Can you teach fast?

[Alvecchio]

The potential is or isn't there by age 6

The psychological details behind this statement explain the gaps people have in "learning" as they age. Math is one of the easiest examples. If you havent been taught basic mathematic skills by age 5/6 your odds of truly understanding it later in life are severely diminished.

This can be linked to riding/setup as it begins the mindset of action/reaction. Math is finite and uniform. There are no gray areas in math. It begins to define "common sense" in children. There is not a single aspect of riding(or almost anything in life) that can't be mathematically explained. even the "feel" of riding is mathematically examinable. It is very involved but it is nonetheless.

[Alvecchio]

If they have the appetite to learn, anyone can be taught to get 'faster'. But, I think there is something different in the mental make up of the guys that are truely fast. They have a direct connection between the theory and practice. They understand bike set-up and are able to make meaningful changes based on what they learn from others and their own experience. I believe their 'feel' is orders of magnatude more developed than that of the rest of us. After a certain point, I'm not sure they are 'taught' anymore...but they certainly never stop learning.

I'm always looking for a little 'faster' but will never be a 'fast guy'...

"connection", "understand", "meaningful". These are the words that make "teaching" what it is. Without these thugs teaching is impossible.

"give a man a fish and he has food for a day. Teach a man to fish and he has food for a lifetime." if you think about this phrase it explains teaching. Remember that "teaching" doesn't just mean being taught by someone else. Self teaching is also "teaching".

[Doc]

No. No I can't.

I can teach some skills. Fast is up to you.

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

So you're saying that when I make a rider cry at the track it's a bad thing?

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

In the 8 years or so that I have been track coaching I have seen only 1 person who I knew would be a fantastic racer immediately and about 5 who I knew would be really good right off the bat. The talent must be there.



And btw. I am with manny on this. I have justabout zero natural talent for riding. Every new skill takes me tons of practice.

[scottieducati]

You can always teach someone to be better, and they can always teach themselves to improve. You absolutely cannot teach natural talent. All of the "fast" guys have a good base of natural talent. Separating even the "fast" experts from the "really fast" experts is (except for rare exceptions) one thing and one thing only, seat time.

It would be a very, very interesting case study to examine the # of laps ridden compared to the # of championships won, even just within LRRS for example. The Wood bros, ScottyG, etc. all have literally *tens of thousands* of laps. You simply cannot make up for seat time. They all have natural talent, but I think you are seeing a trend locally that is a micro-example of say WSBK / MotoGP anywhere else.... sure you have the young kids with amazing talent, who also have tons of seat time that rise thru the ranks and challenge the established riders for wins and championships, but how often to you see a lead pack at ANY high level that's all young kids? Not very often.

There's always going to be the older guys that stay there because they simply have more seat time and experience than anyone else.

[FireboltEric_MA]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

In the 8 years or so that I have been track coaching I have seen only 1 person who I knew would be a fantastic racer immediately

You give me to much credit...


I kid, I kid... I'm actually very UN-Talented...:-)

[Pigman]

You give me to much credit...


I kid, I kid... I'm actually very UN-Talented...:-)

AND where is he Now???????

[Ken C]

This conversation refers to fast, but "fast" has to be defined. There is Street fast, track day fast, club racing fast, Semi-pro racing fast, AMA, BSB, etc. fast, SBK fast, and MotoGP fast. Then there is what is considered "fast" within each of these disciplines.

When I work one-on-one with people, I customize what is taught based on the individual's goals, and then we work to address how to get them there. Most of my students state "go faster" as a primary goal. But, this is relative. A Red group rider has a different definition of fast compared to an Amateur roadracer.

It's the coach's job to evaluate the person and give them a deep understanding of "what", "why", and "how" (specific techniques). The other, larger role of a coach is to get the rider to a place where they can work on their own after the day of instruction is done. After that, it's up to the person to practice, read, practice, share, practice, etc. Smart riders know that fast is a product of good technique and excellent feel and control, which is a continual process.

[OreoGaborio]

Awesome points Ken.

