Ducati goings on. Part 2.

[Zaphod]

Okey-Dokey, here is the very simplistic view ( I'm not a frame designer , or a crew chief) I have understood from the statements made by all parties conerning this ( JB, Rossi, Stoner, Pretzlesonly)

The CFisn't the problem. The problem is, the design resulted in a very short, stiff frame.

This is a good thing, in the longtitudinal sense........bad in the lateral sense when it comes to frame flex, as it has been stated that some amount of lateral frame flex is required to get the thing to go around corners successfuly.

It was also a very limiting factor in as far as adjustment ( where you could place the engine in the frame).

Going back to a time when I payed some attention to this sort of thing, and also in regards to different riders wanting different things from set up ( Talent is not the question.......being able to adjust the bike to best exploit the riding style of the talent is), Doohan preffered to have the engine located higher, and slightly more rearward than Gardner, who liked the engine lower and more forward.

If the adjustment is not able to made due to the constraints of the design, you have a one trick pony, that will probably only be able to be ridden succesfully by one rider whose style is best able to cope with the inadquacies presented.

ie, Stoner.

What Yamaha, Honda, JB, and Rossi ( countless others as well) have managed in the past, and present, is to build a bike that more than one rider can jump aboard and do well on.



Perhaps ( it's the way I see it, right or wrong) the wheel base adjustments were an attempt to negate the fact that they couldn't shift the engine to where they wanted it.


Maybe a CF trellis frame would work................

One thing for sure is...............the CF monocoque doesn't.

[Japhrodisiac]

I'm not sure which two statement Preziosi made that are in conflict.

I'm also not sure that the 90 degree V is any sort of holy grail. If anything were it would be the V-twin which they abandoned readily. The same but to a lesser degree, the trellis frame.

Preziosi stated in a previous interview that the 90 degree engine and it's weight distribution were not the problem because they were in the middle range of adjustment. What adjustment he meant exactly was not clear. Engine relocation has never been mentioned in any interview I have seen with Prezi, this year or years past.

Now he says that they have been stuck at one end of the adjustment spectrum with nowhere to go.

[Japhrodisiac]

Perhaps ( it's the way I see it, right or wrong) the wheel base adjustments were an attempt to negate the fact that they couldn't shift the engine to where they wanted it.

Agreed 100%

[TwoStroke Institute]

I could be wrong but I don't recall them ever saying it was "fixed". They did throw a lot of different things at it and sounded hopeful every time but that's the nature of experimentation. I think Stoner explored the limits of the machine quite well but even that would not be enough. They had to change. Everyone else was moving on including Stoner. A quote from Kenny Roberts Jr concerning the lack of development of the Suzuki after his championship year sums up the situation at Ducati. "I wasn't going to just go out there and push and crash to prove a point. The bike had problems they needed to understand."

.......... we can probably all agree that both Mr's Stoner and Rossi are quite talented

The were plenty of announcements but no results. Experiments are not for the GP that's for the test team to sort out, everything was rushed through with out any clear cut direction. Suzuki's GP efforts probably not the best examples of machine development. Again HRC's 2010 effort where you had to look at a through the year series of pics to see the path they followed. HRC did it within the engine and testing limits.

Mr's Stoner is quite a talent

[Zaphod]

Agreed ................. in part.............

Messers Bataini and the test team were only working with what was thrown at them, and no disrespect intended, but I have my doubts as to the influence they would have on any forward movement in regards to frame design or bike set up.

I interperated JB and co's direction as proving, by means of testing every availible adjustment possible with the CF monocoque, that the thing wasn't ever going to work. Time for a fresh new approach............If you go in and tell someone ( designer) straight out that their shit stinks, you aren't going to win any friends or influence much..........better to go in and say, " okay, we'll try this, that, and the other" until you subversively prove your point.

It's not just down to Rossi.......Hayden was every bit as important in the equation.

Hayden may not be a Rossi.............but if they can make something he and Rossi can/could ride....they were/are would be on the way to a bike which could, and quite possibly remain, competitive.

This year won't be an instant return to the front, a miracle turn around if you will................but if the bike starts to be somewhere closer to the front..........consistantly......then it's a win, and a sign things are moving in the right direction.

PS........for the size of their budget, and the way they maintained , at least, the status quo.....occasionally moving forward half a step, Suzuki did okay. Ducati could do worse than to look at Suzukis model, learn from and better it.

The Suzi, going off history, was always a one trick pony............Only four people ever did anything on one. Sheene, Schwantz, Beattie and KRj.

