<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BarryMachine @ Feb 2 2008, 03:04 AM)
<{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If all riders had no TC I would then argue that the racing would become slower and more boring, than it has purported to have become. TC has been in for a long time. Engine mapping can even be argued to be a form of TC, ie. the rider has it programmed to give him the power delivery as he feels he needs it, on the old 2 strokes it was used in an attempt o combat that wicked power surge that occured when the tuned length for the exhausts caused the power to rapidly increase to a peak ( felt, and described as a "power band" in the olde world ). But even then it was highly programmable.
To complain about TC/electronics now, after so much development
....... is the craziest thing I think I have heard in motogp. The next instant after somebody realised that they could replace contact breaker points with electronics, I bet they then thought ...... and we can manipulate it to get the engine to do what we want when we want it ..... we could go faster. If you think 800's slowed bikes to become boring then think what removing all that development in electronics would do!!.....
It comes down to ....... they want to go faster ..... how can we do it? ....... well the beauty of motogp is each rider and Team can individually find ways of doing just that. If we take away the competition involved in finding those "ways of going faster" ..... then gee ..... how boring will that become!! ...... There are a plethora of moto racing formulas out there that do test just riders, by running relatively standard machines ....... motogp has never been about that .... and I believe would be ruined by that ...... the only reason folks have begun to forget what motogp is about is that they have become too attached to individual riders in the sport, and feel that in order to believe that their rider is "still the best" then there must be a fault in the equation ... Rider+Team+equipment .........
But in the past sure "riders skill" in the actually trackwork played a huge role ...... but a good champion allways was able to develop his bike for himself ( with the assistance of the team ). I doubt any riders in history could just get on another rider's setup machine, in GP, and do much good. Motogp is about setup and development. It was allways like someone saying to a rider "heres a box of goodies ..... now go away and put them together in a way that makes you the fastest! ...... then tell us what you did, if it works" ........ to complain about TC now after so much development is like "shutting the gate after the horse has bolted" but also it would be so detrimental to real engine and handling performance as to be declaring a false path for future motorcycle development in the future ....
imagine say in 30 years time .... if we did stop such a development strand, as electronic developments, and then the teams would proceed with finding more "mechanical" means of going faster ....... how different would it be in 30 years time!!?? ...... and how many ways would we have missed out on that do help us go faster ...... seems a damn shame to me to throw away all of that merely for the sake of the politics of wanting to placate the crowds who want their rider to be winning again, and falsley believe that he is not winning because electronics is making everybody else so much better ...... even though that rider has been the No.1 develpment beneficiary of those electronics developments in the past ........ its merely been "politics" and "spin" ..... it would be a damn shame, for the future of motogp, if the FIM ever aquiessed to allow Dorna to raise the importance of spectator needs over the original base reason for "GP" being the top development formula.
Perhaps TC has brought out one thing ...... the FIM have at least stood firm on their reslove to maintain GP as a development formula ...... and not given in to the pressure that drop in Rossi fans as regular spectators threatens. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future ...... but hopefully the formula shall live on ...... and we get better bikes.
Firstly, a question. How do you work out that "no TC = poor racing"?
Obviously all electronics should not be banned, but equally obvious (IMO) is that we cannot continue with unregulated electronic development and still have a racing series that is worth watching. Remember that, although this is a development formula, many aspects of it are (and always have been) regulated. Otherwise you could (for example) rock up with an 1000cc Rotary and kick Stoners ...
Having a different power map for each gear, mode switches etc are a form of traction control but not the intrusive kind that we currently see. As you say, this technology has been on GP bikes since the late eighties. However the level of electronics have been advancing in leaps and bounds for a few years now and we now have anti-wheelie, launch control, braking control and, of course, ever more advanced traction control.
For anyone who missed it the first time, check out the following thread:
Explanation of how TC etc actually works, By Chris Pike, who does know what he's talking about
Here are a few of Chris's comments which answer some of your points (from the same forum I stole his explanation).
1. On unregulated development of electronics:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>If you end up with a fully floating point traction control system that just needs to know what track it is at, with the only throttle control being carried out by the ECU coupled to some kind of CV transmission, does that sound like the recipe for a good race? Not to me it doesn't but that is maybe the direction we are heading for.
2. On Direct vs ECU throttle control
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Without the ECU controlling the throttle I would like to think that the riders individual styles would be more visible, so it would be more common to see bikes getting out of line on corner entry, out braking would be more prevalent and the whole spectale would have less of a 'Ford Mondeo' feeling about it as at some tracks different styles would prevail.
You will never ban TC totally and racing is about getting around the track quicker than anyone else but surely not at all cost? I think making the rider control the engine, albeit specially tuned at that throttle/RPM point to give more or less power, is the least we can expect from them.
3. On electronics on 990s vs on 800s
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The manufacturers were trying to tame 990cc beasts before now they have all the same technology to control a relative ..... cat of an 800. The less power you have the easier it is to control.
4. On the effects of electronics development in Motogp for road bikes
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The technical part (of TC) is interesting from an engineering point of view but has now been developed to such an extent that its advantages that can be handed down to road users are now largely irrelevant, not unlike the situation in F1.
5. On ECU controlled throttle response and GPS (new in 2007 I believe)
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>If we think of the crude type of traction control as 'power output control' this means the bike knows what gear it is in and will have an appropriate map for each gear. The engine map can be tuned for linear rather than maximum performance throughout the power curve. Every time the rider opens the throttle in, for instance 2nd gear 8,000rpm 60% throttle, the power output is exactly the same.
The same scenario on a GP bike you could have two corners where this was the acceleration point but the power output could be adjusted according to corner camber, elevation etc because the bike knows where it is on the circuit.
6. Finally, his suggestion as to what to do about the electronics.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>If the FIM altered the regulations to state that the throttle is to be connected directly and remove the ability of the ECU to know its whereabouts on the track this a starting point and relatively easily achievable. A control ECU would seem a bit of a draconian step to take at this stage in my personal opinion.
I'd back that as a way forward. Anyone else?
