MotoGP Electronics: Even More Complex Than You Thought

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My two cents worth..



Racing motorcycles WAS not a science, it WAS a passion. Not any more it aint. Now you are right Tom, it is a science, a very expensive one at that.



All we are seeing now is F1 on two wheels. Let me put his situation to you guys who think this formula is great -



17 bikes(Only just enough to qualify as a world championchip) running round any given track at 1 second faster than anything else on the planet breaking the lap record every year



OR



20 to 30 bikes running round the very same tracks at only slightly faster times only occasionally breaking the lap records but with pleanty of action not just a pass in a striaght line or a block pass , oh sorry dirty riding!



I know which one i would choose and i can tell you i anit alone. Ask yourself this - If you were watching the first situation either on TV or from the trackside what the hell difference are you going to notice, just bikes going round 5 seconds apart following each other - yeah good spectacle fella's.



Its the Engineers in Japan who want all this ..... as it gives them something toplay with & show theier prowess, what they should be realising is that its the worldwide fanbase that keeps these monkeys in business and if the fans go they will be out of business - period there is NO argument to this.



Racing is business , to make priofit by means other than direct selling just the same as war is to politics & trust me it is war when it comes to these companies & profit!



I dont think you will ever get rid of them but it a cut back on them would be nice - Just because we are goping back to 1000's dont get excited guys cause it aint gonna change .....



A 500cc 2 stroke is more of an animal than any 4 stroke 800 will ever be..period!!



Ive ridden Blades, R1's Busa's blah blah but they aint nothing compared to RG500, & ive got the scars to prove it to!
 
Someone can remember that sometime ago I told you about the possibility of GPS setting up the bike at real time on the track?



Well, I was right
<
 
I think Furasawa said back in 07 they had already a GPS on the yam. that was used to track corners.



Matter of fact at that time we were discussing such things as mapping where the bike was on the track, some guys on here reinvented the uses of "the gyroscope" and had found a way to use a gyro to track the spacial position of a bike on a track, despite the decades of effort that many scientific type minds had exerted only to find that gyros are basically flawed for such pursuits
<
<
<
 
Mental Anarchist said:
I really don't understand how racing motorcycles could be referred to as anything but science.
Click to expand...



Have you ever ridden a motorcycle faster than you probably should and then hit a bump in the road and had a bobble? Did you feel fear?



Have you ever opened the throttle mid-corner and felt the rear start sliding away? Did you go
<
?



Have you ever had a car pull out in front of you? Did you
<
?



Building a motorcycle is science. Riding/racing a motorcycle is not science. Science is omnipresent, but the rider's abstract thoughts and the rider's spatial perception ultimately determine who wins and who loses. It's 90% between the ears. The guy who won 25 races on a Suzuki said that.
 
mylexicon said:
Have you ever ridden a motorcycle faster than you probably should and then hit a bump in the road and had a bobble? Did you feel fear?



Have you ever opened the throttle mid-corner and felt the rear start sliding away? Did you go
<
?



Have you ever had a car pull out in front of you? Did you
<
?



Building a motorcycle is science. Riding/racing a motorcycle is not science. Science is omnipresent, but the rider's abstract thoughts and the rider's spatial perception ultimately determine who wins and who loses. It's 90% between the ears. The guy who won 25 races on a Suzuki said that.
Click to expand...



That position is based on the assumption that riders are born destined to be capable of riding at a certain level and will achieve no more or no less, independant of nurture, learning, training and practice. That is simply not true.
 
Pigeon said:
MotoGP Electronics: Even More Complex Than You Thought

Submitted by David Emmett on Sat, 2010-11-13 16:25.



Kropotkin



In fact, as the bikes are circulating, the on-board electronics are running a series of real-time simulations with the data, predicting how the bike will behave in the next couple of laps. The ECU takes data from sensors to map tire wear and traction over the course of the laps, and runs simulations to predict how those will develop based on current conditions. Not only are the electronics matching the power and throttle response to the current conditions, they are also working out what to do on the next lap as well, and what changes the harsh or careful treatment being handed out to the rear tire by the rider will require to the engine mapping.



motomatters





http://motomatters.com/news/2010/11/13/motogp_electronics_even_more_complex_tha.html
Click to expand...





