Track school comparison -- CSS, K@TT, STAR

[krongsak]

No balls. Something no amount of instruction can teach.

Sad...but true...maybe surgery can help?

 

[Tzadkiel]

yody -- will you be trying CSS next year? I'd be really interested in your experiences if you take it. What you've deduced about the school from the books and BARF jibes with my experiences with the training so I'd be interested in how taking the lessons affects your riding.

 

[Yody]

yody -- will you be trying CSS next year? I'd be really interested in your experiences if you take it. What you've deduced about the school from the books and BARF jibes with my experiences with the training so I'd be interested in how taking the lessons affects your riding.

Yeah I would like to do it, only thing that I don't want to do is spend 2K and start from the bottom, I "believe" they make you take the beginner class if you haven't been there before.

 

[flying_hun]

Yeah I would like to do it, only thing that I don't want to do is spend 2K and start from the bottom, I "believe" they make you take the beginner class if you haven't been there before.

That was what they said when I took it, but since it was my first time on a track on a motorcycle, I didn't mind. I'm not sure that you should assume that since you start on level one that this means you will be going slowly all day. There was a wide range of speeds in my group. It appeared that CSS had good pedagogical reasons for structuring the curriculum the way they do, and that their results overall support those reasons. Obviously, YMMV.

There are lots of different ways to learn, so different approaches are going to work better for different folks. The three schools I've taken (CSS, Lee Parks' ARC, Mystery School) have a broader spread than those discussed in this thread. In each case there is a benefit to be gained just by submitting to each school's approach.

Cheers,

 

[Keith Code]

Sliding the front tire.

Tzadkiel,

I read your report with interest and of course there is no arguing personal opinions. There was one thing that you wrote that caught my attention.

You mentioned that, "3) 'you'll never slide the front tire' - really? Then why do people low-side? I’ve seen it happen right in front of me."

I was wondering who said that to you and what they were talking about. Since it isn't part of our curriculum and is definitely false I was wondering whose wrist needed slapped???

Keith

 

[Tzadkiel]

Keith,
I don't recall who said it; I have it handwritten in my notebook from CSS exactly as I wrote it above in my original post. The phrase "you'll never slide the front tire" appears in my notebook (I take a LOT of notes at track schools).

I agree that there is no arguing personal opinions; I'm sure that for some CSS is great. It's just not great for me. Doesn't mean it's not good, doesn't mean it is good, just means it doesn't fit me personally.

Jason

 

[Keith Code]

Front end slides

Keith,
I don't recall who said it; I have it handwritten in my notebook from CSS exactly as I wrote it above in my original post. The phrase "you'll never slide the front tire" appears in my notebook (I take a LOT of notes at track schools).

Jason

Jason,

Taking good notes, that makes sense. I can see by your original post that you are aware of organization.

Help me out on this tire sliding thing. What was the context of your notes where you found that one?

Because it is an area of fear for many riders, front tire traction is mentioned in relation to several specific situations, hence my question on what was the context of your notes.

In the end, I want to make sure that you don't go away with that question in your mind. (from your original post: "3) 'you'll never slide the front tire' - really? Then why do people low-side? I’ve seen it happen right in front of me.)

Thanks,

Keith

 

[afm199]

Would that have been you will never slide the front when you are on the gas? Possible to do but does not happen very often.

You might PUSH it off the track, but a slide is different.

 

[road_rubber]

Hi,

hope I'm not butting in here.. I did CSS (Level 1) a couple of years ago. I'd read all the books before going and was already a "believer". The day was not a disappointment.

Although it is expensive -- luckily I had an insurance pay-out to stand the cost of a track bike for the day. Two years and about 40k miles down the line I can definitely say that I'm still working on/with the input I got from that day: the steering drill, no-brakes/one-gear riding to help get dialled in, smoothness, repeatability, being deliberate, being aware of the throttle as a weight transfer (not just go-faster) control and so on...

I can't compare CSS to anything else as I've not taken any further track-school days since then. But I recently started doing the odd trackday again and tho not even a medium-fast guy, I feel I have real stuff to work on and aim for. That gives me something to think about out there, keeps me relaxed, smooth and basically havin' fun! I've seen plenty of novice riders who obviously don't have any framework at all, just a lot of adrenalin and sense of having to "twist that throttle" coz this is a track man! That's great once you have some basics in place but for most it's a recipe for an early session-end.

