Yamaha new electronics

Kropotkin said:

Plus they map the track on Thursday using GPS on scooters, and incorporate that data into the existing maps they have. I even saw Yamaha techs at Aragon using a good old-fashioned distance wheel to measure the back straight and braking markers.

Click to expand...

Thats a mile more accurate than any Gyro ONLY system !!!! there you go, why would they bother!









Yamaka ...................................................................................





..................................................





I have a project to join enough ladders to climb to the moon ........... are you in?



Show me the Gyro ONLY system working and I'll help you publish what you have done





Coulda, Woulda, shoulda

Kropotkin said:

Plus they map the track on Thursday using GPS on scooters, and incorporate that data into the existing maps they have. I even saw Yamaha techs at Aragon using a good old-fashioned distance wheel to measure the back straight and braking markers.

Click to expand...

You are aware that that article backs my original point .........



"The complexity of the systems has progressed beyond depending on just GPS ............. "

yamaka46 said:

Barry, you are wrong. It can be done as I have explained with links before, it's just that GPS is cheaper than the software required to remove the drift from the gyros.



Take one accelerometer, 3 gryos (pitch, yaw, roll) and 2 tilt sensors (pitch & roll) a track map and the ability to zero the bike's position at the start/finish line and I can write software that will "map" the track enabling different engine maps per corner.



see http://www.sportride...bike/index.html



excerpt:

Click to expand...

Yamaka ......... I can program a system to do what you are claiming too, but I would not in any way call the program "mapping". Live and dynamic reaction to attitude and forces in a corner ........ no problem for Gyros ......... but "mapping"?



As I have said before, such a system is useful only when reliant on a constant reference to a GPS, which is not as per Babel proposed.



I'd be amazed if these guys are not programming these onboard devices to act dynamically regardless of which corner these days anyway.

BarryMachine said:

Thats a mile more accurate than any Gyro ONLY system !!!! there you go, why would they bother!

Yamaka ...................................................................................





..................................................





I have a project to join enough ladders to climb to the moon ........... are you in?

Show me the Gyro ONLY system working and I'll help you publish what you have done

Coulda, Woulda, shoulda

Click to expand...

If you've seen the M1 on track, you've seen the gyro only system. GPS has been banned for at least a year. You appear to massively underestimate the ingenuity of engineers.

Kropotkin said:

If you've seen the M1 on track, you've seen the gyro only system. GPS has been banned for at least a year. You appear to massively underestimate the ingenuity of engineers.

Click to expand...

Then show me that it is "mapped" as opposed to a dynamic algorithm.

BarryMachine said:

Then show me that it is "mapped" as opposed to a dynamic algorithm.

Click to expand...

The Yamaha engineers say that the bike is capable of constantly monitoring and changing bike behavior based on input from gyros. It is also predictive, e.g. it preemptively adapts to tire wear based on incoming data as the race goes on. If I had to choose between GPS and gyro/accelerometers, it's a no-brainer. The GPS can tell you where you are, but it can't tell you how hard you are pushing a tire.



Even before GPS, circuit maps were being built using data from dataloggers. GPS is an irrelevance, a cute toy for TV, an overrated tool for racing motorcycles.

Barry, Gyros on their own exhibit drift. This was the convo we had about 3 years ago. You need the other sensors to correct the drift. Once that is resolved, mapping to the extent needed for engine maps per corner can be done and (as Krop has pointed out) is done succesfully with todays race bikes. I used to develop secondary flight displays, I currently work within Power Train for Jaguar Landrover. Trust me, it's possible.

Kropotkin said:

The Yamaha engineers say that the bike is capable of constantly monitoring and changing bike behavior based on input from gyros. It is also predictive, e.g. it preemptively adapts to tire wear based on incoming data as the race goes on. If I had to choose between GPS and gyro/accelerometers, it's a no-brainer. The GPS can tell you where you are, but it can't tell you how hard you are pushing a tire.



Even before GPS, circuit maps were being built using data from dataloggers. GPS is an irrelevance, a cute toy for TV, an overrated tool for racing motorcycles.

Click to expand...

If thats the case then the team with the most extensive data surely wins.



Ducati has their test track at Mugello. With the amount of data Ducati must have after running countless laps every millimeter of the Mugello track would be perfectly mapped by now. So they should be a sure thing for the race. And yet Mugello has historically been one of the worst tracks for Ducati. The others who run far fewer laps do much better. So it doesnt make sense to me that electronic mapping is so vital. If Yamaha has a live system where position is irrelevant then that sounds far superior.



Maybe someone needs to give Ducati Yamaha's distance wheel.

