MotoGP

[Lucky Phil]

10 hours ago, GuzziMoto said:

To be fair, Stoner said he liked the CF chassis, but was not able to go fast on it. He believed it had promise, but it was not ready for primetime yet, and even with Stoner on it the CF chassis was not a winner. I am pretty sure the move to an aluminum chassis was made for the same reason you seem to suggest KTM should switch to Ohlins suspension. It was the quickest and easiest way to get on par with the others. From there, once you are on par you can then start developing new designs and see if they are actually faster. But rolling out a new design before it is actually faster is a mistake. Ducati rolled out the CF chassis before it was faster. And then they had nothing to reference it to internally, so they were lost.

As to the steel trellis frame and each one feeling different, that is true. But that may be why KTM don't really run a trellis frame anymore. First they went from a steel trellis frame to what could best be described as a steel beam frame. That would have reduced, if not eliminated, the frame to frame differences you tend to get with a trellis frame. Then they rolled out the carbon fiber frame, we don't know exactly how it is made because KTM are careful to limit pictures and they aren't revealing things like that (understandably). But it is clearly not made up from pre made carbon fiber tubes. It looks very similar to the previous steel beam frame, but has some visible differences. But exactly how it is made no one outside KTM seem to know. It does seem to allow them to change the weave and layup of the carbon to alter the flex of the frame, as you mention. Their issue seems to be that once they hit on a combination of weave and layup that worked with the spec tires Michelin changed the spec tires, the goalposts have moved.

Well Stoner had a total of 7 wins and another 10 podiums on the carbon bike and finished 4th in the championship in it's first year including missing 3 rounds due to illness and a DNS at the last round when he crashed on the warmup lap. Looks like a promising start to a brand new concept to me. The advantage of the carbon construction is it's also a lot cheaper to make a carbon frame than an aluminium one and much easier to tailor to specific needs. The aero and the ride height devices need to go entirely and to put more of the emphasis back on the rider and less on the tech and the tyres. If you are going to spend big money on anything in racing make it the electronics that can be easily and quickly translated onto road bike products to not only benefit them but spread the development costs onto things that bring an income. Motogp worry about rising costs which is a bit laughable when you consider what they spend on hospitality and pointless things like custom painted headsets and helmets for crew etc. When "the show" becomes more important than the actual racing then you're on a downward slope. Take it back to basics a bit so the elite wannabees don't turn it into F1.  Sometimes simple is better and new entrants can be a lot closer to the front right from the start.   

Edited August 26 by Lucky Phil

[LowRyter]

Question, if a trellis frame is unpredictable how was it successful in production bikes?  I love the handling and balance of my Ducati.  I suppose that production bikes aren't made to high tolerances and purpose of a race bike to be used "on the limit"?

[Lucky Phil]

7 hours ago, LowRyter said:

Question, if a trellis frame is unpredictable how was it successful in production bikes?  I love the handling and balance of my Ducati.  I suppose that production bikes aren't made to high tolerances and purpose of a race bike to be used "on the limit"?

Because you don't ride it even remotely close enough to the frames dynamic limits to tell. Thats the province of the elite riders and their massively refined sense of feel for the bike. It's not the frame is unpredictable it's that there was too much variation in the characteristics between one frame and another. So jumping from your #1 bike to your #2 bike would require too much adjustment for the rider and also meant that the settings on one wouldn't necessarily work as well or at all on the other. It's important the rider can swap from the #1 and #2 bike during practice and apply a change on one that will also work on the other by and large instead of having to adjust each bike individually to get the best out of it. There will always be a slight preference by the rider one over the other before the race but it shouldn't be too significant in his mind. You also want as close to total replication when the frame is replaced after the rider inevitively wads one from time to time. Ideally you should be able to assemble a whole bike out of spares and use the same settings as the previous bike and it will be 99% identical to the previous one in feel. 

For superbikes the bike is such a flexiflyer compared to a Motogp bike the rider just needs to and is used to adapting and any difference in frame flex characteristics is somewhat masked by the production nature of the whole bike and suspension anyway. 

Edited August 27 by Lucky Phil

[GuzziMoto]

14 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

Well Stoner had a total of 7 wins and another 10 podiums on the carbon bike and finished 4th in the championship in it's first year including missing 3 rounds due to illness and a DNS at the last round when he crashed on the warmup lap. Looks like a promising start to a brand new concept to me. The advantage of the carbon construction is it's also a lot cheaper to make a carbon frame than an aluminium one and much easier to tailor to specific needs. The aero and the ride height devices need to go entirely and to put more of the emphasis back on the rider and less on the tech and the tyres. If you are going to spend big money on anything in racing make it the electronics that can be easily and quickly translated onto road bike products to not only benefit them but spread the development costs onto things that bring an income. Motogp worry about rising costs which is a bit laughable when you consider what they spend on hospitality and pointless things like custom painted headsets and helmets for crew etc. When "the show" becomes more important than the actual racing then you're on a downward slope. Take it back to basics a bit so the elite wannabees don't turn it into F1.  Sometimes simple is better and new entrants can be a lot closer to the front right from the start.   