Come to think of it I've nothing particular to add to this discussion.. just chiming in I guess. Basically I'd say get as much instruction as you can afford. Tzadkiel I think your method is the best, go to a few places, find out where you fit best, in the process you'll learn stuff anyway. Thanks for the write-ups!

Oh yeah, and thanks Keith!

 

[flying_hun]

Thinking back to my own CSS level one class I am wondering if the comment came up in the context of the quick steering drills. People expressed fear that if they counter-steered aggressively and really flicked the bike over that the quickness of the movement by itself would cause the front end to wash out. Instructor(s) countered that the quickness of the steering, by itself, would not cause one to lose the front end, not that one could not lose the front end at all.

At least that's the way I remember it. Tzadkiel, did you hear the remark in that context or a different one?

 

[darkie]

Yes, the point was that we've never seen a rider lose the front end by turning the bike into a turn quickly. The statement is qualified by pointing out that you CAN lose the front end from steering quickly if you had any of these factors added: cold tires, worn out tires, poorly set up suspension, a slippery road surface, bumps at turn in, on the brakes too much or even turned it too far (too much lean angle), etc.

The point is that with a properly set up bike with good warm tires, on a clean smooth track that is also at a decent temperature it is nearly impossible to lose the front end from turning it quickly. Also as mentioned above, heavy brakes at turn-in could cause front end traction loss.

Again the point is that we have never seen a rider lose the front end from quick turning provided all the conditions were satisfactory. Now, it may be possible. We've just never seen it happen in the last 28 years of training riders.

Add to that the data from Twist of the Wrist Volume II:

"Steer the bike as quickly as possible in every turn. As quickly as possible means: According to the turn's demands. Obviously, you wouldn't give it a snap-over at 10 mph in a parking lot, because you would fall. On the high end, (say coming up to a 120-mph turn), you're not going to get it turned that quickly...So, the "as-quickly-as-possible" is tailored to the turn..."

 

[Gary J]

Yes, the point was that we've never seen a rider lose the front end by turning the bike into a turn quickly. The statement is qualified by pointing out that you CAN lose the front end from steering quickly if you had any of these factors added: cold tires, worn out tires, poorly set up suspension, a slippery road surface, bumps at turn in, on the brakes too much or even turned it too far (too much lean angle), etc.[/B]

I'm glad to see you add those "could happen" factors Dylan, to the "can't turn a bike too quickly" teachings. Thanks for sharing those details in the thread.

I fully understand (and support) CSS' objectives of getting track riders to be more authoritive on their steering inputs, to help them understand the power that is available through the handlebars, in directing a bike's trajectory. Most all newer riders have an inherent weakness in this area.

Despite that perspective, I've also personally seen cases at the track, where riders taught that concept with such vigor in their early training, without coming away with a sufficient understanding/appreciation of the "what if" exceptions, can eventually end up experiencing problems.

I believe it's critically important to just as clearly stress the "when not to" (in terms of quickly "snapping" a hard steering input to the bars) situations, as it is to educate on the assertive counter-steering concept. If one were to tilt the instruction too heavily in one direction, I believe it would not be in the best overall interest of the rider's total skills package, and understanding of controlling the bike in all possible conditions.

In a perfect world, all riding (track or street) would be done on clean, dry, warm roads, with fresh/sticky tires, and perfectly setup motorcycles. In such a world, only one "program" is needed in the rider's brain for the actual process of "how" the steering inputs are administered to the bike. However in the real world, usually one or more of those variable do exist (street or track), and as such need to be factored into the rider's final decision-making process for the "flavor" of their steering action. There are cases where tilting the scales a lot more in the direction of "smooth", then "quick", is preferrable. All the years spent riding and racing in the rain, have provided a real education for me in that area!

Just a little food-for-thought on the big picture of steering instruction, as part of rider training.

Gary J

 

[Yody]

I have a thought/question for the CSS guys or anyone else who has any input.

I've come to the conclusion that turning in late (apexing late, which requires a quick turn) equals max lean angle almost instantly but is carried for less amount of time, so basically you're at max lean angle for a longer amount of time, but you are leaning over for less time, meaning you can get on the gas faster.

Turning in early( steering slowly, arcing, and apexing early) equals less time spent at max lean angle, but more time leaned over and in the turn meaning get on the gas later and slower.

Obviously the latter makes it easier to carry more corner speed, while the first allows you to get on the gas harder for a better exit.

