What's better for improving skills?

[vidrazor]

>>I'd love to do a 'track day' vacation this summer. Any suggestions on a good program/location for a 'track beginner'? (East Coast preferably - I'm in PA).<<

There's multi-level courses given over at Pocono Racetrack in Blakeslee PA.:


If you're in State College in the middle of the State, you have roughly a 2-hour ride there:


Various groups give training there. There's a local group by me, but I forgot their name. Look up local sportbike clubs in your area, and chances are they have a track day event going on.

[cbsnbiker]

After reading your message, a few thoughts come to mind:

• don't believe everything you read in the media--their opinions may diverge from the facts, they sometimes get things wrong or broadcast their prejudices, or even lie;
• the ERC is an excellent choice for many students, but there are riders out there who may find the ERC more basic than they need ;
• conversely, there are students who may feel that the ERC is more basic than they need, but may be mistaken ;
• to brighten up options for potential students, the MSF is developing two new curricula:
  • an on-street course;
  • a more advanced course than the ERC;
and finally:


• my students tend to get out of a course what they put into it....

>>t has been toned down because of students feeling they were talked down to, not respected, and on and on.<<

No, it has been "toned down" because the motorcycle manufacturers want people to get their licenses far more easily so they sell more bikes. The motorcycle manufacturers control the MSF, and they could give a shit about rider safety. This has all been brought to light very clearly by Hough.

>>Experienced RiderCourse
For experienced riders that possess basic skills. No time or mileage prerequisite.<<

From the MSF site. The only thing I "experienced" at the ERC was the BRC. I already "possessed" those "basic skills". I was looking for ADDITIONAL skills training, not a rehash of the basic skills.

I repeat, the ERC is shit.

I agree that, even "toned down", anyone starting out should AT LEAST take the BRC. Certainly better than nothing. I bet the DirtBike School is equally a good idea for those starting out in dirt riding, and I've considered it in spite of my disappointment with the ERC. But the ERC should NOT be a rehash of the BRC, it should provide ADDITIONAL training for those that are coming there with their basics already in hand.

For all intents and purposes, the REAL ERC is here:
http://www.stayinsafe.com/

This is the kind of stuff that the MSF should be applying in the ERC. Not that they need to copy the format, but train in the same nature of providing ADDITIONAL, real-world skills training.

>>But also keep an open mind......you might learn something new...<<

That's the point, I DIDN'T learn anything new, because NOTHING new was taught at the ERC. It was the BRC rehashed.

>>...if you think you are beyond that.....then why aren't you playing it forward, why aren't you going out there and becoming a coach??? something to think about<<

I didn't take up motorcycling to become a motorcycling coach. I did it to enjoy motorcycling. Not that I may not consider something like that at some point in the future, but that's not why I ride. If I did become a coach, I'd do it with an organization that doesn't have their hands tied behind their backs. I'm sure many, if not all of the MSF coaches want to really teach the extensive skills that should be taught,  especially at the BRC level, but they can't. Perhaps you should all consider banding together nationwide and starting a new organization truly dedicated to teaching extensive real-world rider training. "something to think about"  

[vidrazor]

>>don't believe everything you read in the media--their opinions may diverge from the facts, they sometimes get things wrong or broadcast their prejudices, or even lie<<

I highly doubt this is the case with Hough. He's a completely respectful and concerned individual when it comes to rider training and rider safety. It was obvious he was very concerned about the shenanigans at MSF and the future of rider safety training. I think he nailed it pretty well. That said:

>>my students tend to get out of a course what they put into it....<<

Perhaps you put more into your training than I got from my trainer. A good teacher makes all the difference. Still, the basis of the ERC course is flawed.

>>the ERC is an excellent choice for many students, but there are riders out there who may find the ERC more basic than they need<<

Frankly , the ERC as it stands should be discontinued or, actually, redefined. It serves no evolutionary purpose in motorcycle training in it's present incarnation. My two cents? Change it's name to a more appropriate RIDER REFRESHER COURSE. Now, THAT would justify it's existence. Focus on identifying the course for what it really is, a refresher of BRC training. It would certainly fill a need in that respect, as the fellow who towed , and dropped his bike at my ERC course exemplified. It would then be an honest assessment of the curricula and it's objective. I also scuba dive, and in diver training there are "refresher courses" for divers exactly for the reason implied; to give divers who are rusty an opportunity to bring their skills back up. The course helps to improve diver safety, and has no need to disguise itself as anything other than what it is. It's a refresher course.

