1000cc in 2012

[ducpainter]

does "spec" necessarily mean "not prototype" to you?

yes.

as soon as the rules mandate identical parts or tires which limit or control performance they are no longer prototypes.

gp racing as we know it is done.

[DRKWNG]

yes.

as soon as the rules mandate identical parts or tires which limit or control performance they are no longer prototypes.

gp racing as we know it is done.

Thank you.  This is what I have been feeling/saying for a while now.  As soon as any feature, especially such a critical one as an ECU, is decided for you, it is no longer a prototype. 

[zarn02]

yes.

as soon as the rules mandate identical parts or tires which limit or control performance they are no longer prototypes.

gp racing as we know it is done.

+1

Prototype doesn't simply mean "not mass-produced and homologated." It is, definitionally, something more like a one-off. A whole motorcycle assembled from spec parts may be many things, but a "prototype" it is not.

"Spec" and "prototype" are concepts at odds with each other.

[gm2]

yes.

as soon as the rules mandate identical parts or tires which limit or control performance they are no longer prototypes.

gp racing as we know it is done.

i don't necessarily disagree.  the unfortunate truth however is that gp racing was going to kill itself off otherwise.  i'd rather see mostly prototype bikes and the best riders compete than see nothing at all.

i'll give you that it's a slippery slope however.  very.

[ducpainter]

i don't necessarily disagree.  the unfortunate truth however is that gp racing was going to kill itself off otherwise.  i'd rather see mostly prototype bikes and the best riders compete than see nothing at all.

i'll give you that it's a slippery slope however.  very.

It already has killed itself off.

There is very little room for motorcycle performance to increase.

SBK is already close to GP level and as we've all noticed there is better 'racing' in SBK.

The addition of 'spec' items makes the two series even closer.

Carmello is shitting himself and the Flammini's are grinning like Cheshire cats.

[Speeddog]

SBK is pretty 'spec' driven.... and most folks here seem to like it a lot.

In a perfect world, we'd all have a Panigale in the garage (or whatever we wanted).

Those of you who are saying 'no limits' or 'nearly no limits'.... how do you propose to make that concept economically feasible?

[ducpainter]

SBK is pretty 'spec' driven.... and most folks here seem to like it a lot.

In a perfect world, we'd all have a Panigale in the garage (or whatever we wanted).

Those of you who are saying 'no limits' or 'nearly no limits'.... how do you propose to make that concept economically feasible?

That isn't the spectator's job.

No one is sending me any survey money.

They need to figure out how to make both series economically viable.

[Triple J]

The question is how "spec" is the ecu. Isn't the F1 spec ecu only spec in certain functions...like not allowing traction control? I thought other parts of it could be programmed as desired by the teams?

I think there are various levels of a prototype series. I don't think anyone can say that F1 cars aren't prototype, despite all the spec rules in the series.

[ducpainter]

The question is how "spec" is the ecu. Isn't the F1 spec ecu only spec in certain functions...like not allowing traction control? I thought other parts of it could be programmed as desired by the teams?

I think there are various levels of a prototype series. I don't think anyone can say that F1 cars aren't prototype, despite all the spec rules in the series.

If you don't want traction control, then make that a rule...

although if one team can figure out how to put 400 hp to one wheel and make it work...

that is prototype racing.

[derby]

If you don't want traction control, then make that a rule...

ok, but how do you propose to enforce that rule?

The question is how "spec" is the ecu. Isn't the F1 spec ecu only spec in certain functions...like not allowing traction control? I thought other parts of it could be programmed as desired by the teams?

my understanding is that it's a sandboxed ecu that allowes the rule-enforcement organization to see whether or not certain things (like traction control) are happening. the constructors can still write custom code within that sandbox.

[ducpainter]

ok, but how do you propose to enforce that rule?

my understanding is that it's a sandboxed ecu that allowes the rule-enforcement organization to see whether or not certain things (like traction control) are happening. the constructors can still write custom code within that sandbox.

again...not the spectators job.