Gibernau didn't stick around long enough to count................and extremely unfortunately.........neither did Kato................

What I imply, in relation to Duck is, if they look at what can be achieved with such little economic input, and try to steer away from the same mistakes that all manufacturers are guilty of ( Suzuki took no different approach than Honda or Yamaha did.........just with less money) in that "it's not the bike, it's the rider" etc, then it may serve them very well.


My .02.

[Domino]

Anyone else notice how circular this thread is....

Look, engineering is always a compromise and with racing you try and find the best solution under a given set of rules. Ducati chose to build a bike with a very strong engine and chose to capitalize on that by building a bike which favors traction at the rear to capitalize on drive out of the corners instead of corner entry. Based on what i have read I suspect their CoG is low and forward which tends to suit drive. What I think they need is to move it back and up to generate a bit of fore-aft pitch which will work the tires more by generating weight transfer. I think by now it is obvious that Ducati's problems (aside from the tires) do not stem from one particular part, but rather the sum of those parts. The bike they chose to build is simply not the best solution under the set of rules. There is nothing wrong with anything they have done so far from a technical perspective, but under the constraints of the current rules it simply was the wrong choice.

[Grahluk]

In the spirit of moving this thread along. Supposedly Tuesday's test included the GPzero alongside the new bike. If the the zero was the engine layout, geometry, weight distribution, adjustment range, etc, etc of the monocoque bike in twin spar style and the new bike is "?" in all those respects then they should see some difference. While it's not the contracted riders yet Checa is no slouch. He could probably tell whether the difference of the old bike and new is a positive direction. Fingers crossed for them. I want to see more bikes fighting near the front!

[Domino]

GPONE has a short blurb on day one of the tests. Apparently Carlos tested the 2012 superbike with a new electronics package which GPONE says will go onto the new desmo.

[RatsMC]

The problem is, the design resulted in a very short, stiff frame.

This has never been said by anyone inside Ducati. This is just speculation by journalists and fans.

One thing for sure is...............the CF monocoque doesn't.

And neither did the AL monocoque and neither did the AL twinspar. We can explapolate from that that neither the frame concept nor the material is at fault.

Preziosi stated in a previous interview that the 90 degree engine and it's weight distribution were not the problem because they were in the middle range of adjustment. What adjustment he meant exactly was not clear. Engine relocation has never been mentioned in any interview I have seen with Prezi, this year or years past.

Now he says that they have been stuck at one end of the adjustment spectrum with nowhere to go.

I think it is fair to assume that at least some of the adjustments were not at the extremes. More important though, engine placement in the sense that Preziosi was talking about it, isn't really an adjustment as it requires a change to the frame and motor.

[Japhrodisiac]

Preziosi stated in a previous interview that the 90 degree engine and it's weight distribution were not the problem because they were in the middle range of adjustment. What adjustment he meant exactly was not clear. Engine relocation has never been mentioned in any interview I have seen with Prezi, this year or years past.

Now he says that they have been stuck at one end of the adjustment spectrum with nowhere to go.

I think it is fair to assume that at least some of the adjustments were not at the extremes. More important though, engine placement in the sense that Preziosi was talking about it, isn't really an adjustment as it requires a change to the frame and motor.

So we agree! (?)

[RatsMC]

Well, I don't see his statements being contradictory. If engine placement were a normal adjustment, then yes, it being at the middle of its adjustment capabilities would conflict with his statement regarding being at the extremes of adjustment. However, since the motor requires a rebuild of the bike, it is hard to call it adjustable.

[Zaphod]

The problem is, the design resulted in a very short, stiff frame.

This has never been said by anyone inside Ducati. This is just speculation by journalists and fans.

It was said by JB during a TV interview shown here in Aus, and I seem to remember him saying the same in a printed interview run in AMCN.

The frame is not going to be an easy one, due to the nature of thier engine design. The Yamaha wasn't much better 'til they threw a cross-plane crank in the thing. I don't know what Suzuki found in the latter half of last season ( beside Bautista being fit).

This thing is no one component, quick fix game, and to start from fresh with a new frame, you'd have to expect some "feet-finding" time.

One thing for sure,for anybody to start saying the AL frame is no better after a couple of months (weeks??) in comparison to the CF monocoque which hasn't really worked in any fashion for years, for anybody (Even Stoner is on record as saying, nicely, that the thing had no adjustment, it would be "rideable" at some circuits, and way off at others) would seem to be jumping the gun by a fair bit.

