Koliko su u stvari današnji MotoGP motori natrpani elektronikom ?
- Thread starter markookram
- Start date
):
Osigurac
Member
Tu ima samo kako transponder za mjerenje vremena mora bit postavljen ( ne smije bit na cicak itd. ) ... Da ne smije bit gps montiran i slicno,koji senzori smiju bit montirani...
Evo ima tu
http://gearpatrol.com/2014/04/22/tissot-motogp-timekeeping-circuit-of-the-americas/
12 do 15 timing zona ima na stazi...
Evo ima tu
http://gearpatrol.com/2014/04/22/tissot-motogp-timekeeping-circuit-of-the-americas/
12 do 15 timing zona ima na stazi...
Osigurac
Member
Recimo da ima 15 senzora na 5000 metara staze u Qatru,vjerovatno na bitnim tockama promjene rezima voznje... Koliko je njima prosjek uopce,200 kmh ? To je znaci senzor svako 330 metara a oni pice 55 m/s, ili ti ga od senzora do senzora prakticki svako 6-7 sekundi... Onda ti parametri sto si napiso nisu toliko vazni,tj jako su mali na duzinu od 330 metara nakon kojih se sve resetira...
Ako stvarno ima toliko senzora jeli,nisam naso sluzbeno na motoGP stranici kako se vrse mjerenja...
Ako stvarno ima toliko senzora jeli,nisam naso sluzbeno na motoGP stranici kako se vrse mjerenja...
Cvitak
New member
Osigurac said:
Koji točno parametri nisu važni?
GPS je zabranjen zbog velikih troškova same tehnologije. Tvornice si mogu priuštiti desetak inženjera za rad na tom software-u dok privatni timovi često imaju samo jednog koji mora raditi sve, ne samo se baviti tim jednim dijelom motora i utrke. Isto tako samo je jedna tvornica dovela tu tehnologiju na vrlo visoku razinu dok su druge kaskale i samim time druge tvornice su lakše prihvatile Dornin prijedlog da se ta tehnologija zabrani.
Osigurac
Member
Pretpostavljam da razna proklizavanja i sl. sto je u biti "lazni put" ne rade toliku gresku ako su razmaci izmedu mjerenja mali....
Nije mi jasno kako GPS tehnologija moze bit skupa, mislim, mjerenje se bazira se na istom principu samo sto je senzor drugaciji,nije GPS nego nesto drugo a software se moze isprogramirat kako zelis, ovako ti treba puno vise pizdarija a onako samo jedna GPS antenica koja kosta 10 dolara... stvarno mi ne ide u glavu to sa troskovima...
Nije mi jasno kako GPS tehnologija moze bit skupa, mislim, mjerenje se bazira se na istom principu samo sto je senzor drugaciji,nije GPS nego nesto drugo a software se moze isprogramirat kako zelis, ovako ti treba puno vise pizdarija a onako samo jedna GPS antenica koja kosta 10 dolara... stvarno mi ne ide u glavu to sa troskovima...
Cvitak
New member
Osigurac said:
Jedan senzor za seamles getribu od honde košta cca 50K dolara, prve godine kada su predstavili tu getribu. A ima ih mala hrpica za tu vrstu getribe.
Svaki pomak motora na pisti se bilježi senzorima, ne zbog lokacije motora nego zbog same elektronike koja je do ove godine imala mogućnost učenja. Dakle kroz cijelu utrku je učila kako se motor ponaša na određenom dijelu staze. Laički objašnjeno elektronika je uzela brzinu motora kroz određeni zavoj te parametre nagiba, ubrzavanja proklizavanja, brzina vrtnje oba kotača, broj okretaja, temperture itd itd itd i procijenila da li motor može još brže tj. da li vozaču treba još više snage. Isto tako je smanjivala dostupnu snagu kako je trka odmicala, gume propadale i smanjila se količina dostupnog goriva.
I opet napominjem ovo je sve laički napisano da se lakše shvati. O samoj struji možemo pisati xy stranica jer je tu jako puno detalja
Osigurac
Member
Sve to stoji ali GPS je GPS, on jedino moze dat poziciju motora, ne moze nista drugo izračunat.
Da senzori kostaju,sigurno kostaju,ja i neznam da ti iskreno recem, ali je on samo jedan od senzora u tom telemetrijskom sustavu i ne moze bit skup jer je komercijalan...
Tako da mi je jasno da su radi troškova banali neke stvari ili cjelokupne sustave za telemetriju,ali samo GPS ko GPS nema smisla banat radi troskova...