And so it should be with the ERC. It should be clearly identified for what it is, because refresher courses definitely have their place in any kind of activity that involves risks like motorcycling, scuba diving, and aviation. THAT I can live with, because I would've known better to avoid it and allow me to spend my hard-earned money more effectively for MY rider training needs. I bet you'd get quite a fair amount of people signing up for that course if it was identified as such, because there's a lot of folks out there who know they're rusty and can use the ERC training, if they only knew what it really was.

The fact that "a more advanced course than the ERC" is in the works shows that the ERC as it stands needs to be junked or redefined. Going for "an on-street course" is also a step in the right direction. Both of these intended courses are hopeful at least in filling a true intermediate training curricula presently missing in MSF training. The MSF needs to re-establish trust and confidence in the riding community, and this certainly sounds like a step in the right direction. There's still many things wrong at MSF, and the motorcycle manufacturers have everything to do with it.

I know that even if you personally agree with any of this that as an MSF trainer you cannot publicly agree with (at least some of) this. This has been a serious issue about trainers who've had to keep quiet "at gunpoint" about all that has gone down with MSF or risk their training status. I don't mean, or want, to put you on the spot any more than any one of them. I was simply making my viewpoint made on what the ERC is (and, more to the point, isn't) on this thread, because anyone looking for ADDITIONAL rider training, as Phoenix initially asked, needs to know what NOT to expect from the ERC, and that's ADDITIONAL rider training. They'll need to look elsewhere to get that training at this time. Hopefully the new MSF training can take a rightful and respectable place in that gap between basic and advance rider training.  

[cbsnbiker]

vidrazor, at least there's one comment in your message with which I agree:

>>don't believe everything you read in the media--their opinions may diverge from the facts, they sometimes get things wrong or broadcast their prejudices, or even lie<<

I highly doubt this is the case with Hough. He's a completely respectful and concerned individual when it comes to rider training and rider safety.

I agree. I believe that Mr. Hough is completely sincere and hardworking towards the goal of improving motorcycle safety, and I do not believe that he is lying.

Aside from that, I disagree with the precepts that underpin almost all of your other comments--which themselves appear to be a mere rehashing of what you've read from a few particular ill-informed and biased sources, plus what I assume is your experience with one ERC.

Many people have concocted all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories concerning the MSF: how it wants to take over the world, how it wants riders to die, etc.  

The reality is far more simple: the MSF rewrote its curriculum.

The previous curriculum was a heck of a lot better than nothing, but there was substantial room for improvement. The new curriculum incorporats up-to-date research into adult learning principles to change the learning paradigm from an instructor-centric to a student-centric curriculum. (Sorry for a bit of gobbletygook, but it's really true. ) It also helps students learn their skills in a much more logical order, as well as in a lower stress--yet highly motivating--environment.

The job description of almost everyone involved, from coaches (formerly called instructors) on up, changed, even though the goal remains the same: to help improve rider safety and enjoyment through education. What is learned is the same; how it's learned is what changed, for the better.

Some people don't like change; ergo a lot of the bad press.

Believe it or not, in your message you touched upon one of the positive changes without realizing it:

Perhaps you put more into your training than I got from my trainer. A good teacher makes all the difference.

Although I appreciate the thought  , the MSF actually wants to move students away from this kind of thinking. Wouldn't it be better if you felt that you were responsible for your own learning, rather than some teacher? Of course I'm happy to take credit for helping  , but ultimately it's the student who learns in the course. The focus is now on the student, not the coach.

Frankly , the ERC as it stands should be discontinued or, actually, redefined. It serves no evolutionary purpose in motorcycle training in it's present incarnation.

What should it be called? I'll leave that debate to others. But is it an effective course for many riders? Yes. There are plenty of riders out there who are incapable of even completing Ex. 1 of the ERC, much less strong enough to render the ERC useless. And they share the roads with us.  

For those riders who find the ERC not enough of a challenge--and whose skills do exceed what is learned in the ERC (the two are not necessarily the same  )--there are new curricula being developed, as I mentioned previously.

