FIM Technical Director, Roland Berger, Speaks About 2027 Technical Regulations

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Mar 11, 2007
Messages
7,949
Location
Texas

Translate via Google:
Roland Berger has a long career linked to the world of two wheels. And currently, he holds the position of Director of the FIM Technical Commission. He assumed this role in 2023 and will serve for at least four years. That is, until the next major change to the MotoGP regulations takes place. Many challenges ahead. The most important: trying to return the spectacle to MotoGP through overtaking. Berger was asked about this matter in Speedweek. “We have considerably increased performance, which means that we can finally run at a speed of 366km/h. It is of no use to anyone, because no spectator sees the difference. Now aerodynamics comes into play, which goes hand in hand with the chassis. If you want to go twice as fast, you have to have four times as much power. And aerodynamics also became a problem when braking,” said the Austrian.

Berger explained how aerodynamics has affected the current MotoGP. “When the driver brakes at 360 km/h, he is happy to have more contact pressure on the front wheel. However, there was a disadvantage in the corner: when leaning, the wing pushed the bike outwards. “In order for this understeer to occur uniformly, the rear wings were used,” he said. And he continues on this topic. “Before, drivers only had one way to compensate for that push to the outside of the corner, and that was to accelerate. Which, as we know, didn't always work well. In any case, the aerodynamic packages have been getting better and better.” As a consequence of all this aerodynamics, MotoGP riders also have to fight against 'dirty air'. “You arrive and you can't get close to the driver in front of you. However, if you go over the limit, you are suddenly dragged forward. As this usually happens just before the braking point, overtaking has become quite complicated. Cornering speeds are the same as before, but the braking points are later due to the wings. This has not made overtaking easier. The result is a series that is technically fascinating, but no longer offers the action that he once did.”

For Berger, the solution to this problem is quite clear. “We remove the wings. Or, at least, all the ones behind the fuel cap. The front wings, at least, have some relevance as standard. They work from 50 km/h. We eliminate 'holeshot' devices. And we may have to reduce the power,” he assures. However, to see all this in MotoGP we will still have to wait. In principle, until 2027. “It is rumored that, from then on, it will be 850 c.c., which means 15% less power and between 10% and 12% less maximum speed,” explained Berger. However, that does not mean that there cannot be excitement in MotoGP until the regulations are changed. “It has always been the case that a manufacturer has achieved some genius here and there. Then it took two or three years for the competition to catch up. Ducati is a clear case: 87 victories in MotoGP, 14 of which were by customer teams in recent years. KTM made the biggest leap in 2023, but it simply wasn't enough. The closer they get to the leaders, and they will, the more interesting the races will be,” he assures.
 
Interesting comments re: aero.
I am sure part of Ducati's advantage right now is their aero package and the fact they went more radical far earlier than anyone, ie the 'hammerhead' that was outlawed quite quickly. Does that mean they fight aero restrictions quite hard or does Gigi look at the rules and find loopholes immediately?
 
“It is rumored that, from then on, it will be 850 c.c., which means 15% less power"

Not necessarily. Without regulations other than 850cc, engineers will find a way. But it is a start to being able to keep running on the existing tracks safely and competitively.
 
Exactly Mick. Everyone said how much 800cc would be slower than 990cc and by halfways through 2007 the lap records were already being broken.

I don't totally agree with the 'front wings being relevant' argument. He states earlier in the article that they effectively cause understeer, pushing the front of the bike out when leaned over. We also know that aero has no relevance on road bikes, despite some being available with gimmick wings. The danger with reducing power or capacity was seen with the 800cc experiement. I'm not against it, but FIM unwittingly created corner speed monsters then that arguably caused more accidents.

Tracks cannot keep making more and more runoffs. At some point, like Group B rally cars in the 80's, the governing body has to say 'enough is enough'. Power is irrelevant if you cannot get it down, so there is no point cutting power if aero and tyres allow you to corner faster and faster.
 
Interesting comments re: aero.
I am sure part of Ducati's advantage right now is their aero package and the fact they went more radical far earlier than anyone, ie the 'hammerhead' that was outlawed quite quickly. Does that mean they fight aero restrictions quite hard or does Gigi look at the rules and find loopholes immediately?
Both. They fight regs, and they eventually acquiesce when they've identified and negotiated a technical aspect they can exploit. Sadly, it's all about leverage, and control for control's sake. Most of the manufacturers operate this way. Ducati is just better at it. The Japanese are still emerging from the era of cartel cooperation.
 
“It is rumored that, from then on, it will be 850 c.c., which means 15% less power"

Not necessarily. Without regulations other than 850cc, engineers will find a way. But it is a start to being able to keep running on the existing tracks safely and competitively.
The GPC seems comfortable to throw around 850cc, but without additional details it's difficult for fans to know what's going on.

If they plan to regulate peak power with bore limitations, a 15% reduction would correspond with a bore measurement of 75mm. The corresponding stroke would be 48mm, which makes a very conservative 1.56 bore-stroke ratio, but this might make the bike less reliant on electronic aids. Current bore-stroke ratio is 1.67

It's a weird displacement. Seems like it would make more sense to go back to 800cc, but maybe they are terrified by the optics, or maybe they don't like the 17,500+ rpm rev ceiling that would result from de-stroking the engines further to reach 800cc.

