Steering and Stability

Discussion on steering geometry could be based on an understanding of what the designer is attempting.

I've read extensively on the subject, admittedly with poor understanding, but have some workable practical experience.

Small nimble motorcycles don't seem to be critical (RD 350), but heavier bikes are what we discuss. I've concluded that the designers of heavier bikes are faced with the objective of making heavier bikes feel more like lighter bikes, so they jack around with head angles (rake), axle offsets (trail), wheelbase (nimbleness), and frame rigidity (stability). Additionally, they have a number of tools such as tire choice of which I have little understanding.

Beginning with head angle, it seems to me that a steep angle eases handling by reducing the effort required to turn the forks. ANY angle less than vertical requires that turning the forks lifts the steering head, so requires effort. As the angle departs from the vertical, the required effort increases, so making for a more tiring operation.

It's in the nature of chosen head angle that kicking the axle forward increases trail, so pulling it back decreases trail. The functional trail measurement seems to be limited between 3" and 4 1/2" approximately, with less than 3" being unstable and greater than 4 1/2" approaching the example of a shopping cart with a bent vertical spindle leading to shimmy. There's some stuff here that I don't understand such as the stability of 'choppers' blessed with extreme amounts of trail. My best guess is that the extreme head angles used on choppers creates such a 'weight burden' on the head angle that it acts as a stabilizer on the excess trail.

So we see designers approaching the vertical head angle to make the bike feel 'light', then jacking around with axle offsets to establish trail within acceptable limits. This has been accomplished by offsetting the axle from the slider centerline (leading axle), changing the distance between head and axle (long or short Roadholders), selection of different yoke offsets (moving the stanchions away from or toward the steering head), and making stanchions not parallel with head spindle. This part of the dance seems to me like Black Art.

Now looking at wheelbase, it seems that a longer wheelbase generally creates a more stable platform at the cost of nimbleness, but there seem to be some variables. My MK III has the annoying habit of falling behind the road curves while going quickly. This shows up on a 'wiggle' road with short distance right-left-right-left-right-left configuration which requires speed reduction by the third or fourth iteration. Why? I dunno.

Next is the effect of frame rigidity. Seems like a more rigid frame would be more predictable than would be a flexible frame, but modern design seems to have run into limits. More "I dunno".

The last subject in this amateur analysis is 'turning configuration'. When we turn a motorcycle, we initiate with a slight countersteer during which we effectively run the front wheel out from under the centerline of the frame, causing said frame to tip into the corner and bringing the steering back into 'normal' steering conformation.

This is the biggest "I dunno" for me, as I'm stumped as to why one bike will feel so delightfully secure in a turn and the next is scaring the shit outta me.

Any thoughts?



Cheers,

Frank Forster

Ah So my famous mentor Frank Foster! Two basic points I am sure about in data above, one: Ms Peel has totally solved any and all handling issues ever encountered or forced on a motorcycle, Two, the angle of the forks off vertical does not affect the trail, it only determines how much turning the handlebars turns the tire vs just tipping it side to side uselessly like the extreme extended righteous choppers I've attempted to manuver in parking lots, ugh. Trail is determined by how fat back the tire patch is from the line projected down through stem.

I have tired to sample to the max both very rigid to flexy chassis and Vtwins, 360's twin and cross wise inline 4. i have some definite con-frimed ife/death crash onset and recovery avoidance opinions on this deadly delicious hobby.

Until one has experienced a really truly Neutral chassis one can't really relate-disscuss much of what is wrong with all the rest of the worlds dangerous unpredicable deadly designs, tires to chassis to CoG to style of riding to stay in control. My last life time hobby project is to spank the living daylights out of robotic computerized bikes that are on the way around the corner, not some corner crippled balloon tired vibrating to a blurr black boxed restrained traction and power delivery appliances, with pilots that do everything in their power Not to add engough energy to their turns to enter phase 3, 4 and 5 handling.

What turns a motorcycle is the rear tire, period end of story, believe it or learn the hardest way like me. Any bike can take the loads of phase 1 upright straight steering to 12-ish mph, with the front acting exactly like a rudder, changing the aim of the rear by changing aim of whole chassis. I can show ya examples of rear over powering the front in phase 1 handling, so front just scrubs-slides sideways to direction of travel. At the instant the front ever gains control over rear in slow states like this > SPLAT! No recovery time unless doing in on purpose to test the current conditions and reflexes.