This brings me back to an earlier comment:

[li]my students tend to get out of a course what they put into it.... [/li]

What a student brings to a course directly affects what a student will get out of it.

I'll use one former student of mine as an example. He took the course because a relative of his (wife? son? I don't remember offhand) wanted his company in the course. He wasn't really there to learn anything, and it showed. He came in with some basic riding skills, but it was obvious that a bunch of skills were subpar: he braked in turns (not trail braking, just mediocre braking and judging of entry speeds into turns); he routinely locked his rear brake and underutilized his front brake; he stared at the ground directly in front of his front wheel rather than looking where he was going; etc. He held onto those cherished riding "skills" all the way through the course, and his skill evaluation reflected it. If someone were to ask him what he learned, I bet he'd say "nothing." He would be right--but not because there was nothing for him to learn, or opportunities for him to learn.  

As for further hints at conspiracy theories:

I know that even if you personally agree with any of this that as an MSF trainer you cannot publicly agree with (at least some of) this. This has been a serious issue about trainers who've had to keep quiet "at gunpoint" about all that has gone down with MSF or risk their training status.

The only way I feel constrained as an MSF-certified coach is not to represent myself as a spokesman for the MSF. Consider that my official disclaimer.   I have no problem with this, since, in fact, I'm not a spokesman therefor.  

Otherwise, I feel completely free to speak my mind. As it happens, I disagree with all this conspiracy dreck, and view it primarily as coming from a cadre of disgruntled former instructors who don't like being removed from their pedestals of perceived power and self-importance, and an opportunistic blogger. (That's a simplification, but this message is already lengthy.)

So, this brings me back to what I already wrote: don't believe everything you read in magazines, don't look for zebras if there are reports of equines in your neighborhood (unless you live in Africa or near a zoo), and there are many other opportunities for expanding your riding skills if you feel insufficiently challenged by the ERC.

[vidrazor]

>>...people have concocted all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories concerning the MSF...<<

I'll not dwell too much more here on the the MSF issue. Suffice it to say that there are many things still wrong with the MSF, and trainers have nothing to do with it. Hough has outlined the source of the problems very well. There's no mystery here.

>>Wouldn't it be better if you felt that you  were responsible for your own learning, rather than some teacher?<<

No, not at all. That's ridiculous. If I don't know what the hell I'm doing (and that's why I'll be taking X, Y, or Z course in the first place) I want an experienced instructor to show me the correct method to go about it. The only way one can be responsible for their own learning of such matters is to wind up with a few broken bones. That's what getting good instruction from a good teacher can help to avoid. The new curriculum at MSF did nothing to keep nervous students from staying nervous when I went for my BRC course, and one flunked for just that reason.

>>What  is learned is the same; how  it's learned is what changed, for the better.<<

That's where many, myself included, disagree.

>>What should it be called? I'll leave that debate to others...There are plenty of riders out there who are incapable of even completing Ex. 1 of the ERC, much less strong enough to render the ERC useless. And they share the roads with us.<<

I told you what it should be called. It should be called the RIDER REFRESHER COURSE, because the ERC is nothing more than a rehash of the BRC. Not one iota more. And as I said, there's nothing wrong with that. It fills a need those very people you cite can use, if only they knew what the ERC really is. There's plenty of people out there who are rusty, and know it, and would like a refresher course. If the MSF stops trying to disguise the ERC as something more than what it is, you can make really effective use of the ERC curricula by applying it to those that need it the most. I thought I was coming into additional training when I took the ERC and was really pissed when I found out I had wasted my money on a BRC rehash.

So I will reiterate: The ERC as it stands should be discontinued or redefined. It serves no evolutionary purpose in motorcycle training in it's present incarnation.

[cbsnbiker]

>>...people have concocted all sorts of ridiculous conspiracy theories concerning the MSF...<<

I'll not dwell too much more here on the the MSF issue. Suffice it to say that there are many things still wrong with the MSF, and trainers have nothing to do with it. Hough has outlined the source of the problems very well. There's no mystery here.

I disagree with what I've read by him and others on this subject. The MSF is not perfect by any means, but most of the allegations I've read are specious and/or sour grapes.