Amazing. Anybody still have doubts its about the mouse trap? Yet still, we look at the results void of analysis. Good read Kropo, thanks for sharing. BTW, I clicked on the link to read. Oh and if anybody wants a bitchen ... racing calendar, they are on sale now.
 
mylexicon said:
Building a motorcycle is science. Riding/racing a motorcycle is not science. Science is omnipresent, but the rider's abstract thoughts and the rider's spatial perception ultimately determine who wins and who loses. It's 90% between the ears. The guy who won 25 races on a Suzuki said that.
Click to expand...



I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with your argument because you aren't properly defining what is "not science" and none of the things you describe lend weight to the conclusion that it is "art". It seems that you are trying to reduce the argument to "is success determined by the engineers or the rider" -- and while we could argue about that split, I think you would agree that the efforts of both the factory and rider are "science" not "art".



Science is taking an analytical approach to problem solving, and using past (and current) observations to iterate towards a better solution using proven techniques. This is exactly what successful riders do when they race. As they figure out proper reference points, experiment with different lines, and attempt to gain as perfect of an understanding as possible of how their bike will perform in various condition, they are conducting science. Sure, there are plenty of emotions involved along the way, but that doesn't make it art. When a racer pulls off a beautiful pass, it's because he's drawing on his experience and observations to discover a perfect conclusion about what combination of machine inputs will allow him to outperform his opponent.



Art would involve a more subjective performance that relies heavily upon abstract thought, with success through beauty and intangible positive effects. None of this has anything to do with winning motorcycle races. You may say that a rider put on a beautiful performance, and that you consider his riding an art form, but that's only because he succeeded so completely on the science side of things.



Edit: fixed some grammar
 
Agile said:
Art would involve a more subjective performance, relying heavily upon abstract thought, and success through beauty and intangible positive effects. None of this has anything to do with winning motorcycle races. You may say that a rider put on a beautiful performance, and that you consider his riding an art form, but that's only because he succeeded so completely on the science side on things.
Click to expand...



That is exactly what i'm talking about, sports of the nature described above have a very limited appeal to me. Drifting and freestyle motorcross being examples within motorsport.
 
Agile said:
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with your argument because you aren't properly defining what is "not science" and none of the things you describing lend weight to the conclusion that its "art". It seems that you are trying to reduce the argument to "is success determined by the engineers or the rider" -- and while we could argue about that split, I think you would agree that the efforts of both the factory and rider are "science" not art.



Science is taking an analytical approach to problem solving, and using past (and current) observations to iterate towards a better solution by using proven techniques. This is exactly what successful riders are doing when they race. As they figure out proper reference points, experiment with different lines, and attempt to gain as perfect of an understanding as possible for how their bike will perform in various condition, they are conducting science. Sure, there are plenty of emotions involved along the way, but that doesn't make it art. When a racer pulls off a beautiful pass, its because he's drawing his experience and observations to draw a perfect conclusion about what combination machine inputs will allow him to outperform his opponent.



Art would involve a more subjective performance, relying heavily upon abstract thought, and success through beauty and intangible positive effects. None of this has anything to do with winning motorcycle races. You may say that a rider put on a beautiful performance, and that you consider his riding an art form, but that's only because he succeeded so completely on the science side on things.
Click to expand...



What a beautiful post.





However, I don't completely agree with your conclusion, though it was eloquently composed and logical, as I believe there is an element of art involved in the racing. Because as you correctly say, its about the rider experimenting to find the best approach to achieve maximum results from previous trials (scientific method)...it is this mechanism that leads to "skill" and "mastery" of that endeavor, which is traditionally known as ART.
 
Tom said:
Well the boundary of electronic development is a difficult one...
Click to expand...



Is it?



Steering assistance is banned by prohibiting electronic suspension dampening, electronic ride height adjustment, and electronic steering dampeners.

Braking assistance is banned by prohibiting ABS. The rear and front braking systems may not be linked mechanically or electronically, and all hydraulic systems must be man-powered.

Shifting and clutch assistance are banned by prohibiting auto/semi-auto gearboxes. CVT's are also banned as well as electronically controlled clutches. Short shift is legal.