Kropotkin said:

The Yamaha engineers say that the bike is capable of constantly monitoring and changing bike behavior based on input from gyros. It is also predictive, e.g. it preemptively adapts to tire wear based on incoming data as the race goes on. If I had to choose between GPS and gyro/accelerometers, it's a no-brainer. The GPS can tell you where you are, but it can't tell you how hard you are pushing a tire.

Click to expand...

I have always agreed with that ............ I don't think you understand what the original discussion was ............... Babel was aserting that they would buld up a map using Gyros alone, so the bike could tell at any one time where it was ..............



this I disagreed with.

BarryMachine said:

I have always agreed with that ............ I don't think you understand what the original discussion was ............... Babel was aserting that they would buld up a map using Gyros alone, so the bike could tell at any one time where it was ..............



this I disagreed with.

Click to expand...

I have no idea whether it can build the map using gyros alone (I suspect it is theoretically possible, but have no proof), and I have no evidence of how they build the map. But then what they use to build the map is a moot point, it's how it is employed during the race that is useful.

yamaka46 said:

Barry, Gyros on their own exhibit drift. This was the convo we had about 3 years ago. You need the other sensors to correct the drift. Once that is resolved, mapping to the extent needed for engine maps per corner can be done and (as Krop has pointed out) is done succesfully with todays race bikes. I used to develop secondary flight displays, I currently work within Power Train for Jaguar Landrover. Trust me, it's possible.

Click to expand...

Seems you are agreeing with me now!!??



"Trust me its possible" .............. I know it is ......... but so is climbing to the moon on ladders ............



But as you should well know in engineering "feasibility" takes into account some "get real" factors



Also ............... as you should be aware .......... how do you think your cred has gone with me since you said "trust me .... "





As you know I too have a modicum of Techo experience, especially in sensor use, type and sadly and mindboglingly inanedly so ......... the accuracy of said sensors and the systems which attach to them.



Can't remember if I've ever had a techo discussion which included the phrase "trust me ..... " before.

BarryMachine said:

Seems you are agreeing with me now!!??



"Trust me its possible" .............. I know it is ......... but so is climbing to the moon on ladders ............



But as you should well know in engineering "feasibility" takes into account some "get real" factors

Also ............... as you should be aware .......... how do you think your cred has gone with me since you said "trust me .... "

As you know I too have a modicum of Techo experience, especially in sensor use, type and sadly and mindboglingly inanedly so ......... the accuracy of said sensors and the systems which attach to them.



Can't remember if I've ever had a techo discussion which included the phrase "trust me ..... " before.

Click to expand...

Barry, the thing with the internet and searchable forums is that I can go back in time and find the point where we first started arguing about this (actually Feb 2010) and what I said.



I have never disagreed with the fact that gyros drift. From the beginning I said you needed more sensors than just gyros. However the difference is that you said that the drift couldn't be solved.



See here http://www.powerslid...ndpost&p=227099 and the appropriate excerpt:

BarryMachine: You can't use gyros to find your position on a track ...... there I'll say it again. Nobody has cured the drift problem with gyros even today. I fyou think they have post the "magic story" showing so.

Click to expand...

See my response here http://www.powerslid...ndpost&p=227094 You will notice that my opening statement was

I wasn't frequenting this site during the gyro conversation, but...

Click to expand...

ie this was the very first time I'd offered any opinion on the subject.



The next couple of statements in that post included the following words : "SFDs have 3 gyros and an accelerometer." and "The system also includes two tilt sensors - horizontal and vertical." and I explained in detail how these sensors are used to correct gyro drift.



Your reply (seen in the post I linked above), once I pointed out that drift corrected gyros were good enough to create a secondary flight display and concluded

Using such a system, together with an electronic odometer which is reset every time the bike crosses the finish line, will provide you with sufficiently accurate information to determine which corner you are in. This would allow engine maps per corner, a la GPS.

Click to expand...

was that no-one was using them in MotoGP.



I responded that that was due to the fact that GPS was significantly cheaper and not banned.



Now GPS is banned you do see such systems, eg the one Yamaha are using. Not sure what there is here to confuse.



You may have extensive knowledge of sensors, but obviously you don't understand what is possible with sensors plus software algorithms, despite me spending quite a bit of effort (it would appear, looking back at the amount of words I wrote about this back then ) trying to explain.



You mention engineering "feasibility", but not only did SFDs exist in 2000, Yamaha are using gyros to map the track now. What "get real" factors are you referring to?



As for my "cred" with you - I really think I'd rather have "cred" with companies who pay me X£/hour to do the stuff you maintain can't be done

yamaka46 said:

Barry, you are wrong. It can be done as I have explained with links before, it's just that GPS is cheaper than the software required to remove the drift from the gyros.



