Dennis Noyes on spec ECU

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 8 2008, 05:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yes, more tyres (18 front 22 rear), but they still have to pick them before the start of a weekend.

However : "Whenever a new circuit is introduced in the MotoGP calendar for the first time or whenever an existing circuit is totally resurfaced, then a tyre test of a maximum of 2 days of duration must be organised at that circuit a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the race. This test will be open to all tyre and motorcycle manufacturers competing in the MotoGP class, but no rider designated by a MotoGP team will be permitted to take part in these tests."

see this for full details :
LINK

God, Ezy you are pathetic. I'm sure he handed Michelin a sheet of paper and asked them to write a rule.

This tire "deal" has really been beyond all belief. The great leaps DORNA have taken to avoid human decency are the only explanation for this scandal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 9 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>God, Ezy you are pathetic. I'm sure he handed Michelin a sheet of paper and asked them to write a rule.

This tire "deal" has really been beyond all belief. The great leaps DORNA have taken to avoid human decency are the only explanation for this scandal.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The Grand Prix Commission, composed of Messrs. Carmelo Ezpeleta (Dorna, Chairman), Claude Danis (FIM), Hervé Poncharal (IRTA) and Takanao Tsubouchi (MSMA), in the presence of Messrs Vito Ippolito, FIM President, and Paul Butler (Secretary of the meeting), in a meeting held today at the circuit of Valencia, unanimously decided to introduce the following amendment to the Road Racing World Championship Grand Prix Regulations - application as from 1st January 2008.
So they are all culpable.

feed://www.motogpod.com/motogpod-podcast-tags/racing/feed


Good podcast, bit of chat on the ecu/ezpeleta at 10.09

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Yes, more tyres (18 front 22 rear), but they still have to pick them before the start of a weekend.

However : "Whenever a new circuit is introduced in the MotoGP calendar for the first time or whenever an existing circuit is totally resurfaced, then a tyre test of a maximum of 2 days of duration must be organised at that circuit a minimum of 4 weeks prior to the race. This test will be open to all tyre and motorcycle manufacturers competing in the MotoGP class, but no rider designated by a MotoGP team will be permitted to take part in these tests."

....... rule is still weak imo.....tracks change hourly....let alone what it was last year....even if the tarmac is the same, there are way more variables...tire choice before the bike is out of the trailer is plain .........

Let me start off by stating that I agree with banning traction control. My issue with a control ECU, however, is that engine management is also done in the ECU. Ducatis are different than Hondas are different than Yamahas. Valve types, cylinders, configurations, firing order, etc. How does Dorna allow each team to configure their ECU for engine management? Parametric adjustment isn't enough. Piggyback ECU? Makes cheating too easy. Allow custom management software through a modular setup? Same problem. The code that fuels the motor based on RPM can also cut back fuel based on RPM (in the case of a slip) thereby controlling traction. Teams that are better at cheating will get the advantage, just like the 2006 AMA season.

Now the fun part. You guys don't make sense. The same people that don't want a control tire shouldn't want a control ECU for the same reason. Prototype. If you want the tire companies to develop their tires why can't the manufacturers develop their electronics? Just because you want to see people slide more? Or is it because your favorite rider lost or finally won this season? People rave about the new 2008 street bikes with traction control, but they piss and moan about it in racing. Quite irritating.

Finally, I found this to be the stupidest thing in the article:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Many experienced observers, Roberts and Mamola among them, believe that electronic rider aids have made the bikes less exciting to watch because they rarely slide.
So it's only fun to watch when bikes get trashed and riders get hurt? Ok then.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 09:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Let me start off by stating that I agree with banning traction control. My issue with a control ECU, however, is that engine management is also done in the ECU. Ducatis are different than Hondas are different than Yamahas. Valve types, cylinders, configurations, firing order, etc. How does Dorna allow each team to configure their ECU for engine management? Parametric adjustment isn't enough. Piggyback ECU? Makes cheating too easy. Allow custom management software through a modular setup? Same problem. The code that fuels the motor based on RPM can also cut back fuel based on RPM (in the case of a slip) thereby controlling traction. Teams that are better at cheating will get the advantage, just like the 2006 AMA season.

Now the fun part. You guys don't make sense. The same people that don't want a control tire shouldn't want a control ECU for the same reason. Prototype. If you want the tire companies to develop their tires why can't the manufacturers develop their electronics? Just because you want to see people slide more? Or is it because your favorite rider lost or finally won this season? People rave about the new 2008 street bikes with traction control, but they piss and moan about it in racing. Quite irritating.
1. a control ECU can have many inputs (sensors) and few outputs (to control stuff). Hence you could have a control ECU which had sufficient outputs to control the various different valve types the manufacturers use , for instance, and yet stop such things as cutting back fuel based on rpm. You'd need I team of engineers to ensure fair play even so. It could be done with a small team however. I don't think finding cheatware would be hard in this scenario. I'd even offer to do it!