I kicked rear out on purpose though a dash more than intended, to show off and taste traction before I needed it. At fence I slowed up inline then gave little baby blips to help rear inch around in a series of short straights staying upright phase 1. This is similar to the very fastest way around aka phase 5 and just like my pasture it takes very little effort by pilot the looser ya get faster.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JT5yUh3-rSg&feature=player_embedded[/video]

Always and Only Ever think of using the front forks for what it does to help the rear do the actual turning, even by letting go of it or by helping it get out of the way of conflicting with the **Rear Ruling The Roost!** The front also is to hold the frame off ground when rear not actually lifting it on its own, a state I know well when front become obviously useless to turn sharper harsher.

When ya go over 12-ish mph the turns get fast enough, an apparent centrifugal force requires some leaning into the turn. If your bike/pilot can do this hands off by body leaning or hands on by over powering rear, it causes bike to fall down on its own w/o need of fork effort or counter steering, front automatically follows surface travel like a dolly wheel. So against all the rest of the world I live in this straight steering safe state routinely up to ridiculous rates, as long as I can always keep the rear tire OVER POWERING the front and keep front from interfering with rear lean and directed thrust. The amount of lean has more to do with not flying up-over in a high side than aiming bike, rear controls aim so rear can be set at many angles of aim per angle of lean, once out of limiting phase 2 counter steering which includes flat tracker slides as just load relieving wide extension of phase 2 handling. Fun but not accelerating faster.

A Critical point everyone else in the world misses is when ya counter steer you are tripping the bike out by moving tire patch off of center line, which caused rear to lean over, but if a bike can handle the loads one can straight steer and force the rear/bike upward countering the rears tendancy to spin out a low side. So pilot can use straight steering to force bike mass into more squashed down rear which gives more traction, which allows more power, until point reached there is so much grip leaned the front lifts out of traction or even off surface. This is begining point of Ms Peels fun phase 3 to 5, ie: I take her beyond normal bikes G's tolerance in normal phase 2-counter steering then NAIL her harsher to leave ordinary life behind. This is beyond anything that don't crash others so not able to disscuss further here to make sense but will demo someday. If you depend on front to steer bike then you'd better be going slow like the other corner cripples do or SPLAT!

Now back to what confuses rest of the world in mere phase 2 stuff that you listed above. The more ya counter steer the more you put conflict in front to rear tire aim &traction vectors to point the dang front it pointing away from which way you and rear tire are dictating. Do note here that one of the reasons front tire should be less hard/PSI than rear is so front don't over power rear as if occillated to keep bike upright when inline or turning. At some point it takes off on its own off the edge. Moderns compensate by forward weight bias and and pilots hanging out in the breeze, hehe. So this is where a tammed iso Cdo has it over the modern solids, as front is aimed outward pulling the forks sides ways the rear in powered grip is trying to lift bike so chassis twists up. If chassis can't twist enough to take out this varying tire conflict then its becomes a spring storing potential energy and can spring back against the tire load breaking them lose. The tighter you wind up these moderns the higher and harsher they rebound. The moderns and other old solids can suddenly positive feedback resonate with tire howl, squeal, chrips, to ZIP right out before a human can react fast enough or powerful enough to save.

The elite designers are going for rigid frame with some flex/compliance at the ends, forks and swing arm. I find Ms Peel beats this back asswards physics by bending the middle with stiffer structures at the ends, swingarm and forks.

Another VITAL over sight that cripples the rest of the world is that forks unload and expand on leaning [unless trail braking in the corner cripples signature method], so the more forward and low the front is the less able rear can hook up so must back off to keep front in effect. I like the forks to expand and rear to squat when going in harshly. My hobot Roadholders allow this in spades! Stiff enough their occillation frequent is above tire howl, squeal, chirp, yet progressive in spring rate and dampening action to its very ends perfectly ignorable. I only have to concentrate on rear patch and throttle, nothing else, whew.

So Frank how lucky do ya feel, following the has beens or a silly hayseed w/o hardly a decade of experience? Combat are about ideal set up, not too twitchy at high speed yet handy at low speed as a trail bike. You should if ya could, diddle stem angles and trail and tire size and air balance til lt becomes the easiest to steer for you style of flying. I'm sticking with Norton wisdom. Some like the Worlds Straightest Commando craftsmans says to shorten wheel base about an inch via cradle shorting to get more secure speed in turns. That may be so on a too flexy or too rigid a chassis, but not for me on Peel thank you.