In two seasons Casey Stoner had 7 wins on the carbon chassis. That is not good for Casey Stoner, he finished 4th in both seasons on the carbon bike. Again, not good for Casey Stoner. He switched from the carbon Ducati to the Honda and promptly won the title. I take all that as the carbon chassis Ducati was not as good as the aluminum chassis bikes it was racing against. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, sure it could. But maybe they should have developed it to where it was an improvement before switching to it. They started out at a deficit to the aluminum chassis bikes in terms of speed and without any internal metric it seems they were never going to get it to where it was better then a conventional chassis bike. And in the end, that is what racing is about. And honestly, it would be a fools argument that Ducati made the wrong choice there as they switched to an aluminum chassis and now the Ducati (with an aluminum chassis) is the dominant bike in MotoGP. Could a carbon fiber chassis bike win in MotoGP? Sure. With enough development I have no doubt it can and will. But right now it looks like KTM and Aprilia are the two most likely to do so. I do think Ducati's carbon fiber chassis was handicapped because they seemed to have built a carbon fiber chassis that was an evolution of the hybrid trellis chassis, where the chassis was sharing its job with the engine cases. But it is the past, and Ducati seem to have moved on quite well. Hindsight would say they made the right choice.

Edited August 27 by GuzziMoto

[p6x]

Joe Roberts will not integrate MotoGP on the Trackhouse Aprilia finally.

Ai Ogura was chosen instead.

It would be interesting to understand what was/were the reason/reasons that motivated the decision. Joe Roberts is in competition for the Moto2 title this year. So does Ai Ogura.

Given that Trackhouse should privilege an American rider to entice American audience into the sport, it was an unexpected choice to take Ogura.

Joe Roberts will be 28 in 2025, which will be a factor against getting a MotoGP ride in the next recruiting round since contracts are typically lasting 2 years, and 30 years old is a soft turn around point for rider performance.

[GuzziMoto]

1 hour ago, p6x said:

Joe Roberts will not integrate MotoGP on the Trackhouse Aprilia finally.

Ai Ogura was chosen instead.

It would be interesting to understand what was/were the reason/reasons that motivated the decision. Joe Roberts is in competition for the Moto2 title this year. So does Ai Ogura.

Given that Trackhouse should privilege an American rider to entice American audience into the sport, it was an unexpected choice to take Ogura.

Joe Roberts will be 28 in 2025, which will be a factor against getting a MotoGP ride in the next recruiting round since contracts are typically lasting 2 years, and 30 years old is a soft turn around point for rider performance.

It was a surprise for me. Not sure what he brings to the table that Roberts doesn't other then being some 4 years younger. They currently seem to be about the same speed wise. I would have understood passing up Roberts for a better choice, but I don't get passing up Roberts for someone else with about the same ability. And while Ogura might sell well in Asia, he isn't going to sell them well in their own country. And that was supposed to be part of their deal, to expand MotoGP in the US. This signing will not help with that at all. But it is what it is. Maybe Ogura will do better then Brivio's other "successful" signings. He gets a lot of credit for bring guys into MotoGP, but only one of them had real success, Mir. And that success was winning the title while only winning one race. To this day he only has that one race win.

[LowRyter]

2 hours ago, GuzziMoto said:

It was a surprise for me. Not sure what he brings to the table that Roberts doesn't other then being some 4 years younger. They currently seem to be about the same speed wise. I would have understood passing up Roberts for a better choice, but I don't get passing up Roberts for someone else with about the same ability. And while Ogura might sell well in Asia, he isn't going to sell them well in their own country. And that was supposed to be part of their deal, to expand MotoGP in the US. This signing will not help with that at all. But it is what it is. Maybe Ogura will do better then Brivio's other "successful" signings. He gets a lot of credit for bring guys into MotoGP, but only one of them had real success, Mir. And that success was winning the title while only winning one race. To this day he only has that one race win.

If you listen to the commentators, they agree with you.  Usually, the Brits seem to dislike Americans but for some reason, they like Roberts.  Maybe they want to see more US market penetration too?  I think we can forget about another US race.  

