Foot Anchors Review

[fallenarch]

Hey Fallenarch - If you keep those on your bike it looks like your going to need a powder coat job.
Then they would blend in and most people might not even notice you have them.

What I appear to be hearing is that if you are a track rider on a regular basis then these are/might be worth it, however if
you are only a street rider, it's still up in the air as to how much of a benefit these would provide.

50 minutes in cool weather is probably not anywhere near enough time to make a decision on there usefulness.
Maybe 50 minutes on a track in 80° temps might be enough to give a better opinion, but that is probably a few months out or more for most of us even you Arch.

Thanks for the honest write up.

Well warm weather here is about a month and a half away. I do think riding style might have some influence on the use of the anchors. Hopefully IG will chime in on this. He has a lot of hours on these. Maybe he will do a chat sometime.

New ideas are always tough to get out there. If he could get a racer to do some laps with them that would help his cause a bit.

 

[IG.]

Hey, Arch. I have a feeling you are somewhat attached to the current technique, and this may be an issue, or anchors may simply not work for you for whatever reason and in such case this would be a good learning experience for me to figure out why not. You know you can return them for a full refund, and I extend the full refund period just for you from 1 months from the date of purchase to whenever...

Let's go back to basics, and see if we can figure it out. You have to look at riding anew. So, let's take one little step at a time... I am stating the very basic but fundamental idea at the heart of how anchors work - any turn you take (street or track), you can go faster if you put more of your upper body on the inside of the bike. It's simple physics - the lower the CG of the bike-rider system, the less is the bike's lean angle, and therefore the faster you can go. Alternatively, this can simply reduce the bike's lean angle for the same speed/line, so that you have more available traction for braking/acceleration if the need arises. Do you agree with that? If not, why?

Note if you answer NO, I will immediately ask you another question: why do you hang off in turns at all?

Of course, if you feel that you don't need to increase your corner speed, or gain more traction in turns, then it's simple - you don't need anchors. And this could be your case - you are simply comfortable and happy the way things are in cornering department. As I typed that, I think a lot of riders feel this way. However, my point would be that you guys don't know what you are missing. Imagine a rider who was never hanging off in turns and was just fine. Then, his buddy finally convinced him to try. It was quite challenging for a while, but then the rider got it, and saw the benefit.

There is a turn I used to take at around 95, and didn't feel comfortable going faster. First time I took this turn with anchors it seemed so slow, however I glanced at the speedo and it was around 95 as before. So, I kept gradually increasing my speed through that turn until I got to the same comfort limit I used to have without the anchors. The speedo was consistently showing 110-115. A couple of times I almost hit the inside curb because the bike was pulling to the inside as if I was on the banking of a racetrack.

HINT: here is a shot of a very advanced rider I know whose body is quite off the bike while the bike's lean angle is not that impressive. While I don't know a direct answer from this rider, I'd repeat a simple thought - it's a good idea to always reduce the bike's lean angle in order to take a turn faster, or to have more traction available for braking/acceleration.

Yes, it would be nice if a known racer deployed foot anchors, and then the advantage would become obvious. However, this is a catch-22 situation. The good thing is there is a desire to test among the few whose opinion matters. Hope they will get around to it one day.

 

[fallenarch]

IG, I don't want a refund. I feel the experience of testing out the FA's was worth the generous discount you gave me. I plan to ride with them some more and try out some of your suggestions. If I decide I don't want to keep them I will return them to you (on my dime of course). Maybe another Busa pilot with Vortex rearsets will want to try them.

I don't want to get into a debate on riding positions as I am certainly not an expert. Your assesment of the physics of turning a motorcycle is the way I believe it to be also. I think where there is a split is you believe that getting your weight as far off of the CG of the bike will reduce lean. While this is true, I think getting too far from the bike offers dimishing returns when you factor in control. Following your premise however, I can see where you are coming from on the anchors, because I do think they would allow you to lean well beyond where you would have full control without them. I offer the attached diagrams to support my way of thinking. All you spectators chime in if I am mistaken!

I think we are sort of at the issue: Is there a point where you have too much lean? And of course is that point beyond where normal riding principles stop and FAs are required.

 

[badfrog]

I would like to have your opinion of how they would be for a brand new sport bike rider. I've ridden cruisers for a few decades but a medical condition doesn't allow me to sit in certain positions for long. Sitting bent over a tank doesn't seem to bother me so I bought an 08 Busa followed by an R6 to play on the track with. I have chatted with Igor privately and am about to pull the trigger on a set for my R6. When it warms up a little I have a date at the track with an instructor.

