ducati patents semi-monocoque motogp frame for roadbbikes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Otis Driftwood @ Mar 1 2010, 08:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Is this Ducati gearing up for an all out assault on the WSBK title(s) in a year or two?Could be catch up time for other manu`s again!!

Aren't there "assaults" usually preceded by rumours of rule changes?

A long time ago my brother in law bought an '84 GS750 (which he only let me ride once for good reason). It was the first year they had a 16" front tire and anti-dive and a monoshock rear suspension. Reading the reviews of that bike a statement struck me when the author wrote that however great the bike was, and it was, 75% of all riders would not be able to realize it. That has stuck with me as I see the onset of the great cruiser era and when I look at the carbon frame I remember those words. For almost all of us it is cool. The old 750 had a square tube steel diamond frame and I'll put money on the percentage that could appreciate the carbon frame at less than 5%. So we'll buy it for what reason? Certainly not for the need. None of us can use it's advantage. Steel tube is still well over all our heads.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 28 2010, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ok I'm not really fully back into the Babel says they can use Gyros Theory, its getting late ...... but afer the brief read I am calling ........ already Yamaka.
You say you are "calling ........". About which part?

This is one variant of the product I was working on until October last year : <span style="color:#0000FFMeggitt iSFD

This is no BS - I have worked on this product, and it's predecessors, on and off as a contractor since 2002 when Meggitt produced the SFD for the BAe Hawk. I understand how the sensors work and how the software algorithm copes with drift amongst other things.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 28 2010, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>This system you speak of that you could construct if need be ........ explain how I could reliably use it to react to a specific part of the track .........
You can reliably use it to work out which part of the track as I explained before - together with an electronic odometer which is reset every time the bike crosses the finish line, it will provide you with sufficiently accurate information to determine which corner you are in. If it is accurate enough to fly an aircraft on, attitude-wise, then the attitude it senses it definitely accurate enough to use lean angle to the extent of working out whether the bike is entering corner 1, 2 etc. This is all that GPS is used for - we are in corner X, use engine map Y. I don't really know what is confusing about this part.

For example, take the first 3 corners of Mugello. On entry to the long hairpin of San Donato the inertial pack will be registering a lean angle of X degrees to the right for a period of Y seconds. The system knows as soon as the tip in begins that this is corner 1. Also the tip in point can be predicted to some extent based on distance travelled as sensed by the odo. On exit the bike will be approximately upright for a period then begin to tip into Luco. Here the lean angle will be to the left and so the system knows this is corner 2. Transitioning through upright then tipping to the right on entry to Poggio Secco. Etc. Software would be needed to convert the attitude data to engine map selection with the aid of a table detailing the corners, distance between them, together with the lean angle direction and extents for the particular track. It wouldn't be hard for a real-time embedded system.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 28 2010, 05:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Gee the silly thing is that this is all hyperthetical, cos nobody does it ....... because theres way better ways for a start!!! and two because thankfully its not allowed by rule anyway I'm off to bed for now Bopper Army. Pleasant skids
As I have already said, no-one does it 'cos COTS GPS is cheap and available - why re-invent the wheel? That does NOT mean it is technically impossible due to sensor drift, which was your initial standpoint, or anything else.

As far as it being against the rules - here I call BS. Gyros/Accelerometers/Tilts are allowed and there are no rules at the moment about what you are allowed to do with the data so gleaned. The only rule limiting electronic control of anything, that I can find, is the following :
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>2.3.8.2 In the MotoGP class, variable valve timing and variable valve lift
systems, driven by hydraulic and/or electric/electronic systems
are not permitted.
Why would you be "thankful" if such a system was outlawed? It presents no advantage over GPS, one fact that we do appear to agree on.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Mar 1 2010, 08:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If it is accurate enough to fly an aircraft on, attitude-wise, then the attitude it senses it definitely accurate enough to use lean angle to the extent of working out whether the bike is entering corner 1, 2 etc. This is all that GPS is used for - we are in corner X, use engine map Y. I don't really know what is confusing about this part.
Well there's the crux of the problem isn't it? We are dealing with an individual incapable of and/or unwilling to admit he has anything to learn, from anyone, anytime... a 150 IQ with a closed mind is far less impressive than a 50 IQ willing to absorb, and learn from, the reality of life and environment... (or in BM's case a 50 IQ with a closed mind exposed for all by Yamaka like an autopsy performed by Hannibal Lecter).