2. control tyres mean less tyre development for the common man and his gixxer or whatever, which is bad. Prototype ECUs dumb down racing, which is what motogp should be about. Yes, it's a series with prototype engineering, but first and foremost it's about getting the fans to watch, and and hence buy, the product. Less racing = less fans therefore control ECU is a good idea. This is especially true as the manufacturers will keep on developing electronic aids for their road bikes regardless of whether they are used in motogp. Look at F1 - TC etc came first in development for road cars. It was not F1 which pioneered or even pushed forward TC in road cars.

The manufacturers will always be against banning or regulating TC because they want to put a better product on the street.

I would like to see it stay out of racing at least until they calm this tire issue down a little and level it out for a few years.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 01:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Finally, I found this to be the stupidest thing in the article.

So it's only fun to watch when bikes get trashed and riders get hurt? Ok then.

I'm confused as to why you find the absence of sliding a stupid thing to be upset about. I know sliding is a political topic in motorcycle racing because most kids who come up through GP don't learn it and most kids who come up through SBK/dirt-tracking do, but sliding has been part of riding a motorcycle fast for the last several decades. The power/grip ratio will probably remain in favor of power for quite a while and sliding is a proven way to increase your lap times over a short distance so it is a shame the electronics have removed some old elements of rider control and speed.

Imagine if the old guard got angry because the bikes had maximum lean sensors and kids were growing up looking for a warning light rather than riding with a knee down to gauge lean and edge grip. Imagine if the new kids said they didn't want to put a knee down because leaning towards the pavement at triple digit speeds is inherently more dangerous than staying in the saddle and being mindful of the lights. I don't think that is likely to happen, but I don't think there is a single person among us who wouldn't feel as though the new generation were missing out on an essential motorcycling experience/skill.

These guys feel the same way about sliding the bike.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46)<div class='quotemain'>1. ...and yet stop such things as cutting back fuel based on rpm.
Cutting fuel based on RPM could be considered an engine management parameter. It can also be considered to be a way to make the power more usable similar to how the big-bang configuration is viewed. Dorna would have a hard time nixing it based on these two points so there will aways be a way to sneak rudimentary (yet efficient) traction control into an ECU. Especially if the manufactures use big-bang as a precedent.

Your point about control tires is just weak. Every bike in the fuel injection era has an ECU so a control ECU also means less development for the common man/woman. Also, most manufacturers don't make their own race electronics (only HRC does) so not only are you punishing teams (like Ducati who require extremely elaborate management systems due to the complexity of engine management to support their Desmo valvetrain), but you punishing Magneti Marelli and 2D. Why aren't they allowed to race?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon)<div class='quotemain'>I'm confused as to why you find the absence of sliding a stupid thing to be upset about.
Because I don't think that's the kind of sliding the article refers to. If you read any of the riders' comments they all say that they are still sliding the bikes around the track. Even Mamola said he was still able to slide the Ducati and Yamaha quite a bit. Based on the context of the quote it would seem as though the writer is talking about crashes not power slides.

I still agree that TC should be banned, but a control ECU is not the way to do it. It's easier to do with F-1 than it would be in MotoGP because there aren't as many variables. You don't have one manufacturer using a completely different valve train, you don't have entirely different engine types, etc.

Ya know, it kinda annoys me when people say TC takes the racing out of it. HOW?! The guy still has to ride the bike and he still has to get around the guy in front of him. Why don't you all just wait until the tire situation is more even (if it ever is) before you jump on the bandwagon for more rule changes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Cutting fuel based on RPM could be considered an engine management parameter. It can also be considered to be a way to make the power more usable similar to how the big-bang configuration is viewed. Dorna would have a hard time nixing it based on these two points so there will aways be a way to sneak rudimentary (yet efficient) traction control into an ECU. Especially if the manufactures use big-bang as a precedent.
You can call it what you like, a control ECU could be made to only allow certain outputs, and if this is not one of them...
As far as rudimentary TC goes (such as was implemented on the early 990s) I don't think this would be too much of an issue. It's only now that the capacity has dropped to 800cc and the electronics have become so much more sophisticated that TC is affecting the spectacle. With the 990's there was more power available than was useable, even with the help of TC to put that power down. With the 800s this is not the case and so the "lack" of power, coupled with the TC is now determining the lines which work. This, in turn, leads to more single file "races" which are no fun to watch. Overtaking was always one of the main reasons that many people switched to watching motogp from F1.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Your point about control tires is just weak. Every bike in the fuel injection era has an ECU so a control ECU also means less development for the common man/woman.
Try reading all of my point. The last part was "as the manufacturers will keep on developing electronic aids for their road bikes regardless of whether they are used in motogp. Look at F1 - TC etc came first in development for road cars. It was not F1 which pioneered or even pushed forward TC in road cars."