That said, I haven't read anything by Hough in months, maybe over a year. Can you point me to any links for anything recent on point?

>>Wouldn't it be better if you felt that you  were responsible for your own learning, rather than some teacher?<<

No, not at all. That's ridiculous. If I don't know what the hell I'm doing (and that's why I'll be taking X, Y, or Z course in the first place) I want an experienced instructor to show me the correct method to go about it. The only way one can be responsible for their own learning of such matters is to wind up with a few broken bones. That's what getting good instruction from a good teacher can help to avoid. The new curriculum at MSF did nothing to keep nervous students from staying nervous when I went for my BRC course, and one flunked for just that reason.

Hmmm, that's not exactly what I'm getting at.

First of all, if you're taking an ERC, you already do know what you're doing, at least to a certain degree; otherwise, you'd be taking a BRC. Right?

The new ERC and the BRC are set up to help students be independent learners who can think for themselves. After all, most people already are that way. Most people don't need to have their hands held every step of the way.

The old curriculum was set up with the assumption that students couldn't learn how to ride by themselves, so they had to have a strong central authority figure to teach them everything in excruciating detail.

Well, is this really the case? How about all the people on this forum who taught themselves to ride, either because they learned before the MSF came into existence, or because they chose their own ways to learn? It may not be the best way to learn, but it's certainly possible.

Furthermore, what happens with students who have had their hands held all the way through the course, when they go for their first ride on their own, without an instructor to tell them exactly what to do?  

Furthermore, how many of those excruciating details can a novice remember? The old curriculum used to be a "firehose of information."

The new curriculum is structured from the ground up to help students teach themselves and each other to ride, with timely help from us coaches. They learn to think for themselves, and figure out problems on their own. We're there to help them out, give them tips, keep them from going up proverbial blind alleys. We don't have to insult their intelligences by presuming to tell them what they already know or can figure out for themselves.

It's a different mindset. Instead of micromanaging, we relax and help students figure things out for themselves. Instead of shoving the firehose down their throats and filling them full of details that they probably won't remember anyway, we help them learn and retain the important stuff and give them the tools to learn more stuff as they need it in the future. Instead of making students dance to our marionette strings, we let go of the strings and let students dance on their own. It works great for most students. We can always (proverbially) hold hands with the rare student who really wants or needs it.

>>What  is learned is the same; how  it's learned is what changed, for the better.<<

That's where many, myself included, disagree.

In what way?   I can point out all sorts of improvements. Where do you feel this isn't the case?

I told you what it should be called. It should be called the RIDER REFRESHER COURSE, because the ERC is nothing more than a rehash of the BRC. Not one iota more.

I don't entirely agree with you, but I understand where you're coming from. From your perceived skill set, the course acted more as a refresher than something new and challenging. (I say "perceived" only because I have never seen you ride, so I have no idea how strong a rider you are. No insult intended; I just don't have a baseline to comment either way.)

That notwithstanding, there are many riders for whom the ERC is an experienced course; it is a significant challenge for them.

And there are many riders for whom "refresher" and "experienced" don't conflict.  

I'll leave the naming to others; what's more important to me is helping students learn.

[vidrazor]

>I agree. I believe that Mr. Hough is completely sincere and hardworking towards the goal of improving motorcycle safety, and I do not believe that he is lying.<

>>I disagree with what I've read by him and others on this subject.<<

Make up your mind. I DO agree with Hough. He's on the level, because he IS concerned about the future of motorcycle safety and training. It shows in every word he says.

>>That said, I haven't read anything by Hough in months, maybe over a year. Can you point me to any links for anything recent on point?<<

I'll give you the whole enchilada. Here's what started it:
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/RiderTraining1.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/RiderTraining2.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/RiderTraining2B.pdf

Here's the follow-up:
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/FussAboutridertr1.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/FussAboutridertr2.pdf

Here's his last words on it:
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%201%20of%206.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%202%20of%206.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%203%20of%206.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%204%20of%206.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%205%20of%206.pdf
http://www.mcnews.com/mcn/proficient_motor/MSF%20Franchise%206%20of%206.pdf

>>The old curriculum was set up with the assumption that students couldn't learn how to ride by themselves, so they had to have a strong central authority figure to teach them everything in excruciating detail.<<

Exactly. Exactly what is needed. Anyone who couldn't hack it shouldn't be riding. Period. That's what the motorcycle manufacturers (who control the MSF) don't want. They could care less about rider safety. They want to sell bikes. Hence the "new" MSF curriculum.