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 28 2010, 05:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>And yet ....... with all that supposed technology .... it is not done in motogp .... why Yamaka?

As he points out, GPS makes the whole point rather moot.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>How big is the equipment needed for a complete system?

Each gyro sensor module is about the size of a matchbook.  How many axes do you want to monitor?  Now, all you need is another tiny module, little more than a single chip, to receive the data, process it, and forward the bike's current orientation to the main ECU.   

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>What is the operating range of the equipment?

Ring laser gyros are amazingly durable - there are no moving parts. The vibration and heat found on a bike won't phase them one bit.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You don't feel that the rapid direction changes experienced in MGP aren't somewhat excessive for such a system?

Bandwidth is not a problem. Inexpensive off-the-shelf gyros are capable of tracking hundreds of degrees per second.  Spend a little more for the high end parts and you'd have a system that could track the bike accurately through the most violent high-side flick or tumbling crash.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I put it to you it is far from feasible for motogp. If you feel otherwise surey you would be out there selling such a system

It would be stupidly simple to have the electronics keep track of the bike's yaw as it runs around the track. Correlate compass heading with a timer and .... BINGO.

Do you think that because you don't see this sort of thing down at Radio Shack, they don't exist, or can't be built?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>I'll believe it when it happens Yama

No, you won't.  You're like those Moon Loonies and Flat Earth Fools; no proof will ever suffice because you obviously 'know' it's impossible.   

It was done to death in berrybullshitters gryo rant...

You have to understand that he KNOWS everything and is blinded by this knowledge.

Do not waste time with him he cannot see past his own knowledge...


BTW block list works very well for the antipodean ........

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 28 2010, 10:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Aren't there "assaults" usually preceded by rumours of rule changes?

Yes,your reply would seem to hold some water.

Actually, you'd need two axes on a bike since leaning over shifts yaw travel into the pitch plane. Likewise, going up or down a hill while turning bleeds pitch rate into the other two axes. Better make it a full 3 axis system and add a little more smarts to the uController. It's all no biggie at any rate.

If you're worried about 'drift,' don't be. Gyros are more than accurate enough to hold within a fraction of a degree over the time it takes to run a race. Compensating for Earth Rate is a little trickier, but not rocket science. If you're out of pre-rocket-scientist programmers, just have the rider push a button once a lap to re-zero everything....

Or use the sector wand to do it for you...maybe. I think sector by sector programming is probably more common and sure they want meter by meter control.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geonerd @ Mar 1 2010, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Actually, you'd need two axes on a bike since leaning over shifts yaw travel into the pitch plane. Likewise, going up or down a hill while turning bleeds pitch rate into the other two axes. Better make it a full 3 axis system and add a little more smarts to the uController. It's all no biggie at any rate.

If you're worried about 'drift,' don't be. Gyros are more than accurate enough to hold within a fraction of a degree over the time it takes to run a race. Compensating for Earth Rate is a little trickier, but not rocket science. If you're out of pre-rocket-scientist programmers, just have the rider push a button once a lap to re-zero everything....
All three axes is the only way to go. Remember the bike can wheelie on exit from a corner whilst not yet upright. Also the rear wheel comes off the ground during heavy braking. Hence p, q & r are all essential to work out the attitude when on two wheels.

Regarding "drift", gyros can, and do, get confused by rapid direction changes, hence the system of correcting the attitude back towards the tilts used in the SFD. None of this is rocket science though, as you correctly point out.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Geonerd @ Mar 1 2010, 05:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>No, you won't.  You're like those Moon Loonies and Flat Earth Fools; no proof will ever suffice because you obviously 'know' it's impossible.   

