KTM accuses Honda of cheating

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Interesting. The categories have been accused of cheating before, usually dismissed as conspiracy, but KTM's accusation is potentially earth shattering, which is why I think nothing will come out conclusive. I just don't see Dorna letting the series be damaged, hell we saw how they circled the wagons to protect their reputation at Valencia with unprecedented gaging orders.

Btw it doesn't need to be by 100 RPM. At 13,501 is cheating.
 
Dr No said:
Is that article seriously suggesting that after 12000rpm (200Hz) the ECU is guessing the RPM?
Click to expand...

You would probably know more than me on such technical questions, but that's not how I read it, not sure where you're getting this from the article. From my understanding of what was written in the piece, it sounds like the ECU is sampling at a low enough frequency that over rev past the limit is possible, and the accusation being that Honda exploited it. The ECU is not "guessing" but it's unsophisticated enough (it sounds) to sample at a higher frequency, and hence may bounce past the limit.
 
Last edited:
Dr No said:
Is that article seriously suggesting that after 12000rpm (200Hz) the ECU is guessing the RPM?
Click to expand...


Ah ok. I see it is mentioned in the original article.

The answer to your question is no. The ECU isn't calculating the RPM from a crank position signal, it's presented with an RPM signal which it samples at a rate of 200 times a second. So it knows the instantaneous value of RPM every 5 msecs. That means it can make a control decision every 5 msecs, but it doesn't mean it can make step changes in RPM at that rate, because there are time constants (and nonlinearities) in the overall system, which means the actual RPM will always lag behind the demand coming from the ECU.
 
Last edited:
Reading the original article (as best I can from translation) there is a lot of juicy stuff. For one, Pit Beirer sounds way more pissed about the situation, and speaks like he is absolutely sure this not only occurred but that Honda called for the reduction of the rev limit after it had been changed from 15K to suddenly 14K, then further this year to 13.5K; based on pressure from Honda under the guise of cost reduction. Hahaha, we definitely have heard this .... before. Dude also says pinching the engine at 13.5K was opposed by KTM and he deems it pointless, and further says it's arbitrary and has .... all to do with cost. Not to mention dude also straight up says Dorna, IRTA, and FIM officials are not studying the electronic data when provided during the season, "that much is clear." Hahaha, oh lord. This .... is juicy.

KTM set to enter MotoGP under a control ECU. Granted the MM ECU is more sophisticated, but that doesn't mean it can't be exploited, as we learning from modern technology, anything electronic is hackable (except iPhones by the FBI apparently).
 
Last edited:
Don't know what ktm is bitching about. They did their fair share of cheating when the moto 3 class was introduce. Honda did lightly touch on the fact that they ktm exploited the rules. Honda did not bitch about like ktm is doing now. They unleashing an ass whooping on them thru technology & called it a day. Nothing is going to happened, ktm should already know that.
 
Cool Blue said:
Ah ok. I see it is mentioned in the original article.

The answer to your question is no. The ECU isn't calculating the RPM from a crank position signal, it's presented with an RPM signal which it samples at a rate of 200 times a second. So it knows the instantaneous value of RPM every 5 msecs. That means it can make a control decision every 5 msecs, but it doesn't mean it can make step changes in RPM at that rate, because there are time constants (and nonlinearities) in the overall system, which means the actual RPM will always lag behind the demand coming from the ECU.
Click to expand...
Semantics, but I'd reword that.
The only way the engine presents a signal to the ECU is via the CPS. Which it (supposedly) samples at 200Hz.

Now ignition timing doesn't need 1rpm resolution, nor do most maps nestled in thr ECU, but to suggest a the imprecision of a 200Hz sampling rate can hide 100rpm is stupid.
 
Dr No said:
Semantics, but I'd reword that.
Click to expand...

Semantics? Haha, wait you said "guessing" that's not even close. Coming from you who demands precision in our posts, if not a good'o gotcha is to be expected. ECUs don't "guess" as much as your computer doesn't veer from its program because it's confused.

Dr No said:
The only way the engine presents a signal to the ECU is via the CPS. Which it (supposedly) samples at 200Hz.

Now ignition timing doesn't need 1rpm resolution, nor do most maps nestled in thr ECU, but to suggest a the imprecision of a 200Hz sampling rate can hide 100rpm is stupid.
Click to expand...

Why don't you believe it samples at 200Hz? And before you say, you're not saying that, you are suggesting it: "(supposedly)".


Ok, maybe maybe not 100RPM (honestly I wouldn't know) but what about 1RPM? If you demand precision, is not 13,501 already technically cheating? Also, what of the rate of demands for change from the ECU? Krop's article does not give us specif information on this units capability and the original one in German (as far as i can tell) doesn't either, so why are you assuming the bounce doesn't go past? In fact Krop's piece says the unit is "basic" and does "not react quick enough".

"The spec Dell’Orto ECU is a very basic unit, with limited power, and so cannot react quickly enough. The result is that for a split second, the revs exceed the limit, before being cut by the ECU."


Seriously Doc, I'm trying to understand why you're so skeptical.
 
Last edited:
Dr No said:
Semantics, but I'd reword that.

The only way the engine presents a signal to the ECU is via the CPS. Which it (supposedly) samples at 200Hz.



Now ignition timing doesn't need 1rpm resolution, nor do most maps nestled in thr ECU, but to suggest a the imprecision of a 200Hz sampling rate can hide 100rpm is stupid.
Click to expand...