This point being that the development of TC for johnnie and his gixxer will happen and is happening regardless of whether it is allowed in Motogp. In cars, TC was developed out of ABS. Because to implement ABS they fitted wheel sensors, then the engineers began to think "what else can we do with these sensors?" The use of TC in F1 has not pushed forward development for Johnnie's Mundano, so why do you expect that TC in Motogp will help development of TC for his gixxer?.

Now my main point here was actually that this is a racing series. In a racing series you need racing. If you want a series which allows all possible technological advances you will not end up with close racing. You need to decide whether you want a racing series or a development series - I think that the former has been good for the fans for many years now and the fan base has got broader because of it. The latter is only going to be of interest to the engineers actually doing the development as they will be the only ones who really understand each breakthrough and it's implications.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Also, most manufacturers don't make their own race electronics (only HRC does) so not only are you punishing teams (like Ducati who require extremely elaborate management systems due to the complexity of engine management to support their Desmo valvetrain), but you punishing Magneti Marelli and 2D. Why aren't they allowed to race?
Ducati's desmo valve train was in existence before complex electronics so that can't be right. As far as punishing Magneti Marelli etc - who cares. We don't support teams/riders based on who makes their shocks or brakes either.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I still agree that TC should be banned, but a control ECU is not the way to do it. It's easier to do with F-1 than it would be in MotoGP because there aren't as many variables. You don't have one manufacturer using a completely different valve train, you don't have entirely different engine types, etc.
How do you propose to do it then?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ya know, it kinda annoys me when people say TC takes the racing out of it. HOW?! The guy still has to ride the bike and he still has to get around the guy in front of him. Why don't you all just wait until the tire situation is more even (if it ever is) before you jump on the bandwagon for more rule changes.
See my answer about this being a racing series.

Judging from other posts of yours on this forum, Yamaka, you seem to be too caught up in Rossi fandom to see things objectively. Let's start with your counter points.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You can call it what you like, a control ECU could be made to only allow certain outputs, and if this is not one of them...
100% wrong. You can NOT tell a manufacturer that they can not control the fueling of their motor at any given RPM because that is the definition of engine management for fuel injected engines. Once you can add or subtract fuel based on RPM you have traction control. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, but you just don't seem to comprehend this point. That is how Yoshimura Suzuki did it in 2006. That is how they beat the AMA's ban on traction control.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Overtaking was always one of the main reasons that many people switched to watching motogp from F1.
Really? You have a link to the worldwide poll you got this morsel of insight from? I don't watch F1 because the only thing those "cars" share with my VW is they both have 4 wheels. Same with NASCAR. Well that and the whole Left Turn Only thing (I actually watched Kasey Khane's entire rookie rear because I'm a Mopar fan so don't think I'm anti-NASCAR). At least you can actually see the trickle down in bike racing. The reason I watch bike racing is you get to see a human being doing 150mph with his knee and elbow on the pavement while still managing to not crash. It's the corner speed that gets me. I only watch MotoGP because after that WSB and AMA look like they're in slow motion. I'm the only person I know who follows MotoGP. The people I know who ride and like bike racing don't watch it because they like AMA and/or WSB. My friends who aren't into bikes think all bike racing is boring as hell. My brother who is into drag racing thinks all road racing is boring as hell. Everyone is different, man.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>With the 990's there was more power available than was useable, even with the help of TC to put that power down. With the 800s this is not the case and so the "lack" of power, coupled with the TC is now determining the lines which work.
So you're saying that the 800's have significantly less power than the 990's? Wrong again. Just look at the Ducati 800's top speed and accelleration and tell me it's oh so much slower than their 990. Just read Mamola's description of it. "...208mph top speed... the character of a 500..." That's from this month's RRX in case you want to look it up. I'd like to see any one on this forum attempt to ride an 800cc MotoGP race bike as fast as the pros.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This point being that the development of TC for johnnie and his gixxer will happen and is happening regardless of whether it is allowed in Motogp... ...The use of TC in F1 has not pushed forward development for Johnnie's Mundano, so why do you expect that TC in Motogp will help development of TC for his gixxer?.
Really? No, really? You don't think traction control has improved since it's first inception? You don't think racing had any influence on it? Really? You really believe that having world class racers testing traction control software in race conditions for several days a week 18 times a year in different countries and climates around the world isn't going to further the advancement of traction control as a whole more than Jack Shenannigans sitting at a computer screen looking at test results from a BMW running around a test track in July? You do know that the Duc also adjusts TC based on lean angle right? Do you think Ducati and MM were thinking about Leroy Jenkins and his trusty VFR dragging a knee on his way to work when they built that into their package? Seriously?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Now my main point here was actually that this is a racing series. In a racing series you need racing. If you want a series which allows all possible technological advances you will not end up with close racing.
Really? Because you know that Stoner was the only Duc rider with such an overwhelming advantage. Cappy and the d'Antin boys all seemed to be in the thick of things. Nicky, Colin, and the rest of the pack also seemed to be pretty close most of the time. You make it seem like the front runners should be in the pack with the satellite boys. Why weren't you griping about close racing when Rossi was winning races by 11 seconds and championships by 200 points?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ducati's desmo valve train was in existence before complex electronics so that can't be right. As far as punishing Magneti Marelli etc - who cares. We don't support teams/riders based on who makes their shocks or brakes either.
And it wasn't good enough to win because it was down on power and accelleration so yes, it is right. If you read up on these things you would know that recent advances in Magnetti Marelli's engine management are what finally made the Desmo valvetrain work so well. And don't assume that you = we. If YOU don't care about Magneti Marelli, 2D, etc. then you shouldn't care about Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Ducati. Why don't YOU endorse the R1 Cup? Do you think Rossi would be so dominant if every rider had the exact same bike? I don't. And he's my favorite rider too.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Jan 11 2008, 04:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How do you propose to do it then?
I don't. I know that there is no way to fairly enforce traction control with the large variety of engine variables in MotoGP. If they declare all engines have to be V4's with hydraulic valves and spec cams and cranks then it would be a little easier to write a standard fueling map. You warming up to that R1 Cup yet?