So you are saying that despite all non-this forum evidence, I should go out and believe you guys can provide me with a gyro based system that will allow me to accurately map where my bike is in space ( bearing in mid the types of resolutions we would be dealing with ).

Show me a valid article, other than the posts of our esteemed forum experts ( whom have never been deluded in the past ) that shows such a system is up and running.

Fruitcakes

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 2 2010, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Show me a valid article, other than the posts of our esteemed forum experts ( whom have never been deluded in the past ) that shows such a system is up and running.
Show us a valid video, or something other than your semi-coherent ramblings (which have never been deluded in the past ) that shows you backing in a 748s, on a public road using no downshifting or brake modulation.

Same same, no?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Mick D @ Mar 2 2010, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Show us a valid video, or something other than your semi-coherent ramblings (which have never been deluded in the past ) that shows you backing in a 748s, on a public road using no downshifting or brake modulation.

Same same, no?

I did post a picky of myself sliding, ( I can again if you like ) but its been removed by the moderators, as was half the thread . Not the Duc, but I will still affirm that I have "backed in" a 749S if you like. I have no qualms at all saying it, and again ascert that its all too easy on said 749

Well in the abscence of information on your " Gyro Mapping system" or even the existence of one, all I can assume is that since you all think its such a great system, it'll be out there for me to see in real life soon

In the meantime ........ I shall believe the explanations on problems with gyros, till I see otherwise


Anyway Mick where's the picky of you sliding ? Do you do what Arab says? ie. initiate a slide with the rear brake or downshifting?

DO NOT FEED THE TROOLS.

Where's that spray can.
I've been speculating in this direction before but it's clearer than ever that this just a troll.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 2 2010, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So you are saying that despite all non-this forum evidence, I should go out and believe you guys can provide me with a gyro based system that will allow me to accurately map where my bike is in space ( bearing in mid the types of resolutions we would be dealing with ).

Show me a valid article, other than the posts of our esteemed forum experts ( whom have never been deluded in the past ) that shows such a system is up and running.

Fruitcakes
Hardly just a "forum expert" Barry and, to the best of my knowledge, I have never been shown to be deluded on this forum in the past.

Being a real expert with inertial systems and having the ability to produce accurate attitude information from them has kept me in the manner to which I have become accustomed for the last 6 years.

The tone of your posts is deliberately patronising, regardless of the fact that I have attempted to pass on my genuine knowledge of a system which deals with gyro drift. This "problem" was your original reasoning as to why a gyro system could not be accurate.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 2 2010, 03:58 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well in the abscence of information on your " Gyro Mapping system" or even the existence of one, all I can assume is that since you all think its such a great system, it'll be out there for me to see in real life soon

In the meantime ........ I shall believe the explanations on problems with gyros, till I see otherwise
I have provided lots of information on how a gyro mapping system could and would work. I have also repeatedly explained that it would not be economically viable due to the fact that GPS is available.

Where have you provided information as to the credibility of your "knowledge" that drift cannot be corrected by suitable software algorithms? Provide me with a link detailing why gyros cannot be corrected for drift, or indeed any other "known" insoluble gyro issues.

I have provided a link to the Meggitt SFD which obviously (given the nature of an SFD) is capable of accurate attitude information despite the inaccurracies of the sensors. As I said, magic pill == software.

To be brutally honest, if you seriously cannot understand how a system capable of accurately calculating attitude in real time can be easily (in terms of the advanced electronics currently on MotoGP bikes) modified to determine where a bike is on a track, then you quite clearly do not view things as an engineer would, and so I may as well give up now.

Up to you, as the Thais say.

Barry is like crack to some people.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Mar 3 2010, 09:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Barry is like crack to some people.


7 words that sum it up perfectly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 12:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'> 7 words that sum it up perfectly.
People on here are probably mostly not familiar with the monty python argument sketch.