Throttle assistance is completely unregulated.



Everyone in the GPC knows that MotoGP is a human contest and they have acted accordingly at every "crossroads" except the electronic-assist short shifters which interestingly enough blip the throttle. Now that it is time for the MSMA to clean up their own mess by regulating throttle programming, they refuse. The MSMA (Honda) want unlimited control of the throttle b/c they want a bigger say in who wins and who doesn't. Not only do they use the electronics to keep the satellite bikes out of the way, they use the throttle controls and the fuel regulations to keep other people away. The fans cower in fear at the thought of losing Honda or Yamaha, while Honda and Yamaha systematically drive everyone (including their own IRTA satellite teams) out of the sport.



TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE. Yes, I hear you, but you are not saying anything of consequence. You're chasing an abstract idea that doesn't exist. You're writing blank checks for the MSMA so they continue the technical rules that cause contraction. Is there an MSMA religious cult that I should know about?



How bout we get rid of the inappropriate rider aids with a spec MM and data recorders, and then we move to 24L, 1000cc, crappy Dunlop tires, and we legalize all of the banned engine technologies? Making 240hp from that formula is easy (lots of unique machines not satellite bikes), but the MSMA have a lot of technologies they can play with. Most importantly, direct injection would remain legal.



Science, technology, and the rider is still in control of the bike. How much better is that than the fatalistic nonsense about accepting/loving that electronics are going to take control of our bikes? 10,000 times or am I being generous with myself?
 
Agile said:
Science is taking an analytical approach to problem solving, and using past (and current) observations to iterate towards a better solution by using proven techniques. This is exactly what successful riders are doing when they race. As they figure out proper reference points, experiment with different lines, and attempt to gain as perfect of an understanding as possible for how their bike will perform in various condition, they are conducting science. Sure, there are plenty of emotions involved along the way, but that doesn't make it art. When a racer pulls off a beautiful pass, its because he's drawing his experience and observations to draw a perfect conclusion about what combination machine inputs will allow him to outperform his opponent.
Click to expand...



Marco Melandri: I can't go fast b/c I can't feel the front.



Engineer: Oh yes, I can see that right here in the chart. Your confidence line has been flat all day. You need to see a sports psychologist.





Vale: I had to settle into my rhythm and see if I could pressure Casey into a mistake.



Engineer: Yes that was brilliant. Your stalking telemetry was off the charts. We will program that into the AI so you can use it whenever you want.





Oversimplifying competition into science in order to avoid complexities and ambiguities of human competition is not appropriate. The art of racing a motorcycle includes scientific discovery and scientific principles b/c humans use science as part of their craft. The science of motorcycle racing does not recognize mindgames, risk-aversion, intimidation, fear, anger, weakness, retaliation, loss of motivation, pain, or grudge; it doesn't recognize a riders ability to push when confident or back off when afraid, yet these things frequently decide the outcome of the races.



What science explains how a rider can set fast times at the beginning of his stint, ride a short stint on his #2 bike, and then hop back on his #1 with fresh tires but fail to replicate his early pace under identical track conditions? The Weak Front End Force? I do love that scientific law. It's a good one.



How can a fan dumb the sport down so severely?
 
mylexicon said:
How can a fan dumb the sport down so severely?
Click to expand...



Is this directed at me? It was the intention of my post to examine the question of what techniques enable a good rider to go fast, and I liken these to scientific processes in contrast to your weak classification of them as art. If anything, looking at the qualities that underpin racing success adds some depth to the appreciation of the sport rather than "dumbing it down" Don't let my argument for the "science of riding" detract at all from what I consider a thrilling spectacle that is anything but a cold, boring, number simulation. On the contrary some of the most exciting races include a healthy dose of "black magic" where riders seem to break the laws of physics and defy fear and self-preservation instincts in the pursuit of victory.