>>Furthermore, how many of those excruciating details can a novice remember? The old curriculum used to be a "firehose of information."<<

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

>>Instead of shoving the firehose down their throats and filling them full of details that they probably won't remember anyway, we help them learn and retain the important stuff and give them the tools to learn more stuff as they need it in the future.<<

The only real problem with the old curriculum is that not enough time was allocated to teaching all those things you should know in the first place before riding out into the "real world".

>>That notwithstanding, there are many riders for whom the ERC is  an experienced course; it is  a significant challenge for them.<<

They obviously never took the BRC.

>>First of all, if you're taking an ERC, you already do  know what you're doing, at least to a certain degree; otherwise, you'd be taking a BRC. Right?<<

My reference to the BRC was from when I took the BRC, not the subsequent ERC. The new BRC curriculum did nothing to dispel nervousness from those that were nervous, and one person flunked because of it.

Suffice it to say that we agree to disagree. My point on the ERC remains the same: Either redefine it for the BRC refresher course that it really is, or trash it. It serves no evolutionary purpose in rider training in it's present incarnation. In spite of what has happened to the MSF, I will still recommend the BRC to a new rider starting out, simply because at this time there is no other option. However, once that is accomplished, it time to look for training the builds on the training learned at the BRC. Hopefully the new courses to be offered by MSF will truly fill this gap they have in their training curricula. Only time will tell.

It is also my sincere hope that you impart a true sense of understanding on a student so they make use of the knowledge applied in the BRC and make them the best they can be for the little they are now taught. I believe you want to achieve this and make them the best they can. Good luck.

[cyeager]

You get valuable skills in either discipline so it really depends on what you are looking for. A track day isn't going to improve your chances of surviving your urban commute very much, and dirt experience probably wont help you learn to drag a knee on a mountain road. Deciding where you want to go is the only way to decide which road to take.

[cbsnbiker]

I suspect we're going to have to agree to disagree on this topic.

But I am curious: what's your basis for your belief system, aside from what you've read in that magazine, and the BRC and ERC that you took? Have you been an instructor or coach in the past? Do you have any other experience as a licensed driving instructor (non-MSF)? I ask this not to diminish your opinions, but to get a better handle of where you're coming from.

Now onto the details of your message.

>I agree. I believe that Mr. Hough is completely sincere and hardworking towards the goal of improving motorcycle safety, and I do not believe that he is lying.<

>>I disagree with what I've read by him and others on this subject.<<

Make up your mind. I DO agree with Hough. He's on the level, because he IS concerned about the future of motorcycle safety and training. It shows in every word he says.

I have made up my mind, and I stand by both statements. He's sincere, he's knowlegeable and skilled, and he's on the wrong side of the angels on this topic.

>>That said, I haven't read anything by Hough in months, maybe over a year. Can you point me to any links for anything recent on point?<<

I'll give you the whole enchilada. Here's what started it:

(snip)

Here's the follow-up:

(snip)

Here's his last words on it:

(snip)

Nothing new there, and it merely reinforces my original statement in this thread: don't believe everything you read. There's a huge amount of misinformation and conjecture in all of that.  (Thank you, though, for supplying it. I wanted to make sure that I hadn't missed any new articles.)

Also, the last article was written by Wendy Moon--unless you're making a comment that she's acting as Hough's mouthpiece, or vice versa?  

>>The old curriculum was set up with the assumption that students couldn't learn how to ride by themselves, so they had to have a strong central authority figure to teach them everything in excruciating detail.<<

Exactly. Exactly what is needed. Anyone who couldn't hack it shouldn't be riding. Period. That's what the motorcycle manufacturers (who control the MSF) don't want. They could care less about rider safety. They want to sell bikes. Hence the "new" MSF curriculum.

You have jumped to an unwarranted conclusion.

The new curriculum is better at helping novices learn how to ride. The old curriculum just wasn't as good at that. It had structural deficiencies that made the learning experience more akin to the "sink or swim" way of learning to ride. If you didn't come into the RSS with previous riding experience, you were at a significant disadvantage. This is not the case with the BRC, for these structural deficiencies have been fixed and then some.