Što su oni točno zabranili ? :misli:
Da senzori kostaju,sigurno kostaju,ja i neznam da ti iskreno recem, ali je on samo jedan od senzora u tom telemetrijskom sustavu i ne moze bit skup jer je komercijalan...
Tako da mi je jasno da su radi troškova banali neke stvari ili cjelokupne sustave za telemetriju,ali samo GPS ko GPS nema smisla banat radi troskova...
Što su oni točno zabranili ? :misli:
Cvitak
New member
Osigurac said:
jer treba softwerski riješiti, upravljati, programirati, prilagođavati, znati čitati podatke, analizirati i sve to prevesti na rječnik koji razumiju trkaći. Ako ti jedna tupava internet stranica može koštati 10 do 20k kn a ako dodaš web shop onda su to cifre i u Eurima onda si zamisli koliko košta nešto takvo.
Shepa
Well-known member
Pošto je onaj Cvitkov link riknija, evo c/p Stonerovog intervjua:
From Australian Motorcycle News
CASEY STONER- MY MOTOGP PLAYBOOK | COLUMNS | GASSIT GARAGE
02 August 2016
The (currently) retired racer spills the secrets of his racing success over three ages of MotoGP – and reveals what he sees as the biggest threat to the future of the sport
Casey Stoner is one of the greatest riders of the MotoGP era: he won two world titles on different makes of motorcycle and has ridden 990s, 800s and 1000s. Not only that, the Australian has never been afraid to speak his mind, which is why there’s no one better to talk about how the motorcycles and the racing have changed over the last decade or so and whether it’s changing for the better or the worse. Along the way, he lets us in on some of the finer points of his racing technique.
Before you ask…
No, there is still no comeback planned. But…
“We are still open to the possibility of racing in the future, but I’m not planning anything at the moment – I have no wish to race. I’m not going to say never because if I did race again I’d have to eat my words, as I’ve had to do plenty of times before. But racing isn’t on the list, that’s for sure. I’m enjoying my role right now and hope I can give back to Ducati not only with data and testing but in many other ways. What I’m doing now is a different aspect of racing and if we get the results, it will be interesting to see how the feeling is.”
“For me, the 990s were probably MotoGP’s best era”
“The MotoGP bike was quite a bit easier to ride than a 250, especially coming from an Aprilia 250. They were nasty little machines – very, very effective and incredibly fast when you got them right, but getting them there was tricky. In many ways that’s how it is with the Italian family of racing machines.
When I first rode the RC211V at the Valencia tests in November 2005 I found changing direction so much easier that I had to be less aggressive than I’d been with the 250. That was probably because the 250 had higher corner speed and often better grip, so you had to put in more effort because of the greater gyroscopic effect and so on.
The best way to explain the difference is to liken it to going from a go-kart, which is extremely nimble, to a big V8 car; maybe the difference isn’t that big, but it’s in that direction.
The MotoGP bike took a lot of the rigidity out of it because of its weight and power and because the bike wanted to spin, it didn’t want to drive off corners like the 250. It was a bit like going to a slippery track, and I always felt more at home whenever we went to a slippery track, even on a 250. I was never a rider to just trust the grip; I always had to feel the grip and the more I felt the bike moving the more I felt okay because I knew that’s where my limit was. If you’re riding on pure grip you’ve just got to trust things and I never liked doing that. I preferred knowing what I was getting myself into.
Most 250 riders didn’t adapt their lines that much when they first stepped up to MotoGP. So long as you were smooth on the throttle you could ride a MotoGP bike like it was a 250 and be fast, to a certain degree. That’s when all of us jumping up from 250s started having those crashing moments: trying to run too much corner speed, or pushing it to an edge that was there to be had and was very, very fast, but you couldn’t keep it up all the time. There’s many ways to make a MotoGP bike fast but not as many ways to make it fast safely.
You couldn’t go as fast through corners because of the weight and everything, so you went through the crashes, you learned how to get the speed out of a MotoGP bike without crashing, then your style adapted.
You started braking later, going into corners a little harder on the brakes, so you were actually going quicker into the corner compared to a 250, then holding the brakes further into the corner to get the bike stopped a bit more and using the power on the exit. On a MotoGP bike you carried a lot more front brake going in, then tried not to carry so much corner speed. On a 250 you released the brake a lot earlier to let the bike free and run through the corner faster.
