Ducati looking for special test riders...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Apr 16 2008, 02:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>INMHO, design and development is done at the factory -- who have their own test riders. Once the bike is released the MotoGP rider's crew chief has the responsibility to "set-up" the bike to the riders liking. If the bike needs to be tweaked beyond the set-up limits, the factory gets involved. However, the factory rarely designs different bikes for different riders. They take feed back from primarily the crew chiefs (whose reponsibility it is to trnaslate the riders chief complaints to actionable items thee factory can work on) and attempt to redesign the bike to bring it closer to their liking. If the riding styles of the factory riders are vastly different (outside the set-up limits) thaen one of them usually gets the short end of the stick.

Well, often it's talk about replacable parts. As an example: At the first race in '04 JB and Rossi had the ride heigt adjust above top and replaced the chain to extend the rear and chain adjuster maxed out. For the next race he had a longer swing and a new adapter on the rear shock.
It's really only the frame with it's basic geometry and engine mounts that are not adjustabale.
Links, forks, swingarm, shocks, steeringhead angle are all replaceable parts.
It takes some time to figure out that the frame are wrong and I suspect they're not there yet at Ducati.
In gereral a good chassi is a good chassi for all riders. It would take some very special rider to require a different frame than other riders. Maybe Stoner is that special rider but I wouldn't bet on it.
Look at Haga, riding a "plain" R1 that is totally unridable for averyone else including his team mate. That's on a production bike with limitied adjustability.
I find it more likely that all the Ducati riders have adjusted them selves outside the limits of a working chassi. To stiff contruction of forks and swing arm, wrong links at the rear, any number of combinations that make the bike more or less unridebale.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 02:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I find it more likely that all the Ducati riders have adjusted them selves outside the limits of a working chassi. To stiff contruction of forks and swing arm, wrong links at the rear, any number of combinations that make the bike more or less unridebale.
Stoner's set up at qatar seemed to work perfectly well for him. I think he got greedy and wanted to win not just perform respectably at both jerez and estoril which would not seem to intrinsically suit the bike and possibly the tyres, and did exactly what you say. Hopefully they haven't forgotten the qatar set-up.

It has been repeatedly said that casey has a weird set-up, so even if he can develop a bike for himself, which I certainly have no way of knowing, it seems likely his development would not necessarily suit other riders. It seems foolish in retrospect for ducati to have divested themselves with prejudice of almost any other riders with corporate memory of how to set-up a ducati; as others have said barros may have been particularly useful. Bayliss might conceivably be able to help stoner, and max the others, but do they have sufficient time to make a significant contribution particularly interacting with technical staff unfamiliar to them? It is said that bayliss basically brought his superbike crew with him for his one-off motogp win.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 06:45 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It's really only the frame with it's basic geometry and engine mounts that are not adjustabale.
Links, forks, swingarm, shocks, steeringhead angle are all replaceable parts.I agree with you. I did not go into the details. My post was an attempt the counter the hypothesis that it is the MotoGP rider that "develops" factory bike. (I'd like to know which factory rider "developed" the 5 cylinder RC211V) Usually, by the time the rider receives the bike it is already, to a large extent, developed by the factory. It is up to his crew to find the settings that make it comfortable for him. I would not call that "development" though. If the bike needs to be modified beyond the limits of the settings, then the factory gets involved. Although, they may be involved in continuously providing new parts that help the engine get more fuel efficiency or power.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Apr 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I agree with you. I did not go into the details. My post was an attempt the counter the hypothesis that it is the MotoGP rider that "develops" factory bike. (I'd like to know which factory rider "developed" the 5 cylinder RC211V) Usually, by the time the rider receives the bike it is already, to a large extent, developed by the factory. It is up to his crew to find the settings that make it comfortable for him. I would not call that "development" though. If the bike needs to be modified beyond the limits of the settings, then the factory gets involved. Although, they may be involved in continuously providing new parts that help the engine get more fuel efficiency or power.

Mostly agree with you allthough I suspect certain riders have quite a lot of influence on the development even in the early stages. If not the racing riders have that saying it must be the test riders, even in an early stage testnig is rquired even in these cad days, but then again, all these factories have meade a few frames up through the years.
Honda has made a few bad desitions based on rider input and that's probably why they have such a problem to communicate development with them. + the "it's the bike" factor of course.

