Shapeshifters, wings, and MotoGP's aero war

MotoGP Forum

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
6,290
Location
NJ
I wanted to split this out from the Qatar topic.



I think the shapeshifters need to be banned. I look at them as moveable aero devices. It's making the overall on-track product lesser than it has been in past years. I think the wings have gotten out of control. The motorcycles shouldn't have wings are shapeshifter devices in my opinion.

What are your thoughts on this?
 
I suppose the simplistic answer is: It’s prototype racing and as such, engineers should be allowed to innovate in any way that allows the riders to go faster with greater safety. Also of course, MotoGp needs to be several steps ahead of WSBK in order to maintain its status as the premiere racing venue. Also, these innovations are doubtless a big appeal to tech-nerds (most of us here I’d venture) who thrive on this stuff. It’s a difficult dynamic to balance, because there’s a tipping point at which human beings can wrestle around that much power astride a 300 lb missile while dressed up in a leather bag and a plastic hat. The bikes have to be faster than the WSBK stuff but still humanly manageable. And the performance needs to be some increment increased every season, without going past the tipping point. If they don’t, they’re “in a rut” and if they go too far, people get killed. So Uncle Carmelo and his guys cook up rules and spec changes intended to keep the sport affordable, by slowing down progress which of course pisses off a lot of people and the engineers are by nature and purpose super motivated to create workarounds. All parties are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I haven’t found the racing boring the last few years. My take is that the present state of relative parity between teams makes for a good show, rather than the old days where it was always Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha……..Suzuki. The only time I really hated the sport was the ....... 800 era. That really sucked.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the simplistic answer is: It’s prototype racing and as such, engineers should be allowed to innovate in any way that allows the riders to go faster with greater safety. Also of course, MotoGp needs to be several steps ahead of WSBK in order to maintain its status as the premiere racing venue. Also, these innovations are doubtless a big appeal to tech-nerds (most of us here I’d venture) who thrive on this stuff. It’s a difficult dynamic to balance, because there’s a tipping point at which human beings can wrestle around that much power astride a 300 lb missile while dressed up in a leather bag and a plastic hat. The bikes have to be faster than the WSBK stuff but still humanly manageable. And the performance needs to be some increment increased every season, without going past the tipping point. If they don’t, they’re “in a rut” and if they go too far, people get killed. So Uncle Carmelo and his guys cook up rules and spec changes intended to keep the sport affordable, by slowing down progress which of course pisses off a lot of people and the engineers are by nature and purpose super motivated to create workarounds. All parties are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. I haven’t found the racing boring the last few years. My take is that the present state of relative parity between teams makes for a good show, rather than the old days where it was always Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha Honda Yamaha……..Suzuki. The only time I really hated the sport was the ....... 800 era. That really sucked.

What do you think about the fact that Dorna and 5 of the 6 manufacturers want the wings and shapeshifters banned? Ducati is the lone hold out.

I do agree with the need to make sure the bikes are faster than WSBK, but even if you took these things away, I don't see them being challenged by WSBK.
 
What do you think about the fact that Dorna and 5 of the 6 manufacturers want the wings and shapeshifters banned? Ducati is the lone hold out.

I do agree with the need to make sure the bikes are faster than WSBK, but even if you took these things away, I don't see them being challenged by WSBK.

I’d like to know the reasoning behind the decision to require a unanimous vote. But in any case, unless they change it . . . Honestly I’m still not clear as to their objections. If it’s a question of budgetary concerns I get it. Democracy does have it’s pitfalls.

As to WSBK - I think you’re probably right. Tho, I remember when people were saying that cable TV would never be a big thing because movies in a theater were so much better.
 
I’d like to know the reasoning behind the decision to require a unanimous vote. But in any case, unless they change it . . . Honestly I’m still not clear as to their objections. If it’s a question of budgetary concerns I get it. Democracy does have it’s pitfalls.

As to WSBK - I think you’re probably right. Tho, I remember when people were saying that cable TV would never be a big thing because movies in a theater were so much better.

Aero development drives up costs in all motor sports. I think regardless of the series, motorcycles should have smooth fairings not peppered with wings. It's makes the racing worse when you can just hit a button to lower the chassis on corner exit. I know Dorna is concerned about costs escalating which is a fair point since they believe closer racing is better for the bottom line.
 
Aero development drives up costs in all motor sports. I think regardless of the series, motorcycles should have smooth fairings not peppered with wings. It's makes the racing worse when you can just hit a button to lower the chassis on corner exit. I know Dorna is concerned about costs escalating which is a fair point since they believe closer racing is better for the bottom line.

I get the cost issue. Close racing (for me) is another of those double-edged sword issues. I’m all for relative technical parity. But (and I don’t consider myself to be an all-out techy gear-head like say Povol where the machinery is practically paramount over talent. Still I do love shiny toys. I just bought a new XSR900 and it isn’t even out of the garage and the the price of all the little refinements are seriously adding up.

I think tho, the technology is at least 52% of the appeal. If it weren’t people would just be happy to see these guys run around on foot. (I know that’s an extreme example). I kind of half wonder that some fan’s objection to the wings is more esthetic, the same way old-timers like me clung for years to the nostalgic view that the sport was never as authentic after the demise of the two-strokes. I felt that way for a long time; I’m over it. I can’t speak to what it’s like for the riders to have to utilize all that technology - while racing - but I can see it being a divisive issue for the more instinctive riders, like say Stoner. I recently watched an old video of, (I think Scott Redding) explaining each switch and it’s function on the bike and despite his not seeming like the sharpest knife in the drawer (mostly I think because of his working-class scouse speech habits) he seemed very much unphased by it all. Yet - I can’t help thinking, that most riders would be happy to do without all the switch-flipping and just get on with the racing, assuming that all teams were equally switch-free.

