ducati patents semi-monocoque motogp frame for roadbbikes

<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.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Again, I am no engineer,
I'm aware of this, and correct me if I am wrong you have suggested that you are a lawyer?

Now I'm no lawyer, but correct me again if I'm wrong, however, isn't the underlying premise to which the law operates/makes its judgements ... "greatest happiness of the greatest number"?
Which is lovely ( and you seem to exuce it well in your posts ), but is no t a good means/ideology to make engineering decisions.
I know this is a forum, however I think perhaps you are applying an argument based on "greatest happiness of the greatest number". And would say that this is always going to have somebody popping up and saying "but hey no, that isn't right" ....... in this case ...... thats me


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>but I did realise that your basic argument was that if it could be done it would already have been done, but this argument

No my basic argument is that such systems are inherently inaccurate and unreliable, and in order to make them accurate, an inordinate amount of extra work/equipment must be done to contantly check they are reading/operating within an acceptable tolerance.
Yamaka has suggested that this he could do with software, which I'm sure he could, however again there are some questions. How accurate does he believe he could get such a system?
I know in my experience with getting accuracy via an electronic device it pretty much translates to "how much time do you want to take to get enough readings to calculate an accepably accurate readout?" and given he is proposing that it is for a MGP bike that changes direction and speed rapidly and frequently ......... is it feasible? (given that the base accuracy of such devices is so broad)

even Wiki can provide a lovely diagram that gives you the idea here:




<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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

Yes well as I have historically complained to Babel on here, there is "what I disagree with" and "what Babel says I disagree with" two quite distinct things ........ the initial discussion was "whether a gyroscopic device could be used to ..... "

I took the contrary view to Babel on the matter of Gyroscopic devices. ( But hey. I'm sure if we drag this out enough they may come out with one good enough )



GPS is another matter.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I am not sure how precise things need to be just to get engine mapping to suit the track position to some extent

Then on what basis are you arguing against me ? other than "greatest happiness of the greatest number"

which I am not a real fan of



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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.

Accept away then my dear man!
I think I have made it quite clear that I would need a bit more convincing

And would ask again, is such a system capable of the resolutions needed?

If Yamaka says yes, contrary to other information I have seen, then I guess this is where you all need t make an engineering decision based on ........

"greatest happiness of the greatest number"

which given that I suspect no harm can come from such a decision ....... I have no worries with


Unlike getting on a public forum and possibly telling some little kids to practice "backing in" a bike with the use of the rear brake and downshifting ......... which as I have pointed out ....... both myself, and at least one other "rider/slider", feel is a dangerous practice
I know that if some little kid should get on here and read that and come "a cropper" .... he/she will not be thinking much about whats wrong with the ideology ...... "greatest happiness of the greatest number"

But it certainly seems the greatest number does not agree with me meh, its a pretty normal teaching situation wouldn't you say? so maybe Rog. is right on that when he suggest I can give lessons on "backin it in" ( meh, I've done that before )

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Mar 3 2010, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>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)


You don't think they would need a little more than altitude do you? Matter of fact I would have thought that altitude for a GP bike was somewhat moot?

Whats the accuracy like for Lat./Log. ( or however you want to describe say the X and Y axis data )

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 02:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm aware of this, and correct me if I am wrong you have suggested that you are a lawyer?

Now I'm no lawyer, but correct me again if I'm wrong, however, isn't the underlying premise to which the law operates/makes its judgements ... "greatest happiness of the greatest number"?
Which is lovely ( and you seem to exuce it well in your posts ), but is no t a good means/ideology to make engineering decisions.
I know this is a forum, however I think perhaps you are applying an argument based on "greatest happiness of the greatest number". And would say that this is always going to have somebody popping up and saying "but hey no, that isn't right" ....... in this case ...... thats me
You may be confusing me with andy roo which I take as a compliment . I am a doctor actually, and how much of a contribution we make to human happiness gets into philosophical territory which is also probably not very relevant to engineering, but I am hopeful that I have helped some people over the years.

The one part of my previous post you did not quote was my acknowledgement that the onus is on those arguing that something theoretical is technically feasible to make the case rather than those opposing their view.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 03:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You don't think they would need a little more than altitude do you? Matter of fact I would have thought that altitude for a GP bike was somewhat moot?

Whats the accuracy like for Lat./Log. ( or however you want to describe say the X and Y axis data )
I again speak from ignorance, but is attitude the same as altitude?.

I love the way Ducati are so innovative and don't just follow the main stream when it comes to building motorcycles.

The Japs just build the same thing over and over. There is so little innovation these days it is more just evolution. Big props to Ducati if they do this.