Furthermore, whatever happened to personal responsibility? After all, it isn't for me to decide whether or not someone is going to ride a motorcycle; it's my job to help that person figure out that question for himself. As long as the student isn't a hazard to himself or others in the course, and can meet the objectives of each exercise, he can take and complete the course. It's up to him to decide whether or not he's going to ride in the real world. (Many people choose not to--something like 30%.) And guess what--even if a student doesn't complete the course, he can still get his own bike and ride anyway. I have no police powers.  

I presume that the manufacturers want to keep their customers alive, well, and happy--so they can buy more bikes.  

>>Furthermore, how many of those excruciating details can a novice remember? The old curriculum used to be a "firehose of information."<<

If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Hmmm, so you'd prefer to keep the course unwarrantedly obtuse and difficult, rather than improve it to help students learn better. Sounds elitist to me.

I'll say that again: students learn better in the BRC, and the new ERC.

>>Instead of shoving the firehose down their throats and filling them full of details that they probably won't remember anyway, we help them learn and retain the important stuff and give them the tools to learn more stuff as they need it in the future.<<

The only real problem with the old curriculum is that not enough time was allocated to teaching all those things you should know in the first place before riding out into the "real world".

Could you elaborate on this?

The BRC is the starting point for a lifelong learning experience, not the culmination.

The ERC is an entry point for riders who learned basic skills on their own, or a refresher course for more experienced riders, or an opportunity for a BRC grad to practice skills on their own bike. It can be different things to different people. It does not purport to be a course for expert riders, or racers. Look elsewhere for such training.

Do realize that neither curriculum purported to teach novices everything there is to know about riding a motorcycle. That would warrant a semester-long course, if not more. I doubt that many people would endure such an experience. Instead, the course (either one) helps novices learn what they need to know to help keep themselves from being killed in the real world.

>>That notwithstanding, there are many riders for whom the ERC is  an experienced course; it is  a significant challenge for them.<<

They obviously never took the BRC.

Most riders have never taken any rider course.  

>>First of all, if you're taking an ERC, you already do  know what you're doing, at least to a certain degree; otherwise, you'd be taking a BRC. Right?<<

My reference to the BRC was from when I took the BRC, not the subsequent ERC. The new BRC curriculum did nothing to dispel nervousness from those that were nervous, and one person flunked because of it.

It can't do so 100% for every student, but it sure is a huge improvement over the old curriculum. I speak from experience, having learned to ride by taking the RSS as well as having taught literally hundreds of both courses as my full-time (seasonal) job.

It is also my sincere hope that you impart a true sense of understanding on a student so they make use of the knowledge applied in the BRC and make them the best they can be for the little they are now taught. I believe you want to achieve this and make them the best they can. Good luck.

This is precisely where the BRC is a huge improvement over the RSS, and the new ERC over the old ERC.  

In the RSS (and old ERC), students were lectured to; in the BRC (and new ERC), they learn things for themselves, and own the information much more readily. In the RSS (and old ERC), they were always told what to do; in the BRC (and new ERC), they figure out for themselves the "whys" as well as the "hows," and can take those skills into the real world.

I'll end with a quote that illustrates this idea:

"A boy brags he taught his dog to speak on command. His friend asks him to prove it, but the dog does nothing. The boy says: 'Well, I taught the dog, but that doesn't mean he learned it.'"

That's the fundamental flaw in the old curriculum. That's what the new curriculum fixes.

[bem136]

As a newbie to the forum I will offer only my personal experience.  Rode something on dirt since I was 7 or 8.  Transitioned legally to the road at 16.  Dumped my 750 on Hwy 1 in BC Canada in the rain at 18. (After about a week of nothing but solid rain riding, I became complacent and while looking down at my speedometer the rear tire decided it would pass my front tire.  Like the hero-dirt-rider I thought I was, I tried to catch the bikes slide, as I had done a thousand times before on the dirt, and the bike simply flopped itself and me on the pavement, BOOM.  Not a chance in hell of catching it).  I have been fortunate since but last year decided to take a riders course sponsored by the local Harley dealer.  They assured me "the new rider course was also very good for an experienced rider".  Sorry but it added very little to the skill level, although I enjoyed the instructors, classmates and the little Harley's we trained on.  I plan to try some track days this year with my new FJR but I don't know if its better to find a course that offers a track bike or find one that will let me train on the bike I intend to ride?

