One of the most important lessons I learned in graduate school was about writing. My research method’s professor recommended that we take this as our personal philosophy of writing:
“I am not a good writer, but with sufficient feedback and revision I can produce good writing.”
The original version of this post generated some feedback, it was not what I would consider positive feedback. So in the face of valid criticism I hope that wordsmithing can fix some of the issues, and a sincere apology can fix the rest.
First and foremost I would like to clarify that nothing I wrote was intended to be deragatory, disrespectful, and/or critical of the fine gentlemen who volunteer their time to organize open cyclocross practices in Chicago. I have learned a great deal in the last year from practices run by Michael C, Brent, Austin, Manuel, Jason, Tony, and Michael Y, and have gotten a better as a result. My goal was to add to the work they have been doing not take anything away from them. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for these guys, and am fortunate to consider some of them friends. So I humbly and sincerely apologize to anyone who thought took offense to either the tone or content of the first draft.
In the first draft I used the words “less than satisfied” in way that came across different than how I intended. I meant it in a “I would have personally liked a scoop of ice cream with this fudge-covered chocolate brownie” sort of way, not as as a “this is a terrible brownie” sort of way. I was trying to find a way to express a thought that has been in my head for some time. The thought is this: it feels like something is missing from these practices. The thing that is missing?
Theory.
When I say theory, I do not mean complex scientific proofs and models, but a set of organizing principles to help frame a context for all the specific nuances and details which Mr. Meatpuppet noted were missing from the first draft. It was never my intention to write an all-encompassing and detailed tome on cornering. My choice to label these principles as “rules” was unfortunate in that it implied a level of comprehension and prescription that was not intended. I was really thinking of the set of rules from the movie the Wedding Crasher which were hardly rules at all. (Except for Rule #76 which is words to live by). But that reference only existed in my head, so...fail. What I was trying to do (if I can borrow a metaphor) is a create frame upon which other smaller components can be mounted. And maybe not even the whole frame, maybe just a few disconnected tubes laying on a table waiting to be welded together.
To further clarify when I say “missing” I denoting an absence from, not trying to imply that theory is that something should be there. Just because I would like some ice cream on the side of my brownie does not mean the restaurant should change the menu. All summer long I have been struggling in my own head trying to come up with a good way to integrate these ideas into these practices. And simply put I don’t have a good idea on how to integrate these ideas into a practice. This is why I have not gone up to any of the organizers and shared my ideas with them. I have tried to imagine pulling out handouts, white boards, and even powerpoint decks to lecturing on basic principles to a group of sweaty cyclists standing around in kits. It doesn’t work. The purpose of practice is to practice, not lecture. The best idea I had for sharing these thoughts was to blog about them. It is a forum that allowed me to share these thoughts along side some very simple sketches in a way that did not distract from the physical work of it. It was meant to be a beginning followed up with more detailed explanations on a wider variety of topics and with personal experience, not the be-all-end-all of cyclocross existence. I can see in reading v1.0 with fresh eyes and some critical feedback in my pocket how it came across as something other than intended. So I again apologize for any hard feelings the previous draft caused and will try again.
Too be continued.
it's actually called "Trail Braking".
ReplyDeletealso, the "Everyone has to decelerate. Not everyone chooses to accelerate" did indeed fall flat because it does not contain a truism.
there are a lot of holes in this post in terms of any practical application of cornering. you've very much presented an "all else being equal" geometric solution. you touch upon "ideal line" and lean in cornering, but don't factor in anything about CoG, body positioning or bike setup. there is in fact no "fixed" amount of traction because available traction is a function of all these factors, and the combination of such affects what the actual ideal line is.
the benefit of such drills in practice is to engage the rider into dealing with all of these factors as a unit, and observing in which situations these factors change and how they affect the overall outcome of the turn.
personally, if i were given this post in it's entirety as a defining instruction on cornering, i would myself be left unsatisfied. i recommend exploring the dynamics of the entire system, as your approach will only yield results so far before you need to look outside these principles.