Instead of trying to control everything and turning MotoGP into the legal pissing contest that F1 has become they need to go back to the more simplistic rules of the 500 era. Otherwise we're going to start getting the race results from a court transcript just like the F1 fans.

I don't know why everyone is pissing and moaning about this past season. My man Rossi was losing and I still didn't miss a race. I was running from one end of the house to the other to give my wife commercial break updates (she was not amused). On the other hand, I missed a lot of races in '05 and '06 because we all figured we knew what the outcome was going to be. We were right again in '05, but wrong in '06. Hell, I actually remember falling asleep during a few races in '05. However, now that Rossi has lost two years in a row the whole world is in a huff trying to figure out what's gone wrong. It's sad really. He's a great rider and a cool guy, but he and his fans have turned racing into politics.

What if they stuck with the 2006 rules, and just raised the minimum weight/engine type and reduced the fuel capacity, would we still be facing this problems regarding electronics?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 07:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Judging from other posts of yours on this forum, Yamaka, you seem to be too caught up in Rossi fandom to see things objectively.
Ah. the usual " don't listen to this guys his in a rossi haze and can't think straigt." Very clever.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>100% wrong. You can NOT tell a manufacturer that they can not control the fueling of their motor at any given RPM because that is the definition of engine management for fuel injected engines. Once you can add or subtract fuel based on RPM you have traction control. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, but you just don't seem to comprehend this point. That is how Yoshimura Suzuki did it in 2006. That is how they beat the AMA's ban on traction control.
I think we say 50% wrong. Fuel mapping is part of the ECU's standard features, and also mapping it against throttle position (a much more important input than rpm when it comes to TC) but even so it's still very rudimentary, and that was his main point. And as long as all are allowed the same it would lower the TC ability to a level where the rider is much more in control. Not only in control of the throttle but more so his ability to choose a line instad of being forced into the same line as everyone (or loose time)

