Interview: Ammar Bazzaz
a rare chat with the 'godfather of traction control'
by dean adams (transcription by susan haas)
Monday, June 12, 2006
Traction control is a new
buzzword in Superbike racing.
While it's plain to see that 240
horsepower MotoGP bikes
have all sorts of traction
"helpers", traction control's
introduction in supposedproduction based classes like
Superbike have some
sounding the alarm bells.
But what is traction control?
How does it work? Does the
AMA rule banning traction
control actually ban the
methods of "traction
management" used in
Superbike today?
Sometimes referred to as the
'godfather of traction control? in
US Superbike, Ammar Bazzaz is
seen here hard at work at Jordan
Suzuki.
image by brain nelson
When you want answers to
questions like those, there is
one man in America you go
to: Ammar Bazzaz. Formerly of Mat Mladin's Suzuki squad
(where he had a functioning telemetry system working in
December 2000), Bazzaz is now an independent contractor
to nearly every Japanese team in the US Superbike paddock
when it comes to data acquisition and electronics
management. With those kind of working relationships and
clients, he wasn't too keen on being interviewed on the
subject of traction control, but in the end I simply stalked
him at Road America until he agreed to a limited interview.
Q Ammar, let's start with you. What is your
background? Your education; what you did before you
were in racing; and then what positions have you held
since you came to our industry? You attended and
then worked at Harvard before you arrived here,
correct?
A That's right. My educational background is a Bachelor's
and a Master's in Applied Mathematics. I worked in an
atmospheric research lab doing a whole host of things, but
primarily centered around putting together data acquisition
systems for research, scientific research relating to the
atmospheric chemistry, and such. After that, I decided that I
wanted to get involved with motorcycles. So I applied for
some jobs in the racing industry, and landed a job over at
Yoshimura, where I initially helped them get up to speed
with data acquisition instruments on their bikes.
Subsequently, I did some design work over there pertaining
to the chassis, and some engine management stuff, and
eventually crew chiefed for Mat Mladin for a couple of years,
and then served as a technical liaison to Japan for a couple
of years, and then decided to leave and start my own
consulting business in 2003. I have done, and continue to
do, consulting for various teams in roadracing and other
forms of motorcycle racing.
I am expanding my business into designing and
manufacturing of our own electronics for use in the sportbike
market. We just moved into a brand new R&D / Production
facility and have some exciting new products in the
pipeline.... It is a very exciting time for the company. And
that's where I am right now.
Q When you first came to the motorcycle industry with
your background in data acquisition, did you look at
motorcycles and think, "Man, we can really clean this
up. I can really accomplish some things here?"
A Yeah. There's certainly the computers and all the logged
data offer - if used properly, it can be a tremendous tool to
help the riders and the crew identify weaknesses in the setup
and correct them. Having said that, several years later, after
having a lot of race experience, there are also a lot of things
that the computer can't tell you, and you just have to rely on
some careful reasoning and your past experience and
empirical database to decide what to do next. But yeah,
definitely, that was one of the things that I saw, that the
systems were really being underutilized, and that there was
a lot of information to be had, especially when they were
working properly and you could count on the data being
there at the end of the session.
Q Was Mat super-receptive to all this information
being gathered and used?
A Eventually, yeah.
I think, initially, the first time I tried to show him some
stroke sensor data and told him he was using X amount of
travel, and he thought he was using Y, he said "You can bash
your bloody computer fair up your ass mate!", I think those
were the words he used. But in the end, I showed him some
information, and he conceded that I was right, and said "Fair
enough," and got on with the job. He was always, and seems
to continue to always be, receptive to anything that's going
to help him go fast. He doesn't care. All he wants to do is
beat everyone.
Q You said, "used properly." Was there a lot of data
acquisition that wasn't used properly, in your opinion,
when you came in?
A It's not even so much that it wasn't used properly. It's just
that I think there was so much data there, and how do you
make sense of it? There's megabytes and megabytes of
data, and what does it all mean? You have to formulate
some kind of hypothesis and use the data to either support
or negate your idea. And you have to also understand the
limitations of the measurements you're taking. A
motorcycle's a very complex thing mechanically. To sit and
try to analyze it is a massive undertaking. At the time I
started doing it, I think people were just, at least in this
series, getting familiar with it and understanding what
benefits it might serve.
Q You said that these systems and devices can't tell
you everything. What can't they tell you?
A Well, I mean, for instance, to quantify the dynamics of the
bike as it goes around the track. There are elements of the
tire, and even the basic dynamics of the vehicle, that aren't
going to be quantified by the sensors that are on the bike.