[Lucky Phil]

8 hours ago, GuzziMoto said:

In two seasons Casey Stoner had 7 wins on the carbon chassis. That is not good for Casey Stoner, he finished 4th in both seasons on the carbon bike. Again, not good for Casey Stoner. He switched from the carbon Ducati to the Honda and promptly won the title. I take all that as the carbon chassis Ducati was not as good as the aluminum chassis bikes it was racing against. That doesn't mean it couldn't be better, sure it could. But maybe they should have developed it to where it was an improvement before switching to it. They started out at a deficit to the aluminum chassis bikes in terms of speed and without any internal metric it seems they were never going to get it to where it was better then a conventional chassis bike. And in the end, that is what racing is about. And honestly, it would be a fools argument that Ducati made the wrong choice there as they switched to an aluminum chassis and now the Ducati (with an aluminum chassis) is the dominant bike in MotoGP. Could a carbon fiber chassis bike win in MotoGP? Sure. With enough development I have no doubt it can and will. But right now it looks like KTM and Aprilia are the two most likely to do so. I do think Ducati's carbon fiber chassis was handicapped because they seemed to have built a carbon fiber chassis that was an evolution of the hybrid trellis chassis, where the chassis was sharing its job with the engine cases. But it is the past, and Ducati seem to have moved on quite well. Hindsight would say they made the right choice.

You seem to forget Stoner finished 4th in 2009 by 86 points to Rossi and left 100 points on the table 75 of which were due to missing 3 races due to illness. On top of that his illness had hampered him for a few races before that with him being physically ill on the podium and even during races. So I don't think it's a stretch to say his shot at the title without missing 3 races due to illness and being affected for a few more would have been pretty strong if not almost unbeatable. All this on a bike with a brand new chassis from the ground up. I know a lot of manufacturers that would take 4 wins in the first season with not only brand new bike but with a ground breaking avant garde chassis design in the class. The carbon Ducati wasn't a trellis evolved design. The carbon bike was a Monocoque derivative and owes it's heritage to the Vincent and the Britten among others. The carbon Ducati frame concept was later adopted albeit in aluminium and magnesium form in the 1199 Panigale and the Suppaleggera.   

[LowRyter]

Does anyone know what ever happened to Stoner?  There were rumored health reasons for his retirement but there's not been any confirmation.  Many say he had the more riding skills and bike control than anyone else.  Too bad he never raced Marquez.  

Edited August 27 by LowRyter

[Lucky Phil]

1 hour ago, LowRyter said:

Does anyone know what ever happened to Stoner?  There were rumored health reasons for his retirement but there's not been any confirmation.  Many say he had the more riding skills and bike control than anyone else.  Too bad he never raced Marquez.  

He has battled CFS for quite a few yeas apparently. I used to follow him on Twitter but as usual with ex stars of anything that turns into a self promotional/endorsement freebee seeking thing so I don't bother anymore. Super talented rider but the assentation to Motogp used up all the emotion energy I think. The longest racing careers are usually the riders that have had the most support getting to the top, like Rossi, Hailwood, and a lot of the Spanish riders. As Kenny Roberts pointed out years ago racing uses up something inside you eventually. I think it's emotional energy and the less of it you consume on the road to the top the better your chances of staying there for a lot longer. People like Rossi and Hailwood never used any emotional energy sleeping in the back of a car at the track, worrying about finances or working on their own bikes or even riding a sub par bike. That sort of thing didn't drag the emotional reserves out of them over the long term. Nor did they have the pressure of families that had basically given up their lives and gone on the road to support their kids racing. That stuff takes a toll on you and shortens your career I think. Same as American riders have as a general statement found the GP scene harder I think. Being away from your home, family and culture for extended periods uses up some of that emotional energy. 

[LowRyter]

1 hour ago, Lucky Phil said:

He has battled CFS for quite a few yeas apparently. I used to follow him on Twitter but as usual with ex stars of anything that turns into a self promotional/endorsement freebee seeking thing so I don't bother anymore. Super talented rider but the assentation to Motogp used up all the emotion energy I think. The longest racing careers are usually the riders that have had the most support getting to the top, like Rossi, Hailwood, and a lot of the Spanish riders. As Kenny Roberts pointed out years ago racing uses up something inside you eventually. I think it's emotional energy and the less of it you consume on the road to the top the better your chances of staying there for a lot longer. People like Rossi and Hailwood never used any emotional energy sleeping in the back of a car at the track, worrying about finances or working on their own bikes or even riding a sub par bike. That sort of thing didn't drag the emotional reserves out of them over the long term. Nor did they have the pressure of families that had basically given up their lives and gone on the road to support their kids racing. That stuff takes a toll on you and shortens your career I think. Same as American riders have as a general statement found the GP scene harder I think. Being away from your home, family and culture for extended periods uses up some of that emotional energy. 

never heard of CFS.   I think I have it (and never drug a knee):

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic illness that can make it difficult for people to do their usual activities.

Rossi and KR have sponsored riders.  In fact Bagnia is leading the championship.  

I wouldn't say a bad word about any of them.  Stoner, Rossi, Bagnia any of them.  Whether physical, mental, metaphysical or an act of God, those guys put it out there, since I don't know how they ever did it, I'd be damn fool to explain why they quit.

