Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Discussion and debate about the MotoGP class
kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Post by kenup283 »

Kropotkin wrote:
kenup283 wrote: Further those press realeses are being included more freqently now than in the past. For example the concessions points business went straight into the 2015 version without any mention of when it becomes active. This clearly means they are already counting them.
No it doesn't.
Just to explain my reasoning. The fuel regulation for 2015 now reads that a mfgr looses the 24 liters and goes to 22 liters if they score 3 concession points.

It use to say a month ago, 1 win, 2 second places, or 3 podiums.

So under the new current rules for 2015, if suzuki got a second place and a third, they'd have three concession points and immediately drop to 22 L after just two podiums, whereas before they'd still have another podium to go like ducati had.

I'm not saying it's a big deal. Just that to enforce what theve got on the books, they must be counting concession points now.

The gripe about when they apply them to the other areas is seperate ongoing debate I'm sure, but by having instituted a revision that now requires they be tallied during 2015, makes it all the easier to apply their consequences from the beginng of 2016.

User avatar
Kropotkin
Site Admin
Posts: 3160
Joined: Tue May 20, 2008 9:44 pm
Location: Dieren, The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Post by Kropotkin »

kenup283 wrote: Just to explain my reasoning. The fuel regulation for 2015 now reads that a mfgr looses the 24 liters and goes to 22 liters if they score 3 concession points.

It use to say a month ago, 1 win, 2 second places, or 3 podiums.

So under the new current rules for 2015, if suzuki got a second place and a third, they'd have three concession points and immediately drop to 22 L after just two podiums, whereas before they'd still have another podium to go like ducati had.

I'm not saying it's a big deal. Just that to enforce what theve got on the books, they must be counting concession points now.
I see what you are saying. I thought you were implying that the full concession points system had been moved forward. It hasn't, though Honda and Yamaha are trying to get it to start counting this year ready for next year.

I can accept your point of view, but I regard this more as a cleaning up of the regulations. There has been a minor tweak (it is now easier for a manufacturer to lose the extra fuel), but given that the manufacturer the rules were initially aimed at has already well exceeded the requirements to lose fuel, that is not much of a change.

There is a lot of change going on in the rules at the moment, as negotiations, especially for the electronics, are still in full swing. But it is fiddling at the edges, rather than a full-scale reorganization. Where I do disagree with you is that there will be a two-tier system of electronics. Given that the Open class disappears next year, and there is only one class (well, technically two classes, manufacturers, and manufacturers with concessions), each factory can choose one proprietary sensor it wants to use. They can make that available to all of the teams which lease their bikes, though I do not believe there is a requirement to do so. But a single sensor is not going to make that much difference, given the overall package.

But as I said before, the factory teams will still win, and the private teams will still lose, because the factory teams have the personnel to optimize the electronics, even when using the same software. The software is one battle Dorna lost, but it was a point they conceded because the factories promised to supply bikes to the grid.
--
http://www.motomatters.com/ - MotoGP News, Analysis and Race Reports

User avatar
Fingernails
Posts: 1588
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2014 1:41 pm

Re: Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Post by Fingernails »

kenup283 wrote: As for seeing the source code, i guess the factories would have to decide whether to keep their secrets and let them become irrelevant, or make it public and keep it relevant and in use. Also I think if someone really wanted the others algorithms they could hire away a software engineer or two from the other company like Nakamoto did from Yamaha when he came on the scene.
It may not be quite that simple. There are ways of hiding algorithms in particular circumstances. Circumstances which may or may not include MotoGP code.

E.g. if we have private software for Team A, then that software may include an algorithm that reads from several sensors and calculates what a control value should be based upon those sensors. It could be that the algorithm itself would be very valuable to Team B, even though their bike works differently and would need different control values for the same sensor input values.

Team A may be able to replace the algorithm with a table lookup. The new version would read the values of the sensors and extract the control value from a table. (If there is not enough memory for a table there are ways around this.) Teams inspecting the software would know that the values of certain sensors have been used to select a control value, but wouldn't know how the control value is calculated. If the calculation method is important, then only some of Team A's technology has been revealed.

I'd guess that the top teams will be working on ways to make use of the common software while revealing the minimum amount of technology to their competitors. What I write above is only slightly plausible, but I suspect that the top teams will be able to find ways of achieving that aim. Somehow. I'm also wondering if the common software will influence the design of the remainder of the bike. E.g. design 1 may be better than design 2 at achieving some aim, but if design 2 can be more effectively obscufated, then the manufacturer might opt for that. Maybe.

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Post by kenup283 »

Fingernails that's a bit more complicated than I'd expect even from the factories but the thought did cross my mind if they all agreed that they could make a system with "unlock" codes just like in a video game. It would've hilarious to see in action the mechanics punching in "blue, yellow, red, black" into the handle bars to unlock their toolboxes but it is not inconceivable.

Further if they all agreed (by which I mean the top three as mentioned before) to such a system they could not be stopped.


The latest tweak, again not mentioned in any press release, reinforces that position as Dorna now cannot add anything or make any change unless those same top teams agree. That is a lot different than just Dorna not being able to refuse a proposal from the factories. They now can no longer make their own without these factories approval. And as I said before the starting point is now the factory option package.

"f) From 1 July 2015 until the end of the 2016 season, any changes to the official software strategies requested by the Organisers must be approved unanimously by the 2014 contracted Factory Option manufacturers (Ducati, Honda, Yamaha) before they may be implemented (approval is not required for normal maintenance and bug-fixing which does not change the software strategy)."


Lastest link to newest rules see page 73...for quoted source above.

http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

kenup283
Posts: 1334
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 4:40 am

Re: Common Software Development and Redefinig the Open Class

Post by kenup283 »

Lots of discussion on the main page on the status of common software development and non-standardized factory level hardware....

Anyway, here's latest version of rules.
http://www.fim-live.com/en/library/down ... o_cache/1/

Now Yellow cables will mark the proprietary sensors... That's the message to Scott Jones to be on the look out and get us some pics!

Post Reply