arch, thanks for your nice words, and for the feedback. Maybe I should revisit the phrasing of that. I've gotten a number of riders voicing similar sentiment. While this may be confusing to read (and I probably should revisit how it is phrased), the short answer is... what is the correct body position?
My answer is that from engineering standpoint, rider's body position should be different:
New proposed body position
When the text is referring to falling off the bike, it is best illustrated by the following clip of Rossi who almost lost it in MotoGP 2014 qualifying, round 13, Misano circuit in San Marino:
Link to video (allow a few sec to download)
In my research, I have plenty of other examples, and in a number of instances the rider ended up falling off the bike. And those are top riders. The whole notion is to hang off farther than before. Most riders never try. If they do, clamping to the bike with the knee just doesn't do it. Riders end up barely holding on, and the slightest instability causes what you see in Rossi's video clip. Knowing and feeling the point at which a rider may lose his anchoring to the bike, a rider tries not to cross this point, so it doesn't happen too often. However, it is the limiting factor. With foot anchors, the length of your arms is the only limiting factor.
Also, while trying to anchor yourself to the bike in a traditional way, the rider's outside leg and torso have a lot of muscles which are contracted. As a result, the body cannot absorb bumps and shakes effectively. With foot anchors, most of these muscles of the upper leg and torso are relaxed, and as a result the rider's body can absorb bumps and shakes very effectively and additionally to the bike's suspension. As a result, the extra stability with foot anchors is very noticeable. I might've mentioned that now instead of avoiding bumpy areas on my route I routinely go over them to enjoy the newly found stability.
Relocating footpegs is really what rearsets do. I wouldn't be able to offer anything in this area. In the beginning, I actually contacted a number of rearset manufacturers. Most of them were not interested in incorporating foot anchors into the designs of their rearsets. The few that were remotely interested, eventually fell off the radar.
Safety is a concern, however, it is almost impossible for the foot to get caught as I considered many scenarios, and the foot easily slides out. Note that although a foot anchor may look like a footpeg from a distance, it is very different. Unfortunately, I don't have any crash data to support my contention. One test rider crashed during his double track day. However, he was riding with foot anchors the first day - with no issues. When he was riding without foot anchors on his second day and on a different bike, he went down.
arch, I really appreciate your feedback, and will be further processing your input. My response above is just the initial reaction. Not too many people actually read test rider impressions as I can see from the website traffic. That's why I somewhat neglected editing this area. But I see your points, and really appreciate it that you took the time to read and elaborate on this.
And actually, arch, your response is a great illustration of how one can provide a good degree of constructive criticism in a friendly manner. Thank you my friend!
Switching to another topic, my wife and I went for a walk in the park, and saw a bee nest. Despite really windy days we recently had, it was reliably attached to a thin branch. I was admiring architectural abilities of bees, and wanted to share this with you as now I know what 'arch' means... End of detour... LOL
The story of the bike repair form that episode is on the home page.