[GuzziMoto]

14 hours ago, Lucky Phil said:

You seem to forget Stoner finished 4th in 2009 by 86 points to Rossi and left 100 points on the table 75 of which were due to missing 3 races due to illness. On top of that his illness had hampered him for a few races before that with him being physically ill on the podium and even during races. So I don't think it's a stretch to say his shot at the title without missing 3 races due to illness and being affected for a few more would have been pretty strong if not almost unbeatable. All this on a bike with a brand new chassis from the ground up. I know a lot of manufacturers that would take 4 wins in the first season with not only brand new bike but with a ground breaking avant garde chassis design in the class. The carbon Ducati wasn't a trellis evolved design. The carbon bike was a Monocoque derivative and owes it's heritage to the Vincent and the Britten among others. The carbon Ducati frame concept was later adopted albeit in aluminium and magnesium form in the 1199 Panigale and the Suppaleggera.   

This is what makes it a carbon fiber version of the trellis frame they had at the time. By that point their "trellis frame" was a trellis that connected the steering head to the engine cases. The engine itself was part of the "frame". The swing arm pivoted in the engine cases. The carbon frame was a similar design, it was a carbon fiber structure that connected the steering head to the engine cases. They had already switched from a full trellis frame to the abbreviated trellis before the carbon frame came to be. It was part of the gradual shift at Ducati, the slow loss of competitive speed, even in the hands of Stoner.

On a side note, back in the day when I raced a trellis frame Ducati 750 where the swing arm pivoted in the engine cases the team mechanic found he could literally tell how hard I was riding by looking at how much oil wept from the seam in the engine cases. The harder I rode the more the engine cases moved relative to each other and the more oil would weep at the seam. I also had an aluminum full frame Ducati, where the engine was solidly mounted but it was not at any point in the structure the entire path of forces in the chassis, and it never did that no matter how hard I rode. You sure can make a frame like that work, but it becomes much hard to adjust frame rigidity when the engine itself is a major part of the frame. Especially in a era where all your engines have to be submitted at the start of the season. That means you don't have as much adjustability over the course of the season with regard to frame flex or lack there of.

[Lucky Phil]

You need to refine or examine the engineering term for "trellis" as a starting point but also I'll point out that the carbon bike did not connect the steering head to the cases but to the the cylinder heads and there in lies the difference. And it's a major difference. The classic Ducati trellis design uses the engine as a "stressed" member and eventually they evolved to a "semi stressed" member with the 916 because they added frame connections to the swingarm pivot. So the engine could be removed and the chassis rolled around like any bike sans engine. This was done to compensate for quadrupling the engine power over the original design engine and massively more mechanical grip through wider radial tyres and also because the early bikes like the 851/888 series had issues with crash damage caused to the rhs rear engine mount which could also crack even through riding on poor condition country roads such as we have here.  

With regards to your 750 race bike experience and engine cases and frame interactions I'm afraid your mechanic was wrong. I've supported/built 600 and 750 powered F2 and F1 factory Ducati race bikes at the IOM TT the toughest racing there was and is on road race machinery and also in domestic racing here as well as my 888 race bike and later 996 Ducatis in WSB spec at WSB races as well as domestic racing and I can say that none of them ever leaked at the case joints due to stress the rider put on them. Non of them ever leaked at a case joint period that I put together. Even in 996 form in the hands of former national champions and regular WSB riders who rode them hard they were always oil tight unless they had a failure. They suffered other consequences to racing stress but I've never seen one leak at the case joint because of it. 

I can't offer any more value to this conversation so I'll make this my final post.

Phil 

Edited August 29 by Lucky Phil

[p6x]

On 8/27/2024 at 1:12 PM, LowRyter said:

Usually, the Brits seem to dislike Americans but for some reason, they like Roberts.

That's new to me.

Since ever, the English have disliked the French... I was always under the impression there was some special relation between the US and UK; after all, the first states were mainly populated by Britons...

That being said, it seem that Loris Baz and Josh Herrin are having a bromance being Ducati partners in Moto America 2024. They have hit it off on and off track...

I will never understand how can Loris 6.4' can fit on a racing motorcycle. Most successful pilots are relatively small.

Edited August 29 by p6x

[p6x]

Second fiddlers move on up....

As Nakagami ends his MotoGP career, Thai hopeful Somkat Chantra takes his place.

This maybe a clue to why Ai Ogura was picked over Roberts for the Trackhouse Aprilia.

The Asian market is most likely an easier target than the USA one; at least it appears to me. Joe Roberts may not be the ideal pilot to captivate US audiences. I think they need more than one guy. Such as when Colin Edwards, Ben Spies, and of course Nicky Hayden were in the roster.

They probably need names which are already established in the AMA Superbike championship to get a jump start. Guys like Josh Herrin, but at 34, he is already too old.

Edited August 29 by p6x