Interesting Read: Rookies, TC, 800s, fuel

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 29 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The stoner vs rossi thing may become only of historical interest in any case if pedrosa and lorenzo continue in their current vein; I think stoner's title defence is basically over if he doesn't win except by misadventure in china.

Well when you think of it there was no Stoner V's Rossi ast year ..... Maybe Pedrosa V's Rossi and Stoner a runaway ..... but yeah thats all a thing of the past already .... such is the pace of modern life

Its Pedrosa v's Lorenzo this year

And maybe this year could more realistically be seen as the Rossi v's Stoner year.

07 Rossi v's Stoner

08 its looking like it ..... but so far they are fighting for the scraps

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 29 2008, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Road bikes are, however, marketed on max power - look at the Hyabusa and the Blackbird before it. So what exactly is this focus on fuel efficiency "relevant" to?

By default fuel efficiency means power in motogp's case ....... sure anyone can make a powerful motor but can they make it have the power where it is needed to make it win a GP .... thats what GP's are after.

The power comes from fuel ...... the winner would have bike that minimises losses and gains most power in a useable fashion.

But they aren't after just efficiency ........ for that the sppeds would be lower and development would be on finding the best spped to cut through the air at ( probably about 30km/h). By limitting the fuel the formula dictates that the manufacturer must know how to extract as much power as possible from the fuel.

Its like when engines had to run on unleaded ... the octane rating dropped .... but the winner was us because engines got better ...... then if you feed the new engines the high octane fuel ..... even better.

The fuel limitataion is merely saying, limit your loses/inefficiencies, but turn that energy once wasted into more/better power.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 29 2008, 02:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>By default fuel efficiency means power in motogp's case ....... sure anyone can make a powerful motor but can they make it have the power where it is needed to make it win a GP .... thats what GP's are after.

The power comes from fuel ...... the winner would have bike that minimises losses and gains most power in a useable fashion.

But they aren't after just efficiency ........ for that the sppeds would be lower and development would be on finding the best spped to cut through the air at ( probably about 30km/h). By limitting the fuel the formula dictates that the manufacturer must know how to extract as much power as possible from the fuel.

Its like when engines had to run on unleaded ... the octane rating dropped .... but the winner was us because engines got better ...... then if you feed the new engines the high octane fuel ..... even better.

The fuel limitataion is merely saying, limit your loses/inefficiencies, but turn that energy once wasted into more/better power.
Even if if the fuel restriction rule is shadow rather than substance in terms of promoting technological advance regarding fuel economy (which I don't necessarily agree with), in the current climate both political and otherwise I can't see them abandoning it; like F1 they are likely to go for further "green" initiatives whether symbolic or not.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 28 2008, 11:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not if it runs out of fuel.



your comedy skills are poor tom....

stick to being a knob, its what you do best.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 29 2008, 01:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I googled and couldn't find any evidence for your quote.
I did find this - not really fly-by-wire is it?
"(In 2004) HRC introduced the Honda Intelligent Throttle Control System, a semimechanical/electronic forerunner to the now-common fly-by-wire throttle systems on MotoGP bikes. The twist-grip throttle cables rotated a throttle linkage shaft attached to a tiny planetary gear setup controlled by an ECU-actuated servo motor. The system would modify the amount of throttle-valve movement according to the gear selected, preventing excessive power in the lower gears. However, it was widely rumored that many of the Honda riders disliked the system, complaining that it affected the engine power too much."

LINK


Again not really fly-by-wire, ie full electronic control of 2 or more throttle plates is it? I never said that simple cables were all that was around in 2004.


Can't even find an XRE-03 Suzuki if I google this? The 990 was designated as GSV-R


Again, I can't find anything that states this.
I did find this on Yamaha's website though
3199:yamaha.gif]
LINK


Yep, I'd forgotten the Cube, but as Edwards said the response from its fly-by-wire throttle system was "unpredictable", so not quite up to todays standards.

Sorry i wasn't clear enough in stating that all of those quotes came from niel spalding's motogp technology book. You may not consider all of those systems to be traditional fly by wire, but i told you that the rider didn't completely control his throttle in 2004 and was correct. Most teams removed total rider throttle control in 03.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 29 2008, 01:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The focus on efficiency forced into Motogp is extremely unlikely to make its way onto production bikes. Bikes are not marketed on their fuel efficiency against one another, so why would the manufacturers bother. Think of the expense of fitting pneumatic valves to road bikes.

