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

Nakamoto: Spec ECU? HRC will defect to WSBK!

Geonerd said:
Dude, too much is never enough, particularly if you're running a turbocharger. The temptation to tweak the waste gate and run just one more PSI is always bubbling about in the back of your mind. To this end, running methanol will allow you to add more boost (without detonation) which naturally makes more power despite the lower cal/g. As I understand it, the major downside to alcohol arises when the (richer) alcohol vapor begins to displace so much air that you start running out oxygen to burn. Where this limitation occurs depends on how much air the turbo and intake tract can flow.
Click to expand...

exactly right dude. Its a balance really. You have to also consider injector duty and what boost your turbo can realisticly produce. It's tempting to try for a bit more but then you may just start making hot air or get compressor stall. Intercooler size will also have to be considered once the air flow is raised. It's never ending and there is no one cure.

Hows your turbo coming on?
 
Geonerd said:
Dude, too much is never enough, particularly if you're running a turbocharger. The temptation to tweak the waste gate and run just one more PSI is always bubbling about in the back of your mind. To this end, running methanol will allow you to add more boost (without detonation) which naturally makes more power despite the lower cal/g. As I understand it, the major downside to alcohol arises when the (richer) alcohol vapor begins to displace so much air that you start running out oxygen to burn. Where this limitation occurs depends on how much air the turbo and intake tract can flow.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have had a few turbo cars including the mazda 6 mps thing which was WRX if not STi fast but curiously uninvolving, and a mazda miata/mx5 sp turbo, an after market turbo conversion from alan horsley motorsport backed by mazda australia with a factory warranty resulting in 157kw and 289 nm which was bags of fun in an 1100kg car, and I didn't mind the turbo whoosh and occasional fuel fumes at all. Being an old fogey I prefer rear wheel drive to awd despite the advantages of the latter.



No disagreement from me with the philosophy that nothing exceeds like excess.
 
chopperman said:
What's that got to do with it? So by your logic it would be ok for tough people to go around beating up weaker people.
Click to expand...

I find lex to be one of the most valuable contributors to this forum, and atypically he usually addresses the topic rather than indulging in petty malice. My post, to which I obviously anticipated yours and goatboy's response, was inclusive of him being smarter than me as well.



What I don't get roger is that you seem to believe you have an absolute right to criticise anyone and everyone but take offense very easily at the merest suggestion of any slight against you; on the evidence of this thread the making of a cogent argument would seem to be offensive.
 
michaelm said:
I find lex to be one of the most valuable contributors to this forum, and atypically he usually addresses the topic rather than indulging in petty malice. My post, to which I obviously anticipated yours and goatboy's response, was inclusive of him being smarter than me as well.



What I don't get roger is that you seem to believe you have an absolute right to criticise anyone and everyone but take offense very easily at the merest suggestion of any slight against you; on the evidence of this thread the making of a cogent argument would seem to be offensive.
Click to expand...

As usual mike you miss the point by a country mile. Where did i say i was offended ? i mealy retaliated to this pompous remark implying you and lex alone are the only members who get it. Who the .... is Lex to make that assumption?



mylexicon, on 04 September 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

This thread is impossible/irrelevant without reminding people of the back story. Michaelm is up to the task,
Click to expand...



And Lex, who could blame me for not bothering to read your posts when they start with such a bombastic statement.
 
chopperman said:
As usual mike you miss the point by a country mile. Where did i say i was offended ? i mealy retaliated to this pompous remark implying you and lex alone are the only members who get it. Who the .... is Lex to make that assumption?
Click to expand...



I didn't assume that people were lost. I assumed that arguments pertaining to MotoGP/WSBK and the definition of prototype/production were mainly devoid of historical relevance. Most posts don't really have much regard for the sentiments of the various factions within the GPC. I don't think the assumption was far-fetched or pompous.



The back story was also necessary to give some scope to my own post. I don't think the spec-ECU issue is a matter of defining or redefining MotoGP; instead, it is a reaction to the performance disparity caused by the fuel regulations. Horsepower disparity has always been part of MotoGP; however, the new agent of inequality (fuel-limits) has proven to be extraordinarily pernicious. At one time, horsepower disparity was meant to regulate the number of participants without using a franchise system. Unfortunately, fuel-limits, along with the unintended consequences of fuel limits and the economic recession, have caused an exodus of important factories, like Kawasaki and Suzuki. The 21L rule also prevents the inclusion of factories like BMW and Aprilia.



This isn't really a battle over the conceptual definition of prototype or the theoretical merits of various sanctioning methods. The friction between Dorna and the MSMA will decide whether or not the MSMA can force the GPC to use fuel-economy as the fulcrum for competitive balance in MotoGP. As everyone probably knows by now, I don't approve of using fuel limits.



This website is a forum in the classical sense, imo, and everyone makes contributions. I don't really care to assess the relative worth of various members.
 
chopperman said:
It's more the way you look on us mere mortals as beneath you.
Click to expand...



WTF is the matter with you? His post wasn't directed at you. Feeling a little insecure?
<
Then by all means make a personal attack instead of debating the merits of the post. The usual ......... Carry on.
 
mylexicon said:
I didn't assume that people were lost. I assumed that arguments pertaining to MotoGP/WSBK and the definition of prototype/production were mainly devoid of historical relevance. Most posts don't really have much regard for the sentiments of the various factions within the GPC. I don't think the assumption was far-fetched or pompous.



