English
Italiano
The 'firmware case' in Supersport has broken out at Phillip Island with one team complaining that some other teams would receive the ECU update on their bikes sooner than others. To clarify what happened, we spoke to Marchio Cortecchia, owner of Mectronik and development manager.
The Italian company is responsible for the 'electronic brains' of the Supersport bikes, so there is no better way to try to unravel the situation.
"What happened? Nothing different from what happened in past years - explained Cortecchia - When a firmware has to be released, obviously you can't let some teams try it according to the new feature introduced. In the specific case, the main feature of this update consists of communications with the Race Direction".
So there weren't any changes that we can define as performance?
“The main one concerned communication, then there was another one that introduced trimmers for the set-up of the engine brake”.
So why all this controversy?
"What surprised me is that the team that complained was one of the ones that had received the update to try."
How did you choose the teams that should have had it?
“As it is an update linked to communication through the official timing system, it was provided to those teams that tested at Jerez and Portimao together with SBK because the official timing system was only installed on those tracks, those who tested in other circuits could not gather the information. The first point is that it doesn't give any performance advantages, the second is that we chose the teams by discussing it with Dorna, the FIM and the manufacturers' association".
Are we just talking about Aruba, Ten Kate and Evan Bros?
“No, other teams were also involved. We chose mainly based on whether the teams go testing at circuits with the timing system installed and whether their data acquisition system is set up correctly. Furthermore, it has been written that the Aruba team seems to be the one that gained the most advantage, but in truth they are not using the new engine braking management because their dashboard does not yet have the possibility to display the new trimmers. A case is being made that does not exist, the controversy seems to me to be instrumental”.
You mentioned that other teams besides those mentioned had it for testing. Which ones?
“MV Agusta tried to use it with poor results, in fact they were also able to use it on the test bench, which we had proposed to everyone. It therefore amazes me that it was MV who sparked off all this fuss: either there was a lack of communication within the team, or there is a bit of bad faith in wanting to postpone the introduction of the new firmware".
Why?
“Within these firmware changes, there is also a function that sends information relating to the ECU to the Race Direction. Perhaps those who want to delay the use of the firmware have other goals".
In other words, does the new firmware allow the Race Direction to check that modifications not permitted by the regulation have not been made to the ECU?
“Basically the first changes are three. The first allows a presumed crash to be sent to the Race Direction even before the marshals can report it, based on some particular movements of the inertial platform. The second allows the display of the red and yellow flags to be signalled on the dashboard. The third manages a particular flashing of the light in case of rain, in order to be more visible”.
We are talking about safety here.
“The last change is the information that the ECU sends to the Race Direction: its serial number, the approved map in use and various other information. This has the objectives of simplifying technical checks and preventing any attempts at fraud”.
Are teams obliged to use this new firmware immediately?
“No, it's at the discretion of the teams at least for the first non-European races. Everyone already has it available. We roll out updates to improve security, and I think it benefits everyone to have a tamper-prevention feature."