Regardless, I'm confident they will achieve the power reduction they want. The 800cc formula was a different kettle of fish. Tire war was still raging, and the engines were basically still free design.
 
This is prototype racing, its supposed to be about development and technology with record shattering numbers. I don't mind the CC restriction so much, but let them build the engines how ever they want to in any configuration. Let then run aero packages, let them design suspension systems that we have not seen yet. If I wanted to watch a spec racing series then I could simply watch nascar every week .
 
This is prototype racing, its supposed to be about development and technology with record shattering numbers. I don't mind the CC restriction so much, but let them build the engines how ever they want to in any configuration. Let then run aero packages, let them design suspension systems that we have not seen yet. If I wanted to watch a spec racing series then I could simply watch nascar every week .

Everyone would probably prefer that arrangement, but the GPC has abandoned that game for several reasons.

In an unrestricted formula, bike performance would exceed the track runoff limitations. The riders and fans would be in grave danger. Even something as simple as hydraulic two wheel drive would turn the sport on it's head. Proper 3-dimensional suspension (not fork flex) would turn the sport on it's head. Electronically-controlled forced induction would destabilize the sport. The technologies available to the teams are basically unmarketable and uncontrollable.

Also, in the digital age of machines, when engineers encounter a human limitation, they simply replace the human. It seems like an ordinary thing for an engineer to do, but the consequences are quite dire in a sporting environment. Not only does motorsport lose the rider element that attracts fans, but the machines lose their relevance to humans. Everything is redesigned to work with a computer, not a man. The machine becomes unrideable for humans. Then someone realizes they can put location sensors and other sensors on the bike to vary the power and wheelspin (etc) by location, by gear, by ambient temperature, by tire temperature, by lean angle, etc. It spirals out of control immediately because prior to the digital age, the purpose of motorsport was to determine how much power and performance a man could bend to his will. Supercomputers don't belong in that sort of environment. It's dangerous.

But most importantly, perhaps, is that the manufacturers will not participate and lose. The engineers would probably be content to work on a project that interests them, even if they aren't competing for world championships each year, but corporations are not. They have worked for decades to keep smaller manufacturers and teams away so they cannot bask in the glow of corporate giants, but that means there is no one to participate and lose gracefully. The Honda RC is not a bad motorcycle, but it struggles to factor in a series dominated by Ducati satellite bikes. Honda's nightmare has come to fruition in a class with strict regulations. Do you think they want to loosen the regulations? A couple of bad seasons could see bikes failing to qualify for the race!

Many of the headwinds faced by open formulas can be addressed, but there is no willpower. Corporations don't care. Even if MotoGP threw away the rulebook, the MSMA would immediately have a manufacturers agreement in place. That's just the way it is. At this point, the best we can hope for, in a series run by corporations, is that they actually let the riders make the difference.
 
The GPC seems comfortable to throw around 850cc, but without additional details it's difficult for fans to know what's going on.

If they plan to regulate peak power with bore limitations, a 15% reduction would correspond with a bore measurement of 75mm. The corresponding stroke would be 48mm, which makes a very conservative 1.56 bore-stroke ratio, but this might make the bike less reliant on electronic aids. Current bore-stroke ratio is 1.67

It's a weird displacement. Seems like it would make more sense to go back to 800cc, but maybe they are terrified by the optics, or maybe they don't like the 17,500+ rpm rev ceiling that would result from de-stroking the engines further to reach 800cc.

Regardless, I'm confident they will achieve the power reduction they want. The 800cc formula was a different kettle of fish. Tire war was still raging, and the engines were basically still free design.
It also demands completely new engines. Part of the bore limitation for the 1000cc era was so that manufacturers could use the (then) existing 800cc heads.

I agree it is an odd displacement.



This is prototype racing, its supposed to be about development and technology with record shattering numbers. I don't mind the CC restriction so much, but let them build the engines how ever they want to in any configuration. Let then run aero packages, let them design suspension systems that we have not seen yet. If I wanted to watch a spec racing series then I could simply watch nascar every week .

Not anymore, there is no such thing as prototype racing anymore.

MotoGP:
Control tyre
Control ECU (both hardware and software)
Limited to 4 cylinders

F1:
Control ECU (hardware)
Control tyre
Choice of only 4 engines.

Indycar:
Control chassis
Choice of 2 engines
Control tyre

They are all customer series now, still claiming to be prototype.

The problem is, the rule book is so restricted now that things that were not in the rulebook like Aero and RHD's are becoming the new prototype items.

Everyone would probably prefer that arrangement, but the GPC has abandoned that game for several reasons.


Many of the headwinds faced by open formulas can be addressed, but there is no willpower. Corporations don't care. Even if MotoGP threw away the rulebook, the MSMA would immediately have a manufacturers agreement in place. That's just the way it is. At this point, the best we can hope for, in a series run by corporations, is that they actually let the riders make the difference.
Fully agree.
 