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>So you're saying that the 800's have significantly less power than the 990's? Wrong again. Just look at the Ducati 800's top speed and accelleration and tell me it's oh so much slower than their 990. Just read Mamola's description of it. "...208mph top speed... the character of a 500..." That's from this month's RRX in case you want to look it up. I'd like to see any one on this forum attempt to ride an 800cc MotoGP race bike as fast as the pros.
I think you revealed the actual issue yourself: The 800's are down in power in midrange, consecently also a steeper power curve. They have a character more like the 500 and so on. All good points for why traction, now more refined then ever, make a bigger impact.
That you defined power as maximum top end power doesn't make it right.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Really? No, really? You don't think traction control has improved since it's first inception? You don't think racing had any influence on it? Really? You really believe that having world class racers testing traction control software in race conditions for several days a week 18 times a year in different countries and climates around the world isn't going to further the advancement of traction control as a whole more than Jack Shenannigans sitting at a computer screen looking at test results from a BMW running around a test track in July? You do know that the Duc also adjusts TC based on lean angle right? Do you think Ducati and MM were thinking about Leroy Jenkins and his trusty VFR dragging a knee on his way to work when they built that into their package? Seriously?
I think his point was that the road tc development will continue without the racing input, just like it did with cars. And I think he has a valid point.
The Ducati use lean angle, true (I thought everbody did. They all have had gyroscop or accelerometer transmitters for more about two decades), but so what? Is is realistic that the road bikes will get that?
Imagine what happens if the input fails? According to the rumors Yamaha are using GPS, is that something that will be used anytime soon for the road?
Of course not. My point is that while you do have a point in that TC as a new technology for bikes, would gain faster development for road bikes when tested on the race track by race bikes, but most of the technology are totally irelevant for street purposes. Either too expencive or too unreliable.
A separete develoment must be done for the road bikes almost independantly of the race development.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Really? Because you know that Stoner was the only Duc rider with such an overwhelming advantage. Cappy and the d'Antin boys all seemed to be in the thick of things. Nicky, Colin, and the rest of the pack also seemed to be pretty close most of the time. You make it seem like the front runners should be in the pack with the satellite boys. Why weren't you griping about close racing when Rossi was winning races by 11 seconds and championships by 200 points?
I can only speak for my self, but this years racing was really boring compared to recent years. That was true not only for the the top three riders but for the whole field. Parade like prosession without much fighting. There is quite a few people out there who are far from Rossi fans that agree in that, but as I'm a Rossi fan my point is of course not valid
The rossi days at Honda were quite boring, I agree, but he made sure to avoid winning with a large margin. Usually waiting for the final 2-3 laps to brake away from Biaggi or Gibernau, but stil a bit boring.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>And it wasn't good enough to win because it was down on power and accelleration so yes, it is right. If you read up on these things you would know that recent advances in Magnetti Marelli's engine management are what finally made the Desmo valvetrain work so well. And don't assume that you = we. If YOU don't care about Magneti Marelli, 2D, etc. then you shouldn't care about Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, Kawasaki, or Ducati. Why don't YOU endorse the R1 Cup? Do you think Rossi would be so dominant if every rider had the exact same bike? I don't. And he's my favorite rider too.
If MM's sytem make the difference it's still just a matter of adjustment. I refuse to belive that this is MM spesific, but rather Ducati that learn the subtle differences and how to take advantage. After all, there is nothing mystical with desmo valves. They are closed be a mechanical arm instead of by spring or air. Working with MM they probaly learned the timings nesessary for the desmo system insted of the generic data used by the much more tested conventional valve trains.

I think that is a bit over the top. If it's shuch an important thing that MM and other electronics producers to be there, why should they not allow turbo manufacturers, or even timing transducers and on board cameras, all in the name of free markets and fair marketing.
Besides, it could even come to a standard spec ECU meaning they can use any ECU and put what ever they want inside it, as long as the input and output are limited. Few says it must be all gone, limiting enough to get the close racing back is enough.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I don't. I know that there is no way to fairly enforce traction control with the large variety of engine variables in MotoGP. If they declare all engines have to be V4's with hydraulic valves and spec cams and cranks then it would be a little easier to write a standard fueling map. You warming up to that R1 Cup yet?
Again you define the parameters and apply them to his arguments. Who said the standard ECU must have a fixed mapping?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Instead of trying to control everything and turning MotoGP into the legal pissing contest that F1 has become they need to go back to the more simplistic rules of the 500 era. Otherwise we're going to start getting the race results from a court transcript just like the F1 fans.
Everyting was better before. I know. But new technological advances force new rules. The motorsport has been like that since right after the beginning.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I don't know why everyone is pissing and moaning about this past season. My man Rossi was losing and I still didn't miss a race. I was running from one end of the house to the other to give my wife commercial break updates (she was not amused). On the other hand, I missed a lot of races in '05 and '06 because we all figured we knew what the outcome was going to be. We were right again in '05, but wrong in '06. Hell, I actually remember falling asleep during a few races in '05. However, now that Rossi has lost two years in a row the whole world is in a huff trying to figure out what's gone wrong. It's sad really. He's a great rider and a cool guy, but he and his fans have turned racing into politics.
I think that's a rather personal view of things. I didn't miss a race in '07 even if "we all knew" what the result would be the last half of the season. But what I love more than Rossi winning is good and pure racing with two or more riders batteling it out for the win. In that regard '07 was boring.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>100% wrong. You can NOT tell a manufacturer that they can not control the fueling of their motor at any given RPM because that is the definition of engine management for fuel injected engines. Once you can add or subtract fuel based on RPM you have traction control. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, but you just don't seem to comprehend this point. That is how Yoshimura Suzuki did it in 2006. That is how they beat the AMA's ban on traction control.

Yes, I agree. Even though I talk about ban TC this ban TC that I realize it is most likely impossible. Even if they ditched wheel sensors Suzuki already have TC technology that works without them. Spec ECU is the only way, but as you point out spec ECU is obviously going to create a near spec series. Motogp won't be the fastest bikes for long if they give up cornering and top speed, Motogp know they can't allow that to happen.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really? No, really? You don't think traction control has improved since it's first inception? You don't think racing had any influence on it? Really? You really believe that having world class racers testing traction control software in race conditions for several days a week 18 times a year in different countries and climates around the world isn't going to further the advancement of traction control as a whole more than Jack Shenannigans sitting at a computer screen looking at test results from a BMW running around a test track in July? You do know that the Duc also adjusts TC based on lean angle right? Do you think Ducati and MM were thinking about Leroy Jenkins and his trusty VFR dragging a knee on his way to work when they built that into their package? Seriously?