Looking at your counter examples, I think the only disagreement between us is that your definition of "science" is far too narrow. You seem to regard it as only things that can be measured, examined carefully by mechanical engineers over a period of time, and specifically addressed through technological development. Call it "long science" maybe. I merely bring up the point that these same activities which you associate with lab coats and calculators, share the same underlying principles that riders are doing consciously or subconsciously to succeed, on an instantaneous or instinctual level. If a rider incorporates the psychology of his opponent into his decision-making, it doesn't make it art (psychology is a science, after all!). And it doesn't have to be some overly conscious analysis either: it only matters what they are basing their decisions on. I'm not suggesting Rossi is out there crunching numbers in his head and waiting for probabilities to align before he attempts a pass, but rather that the basis for his decisions are deeply rational and empirical, which makes them scientific. When he stuffs someone up the inside on the last lap, he could be 100% focused on hosing down a podium girl for all I know. He's not being whimsical, or irrational, or appealing to some witty sensibility to succeed (these would be hallmarks of an art-based process), rather he's using his experience, talent, and control to thread the needle between what will cause a crash and what will be too slow. These abstract emotions may be a motivator for his actions but they aren't what determine whether his actions succeed or not, that's pure head science.



While you make a decent argument for why these things don't fit your definition of "motorcycle science" you aren't able build any support for their belonging to an artistic process. Or you're working from a personal definition of art that you haven't conveyed to anyone else. What defines art for you: Simply the presence of emotions? Dealing with pain? Weakness and retailiation? How is risk-aversion an art-oriented consideration?



Also, with regards to Jumkie pointing out that skill and mastery of a discipline are considered art, that's a good point, but it's really a different word from the one we use to contrast with science, and I realize that confuses the debate. When we think of an "Artful" performance, or the "The Art of X" we're using it as a synonym for skill, which wouldn't be relevant to the art vs science classification of anything. Someone could be an artful differential equation solver. Furthermore, sports commentators and broadcasters like to describe activity using words we associate with art, since they better convey emotion and excitement, which over time imbue these with their own meaning. Consider a "creative" pass, which we take to mean either an unorthodox or unexpected move. But really this has nothing to do with artistic creativity.
 
Agile said:
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with your argument because you aren't properly defining what is "not science" and none of the things you describe lend weight to the conclusion that it is "art". It seems that you are trying to reduce the argument to "is success determined by the engineers or the rider" -- and while we could argue about that split, I think you would agree that the efforts of both the factory and rider are "science" not "art".



Science is taking an analytical approach to problem solving, and using past (and current) observations to iterate towards a better solution using proven techniques. This is exactly what successful riders do when they race. As they figure out proper reference points, experiment with different lines, and attempt to gain as perfect of an understanding as possible of how their bike will perform in various condition, they are conducting science. Sure, there are plenty of emotions involved along the way, but that doesn't make it art. When a racer pulls off a beautiful pass, it's because he's drawing on his experience and observations to discover a perfect conclusion about what combination of machine inputs will allow him to outperform his opponent.



Art would involve a more subjective performance that relies heavily upon abstract thought, with success through beauty and intangible positive effects. None of this has anything to do with winning motorcycle races. You may say that a rider put on a beautiful performance, and that you consider his riding an art form, but that's only because he succeeded so completely on the science side of things.



Edit: fixed some grammar
Click to expand...



Nice
 
mylexicon said:
The science of motorcycle racing does not recognize mindgames, risk-aversion, intimidation, fear, anger, weakness, retaliation, loss of motivation, pain, or grudge; it doesn't recognize a riders ability to push when confident or back off when afraid, yet these things frequently decide the outcome of the races.
Click to expand...



Why do you think that is not science?
<




You even broke it down into several explorable aspects of the riding as a science. These are many of the apsects of riding that the participant is constantly working on and discovering way to counter, or enhance ( the actual achievement of skills and mastery is a very scientific pursuit ). But it would be a rider who was nowhere who did not test, analyse and attempt to control them.



I think you are calling science only the machne side of things.
 
Agile said:
Is this directed at me? It was the intention of my post to examine the question of what techniques enable a good rider to go fast, and I liken these to scientific processes in contrast to your weak classification of them as art. If anything, looking at the qualities that underpin racing success adds some depth to the appreciation of the sport rather than "dumbing it down" Don't let my argument for the "science of riding" detract at all from what I consider a thrilling spectacle that is anything but a cold, boring, number simulation. On the contrary some of the most exciting races include a healthy dose of "black magic" where riders seem to break the laws of physics and defy fear and self-preservation instincts in the pursuit of victory.