[yzr750]

I think the only reason they went to a twin spar Aluminium frame is because that's what Rossi and Burgess wanted. Rossi and Burgess don't want to be different, they want to be competitive, and they think that if they have the same kit as everyone else, they can use their superior skills to make it so.

I don't really believe that to be true. I think both are smart enough to know that Ducati isn't going to beat Honda at Honda's game. I think both Rossi and Burgess just want a bike that works. What does Burgess care what the frame looks like as long as he can make the set up adjustments he knows will work?

I don't think Burgess cares what the frame looks like, they just want something they are familiar with, something they can draw on their experience to make changes, and not be wondering if the weird frame is influencing their adjustments.

[Zaphod]

I tend to agree. reverting to a known quantity (AL twin spar) should shorten the time frame of getting something working well with the other Ducati quirks (engine layout, etc).......the CF may have been a good thing, but with the lack of bike adjustment it created, the quirks of the engine, the tyres...........it was all a bit to much of a work load, and it doesn't take too much imagination to see them ending up chasing their tail, or failing to see the forest for the trees.


Move back to a "standard" type of frame, get the thing competitive..............then build an inovative CF ( or other) type of frame that you can directly compare to the one that already works.Then you have a good testing program ( in the racing sense).......what they have been doing to date, for my mind, is an extensive (and exhaustive!) R&D program.


I hope to see the thing doing a whole lot better, progresively, in the hands of both riders, or anyone else who happens to throw a leg over one.

The comparison to Suzuki is valid in the sense that the second that the one special rider, who was able and willing to ride around problems, left ( or changed his approach to his own self presevation), they were lost.

The problems with the Ducati are very different to that of Suzuki in the mechanical sense.........but similar in the idiological.

Don't bite off more than you can chew. It needs to be a progressive thing. The progression can be achieved in what would appear (to an outside observer) a relatively quick time, as is the case with Yamaha and the cross plane crank, but only if you are starting with a largely already known quantity.


Innovation is to be lauded.......radical mass design change however, very rarely works straight out of the box.

[RatsMC]

I don't think Burgess cares what the frame looks like, they just want something they are familiar with, something they can draw on their experience to make changes, and not be wondering if the weird frame is influencing their adjustments.

I do not believe that twinspar frame offers any more familiarity for Burgess than any other frame. Take a careful look at the Rossi era Yamaha. in 2006 when the bike was suffering from serious chatter problems, Burgess was completely at a loss while waiting for Furusawa to find a solution. Something weird was affecting his adjustments and he was unable to work around them - a similar situation to what he faces with the Ducati.

[Zaphod]

That was the crank. They then came up with the cross plane crank and solved the problem.

The benifit of familiarity with the twin spar was that they could try some things, use the Honda experience, and determine that the problem must be caused by something that Yamaha did differently from Honda.

Ah-ha !! the engine, and the resonance/torque it created as opposed to the resonance/torque the Honda unit produced. Find a way to eliminate it, and the thing is now competitive.

Ducati have issues like this in regards to their engine ( as in their own special set of quirks), but if you are also working with a new, quirky frame, quirky tyres.....it's too many variables.......how do you isolate one set of problems from the other ? Which item is really causing the issues that the riders are struggling to deal with ? is it the engine ? Is it the frame ? How do you turn that around in a season or two ?

You ( factory/manufacturer) can't be seen to be dragging the chain for too long, or sponsors, riders and the like are going to start avoiding you like the plague. If Ducati hadn't nabbed Rossi, JB and the Marlborough money..........how much longer would they have been a viable MotoGP team ?

Like or loath Rossi, without him (and the departure of Stoner) their boat would have had some serious holes to deal with.Like him or loath him, whether he's lost it, or still got it........his name is bringing Ducati money......and they need it to stay viable.

The big hope is, they get something (anything) happening before he finally pulls the pin on his career and the money dries up.

Suck it up..build something like everyone else ( in a sense) and make sure you can keep the entity economically viable and afloat for the short term, and work on your big ideas quietly in the background.

I'm pretty sure Honda didn't invent the seamless shift (for example) box over-night in the off season. They would have been chipping away for the best part of a season or so in the background and wheeled it out when they had everything sorted.



I'm not saying that that Ducati shouldn't try new things, it is what prototype racing is all about. They just didn't seem to start from a known, stable point of development. They jumped right in with a whole new ball game, and cudos to them for having the balls.............but after 4 seasons of it becoming progressivley (some would argue exponetionaly) less competitive, the time has come to bite the bullet and return to some sort of "standard" start point to get competitive again.