Changing direction was a lot easier on a MotoGP bike, so I found myself being gentler on the throttle. I used it to help me change direction: as I put weight on the footpegs in the middle part of the change of direction I’d give it a bit of throttle to load the suspension, then I’d get off it to help the bike get over, then I’d get on the gas again. You just needed to be more progressive so it didn’t try to slide.
I also put more weight on the inside footpeg out of corners because it made the bike want to turn and stand up, plus it put more pressure directly over the tyre. I’ve never understood the theory of weighting the outside peg. In speedway they do it to break away into corners, but from mid-corner onwards they’ve got their outside foot completely off the peg.
For me, the 990s were probably MotoGP’s best era. The electronics were just about perfect. They were there, so they’d save you to a certain degree, but they wouldn’t increase your performance. In practice at the Sachsenring in 2006 we had all kinds of problems with the electronics, so we had to ride without them. I think I was 0.15s off my best time with traction control, even though I was being cautious.
In my opinion 2006 was one of the greatest years of MotoGP: lots of different winners, lots of people at the front. I think they were the decent days.”
MotoGP Era 2: 800cc
“The 800s would’ve been just about impossible to ride without the improvements all the manufacturers made with engine management in 2007. That was the biggest advance during the 800 era, not so much traction control.
That progression was the only way they could get the power out of the engines and tame them at the same time. When I was with Ducati they used that progress to make the engine smoother, otherwise it would’ve been a beast to ride.
We had massive pumping issues which they fixed by calming down the engine, with the twin-pulse firing order and other things, like switching to engine to three cylinders at the first touch of the throttle, just to tame it off bottom rpm. Without that it was very, very loose and hard work.
The 800’s powerband was definitely smaller, but it wasn’t like riding a two-stroke. You still had a lot of grunt, but you had to be more precise with your gearing than on the 990. Pretty much everything else I did exactly the same, short shifting out of the same corners and so on.
What the 800s lost in one area they gained in another. They were slightly lighter, which gave them more of a 250 feel; plus the engine didn’t have so much inertia because of the smaller capacity, which made the bike feel lighter and easier to flick around. The technique went a bit back to 250s, but only a bit, because with the 800s we were still braking very late and deep into the corners.
The 800s didn’t have the same grunt, so we had to run a little more corner speed to try and use the same gear. That’s why a lot of records went, even though we’d lost 20 per cent of engine capacity.
The big progress in electronics was engine braking, because the 800s were more settled going into the corners, so you could run more corner speed. If you look at 2006, everyone was still backing into corners.
Also, the Bridgestone rear had more edge grip than the Michelin, but nowhere near as much grip in the traction area, so we had to use more corner speed and pick up the bike less, to try and keep using the edge grip.
I started using the front brake through the corners on the Ducati because it was something I had to do. All the other manufacturers had their fuel tanks low down and further back under the seat, but Ducati had a front-end fuel tank. It was very high, so as the fuel went down the balance of the bike changed.
Sometimes when we didn’t get the right set-up we would get to a point midway through the race when we didn’t have enough weight over the front. I’m not big enough to get right over the front, so I started running a lot more front brake throughout the corner to keep the front down and make it turn harder, because the Ducati didn’t turn that good. I wouldn’t use the brake all the way through with heaps of throttle on – it’s a bit too difficult to do that – but especially at that first crack of the throttle, just to get the thing to turn.
How did I work that out? Gently! Back in those days you’d get a lot of tyre degradation, so I’d try squaring off the corners, but nothing worked, so it was either use the front brake or go wide at every corner. This was usually in long corners, like the downhill right at Le Mans [La Chapelle].
At times and at certain tracks I did use the electronics as an advantage, much in the same way as I used the rev limiter, which my teams never liked! I used the rev limiter in corners which I wanted to tack into very clearly and safely, like Turn 5 at Sepang. Out of Turn 4 you go over the top of a rise and the bike goes light, so it’s easy to highside going into 5, because even the electronics will struggle to help you if you step it out there. So I’d attack a lot going over the rise, making sure I hit the rev limiter before I reached the top, then once it hits the limiter there’s no more torque going through the engine, so I would be able to run a lot faster down into 5 because I knew it couldn’t highside me.
I did the same at places like at Turn 3 at Valencia. I’d slide and go in there, knowing that I was going to hit the limiter any second, then the limiter would be my electronics by not allowing me to slide any further. Basically the electronics are the same thing as the rev limiter, they just cut in earlier.”
MotoGP Era 3: 1000cc
“When I tested the Honda 1000 it was a real package. It was great. I love the power: the more power the better, I love it.
