HRC just tweeted that '12 will be Stoner's last year in MGP

[Oscar]

Nakamoto on Stoners' retirement and discussion on Dorna changing the rules constantly.

http://www.gpone.com/index.php/en/20120 ... itiro.html

Is it any wonder that Stoner became annoyed at the constant chirping that he was 'a playstation generation' rider? We've had rebuttals from every rider who's seen his data, but this from Nakamoto is the most explicit I've seen to date:

Q: Casey doesn’t like electronics aids so much. How much does he help in terms of machine development.

N: A lot. Casey doesn’t like electronics aids and at first, our engineers and other staff were worried if we let Casey does what he likes, tire may not last. But in the end, Casey controls tyre slip by himself. The most efficient acceleration can be obtained when the rear tyre slip ratio is around 10%, that is when you get best grip. In order to obtain 10% slip ratio, you have to fix the traction control to this level and so on. In case of Casey, we fix the slip ratio to 20% and he controls the bike without using traction control. Still his acceleration line in a diagram shows ideal line. In other word, he does what computer aid does only with his body
Last year we had three riders, Casey, Dani and Dovizioso. Dovi was using traction control at maximum level. Dani uses it as an aid to his riding skill. Casey uses as least.
We have added Casey’s requests to our traction control system and now it is almost completed. We have gained a lot of technological information from him. He contributed to us not only in racing results but in terms of development as well.

I think it is not unrealistic to suggest that Stoner has in fact changed the paradigm of what a rider needs to be able to do to win in the 't/c' -era. Far from - as he was often charged with - being utterly reliant and trusting of the t/c capability - his capability demonstrates that t/c can take a rider so far, but the last bit is reliant on the rider's own throttle control to get the last ounce of performance out of the bike in every situation. Extrapolation from that says that the 'median' level of performance for a specific bike is largely set by the t/c, the extra time shaved every lap below that comes from the rider's ability.

[Gustav O]

Extrapolation from that says that the 'median' level of performance for a specific bike is largely set by the t/c, the extra time shaved every lap below that comes from the rider's ability.

Is that really any news to anyone interested in the sport?
Take Lorenzo for example and how all around him say that he has diligently worked hard to use what is left of the tires - i.e. Mantequilla and Martillo approach.
TC can take a rider to the mid level but to win you have to be something extra.

On the other hand....Stoner being very good with the throttle does not mean that Ducati did not have a superior solution to the electronics in 2007.
last said with a very large tounge in cheek so no one mistakes it for anything else than stirring the pot. OK?

[MiniNinjaMk5]

I think it was probably a 'rocket-ship engine' approach to the TC that helped in 2007! Stoner is a phenomenon though, I don't think anyone would deny that!

Of course I was just fishing about the Suzuki idea - thanks to everyone for pointing out why it is probably a bad idea, and isn't likely to happen anyway!

[redmike34]

I think it is not unrealistic to suggest that Stoner has in fact changed the paradigm of what a rider needs to be able to do to win in the 't/c' -era. Far from - as he was often charged with - being utterly reliant and trusting of the t/c capability - his capability demonstrates that t/c can take a rider so far, but the last bit is reliant on the rider's own throttle control to get the last ounce of performance out of the bike in every situation. Extrapolation from that says that the 'median' level of performance for a specific bike is largely set by the t/c, the extra time shaved every lap below that comes from the rider's ability.

The problem with this assertion is that we're talking about relativity here, and we have no idea (well, at least I have no idea) of how this current comparison between the amount of traction control holds up against not only MotoGP bikes of the past, but also other current MotoGP bikes.

Stoner uses less TC than any other Honda rider--okay, that's fine. I can accept that. But on a 2012 MotoGP bike, what does a setting of 20%, to Dani's whatever%, actually mean? What would it mean in the context of a comparison to whatever TC systems were in use 5-6 years ago? It's entirely possible that the amount of TC Stoner is using in 2012 would represent a level of TC unheard of in, say, 2006. This comparison means little to the whole TC debate, as I understand it, if a 2012-Stoner TC setting of 20% would actually equate to 500% of the TC capability that a 2006 MotoGP bike had. This is a very possible ratio, given how much the electro-wizardry has progressed over the years.

