Yeah, it's obvious that they will develop rules that can be so easily circumvented.
You make perfect sense.
You make perfect sense.
Joined Apr 2008
7K Posts | 3K+
Out of Nowhere
How do you know things like TC, LC ect are going to be outlawed and are the reasons for implementing a spec ECU? You are assuming rather a lot then posting your opinions as fact ,seeing as no official spec or statement has been put forward. If those things are not outlawed but not inclusive within a spec ecu i would expect teams to work out other ways of implementing them. The richer teams being the ones to be able to afford this. My point is as simple as that !
And you, as usual, read into what I post something entirely different from what I wrote.
I didn't say anything about outlawing any sort of technology - what I have said, all along, is that it is to level the field. That is all.
Not 'my opinion posted as fact', but fact posted as a quote from Dorna. They want to level the field with regard to electronics - the last two years of Carmelo banging on about stock ECU's has been all about that. I haven't 'assumed rather a lot' - I have read rather a lot and I can see what it is that stock ECUs will bring, just as they did with MES in F1. Positing a opinion based on sound research and industry knowledge isn't quite the same as 'assuming a lot' - at least I know the relationship between detonation and octane... despite not being a mechanic.
Do you know the difference between an ECU and a control system on a device like a gearbox, a fuel system, a braking or suspension system? Typically those sub-systems have 'dumb' electronics - solenoids, sensors and the like - they can't 'think' for themselves - it is the ECU that does all the work. Your throwaway line about how "they will just fit smaller system dedicated computers" shows your lack of understanding of the complexity of computer systems in vehicles and GP vehicles in particular. There is nothing 'they will just' about it... have you heard of scrutineering?
If, while levelling the field they ....-up so awesomely by not adding a clause about bypassing the restrictions in the ECU, they don't deserve to be a technical committee.
Having seen (and posted in this thread) the details of the Moto3 ECU, it would seem that they are on their game and that any sub-systems that implement functions specifically handled by the ECU (or banned in competition) will be considered to be cheating.
I didn't say anything about outlawing any sort of technology - what I have said, all along, is that it is to level the field. That is all.
Not 'my opinion posted as fact', but fact posted as a quote from Dorna. They want to level the field with regard to electronics - the last two years of Carmelo banging on about stock ECU's has been all about that. I haven't 'assumed rather a lot' - I have read rather a lot and I can see what it is that stock ECUs will bring, just as they did with MES in F1. Positing a opinion based on sound research and industry knowledge isn't quite the same as 'assuming a lot' - at least I know the relationship between detonation and octane... despite not being a mechanic.
Do you know the difference between an ECU and a control system on a device like a gearbox, a fuel system, a braking or suspension system? Typically those sub-systems have 'dumb' electronics - solenoids, sensors and the like - they can't 'think' for themselves - it is the ECU that does all the work. Your throwaway line about how "they will just fit smaller system dedicated computers" shows your lack of understanding of the complexity of computer systems in vehicles and GP vehicles in particular. There is nothing 'they will just' about it... have you heard of scrutineering?
If, while levelling the field they ....-up so awesomely by not adding a clause about bypassing the restrictions in the ECU, they don't deserve to be a technical committee.
Having seen (and posted in this thread) the details of the Moto3 ECU, it would seem that they are on their game and that any sub-systems that implement functions specifically handled by the ECU (or banned in competition) will be considered to be cheating.
Well i guess we will all find out soon enough. ezy seems hell bent on going forward with this. HRC will get some sought of compromise to keep them in the sport. It will all end up very expensive and a total waste of time.
Honda threatening to leave MotoGP and defect to WSBK over a lack of influence over the technical rules is like Ai Wei Wei threatening to leave China and defect to North Korea over a lack of artistic freedom. I guess Nakamoto hasn't talked to Ducati much, about 6 kg extra weight and 50mm restrictors.
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
sorry if this has been asked before, but what exact changes can we expect from a spec ecu in 2014?
i heard rev limit 15.500rpm , but that wouldn't change that much would it?
any infos on a possible ban/simplification of tc/launch control/anti-wheelie?
thanks
i heard rev limit 15.500rpm , but that wouldn't change that much would it?
any infos on a possible ban/simplification of tc/launch control/anti-wheelie?
thanks
Rev limit 15.5K, limited capabilities. Still some TC, not so much LC, only maps swappable, no programming yourself.
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
so its different engine maps and no corner by corner tc?
that sounds almost too sensible from a spectator point of view
that sounds almost too sensible from a spectator point of view
Joined May 2008
3K Posts | 79+
Southern Aridzona - Hell's doorstep.
Formula CRT.
That RPM is just beyond what the CRT teams are running.
For the factory bikes, 15.5K represents a step back. Honda and Yam max out at 16,350. The Honda races beyond 16,000, while Yamaha tends to reserve these revs for Qual, end-of-race, and push-to-pass moments.
The likely undersized Ducati is racing in the low 17s and exceeds 17,600 on qualifying laps.