Assuming I subscribe to the Code way of doing things(which I do for the most part) Like I said earlier I understand everything can be a compromise, and the important part is to understand what you are doing and take max advantage of it through knowledge(and balls heh) I've been told that I carry too much lean angle, I've seen others late apex and to be honest watching someone else do it is a little scary because they go from completely upright to instantly way leaned over. When I'm in the cockpit its no problem, I pride myself on good throttle control and it just doesn't seem like a big deal. In fact its almost impossible for me to give people tow's because my lines are much more radical due to my late apexing, I'm assuming this is why Code makes people start from the beginning, because at first it looks too drastic on the outside too just "pick up". So how does one address this? Is this just one of the compromises or is it not really a compromise at all?

 

[Christieland]

I have a thought/question for the CSS guys or anyone else who has any input.

I've come to the conclusion that turning in late (apexing late, which requires a quick turn) equals max lean angle almost instantly but is carried for less amount of time, so basically you're at max lean angle for a longer amount of time, but you are leaning over for less time, meaning you can get on the gas faster.

Turning in early( steering slowly, arcing, and apexing early) equals less time spent at max lean angle, but more time leaned over and in the turn meaning get on the gas later and slower.

Obviously the latter makes it easier to carry more corner speed, while the first allows you to get on the gas harder for a better exit.

Interesting, I've gotten this feedback from Zoran and others recently, that I spend too much time on the edge of the tire and need to straighten out the track and turn in later. My progression in schooling has been this:

• MSF -- teaches no braking in turns and gradual throttle roll on in turns for maximum traction
• Zoom Zoom Novice School -- taken last fall, this focused more on lines and body positioning and didn't reference braking or no braking in turns
• CSS Levels I & II -- teaches no braking in turns, later turn in for minimum amount of time leaned over, and all the other stuff people have mentioned
• Spencer School -- among a few other major things, learned how to trail brake

For about ten track days between MSF and Spencer School, I was going around the track late apexing and not using the brake while in the turn. Then in the track days I've done SINCE Spencer School, I've enjoyed trail braking so much and have a superbly set up bike such that being fully leaned over, arcing and swooping around for daaaays, feels great and is SUPER fun!

But then Zoran steps in and says, "honey, you going to crash! You spend too much time leaned over in turns, and you must make track straighter for more throttle!" It is starting to sink into my thick head that I think the answer lies somewhere between the two (late turn in/no braking in turns of CSS vs. my own unique, slow way of spending as much time as possible playing in turns). It is true, the less time you spend leaned over, the more time you can devote to more intense throttle and therefore going fast.

And then of course it depends on the nature of the turn and if it leads to another turn, leads to a straight, or a straight enters into it. I'm not sure on this and would love input, but I think for a turn before a straight, like Turn 11 at Infineon, you would want to turn in as late as possible so you give yourself maximum drive for that straight. And then a turn after a straight, do you do your turn in more gradually, and try and carry as much speed as you can into that turn?

 

[Yody]

Interesting, I've gotten this feedback from Zoran and others recently, that I spend too much time on the edge of the tire and need to straighten out the track and turn in later. My progression in schooling has been this:

But then Zoran steps in and says, "honey, you going to crash! You spend too much time leaned over in turns, and you must make track straighter for more throttle!" It is starting to sink into my thick head that I think the answer lies somewhere between the two (late turn in/no braking in turns of CSS vs. my own unique, slow way of spending as much time as possible playing in turns). It is true, the less time you spend leaned over, the more time you can devote to more intense throttle and therefore going fast.

One thing to remember, is that using up the track and "swooping" is not late apexing(not that you necessarily do). I have seen people dive from one end of the track to the apex which IMO i something I do on certain turns but not every turn requires this. T1 and T6 at Thill are examples where on the entry you don't need to use full track but on the exit you for sure should. Using the whole track gives you the feeling of a "late apex" but this is because you have more space to overcome before you get to the apex, therefore you will apex later. However I don't IMO believe this is really a way to exactly learn to apex late(if that is what you want) because to others you will look like a "swooper" and its dangerous when others want to pass you on the inside(been reamed for this myself)

I found late apexing myself in some way, I think it was from riding over double yellow lines and trying to figure out decreasing radius turns from street riding. The later I apex on the street the less I have to worry about a blind decreasing radius.