It's also probably not on to take Nakamoto's statement as having any meaning for another manufacturer. If they're all using the same system, in the same way, then maybe. I doubt that's the case, so I'd be careful of thinking statements from Honda about how their riders use their TC system is directly applicable to anyone else.

[Gustav O]

The problem with this assertion is that we're talking about relativity here, and we have no idea (well, at least I have no idea) of how this current comparison between the amount of traction control holds up against not only MotoGP bikes of the past, but also other current MotoGP bikes.

Stoner uses less TC than any other Honda rider--okay, that's fine. I can accept that. But on a 2012 MotoGP bike, what does a setting of 20%, to Dani's whatever%, actually mean? What would it mean in the context of a comparison to whatever TC systems were in use 5-6 years ago? It's entirely possible that the amount of TC Stoner is using in 2012 would represent a level of TC unheard of in, say, 2006. This comparison means little to the whole TC debate, as I understand it, if a 2012-Stoner TC setting of 20% would actually equate to 500% of the TC capability that a 2006 MotoGP bike had. This is a very possible ratio, given how much the electro-wizardry has progressed over the years.

It's also probably not on to take Nakamoto's statement as having any meaning for another manufacturer. If they're all using the same system, in the same way, then maybe. I doubt that's the case, so I'd be careful of thinking statements from Honda about how their riders use their TC system is directly applicable to anyone else.

Very nicely put.

[Cam D]

Agreed, well thought out Red.

Just read this

Stoner has confirmed his desire to drive in the V8 series. While he is expected to link with the Team Vodafone, they have only two RECS and Craig Lowndes and Jamie Whincup on long-term contracts, leaving the door open for a rival bid. Schwerkolt could provide that because there is no shortage of ambition.

"I haven't locked a driver or sponsors in so I would certainly consider Casey," Schwerkolt said

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6361097725

[Squidpuppet]

IF Suzuki was smart they would be rounding up all the factory lunch money to sign him as a test rider next year.
No Pr no bullshit just testing
could see him back in 2014

There is only one problem with that. In addition to the PR stuff, Casey also dislikes testing. I was shocked, when discussing the danger element of the job, he said that (paraphrasing) "We already do too much testing". He said they spend too much time on the bikes other than racing.

[tom]

I wouldn't read to much into the daily telegraph article. Theres a saying in Sydney "Is that the truth or did you read it in the Tele?"

And it's probably not worth feeding the troll, he's obviously fishing.

[MiniNinjaMk5]

Although that is the kind of thing that would make sense, and at least they have interviewed the people involved with it.

Unlike the 'Rossi will retire' article which I think sounded a bit more like fishing in the dark and conjecture on behalf of the journalist.

[MiniNinjaMk5]

++EDIT++ Sorry I really need to get a new mouse !

[Gar]

Stoner uses less TC than any other Honda rider--okay, that's fine. I can accept that. But on a 2012 MotoGP bike, what does a setting of 20%, to Dani's whatever%, actually mean? What would it mean in the context of a comparison to whatever TC systems were in use 5-6 years ago? It's entirely possible that the amount of TC Stoner is using in 2012 would represent a level of TC unheard of in, say, 2006. This comparison means little to the whole TC debate, as I understand it, if a 2012-Stoner TC setting of 20% would actually equate to 500% of the TC capability that a 2006 MotoGP bike had. This is a very possible ratio, given how much the electro-wizardry has progressed over the years.

I think it clearly means that they should go to a spec ECU with limited capability - because that's what I want it to mean

[Hanuman]

Stoner uses less TC than any other Honda rider--okay, that's fine. I can accept that. But on a 2012 MotoGP bike, what does a setting of 20%, to Dani's whatever%, actually mean? What would it mean in the context of a comparison to whatever TC systems were in use 5-6 years ago? It's entirely possible that the amount of TC Stoner is using in 2012 would represent a level of TC unheard of in, say, 2006. This comparison means little to the whole TC debate, as I understand it, if a 2012-Stoner TC setting of 20% would actually equate to 500% of the TC capability that a 2006 MotoGP bike had. This is a very possible ratio, given how much the electro-wizardry has progressed over the years.