There’s not a massive difference between the old 990s and the 1000s, just a general progression of chassis, tyres, electronics and engine. The 1000s definitely make more power, but it feels tamer and smoother throughout the rev rage because they can control each aspect with the engine management and electronics.
Compared to the 800s, the 1000s are a little jump: again you’ve got more torque so you can pull off a corner from lower revs and find a bit more grip. They’re also a bit heavier in the change of direction, so it’s just the usual things you’d expect going from an 800cc to a 1000cc engine.
The way MotoGP is now I’d say the riding is more one-line than it was. In the 800 era all the bikes had different characters – some had more power at the bottom, some had more power at the top.
Now we’re back to 1000s with a fantastic amount of grunt, but the electronics are still too good, in my opinion. Back in the 990 days, the only way they really helped us was with engine braking: you’d still be loose, you’d still be backing it in, but the electronics stopped you from completely locking up and sliding.
With the 990s, the electronics were also there when things got really bad, so if you completely destroyed a tyre they’d get you home, things like that. But in general they didn’t get involved too much and I didn’t want them to because I didn’t like the feeling of them. I’d spent my whole life riding without electronics, so I don’t know why all of a sudden they thought that the new age of riders wanted to ride with them.
Now the electronics are very refined and progressive, so they come in a lot more smoothly. Even this year’s [Dorna] package is very, very good. The teams may not have as many options to fine tune things and do corner-by-corner tuning, but it’s still a very impressive package. Unfortunately, it’s not at all basic.
I’d like to see a lot less electronics. I think it needs to drop back to where they were in 2006 or 2007. I think the Dorna package is just Dorna trying to reduce costs and stop the electronics from progressing any more, but they’re certainly not putting the racing back in the hands of the riders.
I enjoyed trying different things with my riding, like stopping the thing from doing wheelies. Wheelie control is another thing I don’t like. I like being able to float the front wheel and get that perfect amount of drive out of the corner. That’s the kind of thing that makes riding a bike into an art, rather than just opening it up and having the electronics do it all for you. All those elements that have disappeared now. I don’t like that because I still don’t think electronics are as good as the human hand.
The Michelin tyres are quite a change too. Back in 2007 the Bridgestones had a lot less rear grip than the Michelins had in 2006, which is exactly what the riders are saying now. The Michelin rear is very, very good, it always has been. But Michelin have still got the same problem they had in the past: the rear doesn’t seem to match the front, it overpowers the front, for whatever reason.
It doesn’t feel like it’s pushing the front, it just feels like the circumference and profile doesn’t fit front to rear. As you go into a corner the bike goes through this little moment where it feels like there’s no contact on the front and then it comes back and then the rear does something a bit funny. I know why people are crashing, but it’s not an easy thing to fix. It’s not something where you can go, okay, I’ve just got to go a bit gentler here. It’s the main part of the corner where you need to make the bike turn, that’s the point where everyone’s struggling.
The tyres will suit some people’s styles better than others, but I think this year’s championship may come down to whoever is going to be more patient and maybe push that little less when they’re not feeling totally happy with the front. Over the full championship season I think it may come down to being happy to settle for that third or fifth position on the weekend when it’s not right, then going for it when everything is right.
THE FUTURE…
“I’ve hated the feeling of electronics for that long. In 2011 I did a TV ad for Honda. It was quite funny: I’m going round this private track, sliding the Fireblade out of the corners for the cameras. I come back and I tell the guys, we need these electronics on our MotoGP bike – you can’t even feel them, they’re so smooth, the progression going into them! And the Honda guys are like, we don’t have electronics on this bike. But the thing slid perfectly and did exactly what I wanted it to do, which is what a real bike should do.
In my opinion electronics are why you see MotoGP lap times so close in qualifying, so you think, wow, so many people can go fast. But in qualifying all the riders have to do is brake late, get the bike to turn, then pin it and let the electronics do the rest. There’s no more finesse.
It’s false traction, and during a race, when you can’t brake that late every lap and get it perfect, that’s when you still see the gap grow so much through the pack.
I still believe there’s more to be made out of the human hand than out of electronics. But electronics help massively for those riders who can’t control the rear like others can.
Back in 2006 or 2007, if you had more finesse you’d pick up the bike out of the corner and almost pass the other guy halfway down the straight, because you’d worked hard at getting a better drive. Or maybe the other guy would slip and slide and mess up the exit, so you’d get a run on them and you’d pretty much have the pass done before you got to the next corner.
Different riders also set up their bikes very differently. Someone like Dani [Pedrosa] liked to have his bike set up for the middle of the corner to the exit and not much good on the entry, but Jeez, he could get the corner squared off so well and get so much drive that he’d come up next to you down the straight.
