Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Inertia torque????

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Inertia torque????

    For the mechanically minded, there's an article on Superbike planet where Mr Yamaha explains why big bang engines work.

    But the stunning part,
    Previously, the bike could be set to use whichever map was required in each gear. In 2007, it selected the right map not just for each gear but for each corner. This means the bike 'knew' where it was,.....
    As they say, the victory to the one with the most toys, or in this case, the most engine maps.


  • #2
    pretty interesting

    Comment


    • #3
      yes, incredibly interesting...
      "No machine has a soul until a man shares his own with it."

      Comment


      • #4
        ban all that bullshit, it should be about the rider and the machine, not some boffins in the pits with a laptop.
        For LAMS information and resources - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-156358/
        For LAMS discussion and to ask questions - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-143289/

        Comment


        • #5
          Well I could live without the engine remapping itself by GPS, but the pursuit of more efficient engine designs by juggling crankshafts and firing angles, is what makes me tick... or would, if I could get work in that field...
          "No machine has a soul until a man shares his own with it."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by barfridge View Post
            ban all that bullshit, it should be about the rider and the machine, not some boffins in the pits with a laptop.
            Disagree.

            If you want a rider's championship, there's stuff like the R6 cup.

            If you want proper motorcycle development, we need shit like this to be allowed, so new ideas can be tested against the world, and there's public visibility incentive for the manufacturers to actually bother.
            “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by barfridge View Post
              ban all that bullshit, it should be about the rider and the machine, not some boffins in the pits with a laptop.
              As opposed to some boffins with a laptop in the factory?

              Although, thro, if this IS gps based to map specifically to a course then there doesn't seem to be a whole heap of applicability for the consumer market, does there?
              "Once upon a time we would obey in public, but in private we would be cynical; today, we announce cynicism, but in private we obey."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Captain Starfish View Post
                As opposed to some boffins with a laptop in the factory?

                Although, thro, if this IS gps based to map specifically to a course then there doesn't seem to be a whole heap of applicability for the consumer market, does there?
                No, granted that particular example is a bit of a stretch...

                However, who says the GPS has to be the input? The concept of different mapping for a given input is still valid - be it tyre pressure/temperature monitor, air temperature/rain detector, etc...
                “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

                Comment


                • #9
                  Absolutely. And even if it WAS gps based, there will be spinoffs for the consumer market eventually anyway. Let's face it, high profile track racing is the big budget test ground for our toys-to-be. It's still about the rider and the machine, just that the machine is doing more nowdays.

                  Hmmph, barfy - by your argument they'd still be racing bikes with hand throttles down beside the engine...
                  "Once upon a time we would obey in public, but in private we would be cynical; today, we announce cynicism, but in private we obey."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I dont think it would be gps. Wouldnt that add too much weight compared to the savings gained?

                    My guess is they are using the telemetry they already have (angle, speed, distance travelled from lap beam) to work out where they are on the track. And the software determines the best throttle response. (That would be some fancy code).

                    GPS would be nice but i dont know if it would be accurate enough considering that each different line through a corner would need a different power response.

                    Im all for engineering in the top level of motorsports. Its a team game at that level not just the rider. The rider gets paid to sit on the bike and do his thing. If the bike wins it sells more, so its up to the engineers to make the bike better.

                    I am really disappointed with Formula1's decesion to have manufactures slow their engine modifications. Close racing is of interest but technology development should be king.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      ^^ indeed, more likely. Distance travelled gives you rough position, can be connected through to brake ("here's a corner, which one, oh yeah that one").

                      Then sounds like they just have a bunch of maps and it picks out the one for that corner.
                      "Once upon a time we would obey in public, but in private we would be cynical; today, we announce cynicism, but in private we obey."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by barfridge View Post
                        ban all that bullshit, it should be about the rider and the machine, not some boffins in the pits with a laptop.
                        That was my one and only position on the whole issue, until a while ago I read an article about the same thing.

                        The article was about driver aids/TC/technology in cars, (probably F1) and the comment that got me thinking was.

                        (Forget the exact quote but it was along the lines of...) If you were to ban driver aids, then how far back do we go? To truly ban all driver aids, you would still have a lever on the steering wheel for manual adjustment of ADVANCE/RETARD

                        So do we go back to solid suspension and springed seat???
                        Girder suspension?
                        Solid tyres?

                        All of the above make the bikes easier to ride and able to go faster.

                        So while I'm not necessarily a fan of all the technology that has evolved, if we say we don't want, then it begs the question, what year do we revert to?

                        Like do we ensure MotoGP bikes are manufactured to the standard of 1967, 1997, or perhaps even ban development beyond 2007???

                        I'm only putting this up as another way of looking at the technology issue.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I understand that Ken, and I support technology. But look at F1, things are getting to the stage where the driver is almost a passenger, skills are being lost to technology.

                          I grew up watching 500cc 2-strokes, where you had to have lots of skill to cope with the power delivery, especially coming out of corners. Now with 4-strokes and traction control, you just twist the wrist and away you go.

                          Do we really want to watch riders who come into a corner and just squeeze the brake, letting the ABS and anti-stoppie control the bike, then let the traction control stop the rear end breaking loose on the exit? Sure it would make for fast lap times, but the thing I love about bikes is the raw and immediate connection between bike and rider.

                          So to answer your question: I am not anti-technology, I am anti-intrusive rider aids.
                          For LAMS information and resources - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-156358/
                          For LAMS discussion and to ask questions - http://www.perthstreetbikes.com/foru...thread-143289/

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Barfridge:

                            Regardless of technology, a good rider will still be quicker than a shit one.

                            They still need to have balls (to get off the brakes while still travelling *fucking quick*), they still need to pick lines accurately, and there's still the head games with the opposition going on.

                            Whilst I'm fairly anti-driver/rider aids myself, I still think they have a place in motoGP, as a sort of development test bed. Superbike/supersport/club level? No...
                            “Crashing is shit for you, shit for the bike, shit for the mechanics and shit for the set-up,” Checa told me a while back. “It’s a signal that you are heading in the wrong direction. You want to win but crashing is the opposite. It’s like being in France when you want to go to England and when you crash you go to Spain. That way you’ll never get to England!” -- Carlos Checa

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I am not anti-technology, I am anti-intrusive rider aids.
                              Barfy, agree 100%.

                              But the article I read and referred to above was just asking the question, where do we draw the line????

                              I don't like F1 at all. Because the only passing moves take place when someone pits.

                              As for some who say MotoGP has become processional........
                              Bought a DVD recently, it featrued the first race wins of Doohan, Gardiner & Magee....so we're looking at races 20 years ago.

                              Besides the apalling safety standards, (bikes on fire in the middle of the track, marshalls caerrying a rider on a stretcher across the track - no red flag!!!!!!!!) what got me was the TV coverage.

                              Sure, today there are many more cameras, but the coverage then was not focussed on who was leading the race by 3 seconds, but on the battles for 3rd & 4th or 10th & 11th.

                              There seemed to be more focuss on the duelling, regardless of where the riders were positioned.

                              Maybe it's just my perception, but the TV coverage that I see (unfortunately the Ch10 coverage) is largely focussed on the front of the pack, without much coverage of any passing moves back in the field.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X