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
yes i know, as far as revs are concerned its a step back. but maybe it means no ear protection track side for me so thats ok with me
so what are the bikes realistically going to lose?maybe 20hp in 5th and 6th gear? i could really live with that
if the duc really is 930cc this must surely mean a bigger engine..
will the 81mm bore still be in place? from what i know about engines (which isn't much i admit) an engine with the longest possible stroke that could rev to 15.5 would be the best solution...or would that result in higher fuel consumption?
edit: somebody put a silencer or 13k rev limit on the moto3 bikes, they seem louder than the motogp class when you're at the track and sound like ....!
so what are the bikes realistically going to lose?maybe 20hp in 5th and 6th gear? i could really live with that
if the duc really is 930cc this must surely mean a bigger engine..
will the 81mm bore still be in place? from what i know about engines (which isn't much i admit) an engine with the longest possible stroke that could rev to 15.5 would be the best solution...or would that result in higher fuel consumption?
edit: somebody put a silencer or 13k rev limit on the moto3 bikes, they seem louder than the motogp class when you're at the track and sound like ....!
Longer stroke means more torque (try doing up a bolt with your fingers vs a spanner), but it also means more heat and wear as the piston speed climbs to a point that the oil is being ripped from the cylinder wall. A short stroke, over-square engine typically has higher rev ceiling than a long-stroke engine because of the oil thing and the resistance to acceleration and deceleration of a heavier conrod, longer crank throw, etc...
Fuel consumption is an interesting point - in theory, the bigger a cylinder to fill, the more fuel overall because it burns less efficiently than in a smaller cylinder, there's more wasted, unburned fuel - especially at the speeds these engines are doing. But the technology used in GP and F1 means they are getting a pretty damned lean burn no matter what the cylinder size, thanks to fancy piston and head shapes that swirl and combine the gases, state-of-the-art injectors running at high pressure, much more aggressive timing, unobtanium plugs and ignition systems. The upside to a bigger cylinder is more torque. Hence the reason a 5L V8 produces a lot of torque at a mild state of tune, whereas a 2L 4cyl needs a lot of revs to get their power.
Joined Apr 2011
900 Posts | 4+
somewhere else
Don't know much about ECU's but is it possible to run different engine configurations, i.e inline-4, v4 etc on the same "map".
Does this mean Dorna sets parameters and com
Joined Apr 2011
900 Posts | 4+
somewhere else
Don't know much about ECU's but is it possible to run different engine configurations, i.e inline-4, v4 etc on the same "map".
Does this mean Dorna sets parameters and competitors comply ergo the tire rule which seems to reward a particular engineering approach. Will we see the same thing happen with engine configuration and performance, whereby the most competitive result is determined by parameters set (rules), therefore encouraging all down this path. furthermore is this all really the prelude to Moto1?
Moto1 = Moto2. The main difference being the inclusion of more engine manufacturers as opposed to a sole producer. Everything else determined by Dorna. Fuel limits, weight, tyres, ECU.
The 'map' is the operating parameters. If the timing of the different engines was the same, no reason they couldn't use the same map. But that they would is extremely unlikely.
The underlying OS will be the same for all bikes, with the same number and range of sensors and data points. The OS would allow for a couple or three different maps, depending on what they eventually decide. That will allow the rider to change settings on the fly, to cope with tyre degradation, weight reduction, weather during the race, etc.
The maps will be specific for the particular bike and even between riders in the same team. One might like a more immediate throttle response and less TC, the other - not so.
The teams will accumulate different maps for each circuit for each rider and amass a database of proven starting points. When you see the guy with the laptop on the grid before they go for their sighting lap, he is adjusting the map with reference to the latest atmospherics - temperature and pressure - according to the database of knowledge they have and the calculations they have posited. That won't change. What will change is that there will be a steep learning curve for all the teams trying to fit their database of wizardry into settings that work with the new unit. Those teams with a larger database and bigger, faster computers to work on the transition will be able to make the transition easier and more effectively.
Whatever happens, I can't see the ECU being a trivial item - the intent isn't to dumb down, but to level the field and take away the massive spend associated with keeping up with the Electronic Jones's.
Whatever they choose, the ECU will be a trick bit of kit, significantly advanced compared to any other form of two-wheeled computer controller.
Joined Feb 2009
3K Posts | 2+
siebenbürgen süße heimat!
i know ,thx for explaining anyways.
i just thought it'd be logical if there is a fixed rev limit you'd want your engine to have a long stroke because that would result in a less peaky power curve.wasn't sure about fuel consumption,thats where my knowledge kinda stops.i only heard of a rule of thumb : the bigger the torque the more fuel needs to be used since the gp engines use thin lubrications that don't punish excessive revs too much with much more friction(=wasted fuel)
No it's not possible. I dont think these spec ecu's will be able to have a spec map. It will just be an ecu to which the teams will flash themselves.
Joined Apr 2011
900 Posts | 4+
somewhere else
I hope they have good technical advisers. It is not as if they have never stuffed up a tech reg before. No track position aware mapping/tc sounds like a very good start though.