There are a couple of shock pots, stroke sensors, are
typically the extent of the vehicle dynamics sensors that are
on the bike. And all those do is measure the relative position
of the bottom of the fork leg and the top of the fork leg. And
that's it. It doesn't tell you anything about what the tire's
doing, how the bike is pitching and yawing and sliding.
That's extremely complex.
Q I would think also that the human element in this
has got to be a huge factor, in that under the wrong
circumstances, these (riders) are staring death in the
face, and to do what they have to do, it can sometimes
be difficult to get the motivation to go to the limit.
Sometimes a riders just not going fast.
A Yeah. It's incredibly difficult. There are so many aspects
that come into play. Physical conditioning. Mental
conditioning. Being able to focus, being able to reproduce
your movements on the bike and on the track, and not only
reproduce them, but evaluate changes that you make as you
go around the track. That's a lot to ask at the speeds that
these guys are going around the track. And I think that's
what separates the top guys from the middle of the pack, or
even the slower guys, is their ability to go out there and do
this lap after lap after lap, despite all of the influences
around them.
Q The human element has to be somewhat frustrating
for you, because you can't control it, and you can
prepare the motorcycle as best you can, and if
somebody doesn't want to go fast that morning, what
does the data mean?
A That's the whole point. The data doesn't mean much in
that case. And that certainly is frustrating, but that's what
racing is. If somebody wants to think that you can quantify
the hot setup with some numbers and some data, they're
absolutely kidding themselves. Certainly you can work on the
setup to make a bike that does things better - that works
better in certain situations, and handles better, but really,
the relationship has to be a two-way street, and there's very
much a human element involved. You have to work with the
rider on their particular riding style. You have to understand
what they're capable of doing, and the rider has to
communicate what's happening and try and verbalize that,
and that's difficult. So yeah, it's frustrating in one sense, but
really it's the core of setting up a bike, helping the rider
achieve a sensation on the bike where he or she feels
comfortable pushing it to the limit, and can do that
consistently.
Q Traction control's been a popular subject the last
few weeks. As an engineer, and with your educational
background, I'm betting that your definition of
traction control is probably different than the
layman's. I'm curious to know what you think of when
someone says "traction control."
A Well, in any control system, there is at least one variable
that you are trying to control. So in the definition of "traction
control," the key thing is to define "traction." Right? Like
you're trying to control temperature - just like a thermostat
is a crude temperature control, we all have a concept of what
temperature is, and we set our thermostat to control it to not
be too hot or not too cold. So really, the question is what is
traction?
Q But I think that when you think of "traction control,"
you're thinking of something that's got a huge amount
of variables in it, and you're controlling a lot of those
variables.
A Well, no, not necessarily. No. I don't think of it that way.
Again, I'm coming back to - all the talk about traction
control, I think the key question is what is traction? A control
system is a general concept. There is a variable you're trying
to control, called "the output", there is a mechanism that
effects the variable that you are trying to control, called "the
plant", and there is a response that drives the plant to bring
the variable that you are trying to control to the desired
value or "set point".
Q What do you think of the AMA's traction control rule,
as it's written today?
A I think it's probably a little vague. I think - honestly, I
think the AMA's rules regarding electronics in general are
outdated, and that's probably part of the problem. This
comes as constructive criticism, but really, that's where the
problem is. The way I read the rulebook, it just doesn't make
sense. They talk about fuel management systems and
ignition systems as being separate entities. They're not.
That's not common technology. These are integrated units.
In fact, the electronics on the bike are becoming more
unified as time goes on. Things such as the instrument
cluster and information that the rider might be using, and
the actual electronics that control the engine and other
aspects of the bike, are all coming together in integrated
units. So I think they need to re-evaluate that, and probably
come up with some more specific definitions. I think it's all
sort of vague.
Q Ducati has said that they have a traction control
system based on wheel speed sensors. Do other forms
of traction control exist?
A Well, again, I hate to beat a dead horse, but it keeps
coming back to what is the definition of traction, right? So if
you're calling traction the difference between wheel speeds
on two wheels, for instance, there are at least five or six
manufacturers of aftermarket electronics for motor sports
that have some sort of traction control routine in them.
They're typically based off of the difference between two
wheel speeds, a driven wheel and a rolling wheel. And that's
pretty commonplace. Are there ways to do... Fundamentally,
you have to be able to measure the variable you're trying to
control. So I don't know. Are we missing each other here?
Q No, I don't think so, but say traction control is
defined as an electronic system that would not allow
excessive wheel spin on acceleration.