In the dirt bike world Husaberg flipped their engine around and tilted it forward to put the rotating mass into the center of gravity. BMW combined the front sprocket and suspension pivot point to remove the engine via chain effect on suspension action. These 2 things are hugely innovative and will have big impact on the mainstream in the years ahead.

The monocoque chassis could do the same for road bikes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I again speak from ignorance, but is attitude the same as altitude?.

Attitude is such things as lean and tilt

Altitude is i most cases the height above sea level.

My argument with Babel was that gyros, are not good for finding a position on a track, which for example could be resolves as a latitude and longitude. Not altitude or attitude.

Attitude is easy with a gyro no argument there .... though there are more cost effective options out there these days.

Altitude ........ not really what I imagine they'd need.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Mar 3 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>In the dirt bike world Husaberg flipped their engine around and tilted it forward to put the rotating mass into the center of gravity.

That one really works. Have had a FE570 for the last 3 or 4 months and I'd have to say its the best dirt machine ever. Just does everything so perfect, almost boringly too perfect at times


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TP70 @ Mar 3 2010, 02:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>BMW combined the front sprocket and suspension pivot point to remove the engine via chain effect on suspension action. These 2 things are hugely innovative and will have big impact on the mainstream in the years ahead.

I thought ATK tried this years ago? and it kinda flopped.



Re the Ducati: Is the monocoque frame idea that new?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Attitude is such things as lean and tilt

Altitude is i most cases the height above sea level.

My argument with Babel was that gyros, are not good for finding a position on a track, which for example could be resolves as a latitude and longitude. Not altitude or attitude.

Attitude is easy with a gyro no argument there .... though there are more cost effective options out there these days.

Altitude ........ not really what I imagine they'd need.
I was being a little facetious, as I did know attitude and altitude are different; yamaka actually referred to attitude not altitude.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Mar 3 2010, 07:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I was being a little facetious, as I did know attitude and altitude are different; yamaka actually referred to attitude not altitude.

Well then what is he arguing with me about

Attitude is the domain of gyro systems ( no argument there ) ............ position is another question, and I have repeated that question several times.


I think the problem here is so many are prepared to jump into the discussion, for any reason other than the question at hand ......... because BarryMachine said it is perhaps the saddest reason, and as GS has pointed out "its like crack"

an I think others are getting roped in on "not quite honest and complete" information. I have made it very clear always I am reffering to positon on track, not attitude. I think Babel started to steer the discussion toward "attitude" when he realised position was perhaps not the domain of gyros.
And thats where we were at last time ........ Babel trying to cover his tracks

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 03:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Mar 3 2010, 03:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>
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)

You don't think they would need a little more than altitude do you? Matter of fact I would have thought that altitude for a GP bike was somewhat moot?

Whats the accuracy like for Lat./Log. ( or however you want to describe say the X and Y axis data )

Quite obviously altitude has nothing to do with the discussion, and nor do Lat/Long. The inertial part of the SFD (only part relevant to the discussion) measures attitude - nothing else. It is not used to determine Lat/Long which are not used for flying except VFR where maps and the mk1 eyeball are used!

I'm sure I'm teaching you to suck eggs, but your reference to altitude (which I have obviously never referred to) has left me unsure. The attitude of a vehicle is its orientation with respect to a defined frame of reference. There are 3 axes - roll, p; pitch, q; and yaw, r.

As I keep repeating, the accuracy of solid state laser gyros plus associated software are sufficient to fly aircraft on. If the roll gyro was detecting even a small roll to the left of 0.1deg/sec, for example, and this was fed to the display then the display would show the aircraft inverted within 30 minutes despite it flying straight and level. Obviously, if the pilot were to "correct" for the erroneous roll rate then the display would show zero roll, but within 30 minutes the aircraft would be inverted. This does not happen, so you can be assured that the accuracy of the attitude information available from a gyro/accelerometer/tilt inertial sensor pack and associated software is more than sufficient to give positioning accuracy at the very least as good as that available using GPS. All that is required to convert the attitude data to engine map selection is an electronic odometer and a look-up table detailing the corners, distance between them, together with the lean angle direction and extents for the particular track.

BTW, most consumer GPS units claim an accuracy of about +/-10m, but the actual accuracy depends on how long the occupation time required to achieve the claimed accuracy actually is. Systems that tout high accuracy are only able to achieve this after a stationary occupation of at least several minutes, which is obviously no use for bikes.

VOR, DME, TACAN etc from your Wiki diagram are all navigation aids which do not use gyros at all, rather VHF radio. They allow the aircraft to travel within air corridors which are quite wide due to the inherent inaccuracy of a radio system. The direction part of it (stopping planes colliding head on) is dealt with by flying at odd 1000ft for 0..89.9°, odd 1000s +500ft for 90..179.9°, even 1000ft for 180..269.9° and even 1000s +500ft for 270..359.9°. For this reason the accuracy of VOR/DME is sufficient for civil flying.