So control the CC, but let them configure it how ever the want to. There are different options for tires, granted they all come from the same manufacture, but I dont know that it would be financially feasible for another manufacture.
 
So control the CC, but let them configure it how ever the want to. There are different options for tires, granted they all come from the same manufacture, but I dont know that it would be financially feasible for another manufacture.

You still need to ban forced induction and specify 4-stroke only operation. You need to ban matrix metals and other ceramic aerospace composites. Variable displacement banned. Fuel must be regulated to avoid 200RON toxic TNT jungle juice. Fuel pressure probably still regulated. Oval piston and oval valve ban still required (probably). Do you want variable lift and duration cams? or camless pneumatic systems with variable valve programming (bye bye desmo)? or electromagnetic valves? It's all banned now so I doubt the mfg's want to touch it.

Depending on the displacement selected, the rear tire grip, and drag, you could be looking at engine speeds in excess of 20,000rpm. To achieve those speeds the internals are basically too light for a human to control with a twist throttle, and the throttle cannot be shut at high rpm without locking the rear wheel so you need a plethora of electronics to manage the bike for the rider.

The MSMA tried to address the rpm issue in 2007 by reducing fuel capacity. That sucked, and it still sucked when they went back to 1000cc, despite the lower rev ceiling. Eventually they went back to 22L. They could limit fuel flow, but should it be fuel flow without displacement limits? or fuel flow with displacement? or fuel-flow by rpm with displacement limits and cylinder count and bore? or should they use air-restrictors? or maybe a rev limit? Or maybe aim for max variety by adopting a balance of performance system like World Supersport?

It's possible for MotoGP to be more technically interesting, and it should be more interesting, but the GPC doesn't want to mess with it. The stuff above is just a basic debate about controlling naturally-aspirated engines. Imagine how far into the weeds the negotiations would get for a free engine formula (with hybrid?) or a freer chassis formula or aero formula. And that's just the technical regulations. Should manufacturers be allowed to bring a different spec of bike each weekend? Unlimited aero packages? Unlimited testing?

My point is just that formula-libre prototyping is probably dead. Even a freer engine formula, would still have scores of bans and specs, and would still require homologation procedures and more. They can do better, but do they want to wage mortal combat with pandora's box?
 
You still need to ban forced induction and specify 4-stroke only operation. You need to ban matrix metals and other ceramic aerospace composites. Variable displacement banned. Fuel must be regulated to avoid 200RON toxic TNT jungle juice. Fuel pressure probably still regulated. Oval piston and oval valve ban still required (probably). Do you want variable lift and duration cams? or camless pneumatic systems with variable valve programming (bye bye desmo)? or electromagnetic valves? It's all banned now so I doubt the mfg's want to touch it.

Depending on the displacement selected, the rear tire grip, and drag, you could be looking at engine speeds in excess of 20,000rpm. To achieve those speeds the internals are basically too light for a human to control with a twist throttle, and the throttle cannot be shut at high rpm without locking the rear wheel so you need a plethora of electronics to manage the bike for the rider.

The MSMA tried to address the rpm issue in 2007 by reducing fuel capacity. That sucked, and it still sucked when they went back to 1000cc, despite the lower rev ceiling. Eventually they went back to 22L. They could limit fuel flow, but should it be fuel flow without displacement limits? or fuel flow with displacement? or fuel-flow by rpm with displacement limits and cylinder count and bore? or should they use air-restrictors? or maybe a rev limit? Or maybe aim for max variety by adopting a balance of performance system like World Supersport?

It's possible for MotoGP to be more technically interesting, and it should be more interesting, but the GPC doesn't want to mess with it. The stuff above is just a basic debate about controlling naturally-aspirated engines. Imagine how far into the weeds the negotiations would get for a free engine formula (with hybrid?) or a freer chassis formula or aero formula. And that's just the technical regulations. Should manufacturers be allowed to bring a different spec of bike each weekend? Unlimited aero packages? Unlimited testing?

My point is just that formula-libre prototyping is probably dead. Even a freer engine formula, would still have scores of bans and specs, and would still require homologation procedures and more. They can do better, but do they want to wage mortal combat with pandora's box?
I want this. So bad. I want it to become the norm on production cars.
 
I want this. So bad. I want it to become the norm on production cars.

If they clamped down on electronics, camless engines could be fun. If camless systems are paired with electronics to perfectly dial torque at all engine speeds in all conditions, well, that would probably send teams for the exits. Ducati might withdraw rather than abandon desmo valves.

What do we know about the bio fuel?

Haven't looked at the rulebook, but most of the information points to 40% ethanol. I could be wrong, but it seems like the biofuel is just E40. Ethanol has about 30% less energy density by volume than gasoline/petrol. In theory, the bikes will have 12% less energy in the 22L tank next year. Maybe this is why the GPC thinks biofuels will lessen performance slightly?

We'll see what happens. Alcohol based fuels have higher octane, but maybe the fuel pressure regs will mitigate the advantages somewhat? I dunno. We need a MotoGP engineer to tell us.
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top