1299: How do you operate the blipper correctly?

shakazulu12 · Apr 20, 2015

I don't have quite the experience Chaotic does, although I have a closet with some trophies myself, but your scenario simply doesn't play out like that on the track ever. If you have to downshift on corner exit, that means you came through the corner in the wrong gear to begin with. That tenth of a second it takes to shift is going to result in your competition getting significantly better drive on the exit and blowing you away down the next straight. Sure, it doesn't sound like much on paper, but think of it this way. If you give a Ford focus a 60 foot headstart on a 1/4 mile run, a Ferrari Enzo would not catch it by the end of the 1/4.

Moral of the story, you are already in the gear you need to be in to exit long before that would become a problem. If you aren't, you have a riding technique problem, not a disadvantage due to equipment. You would be in the optimum rev range far before this could be utilized.

The only times I've ever been so far off on a gear that being able to downshift on the throttle would save some time is when I've blown a corner due to a mis-shift and completely run off the track or something. Which seldom happens, and when it does, being able to downshift on the gas isn't usually possible at that point anyway.

SPJ · Apr 20, 2015

In my (limited) experience with the 1299 the throttle doesn't have to be closed for using the blipper but the engine shouldn't be under load, if it is then it'll refuse it. What I actually found more disconcerting was not blipping the throttle than pulling the clutch, just habit I guess.

What I have found is that if you leave your foot on the lever after downshifting, you can (especially in higher gears) feel the bike surging forwards as it blips, surprised at that as it doesn't help with stopping distances and won't help lap times.

TricoloreSF · Apr 20, 2015

Duck41 said:
This is interesting. While I do appreciate your opinion and insight, I find it difficult to believe that in all of your experience, you have never been in a situation where it would have been advantageous for you to get into your bike's optimum rpm range more rapidly. This would be similar to a racer preferring a bike that does not rev up faster due to him/her feeling there is no benefit to be had in accelerating more rapidly. The question here is not whether it is necessary, but whether it would ultimately offer a competitive advantage.

Being in the right rpm range is a function of speed and gear ratio. You downshift to the right gear at the right speed that places you in the optimal rpm range. If you need to add throttle during a downshift you're in the wrong gear.

Chaotic · Apr 20, 2015

Duck41 said:
This is interesting. While I do appreciate your opinion and insight, I find it difficult to believe that in all of your experience, you have never been in a situation where it would have been advantageous for you to get into your bike’s optimum rpm range more rapidly. This would be similar to a racer preferring a bike that does not rev up faster due to him/her feeling there is no benefit to be had in accelerating more rapidly. The question here is not whether it is necessary, but whether it would ultimately offer a competitive advantage.

Perhaps the reason you believe you have never encountered a situation where you would need to accelerate while downshifting is because this technology has not been present, therefore rendering this option counterproductive since it would take more time to manually let off the throttle, pull in the clutch, downshift, and get back on the throttle than it would take to simply remain on the gas and wait to arrive at the optimum rpm range. For example, you wrote that upon exiting a corner, you remain on the gas and accelerate until you reach redline or where the bike makes max HP. Out of curiosity, how long would you estimate it typically takes for this process to play out? What if instead of being required to wait until you reached the optimum rpm range under this method, you could get there, say, a tenth of a second quicker? What kind of effect would this have on a racer’s times over the length of a full race? If it would ultimately shave time, then it would in fact provide the racer a competitive advantage –meaning there would be use for it on a racetrack, and meaning there is potential being left on the table by not incorporating this functionality.

You have to understand while racing the bike never gets below 10k RPM (600) or about 8k RPM (1000). The scenario's you are describing would be advantageous to a beginner who didn't know how to properly judge/manage engine RPM and corner exits. And somebody like that is going to be so inconsistent (and off pace) that losing a tenth because of having to use the clutch while downshifting is the very least of their worries.

As im entering the corner, I will perform between 1 to 4 downshifts depending on the exit speed of that corner. Then at apex I start rolling on the gas. At apex I will be between 8k-10k RPM because you don't want to be coming off apex at 14k RPM...the bike will be too "twitchy" and throttle control would be difficult (you have to remember at this point you are managing the ratio between lean angle and throttle %...while also managing wheel spin/slide). Coming off apex at 14k RPM is a recipe for a highside (which is why there are very few corners where I go down into 1st gear).