Road bikes are, however, marketed on max power - look at the Hyabusa and the Blackbird before it. So what exactly is this focus on fuel efficiency "relevant" to?


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 29 2008, 03:20 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>By default fuel efficiency means power in motogp's case ....... sure anyone can make a powerful motor but can they make it have the power where it is needed to make it win a GP .... thats what GP's are after.


The fuel limitataion is merely saying, limit your loses/inefficiencies, but turn that energy once wasted into more/better power.

Exactly. The limit centres importance on making th most of the resources available and minimising losses, both things i consider positives.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Apr 29 2008, 07:25 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>

your comedy skills are poor tom....

stick to being a knob, its what you do best.



I wasn't joking, the most efficient bike is the one that uses its allocated fuel the best, if bikes are running out of fuel then it's not necessarily the fastest one. Without the fuel limit of course bikes can easily be the fastest without being the most efficient, just by running around with more fuel to burn.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 29 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I wasn't joking, the most efficient bike is the one that uses its allocated fuel the best, if bikes are running out of fuel then it's not necessarily the fastest one. Without the fuel limit of course bikes can easily be the fastest without being the most efficient, just by running around with more fuel to burn.

ok tom, you win...i have no more desire to "discuss" this line of reasoning with you...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Apr 29 2008, 10:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>ok tom, you win...i have no more desire to "discuss" this line of reasoning with you...

I'm glad you understand

And i know i was being pedantic

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 29 2008, 08:22 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sorry i wasn't clear enough in stating that all of those quotes came from niel spalding's motogp technology book. You may not consider all of those systems to be traditional fly by wire, but i told you that the rider didn't completely control his throttle in 2004 and was correct. Most teams removed total rider throttle control in 03.
Hmmm, definitely not fly-by-wire, which was the element under discussion, but pedantic is as pedantic does.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 29 2008, 03:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hmmm, definitely not fly-by-wire, which was the element under discussion, but pedantic is as pedantic does.

Well the point you wanted to discuss was "The rider was not completely controlling the throttle in 2004". I supported this statement with evidence that all significant teams were electronically controlling throttle position to optimise traction at that point. It may not be ride by wire systems as we know them now but it certainly is a rider who does not have full throttle control due to electronic systems.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 29 2008, 04:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Well the point you wanted to discuss was "The rider was not completely controlling the throttle in 2004". I supported this statement with evidence that all significant teams were electronically controlling throttle position to optimise traction at that point. It may not be ride by wire systems as we know them now but it certainly is a rider who does not have full throttle control due to electronic systems.
OK, I'll bite.

I actually asked (ie the point I wanted to discuss)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 28 2008, 12:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What makes you think that fly by wire throttles appeared in 2004?
You responded with the following quotes to prove that Suzuki and Yamaha had fly by wire throttles by 2003/4
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 28 2008, 06:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>"That motorcycle, the XRE-03 also came with a full electronic package, including ride by wire throttle" - Suzuki 2003

"they most certainly changed to a full webber marelli system at Le Mans 2004. This system has gone on to become the definitive ride by wire system" - Yamaha 2004

" Aprilia were very proud of this system, developed with help from three northern italian universities, because with its compact design and the manner in which it was quickly adapted to become the first true ride by wire system fitted to a motogp racing motorcycle" - Aprilia 2002
I apologised for forgetting the Cube.
I provided proof positive that Yamaha did not claim to have fly-by-wire until 2005 with a link to their web site.
I found no evidence of Suzuki even having made a bike called the XRE-03 or even having electronic throttle control before 2006, but Suzukis early attempts at electronics were a bit woeful, so maybe that's why.

Anyway, as you can see we were both discussing fly-by-wire at one point.

What is it precisely some don't like about an electronic coupling from the throttle to the butterflys/slide anyway?

Mechanical cables can be made not linear anyway and mechanical means put in to give differing throttle feels. Would these means be objected to?? As an example I can remember say pre 70 dirt bikes twistgrips all had a relatively small barrelled cable drum and the hand would do about 90 degrees to give full throttle ... the advent of the larger diameter cable drums made things so much better, it didn't matter about then sensitivity loss as thw two strokes were pretty much ridden throttle full open or off ..... could they have been seen as a rider enhancement?

