight up into the air relative to the earth, is not necessarily the same as perpendicular to the road surface, is it?

 

Say the road surface has a 4° camber, leaning to the inside of a curve and the rear wheel is currently leaned over at 30° to the inside, and it then travels over a bump. Does the wheel then deflect straight up from the earth on a vector of 0° just as if the road was level, or on a vector of positive 4° from the earth, and perpendicular to the road surface? Or to put it another way is the bump-induced travel perpendicular to the road or perpendicular to the earth? If the latter it would seem to me that to maximize traction, minimize the rebound effect of the bump in this scenario, it is more important to keep the bike as straight up as possible that it is to keep it as perpendicular to the road surface as possible. A subtle but distinct difference.

 

But my dynamics physics is failing me a bit here, perhaps I am looking at it wrong…

[pmdave]

Item 1: Instructors or course sponsors can buy the Proficient Motorcycling books at a substantial discount from Bowtie Press, and sell them to students at full retail, (assuming there are no rules that prohibit that). So, you can actually turn a profit hawking the books, either for yourself, or for the school.

 

Item 2: I am not opposed to track schools. Cornering courses do teach the physics and how to better control the machine, and those skills apply to corners on public roads just as on the track. However, I think all cornering schools should be very clear about what they are offering. Cornering proficiency is not the same as surviving public roads. IMO, street survival tactics are primarily mental processes, not physical control techniques. Track schools who suggest a cornering course "will make you a better rider on the street" are being somewhat deceptive unless they explain the limits of what they offer.

 

Is "better rider" someone who can beat everyone else to the rock store without sliding out, or someone who can get to the Rock Store every time for 10 or 20 years? Your personal definition of "good rider" will determine your priorities.

 

Item 3: Suspension works in line with the motorcycle. So, if the bike is leaned over, the suspension is also leaned over--working "up and down" at an angle to the earth's "vertical."

 

Bumps and dips are relative to the earth's gravitational pull, whether on a level surface or on a cambered surface. So, if the motorcycle wheel is leaned over at an angle to the bump, the bump will tend to push the wheel straight "up" opposite gravity, not "up" as in line with the leaned over bike.

 

What's the difference between a bump pushing the wheel sideways and a bump compressing suspension? Well, a bump pushing sideways may not compress or extend the suspension, so it's a lot harsher. If a bump pushes the contact patch up in the air, it pushes the bike into a roll ("lean"), which can momentarily bounce the tire off the surface--disrupting traction.

 

If the suspension can absorb the bump and extend quickly, the tire will better remain in contact with the surface--maintaining traction.

 

Since the suspension can only compress in line with the bike, if the bike is leaned over, the compression occurs on an angle. Imagine a bike leaned over but moving in a straight line (supported by a magic hand). The wheel hits a bump. The compression moves the wheel "up" in line with the bike. The greater the lean angle, the farther the suspension must compress for the same "gravity vertical" bump.

 

The bottom line is that as the bike leans over, suspension loses some ability to keep the tire in contact with the surface. Think a bike leaned over on a rippled surface, "chattering" sideways with each bump. Of course, that's seldom a problem on the track, but some of us have seen ripples on public roads, eh?

 

 

 

pmdave

[russell_bynum]

Item 2: I am not opposed to track schools. Cornering courses do teach the physics and how to better control the machine, and those skills apply to corners on public roads just as on the track. However, I think all cornering schools should be very clear about what they are offering. Cornering proficiency is not the same as surviving public roads. IMO, street survival tactics are primarily mental processes, not physical control techniques. Track schools who suggest a cornering course "will make you a better rider on the street" are being somewhat deceptive unless they explain the limits of what they offer.

 

Well sure. There's so many finite skills to work on that no single course could ever hope to cover them all. But, anything that improves your ability to control the motorcycle does make you a better rider...street or otherwise.

 

Is "better rider" someone who can beat everyone else to the rock store without sliding out, or someone who can get to the Rock Store every time for 10 or 20 years? Your personal definition of "good rider" will determine your priorities.

 

This is the argument that keeps coming up when people are poopooing track schools...like the only thing you learn is how to go around corners fast. The skills you learn in the cornering courses are aimed at maximizing traction and chassis stability. Period. You can use that extra traction and stability to go faster, or you can use them to have extra margin.

 

Yes, there's tons of other stuff that you need to survive on the street...Low speed manuvering, road reading, etc. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that any single type of instruction (trials, dirt, MSF, track, etc) are the end-all, be-all of motorcycle skills, but track schools are the only ones that seem to get routinely bashed here. And like I said...those most vocal always seem to be people who've never taken that kind of course, which makes it that much more frustrating for those of us who have seen the skills improvement that comes from a few days with Code, etc.