Everyone’s style shone through back then, now it’s heading more to one particular style. No one can make the difference on the exit – you can hear them all hitting the throttle at the same part of the turn and driving out – so they just make a big stab on the brakes. It’s all about who brakes the latest and who is willing to take the biggest risk. Sometimes it’s cringe-worthy to watch, because you’re just waiting for the front to wash and wipe out three other guys.
I don’t want to see riders losing the rear and getting highsided, because it hurts, but having a bit more respect for the bike would give riders a little more respect for their competitors and for the tarmac.
Now everyone pushes in on the front, so they’re usually small crashes, just closing the front end. But now you’ve got all these riders who have no fear because they know it’s only going to be a front-end crash. It’s a lot easier to come out of one of those, so they just push harder and harder and harder and don’t really care if they crash or run wide off the track.
I was following guys at Sepang and I was shocked: pretty much everyone I was behind ran off track. That tarmac runoff used to be gravel, so you couldn’t run off. What they’ve done by adding the tarmac runoff is half destroy the racing because it allows people to make massive big silly mistakes, then just run off, without losing anything. I miss those days of there being some kind of risk to it.
And I miss that element of trying different things to find some kind of grip when the rear is greasy as hell, like really picking up the bike or short-shifting. I had my own little tricks in tough times, which I thought were quite good. Like if we were at a track where everyone was scrubbing the front tyre out. The others would be faster from the start, they’d destroy the front and drop back, then I was like, OK, let’s take some weight off the front. We won a lot of races that were really tough on tyre life because you had to think about things a bit more. I really enjoyed those times.
The electronics have taken a lot of finesse out of it, so the aggressors can perform well now.”
From Australian Motorcycle News
CASEY STONER- MY MOTOGP PLAYBOOK | COLUMNS | GASSIT GARAGE
02 August 2016
The (currently) retired racer spills the secrets of his racing success over three ages of MotoGP – and reveals what he sees as the biggest threat to the future of the sport
Casey Stoner is one of the greatest riders of the MotoGP era: he won two world titles on different makes of motorcycle and has ridden 990s, 800s and 1000s. Not only that, the Australian has never been afraid to speak his mind, which is why there’s no one better to talk about how the motorcycles and the racing have changed over the last decade or so and whether it’s changing for the better or the worse. Along the way, he lets us in on some of the finer points of his racing technique.
Before you ask…
No, there is still no comeback planned. But…
“We are still open to the possibility of racing in the future, but I’m not planning anything at the moment – I have no wish to race. I’m not going to say never because if I did race again I’d have to eat my words, as I’ve had to do plenty of times before. But racing isn’t on the list, that’s for sure. I’m enjoying my role right now and hope I can give back to Ducati not only with data and testing but in many other ways. What I’m doing now is a different aspect of racing and if we get the results, it will be interesting to see how the feeling is.”
“For me, the 990s were probably MotoGP’s best era”
“The MotoGP bike was quite a bit easier to ride than a 250, especially coming from an Aprilia 250. They were nasty little machines – very, very effective and incredibly fast when you got them right, but getting them there was tricky. In many ways that’s how it is with the Italian family of racing machines.
When I first rode the RC211V at the Valencia tests in November 2005 I found changing direction so much easier that I had to be less aggressive than I’d been with the 250. That was probably because the 250 had higher corner speed and often better grip, so you had to put in more effort because of the greater gyroscopic effect and so on.
The best way to explain the difference is to liken it to going from a go-kart, which is extremely nimble, to a big V8 car; maybe the difference isn’t that big, but it’s in that direction.
The MotoGP bike took a lot of the rigidity out of it because of its weight and power and because the bike wanted to spin, it didn’t want to drive off corners like the 250. It was a bit like going to a slippery track, and I always felt more at home whenever we went to a slippery track, even on a 250. I was never a rider to just trust the grip; I always had to feel the grip and the more I felt the bike moving the more I felt okay because I knew that’s where my limit was. If you’re riding on pure grip you’ve just got to trust things and I never liked doing that. I preferred knowing what I was getting myself into.
Most 250 riders didn’t adapt their lines that much when they first stepped up to MotoGP. So long as you were smooth on the throttle you could ride a MotoGP bike like it was a 250 and be fast, to a certain degree. That’s when all of us jumping up from 250s started having those crashing moments: trying to run too much corner speed, or pushing it to an edge that was there to be had and was very, very fast, but you couldn’t keep it up all the time. There’s many ways to make a MotoGP bike fast but not as many ways to make it fast safely.