C'mon don't be so advertised to. The progress of machines helps sales, but the idea that a production bike needs to progress on the same schedule as a race machine is an idea generated by marketing. The manufacturers need to cover development costs, so they slap new parts on their bikes every year and then make you believe your old bike is slow and incapable. Furthermore, companies love adding electronic goodies to new bikes because they are much cheaper to develop and build than mechanical advancements.

Companies would much rather spread the cost of TC development over many years rather than pay for it up front and hope it has application in the production market. Plus, Bob doesn't need race TC, he needs TC that keeps him from hamfisting 15mph turns on cold tires or to keep him from hamfisting it while riding through an oil slick on a wet day. The only reason Bob hamfists it, is because many bikes use throttle by wire and have little grip feedback, the only reason a little hamfisting would pitch him over the top is because Bob has been told by the manufacturers he needs 160hp to average 45mph on his way to work. There is little progress in motorcycling, everything is to earn profit. The only improvements riders need are things that help amplify their skill, not help them gloss over the lack thereof.

I will say that I'm happy about TC in the production market. It is nice to know if you get caught out in the rain on your Gixxer you can map the power down and let the bike take some of the strain off of you. That application is founded in race technology, but it needed extensive redevelopment before it hit production bikes. Banning (if possible) a technology that has already been established and already has its own production budget isn't going to affect production progress. Spec ECU won't hurt engine performance in the production market either, because production bikes are tuned to last for more than 100 miles and get more than 12mpg.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 10 2008, 10:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Instead of trying to control everything and turning MotoGP into the legal pissing contest that F1 has become they need to go back to the more simplistic rules of the 500 era. Otherwise we're going to start getting the race results from a court transcript just like the F1 fans.

Agreed. I'm a bit frustrated because the variable that most controls net bike performance is the track. Motogp keeps trying to control gross bike performance. Whats the point? The manufacturers won't accept going slower. If performance gains due to electronic advancement (4-stroke era) is really that big a problem, they need to start working with race organizers and track designers to build motorcycling venues to improve the spectacle and control bike performance. Indianapolis is a great example of minor modifications to an existing circuit to make it more motofriendly. Jerez, Sachsenring, and Laguna are perfect examples of great motorcycling venues that keep things reasonably safe and exciting. I guess the flat out right hander down the hill at Sachsenring would be an exception. Laguna could use a bit more run off.

The F1 tracks have got to go.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ah. the usual " don't listen to this guys his in a rossi haze and can't think straigt." Very clever.
Hey, a guy can't make an observation? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks he's biased.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think we say 50% wrong. ...but even so it's still very rudimentary, and that was his main point. And as long as all are allowed the same it would lower the TC ability to a level where the rider is much more in control.
He never said specified whether he was ok with simple tc. When people say they want to ban tc that means all tc, not simple forms of it. And in terms of fel mapping throttle position isn't as important as RPM these days because of drive by wire, whereas fuel per RPM is common. Even my lowly Ninja 650 has fuel mapping by RPM.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think you revealed the actual issue yourself: The 800's are down in power in midrange, consecently also a steeper power curve. They have a character more like the 500 and so on. All good points for why traction, now more refined then ever, make a bigger impact.
That you defined power as maximum top end power doesn't make it right.
No, the Jap 800's are down in midrange hence my points about the Duc's accelleration. It out accellerates everything else on the track because of its mid-range power. And I never said top speed = power. HP and Torque = power. You read that into my post all on your own.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think his point was that the road tc development will continue without the racing input, just like it did with cars. ...but most of the technology are totally irelevant for street purposes. Either too expencive or too unreliable.
A separete develoment must be done for the road bikes almost independantly of the race development.
Yes, his point was that it would continue, but my point was that it would crawl along instead of advance with leaps and bounds. And who are you to say that the advanced traction control of MotoGP bikes would be lost on street bikes? What about people who buy their bikes for racing or track days? What if I don't mind a little scary take-off but I don't want to low-side when I blib the throttle too much in a turn?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I can only speak for my self...
Exactly. No one should attempt to speak for the rest of the viewing audience. Some people thought it was boring, some people liked it more. Some people thought it was because of the tires, some people thought it was the traction comtrol. It's all subjective.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If MM's sytem make the difference it's still just a matter of adjustment. I refuse to belive that this is MM spesific...
Then you should be arguing with the engineers at Ducati, not me. I've read this in at least three different mag interviews this year.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>...there is nothing mystical with desmo valves.
If they are so easy to use efficiently the why couldn't Mercedes make good use of them in their racing efforts? Why haven't they been as effective in the past? On board ECU's have only now gotten to the point where they are fast enough to make the necessary adjustments to eficiently control the air-fuel mapping. Again, I've read it several times so maybe you should be arguing this point with Ducati engineers.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If it's shuch an important thing that MM and other electronics producers to be there, why should they not allow turbo manufacturers, or even timing transducers and on board cameras...
Because the camera doesn't make the bike go. Neither do the timers or seats in the grandstands or paint on the rumble strips. You knew that right?
Besides, it could even come to a standard spec ECU meaning they can use any ECU and put what ever they want inside it, as long as the input and output are limited. Few says it must be all gone, limiting enough to get the close racing back is enough.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Again you define the parameters and apply them to his arguments. Who said the standard ECU must have a fixed mapping?
Because if it doesn't control fuel mapping it allows for traction control. I already explained that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Jan 11 2008, 02:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think that's a rather personal view of things. I didn't miss a race in '07 even if "we all knew" what the result would be the last half of the season. But what I love more than Rossi winning is good and pure racing with two or more riders batteling it out for the win. In that regard '07 was boring.
Then start campaigning for that R1 cup, my friend. Or you can do ridiculous things like add weight to a rider's bike every time he wins a race to "keep things fair" like they do in that SCCA league. Man, I can't believe people still race in that stupid .... league.

