Joined Sep 2007
2K Posts | 60+
here
I hope that Chris (who is Leon Haslam's Crew chief for 2008 and was Jonathan Rae's last season) won't mind me hijacking this from another forum.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As many people on this forum have already discussed traction control seems to have a fairly open definition.
I will try and briefly(maybe not so brief) explain the common strategies in a MotoGP (and increasingly WSB) ECU. I should explain that as far as I am aware most manufacturers give full control of two cylinders to the rider. This is to get a positive throttle connection feeling to the rear tyre, otherwise it can give the feeling of being connected by an elastic band(the rider input does not match the ECU ouput). The other two cylinders are controlled by the ECU. You can be sure though that they are working to full ECU control of the engine for the future.
You have:
Traction control: Takes information from various sources including RPM, throttle position sensor, GPS, gyroscope and gear position sensor. From this information the ECU can determine which corner it is at, the speed of the machine, the lean angle of the machine, the gear position and RPM. From this info it will determine an optimum level of acceleration. This is all fixed mathematics with little window of flexibility hence the need for a 'mode' switch to allow different levels of TC at various stages of the race. The ECU is reset every lap by the lap timer to allow for any lap distance error that occurs(from overtaking or more likely taking a slightly different line etc).
Anti wheelie: This determines the attitude of the bike on the exit of a corner. It can be controlled by suspension stroke sensors and will back the throttle off according to the bikes attitude exiting the corner.
Braking control: This keeps the wheels in line during braking by letting the throttle match the front and rear wheel speed, it also determines the amount of throttle blip on the backshift. Sometimes Toni Elias' mechanics appear to forget to program this part of the ECU.
Launch control: This holds the RPM constant regardless of throttle position and allows the rider to concentrate on releasing the clutch. The level of contol is such that riders can pretty much just dump the clutch and go.
All these systems rely heavily on the use of a stepper motor (fly by wire) on the throttle, to control at least half of the engine. They also rely on the lap timer to reset themselves each lap to allow for distance calculation errors that would accumalate without it. By banning ECU controlled throttle position and isolating the lap timer system you would go some way to giving greater control back to the rider.
Things like having a different power map for each gear position, mode switches etc are a form of traction control but not the intrusive kind that we currently see. To give you an idea this technology has been on GP bikes since the late eighties and no-one complained about it then!
To me if you consider engine mapping as a form of traction control then you have to consider the rear shock spring also as a form of traction control as this will certainly determine your level of traction.
Hope this helps in the great debate. I have tried to explain how it is implemented it's now up to you guys to decide what is and what isn't acceptable TC now!
Happy slating each other and Happy New Year!
CP
also he answer the following question:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The technical part of TC is important and if CP can clarify what it is exactly that would be good info, but just as important is the sporting dilemma TC causes, which I think boils down to two things: 1) does TC take the rider too far out of the equation? 2) does it make the racing more processional? If the answer to 1 and 2 is mostly "yes", the result is boring racing which we had plenty of this year. One more year like this one and even the Stoner fans will be clamoring for a control ECU.
with
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The technical part is interesting from an engineering point of view but has now been developed to such an extent that its advantages that can be handed down to road users are now largely irrelevant, not unlike the situation in F1. To make the systems user friendly for road use will take an entirely different line of developement. My personal take on it is yes to both your questions. There is not the need for a control ECU, just a few pieces of equipment need removing from the equation. They will never completely ban TC but they can make it less intrusive.
To see the whole thread which includes excellent and simple answers from Chris to many posters' queries, follow the LINK
I love his simple answer to how to control it all - direct throttle and stop the bike knowing where it is on the track. No need for a control ECU, which the manufacturers hate. Now we just need to tell Dorna....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>As many people on this forum have already discussed traction control seems to have a fairly open definition.
I will try and briefly(maybe not so brief) explain the common strategies in a MotoGP (and increasingly WSB) ECU. I should explain that as far as I am aware most manufacturers give full control of two cylinders to the rider. This is to get a positive throttle connection feeling to the rear tyre, otherwise it can give the feeling of being connected by an elastic band(the rider input does not match the ECU ouput). The other two cylinders are controlled by the ECU. You can be sure though that they are working to full ECU control of the engine for the future.
You have:
Traction control: Takes information from various sources including RPM, throttle position sensor, GPS, gyroscope and gear position sensor. From this information the ECU can determine which corner it is at, the speed of the machine, the lean angle of the machine, the gear position and RPM. From this info it will determine an optimum level of acceleration. This is all fixed mathematics with little window of flexibility hence the need for a 'mode' switch to allow different levels of TC at various stages of the race. The ECU is reset every lap by the lap timer to allow for any lap distance error that occurs(from overtaking or more likely taking a slightly different line etc).
Anti wheelie: This determines the attitude of the bike on the exit of a corner. It can be controlled by suspension stroke sensors and will back the throttle off according to the bikes attitude exiting the corner.
Braking control: This keeps the wheels in line during braking by letting the throttle match the front and rear wheel speed, it also determines the amount of throttle blip on the backshift. Sometimes Toni Elias' mechanics appear to forget to program this part of the ECU.
Launch control: This holds the RPM constant regardless of throttle position and allows the rider to concentrate on releasing the clutch. The level of contol is such that riders can pretty much just dump the clutch and go.
All these systems rely heavily on the use of a stepper motor (fly by wire) on the throttle, to control at least half of the engine. They also rely on the lap timer to reset themselves each lap to allow for distance calculation errors that would accumalate without it. By banning ECU controlled throttle position and isolating the lap timer system you would go some way to giving greater control back to the rider.
Things like having a different power map for each gear position, mode switches etc are a form of traction control but not the intrusive kind that we currently see. To give you an idea this technology has been on GP bikes since the late eighties and no-one complained about it then!
To me if you consider engine mapping as a form of traction control then you have to consider the rear shock spring also as a form of traction control as this will certainly determine your level of traction.
Hope this helps in the great debate. I have tried to explain how it is implemented it's now up to you guys to decide what is and what isn't acceptable TC now!
Happy slating each other and Happy New Year!
CP
also he answer the following question:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The technical part of TC is important and if CP can clarify what it is exactly that would be good info, but just as important is the sporting dilemma TC causes, which I think boils down to two things: 1) does TC take the rider too far out of the equation? 2) does it make the racing more processional? If the answer to 1 and 2 is mostly "yes", the result is boring racing which we had plenty of this year. One more year like this one and even the Stoner fans will be clamoring for a control ECU.
with
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The technical part is interesting from an engineering point of view but has now been developed to such an extent that its advantages that can be handed down to road users are now largely irrelevant, not unlike the situation in F1. To make the systems user friendly for road use will take an entirely different line of developement. My personal take on it is yes to both your questions. There is not the need for a control ECU, just a few pieces of equipment need removing from the equation. They will never completely ban TC but they can make it less intrusive.
To see the whole thread which includes excellent and simple answers from Chris to many posters' queries, follow the LINK
I love his simple answer to how to control it all - direct throttle and stop the bike knowing where it is on the track. No need for a control ECU, which the manufacturers hate. Now we just need to tell Dorna....