It's also probably not on to take Nakamoto's statement as having any meaning for another manufacturer. If they're all using the same system, in the same way, then maybe. I doubt that's the case, so I'd be careful of thinking statements from Honda about how their riders use their TC system is directly applicable to anyone else.

Good point, indeed.
But Nakamoto's line/example was pretty simple - supposedly, Stoner's bike has one input - tyre slip angle -set higher, which seems pretty evident in CS's riding. [In any case, in the absence of a throttle trace, my calibration has been which bike sounds like a ruptured duck out of MG corner. ]
The electronics that I really want to get some insight into is the Yamaha system...

[redmike34]

Good point, indeed.
But Nakamoto's line/example was pretty simple - supposedly, Stoner's bike has one input - tyre slip angle -set higher, which seems pretty evident in CS's riding. [In any case, in the absence of a throttle trace, my calibration has been which bike sounds like a ruptured duck out of MG corner. ]
The electronics that I really want to get some insight into is the Yamaha system...

You're right--slip ratio by itself is a very simple concept. But that's why I think that Nakamoto referencing slip angle by itself is pretty meaningless.

I think what my idea is here is that whatever the TC systems are on these bikes, in my mind they would have to be an integral part of the overall ECU architecture. So, saying that the slip ratio is set to 20% is somewhat misleading by itself. The ECU is still doing things to help the rider within that 20%--what and how is a matter of conjecture for us uninitiated types, but the engine is still managing how much air/fuel goes in, throttle position, vehicle/wheel speed, lean angle, etc. That last bit is kind of a kicker for me. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but it seems logical to me that you'd want to allow less of a slip ratio the farther over the bike is leaning. A 20% slip ratio is one thing on the fat part of the tire--on the edge of the tire, with Casey's elbow down, seems like a whole other ball of wax to me.

Throw in the example of Nicky's bike thinking it was at different parts of the track than it actually was a couple of races ago. If the bike's keeping track of where it is on the track, it would stand to reason that you could program the system to only allow certain maximum throttle inputs in certain places, to help the rider out. That's just an example--I think the sky is probably the limit with how you could help the rider out with the sort of data that they seem to be collecting/using.

Bottom line--I have no problem with the idea that Stoner slides the bike around quite a bit. That's visually obvious. But it seems to me that slip ratio only feeds into a very small part of the overall panacea of rider aids on a MotoGP bike.

[Hanuman]

You're right--slip ratio by itself is a very simple concept. But that's why I think that Nakamoto referencing slip angle by itself is pretty meaningless.

I think what my idea is here is that whatever the TC systems are on these bikes, in my mind they would have to be an integral part of the overall ECU architecture. So, saying that the slip ratio is set to 20% is somewhat misleading by itself. The ECU is still doing things to help the rider within that 20%--what and how is a matter of conjecture for us uninitiated types, but the engine is still managing how much air/fuel goes in, throttle position, vehicle/wheel speed, lean angle, etc. That last bit is kind of a kicker for me. I have no way of knowing this for sure, but it seems logical to me that you'd want to allow less of a slip ratio the farther over the bike is leaning. A 20% slip ratio is one thing on the fat part of the tire--on the edge of the tire, with Casey's elbow down, seems like a whole other ball of wax to me.

Throw in the example of Nicky's bike thinking it was at different parts of the track than it actually was a couple of races ago. If the bike's keeping track of where it is on the track, it would stand to reason that you could program the system to only allow certain maximum throttle inputs in certain places, to help the rider out. That's just an example--I think the sky is probably the limit with how you could help the rider out with the sort of data that they seem to be collecting/using.

Bottom line--I have no problem with the idea that Stoner slides the bike around quite a bit. That's visually obvious. But it seems to me that slip ratio only feeds into a very small part of the overall panacea of rider aids on a MotoGP bike.