The fact is mechanical means can be made to give a form of engine mapping, electronics is merely the currently most efficient way of doing it.

If you are saying "it must be direct throttle control" ..... then would then some of those old mechanical means of throttle pull be ok? Should all riders have a standard twistgrip to butterfly setup? ........ its all sounding pretty wacky to me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Apr 30 2008, 12:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The fact is mechanical means can be made to give a form of engine mapping, electronics is merely the currently most efficient way of doing it.
As I keep saying, it's not the hardware that's the issue. It's the fact that the hardware can be tuned by the software to the point where the throttle butterflies/slides may have no relationship what-so-ever to the amount of throttle being demanded by the riders right wrist.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 30 2008, 10:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>to the point where the throttle butterflies/slides may have no relationship what-so-ever to the amount of throttle being demanded by the riders right wrist.


No relationship!!?? ........ thats crackpot





I would say now more than ever does the rider know what the engine is going to do/is expected to do when he uses the throttle ........ thats what electronics are about.

Why are you continuing with these obvious throw away lines? They are a technical absurdity!!

I made the following statement about the technology in 2004

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tom @ Apr 28 2008, 12:04 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The rider was not completely controlling the throttle in 2004

You then labelled that technology ride by wire, and denied its existance at this point.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 28 2008, 01:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Not true. What makes you think that fly by wire throttles appeared in 2004?

I provided evidence to support my statement and in return you alter your qualification of ride by wire to include a minimum number of throttle butterflies to be electronically controlled.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 26 2008, 08:35 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>IMHO, all this importance given to electronics is fully justified, but also exaggerated.

The biggest factor to reduce lap times in the last 10 years in GP motorcycling
hasn't been the electronics. Not even the bikes themselves.
It's been the TYRES.

The demonstration, as someone suggested, is the impressive qualification times
obtained when almost all electronic aids are switched off. That's 70% tyres. And 30% rider.

Electronics are very useful in ONE area: to help the tyres last the race.
That is where electronics can really make a difference. Not in obtaining fast lap times.

I even think that the old 500cc 2-strokes, if equipped with the present generation of tyres,
woul obtain lap times still very close to the current ones,
- of course it would also take an excellent rider.

Electronics help in obtaining more consistent lap times across the whole race. Yes.
So they do help in winning races, but can never transform an average rider in
a champion.

The talk that with TC you can slam the throttle open,
and the TC will take care of everything,
is most probably a myth. At least for now


I totally agree with you..it's all abt tire..development of tire technology and with the tire war btwn bridgestones and michelin has helped this further..

Electronics and computer has made it easier for the rider to control the bike, they can simulate and set at different tracks how much the fuel to use at what bike angle when accelerating and what rpm during decelerating..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (yamaka46 @ Apr 30 2008, 01:05 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I found no evidence of Suzuki even having made a bike called the XRE-03 or even having electronic throttle control before 2006, but Suzukis early attempts at electronics were a bit woeful, so maybe that's why.

For some reason, I don't know what to say about this.

I recall Suzuki naming their GSV-R's it, but Google shows no trace of that. Infact I SWEAR I remember a bike called the XRE-

Proof Google does not solve all?!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Apr 30 2008, 10:06 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>For some reason, I don't know what to say about this.

I recall Suzuki naming their GSV-R's it, but Google shows no trace of that. Infact I SWEAR I remember a bike called the XRE-

Proof Google does not solve all?!
Google I'm feeling lucky result for suzuki xre is http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16052007/58/...p-jobs-day.html

So no proof against google yet...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Apr 30 2008, 05:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Google I'm feeling lucky result for suzuki xre is http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/16052007/58/...p-jobs-day.html

So no proof against google yet...

Oh fuckcakes...

XRE-03 brings up nothing relevant, so I was half right.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (phleg @ Apr 30 2008, 05:06 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Proof Google does not solve all?!

Perhaps not, but Wikipedia often comes in handy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSV-R

This site states the XRE-3 was the 05 bike, but having re-read the quote i provided earlier i get the impression the refference to the XRE-03 meant the 2003 edition of the XRE motorcycle. If that is not enough for anyone reading i have a quote from Kunio Arese who was head of engine development at Suzuki talking about the 2005 bike. "We still have the same ride-by-wire system on the bikes as was on the XRE-1" (the 2003 bike).