You couldn’t go as fast through corners because of the weight and everything, so you went through the crashes, you learned how to get the speed out of a MotoGP bike without crashing, then your style adapted.
You started braking later, going into corners a little harder on the brakes, so you were actually going quicker into the corner compared to a 250, then holding the brakes further into the corner to get the bike stopped a bit more and using the power on the exit. On a MotoGP bike you carried a lot more front brake going in, then tried not to carry so much corner speed. On a 250 you released the brake a lot earlier to let the bike free and run through the corner faster.
Changing direction was a lot easier on a MotoGP bike, so I found myself being gentler on the throttle. I used it to help me change direction: as I put weight on the footpegs in the middle part of the change of direction I’d give it a bit of throttle to load the suspension, then I’d get off it to help the bike get over, then I’d get on the gas again. You just needed to be more progressive so it didn’t try to slide.
I also put more weight on the inside footpeg out of corners because it made the bike want to turn and stand up, plus it put more pressure directly over the tyre. I’ve never understood the theory of weighting the outside peg. In speedway they do it to break away into corners, but from mid-corner onwards they’ve got their outside foot completely off the peg.
For me, the 990s were probably MotoGP’s best era. The electronics were just about perfect. They were there, so they’d save you to a certain degree, but they wouldn’t increase your performance. In practice at the Sachsenring in 2006 we had all kinds of problems with the electronics, so we had to ride without them. I think I was 0.15s off my best time with traction control, even though I was being cautious.
In my opinion 2006 was one of the greatest years of MotoGP: lots of different winners, lots of people at the front. I think they were the decent days.”
MotoGP Era 2: 800cc
“The 800s would’ve been just about impossible to ride without the improvements all the manufacturers made with engine management in 2007. That was the biggest advance during the 800 era, not so much traction control.
That progression was the only way they could get the power out of the engines and tame them at the same time. When I was with Ducati they used that progress to make the engine smoother, otherwise it would’ve been a beast to ride.
We had massive pumping issues which they fixed by calming down the engine, with the twin-pulse firing order and other things, like switching to engine to three cylinders at the first touch of the throttle, just to tame it off bottom rpm. Without that it was very, very loose and hard work.
The 800’s powerband was definitely smaller, but it wasn’t like riding a two-stroke. You still had a lot of grunt, but you had to be more precise with your gearing than on the 990. Pretty much everything else I did exactly the same, short shifting out of the same corners and so on.
What the 800s lost in one area they gained in another. They were slightly lighter, which gave them more of a 250 feel; plus the engine didn’t have so much inertia because of the smaller capacity, which made the bike feel lighter and easier to flick around. The technique went a bit back to 250s, but only a bit, because with the 800s we were still braking very late and deep into the corners.
The 800s didn’t have the same grunt, so we had to run a little more corner speed to try and use the same gear. That’s why a lot of records went, even though we’d lost 20 per cent of engine capacity.
The big progress in electronics was engine braking, because the 800s were more settled going into the corners, so you could run more corner speed. If you look at 2006, everyone was still backing into corners.
Also, the Bridgestone rear had more edge grip than the Michelin, but nowhere near as much grip in the traction area, so we had to use more corner speed and pick up the bike less, to try and keep using the edge grip.
I started using the front brake through the corners on the Ducati because it was something I had to do. All the other manufacturers had their fuel tanks low down and further back under the seat, but Ducati had a front-end fuel tank. It was very high, so as the fuel went down the balance of the bike changed.
Sometimes when we didn’t get the right set-up we would get to a point midway through the race when we didn’t have enough weight over the front. I’m not big enough to get right over the front, so I started running a lot more front brake throughout the corner to keep the front down and make it turn harder, because the Ducati didn’t turn that good. I wouldn’t use the brake all the way through with heaps of throttle on – it’s a bit too difficult to do that – but especially at that first crack of the throttle, just to get the thing to turn.
How did I work that out? Gently! Back in those days you’d get a lot of tyre degradation, so I’d try squaring off the corners, but nothing worked, so it was either use the front brake or go wide at every corner. This was usually in long corners, like the downhill right at Le Mans [La Chapelle].