The main thing is that the sampling rate for the rev limiting loop is 200 Hz. The consequence of that, along with the non-linear way in which it's done, is that the regulation of RPM is a bit rough and that's all the article is saying I think.

How do they actually sense RPM by the way? I'm assuming there... I've worked with closed-loop digital control systems but not in automotive applications.

And what's the CPS?

This part is gobledy goop though:

As a result, the ECU isn't sampling every single revolution when the engine is at the rev limit. At 500 RPM, a Moto3 engine is spinning 225 times per second, and if Bom is correct, and the engine speed is being sampled a much less than 200Hz, then the ECU will be having to average out the signal to calculate the engine speed.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Cool Blue said:
The main thing is that the sampling rate for the rev limiting loop is 200 Hz. The consequence of that, along with the non-linear way in which it's done, is that the regulation of RPM is a bit rough and that's all the article is saying I think.

How do they actually sense RPM by the way? I'm assuming there... I've worked with closed-loop digital control systems but not in automotive applications.

And what's the CPS?

This part is gobledy goop though:
Click to expand...

CPS = Crank Position Sensor. Hall effect trigger on the crank.
From that you get an rpm and crank position, so you can fire the ignition when you need to; adjust the injector pulse etc.
I suspect that the rpm signal (which is piss easy to measure) is probably separate to in the 200Hz sampling channel. The ignition and fueling maps, which will depend on the 200Hz rate, don't really need a resolution of 1 rpm. No use, well, tedious/laborious/expensive in the extreme to create that level of accuracy. So if they are a little sketchy at high rpm, it's not really going to affect much.
What does matter is the rate of change of rpm. If you can accurately model that, you can predict when to start pulling spark out and winding down the fueling for a soft limiter. Do this gear by gear and you'll be getting there.

(Edit: err, we're pretty much saying the same thing )
 
Ah ok, thanks. I figured it might be a proximity sensor on the crank that you were referring to but I wasn't sure. In that case, for sure it will be converted to RPM on a different channel and at a much higher sampling rate. They might even have some silicone real estate allocated to a hardware counter to do that asynchronously and update a register every pulse.
 
evo9 said:
So here it is CONFIRMED!!! No Breach of Moto3 Rev Limits by Honda in 2015
https://motomatters.com/news/2016/03/11/motogp_tech_director_finds_no_breach_of_.html

Honda out engineer KTM as suspected.
Click to expand...

NO breach?


"...although there had been overshoots of the rev limit, these were very small and very brief."

"The time it took between the moment the ECU identified that the rev limit had been breached and the point at which it started to cut the ignition was long enough for their to be a very brief overrun of the allowed rev limit. These were, however, only "modest and temporary"."

13,501=breach=cheating.

'CONFIRMED'
 
Jumkie said:
NO breach?


"...although there had been overshoots of the rev limit, these were very small and very brief."

"The time it took between the moment the ECU identified that the rev limit had been breached and the point at which it started to cut the ignition was long enough for their to be a very brief overrun of the allowed rev limit. These were, however, only "modest and temporary"."

13,501=breach=cheating.

'CONFIRMED'
Click to expand...


Jum I work in the automotive industry. I currently have a fleet of MB Sprinters. A few years back, corp said to cap top speed @ 65 MPH. Guess what! They all peak at 66 MPH then stabilize at 65 MPH. When I was doing this back in the 90's on early electronic class 8 trucks, the results were the same.
 
Jumkie said:
NO breach?


"...although there had been overshoots of the rev limit, these were very small and very brief."

"The time it took between the moment the ECU identified that the rev limit had been breached and the point at which it started to cut the ignition was long enough for their to be a very brief overrun of the allowed rev limit. These were, however, only "modest and temporary"."

13,501=breach=cheating.

'CONFIRMED'
Click to expand...


So this is where compared to the rest of the paddock?
 
evo9 said:
Jum I work in the automotive industry. I currently have a fleet of MB Sprinters. A few years back, corp said to cap top speed @ 65 MPH. Guess what! They all peak at 66 MPH then stabilize at 65 MPH. When I was doing this back in the 90's on early electronic class 8 trucks, the results were the same.
Click to expand...
I'm just clowning around bro. But technically, 1 rev over is breach.

I remember there was also a big snafu with the Yamaha R6 claims of revs, turned into a big brouhaha.
 
Cool Blue said:
So this is where compared to the rest of the paddock?
Click to expand...

.... if i know, good question. However, the bloke said it was "modest and temporary", I guess that makes it ok? So....make of that what you will. Kinda reminds me of when I was a younger buck and talked a honey into a little action, I told her, just the tip honey, as in like modest and temporary.
 

Similar threads

M
Next Generation Supersport: KTM RC 990
Replies
0
Views
721
mylexicon
M
M
Honda, Yamaha & Dorna Negotiating Concessions with KTM
Replies
8
Views
399
mikesbytes
mikesbytes
#22
GP12: Red Bull Grand Prix of San Marino 2023
2 3
Replies
42
Views
2K
PRS717
P
#22
MSMA are considering an 850cc engine limit. KTM and Aprilia are against it.
Replies
10
Views
605
mikesbytes
mikesbytes
Keshav
Pending Ducati Concessions
Replies
0
Views
575
Keshav
Keshav

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top