Triumphrat

jklnhd

Is there any real test of how well you can ride? I just really want to know where the line is drawn is between good and bad.

I mean, I know people who can rip apart a track, people who have been riding with no wrecks for a few decades, people who have taken every freakin MSF course, done track days, gone to schools, whatever. Then one day, they pull into the local choke'n'puke and drop it in the parking lot.

So what defines a "good rider"? How does that compare to a great rider? I think most of us know what a lousy rider is.

__________________
I used to be apathetic, now I just don't care.

bsakel

I guess it depends on if you are talking about racing, street riding, long distance riding, trials, dirt......

I think you'd measure each by a different standard.

35yearson

As mentioned what measure...in every league of riding it is my opinion it boils down to control. Each rider has his/her own field of abilities and whether they are good, great or exceptional depends on time in saddle under as many variable conditions as possible. As the saying goes you can have 20 years experience or 20 single years worth of experience. In other words wider experience helps build skill if it is learned from.

shoggot

I've yet to drop my bike in a parking lot. But I'd be inclined to give a pass to anyone who did so, and not count that against their skill.

Now, if you low side with no external factors on a turn (which I have done), that's a mark against. Doubly if you do so twice (which I haven't) - you should learn from your mistakes, eh?

Similarly, someone who's wrecked 10 bikes over 20 years of riding, may well be an incredibly 'good' rider. Heck, that might be 10 different situations, each of which they learned from and will never repeat, whereas the person who's never wrecked in 20 years may simply not have faced any of those situations.

As far as measuring skill is concerned, there's tons of different aspects. Assuming equal body size & equal bikes, person A may be able to negotiate twisties 20mph faster than person B, due to skill at judging curves; but person B may be far better at negotiating rush hour traffic, while person A smacks into a semi. Different skillsets. And both may be left far behind by person C in straight-line acceleration... and person D might be adept at stunts, where A, B, & C lack skill.. etc, etc.

IE: It's a bloody complex question.

Skidplate865

I would think riding in multiple 'hostile enviornments' every day would be a good test. NYC would be a good testing ground, seperates the wheat from the chaff real quick!

Catenaccio

I'll take your word for it!

__________________
The weather will continue to change on and off for a long, long time.

HiDesert

Really? What does NYC tell you about 65mph (certainly not 100mph ) sweepers?

I've done city riding. It has it's strange appeal, in it's own way. But I'll take



...myself.

Want to know how good you are? Study the kind of riding you do. What skills are necessary to do that kind of riding well? How well can you execute those maneuvers and demonstrate those skills? Compare yourself to other riders you see doing the same kind of riding. Read up on the skills (Proficient Motorcycling is often a great place to start), and practice them.

Ultimately, how good you are compared to other riders doesn't matter. That's a relative scale. The question is how good you are compared to how good you have to be to stay safe and have fun. After some study and practice, you'll probably know. If you still really don't, take a course or two!

__________________
'You've never been lost until you've been lost at Mach 3.' -Paul F. Crickmore (SR71 test pilot)-

HiDesert's ride photos