You increase throttle % in a ratio equal to the % of lean angle you are removing, all while tip-toeing on the limit of traction.

By the time you reach 100% throttle, you are close to vertical (might have 10-20deg of lean angle or something like that, depending on the HP of the bike, tire conditions, track conditions, etc). And if you have done your work in practice and your gearing is correct, at that point is when you will hit redline and catch another gear. Accelerate till redline, repeat until the braking zone.

Repeat for the next corner.

And I can promise you, that is the way every corner is approached worldwide, by every racer, even the MotoGP guys with seamless transmissions. I can guarantee you Rossi or Marquez are never on the gas exiting a corner and need to downshift.

Honest question to you, how much track/racing experience do you have?

Chaotic · Apr 20, 2015

shakazulu12 said:
I don't have quite the experience Chaotic does, although I have a closet with some trophies myself, but your scenario simply doesn't play out like that on the track ever. If you have to downshift on corner exit, that means you came through the corner in the wrong gear to begin with. That tenth of a second it takes to shift is going to result in your competition getting significantly better drive on the exit and blowing you away down the next straight. Sure, it doesn't sound like much on paper, but think of it this way. If you give a Ford focus a 60 foot headstart on a 1/4 mile run, a Ferrari Enzo would not catch it by the end of the 1/4.

Moral of the story, you are already in the gear you need to be in to exit long before that would become a problem. If you aren't, you have a riding technique problem, not a disadvantage due to equipment. You would be in the optimum rev range far before this could be utilized.

The only times I've ever been so far off on a gear that being able to downshift on the throttle would save some time is when I've blown a corner due to a mis-shift and completely run off the track or something. Which seldom happens, and when it does, being able to downshift on the gas isn't usually possible at that point anyway.

This.

That is why I have no problems working my way through the Advanced group at track days, even passing most of them on the straights while im on a 600 (when many of them are on 1000's). Having a big HP advantage doesn't help you if you can't/don't manage engine RPM, corner exits and maximize available traction.

I remember a guy riding a Desmocedici in the Advanced group at a track day at Jennings about 5 years ago. I was on the 675 (bone stock) and I would lap him twice in almost every session. He obviously had a HP/equipment advantage, but he wasn't utilizing it to anywhere near its potential.

Like he said with the Focus/Ferrari scenario. If you mismanage your gear selections/downshifts/RPM and exit a corner at 5-6k RPM and don't properly utilize all of the available traction, and I exit the corner at 12k RPM while having the rear tire slipping on the limit of traction, It doesn't matter if you have 200hp and I only have 120hp, I am still going to pass you on the next straightaway.

Chaotic · Apr 20, 2015

SPJ said:
What I have found is that if you leave your foot on the lever after downshifting, you can (especially in higher gears) feel the bike surging forwards as it blips, surprised at that as it doesn't help with stopping distances and won't help lap times.

Probably because it is trying to cut ignition because it thinks you are trying to downshift, then when you release some of the pressure, the power kicks back in.

Aftermarket quickshifters will do the same thing if you leave your foot on the lever (or bump it). The bike will surge because it feels the pressure of your foot and thinks you are trying to shift...so it will momentarily cut power.

That's why you aren't supposed to leave your foot on the shifter.

Mutt1979 · Apr 20, 2015

Same with the street and the over taking scenario really, observe the situation, get your gear, then execute. It's no good being halfway through passing a bunch of cars and stepping down an extra gear to get that last one at the front. Sure you could do that, but you should of banged it down two in the first place! You don't NEED, a clutchless downshift, what you NEED is forward planning.

I for one won't lose any sleep over not having it..........

Chaotic · Apr 21, 2015

Mutt1979 said:
Same with the street and the over taking scenario really, observe the situation, get your gear, then execute. It's no good being halfway through passing a bunch of cars and stepping down an extra gear to get that last one at the front. Sure you could do that, but you should of banged it down two in the first place! You don't NEED, a clutchless downshift, what you NEED is forward planning.

I for one won't lose any sleep over not having it..........

Agreed.

There is no necessity for it on the street. None.

When racing, it is handy because it frees up time/concentration on corner entry.