The back story was also necessary to give some scope to my own post. I don't think the spec-ECU issue is a matter of defining or redefining MotoGP; instead, it is a reaction to the performance disparity caused by the fuel regulations. Horsepower disparity has always been part of MotoGP; however, the new agent of inequality (fuel-limits) has proven to be extraordinarily pernicious. At one time, horsepower disparity was meant to regulate the number of participants without using a franchise system. Unfortunately, fuel-limits, along with the unintended consequences of fuel limits and the economic recession, have caused an exodus of important factories, like Kawasaki and Suzuki. The 21L rule also prevents the inclusion of factories like BMW and Aprilia.



This isn't really a battle over the conceptual definition of prototype or the theoretical merits of various sanctioning methods. The friction between Dorna and the MSMA will decide whether or not the MSMA can force the GPC to use fuel-economy as the fulcrum for competitive balance in MotoGP. As everyone probably knows by now, I don't approve of using fuel limits.



This website is a forum in the classical sense, imo, and everyone makes contributions. I don't really care to assess the relative worth of various members.
Click to expand...

Ok lex. regarding our little spat. My issue was your reluctance to go back into the "back story" as you appeared to feel only mikem was upto the task of understanding.

Regarding the rest of your post i fully agree. I disagreed with a member in this very thread i believe about further decreasing the fuel limit instead of a spec ecu. I have said many times that the fuel limit reduction to 21L would make it far more expensive for the lower teams as have the engine limits. I also believe a spec ecu will drive up costs as richer larger teams will have the funding to tune with expensive hardware as opposed to software tuning. This will drive away teams and put off new comers.



My subaru / ecu tuning was relevant to a degree as it showed the gains to be had with fuels and trailering ecu mapping. To what degree the teams will be able to map the spec ecu / if at all is the part i believe will be more damaging to some teams.

What exactly is a "spec" ECU?
 
Thats the thing rog, i dont think "spec ecu" has even been defined yet, but its still upsetting people. Spec ecu is a pretty broad way to talk about the electronic systems in place on a gp bike.
 
digger said:
Thats the thing rog, i dont think "spec ecu" has even been defined yet, but its still upsetting people. Spec ecu is a pretty broad way to talk about the electronic systems in place on a gp bike.
Click to expand...

This is the info im interested in mate, not paranoid fans opinions. I class myself as a paranoid fan by the way and liike the rest of my paranoid friends we have cause to be paranoid because of The powers that be's past record in such change's. Sorry to harp on about my car but i find it easy to use for certain examples .My ecu is stock equipment so could be said to be a "spec" ecu, but mine is fully mappable (to a point). Older models stock ecu was un-writable so needed a daughter board to tune in different parameters. Other non stock (expensive) ecu's are capable of wider parameters and even run many different maps on the same ecu that's switch-able, where as mine will only take 2 maps. In my experience the term (spec) ecu is very ambiguous so the effects it will have are un-known. Either way i don't think it will help teams because they will have to build engines around the software parameters. Dorna my think this will disadvantage rich teams thus helping poorer teams but i don't think so. In my experience software changes are easier and cheaper than hardware changes.
 
I can dig it mate. But does spec ecu ( electronic control unit) refer to fuel mapping? Or does it refer to the other electronic controls in place, such as TC, LC anti wheelie, or is it the whole lot?
 
digger said:
I can dig it mate. But does spec ecu ( electronic control unit) refer to fuel mapping? Or does it refer to the other electronic controls in place, such as TC, LC anti wheelie, or is it the whole lot?
Click to expand...

I would have thought the whole lot. Generally the ecu will deal with ignition timing, cam timing if a variable system is used, fuelling and data logging. The thing to consider is, an ecu in a standard road vehicle will have many safety parameters mapped in. It will need to work without issue in very cold places like northern canada as well as somewhere like Arizona in a heat wave. It will need to work below sea level and several thousand feet above sea level without issue. It will also have to run on various octane fuels. all this costs power and torque. When tuning an engine for racing or to work only in a particular place these safety parameters can be removed and a more focused aggressive map used. My question with these things in mind is ,are we going top have a spec ecu to deal with all tracks and bikes, or will there be different parameters the teams can choose from with the spec ecu to suit there needs. I personally think Dorna are digging them selves into a hole 6 feet deep, 8 feet long and 5 feet wide if you know what i mean.
 
you would have to think it would be a single unit that all the teams have and can tune to their liking, surely. but given dorna's past, who ....... knows!
 
digger said:
you would have to think it would be a single unit that all the teams have and can tune to their liking, surely. but given dorna's past, who ....... knows!
Click to expand...

Yes .i'm thinking just a unit with no map ans a specific tool to map, but let the teams own mappers write the map for their bikes. This might not be so bad.
 

Similar threads

J
Carmelo Ezpeleta's Grand Plan, Or The Long History Behind Tech3's Switch To KTM
Replies
12
Views
3K
AntG
A
OneDavid
HRC officially lets Pedbot go - Who is next at Repsol?
Replies
90
Views
13K
Little Walter
Little Walter
G
Winglets - and why Pedrosa doesn't use them
Replies
4
Views
2K
Torgo
T
J
Why MotoGP should get even better - Mat Oxley
Replies
0
Views
1K
JKant
J
moto vudu
Yamaha reveals cause of Mugello engine failures
Replies
23
Views
5K
michaelm
M

Recent Discussions