One other characteristic of a truly Neutral chassis is it don't take any more effort to throw down or to put up and it holds what ever lean angle set w/o any further effort, essentially hands off, until skipping, drifting or sldiing then just hep dampen the forks from oscillating too far from ideal angle they self establish on their own. All of what you will read or hear from others only offers incramental improvements, like do ya want your oat meal tipid or steaming, instead or blistering hot blasting right out of the bowl!

Oh yeah get this down pat, worse condition of a motorcycle, after trail braking, is to hold a constant lean power angle like long same radius sweepers. All motorcycles have best turning ability when forces applied jerking fast and harsh to get its sharpest turning at that speed and then turn them sweepers into a series of accelerating straights!

Study this for how it works out on Peel retaining the basic genus and wonders of an Isolastic Commando.


I get air time sideways in a few different ways phase 3 and 4, so gyro effects concern me greatly. I will be counter rotating Peel's alternator and wondering what that may be worth against the Drouin impeller leaning annoyance reported.
gryos-and-motorcycles-t12732.html

I think you just ask the 10 million dollar question. I don't think you can make a bike handle "right" with a formula.

What I do know about a Commando is if you maintain everything as it was originally- they corner pretty well.

That includes, tires that are near oem sized, no low profile tires. The correct air pressure for the tire- most new tires need much higher pressure than old tires.
Shocks with damping that work at least as well as original.
Shock lengths and springs set up correctly for the weight- no progressive springs.
Isolastics adjusted correctly.

When you change one thing the outcome is often unpredictable and may take a lot of other changes to make it work as well as it did originally. Jim

One thing I might add. The relationship between the bars, the seat and the pegs and how well it fits the rider will sure have an effect on how well a bike handles as well.

Well said, Jim.

Frank —

"Now looking at wheelbase, it seems that a longer wheelbase generally creates a more stable platform at the cost of nimbleness, but there seem to be some variables. My MK III has the annoying habit of falling behind the road curves while going quickly. This shows up on a 'wiggle' road with short distance right-left-right-left-right-left configuration which requires speed reduction by the third or fourth iteration. Why? I dunno."

Click to expand...

Do you have the standard Commando head steady? There are quite a few threads on head steadies on this forum, but many agree that a rigid (rod-end, etc) steady allows an otherwise standard Commando to hold a tighter line on corners.

It's not just about rake, trail and wheelbase: weight distribution will also have an influence on how a bike feels, and as Jim says in his post above, the rider's relationship with bars, seat and pegs is significant. A bike might feel 'heavier' with narrow clip-ons and more of your weight over the front wheel versus wide, upright bars that need less effort to counter-steer.

Just to complicate things further, have a read of this. Mass centralization seems to be the new buzzword:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/featu ... index.html

Buell did some work in this area, and your post got me interested in finding out more.

Dave

Yes sir I think Cdo have an advantage on crankshaft center/forward placement and low CoG. My Cdo's weighed more on the DS than TS so Peel has removed the DS exhaust system all going down the TS and Lucas alternator off crank end and moved low behind cylinder. Alternator will counter rotate in case that helps anything. Oil tank is gone for oil mass in all of frame, so more forward and lower mass. I like the chopper stance to hang corners the funnest, so front sits 2" higher though turns which increases trail a tad but mainly allows rather more lean clearance and rearward weight shift for better edge power grip. But if front too high then it becomes wheelie prone, so will tuck down front 3" for that.

In my opinion, which is very strong d/t results trying it all other ways, if you try to keep both tires in full traction then you are either going too slow for conditions or are heading for a bad one tire or both let go. I highly recommend when trying for best fun to expect one end or the other to give way and be prepared for it as you creep up on testing limits. While you all discuss and speculate on Cdo improvements, its a total solved non issue to Ms Peel, so working on mo power and crash protection from daily hazards not taking turns out of control.

There's a related issue on cornering that concerns tire edge traction reaction to power pulses, I also find isolastics handle that better too in 360' even spaced hits.

comnoz said:

The correct air pressure for the tire- most new tires need much higher pressure than old tires.

Click to expand...