At times and at certain tracks I did use the electronics as an advantage, much in the same way as I used the rev limiter, which my teams never liked! I used the rev limiter in corners which I wanted to tack into very clearly and safely, like Turn 5 at Sepang. Out of Turn 4 you go over the top of a rise and the bike goes light, so it’s easy to highside going into 5, because even the electronics will struggle to help you if you step it out there. So I’d attack a lot going over the rise, making sure I hit the rev limiter before I reached the top, then once it hits the limiter there’s no more torque going through the engine, so I would be able to run a lot faster down into 5 because I knew it couldn’t highside me.
I did the same at places like at Turn 3 at Valencia. I’d slide and go in there, knowing that I was going to hit the limiter any second, then the limiter would be my electronics by not allowing me to slide any further. Basically the electronics are the same thing as the rev limiter, they just cut in earlier.”
MotoGP Era 3: 1000cc
“When I tested the Honda 1000 it was a real package. It was great. I love the power: the more power the better, I love it.
There’s not a massive difference between the old 990s and the 1000s, just a general progression of chassis, tyres, electronics and engine. The 1000s definitely make more power, but it feels tamer and smoother throughout the rev rage because they can control each aspect with the engine management and electronics.
Compared to the 800s, the 1000s are a little jump: again you’ve got more torque so you can pull off a corner from lower revs and find a bit more grip. They’re also a bit heavier in the change of direction, so it’s just the usual things you’d expect going from an 800cc to a 1000cc engine.
The way MotoGP is now I’d say the riding is more one-line than it was. In the 800 era all the bikes had different characters – some had more power at the bottom, some had more power at the top.
Now we’re back to 1000s with a fantastic amount of grunt, but the electronics are still too good, in my opinion. Back in the 990 days, the only way they really helped us was with engine braking: you’d still be loose, you’d still be backing it in, but the electronics stopped you from completely locking up and sliding.
With the 990s, the electronics were also there when things got really bad, so if you completely destroyed a tyre they’d get you home, things like that. But in general they didn’t get involved too much and I didn’t want them to because I didn’t like the feeling of them. I’d spent my whole life riding without electronics, so I don’t know why all of a sudden they thought that the new age of riders wanted to ride with them.
Now the electronics are very refined and progressive, so they come in a lot more smoothly. Even this year’s [Dorna] package is very, very good. The teams may not have as many options to fine tune things and do corner-by-corner tuning, but it’s still a very impressive package. Unfortunately, it’s not at all basic.
I’d like to see a lot less electronics. I think it needs to drop back to where they were in 2006 or 2007. I think the Dorna package is just Dorna trying to reduce costs and stop the electronics from progressing any more, but they’re certainly not putting the racing back in the hands of the riders.
I enjoyed trying different things with my riding, like stopping the thing from doing wheelies. Wheelie control is another thing I don’t like. I like being able to float the front wheel and get that perfect amount of drive out of the corner. That’s the kind of thing that makes riding a bike into an art, rather than just opening it up and having the electronics do it all for you. All those elements that have disappeared now. I don’t like that because I still don’t think electronics are as good as the human hand.
The Michelin tyres are quite a change too. Back in 2007 the Bridgestones had a lot less rear grip than the Michelins had in 2006, which is exactly what the riders are saying now. The Michelin rear is very, very good, it always has been. But Michelin have still got the same problem they had in the past: the rear doesn’t seem to match the front, it overpowers the front, for whatever reason.
It doesn’t feel like it’s pushing the front, it just feels like the circumference and profile doesn’t fit front to rear. As you go into a corner the bike goes through this little moment where it feels like there’s no contact on the front and then it comes back and then the rear does something a bit funny. I know why people are crashing, but it’s not an easy thing to fix. It’s not something where you can go, okay, I’ve just got to go a bit gentler here. It’s the main part of the corner where you need to make the bike turn, that’s the point where everyone’s struggling.
The tyres will suit some people’s styles better than others, but I think this year’s championship may come down to whoever is going to be more patient and maybe push that little less when they’re not feeling totally happy with the front. Over the full championship season I think it may come down to being happy to settle for that third or fifth position on the weekend when it’s not right, then going for it when everything is right.
THE FUTURE…
“I’ve hated the feeling of electronics for that long. In 2011 I did a TV ad for Honda. It was quite funny: I’m going round this private track, sliding the Fireblade out of the corners for the cameras. I come back and I tell the guys, we need these electronics on our MotoGP bike – you can’t even feel them, they’re so smooth, the progression going into them! And the Honda guys are like, we don’t have electronics on this bike. But the thing slid perfectly and did exactly what I wanted it to do, which is what a real bike should do.
In my opinion electronics are why you see MotoGP lap times so close in qualifying, so you think, wow, so many people can go fast. But in qualifying all the riders have to do is brake late, get the bike to turn, then pin it and let the electronics do the rest. There’s no more finesse.