Looking at your counter examples, I think the only disagreement between us is that your definition of "science" is far too narrow. You seem to regard it as only things that can be measured, examined carefully by mechanical engineers over a period of time, and specifically addressed through technological development. Call it "long science" maybe. I merely bring up the point that these same activities which you associate with lab coats and calculators, share the same underlying principles that riders are doing consciously or subconsciously to succeed, on an instantaneous or instinctual level. If a rider incorporates the psychology of his opponent into his decision-making, it doesn't make it art (psychology is a science, after all!). And it doesn't have to be some overly conscious analysis either: it only matters what they are basing their decisions on. I'm not suggesting Rossi is out there crunching numbers in his head and waiting for probabilities to align before he attempts a pass, but rather that the basis for his decisions are deeply rational and empirical, which makes them scientific. When he stuffs someone up the inside on the last lap, he could be 100% focused on hosing down a podium girl for all I know. He's not being whimsical, or irrational, or appealing to some witty sensibility to succeed (these would be hallmarks of an art-based process), rather he's using his experience, talent, and control to thread the needle between what will cause a crash and what will be too slow. These abstract emotions may be a motivator for his actions but they aren't what determine whether his actions succeed or not, that's pure head science.



While you make a decent argument for why these things don't fit your definition of "motorcycle science" you aren't able build any support for their belonging to an artistic process. Or you're working from a personal definition of art that you haven't conveyed to anyone else. What defines art for you: Simply the presence of emotions? Dealing with pain? Weakness and retailiation? How is risk-aversion an art-oriented consideration?



Also, with regards to Jumkie pointing out that skill and mastery of a discipline are considered art, that's a good point, but it's really a different word from the one we use to contrast with science, and I realize that confuses the debate. When we think of an "Artful" performance, or the "The Art of X" we're using it as a synonym for skill, which wouldn't be relevant to the art vs science classification of anything. Someone could be an artful differential equation solver. Furthermore, sports commentators and broadcasters like to describe activity using words we associate with art, since they better convey emotion and excitement, which over time imbue these with their own meaning. Consider a "creative" pass, which we take to mean either an unorthodox or unexpected move. But really this has nothing to do with artistic creativity.
Click to expand...





Your post was "artful".
<
 
Down With The Electronics.
<


or they should arrange a new racing serie without or with the least electronics on bikes.
 
Agile said:
Is this directed at me? It was the intention of my post to examine the question of what techniques enable a good rider to go fast, and I liken these to scientific processes in contrast to your weak classification of them as art. If anything, looking at the qualities that underpin racing success adds some depth to the appreciation of the sport rather than "dumbing it down" Don't let my argument for the "science of riding" detract at all from what I consider a thrilling spectacle that is anything but a cold, boring, number simulation. On the contrary some of the most exciting races include a healthy dose of "black magic" where riders seem to break the laws of physics and defy fear and self-preservation instincts in the pursuit of victory.



Looking at your counter examples, I think the only disagreement between us is that your definition of "science" is far too narrow. You seem to regard it as only things that can be measured, examined carefully by mechanical engineers over a period of time, and specifically addressed through technological development. Call it "long science" maybe. I merely bring up the point that these same activities which you associate with lab coats and calculators, share the same underlying principles that riders are doing consciously or subconsciously to succeed, on an instantaneous or instinctual level. If a rider incorporates the psychology of his opponent into his decision-making, it doesn't make it art (psychology is a science, after all!). And it doesn't have to be some overly conscious analysis either: it only matters what they are basing their decisions on. I'm not suggesting Rossi is out there crunching numbers in his head and waiting for probabilities to align before he attempts a pass, but rather that the basis for his decisions are deeply rational and empirical, which makes them scientific. When he stuffs someone up the inside on the last lap, he could be 100% focused on hosing down a podium girl for all I know. He's not being whimsical, or irrational, or appealing to some witty sensibility to succeed (these would be hallmarks of an art-based process), rather he's using his experience, talent, and control to thread the needle between what will cause a crash and what will be too slow. These abstract emotions may be a motivator for his actions but they aren't what determine whether his actions succeed or not, that's pure head science.