+1 on higher air pressure. I'm using 100/90-19 and 110/80-18 RoadRiders. I took my bike for a ride Sunday after letting it sit for a quite a while. It had the 30MPH incipient wobble and a real wobble at 50-60MPH after going over a rise and subsequent plant of the front tire. The front had 27psi. Filled it to 35psi and not even a hint of a wobble anywhere after that.

I've seen a couple of tire makers advertise that they use a soft sidewall design to give a more comfortable ride. Probably works, but it could be a liability in the handling department if you don't keep the pressures up.

reryder said:

Now looking at wheelbase, it seems that a longer wheelbase generally creates a more stable platform at the cost of nimbleness, but there seem to be some variables. My MK III has the annoying habit of falling behind the road curves while going quickly. This shows up on a 'wiggle' road with short distance right-left-right-left-right-left configuration which requires speed reduction by the third or fourth iteration. Why? I dunno.

Frank Forster

Click to expand...

Hi Frank,
It seems the flickabilty has been designed out of the Commando in favor of straight line stability. They did it with the long wheelbase and the steering geometry. They had to do it given the flexible frame and suspension. The flexibility costs in stability and in steering response. You can make the frame a little stiffer, but not much. I've heard that those massively stiff perimeter frames not only track well but they help make steering inputs quick and precise for a given geometry. Maybe there's hope for the old Commando, I know of someone who said that he swapped in a set of yokes with much less offset, so he actually got more trail, but he got what felt like quicker steering. Go figure.

Bob

Lot's has been written on this over the years, Cycle World, Motorcyclist have had multi page articles ranging from basic primers to very in-depth design information. Search and read as much as you can. That being said, many riders never come close to the bike's abilities, hindered by their own misconceptions about "handling" based on reading/hearing endless drable from the rank and file.

Gosh Bob Patton of all the folks to mention linked Cdo's as too flexy, never expected it from you, that knows a stablized Cdo can surf around turns mostly with just body English.

I pressed all the bikes I've ridden into loosing grip at one end or the other to know what to expect so to avoid or blast through it on purpose. Cdo's tend to pivot on rear iso mount to slap the forks side/side which makes it seem the forks are the issue. Yet I've had forks hydro lock or get rusted spring bind or rusted stem bearings that stifled fork's free road following to onset the famous Cdo hinging. Many weakest links in our complex Cdo interacting connections.

Its dangerous as hell go *fast* and to try load both tires equally or having them doing two things at once, like braking or accelerating while leaned. Oh its perfectly fine and common for me to use both tires at once doing two things at once BUT ONLY AT rather timid speeds a cop wouldn't notice. Ain't no way to commute on THE Gravel if not focused on only loading bike and One tire for One function at a time, braking, leaning, accelerating. Anything else give less over grip and control. Same thing applies to best pavement if doing it harsh enough its gets as loose as THE Gravel. Same ocillations, same rear tendency to swap ends or slip front out, its way easier to control/recover on tarmac.
Only time both tires effective to use equally to the max is both locked up and thrown sideways like a snow skier stop, when nothing to lose otherwise.

A few weeks before Peel rev'd her power away, I'd pumped up front to 56 and rear 58 PSI for best smoothest most secure accurate handling she's displayed. I will likely use that for track days but can't live with the harshness off road.

Many of the moderns with fat tires are sluggish stiff to turn so they reduce the stem angle and/or trail but then get twitchy tank slappy at high speed so need fork damper to tame. I've found Combats don't get upset with pure speed and confrimed by raceers/land speeders I've quized pensively. I did not like the 850's steering angle I've tried for handy dicing flicking leans as didn't react as fast or sharply as my 750's, but still quick good if ya care to work more at it. My SV650 is considered a light force girls beginers bike but I find it sluggish extra effort just to commute on compared to factory Trixie or linked lightened Peel.
Added steering damper for a year but got crashed avoiding a log truck as couldn't swing forks fast enough not to loose it going 20's mph around it. Couple more almost crashes d/t forks not free to follow surface fast enough so I removed it and only ever had it set to lightest anyway. a Scotts with adjust radius action and resistance adjustable type too. When I see a damper on a bike I don't bother to tease em into a joy ride as no fun and too dangerous for them.