Corner entry is the most hectic time on the track. That is why we teach to setup your body positioning prior to corner entry, to look far ahead of you, etc. Anything you can do to make corner entry smoother and less hectic is advantageous. THAT is why clutchless downshifting was invented and incorporated on Superbikes. It had nothing to do with street riding.

JDBeretta · Apr 21, 2015

Interesting thread.

990Glen · Apr 21, 2015

Chaotic said:
Agreed.

There is no necessity for it on the street. None.

When racing, it is handy because it frees up time/concentration on corner entry.

Totally agree. So much so, that apart from the initial functional test after delivery, I have had my quick shifter switched off completely while road riding.
Once the bike finds its way to the track in the summer, then it will be time to turn it back on again.

Duck41 · Apr 21, 2015

shakazulu12 said:
I don't have quite the experience Chaotic does, although I have a closet with some trophies myself, but your scenario simply doesn't play out like that on the track ever. If you have to downshift on corner exit, that means you came through the corner in the wrong gear to begin with. That tenth of a second it takes to shift is going to result in your competition getting significantly better drive on the exit and blowing you away down the next straight. Sure, it doesn't sound like much on paper, but think of it this way. If you give a Ford focus a 60 foot headstart on a 1/4 mile run, a Ferrari Enzo would not catch it by the end of the 1/4.

Moral of the story, you are already in the gear you need to be in to exit long before that would become a problem. If you aren't, you have a riding technique problem, not a disadvantage due to equipment. You would be in the optimum rev range far before this could be utilized.

The only times I've ever been so far off on a gear that being able to downshift on the throttle would save some time is when I've blown a corner due to a mis-shift and completely run off the track or something. Which seldom happens, and when it does, being able to downshift on the gas isn't usually possible at that point anyway.

Chaotic said:
You have to understand while racing the bike never gets below 10k RPM (600) or about 8k RPM (1000). The scenario's you are describing would be advantageous to a beginner who didn't know how to properly judge/manage engine RPM and corner exits. And somebody like that is going to be so inconsistent (and off pace) that losing a tenth because of having to use the clutch while downshifting is the very least of their worries.

As im entering the corner, I will perform between 1 to 4 downshifts depending on the exit speed of that corner. Then at apex I start rolling on the gas. At apex I will be between 8k-10k RPM because you don't want to be coming off apex at 14k RPM...the bike will be too "twitchy" and throttle control would be difficult (you have to remember at this point you are managing the ratio between lean angle and throttle %...while also managing wheel spin/slide). Coming off apex at 14k RPM is a recipe for a highside (which is why there are very few corners where I go down into 1st gear).

You increase throttle % in a ratio equal to the % of lean angle you are removing, all while tip-toeing on the limit of traction.

By the time you reach 100% throttle, you are close to vertical (might have 10-20deg of lean angle or something like that, depending on the HP of the bike, tire conditions, track conditions, etc). And if you have done your work in practice and your gearing is correct, at that point is when you will hit redline and catch another gear. Accelerate till redline, repeat until the braking zone.

Repeat for the next corner.

And I can promise you, that is the way every corner is approached worldwide, by every racer, even the MotoGP guys with seamless transmissions. I can guarantee you Rossi or Marquez are never on the gas exiting a corner and need to downshift.

Honest question to you, how much track/racing experience do you have?

I agree that my scenario does not play out utilizing current shift strategies or functionality, as it would be counterproductive to do so. Nonetheless, if this functionality were available (which I believe it should be, regardless of whether it is used on the track or the road), I believe it would be possible to gain a competitive advantage simply by spending more time operating at maximum output than would otherwise be possible. Assuming all other variables are equal, if you race two vehicles with the exact same power output, be that a Ferrari Enzo vs. an Enzo, or a Ford Focus vs. a Focus, with the only exception being that one vehicle is able to arrive at maximum power output faster than its counterpart, the vehicle that will arrive at maximum output first will gain and maintain a lead. The idea here would be to enhance drive out of a corner, not diminish it –however, in on order to maximize this performance potential, the rider would likely need to modify his approach to use the late apex more frequently, and not the geometrical or early apex options that may otherwise be preferred. Only so much traction can be allocated towards braking, turning, or accelerating at any point in time. Additionally, assuming all other variables are equal, the vehicle that spends more time accelerating in a given space will always beat a vehicle that spends less time accelerating. Therefore, if more traction can be devoted towards turning and then accelerating as a result of this functionality being available, there is potential to out-accelerate a competitor who must constantly modulate traction between turning and accelerating before maximum output is achieved.