Take one accelerometer, 3 gryos (pitch, yaw, roll) and 2 tilt sensors (pitch & roll) a track map and the ability to zero the bike's position at the start/finish line and I can write software that will "map" the track enabling different engine maps per corner.



see http://www.sportride...bike/index.html



excerpt:

Click to expand...

You need to read that article again.



It actually says they merely used the gyros to "fill in data" from the Dorna GPS.



This was done because Dorna set the GPS output at a relatively slow rate that was useful for TV "where are they on the track" display, but not fast enough that the engineers could use for real time. The engineers got around this by doing exactly what I said .........



Get GPS readout

set gyros and use that until ......

Get Gps readout

and repeat ........



............. exactly what I said.





You also claim Yamaha are mapping the track totally GPS free ........ do you have any link or readings on this?

BarryMachine said:

You need to read that article again.



It actually says they merely used the gyros to "fill in data" from the Dorna GPS.



This was done because Dorna set the GPS output at a relatively slow rate that was useful for TV "where are they on the track" display, but not fast enough that the engineers could use for real time. The engineers got around this by doing exactly what I said .........



Get GPS readout

set gyros and use that until ......

Get Gps readout

and repeat ........



............. exactly what I said.





You also claim Yamaha are mapping the track totally GPS free ........ do you have any link or readings on this?

Click to expand...

The word "fill" does not appear in the article I posted, yet alone any concept of using gyros to "fill in data" from the Dorna GPS.



The following is a quote from the article:

Satellite photography allows engineers to map out a circuit, and once a position has been set, accelerometers and gyro sensors can then be used to help correlate the bike’s position to the map. Or the teams can create their own triangulation system using transmitters and receivers trackside.

Click to expand...

This not the same as "use gyros until next GPS update" which is what you claim. Not even sure how you'd do that easily. GPS is in terms of Lat & Long. Gyros are in terms of attitude (roll, pitch, yaw) and whilst you could spend time using gyros to work out where you'd travelled from the last GPS position until the next, it'd be cheaper in computing power & software development to use gyros (plus tilts & and an accelerometer to sort the drift) to work out where you were using a reset at the start finish straight rather than try to recalc the missing GPS data until the Dorna GPS is allowed to provide Lat / Long again.



That's even what the article implies. If you were going to use GPS to "correct" the gyro drift (which, BTW, you said was impossible in 2010 - strange how you didn't bother replying to the post I made yesterday ) why would you also need an accelerometer? I didn't state that Yamaha are not using GPS, but the inclusion of an accelerometer coupled with what I know about correcting drift means they probably use GPS to determine when the bike crosses the start finish straight only.



It also doesn't change the fact that gyros are being used to determine the track position regardless of the fact that you stated it couldn't be done.

yamaka46 said:

The word "fill" does not appear in the article I posted, yet alone any concept of using gyros to "fill in data" from the Dorna GPS.



The following is a quote from the article:



This not the same as "use gyros until next GPS update" which is what you claim. Not even sure how you'd do that easily. GPS is in terms of Lat & Long. Gyros are in terms of attitude (roll, pitch, yaw) and whilst you could spend time using gyros to work out where you'd travelled from the last GPS position until the next, it'd be cheaper in computing power & software development to use gyros (plus tilts & and an accelerometer to sort the drift) to work out where you were using a reset at the start finish straight rather than try to recalc the missing GPS data until the Dorna GPS is allowed to provide Lat / Long again.



That's even what the article implies. If you were going to use GPS to "correct" the gyro drift (which, BTW, you said was impossible in 2010 - strange how you didn't bother replying to the post I made yesterday

) why would you also need an accelerometer? I didn't state that Yamaha are not using GPS, but the inclusion of an accelerometer coupled with what I know about correcting drift means they probably use GPS to determine when the bike crosses the start finish straight only.

Click to expand...

You don't understand yamaka. This argument is not about how gyros may or may not be used in motogp, it concerns the impossibility of barry ever being wrong about anything ever.(Sorry barry, I enjoy your participation in general, but this is where you really annoy people including me).



I actually remember the start of this discussion, where yours and babel's point was basically that the teams could run mapping to suit the bike's position on the track without using gps. There was some discussion concerning whether without access to the US military stuff ( which I gather would be accurate enough) the gps at that time was sufficiently accurate for the purpose anyway. You guys always said the gyro/whatever data would be superimposed on the topography of the track known by other means; it is interesting they use aerial photography when as dave emmett says they can use a scooter with gps to determine this.



One thing I don't recall precisely is whether they did use gps for track position aware software back then; I seem to recall that the only gps stuff allowed on the bike was the dorna stuff for the television coverage and that we weren't sure that was allowed to be used other than for the TV coverage.