[Shaun]

I’m having a little difficulty with your description for Item 3. The hypothetical example which comes to mind consists of a motorcycle/rider in a steady-state turn on a high speed banking, say 60 deg to the horizontal. Any bumps or dips on the surface are absorbed by the suspension to the extent that the lean angle corresponds with the angle of the compressive force vector, in which gravity (in strength and direction) plays but a part. The important point being the necessity for using the motorcycle’s frame of reference, not the Earth’s. Force components applied at right angles to suspension travel may result in more or less traction depending on the tire/surface environment, loading dynamics, ???

[steve.foote]

Wow, what a fantastic thread. This needs to make it into the Ride Well Revival.

 

David H., thanks for your comments. There are quite a few riders here who work very hard on their riding skills. Your words are not wasted.

[pmdave]

"...Yes, there's tons of other stuff that you need to survive on the street...Low speed manuvering, road reading, etc. I don't believe anyone has ever claimed that any single type of instruction (trials, dirt, MSF, track, etc) are the end-all, be-all of motorcycle skills, but track schools are the only ones that seem to get routinely bashed here. And like I said...those most vocal always seem to be people who've never taken that kind of course, which makes it that much more frustrating for those of us who have seen the skills improvement that comes from a few days with Code, etc."

 

Let's try this one more time: I am not bashing track schools for what they accomplish, or discouraging anyone from taking a cornering course from Code, Pridmore, et al.

 

I am suggesting that track schools are very focused on physical skills such as maintaining traction.

 

But I suggest that cornering skills are only a small part of motorcycling. Certainly it is good to learn better traction control tactics, but IMHO that's not as important to the "street rider" as learning to control the situation. And since I believe in that priority, I think that track school instructors have an obligation to mention that cornering control is only one part of motorcycling--and possibly not the most important thing.

 

I've seen research that hints that "professional" car drivers (police, firement, race car drivers etc) have a higher crash frequency and more serious crashes than the average driver--when they are driving their own vehicles off duty. In other words, they are very skilled at high speed maneuvers, so they are more comfortable driving very aggressively but in control of the vehicle. But they are not in control of the public road environment, and situations occur from which they can't escape. Are they "good drivers"? In terms of vehicle control, yes. In terms of avoiding crashes, no.

 

I have not seen any research on whether the above applies to "professional" motorcyclists, but I suspect that it does. For me, "professional" includes motorcyclists who have studied and practiced riding at higher speeds, focusing primarily on vehicle control rather than managing "street" hazards. The win-win situation would be for parking lot courses to suggest track schools, and for track schools to include some crash-avoidance strategies.

 

I can think of a few motorcyclists who are both race experienced and street savvy, capable of riding very fast, leading a group ride, driving a sidecar rig on glare ice, taking on the Iron Butt, touring in a foreign country--say on the left side of the road in New Zealand, or whatever else they choose to do in motorcycling--without anyone getting piffed, lost, or injured. I would call them "good riders."

 

pmdave

[David]

I am suggesting that track schools are very focused on physical skills such as maintaining traction.

 

David, as much as I like your books and you, and as much as I've recommended your books to dozens of people, you've got the wrong data, here.

 

Using just Code as an example, there are fifteen major learning drills in the first three levels. Of that number, six have nothing to do with traction, and are primarily about vision--seeing your surroundings well and riding appropriately. Of the remainder, about one-half are directy applicable to street riding and the others are phrased to relate more to track riding.

 

For disclosure purposes, I have taken most of the other schools and I am an instructor for Code. Nevertheless, I don't feel at all defensive about this. In fact, I'd like to think I'm one of the riders you describe later in your post. It's just that you're too good a source for riding information to be using wrong data.

 

By the way, what schools have you taken recently? I'm just curious to know how recent your direct (not second hand) experience is with a more track oriented approach.

 

Thanks again for your books. I've "adopted" about a half dozen riders, and part of that adoption involves the contents.

[Woodie]

I've seen research that hints that "professional" car drivers (police, firement, race car drivers etc) have a higher crash frequency and more serious crashes than the average driver--when they are driving their own vehicles off duty. In other words, they are very skilled at high speed maneuvers, so they are more comfortable driving very aggressively but in control of the vehicle. But they are not in control of the public road environment, and situations occur from which they can't escape. Are they "good drivers"? In terms of vehicle control, yes. In terms of avoiding crashes, no.

 

Interesting thought. I went through such "professional" driving class, at a very basic level (one day only)--Emergency Vehicle Operators Course. In the distant mists of time, I recall >90% of the class being mental, and some minimal amount (none?) behind the wheel.