Big ole Harley run 21" skinny tire front to ease the steering. Don't know their geometry though. Best fighter planes are the most unstable and reactive to inputs. When playing with tire PSI pay attention to tires springing feedback front to back too. Idealy a variable trail would be best, longer for the land speeder and shorten up for tighter less loading turns. Bike attitude changes, ie: weight shift on front or rear suspension changes effective trail too. I like it high in front low in back when I Peel over like a fighter straffing run. There are plenty of places here the Hwy falls away into a turn so really does feel and act like WWII movie sense.

if ya ain't gotta use breath control to keep blood up to focus eyes d/t the corner G's then someone may not know what they is missing out on with a Cdo geomtry and complaint sling shot ricochet rabbit chassis.


Another thing to study/work on is hi power up hill or down hill turns, up hill power tends to lift bike, down hill power tends to lower lean.

This is what I want to do on a Cdo someday, though mostly its just power on tap to do it as not same laods as holding a hi speed far over lean. When I did Trixie parking lot circles I quickly found her stable max lean ans was had just began the frist over powering play part when dumb axle snapped.
[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20XsaHpRQC8&feature=related[/video]

concours said:

Lot's has been written on this over the years, Cycle World, Motorcyclist have had multi page articles ranging from basic primers to very in-depth design information. Search and read as much as you can. That being said, many riders never come close to the bike's abilities, hindered by their own misconceptions about "handling" based on reading/hearing endless drable from the rank and file.

Click to expand...

Very true!

Most riders don't have the balls, nor skill to ride to the bikes capabilities, self included. Especially the modern sportbikes.

ugh no kidding especially them modern balloon tire elites, that too easy can't make up their minds witch part of the tire to stay focused on and not jitter or grease right off the tighter paths. Some moderns want to fall right over but then fight ya to tank slap to get em up in time, others fight ya to tank slap to force & hold down then can still spring up unintended or lift both tires at once d/t too high a CoG to pivot side loads on. I am amazed - awed at pilots that bet their lives on em. I tried to point of loosing front or rear or both at once on moderns trying to practice Ms Peel lines while re-doing her but couldn't even get close to setting up with enough energy for turns like Peel, ugh must go in faster than crashes corner cripples.

So fess up - what iimits your cornering thrills? Traction, chassis stability, fork slap or lack of trust to find out? Can't bluff around long on fast motorcycle antics. Going out on low aired tires can reveal vital behavior alerts that can kill ya to discover going really really fast.

hobot said:

Gosh Bob Patton of all the folks to mention linked Cdo's as too flexy, never expected it from you, that knows a stablized Cdo can surf around turns mostly with just body English.

Click to expand...

Steve, adding links to the stock iso's helps to locate the cradle/swingarm in the frame. But that still leaves you with a very flexible frame.

I'm convinced that the flexy iso frame is the key to exceeding what's normal in handling corner loads. It needs to flex some to take up conflicts of front and rear tire loads both from pilot inputs and road texture/slope differences fr to rr. It should store energy by allowing some motion yet Must Not Rebound but back to neutral unloaded state. It must release this at a rate that human can control and aim. We are talking silly mm's here, like the tiny amount of fork motion at speed matter a lot. Its you Rider Patton and innovative rear link that's most responsible for my crazy new hobby excesses. Its flat dangerous to hop on a modern or another un-tamed Cdo after riding Peel even behaving well within Peel performance envelope on hanging turns and pulling down in crisis braking. The main difference between Peel and other is the 'flexy' top and front links and the fork raising mods. Prying on top and front links imply they give about a mm or two on their long stalk mounts. The 'rump' rod is robust as yours though as you sold me on the logic of it in '02-'03.

I've having time of my life, don't want to die doing stupid stuff on dangerous machines, so creep up one aspect at a time, then two then 3 at once to learn what to expect. I have to watch out so much on other cycles I swore off trying for Peel level thrills on anything else. I have no concerns at all about losing it too fast in corners on Peel only hazards I can't see in time to avoid. Its so easy to do on Peel I self talk constantly before pulling trigger of commitments.

I feel handle bars/fork stem twist in relation to the foot pegs but its a non issue as just unwraps as fast or slow as I like by throttle or fork action. Peel gets such uncanny and compliant grip even over fairly undulating pavement I lean until front can't counter steer any further w/o slipping out, though nothing bad happens if I do let her slip out, just make turn wider at same angle until front re-grips then carries on just as if nothing happened to set us a few yds outward. But that ain't hanging em tighter harsher so knowing when the front will let go in leans I give more power to unload it and flip to straight steer which suddenly pressing rear down harder and draws front in direction intended. The transiton is like sail boat boom swing across the deck and a judder goes through Peel but just passes though w/o bothering tire grip. Wild weird sensation. On other bikes that judder is the last thing felt before tap slap or slip to ground, if they try to hold the loads. If room enough a wide crossed up flat tracker slide can save, but by then I've ducked to inside on WOT on Peel and left the corner behind before regular bikes can reach its apex.