One thing we all agreed on (+/- Barry) was that they should not be allowed to have track position aware software/mapping in the first place, other than that residing between the rider's ears and reliant on his intrinsic sensors.



One question I have for barry is why they have the gyros on the bikes if they are not using them for the purposes you say. I will agree with him in advance that what he said recently about them having progressed to using them for dynamic/adaptive purposes beyond my ken sounds likely.



(EDIT If babel did say gyros alone could be used barry may have a fine point in logic, a very fine point if the start and finish of the lap is really the only other information required; I can only comment on the logic of the argument not really understanding the science).

yamaka46 said:

The following is a quote from the article:

Click to expand...

For gods sake this quote also backs me !!!!!



Whats wrong with you guys! You are argueing with me and throwing evidence at me that supports my case!



I ask you of your quote ............



do they use Gyros alone

to ascertain their position on traack!!



That was what the argument was,!



Understand that and you will likely see that YOU are agreeing with me



FFS







Michael,



You are missing a point, I am not pro GPS, I am anti-Gyros operating alone ........ with no reference checks. Whatever those reference checks ....... eg. be they visual ( line of sight such as past space travel required ), transmitted signals, triangulation, etc. etc.



If you are falsifying/misinterpreting my argument, then you have little ability to declare me "wrong" .



I worked for a few years in a gov. lab testing and very most often debunking many technical myths and sales pitches ( amazing how much faith folk who sell a product put in that product ) ......... the gear had to do what was required, not what they believed, or even in many instnces, what it was designed to do.

It was not a popularity contest as to whether the EUT did a job or not, it was cold hard tested fact, repeatable for all to observe.

If you have something to add, other than a popularity opinion, please do so, otherwise understand that for 20 years I found the popularity vote, or even individual sales pitches, had very little to do with the reality of operation of said systems.



I think I've made it quite clear Michael, whether you vote me wrong or not, I am no "tribe dweller" ( always been a bit like that ). What you think of me matters ......... zippo. Perhaps you have been around Jumkie's "kumbayah sessions" once too much . Understand, that your opinion of me, has little sway on years of experience I have ......... you, mysteriously, have not managed to add to my past experience yet. I would suggest that it would take some technical evidence rather than a popularity vote





Again, my point: can anyone come up with a system for mapping a track ( not maybe I could program one ), that does rely on Gyros ALONE with absolutely no reliance on another reference.

( You are asking say ..... a sailor to set off across the pacific, on clouded skies and navigate to a set destination using a gyro device alone ........ I wouldn't, would you? Even a compass would be a lifesaver ) ( Gee Yamaka!!! if your do reckon you can program a system .......... WTF are you doing here arguing with mere mortals like me!! Your system would make billions just on sailors alone!! If you reckon you can do it for bikes the task for a sailboat should be simple!!





It has been my experience that Gyro devices have an intrinsic flaw for such a task.

Even you Yamaka have said the exact same and then you go on to tell me you are taking an opposing view ........ fruity!

hawkdriver said:

Barry what other device would let the computer know that the bike just turned, it's simple count the number of turns, know what order they go in left-right and when you get back to the beginning you just completed a lap around a closed circuit/pattern. Plug in your speeds and times at those speeds and now you have a distance. According to Yamaha the largest problem with not using transponders and GPS was the signal interference they were getting from the sensors. Seeing as they banned GPS while the MSMA was in charge of the rules I would say they figured out a way to get a proper signal and then changed the rules so that it would take anyone else who even thought about getting into GP an even larger hurdle to climb. The reason GPS was even used was to offset the fluctuations in speed/distance being recorded because as we all know the rear tire spins sometimes and the front tire comes off the ground at times so it's hard to get an accurate measure of speed. I've posted this all before directly from an article with Yamaha electronic engineers. You are now turning it into well it takes more than a gyro, well no .... the bikes currently have more than 116 sensors and that is also directly from Yamaha, the point isn't just to know where the bike is it's also to know exactly what happened and what to do next time it gets to that point on the track again.

Click to expand...

Oh FFS ........... read my original argument with Babel .......... I really don't care about GPS Hawk ...... the argument was about Gyros and drift .........

michaelm said:

(EDIT If babel did say gyros alone could be used barry may have a fine point in logic, a very fine point if the start and finish of the lap is really the only other information required; I can only comment on the logic of the argument not really understanding the science).

Click to expand...

Perhaps redemption for you Michael ........... That was my argument with babel ......... such a system would need a constant reference ....... without which such systems are flawed.

My opinion of Babels system, that used just Gyros/accelerometers and an odometer, is that it is flawed.



"tribal mentality" the bane of society ..............