If Ducati's problems continue I think that would increase the possibilty of getting JB and VR on the team. To sort out that kind of troubble is something they find very very tempting.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Apr 16 2008, 12:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Mostly agree with you allthough I suspect certain riders have quite a lot of influence on the development even in the early stages. If not the racing riders have that saying it must be the test riders.. Might be true.. although, it may be more of a case of the race winning riders taking credit for developing the bike after the bike has proved successful. e.g. Rossi has been asking for a V engine, while Yamaha refuses to budge off their In-line configuration. If Rossi wins the championship on the in-line engine, I doubt if there will be talk of his "development efforts" on moving to a V configuration.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Apr 16 2008, 10:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'd like to know which factory rider "developed" the 5 cylinder RC211V

It was Tamada.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (loosmark @ Apr 16 2008, 11:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It was Tamada.
i doubt that because from 99 to the end of 02 he was the mjf superbike champion. although motogp prototypes race there for development and normally win the races they dont earn points for it. so if tamada did race the rc211v there he would not have earned the points to be champion so couldn't have been there test rider.




edit: he finished in the top 5 from 99 & 2002 entering into motogp in 03.

Rossi did some early work on the RCV. I heard that when he frist got on it he complained that it was too small for him (sounds familiar) and was worried the 2-stroked would remain quicker.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (loosmark @ Apr 16 2008, 02:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>It was Tamada.I think it Ukawa was the test rider for HRC. However, the point I was trying to make is that it is the factory engineers who come up with the performace goals and then a design to achieve that. (The HRC manager also admitted that they had set the bar too low when they developed 800cc bike) The factory riders test the bike and offer suggestions on the improvement. I think we are giving far too much credit for MotoGP riders on "developing" MotoGP bikes.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (crvlvr @ Apr 17 2008, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think it Ukawa was the test rider for HRC. However, the point I was trying to make is that it is the factory engineers who come up with the performace goals and then a design to achieve that. (The HRC manager also admitted that they had set the bar too low when they developed 800cc bike) The factory riders test the bike and offer suggestions on the improvement. I think we are giving far too much credit for MotoGP riders on "developing" MotoGP bikes.
yes i think he was one of many riders to test the rc211v but there must have been other's, Ukawa was riding for the honda repsol team on 01 and 02 so couldn't have raced it in the mjf superbike championship where honda tested this bike, i doubt his schedule would have aloud this. i suppose it would depend on how early or late into the bikes development as to which riders they would use. i would think rossi and Ukawa got to test late into its development because they were the riders first to get it in motogp, which pretty much backs up what you say.

Wow, all this hype for a testing gig... All the while, I thought Ducati just wanted someone from their payroll to continue testing given that the GP boys themselves are not allowed to test, and more importantly, their main test rider is currently injured. Surely they'd want someone more experienced than a certain M. Schumacher to continue the testing for them

Well, Biaggi and Bayliss certainly will be useful. They are both obviously very fast and very experienced.

Bayliss has a very aggressive style, like Casey in a way. This could obviously assist Stoner. Biaggi has a very, very smooth style and his feedback could aid Melandri in finding solutions to solve the 'wildness' of the bike.

Biaggi and Bayliss have two very different styles, but a good bike is not a bike which is only good for one person, but one which is easily accessible. Thus both their input could be valuable.
The Ducati seems extremely sensitive to set up, this needs to be addressed.

More cynical fans would suggest that Biaggi's times will be very closely observed by Suppo, but not just for testing purposes.

I think there may be more to test than we think at Ducati...

Rumors I've heard speak of a brand new CARBON FIBER CHASSIS for the next evolution, the Ducati GP9 which is scheduled to begin test session before the end of the month.

The new frame will borrow from F1 chassis technology and incorporate the airbox, with the engine as a stressed element.

Ducati purists may balk at a departure from the trellis tubular design, but competitiveness does not always go with tradition and many of the problems Stoner and other Ducati riders are facing this year ARE in that area...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 23 2008, 08:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think there may be more to test than we think at Ducati...

Rumors I've heard speak of a brand new CARBON FIBER CHASSIS for the next evolution, the Ducati GP9 which is scheduled to begin test session before the end of the month.

The new frame will borrow from F1 chassis technology and incorporate the airbox, with the engine as a stressed element.