I'm going to try 100/90 on front next time out instead of 110/80 to see if even easier handling. The fact I like the hi pressure implies don't need much patch area to get the job done on Peel.

Note I do indeed aim to break loose in turns, but only if it sharpens the turn up dramatically or causes least hesitation in acceleration to change aim. I have to work real hard to get Peel to do this but work really hard to avoid it on corner cripples.

"I'm convinced that the flexy iso frame is the key to exceeding what's normal in handling corner loads. It needs to flex some to take up conflicts of front and rear tire loads both from pilot inputs and road texture/slope differences fr to rr. It should store energy by allowing some motion yet Must Not Rebound but back to neutral unloaded state. It must release this at a rate that human can control and aim."


This is what I've READ about 200mph GP bike frames... sounds like they've tested and proven it so. But, a non-factor at the speeds/loads generated on the street by these old bikes

A good rider can exploit the characteristics of a design and overcome its flaws. The rest of us need to find a bike that suits how we ride. I always figured I liked my Commando because it is a pretty forgiving design.

A good rider can exploit the characteristics of a design and overcome its flaws. The rest of us need to find a bike that suits how we ride. I always figured I liked my Commando because it is a pretty forgiving design.

Click to expand...

Ugh I don't think we are talking about mere thrilling get a hi cost speeding ticket to pay rates, but impounding bike with pilot in jail rates or win/loose/crash race rates. I'm new to this list so nil stories of how I learned to over come modern corner cripple limitations of the Vtwin and inline 4 geometry. I took Codes $3000 class because I had learned to handle loss of traction on THE Gravel but didn't know if it applied to tarmac. W/o ever being on a real crotch rocket prior and with broken ribs and fractured R wrist from a going too slow hi side on SV650 2 days prior I took NInja 900 to its max lean on fairing chin so foot pushed out folded peg to place on rear axle nut, counter steering to point front squealing and power enough rear race tire getting greasy till bike going nuts on-seting tank slapper/chassis shake crashing, NAILED it in TERROR to see what happened in 'safety' of race track>>>

Found that tarmac is childs play to skip or slide or drift around on power like a supermotard in parking lot or fly right off surface in hi sides to let the crash level shakes settle out before landing on smashed down rear patch to leap even faster out of there. Code even told his best instructor to show me why he'd put the apex X's where he did, so with no warning and pissed off at me to the max the instructor said nothing just took the fuck off WOT as soon as we hit track leaving me confused on what to do, so I lit out after him, dozen or more bike lengths ahead to see he was fully comiteted to his wide X's mark, and Let'erRIP to turn the 270' degree clover leaf tight turn into 3 WOT straights, shifting to 3rd on 3rd phase 3 side ways laid over wheelie to finish 3rd to 120 mph upright, sit up, cover brakes, swing head around to see where instructor was, shocked to see him just finishing his maxed out apex a gear shift slower, but was afarid he'd try to follow me through the the next double X marked chicane, so delayed snicking fourth out of there until he caught up. There poor pavement racers just don't understand how corner crippled bikes react when takeing tarmac turns as loose as THE Gravel. So my lesion was to learn all the things and ways moderns get upset and how to over come that, but also that balloon tires and too rigid chassis make these moderns so unpredicable its not fun to ride em this hard as every little nuance of track texture or wind gust splashes inside them and builds up randomly so can't quite tell when tyre is going to suddenly let go or re-grip too soon or when a wave of shakes throws forks off a bit just when ya need it to launch off of or spin around on, ugh.

Fork angles smangles, a real hot neutral bike don't need forks - can't even use forks to turn the harshest. All forks have limits when counter steered in leans with rear thrust lifting front out of traction. My Roadholders are best forks I've tried as allows me to ignore them till out of needing them to aim, just catch landings and to press rear harder into grip by straight steering to launch so perfectly predictably its not scary at all, just thrilling as all get out!











The most important thing