mylexicon, excellent points about tc and road bikes. I was obviously being exceedingly black and white in my arguments, but point/counter-point is fun. I agree that it's mainly marketing, but man I wish I had it on my bike. Am I going to bo out and buy a new one just to be on the bleeding edge? Hell to the no (thanks Whitney)! I love my bike and I'm way to cheap to get another one any time soon.

I was going to write more about how I don't sneer when my favorite rider loses and how I was happy for Casey, but I jumped in the shower and forgot. One good point though: A lot of people criticize him directly saynig he won too many races by too wide a margin and how Rossi would have dropped back to make it more entertaining for the viewers. First of all that's crap because I've seen him win by 5 seconds or more lots of times. If you don't believe me you need to netflix some MotoGP reviews. Nowthen, let's put yourself in Casey's shoes. You're 21 years old, you just got a new job, you've never won a title. Woul YOU drop back to make it more "entertaining" for the armchair experts? I didn't think so.

Btw, the superbowl is coming, Lex!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>He never said specified whether he was ok with simple tc.
I did say rudimentary TC would be fine, even to controlling the fuel at specific RPM a la early 990s.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE ( @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So you're saying that the 800's have significantly less power than the 990's? Wrong again. Just look at the Ducati 800's top speed and accelleration and tell me it's oh so much slower than their 990.
That was not what I said, "more power available than was useable, even with the help of TC to put that power down" means that during entry to, in the, and exit from corners (which is the only time TC really matters) there was an excess of power available. This has nothing to do with a bikes acceleration once out of the corner or its top speed at the end of the straight. My point was that TC + 800cc is "now determining the lines which work. This, in turn, leads to more single file "races" which are no fun to watch."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really? You have a link to the worldwide poll you got this morsel of insight from? I don't watch F1 because the only thing those "cars" share with my VW is they both have 4 wheels.
Read it properly if you are going to sneer at me. I said "Overtaking was always one of the main reasons that many people switched to watching motogp from F1". As you state you never watched F1 you are not one of the people I was talking about (and I personally know quite a few of them, so they do exist and this is the reason they give me). Surely if you are allowed to make comments like this :
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Hey, a guy can't make an observation? I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks he's biased
which appear to have no basis in fact - have you canvassed other posters to find out many do think I'm biased? - then my comment seems quite reasonable to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really? No, really? You don't think traction control has improved since it's first inception?
If you are going to sneer, please at least do it over something I actually said, not something you incorrectly inferred. How do you get this from "This point being that the development of TC for johnnie and his gixxer will happen and is happening regardless of whether it is allowed in Motogp. In cars, TC was developed out of ABS. Because to implement ABS they fitted wheel sensors, then the engineers began to think "what else can we do with these sensors?" "

