JoeKing wrote:The "tuneability" advantage of c/f was never exploited, it was scapegoated by the pudits as the "obvious" reason; logical fallacy: alien material = poor results...correlation = causation. As this ongoing trainwreck continues, whatever their unresolved undelying issue(s) may be, perhaps the ONLY thing Ducati has definitively proven is.... their problem is/was not frame material(s).
Mea culpa, I did not express myself thoroughly. I'm not pointing at the c/f frame as the culprit. What I was trying to say was - and in agreement with your point that the tuneability of the c/f frame appears to never have been properly exploited - Preziosi implied that by using that tuneability they could produce bikes with greatly varying characteristics.
The fact that the 'great leap forward' in '10 was from Stoner changing the forks for more flexible ones points to the bike as a whole being an aggregation of parts that did not work well together - forks, frame and swing-arm. The 'bend like a tree' philosophy sees the entire mechanism operating in harmony from one contact patch through to the other, with the influences of all of the elements that contribute to the reaction of the mechanism taken into account. Yamaha are the masters of that; Ducati seem to be at the other end of the spectrum - parts of the mechanism (mostly)work very well part of the time but the incredible number of crashes for Ducs overall in 2010 says that for some of the time they did not work at all well - they would combine to produce a bike that was highly unpredictable ('exactly wrong'...)
As to the comment that the '12 bike was 'cobbled together': (from the Manzania article quoted above)