Another good post, redmike.
While I think it's rather futile to read too much into Nakamoto's comments (That is, he was illustrating a point, rather than providing a concrete example), your comments strike true. It's not like the ECU is humming along to itself until a magic 20% registers and it suddenly intervenes.
But even that bring questions....how do you measure a 20% slip angle (which in itself sounds strange, 20% of what? Max slip angle at a given lean angle? But again, see above for point v concrete). That's where your comments re: lean angle, rate of change of lean angle, throttle position, rate of change of throttle position, wheel speeds, etc etc come in. All that stuff must be monitored and understood, before you even can guess what slip you're at....then you have to understand what to do about it....and then you have to have the means to do something about it.

[redmike34]

Another good post, redmike.
While I think it's rather futile to read too much into Nakamoto's comments (That is, he was illustrating a point, rather than providing a concrete example), your comments strike true. It's not like the ECU is humming along to itself until a magic 20% registers and it suddenly intervenes.
But even that bring questions....how do you measure a 20% slip angle (which in itself sounds strange, 20% of what? Max slip angle at a given lean angle? But again, see above for point v concrete). That's where your comments re: lean angle, rate of change of lean angle, throttle position, rate of change of throttle position, wheel speeds, etc etc come in. All that stuff must be monitored and understood, before you even can guess what slip you're at....then you have to understand what to do about it....and then you have to have the means to do something about it.

Ha--thanks, but I'm probably wrong on a lot of that. Or worse, half-right.

There's a definition for slip ratio on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_ratio

About ten years ago in college, I did an independent study thing on ABS. As I recall, that's the correct formula for slip ratio--in terms of a tire spinning up vis-a-vis locking up, I assume it just changes the sign of the ratio. I think the input data on ABS systems was the speedometer and a wheel speed sensor... though it seems like the speedo would be a bad thing to use. I suppose you could use some sort of inertial sensor...

Yeah, all those variables, and probably ones we're not thinking of. The other thing to ponder is how much faster the processors running the various gizmos are. The possible sampling rate that the various sensors the bikes are running has probably gotten 50x better over the last 5 years. More sampling = better, more accurate input data = solving problems sooner, or better yet before they even become problems.

[Hanuman]

Ha--thanks, but I'm probably wrong on a lot of that. Or worse, half-right.

There's a definition for slip ratio on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slip_ratio

About ten years ago in college, I did an independent study thing on ABS. As I recall, that's the correct formula for slip ratio--in terms of a tire spinning up vis-a-vis locking up, I assume it just changes the sign of the ratio. I think the input data on ABS systems was the speedometer and a wheel speed sensor... though it seems like the speedo would be a bad thing to use. I suppose you could use some sort of inertial sensor...

Yeah, all those variables, and probably ones we're not thinking of. The other thing to ponder is how much faster the processors running the various gizmos are. The possible sampling rate that the various sensors the bikes are running has probably gotten 50x better over the last 5 years. More sampling = better, more accurate input data = solving problems sooner, or better yet before they even become problems.

Was it slip ratio or slip angle that Nakamoto referred to? Even if the comment was slip ratio, it just reinforces what we're discussing: if HRC's TC just uses wheel speed sensors on the front and rear wheels and puts them through some simple equations for a % with no other inputs....1) I'll eat this computer and 2) how do I get into that game?

[Tom94]

Don't worry Hanuman. They have more sensors and gadgets than you can shake a stick at. Besides both the front and rear wheel sensors they use a lean angle sensor and GPS so the bike knows where it is on the track. Probably a couple more goodies thrown too. I believe it was Hayden's Duke in Portugal where the bike got "lost" and the engine mapping wouldn't play right. It's hard to say if all the riders have become parrots this year but in almost every interview they all mention how much work they do with the electronics. The most important sensor though is still the rider.

[Hanuman]

Don't worry Hanuman. They have more sensors and gadgets than you can shake a stick at. Besides both the front and rear wheel sensors they use a lean angle sensor and GPS so the bike knows where it is on the track. Probably a couple more goodies thrown too. I believe it was Hayden's Duke in Portugal where the bike got "lost" and the engine mapping wouldn't play right. It's hard to say if all the riders have become parrots this year but in almost every interview they all mention how much work they do with the electronics. The most important sensor though is still the rider.