Mutt1979 · Apr 21, 2015

Duck41 said:
I agree that my scenario does not play out utilizing current shift strategies or functionality, as it would be counterproductive to do so. Nonetheless, if this functionality were available (which I believe it should be, regardless of whether it is used on the track or the road), I believe it would be possible to gain a competitive advantage simply by spending more time operating at maximum output than would otherwise be possible. Assuming all other variables are equal, if you race two vehicles with the exact same power output, be that a Ferrari Enzo vs. an Enzo, or a Ford Focus vs. a Focus, with the only exception being that one vehicle is able to arrive at maximum power output faster than its counterpart, the vehicle that will arrive at maximum output first will gain and maintain a lead. The idea here would be to enhance drive out of a corner, not diminish it -however, in on order to maximize this performance potential, the rider would likely need to modify his approach to use the late apex more frequently, and not the geometrical or early apex options that may otherwise be preferred. Only so much traction can be allocated towards braking, turning, or accelerating at any point in time. Additionally, assuming all other variables are equal, the vehicle that spends more time accelerating in a given space will always beat a vehicle that spends less time accelerating. Therefore, if more traction can be devoted towards turning and then accelerating as a result of this functionality being available, there is potential to out-accelerate a competitor who must constantly modulate traction between turning and accelerating before maximum output is achieved.

Enzos aside, you're talking about changing gear mid corner, on a bike, accelerating at moderate revs to high revs hard acceleration!

It's just going to upset the bike and spit you off no?

Duck41 · Apr 21, 2015

Mutt1979 said:
Same with the street and the over taking scenario really, observe the situation, get your gear, then execute. It's no good being halfway through passing a bunch of cars and stepping down an extra gear to get that last one at the front. Sure you could do that, but you should of banged it down two in the first place! You don't NEED, a clutchless downshift, what you NEED is forward planning.

I for one won't lose any sleep over not having it..........

When you state that you should have banged it down two in the first place, I assume you are implying the rider should have temporarily let off the throttle, pulled in the clutch to disengage all load and thrust, click down on the gear lever twice, blip the throttle, and then reengage the clutch -- am I correct? Would it have not been more efficient to simply maintain your current throttle position while simply clicking down two gears? This is what I'm advocating.

Mutt1979 · Apr 21, 2015

Duck41 said:
When you state that you should have banged it down two in the first place, I assume you are implying the rider should have temporarily let off the throttle, pulled in the clutch to disengage all load and thrust, click down on the gear lever twice, blip the throttle, and then reengage the clutch -- am I correct? Would it have not been more efficient to simply maintain your current throttle position while simply clicking down two gears? This is what I'm advocating.

Yes and no, because I was talking street. You won't have the control, it will snatch, possibly wheelie/make the front end light while trying to perform an overtaking manouver.

More to the point, why are you worried about a fraction of a second on public roads?!?!

Gunny Fitz · Apr 21, 2015

Ughhhh.

Chaotic · Apr 21, 2015

Duck41 said:
I agree that my scenario does not play out utilizing current shift strategies or functionality, as it would be counterproductive to do so. Nonetheless, if this functionality were available (which I believe it should be, regardless of whether it is used on the track or the road), I believe it would be possible to gain a competitive advantage simply by spending more time operating at maximum output than would otherwise be possible. Assuming all other variables are equal, if you race two vehicles with the exact same power output, be that a Ferrari Enzo vs. an Enzo, or a Ford Focus vs. a Focus, with the only exception being that one vehicle is able to arrive at maximum power output faster than its counterpart, the vehicle that will arrive at maximum output first will gain and maintain a lead. The idea here would be to enhance drive out of a corner, not diminish it -however, in on order to maximize this performance potential, the rider would likely need to modify his approach to use the late apex more frequently, and not the geometrical or early apex options that may otherwise be preferred. Only so much traction can be allocated towards braking, turning, or accelerating at any point in time. Additionally, assuming all other variables are equal, the vehicle that spends more time accelerating in a given space will always beat a vehicle that spends less time accelerating. Therefore, if more traction can be devoted towards turning and then accelerating as a result of this functionality being available, there is potential to out-accelerate a competitor who must constantly modulate traction between turning and accelerating before maximum output is achieved.