MrCrash recently showed me how to use the front brake effectively (ie Freddie Spencer), not just trailbraking but using it as a tool to change your line, or better yet put it on its line. I put together using the front brake for good corner speed combined with my natural tendency to late apex for a great drive. It worked very well for me and I felt like I had everything down, until my new found knowledge and skills landed me on my ass twice for various reasons. Now I realize I must slow down to "really" get ahold of these skills. I aquired the skills to go fast but it was too fast in my learning curve. I don't regret any of it though, as I feel next season should be a really good one

 

[Gary J]

And then of course it depends on the nature of the turn and if it leads to another turn, leads to a straight, ....

You're right on the money on that perspective Christie!

What follows a turn, is one of the most significant factors in determining "what is the right line". Turns that directly precede other turns, are often cases where exit speed from the first corner is far less important then track position on exit. Turn 11 at T-Hill, and Turn 3 at Infineon are prime examples.

In such corners an almost exaggeratedly late turn-in point, with a very quick flick to get the bike pointed in the right direction for the exit (staying "left" in the case of the two turns mentioned above), and then straigtened-up again, is the best recipe.

On the other hand, Turn 8 at T-Hill (the left-hander leading to the steep uphill) is a turn where letting the bike run all the way out to the full width of the pavement provided (the rumble strips), on completion of the corner, is the approach required for really fast laps. Trying to square off this turn, and "pinch off" the exit, only loses exit speed, which is critical when trying to carry a good drive to overcome the effects of the steep uphill climb that follows.

The process in deciding the best method for taking a paticular turn, isn't easy. It's not a case where you can simply study a textbook on riding techniques ....... that provides basic instruction on left and right turns, and magically have a pre-programmed routine to just execute. Every turn is unique; regardless of how similar it may appear to others on the surface.

Riding well, and riding fast on the track, is 90%+ mental. A rider needs to use their brain like a high powered computer to take in ALL of the data points, from all factors (bike, tires, suspension, speed, road surface, turn entry & exit character, etc), in order to compute a final plan of action that will result in maximizing success in that specific situaton.

That's what keeps this sport so challenging, for an indefiinte number of years. Trying to find "the perfect line", or "perfect technique", is like chasing a rainbow. Just when you think you've found it, it moves just a little further away again.

 

[darkie]

The interesting thing is that when talking about a certain technique, often a two-valued logic is applied to the scene--either all for a certain technique or all against it. In an effort to summarize a certain school of thought often you see a tendency to "pigeon hole".

The concept of trail braking is mentioned in 1983 by Keith in A Twist of the Wrist Volume 1 and there is even a diagram showing the pressure being let off as one is bending the bike into a turn.

There is a photo sequence of Eddie Lawson going into the top of the corkscrew, clearly trailbraking into it. The caption reads: "Eddie demonstrates entering the corkscrew, the correct way to end braking and begin a turn."

In 1993, Twist of the Wrist Volume II states: "Radial tire technology allows for steeper lean angles while braking. So, while the maximum straight-line forces are pretty much the same, the technique of carrying some braking down deeper into the turn's entrance has been improved and you find many riders using it."

later the same chapter it says:

"Turning the bike with TOO MUCH brake; one of the more common causes of crashes."

On top of that there is a drill in level 3 at CSS that specifically goes over taking low lines into turns and how to adjust your control inputs and braking to accommodate such a line.

...and more: at the CSS RACE program, there is a drill where the riders run high, medium and low lines through turns on the track. All lap times are kept for comparison as well as the riders are radar'd to show him the differences in corner speed when using the different lines.

Keith discovered early on in the game when training AMA pros that they only made real progress when they worked on one thing at a time while riding. From there you get the idea of a particular drill when out on the track. That's what gave the racers solid and steady progress. That idea is applied to the CSS students. It's not to say that the drill is the only way to do it. The benefits and drawbacks regarding a particular skill are outlined and then it is up to the student to go ride and discover for themselves how it affects their riding--in the real world.

 

[Yody]

You're right on the money on that perspective Christie!

What follows a turn, is one of the most significant factors in determining "what is the right line". Turns that directly precede other turns, are often cases where exit speed from the first corner is far less important then track position on exit. Turn 11 at T-Hill, and Turn 3 at Infineon are prime examples.

In such corners an almost exaggeratedly late turn-in point, with a very quick flick to get the bike pointed in the right direction for the exit (staying "left" in the case of the two turns mentioned above), and then straigtened-up again, is the best recipe.