 

[Don Hardcastle]

I would like to have your opinion of how they would be for a brand new sport bike rider. I've ridden cruisers for a few decades but a medical condition doesn't allow me to sit in certain positions for long. Sitting bent over a tank doesn't seem to bother me so I bought an 08 Busa followed by an R6 to play on the track with. I have chatted with Igor privately and am about to pull the trigger on a set for my R6. When it warms up a little I have a date at the track with an instructor.

Badfrog,
I would say that being a brand new sport bike rider, you have enough to worry about learning a whole new way to ride without adding the Foot Anchors. I'm a supportor of the IGs product and will be ordering a set but the dynamic of a sport bike vs cruiser are so different that in my humble opinion, you have don't need to add more to the mix.

 

[fallenarch]

I would like to have your opinion of how they would be for a brand new sport bike rider. I've ridden cruisers for a few decades but a medical condition doesn't allow me to sit in certain positions for long. Sitting bent over a tank doesn't seem to bother me so I bought an 08 Busa followed by an R6 to play on the track with. I have chatted with Igor privately and am about to pull the trigger on a set for my R6. When it warms up a little I have a date at the track with an instructor.

Well if you are willing to ride in a manner that utilizes and maximizes the anchors, they do what Igor says. I think if you read my review you'll see the issues I have with them and my style of riding. If you are just learning to ride a sportbike it will make getting used to the anchors much easier, but if Tuff is typical your track instructor may have issues with them. What Igor is proposing is a new style of riding, which can be a tough sell to us old farts. If you want to hang way off the bike, FAs will do the trick.

So, I am not endorsing FA's nor claiming they don't work, as they do allow you to hang off the bike further as IG says. Choosing to use them is your choice. You should share your experiences with them here on the org, especially at the track.

 

[Twobrothersbusa]

You might want to check with the organization you are planning on riding with...I wouldn't assume the foot anchor peg would pass tech.

I would like to have your opinion of how they would be for a brand new sport bike rider. I've ridden cruisers for a few decades but a medical condition doesn't allow me to sit in certain positions for long. Sitting bent over a tank doesn't seem to bother me so I bought an 08 Busa followed by an R6 to play on the track with. I have chatted with Igor privately and am about to pull the trigger on a set for my R6. When it warms up a little I have a date at the track with an instructor.

 

[IG.]

Arch, I appreciate your detailed input and illustrations. And I guess the prudent thing would be to just give it more time for you to play with anchors. I think we have a bit of a difference in philosophies. In your illustration, you are absolutely right - the head should be where you indicated. My side point is that it's really hard on the neck and shoulders to place your head in such position, and tilting it to the side helps the torso to follow and puts almost no strain on neck/shoulders.

However, my main point is that you or anyone would be able to go faster, other things being the same. There are additional benefits to anchors, but no point talking about them if the main one is not needed. Even MM could tilt his head to the side and his shoulder would be sliding on the asphalt. This would slightly tighten a line, or he would have to go faster to preserve the same line. Again, it's simple physics as explained above.

In terms of being less able to control the bike while hanging off more, it's a matte of getting used to. The inputs are very subtle anyway. And there are new inputs thanks to anchors which you couldn't provide without them.

So, let's keep it going and see how things are progressing. Your experience is very valuable!

badfrog, asking the track org ahead of time is a good idea. I did at the time of my track days, and they said no problem. However, the coach who will be training you may object as he/she would have no idea how to deal with anchors. Best thing, shoot him/her an email and refer to the website, and see what he/she says.

 

[fallenarch]

Yes I ran this by the guy here in my office who has raced pro and does some track coaching. i'm sure you can imagine what he said! You have an up hill battle with those guys! If Badfrog adds the FAs he can just remove the peg if the track guys object, no big deal. I think that we are in agreement on the physics. I also will stipulate that FAs allow you get get out farther from the bike. I really think this all comes down to perfecting the style necessary to really benifit from the additional ability to shift the bike+rider CG in a turn.

I am reminded of the motoCZ American MotoGP bike effort. He had an engine that was turned longitudinally in the frame with split crankshafts that spun oppsite of each other. This produced a bike with almost no resistance to tipping. One test rider said this bike is a crazy improvement on a traditional bike and will be much faster. Another test rider said it was impossible to ride. Who's right depends on your point of view and whether or not you can develop the skills to exploit the advantage the bike has to offer. So a difference in philosophies is a good way of putting it.

 

[badfrog]

To be honest I never considered using them with the instructor. I had already assumed from some of the vitriol here that they would likely be frowned upon. And when learning something new I have always preferred to learn what is accepted practice and experiment from there.

Thanks for the input from everyone and I truly appreciate the opinions and advice. Now if I could get my toys back I would be set. (Busa is going to bike show and R6 is waiting on tires)

 

[badfrog]

Yes I ran this by the guy here in my office who has raced pro and does some track coaching. i'm sure you can imagine what he said! You have an up hill battle with those guys! If Badfrog adds the FAs he can just remove the peg if the track guys object, no big deal.