I have 2 questions...

1. Are you an engineer?

2. How much race experience do you have?

The first question is kinda "tongue in cheek", but the 2nd question should be answered before we continue with this hypothetical discussion.

Chaotic · Apr 21, 2015

Duck41 said:
I agree that my scenario does not play out utilizing current shift strategies or functionality, as it would be counterproductive to do so. Nonetheless, if this functionality were available (which I believe it should be, regardless of whether it is used on the track or the road), I believe it would be possible to gain a competitive advantage simply by spending more time operating at maximum output than would otherwise be possible. Assuming all other variables are equal, if you race two vehicles with the exact same power output, be that a Ferrari Enzo vs. an Enzo, or a Ford Focus vs. a Focus, with the only exception being that one vehicle is able to arrive at maximum power output faster than its counterpart, the vehicle that will arrive at maximum output first will gain and maintain a lead. The idea here would be to enhance drive out of a corner, not diminish it -however, in on order to maximize this performance potential, the rider would likely need to modify his approach to use the late apex more frequently, and not the geometrical or early apex options that may otherwise be preferred. Only so much traction can be allocated towards braking, turning, or accelerating at any point in time. Additionally, assuming all other variables are equal, the vehicle that spends more time accelerating in a given space will always beat a vehicle that spends less time accelerating. Therefore, if more traction can be devoted towards turning and then accelerating as a result of this functionality being available, there is potential to out-accelerate a competitor who must constantly modulate traction between turning and accelerating before maximum output is achieved.

You do realize that even the best riders in the world, utilizing the "seamless" transmissions (that never have to touch the clutch and shift as fast/smooth as clicking a mouse), utilize the exact same approach/technique to shifting and corners that I laid out in my original post on this subject, right?

Duck41 · Apr 21, 2015

Mutt1979 said:
Yes and no, because I was talking street. You won't have the control, it will snatch, possibly wheelie/make the front end light while trying to perform an overtaking manouver.

More to the point, why are you worried about a fraction of a second on public roads?!?!

With or without this functionality, it would likely be best to complete the action prior to initiating the overtaking maneuver. However, even in the advent this action is initiated in the midst of the overtaking maneuver, I believe this functionality (if implemented successfully) would still be the more efficient option due to its reduction of the amount of time spent in the clutch disengage/engage interim (thereby reducing the inertial effects on the chassis).

Regarding your question: I'm truly not worried about it! I agree it is completely unnecessary for public roads, but I do feel it would be a neat feature to have, and I mostly just enjoy the discussion.

Duck41 · Apr 21, 2015

Chaotic said:
I have 2 questions...

1. Are you an engineer?

2. How much race experience do you have?

The first question is kinda "tongue in cheek", but the 2nd question should be answered before we continue with this hypothetical discussion.

I am not an engineer. Other than my motocross racing years as a young lad, my competitive racing experience is extremely limited. I have been track riding/racing recreationally for about five years, although the majority of my riding time these days are devoted to the street.

Chaotic · Apr 21, 2015

I only ask because it seems as if the questions/comments/hypothetical things you are talking about are coming from someone who has never actually raced before (apparently I am wrong).

As a racer you should be fully aware of what I am talking about and know that at no point in time, would anyone, regardless of trans/electronics, be downshifting while on the gas accelerating.

It ("it" being defined as track strategy and the approach to cornering) simply doesn't work/happen like that.

You downshift into the appropriate gear as you are braking, then accelerate out of the corner while upshifting as necessary. It is that simple. It doesn't matter if somebody is a Novice club racer with a bone stock R6 or Rossi onboard the M1, that is how cornering is handled.

1299: How do you operate the blipper correctly?

Help Support Ducati Forum:

shakazulu12

SPJ

TricoloreSF

Chaotic

Chaotic

Chaotic

Mutt1979

Chaotic

JDBeretta

990Glen

Duck41

Mutt1979

Duck41

Mutt1979

Gunny Fitz

Chaotic

Chaotic

Duck41

Duck41

Chaotic

Similar threads

Register CTA

Recent Discussions