[JanBros]

That was the crank. They then came up with the cross plane crank and solved the problem.

the cross plane was introduced in 2004, not in 2006

[RatsMC]

That was the crank. They then came up with the cross plane crank and solved the problem.

Actually, it wasn't. The frame was modified and 'tuned' to manage the chatter. The crank only assisted with corner exit, not entry. I also believe the cross-plane crank came well before 2006.

The benifit of familiarity with the twin spar was that they could try some things, use the Honda experience, and determine that the problem must be caused by something that Yamaha did differently from Honda.

Ah-ha !! the engine, and the resonance/torque it created as opposed to the resonance/torque the Honda unit produced. Find a way to eliminate it, and the thing is now competitive.

This is engineering stuff, not crew chief stuff. Totally outside of JB's field of expertise.

...but after 4 seasons of it becoming progressivley (some would argue exponetionaly) less competitive, the time has come to bite the bullet and return to some sort of "standard" start point to get competitive again.

4 season? The CF frame was only used for 1 and a half season. The second half of that statement is based an awful lot in personal opinion. A "standard" start point for Ducati would be the trellis frame. I think there is a pretty solid argument that a twinspar frame is a bigger risk that sticking with the familiar CF frame.

[JanBros]

One thing for sure is...............the CF monocoque doesn't.

And neither did the AL monocoque and neither did the AL twinspar. We can explapolate from that that neither the frame concept nor the material is at fault.

And neither did the AL monocoque and neither did the AL twinspar. We can explapolate from that that neither the frame concept nor the material is at fault.

You can not say the twin spar didn't work , they simply haven't had the time to see if it could work. a couple of hours simply isn't enough to determine if a new concept works or not.

The CF monocoque has had plenty of time on track, and the concept used up until 2011 is proven not to work. My believe : It's not the CF, is the frame that is way too short, and the shape of it : it is a shape that excludes flex, the shape of the box allowes as much flex as a CF ball

[JanBros]

Actually, it wasn't. The frame was modified and 'tuned' to manage the chatter. The crank only assisted with corner exit, not entry. I also believe the cross-plane crank came well before 2006.

the cross plane was introduced when Rossi joined, in 2004.

If I'm not mistaken, it's benefits are on corner entry, and even have a negative effect on corner exit (the bike has more "wheely fever" than a normal cranked bike)

4 season? The CF frame was only used for 1 and a half season

it was introduced in 2009, and being tested from mid 2008, so that's at least 3 years

[Oscar]

If I'm not mistaken, it's benefits are on corner entry, and even have a negative effect on corner exit (the bike has more "wheely fever" than a normal cranked bike)

I believe that also - but it's a fine example of the fact that compromises have always to be taken in any design. Ducati lucked out (to a degree) in their choice of compromises in '07, by getting a rider who could work with those compromises. Yamaha in '04 basically offered to Rossi a smorgasbord of different compromises, and Rossi chose the set that was best fit to his major skill advantages: determining how to vary a corner so as to be able to make a pass and make it stick ( there was none better then, and even now there are few comparable) and judging the right moment to do exactly that. The Ducati did not offer him that option (and basically, HAD never offered that option - we need to look at Stoner's Ducati-days race strategy in a different light to the 'doesn't like to race' mantra, because it's pretty damn clear from '11 that the Duc has an almost non-existent envelope of lap strategy. When an ex-WSB warrior in a satellite team can catch, pass and sustain position on Rossi on a factory bike, there is something seriously wrong with that factory bike).

The thing is with compromises, that as soon as the racing starts the way in which the relative advantages stack up is obvious to all, hence the idea (of some merit) that some tracks are 'X" bike tracks. A greater range of adjustability of the frame allows these compromises to be minimised / maximised (whichever is more useful); electronics tuning allows adjustable power delivery - up to the maximum actually available, obviously.

I remember when the '09 was introduced, Preziosi proudly claiming that the c/f subframe would allow 'basically different bikes to be delivered for every circuit' - or something pretty similar to that. He drew the picture that there would be a veritable rack of frames from which to select for each case. That did not happen (as far as we know, anyway). The Ducati design did not offer unlimited variation, and the edges of the box they were/are in were drawn in the wrong place by '10 at the latest.

[Zaphod]

Whether I got some dates wrong doesn't alter my preposition one iota.

The CF Monocoque didn't/doesn't work.

Where the Japanese have 30-odd years of AL TS frame design history, and how it works with their preffered engine design, Ducati don't.

Whatever Ducati do know will be pushing a rather sloppy pile of excrement up a steep gradient ...........with a pin.