And yeah, I was thinking earlier that "fast" is always relative.

[Stromper]

I used to teach a number of people to ski

My first question was always

"When you were a kid and road your bicycle down a big hill did you say

"Weeee" or "Eeeek"

No EEEEker ever became a competent skier

[OreoGaborio]

[Alvecchio]

While we're defining things lets start with the topic.

Teach - to impart knowledge of or skill in (impart, btw, means to give/tell/communicate).
Fast - done in relatively little time (lap times)

So, can you show someone the skills needed to take relatively little time to get around the track? Absolutely.

I'd love to breakdown what folks refer to as "natural talent" and contrast it to simply "prior relatable experience". The brain is much like a computer. It processes information, it also stores information(long term and short term just like a hard drive and ROM). I believe, based on direct exposure to this situation on a daily basis, that people do not have "natural ability", simply they have more prior basic skill.

For example: Is it sheer coincidence that most of my younger students are able to pick up controls faster than adults, but then need extra help in focusing on the task at hand, rather than controlling the machine? Older students are the opposite(typically) in that they have an idea of what they want to do, but need help making the machine do it. Video games? How many kids have had their hands on a playstation/xbox controller and know how to quickly program their muscles to achieve a desired result using some hand-operated device as a vessel.

As a rider, perhaps your "natural ability" came from riding a dirtbike or a bicycle. Perhaps you rode a waverunner and you know what its like already to have your hands controlling your direction and speed. You've already developed certain muscle memory that can be applied to riding.

Here's something to think about. Take that guy you thought had all that "natural" talent and put him on a bike that uses foot controls for the throttle and clutch, and hand controls for shifting and the brakes. Wonder how much of a "natural" he will be then. Natural riding talent? or just prior muscle-memory experience?

[OreoGaborio]

I like this guy!

[Paul_E_D]

I believe something in between the talent/experience camps. Talent is likely the sum of experience. However, there is some nature involved. Intelligence, physical or otherwise, is a blend of genetics and experience.

After a certain age, we are wired to learn (or not learn) in certain ways. It gets pretty tough to change our learning habits once Chomsky's language aquisition device turns itself off. This is why it's easy to "teach" some people, and hard/impossible to "teach" others.

[DucDave]

I believe something in between the talent/experience camps. Talent is likely the sum of experience. However, there is some nature involved. Intelligence, physical or otherwise, is a blend of genetics and experience.

After a certain age, we are wired to learn (or not learn) in certain ways. It gets pretty tough to change our learning habits once Chomsky's language aquisition device turns itself off. This is why it's easy to "teach" some people, and hard/impossible to "teach" others.

Anyone can learn to be faster. But not everyone can be 'truely' fast. (Ala what Ken was saying...and what I said earlier.)

[BrianC]

Alot of good points here, but to anyone who doesn't believe in natural, or "un-learned" talent on a motorcycle, consider this example. A group of guys all about the same age, from the same neighborhood start riding bikes together as kids. As they grow up, they get dirtbikes and ride together every weekend. Even though they are all similar in their experience, one or two of the group will definitely still be faster than the rest, even if they ride the same bikes. Now this is not to say that we can be born with some moto-genetics or anything, but some people do have genetic make-ups that allow them to process the necessary info required to ride a motorcycle better than others. That type of person could go on to be super-fast at a racetrack with some proper teaching and seat time.

[OreoGaborio]

Alot of good points here, but to anyone who doesn't believe in natural, or "un-learned" talent on a motorcycle, consider this example. A group of guys all about the same age, from the same neighborhood start riding bikes together as kids. As they grow up, they get dirtbikes and ride together every weekend. Even though they are all similar in their experience, one or two of the group will definitely still be faster than the rest, even if they ride the same bikes. Now this is not to say that we can be born with some moto-genetics or anything, but some people do have genetic make-ups that allow them to process the necessary info required to ride a motorcycle better than others. That type of person could go on to be super-fast at a racetrack with some proper teaching and seat time.

Yup... One could argue that things just "click" for some people...
And another one could argue that lack of selve preservation is worth at least 5 seconds.