On the other hand, Turn 8 at T-Hill (the left-hander leading to the steep uphill) is a turn where letting the bike run all the way out to the full width of the pavement provided (the rumble strips), on completion of the corner, is the approach required for really fast laps. Trying to square off this turn, and "pinch off" the exit, only loses exit speed, which is critical when trying to carry a good drive to overcome the effects of the steep uphill climb that follows.

The process in deciding the best method for taking a paticular turn, isn't easy. It's not a case where you can simply study a textbook on riding techniques ....... that provides basic instruction on left and right turns, and magically have a pre-programmed routine to just execute. Every turn is unique; regardless of how similar it may appear to others on the surface.

Riding well, and riding fast on the track, is 90%+ mental. A rider needs to use their brain like a high powered computer to take in ALL of the data points, from all factors (bike, tires, suspension, speed, road surface, turn entry & exit character, etc), in order to compute a final plan of action that will result in maximizing success in that specific situaton.

That's what keeps this sport so challenging, for an indefiinte number of years. Trying to find "the perfect line", or "perfect technique", is like chasing a rainbow. Just when you think you've found it, it moves just a little further away again.

Good post, glad you mentioned this as it was something that has been left out in this discussion. I think you can still talk generally about riding styles like we are here, but it is always good to keep these thoughts in the back of you head when thinking about these things.

 

[Tzadkiel]

FWIW, the notes I had on "never sliding the front tire" are from a Level 1 lecture of CSS. I don't know which lecture in particular due to the poor way I organized my notes back then. It is indeed in my notes; I was so surprised at it that I wrote it down

I agree that T6 at Thill needs a shallow entry and wider exit -- that's exactly what JP taught in the STAR school (it's also what Dave Stanton said on the trackwalk). One of the things that clicked for me in the STAR school was a better understanding of WHY you don't have to swoop side to side for every turn on a track, and in fact that is NOT the past to the fastest laptime. It's also not the path to the "safest" laptime (meaning least amount of time at max lean).

That, combined with the whole "T2 @ THill" discussion that we had in SEVERAL lectures, really drove the point home so that I understood it. I can't RIDE it yet but the left part of my brain understands it.

One of the biggest things I learned this year is that there is no substitute for actually riding on the track. I read the Code books, I read Nick's book, I read BARF posts and other online articles but absolutely nothing compares to real instruction at a real racetrack.

I also think that from a "bang-for-your buck" perspective you just can't beat a K@TT or STAR school -- better than trackdays, since both K@TT and STAR are 50% duty cycle and trackdays are usually only 33% duty cycle. Let's see... $220 for a trackday and $590-$650 for a 2-day school. Sure it's more expensive on a per-day basis, BUT you get more riding time, AND you get instruction as well! Shucks, I dare say I'll be a larnin' fool next year...

BRING THE SPRING DAMMIT!

Jason

 

[Christieland]

One of the biggest things I learned this year is that there is no substitute for actually riding on the track. I read the Code books, I read Nick's book, I read BARF posts and other online articles but absolutely nothing compares to real instruction at a real racetrack.

I think the degree to which that is true will vary from person to person. For me, I was out for five months and did nothing but think really hard about riding. I read, I daydreamed, I visualized, I watched it on TV, I studied. And working my ass off in the gym helped as well. Anyway I came back and I feel I made just as many gains as I might have had I actually been on the track that whole time.

What was that Gary J said? This sport is 10% physical and 90% mental? I believe it to be true...of course, seat time is obviously important as well. And, the more I'm going to the track now, the more I'm realizing it's important to go out there with a plan. My plan? Start braking like a man.

I also think that from a "bang-for-your buck" perspective you just can't beat a K@TT or STAR school -- better than trackdays, since both K@TT and STAR are 50% duty cycle and trackdays are usually only 33% duty cycle. Let's see... $220 for a trackday and $590-$650 for a 2-day school. Sure it's more expensive on a per-day basis, BUT you get more riding time, AND you get instruction as well! Shucks, I dare say I'll be a larnin' fool next year...

Thanks for the recommendations! All the schools I've done have been excellent for different reasons, but I have to say that I saw the biggest improvements in my riding after attending Spencer School in Vegas. Perhaps for reasons unique to the phase in learning I was at, as I had never trail braked before, didn't know how to blip, and didn't know how to throttle like I mean it. All of those problems were remedied. Of COURSE those skills can still use a GREAT deal of improvement, but learning each resulted in pretty significant increases in my speed. Of course, I was going at a snail's pace before, and now am at maybe turtle speed...