Do you have any actual reasons why yamaka is wrong about gyros, and can you point to anything he has said in this thread that brings into question him being an aeronautical engineer ? Whilst I am no engineer, his explanations seem very rational to me in keeping with his posts in general, which is the only way I know of assessing people's credibility or claims to expertise on here.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 10:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>People on here are probably mostly not familiar with the monty python argument sketch.

Do you have any actual reasons why yamaka is wrong about gyros, and can you point to anything he has said in this thread that brings into question him being an aeronautical engineer ? Whilst I am no engineer, his explanations seem very rational to me in keeping with his posts in general, which is the only way I know of assessing people's credibility or claims to expertise on here.

I am not questioning Yamaka's credentials at all I really don't care what he is.

I have asked, about the system. And because he provided some data are you saying thats it? its good enough?

You can compensate lots of things with software but in the end, its just not feasible. There are many factors here, but from what I have read the resolution on such systems is not capable of a high accuracy ositionng system ( I would have thought such a system needs to get below 10m accuracy )

And because of the drift problem it would need a regular recalibration.

I ask you, could such a system guide a helicopter to land on a specific spot on the track with all other instruments inaccesible to the pilot? Not guide it to a specific bearing but actually place it at a spot?

In the end its just not good enough for the job, and ........ why bother when other systems provide a better result, far cheaper, and without the very high dependence on a regular recalibration. Because thats what I have been led to believe is wrong with it all.

Have a look at some of the work done with self guided/driving cars ........ why is such a system not used there?

The system they need should be able to tell you at which corner it is, Yamaka has said it can be done, then why isn't it? I believe the need to do expensive software to compensate for known problems in the system render it not a feasible system. Especially when you consider GPS is out there and the receivers that could well do the job are even sub AU$100 and they are the size of a matchbox. And thats just what a layman can get hold off, its not even a dedicated unit.


Again ...... I ask you where are these systems? or even something used in a simillar situation?
Ask youself ....Why?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 12:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I am not questioning Yamaka's credentials at all I really don't care what he is.

I have asked, about the system. And because he provided some data are you saying thats it? its good enough?

You can compensate lots of things with software but in the end, its just not feasible. There are many factors here, but from what I have read the resolution on such systems is not capable of a high accuracy ositionng system ( I would have thought such a system needs to get below 10m accuracy )

And because of the drift problem it would need a regular recalibration.

I ask you, could such a system guide a helicopter to land on a specific spot on the track with all other instruments inaccesible to the pilot? Not guide it to a specific bearing but actually place it at a spot?

In the end its just not good enough for the job, and ........ why bother when other systems provide a better result, far cheaper, and without the very high dependence on a regular recalibration. Because thats what I have been led to believe is wrong with it all.

Have a look at some of the work done with self guided/driving cars ........ why is such a system not used there?

The system they need should be able to tell you at which corner it is, Yamaka has said it can be done, then why isn't it? I believe the need to do expensive software to compensate for known problems in the system render it not a feasible system. Especially when you consider GPS is out there and the receivers that could well do the job are even sub AU$100 and they are the size of a matchbox. And thats just what a layman can get hold off, its not even a dedicated unit.


Again ...... I ask you where are these systems? or even something used in a simillar situation?
Ask youself ....Why?
Again, I am no engineer, but I did realise that your basic argument was that if it could be done it would already have been done, but this argument could be raised against any innovation in history prior to its introduction, and you have actually repeated yamakas argument that there is no need to try it in motogp given that it can already be done with gps systems already on the bike, and the situation under discussion is I would have thought fairly unique. It is admittedly hard to argue against the burden of explanation as to why something theoretical is feasible falling on those saying it is feasible rather than those saying it is not.

I am not sure how precise things need to be just to get engine mapping to suit the track position to some extent, and certainly even a fairly imprecise system would seem to be a significant advance on building different engines to suit different tracks as they reputedly did in the old days.

I have also accepted yamaka's argument, and a similar argument previously made by babel, that a similar system does work in aviation in what would seem to me to be a far more complex situation than repetitions of a known fairly short course essentially in one less dimension than applies in aviation.