 

We had a slightly different motivation, as a private ambulance service, there was more interest in reducing accidents, and keeping insurance costs down, rather than becoming good high-speed operators. Focus (IIRC) was on: where NOT to go, suggestions for getting through intersections (#1 accident spot for us), and legal (liability) implications. The decision process for deciding on the "method" of proceeding was also included. (lights/siren or normal, as once we had a patient on-board, it was left to our judgement, not up to dispatch, SOPs, etc.)

 

Having been involved in 3 ambulance accidents (only 1 in which I was driving!), I was certainly aware of my partner(drivers) approach to the road.

 

I'm not sure that a "track school" is the right place for "crash avoidance". I really like Park's approach, w/ the "Total Control" classes. Sure, it's 90% about getting around the turn, but it's core concept is about the control. Putting the bike where and when you want it...which seems to me is a critical factor and pre-requisite for being avoiding crashes.

 

It's not much use to be able to correctly identify a dangerous situation developing, and not being able to perform the correct maneuver.

[jssgranite]

Well, hello David, and welcome to the DB here!

 

You'll find your writings properly honored here, and often recommended to newbies returning to the riding fold.

 

Folk, we're a little slow on the uptake here on this one... Welcome Mr. Hough, y'all!

 

Hot diggity! Good catch, Scott.

 

Welcome, pmdave! My copy of Proficient Motorcycling has been read and passed around so many times, it is about to fall apart.

 

Edit: Looks like Jake connected the dots first, but the rest of us were too dense to figure it out.

 

+1 - Very glad to see you here.

 

My PM and more PM just arrived from Amazon last week. Great info! Thanks!

[Robus]

Hough has vastly more wisdom to offer on the practical business of staying alive on two wheels. I'll assume Parks has more to say about cornering technique.

[russell_bynum]

Hough has vastly more wisdom to offer on the practical business of staying alive on two wheels. I'll assume Parks has more to say about cornering technique.

 

Given that most motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents where the rider failed to negotiate a corner, who says that "cornering technique" isn't part of the "business of staying alive on two wheels?"

 

 

Besides...you know what they say about assumption.

[Woodie]

Read Parks. Then practice Parks. Together, they work remarkably well. Then add in Code.

 

Life is good!FUN!

[EffBee]

Hough has vastly more wisdom to offer on the practical business of staying alive on two wheels. Parks has more to say about Parks.

 

Fixed it for you.

[Horse]

Hough has vastly more wisdom to offer on the practical business of staying alive on two wheels. I'll assume Parks has more to say about cornering technique.

 

Given that most motorcycle accidents are single vehicle accidents where the rider failed to negotiate a corner, who says that "cornering technique" isn't part of the "business of staying alive on two wheels?"

 

Possibly taking this sideways (because - to a certain degree - I agree with you that cornering should be taught to riders, here in the UK 'steering' isn't even in the novice rider syllabus . . . ), but there is a trend to move away from skills-based training. Several reasons, including over-confidence after training and lack of self-practice after, leading to loss of skills.

 

Have a read of some of these:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/specialist/knowledge/young/countermeasures/content_of_training_best_practice.htm

Trend within European training

 

The MSF's take on it:

http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedings/c-Lund-NewridertrainingsysteminNorway.pdf

 

Implementation in Norway:

http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/69918/binary/34615

 

Swedish

http://publikationswebbutik.vv.se/upload/4664/080508_driver_educations_systems_a_preliminary_study.pdf

 

 

Regarding "Who's a safe rider?", I'm of the opinion that a 'safe' rider needn't be a 'good' rider, and that a 'good' rider isn't always 'safe'

 

 

 

 

 

[beemerman2k]

This is a great thread. I also find it worrisome that I have never spent much time pondering these issues! I just take it for granted that my tires will work, and they always have.

 

I do have diesel fuel fears; that sounds like some nasty stuff to come into contact with on the road

 

BTW, I would also welcome pmdave, but he's been a member of this community for some time now. I guess he manages to keep a low profile, but if you do a search on his posts, you'll see that they go back years

[philbytx]

If you have Diesel fuel fears, just consider riding the UK roads back in the 60's !

 

Tram lines, cobbled street, no sealed fuel systems plus every bloody thing dripped oil everywhere. The only positive thing was that we didn't have tupperware!!

 

Talk about pucker factor and sharp reflexes though !

 

[sbdrum]

Thank you Dave... and all that you've written.

[sbdrum]

As a new member and rider of only 7 years (tho' I think I've ridden my whole life..now 49). - It is a pleasure to see David contribute here. "Proficient Motorcycling", More Proficient and Street Strategies have been my bibles for home study. Each are great books and lest we not forget..with 'humor'.

DH is brilliant; and of course, not all typed words work for all situations. Enjoy all that he's written and learn from taking it to the street.

 

Can any of us imagine actually 'writing a book' ? - Give thought/thanks to those who have.

Riding may be a three life time education.

Read, Learn and try to survive for at least one.