Everyone's different... I myself have been wondering for years what has made me progress at the rate that I have. I started riding just 6 years ago at the relatively old (in the motorsport world) age of 24.

I'm with Paul... I think it's just a big blend of all the different things that sum up one's "experience": genetics, what you've experienced & how you experienced it, what you've learned & how you learned it, what you've always "known" and what comes naturally, etc.

[scottieducati]

I'm pretty sure being a midget with a giant head or a beefcake with an affinity for chrome are predetermining factors preventing the fast from ever truly being attained.

[butcher bergs]

[Degsy]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A400 Safari/6531.22.7)

I'm pretty sure being a midget with a giant head or a beefcake with an affinity for chrome are predetermining factors preventing the fast from ever truly being attained.

Hehehehehehe.

[Nazo]

Natural talent within riding definately exists..just as talent for people with artistic skills exist. I remember I loved drawing as a child, but overall sucked at it while I had a friend that could naturally draw just like the images in a Marvel comics book....Natural Talent.
Riding a bike...an unstable vehicle at a high rate of speed will definately come more natural for some people than others, no doubt.
Just as the scenario above was stated, I started riding dirt bikes and rode with kids that were riding for more years than me but I surpassed their skills with no lessons or education, it just clicked for me better than for them.

[Alvecchio]

Alot of good points here, but to anyone who doesn't believe in natural, or "un-learned" talent on a motorcycle, consider this example. A group of guys all about the same age, from the same neighborhood start riding bikes together as kids. As they grow up, they get dirtbikes and ride together every weekend. Even though they are all similar in their experience, one or two of the group will definitely still be faster than the rest, even if they ride the same bikes. Now this is not to say that we can be born with some moto-genetics or anything, but some people do have genetic make-ups that allow them to process the necessary info required to ride a motorcycle better than others. That type of person could go on to be super-fast at a racetrack with some proper teaching and seat time.

Id be curious to know what kind of early childhood each of said kids had at home. Toys, school, parenting, etc. There not much unique info to process to ride a motorcycle compared to anything else a kid will get their hands on.

Of those kids, one may have latched onto certain aspects of riding more than another, thus allowing him to progress sooner or just differently. Perhaps some of those kids just got from A to B and were satisfied while one took a particular interest in analyzing the ride.

There's a TON of variables, but I do believe, based on my experiences, that pretty much anyone can be taught a skill. It might take longer than another but it can be done.

[Alvecchio]

Natural talent within riding definately exists..just as talent for people with artistic skills exist. I remember I loved drawing as a child, but overall sucked at it while I had a friend that could naturally draw just like the images in a Marvel comics book....Natural Talent.
Riding a bike...an unstable vehicle at a high rate of speed will definately come more natural for some people than others, no doubt.
Just as the scenario above was stated, I started riding dirt bikes and rode with kids that were riding for more years than me but I surpassed their skills with no lessons or education, it just clicked for me better than for them.

Creative "talent" and physical "talent" are 2 totally different things though. Its like a musician. I'm sure you'd notice a trend with people that have certain skills. Knowledge is a huge contributing factor also. If something is explained in detail to a student, and they understand it(truly understand it, which would require accurate testing), AND the skill being learned is applied with focus under controlled circumstances, it can be learned. Adults have particular learning needs. They need to know why. They need relevance. They need practical application, and (probably most ignored by teachers) they prefer to direct themselves. The brain has a tendency to grab hold of certain concepts that dont make sense and always kinda of wonder about that. That will usually inhibit learning. If you let them tell you what they need to know(within reason), they usually catch on a lot faster.

[bdawkins20]

I think one thing that hasn't been addressed is "Desire".

How bad do you want it? Are you a Perfectionist? Its up in the air if something like this can be taught but what I do know is that not many things were ever accomplished throughout life and history without the right attitude,desire, Dedication, blood, sweat and tears. IMHO, I have seen various people in various walks of life accomplish great things but the ones who truly stood out had that attitude that they weren't gonna be told otherwise.