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You really believe that having world class racers testing traction control software in race conditions for several days a week 18 times a year in different countries and climates around the world isn't going to further the advancement of traction control as a whole more than Jack Shenannigans sitting at a computer screen looking at test results from a BMW running around a test track in July?
You obviously don't know how much the industry spends on calibrators these days, and they are constantly in short supply. Your view of one bloke and a few test miles is hopelessly outdated. Also, as Babelfish said, most of the technology being developed in for racing (cars or bikes) is totally irrelevant for the road, which is why they need this army of calibrators.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Really? Because you know that Stoner was the only Duc rider with such an overwhelming advantage. Cappy and the d'Antin boys all seemed to be in the thick of things. Nicky, Colin, and the rest of the pack also seemed to be pretty close most of the time. You make it seem like the front runners should be in the pack with the satellite boys. Why weren't you griping about close racing when Rossi was winning races by 11 seconds and championships by 200 points?
Oh, god - you're trying to turn this into a Stoner versus Rossi thing. My point had nothing to do with any specific season, just the fact that close racing is much better than single file processions. Also you completely failed to reply to the main part of this point, ie whether you want a racing series or a development series.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And it wasn't good enough to win because it was down on power and accelleration so yes, it is right. If you read up on these things you would know that recent advances in Magnetti Marelli's engine management are what finally made the Desmo valvetrain work so well.
You've got that back to front. The desmo valve is better by design than other types, especially where high rpm are involved. The electronics just make reaching the high rpm easier.
Filippo Preziosi:
"Thanks to this project, we are able to verify the Desmo's true potential," declared Preziosi. "Experience accumulated with materials and calculation methods on the Testastretta have allowed us to design an engine capable of exceeding 18,000 rpm without all the costs and complications involved in using pneumatic valves."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 06:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Instead of trying to control everything and turning MotoGP into the legal pissing contest that F1 has become they need to go back to the more simplistic rules of the 500 era. Otherwise we're going to start getting the race results from a court transcript just like the F1 fans.
More simplistic rules with 4-strokes would become a "development series". The only reason this wasn't happening in 2000 was that 2-strokes had no applicability to the road any more so the factories weren't developing them. Sadly we can never go back to either the 500s or probably the 990s either, so we need rules which keep the racing good.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (motojt @ Jan 11 2008, 11:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>A lot of people criticize him directly saynig he won too many races by too wide a margin and how Rossi would have dropped back to make it more entertaining for the viewers. First of all that's crap because I've seen him win by 5 seconds or more lots of times. If you don't believe me you need to netflix some MotoGP reviews. Nowthen, let's put yourself in Casey's shoes. You're 21 years old, you just got a new job, you've never won a title. Woul YOU drop back to make it more "entertaining" for the armchair experts? I didn't think so.

Yeah all that baloney about Rossi sandbagging it for the crowd is nonsense. Rossi was a PRACTICAL showman. If he realized he couldn't run off with the race he would ride a practical race, conserve tires, then obliterate or out-duel everyone on the sprint to the line. HE DID NOT SANDBAG FOR THE CROWD.

Sadly, race management is a skill of the past because you can't feel what your tires are doing. Stoner sprints into the distance b/c he can. The computer decides for him how much his tires can take by virtue of slide monitoring. Since the bike rarely steps out, the rider can't get a great feel for how the rubber is holding up.

I do think Stoner has a hidden genius though. Since TC keeps you from getting power down, I think Stoner has dedicated himself to finding ways to keep TC from kicking in late in races. Keeping TC from kicking in is pretty much what point-and-shoot was all about back in the days when it was TC. According to Stoner, he's riding a modified version of the old art form.

If Stoner really is riding point and shoot like he says, it bodes well for everyone who says they are hugely uncomfortable on their bikes. Stoner is fast b/c the Duc's saddle is his second home.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 12 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If Stoner really is riding point and shoot like he says,

It should be obvious to everyone , I would have thought, that he is using a corner technique somewhat like "point and shoot" though I don't thinks one can categorise corner styles.

One thing I noticed ( eg. Laguna Seca ) is he varied his corner style depending on whether there was competition to get through. same at Catalunya. he seemed to deliberatey slow the thing turn it tight then nail it as he picked it up and he would end up being in a much more conrollable part of the bikes power as he slid by underneath the opponent. Cataulunya was a good one to see it .... Rossi seemed powerless to stop it. With the Rossi style of go fast and smooth its hard to change the acceleration, accelerate or decelerate ( you are a victim of TC and physics ), once you are comitted to the corner. But as we saw Stoner do it so many times when he overtokk someone ....he looked at a corner as a motocross rider would ..... ie. he found a point to aim for then flicked it around that point then accerate out with the bike picked up .... saving tyres ( ala Doohan ) and getting the bike away from the condition where TC would be slowing him. ( TC slows the use of instant power for high lean angles and rapid chanes in engine revs( spin starting ) Anyway the effect was yeah Stoner's style bypasses the need for TC so he got more speed. Funny thing is he looked a lot like an old 500 rider would.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Jan 12 2008, 12:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Yeah all that baloney about Rossi sandbagging it for the crowd is nonsense. Rossi was a PRACTICAL showman. If he realized he couldn't run off with the race he would ride a practical race, conserve tires, then obliterate or out-duel everyone on the sprint to the line. HE DID NOT SANDBAG FOR THE CROWD.

+1

Are we still going on about this Yamaka? It's late here so I'll make one final, ultimate point. Whatever.

P.S: I just went for a ride in the rain. I actually really enjoy riding in the rain. It's a lot of fun. I had a hard time seeing though because my visor was all wet, so I had to ride with it up. Then my eyes watered uncontrollably so I decided it was time to go home. Ok, then, goodnight.