Are the pegs easy to remove without removing everything else?

 

[IG.]

Badfrog, while mounting plates stay there permanently wlthough could be removed/installed in 5-10 min, the anchors themselves can be removed/installed in seconds with only 19 mm wrench. As I mentioned earlier, I stopped on the highway a few times to adjust positions, and a minute later was back riding.

 

[badfrog]

Badfrog, while mounting plates stay there permanently wlthough could be removed/installed in 5-10 min, the anchors themselves can be removed/installed in seconds with only 19 mm wrench. As I mentioned earlier, I stopped on the highway a few times to adjust positions, and a minute later was back riding.

Sorry, I'm more scanning then reading for comprehension this A.M. it seems. Thanks for the info.

 

[Blrry]

If centripital force and gravity are forcing the rider on to the bike, how does hooking your toe under an FA help you hang off? As far as the forces involved, isn't that concept equivalent to standing on the ground with your toe under a bar (quite the opposite of the pictures posted of people upside down hanging by their feet)?

Or perhaps a better example, take someone hanging by their feet, but in a centrifuge where the forces are pressing them against the soles of their feet. I don't see how the FA's can help you hang off farther, when you are still being forced down onto the bike during turns. If anything, you could put your foot on top of them to get further off of the bike without risk of falling off, since you would be pressed down onto the top of the FA.

It seems to me that an FA would only help you hang off of a stationary bike, but a moving bike in a turn it would be redundant. More likely (to draw a medical parrallel) it seems the FA is a placebo, and the perceived increase helps give the rider confidence in turns that he didn't think he had without them. If Igor would post pics of someone using the FA's instead of everyone who doesn't, it would help illustrate his ideas. I'm genuinely interested in the outcome, but don't believe the physics support the claims.

 

[Tufbusa]

If centripital force and gravity are forcing the rider on to the bike, how does hooking your toe under an FA help you hang off? As far as the forces involved, isn't that concept equivalent to standing on the ground with your toe under a bar (quite the opposite of the pictures posted of people upside down hanging by their feet)?

Or perhaps a better example, take someone hanging by their feet, but in a centrifuge where the forces are pressing them against the soles of their feet. I don't see how the FA's can help you hang off farther, when you are still being forced down onto the bike during turns. If anything, you could put your foot on top of them to get further off of the bike without risk of falling off, since you would be pressed down onto the top of the FA.



It seems to me that an FA would only help you hang off of a stationary bike, but a moving bike in a turn it would be redundant. More likely (to draw a medical parrallel) it seems the FA is a placebo, and the perceived increase helps give the rider confidence in turns that he didn't think he had without them. If Igor would post pics of someone using the FA's instead of everyone who doesn't, it would help illustrate his ideas. I'm genuinely interested in the outcome, but don't believe the physics support the claims.

Exactly what I have been saying all along. You make the point very eloquently. If I could "Like" your post twice, I would!

At any lean angle if I can't take my hands off the bars, I need to adjust my body position and I've never felt the need for an additional appendage to anchor myself.

 

[IG.]

I'd like to sum up our discussion so far as a great example of how people with different opinions can collaborate while being respectful and trying to figure things out and not pushing on each other.

While I personally have no doubts regarding the benefits of FA, I recognize that not everything is black-and-white, and there are a number of fine points in how a new technique/device may have limited use for some riders while benefiting others. Key is to figure it out and present in a clear way to help others to understand and make their own decisions.

For example, the philosophical differences as we have just discovered.

Regarding the technical aspect, I realize there may be fine points, and especially when brought up by advanced riders. However, I have zero doubts regarding the concept itself because I personally tested FA for 1.5 years or so on the street and track, and a few other riders had similar positive feedback. It is true that a few riders had achieved marginal benefit, however their tests were limited by time/weather and other things.

What is even more important that when I presented the approach to Keith Code in a direct email to him, he didn't say how ridiculous the idea was. Instead, he wanted to test FA in his riding school. He did. Unfortunately, foot anchors require some time to get used to. The school students often swap bikes, and in one day there is simply not enough time to adapt to foot anchors. That was a show stopper, and we parted ways, with his best wishes for my endeavor. Per the school's policy, unless they deploy the product, foot anchors website cannot mention anywhere that Keith Code has tested, endorsed, or has anything to do with FA. Of course, I will honor their policy, and only mention it here to bring clarity why I have no doubts. You can only imagine what Keith Code would say if I presented FA to him saying you don't need to counter steer the bike, but instead just lean into turn with FA.