Oh Yamaka you are doing the same as Babel.

I have no argument on Attitude, as I have always pointed out.

But Babel originally said such a system could be used to find a position on a track by mapping it.

Nothing to do with attitude.

Attitude has just been a diversion of Babels

If you say you did not spell "altitude" instead of "attitude" then fine, I'm ok with that, but mainly because both are moot points with regard to the original discussion ........ can you use a gyro system to map a track? ( ie. as an accurate positioning system )

Do you know of such a system that has been/is being used for positioning accuracies that would be required?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 07:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Re the Ducati: Is the monocoque frame idea that new?


Not really, check out the MotoCzysz C1. It features a monocoque carbon fiber frame. It was built a couple years before the ducati GP9.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 08:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Attitude is such things as lean and tilt

Altitude is i most cases the height above sea level.

My argument with Babel was that gyros, are not good for finding a position on a track, which for example could be resolves as a latitude and longitude. Not altitude or attitude.

Attitude is easy with a gyro no argument there .... though there are more cost effective options out there these days.

Altitude ........ not really what I imagine they'd need.
Indeed, gyros are expensive. There are papers out there on dual vector systems which rely on GPS. However, I've yet to see a system available based on this, possibly due to the safety critical nature of aviation and the non-reliance on GPS that this engenders.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 06:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I thought ATK tried this years ago? and it kinda flopped.



Re the Ducati: Is the monocoque frame idea that new?

Not sure about either but one thing I am sure of is I am sick of threads drifting so far of topic due to a couple of people swinging their dicks around trying to prove who's is bigger.

What the .... has Ducati and Monocoque frames got to do with ....... gyro's. Start a new thread where you can just bore the crap out of each other rather than people who are interested in hearing thoughts on a possible a new direction for road bikes and its implications.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Mar 3 2010, 09:11 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Indeed, gyros are expensive. There are papers out there on dual vector systems which rely on GPS. However, I've yet to see a system available based on this, possibly due to the safety critical nature of aviation and the non-reliance on GPS that this engenders.

Ta.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 10:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Oh Yamaka you are doing the same as Babel.

I have no argument on Attitude, as I have always pointed out.

But Babel originally said such a system could be used to find a position on a track by mapping it.

Nothing to do with attitude.

Attitude has just been a diversion of Babels

If you say you did not spell "altitude" instead of "attitude" then fine, I'm ok with that, but mainly because both are moot points with regard to the original discussion ........ can you use a gyro system to map a track? ( ie. as an accurate positioning system )

Do you know of such a system that has been/is being used for positioning accuracies that would be required?
You say you have no argument with attitude and yet your original argument to which I responded was :
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You can't use gyros to find your position on a track ...... there I'll say it again. Nobody has cured the drift problem with gyros even today. I fyou think they have post the "magic story" showing so. from post #18 28th Feb.

How to use attitude to work out track position, from my post #43 two days ago :

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>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.

As to your last point - I will repeat once more - everyone uses GPS 'cos gyros are expensive.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Mar 3 2010, 09:52 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think the problem here is so many are prepared to jump into the discussion, for any reason other than the question at hand ......... because BarryMachine said it is perhaps the saddest reason, and as GS has pointed out "its like crack"
Barry, you are right that I shouldn't have jumped in particularly since he can clearly look after himself, but I was mainly prompted as I was with babel by you basically calling yamaka whom I respect a fruitcake, and I did want to point out that his argument seemed reasonable to this non-engineer. My flimsy grasp on the thing was that the track has a known configuration which the bike follows repititiously and that you could match the lean angles etc to this, which I think you both probably agree on although I am not entirely sure.

I don't think you are a troll at all, and I am sure you are a true enthusiast for bikes and bike racing and have experience of a great variety of them. The problem for concrete/linear thinkers like me is that you appear to argue and perhaps think more tangentially than I do, which is probably an advantage for what you do and no bad thing in general, but perhaps sometimes ends up with arguments not really being about the same thing for the respective involved parties.

Still not quite on the topic what do you think of ducati's carbon fibre direction with their motogp bike if not the roadbike in reference to which the thread was originally started? As far as I can tell the jury is still out. Do you think their chassis is still fundamentally flawed as some were claiming a few years ago?

Probably wouldn't be a bad thing to have altitude adjustment at Mugello.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Mar 10 2010, 02:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Probably wouldn't be a bad thing to have altitude adjustment at Mugello.

Are you trying to resurect some fun?

Just say the word and I can help