While you make a decent argument for why these things don't fit your definition of "motorcycle science" you aren't able build any support for their belonging to an artistic process. Or you're working from a personal definition of art that you haven't conveyed to anyone else. What defines art for you: Simply the presence of emotions? Dealing with pain? Weakness and retailiation? How is risk-aversion an art-oriented consideration?



Also, with regards to Jumkie pointing out that skill and mastery of a discipline are considered art, that's a good point, but it's really a different word from the one we use to contrast with science, and I realize that confuses the debate. When we think of an "Artful" performance, or the "The Art of X" we're using it as a synonym for skill, which wouldn't be relevant to the art vs science classification of anything. Someone could be an artful differential equation solver. Furthermore, sports commentators and broadcasters like to describe activity using words we associate with art, since they better convey emotion and excitement, which over time imbue these with their own meaning. Consider a "creative" pass, which we take to mean either an unorthodox or unexpected move. But really this has nothing to do with artistic creativity.
Click to expand...



The two branches of sciences are referred to as hard science and soft science. Hard science is something like physics. Based upon laws, objectivity, and scientific method. Soft sciences like economics or psychology are all about gathering empirical data and then modeling a theory without much concern for cognitive bias since you are interpreting another's behavior.



Motorcycle manufacturing is hard science. Motorcycle engineering and setup are soft science (empirical data and modeling). Riding a motorcycle is neither b/c the riders use cognitive bias and emotion frequently. It is a ubiquitous part of racing.



Agile, do you have access to the data the MSMA generate? You don't?! I'm shocked. So what are you consuming? Ideas and symbols. You are consuming a highly stylized contest that is designed to be evocative. You are consuming an abstract (and completely inconsistent) version of technological progress and high performance. MotoGP is aesthetic or of the "art" family. You are consuming an idea, a symbol, a picture, a concept, and a feeling.



The sport is not science for you or for me, and it is not science for the MSMA unless they are trying to study the impact of human emotion upon their products. Not seeing it. Dorna certainly don't treat it as a science and neither to the FIM. Yes, science is present in MotoGP b/c science is omnipresent, but science doesn't define the sport. It is almost entirely abstract. Even the BS the MSMA sell to the board members is abstract thought about the value of certain technologies. The MSMA also sell BS about exposure and co-branding to the sponsors in order to obtain funding. The whole thing is just an aesthetic pursuit, and that is why MotoGP is so fragile.



MotoGP shouldn't be fragile, but unfortunately, the MSMA are not committed to MotoGP unless the money is drawn from the R&D budget.
 
While I may not have the eloquence of some of the above posters I'd like to take a different tack. Instead of looking at science lets look at art.



Painting for example...



A classical painting is pehaps the epitome of art. But what is it? It is a collection of skill, techniques and rules cohesivly orcatstrated with vision. Nothing more nothing less.



I think this is how I look at the racers, they have spent years honing skills, techniques, track knowledge and at the same time are born with something extra. The track is the canvas and the bikes are the brush, the rider is the artist. I can't imagine what degree of electroincs it would take to take that away, maybe someday we'll get to that point, but I don't think we're there yet.



All this being said, I'm not a fan of the electronics and would like to see them minimised, for although I believe MotoGP is an art I also believe the world is not black and white but shades of grey. And as more electronics are added it does get darker.



For me I would love to see McCoy spinning the .... out of the rear end of a 500gp bike out there...



The scientists will tell you that McCoy spinning those tires actually kept the tires cooler because although the surface got hotter the core of the tire stayed cooler as a result.



McCoy will tell you it was the fastest way around for him.



The man was an artist.





PS In explaining the McCoy rear wheel thing, I may have taken some liberties but thats the gist of it
<
 

Similar threads

M
MotoGP For Sale?
Replies
9
Views
1K
DavidSim
D
M
Motorcycle Racing Industry: Reading the Tea Leaves
2 3
Replies
44
Views
3K
Hollywood
Hollywood
M
Proposal to Merge MotoGP and WSBK
Replies
0
Views
1K
mylexicon
M
M
The Effects of Next-Gen Supersport Regulations on the Production Motorcycles
Replies
0
Views
1K
mylexicon
M
M
The Future of Superbike
Replies
18
Views
3K
propagandhi
propagandhi

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top