There are other people of similar statute I am communicating with, however nothing materialized yet, so I am reluctant to even mention. However, none of them said FA are a complete nonsense. On the contrary, they want to test them.

To be fair, not everyone among more or less known riders was as receptive. Some politely responded that they wouldn't be able to push on the outside peg, or the feel of the front end won't be as they are used to, or that they simply don't have time to test a new product. There was also a nasty response along the lines "I won't put crap like this on my bike, and will never ride with this crap". So, draw your own conclusions.

 

[fallenarch]

I still think you have a marketing issue that you could get around very easily. Rather than approach people with the need to completely re-think how they ride, you should make the FA's so that you can replace the OEM pegs and the FA's would be like rearsets. Then give the rider the option of changing plates to lower the pegs significantly, move them back or ad FA's. So then the product is attractive to almost everyone, whether they are touring and need the pegs lower, or riding twisties and need them up and back, or if they want to use the FA's. You could ride to the dragon with the lowered pegs and then switch to rearsets with just a 19mm wrench.

If your product has to get buy-in on the FA's to sell you are looking at a much smaller market. You might reach out to people on this site who have access to a CNC milling machine. I know the guy Raydog works with has one in his garage.

 

[Tufbusa]

I am stating the very basic but fundamental idea at the heart of how anchors work - any turn you take (street or track), you can go faster if you put more of your upper body on the inside of the bike.

The good thing is there is a desire to test among the few whose opinion matters.

First let me address the last sentence above. The hurdle you haven't been able to over-come thus far is that no one, no matter how far advanced their skills nor the level of knowledge they may posses matters to you unless their opinion coincides with yours. This seems to be a hard wired design flaw that undoubtedly will lead to failure.

As far as your statement above about getting the upper body off the bike farther is correct. The upper body is where most of the body weight is located and getting the upper half of the body off is important. Although I've pointed this out more than once which seems to have been ignored, the upper body is restricted by the length of the arms as to how far is maximum for every rider on every bike.

The issue with the foot anchor that I don't think you have taken into consideration is the function of the knee. The photo in your post is a great example. The riders foot is Parallel to the path of travel and would fit under the FA (If he had one) nicely. The lower leg is perpendicular to the bike, hips square with the direction of travel. All is good.

Now let's put a FA on the bike and see what happens. Looking at the photo, let's hook his foot under the FA and imagine the results. Can he hang off the bike farther? I say no, unless he rotates his hips around the tank which will rotate his foot to the outside eliminating the FA. There were a number of race guys on the WERA site that pointed this out to you. They posted photos of numerous Pro Riders hanging way off the bike without the benefit of a foot anchor with the outside foot pointing outward. If you missed that, go back and have a peek. If opinions from guys with race numbers really doesn't matter, then take what you have to the next level and advertise on televised Pro Racing events. Get your product out there in the world of racing and let the cards fall where they may.

I'm not arguing, just expressing my point of view/opinion. Good luck with your endeavor.

 

[kml]

Mail a free set to Sport Rider to fit their current long term test bike along with your explanations as to their revolutionary nature and let Kent Kunitsugu test them.

If he approves of them, I'll take them seriously.

cheers
ken

 

[jellyrug]

First let me address the last sentence above. The hurdle you haven't been able to over-come thus far is that no one, no matter how far advanced their skills nor the level of knowledge they may posses matters to you unless their opinion coincides with yours. This seems to be a hard wired design flaw that undoubtedly will lead to failure.

As far as your statement above about getting the upper body off the bike farther is correct. The upper body is where most of the body weight is located and getting the upper half of the body off is important. Although I've pointed this out more than once which seems to have been ignored, the upper body is restricted by the length of the arms as to how far is maximum for every rider on every bike.

The issue with the foot anchor that I don't think you have taken into consideration is the function of the knee. The photo in your post is a great example. The riders foot is Parallel to the path of travel and would fit under the FA (If he had one) nicely. The lower leg is perpendicular to the bike, hips square with the direction of travel. All is good.

Now let's put a FA on the bike and see what happens. Looking at the photo, let's hook his foot under the FA and imagine the results. Can he hang off the bike farther? I say no, unless he rotates his hips around the tank which will rotate his foot to the outside eliminating the FA. There were a number of race guys on the WERA site that pointed this out to you. They posted photos of numerous Pro Riders hanging way off the bike without the benefit of a foot anchor with the outside foot pointing outward. If you missed that, go back and have a peek. If opinions from guys with race numbers really doesn't matter, then take what you have to the next level and advertise on televised Pro Racing events. Get your product out there in the world of racing and let the cards fall where they may.

I'm not arguing, just expressing my point of view/opinion. Good luck with your endeavor.

Tuf, I wanted to stay out of this thread by now, but can't help myself.

When are you going to stop hitting your head against a brick wall?