It’s false traction, and during a race, when you can’t brake that late every lap and get it perfect, that’s when you still see the gap grow so much through the pack.
I still believe there’s more to be made out of the human hand than out of electronics. But electronics help massively for those riders who can’t control the rear like others can.
Back in 2006 or 2007, if you had more finesse you’d pick up the bike out of the corner and almost pass the other guy halfway down the straight, because you’d worked hard at getting a better drive. Or maybe the other guy would slip and slide and mess up the exit, so you’d get a run on them and you’d pretty much have the pass done before you got to the next corner.
Different riders also set up their bikes very differently. Someone like Dani [Pedrosa] liked to have his bike set up for the middle of the corner to the exit and not much good on the entry, but Jeez, he could get the corner squared off so well and get so much drive that he’d come up next to you down the straight.
Everyone’s style shone through back then, now it’s heading more to one particular style. No one can make the difference on the exit – you can hear them all hitting the throttle at the same part of the turn and driving out – so they just make a big stab on the brakes. It’s all about who brakes the latest and who is willing to take the biggest risk. Sometimes it’s cringe-worthy to watch, because you’re just waiting for the front to wash and wipe out three other guys.
I don’t want to see riders losing the rear and getting highsided, because it hurts, but having a bit more respect for the bike would give riders a little more respect for their competitors and for the tarmac.
Now everyone pushes in on the front, so they’re usually small crashes, just closing the front end. But now you’ve got all these riders who have no fear because they know it’s only going to be a front-end crash. It’s a lot easier to come out of one of those, so they just push harder and harder and harder and don’t really care if they crash or run wide off the track.
I was following guys at Sepang and I was shocked: pretty much everyone I was behind ran off track. That tarmac runoff used to be gravel, so you couldn’t run off. What they’ve done by adding the tarmac runoff is half destroy the racing because it allows people to make massive big silly mistakes, then just run off, without losing anything. I miss those days of there being some kind of risk to it.
And I miss that element of trying different things to find some kind of grip when the rear is greasy as hell, like really picking up the bike or short-shifting. I had my own little tricks in tough times, which I thought were quite good. Like if we were at a track where everyone was scrubbing the front tyre out. The others would be faster from the start, they’d destroy the front and drop back, then I was like, OK, let’s take some weight off the front. We won a lot of races that were really tough on tyre life because you had to think about things a bit more. I really enjoyed those times.
The electronics have taken a lot of finesse out of it, so the aggressors can perform well now.”
Pinta 001 JA
Well-known member
antefz6
Member
Evo da ja kažem koju na tu temu jer imam neko malo iskustvo sa navedenom elektronikom. Dakle GPS je vrlo jeftin, sama antena košta 10-50 EUR i Data loging sustavi imaju ulaz za GPS antenu, medjutim problem GPS-a je da je NEPOUZDAN odnosno da je previše neprecizan za samu trkaću primjenu. Njegova uloga na motoru je da samo odradi ocrtane staze tako da kasnije inzenjeri nemaju posla sa razmisljanjem gdje je turn 1 počeo i gdje je ciljna zavrsila. Toliko je neprecizan da čak se ni ne koristi za lap Timing na dashboardu. Sam motocikl koristi dva načina kako bi prepoznao lokaciju na kojoj se nalazi :1. Najpouzdanija jest transponderu, onaj isti koj dobijete kad dodjete na motohappeing. Dakle svaki motocikl ima svoj mylaps transponder te us pomocu magnetske trake ili traka ako ih ima vise na stazi sto GP staza Svaka ima (sektori) utvrđuje poziciju motocikla na stazi i naravno ukupno krug koliko je motor prešao. To utvrđivanje pozicije na stazi izgleda vrlo glupo npr.286 m je ulaz u dvojku na grobniku. 2. Technica je utvrdvanje metraze putem senzora Traction controla gdje sustav zna da je 18 rupa jedan okret kotaca. Medjutim razrada Bilo kakvih strategija je ogranicen osim launch controla koji koristi ovu tehnikuCvitak said:
Cvitak
New member
Ako je GPS toliko neprecizan zašto su ga u GPu koristili za konfiguraciju elektronike, da svaki trenutak u stvarnom vremenu elektronika mijenja postavke traction controla, wheelie controla itd itd ovisno o poziciji motora na pisti. I kada je to Dorna zabranila bilo je dosta problema za timove čija elektronika je ovisila o takvom načinu rada