Oh, I'm not worried
I am more than aware of the inputs into ECUs and BCMs in certain applications, just fascinated by the inputs into a GP bike (GPS is out, BTW). Given that I often find car TC and ESC intrusive/disconcerting, I'm interested in how the electronics work in a manner that doesn't freak out a rider on the limit (the real limit, not a clutz like me)...It was difficult enough to train myself not to back off the throttle with a bike with ignition cut out on upshifts...
Do you remember the first time you had ABS kick in on you? Did you want to jump off the brake pedal after it started kicking back?

[Gar]

Edwards said a year or 2 ago that there were, if I remember correctly, 214 parameters being measured by the ECU.

[Tom94]

I was informed by good scources the factory 250 Aprilias were using a GPS system in conjunction with their electronic toys. The 125 Aprilias I worked on had a different system using a sensor at the start/finish line that would tell the ECU when to start a lap. Using a programmed in track map together with a wheel sensor to record distance the ECU would then know when the bike was at a certain spot on the track. With the 125s this was used to do a bit of fine tuning with the carb's power jet.

[Gustav O]

Hi Tom 94, and welcome. That sounds interesting, the part about you working on a Aprilia 125 with that specification. What bike? Championship etc? Always intresting to hear stories from the "inside".

[Tom94]

Hi Gustav. I spent 16 years working in German, European championships, and the GPs. More stuff than I want to list but I think the most fun I had was working with Sweden's very own Frederik Watz in 2005 in the ill fated and under financed zoo known then as Yamaha Kurz. Just to get back on track with this thread wasn't there some small Australian kid who went through a lot of Cecchinello's fairing budget while riding an Aprilia 125?

[TwoStroke Institute]

I was informed by good scources the factory 250 Aprilias were using a GPS system in conjunction with their electronic toys. The 125 Aprilias I worked on had a different system using a sensor at the start/finish line that would tell the ECU when to start a lap. Using a programmed in track map together with a wheel sensor to record distance the ECU would then know when the bike was at a certain spot on the track. With the 125s this was used to do a bit of fine tuning with the carb's power jet.

Was that the S-DAS1/2 or the full APX? I know the 250 the ignition relied on lean angle more than TPS, but linked together they formed te basis of traction control.
Funny now as that level of sopistication in electrionics can be purchased online for under $100 thanks to the robotics freaks. A few fellows on the RGV forum are close to realising te data logger

Imdying rgv forum
Ok, now have about 6 of these Arduinos, some very small, some with ethernet and SD card slots. Plan to build my first logger some time this week all things going well. Temp sensors were easy, turning crap on and off was easy, 3axis accelerometer was easy, servos and stepper motors were easy, haven't done GPS yet. I did turn one into a little webserver though... and that was pretty easy... most of it was just library code.

http://www.4dsystems.com.au/prod.php?id=155

[Hanuman]

[quote="TwoStroke Institute"

Imdying rgv forum
Ok, now have about 6 of these Arduinos, some very small, some with ethernet and SD card slots. Plan to build my first logger some time this week all things going well. Temp sensors were easy, turning crap on and off was easy, 3axis accelerometer was easy, servos and stepper motors were easy, haven't done GPS yet. I did turn one into a little webserver though... and that was pretty easy... most of it was just library code.

http://www.4dsystems.com.au/prod.php?id=155[/quote]

And I remember thinking that the 3 1/2" floppy disc for logging that Team Pons mounted under the tank on an NSR500 was so very techy...

[Gustav O]

Hi Gustav. I spent 16 years working in German, European championships, and the GPs. More stuff than I want to list but I think the most fun I had was working with Sweden's very own Frederik Watz in 2005 in the ill fated and under financed zoo known then as Yamaha Kurz. Just to get back on track with this thread wasn't there some small Australian kid who went through a lot of Cecchinello's fairing budget while riding an Aprilia 125?

thanks for the answer. My bike is actually Fredriks first 250GP bike.
He sure is a cool guy, nice but hard asnails on track. He is still riding and winning races in SST600 and SBK in Sweden. A shame he couldn't get better backing because was really good on a 250.