Ducati purists may balk at a departure from the trellis tubular design, but competitiveness does not always go with tradition and many of the problems Stoner and other Ducati riders are facing this year ARE in that area...
If it is not true it should be true, because it certainly doesn't look like they have anywhere to go with the current chassis.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 23 2008, 09:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think there may be more to test than we think at Ducati...

Rumors I've heard speak of a brand new CARBON FIBER CHASSIS for the next evolution, the Ducati GP9 which is scheduled to begin test session before the end of the month.

The new frame will borrow from F1 chassis technology and incorporate the airbox, with the engine as a stressed element.

Ducati purists may balk at a departure from the trellis tubular design, but competitiveness does not always go with tradition and many of the problems Stoner and other Ducati riders are facing this year ARE in that area...
wow, looking forward to seeing that. tradition has no place in prototype racing imo.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 23 2008, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I think there may be more to test than we think at Ducati...

Rumors I've heard speak of a brand new CARBON FIBER CHASSIS for the next evolution, the Ducati GP9 which is scheduled to begin test session before the end of the month.

The new frame will borrow from F1 chassis technology and incorporate the airbox, with the engine as a stressed element.

Ducati purists may balk at a departure from the trellis tubular design, but competitiveness does not always go with tradition and many of the problems Stoner and other Ducati riders are facing this year ARE in that area...
Sounds great! As long as Ducati don't build a bike no one can ride. Prototype racing at its best, things certainly aren't getting any cheaper.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (vale4607 @ Apr 23 2008, 10:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Sounds great! As long as Ducati don't build a bike no one can ride. Prototype racing at its best, things certainly aren't getting any cheaper.
You would think crashes would start to get expensive very quickly. I have to admit to having no idea what problems a carbon fibre chassis might present other than cost. I do have a strong view that ducati need a new chassis for next year badly.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (michaelm @ Apr 23 2008, 04:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You would think crashes would start to get expensive very quickly. I have to admit to having no idea what problems a carbon fibre chassis might present other than cost. I do have a strong view that ducati need a new chassis for next year badly.

Carbon Fiber has been considered too stiff up to now for use in motorbike chassis. It is at least 3 times more rigid than aluminum. In a car this is ok because there are 4 wheels, so they want the chassis as stiff as possible and the suspensions take care of the contact with the track. In a bike a certain flex is considered indipsensable to transmit the 'feel' to the rider who, with his body, forms an integral part of the 'machine'.

So I was puzzled myself when I heard this rumor. Then the thought came to my mind that maybe with today's electronics things have changed and a super-stiff motorbike chassis couild be actually rideable? I don't know.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 23 2008, 10:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Carbon Fiber has been considered too stiff up to now for use in motorbike chassis. It is at least 3 times more rigid than aluminum. In a car this is ok because there are 4 wheels, so they want the chassis as stiff as possible and the suspensions take care of the contact with the track. In a bike a certain flex is considered indipsensable to transmit the 'feel' to the rider who, with his body, forms an integral part of the 'machine'.

So I was puzzled myself when I heard this rumor. Then the thought came to my mind that maybe with today's electronics things have changed and a super-stiff motorbike chassis couild be actually rideable? I don't know.
So it sounds like a gamble if it is true. Ducati seem to have demonstrated at the last 2 circuits that electronics can't overcome a badly handling chassis on a tight circuit. Still, paradigm-shifting innovations are often regarded as being unworkable prior to their introduction, and as I have said before I think ducati's best chance of creating a superior-performing bike is to utilise the advantage of flexibilty (of their operation, not necessarily their bike) their small size gives them and go radical, as they are always likely to be out-resourced following conventional lines of development.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (J4rn0 @ Apr 24 2008, 12:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Carbon Fiber has been considered too stiff up to now for use in motorbike chassis. It is at least 3 times more rigid than aluminum. In a car this is ok because there are 4 wheels, so they want the chassis as stiff as possible and the suspensions take care of the contact with the track. In a bike a certain flex is considered indipsensable to transmit the 'feel' to the rider who, with his body, forms an integral part of the 'machine'.

So I was puzzled myself when I heard this rumor. Then the thought came to my mind that maybe with today's electronics things have changed and a super-stiff motorbike chassis couild be actually rideable? I don't know.

Time will show. It would be cool with an all CF frame, but it sure would make those crashes expencive.