What is the difference between 'custom code'...

and traction control?

[derby]

again...not the spectators job.

i'm not asking how you'd enforce it as a spectator, i'm asking how you'd enforce it as a rules-making-and-enforcing organization.

you can't have unenforceable rules.

What is the difference between 'custom code'...

and traction control?

here's the current f1 rule:

http://argent.fia.com/web/fia-public.nsf/FD189C37496939BEC12579C60037D0E4/$FILE/1-2012%20TECHNICAL%20REGULATIONS%2009-03-2012.pdf

9.3 Traction control :
No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver.
Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.


"custom code," in this case, is anything except that.

actually, reading further, here is the actual "control electronics" regulations:

8.2 Control electronics :

8.2.1 All components of the engine, gearbox, clutch, differential and KERS in addition to all associated actuators must be controlled by an Electronic Control Unit (ECU) which has been manufactured by an FIA designated supplier to a specification determined by the FIA.
The ECU may only be used with FIA approved software and may only be connected to the control system wiring loom, sensors and actuators in a manner specified by the FIA.
Additional information regarding the ECU software versions and setup may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

8.2.2 All control sensors, actuators and FIA monitoring sensors will be specified and homologated by the FIA. Details of the homologation process may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.
Each and every component of the control system will be sealed and uniquely identified and their identities tracked through their life cycle.
These components and units may not be disassembled or modified in any way and seals and identifiers must remain intact and legible.

8.2.3 The control system wiring loom connectivity must be approved by the FIA.
All wiring looms must be built to ensure that each control sensor and each control actuator connected to the ECU is electrically isolated from logging‐only sensors connected to either the ECU or a team data acquisition unit.
In general, there must be no active or passive electronic component in the control loom. Exceptions (e.g. termination resistors) must be approved by the FIA before use.
Additional wiring guidelines may be found in the Appendix to these regulations.

8.2.4 If sensor faults or errors are detected by the driver or by the on‐board software, back‐up sensors may be used and different settings may be manually or automatically selected. However, any back‐up sensor or new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car. Any driver default turned on during the start lockout period may not be turned off before the end of that period.

8.2.5 Pneumatic valve pressure may only be controlled via a passive mechanical regulator or from the ECU and its operation will be monitored by the ECU.

8.2.6 The ECU will be designed to run from a car system supply voltage of 12V nominal provided by a homologated voltage regulator.

[Triple J]

my understanding is that it's a sandboxed ecu that allowes the rule-enforcement organization to see whether or not certain things (like traction control) are happening. the constructors can still write custom code within that sandbox.

That was my understanding, but I'm a tech. moron so I didn't know if I had it right. 

Personally I think F1 has done a good job...and the cars are still prototype, if not "run what you brung". 

[ducpainter]

i'm not asking how you'd enforce it as a spectator, i'm asking how you'd enforce it as a rules-making-and-enforcing organization.

you can't have unenforceable rules.

<snip>

That's the point.

I wouldn't have the rule.

I personally want to see the big kids run what they brung.

I don't have much interest in 'racing' that requires a team of lawyers to run or participate in.

[wantingaduc]

They're not prototype bikes!

MotoGP could be the premiere class again, IF, they had bigger grids and more riders able to run up front and PURE prototype bikes without spec parts and teams with UNLIMITED budgets.
Why do any of the manufacturers go racing, image. If you want to run with the big boys it costs big money, just ask Ferrari or Mercedes Benz about their F1 teams budgets.


I personally would rather see WSBK step up to the top rung.

It serves the manufacturers, the racing is close, the talent is deep and the grids are full. You can pretend to have Carlos Checca's Ducati in your garage and the budgets being smaller mean more teams can compete. For the price of a MotoGP team you could probably run a 3 bike WSBK squad. Fan access is better and the 2 race format means a whole day of racing, not just 45 minutes.


Just my .02