Conclusion:  All the past dirt riding has given me a respect for the grief that is readily available on the road bike and certainly additional riding skills, but I'm not sure how applicable it is during a road-riding emergency.  If the Track day helps you develop your judgment and adds something to your skill level, its probably a good experience to have.  Do your home work (at least better than I did) for any other riding courses, so you get what your looking for.

Good luck.

Regards,
B

[vidrazor]

>>...he's on the wrong side of the angels on this topic.<<

No, he's dead-on. He knows exactly what he's talking about. He's no fool.

>>I presume that the manufacturers want to keep their customers alive, well, and happy--so they can buy more bikes.<<

No, they know there's another squid right behind the last waiting to unleash their ego on their next hot rod.

>>But I am curious: what's your basis for your belief system, aside from what you've read in that magazine, and the BRC and ERC that you took?<<

Speaking with countless riders who took the BRC "back in the day" and discussed the glaring omissions in the new BRC curricula. They're no fools either.

>>I'll say that again: students learn  better in the BRC, and the new ERC.<<

Students learn NOTHING in the ERC that they didn't learn in the BRC. I know. I'm one of them.

>>Could you elaborate on this? The BRC is the starting point for a lifelong learning experience, not the culmination. <<

You just answered your own question. Apply the old BRC training with the proper amount of time to absorb that training, and you'll have a far better educated new rider from the word go.

Look, you can keep spinning this all you want, the bottom line is the  ERC is nothing more than a rehash of the BRC., period, end-of-statement. It serves no evolutionary purpose in rider training. Stop trying to make the ERC look like something other than what it is. You're discussing this with someone who took the course. It's shit. It's a rip-off, period. Fortunately I'm not the only one who knows this, and those in the know will continue to NOT recommend the ERC and instead recommend more effective training options to those like Phoenix that are looking for true expansion of motorcycle riding knowledge and to improve their riding safety and experience.

And what that, I leave to to continue to spin-doctor this all you want.

[rottenbiker]

<"Students learn NOTHING in the ERC that they didn't learn in the BRC. I know. I'm one of them.">
 I'll just bet, you didn't learn anything in the BRC either, that you think you probably couldn't have taught yourself anyway. And I will also bet a track school couldn't teach you not to whine either. (or ride better) My son, who is the entire product of old RSS, New BRC a couple of ERC's with different ridercoaches because he wanted different view points on his riding, (he was sure to tell them during introductions what he wanted from the class when they asked) and a couple of track schools as well as an instructor course. He teaches at my training site and is 24yrs old never believes he can't learn more. He goes out on his own and practices the ERC course on his own bike in off time to hone his skills and could probably teach you a thing or 2. You are just out there and I seriously hope other new riders on this site don't take you as seriously as you do yourself,.....

[vidrazor]

>>I'll just bet, you didn't learn anything in the BRC either, that you think you probably couldn't have taught yourself anyway.<<

I make no pretense of thinking I know it all. Anyone who thinks like that wouldn't take any training to begin with. My entire argument is that there's absolutely no difference between the ERC and the BRC. The point being made here otherwise is that there is.

I took the ERC in hopes of expanding my riding knowledge, because I felt I needed to know more about riding. I was very disappointed at finding out I learned nothing I hadn't already learned in the BRC, because the ERC is nothing more than the BRC rehashed. Period. I wasted my hard-earned money on the class, and I'm not thrilled about that either. I wanted to be taught MORE, not what I already knew again.

No one, not even the most seasoned riders, can ever know everything there is about riding or riding safety. Even then all the riding knowledge in the world is still not going to guarantee safe riding. Just look at Larry Grodsky. Despite that, he always tried to better the sport, to expand on what was known, or assumed. That is what I want to do, expand my knowledge. You can't do that when you're being taught what you already know. The only way you don't learn that is if you don't apply it. That's not my situation. I want to expand upon what I already know.

[Mr Sunshine]

I am so sick of hearing you guys complain and bitch about the BRC and ERC, the new format is a producted of everyone who has written in and been polled by MSF.