To say that the AL TS has already failed is as ignorant as saying the CF Mono still has potential.

To question the validity of JB's ability and experience with AL frames, as well as his ability to relate real world problems to, and work with, engineers to come to a workable solution is also a wildly innacurate conclusion to draw.............based on history.

I stand by my call that, as admirable as it was, to proff a completely new design and throw it at the track was destined to have numerous headaches, with the distinct possibility that it would fail to deliver completely. It also add's so many variables to an already variable filled equation that the length of time required to make it work exceeds the amount of races where you need it to perform.

Better to do what they are doing now, where they have a world-wide plethora of engineering history,understanding and resources to draw from in their search for a workable solution.

Cudos for having the balls to try the first, and resort to the later when they had to.


Ducati has had a steep climb to success, and just as steep a fall, in a very short period of time. I'm sure they will get it right................but not this season.


This season will be nothing more than an improvement in consistancy, with the possibility of improving ( closing) the distance to the bike in front............with a very slight chance of improved placings.


With Hayden, Rossi and JB on board, they have the best chance of turning their situation around in the shortest possible time.


Whether they are all at the end of their careers or not.........all three are proven hard workers, who have an exceptional ability to relate the required information to the people who will build the thing.Good on them for sticking it out. (No matter what PR games Rossi plays)


Go Dukkiti !!!!!!


PS.............is there any actual,...factual, testing news out regarding the new set up.

I mean that as a request for some technical information and progression.............not a "It still doesn't work" kick 'em in the guts gossip request.

Thanks.

[RatsMC]

Whether I got some dates wrong doesn't alter my preposition one iota.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the preposition that I took issue with was that Ducati went to the Twinspar because Rossi and Burgess wanted it. I still believe that is false as Burgess isn't an engineer and couldn't possibly tell you why one design would be superior to another except in how it relates to his ability to set up the bike.

The CF Monocoque didn't/doesn't work.

It won races. It also worked better than anything except the 2007 frame. I think we tend to forget how much of a second-string Ducati was before Stoner came along. Ducati didn't have anything that was anywhere near competitive with the Japanese. They were an occasionally lucky also-ran. The frame definitely had problems but the general expectation that Ducati had a top performing bike was based on a clear ignorance of the facts.

To say that the AL TS has already failed is as ignorant as saying the CF Mono still has potential.

Since my premise has always been that the CF frame has potential, I'll ignore the insult.

To question the validity of JB's ability and experience with AL frames, as well as his ability to relate real world problems to, and work with, engineers to come to a workable solution is also a wildly innacurate conclusion to draw.............based on history.

I'd like an explanation as to why that conclusion is wildly inaccurate. From where I stand, it looks like you've made assumptions about what a crew chief does that are just plain wrong.


Burgess is an enormously talent man and one of the very best in the world at what he does but what he isn't is a magician. Or an engineer.

[motor]

I think we tend to forget how much of a second-string Ducati was before Stoner came along. Ducati didn't have anything that was anywhere near competitive with the Japanese. They were an occasionally lucky also-ran.

Loris Capirossi won 3 races in 2006, second only to Rossi. He finished 3rd in the WC, just 23 points behind Hayden and some 18 behind Rossi. That's after a severe injury and missing several races. He had a very realistic chance of being the 2006 world champ if not for the Catalunya incident. And then of course, there's that Valencia ride by Bayliss. Personally I believe that was more Bridgestone than Ducati, though. But still.

[Oscar]

all three are proven hard workers, who have an exceptional ability to relate the required information to the people who will build the thing

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Rossi is (until anybody can prove otherwise, and I find that hard to believe) the best in the world at telling the designers what the bike needs to do to be a winner - but that is design parameters, not 'the required information'. The 'required information' is a): the design parameters; b): the practical limitations on material, form, force and stress, harmonics, and manufacturing capability (as a short list..), and c: the methodology, design tools and data necessary to analyse the totality of the factors and develop a design that actually delivers, as the manufactured product, the design parameters.

And Rossi has stated as much: he is 'not an engineer'. His capability - and the capability of Burgess to extract the maximum from the package to hand, and Hayden to grind out them 'ol test laps - is not in issue here at all. Ducati are, in effect, starting the new era with tabula rasa, while Honda and Yamaha are reading from the Catechism of successful motoGp championships that they have written themselves. I am sure Rossi can define the target, probably for every metre of every circuit (Aragon perhaps excepted) in minute and accurate detail, but the journey from there to something he can line up on in front of the lights is a long and winding track.