A Okay. There are lots of ways to avoid wheel spin through
electronic tuning. And the question is, at what stage is it
considered to be a control system that is in violation of the
rule(s)? You could severely retard the ignition timing in lower
gears to reduce power and there by reduce wheel spin. This
technique is commonplace on production bikes, even when
they were carbureted. You could run a really fat (rich) fuel
map to reduce power and therefore wheel spin. If I have a
momentary switch on my handlebar that literally cuts the
power going to one or more of my coils, and I push it when I
am exiting a corner, is that an electronic system that does
not allow excessive wheel spin? By the way how much is
excessive?
Q Systems where acceleration is controlled so that
wheel spin is minimized.
A Acceleration of what? The bike or the rear wheel? If you
are talking about the bike then I think the question should
be "Systems where wheel spin is controlled or limited so that
acceleration of the bike is maximized. If you are talking
about acceleration of the rear wheel then your question
makes sense.
Q Do systems like that exist?
A Yes.
Q Does the rule in the AMA rulebook ban those
devices?
A Well, that's the whole problem with the rule. There's no
specific definition. And honestly, I haven't read the book
recently. So maybe I'm sticking my foot in my mouth. But I
believe that the definition of traction control is too vague to
decide whether or not such a scheme would be legal or
illegal. And again, that's the point I'm trying to make.
Q There's talk that aftermarket traction control
systems already exists for street riders - that there's
some sort of drag race application that can be
modified to use on the street.
A I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, but I don't
have first-hand knowledge of that. But yeah, I think I've
seen some stuff that people have printed off the Internet for
me.
Q So you'd probably say that we're on the cusp of
some sort of traction control revolution in
motorcycling?
A I would have to say that the answer to that is yes, because
if you look at the technology that's developed in the
automotive market, which has a much larger scale, a lot of
that eventually trickles down to bikes. Fuel injection came to
us. And you're hard-pressed to find a middle- to high-end
car these days that doesn't have some form of, what do they
call it, Dynamic Stability Control is one of the trademark
terms I think BMW uses. And they're doing all sorts of
things. Antilock braking, controlling how much power is
delivered to avoid wheel spin, applying the brakes when the
body begins to yaw - these are very sophisticated systems,
and eventually they're going to work their way into bikes.
Maybe initially through MotoGP, and then in through some
top teams. But ultimately it'll become commonplace, I
believe. As a safety issue, really.
Q Should people be alarmed and afraid that traction
control is coming?
A Absolutely not. I don't know that it should be anything to
be afraid of. The thing is, I think there's probably a
misconception about how much advantage there is with that.
I'm speculating here, but let's think about how a bike goes
around a track. You've got to get into the corner and through
the corner before you can get on the gas, and if you want to
tell me ground can't be made up in those two areas, well,
then you're kidding yourself. So I don't know. I just really
don't think it's that big of a deal, to be quite honest with
you, and I think the rules just need to be re-evaluated and
re-structured in such a way that opens it up. That's my
opinion, because it's not a multi-million dollar MotoGP
development type thing.
Q Meaning it's quite inexpensive, or reasonably
inexpensive? Is that what you're saying?
A No - sort of. I guess what I'm saying is that eventually, I
imagine it will be. Soon. And in preparation for that, why not
adjust the rules? Why be reactive? Why not be proactive and
maybe stimulate some growth in the industry? That's
number one. Number two, motorcycle racing is expensive.
This whole concept of cost-effective racing is ridiculous. I
think the Superstock and Supersport classes are great,
because you can build a reasonably competitive bike for not
that much money. But if you want to think that you can
come out with a couple friends and your buddies and go up
against professional riders with large staffs of mechanics and
technicians working full-time, with lots of spare parts, you're
kidding yourself. It's ridiculous. That's a joke. The teams that
run these programs in Superstock and Supersport are
spending millions of dollars. And rightfully so. It's their
marketing tool. So to think by somehow reducing the cost is
going to level the playing field is an absolute joke. But at the
same time, opening up the rules, I think, will stimulate
growth. At the very least, they should be well-defined so that
they can be enforced. Now, they can't even be enforced, in
my opinion.
Q How long do you think it will be before we see actual
traction control on sportbikes sold in dealerships? As
defined before?
A Gosh, that would be a hard estimate to make, and I
wouldn't even take a guess at it. But again, just looking at
the natural progression of technology from the automotive
market to the motorcycle market, it'll happen eventually.
Q Ten years? Three years? If it happened in three
years would you be surprised?
A I'd probably be surprised if it happened in three years.
People are still - I'd be surprised.
But bikes have antilock braking systems. A quote-unquote
"traction control" system is not that far removed from that,
really. So who knows, really? Some of these more
progressive manufacturers like BMW might do something like
that. They may already have something like that. Who
knows?
ENDS
Return to News
PRIVACY POLICY | HOME | RETURN TO TOP
© 1997 - 2006 Hardscrabble Media LLC