I get sick and tired hearing about how f***ed up Microsoft Windows is but I sit there and keep an open mind as I work on Windows.  If I don't listen to my customers then I don't work on anything.  Try taking that same approach when we are sitting here raming down your throat that the ERC is *not* what many try to claim it is.  And when we provide alternatives to the ERC do not say we are "dumb" or "stupid" or even make us feel that way.

MSF chief trainers believe the student retains about 50% of what they learn in class from original BRC, the stress factor of learning something new, physical exhaustion, and weather can have a big impact on learning for them.

They believe wrong OR there are WAY too many people out there who shouldn't be riding in the first place.

BRC as well as things like corning judgement higher speed braking, etc.

I get higher cornering judgement from riding around my neighborhood at 25mph.

I also have whole clubs come in,....and granted there may be riders who need little, most do it as a tuneup,....or to have us look for any bad habits they may have picked up....that could have adverse effects on evasive skills.

I took the ERC with a whole VFR club.  It was fun but not what it is claimed to be.

You guys have generalized so that no one thing stands out as what you think isn't good,

I have not generalized on this subject.  The main beef is that it is still in a freaking parking lot.

I have seen guys who have had the BRC come back and outride the guys who have been riding untrained for YEARS who think they know it .....I have had guys in ERCs who claim to have had track training that can't ride.

There is the problem. They think they know not they strive to learn more everyday.  The BRC doesn't focus on the attitude of being the continual student.  And claiming you are track trained doesn't mean shit.  I claim I am the world champion of motorcycle racing but if I can't ride I can't ride.

 I know you guys don't know me from anywhere. But I have been riding for 32+ years....I had been riding for 19 yrs and about 30,000 miles a yr, when I took my 1st rider course.

As several key people will say, milage is not an indicator of experience.

I had been in 2 stupid incidents that both could have been avoided had I known what I know now.

Wow only two?  Then your experience level is low.  I've been in more than that and I've only been riding for 6 years.  Why? Because I get out and try things.  

 I have ridden in 3 national Iron Butt rallys. Track school doesn't teach road skills, it doesn't teach avoidance skills.

It doesn't teach when to avoid something but it teaches you the mechanics of dealing with the bike during that avoidance manuver.  You apparently having been to the track and pushed your riding skills or you would know this.

During one of the IB's I did, I came into a corner at night the road color ahead wasn't gray like it should have been and I was in a corner....my option was straighten, brake hard and put it back into the corner at a much slower speed, without my training and practice I wouldn't have known to do that, key word....PRACTICE!

So why did you have to futz with your line mid corner?  Also this manuver is something that I was taught in my BRC equiv class.  The skills to do it have come from riding on the road AND riding at my personal limit on the track.  For example I took a corner a little over a week ago when it was wet out.   I didn't see the little water hole cover (I've taken this corner alot of times but for some reason was on a different line).  Right when I would start to accelerate out of the corner both tires hit the cover (one after another as its only 6" in diameter) causing my bike to end up doing a slide.  Did I panic? No because I've slide my bike alot on the track (and if I have ridden dirt I would have done it alot in the dirt).  I just held my line and continued thinking "Where did that come from".  The next week I went through that same corner as a passenger in the car and I saw the water cover and went "Yup that was it".  Do you see the attitude here?  I checked into why something happened. That is the key to learning.

It takes about 200 times for something to become a reflex so that you don't have to think about it, only react.

Wrong. For physical actions it takes betwen 5 and 10 times of doing it the same way in a row. (assuming they are performed one after another).  It takes hundreds of times to relearn how to do it differently.

then why aren't you playing it forward, why aren't you going out there and becoming a coach??? something to think about

Because I'm going to be out there on the track helping people brand new to the track to get what they want out of the track.  Whether that is to e the next Nicky Haden or to improve their street skills.  

[Rabidsnipe]

I didn't vote because I haven't done a track day nor have I ever ridden dirt; but one of the best things for me was reading a book written by the guy that wrote about "The Pace" (Nick something).  I thought it made a big difference.  There were a couple of things that I was doing wrong.  In addition, a few things people had tried to tell me before but never really sank in or weren't explained clearly enough.  I re-read it every once in a while.  Books are useful for something