Other than there being some kind of Christian work-ethic about how hard it is to race, making for better racing, I can only think that maybe some folks feel with less tech, the racing would be more pure, more visceral, which again, was what I felt about the switch from 2-stroke to 4-stroke. 2-strokes were more unpredictable, and more dangerous, hence required . . . shall, we say more “manly” racers? Would get the testosterone flowing etc.. I really believe a lot of fans of the sport would be a whole lot less blasé about the sport if they got themselves to an actual MotoGp race, short of that, a superbike event or even a weekend of club racing. The experience of being there in-person the sounds, the smells, the heat etc. really heightens the experience of watching it in the comfort of one’s living room - which is of course true for all sports.
 
Last edited:
Front ride height devices banned for next season.

https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/999242/1/official-front-rideheight-devices-banned-motogp-2023

Just need to ban the rear next.

Wow. I wonder whose arm got twisted at Ducati, or what under the table concessions they were promised. Anyhoo, I figure it’s only a matter of time before Ducati figure a workaround, like say an elevator seat to lower the the rider’s center of gravity. (I know I know, it’s not the same thing). Well, riders with the ability to use the rear brake with subtlety on corner enters will continue to have a bit of advantage. I ride on weekends with a lot of ex-club racers who (surprisingly to me) virtually never touch the rear brake. For me it’s essential to late braking geometry stability.
 
I've riden with similar folks... I do not get it. I use rear brake in all sorts of situations. Just another way to control the machine. But... those same guys tend to use their leg-strength on the pegs alot more than I do as well... ultimately, whatever works for the individual I guess.
 
Wow. I wonder whose arm got twisted at Ducati, or what under the table concessions they were promised. Anyhoo, I figure it’s only a matter of time before Ducati figure a workaround, like say an elevator seat to lower the the rider’s center of gravity. (I know I know, it’s not the same thing). Well, riders with the ability to use the rear brake with subtlety on corner enters will continue to have a bit of advantage. I ride on weekends with a lot of ex-club racers who (surprisingly to me) virtually never touch the rear brake. For me it’s essential to late braking geometry stability.

I don't understand not using the rear break at all.

I have friends who used to brag about not using it, but it adds a lot of stability under braking and helps keep balance on braking. By the time I stop at a light I'm only on the rear brake. Better than grabbing a handful of front brake and folding the front.
 
Well if you use the front brake as intended there's no rear tyre-asphalt contact.

Rear brake is for acceleration only


Obligatory jk, without rear/engine brake you need a barrymachine to back it in
 
I don't understand not using the rear break at all.

I have friends who used to brag about not using it, but it adds a lot of stability under braking and helps keep balance on braking. By the time I stop at a light I'm only on the rear brake. Better than grabbing a handful of front brake and folding the front.

Exactly. Funny thing: Back in '83 I took the MSF class and there were two guys, both with big-... touring bikes, both had ridden cross-country multiple times. Both (at the beginning of the classes) said they'd never used the front brake for fear of going over the bars. LOL!
 
Last edited:
Well if you use the front brake as intended there's no rear tyre-asphalt contact.

Rear brake is for acceleration only


Obligatory jk, without rear/engine brake you need a barrymachine to back it in

Err sorry Compa but.... nope. Before I started club racing, I did the California Superbike School weekend with Keith and using the rear brake to sit the back down, was one of first, most fundamental techniques he taught. When I took the weekend workshop with the Penguin Racing School to get my racing license, Jerry Wood and Joe Ziegler taught that technique as well, and so their guest instructor Reg Pridmore. I've never known a competitive rider that didn't use it that way. Plenty of MotoGp stars have talked about how much or how little they use it for corner entry, but they ALL do.
 
Err sorry Compa but.... nope. Before I started club racing, I did the California Superbike School weekend with Keith and using the rear brake to sit the back down, was one of first, most fundamental techniques he taught. When I took the weekend workshop with the Penguin Racing School to get my racing license, Jerry Wood and Joe Ziegler taught that technique as well, and so their guest instructor Reg Pridmore. I've never known a competitive rider that didn't use it that way. Plenty of MotoGp stars have talked about how much or how little they use it for corner entry, but they ALL do.


Wasn't that one of the things Crutchlow said about MM? Cal said he looked at his data and saw what he was doing, particularly with the rear brake, and said he (Cal) just couldn't ride that way?
 
Wasn't that one of the things Crutchlow said about MM? Cal said he looked at his data and saw what he was doing, particularly with the rear brake, and said he (Cal) just couldn't ride that way?

I believe so.
 
Err sorry Compa but.... nope. Before I started club racing, I did the California Superbike School weekend with Keith and using the rear brake to sit the back down, was one of first, most fundamental techniques he taught. When I took the weekend workshop with the Penguin Racing School to get my racing license, Jerry Wood and Joe Ziegler taught that technique as well, and so their guest instructor Reg Pridmore. I've never known a competitive rider that didn't use it that way. Plenty of MotoGp stars have talked about how much or how little they use it for corner entry, but they ALL do.

Tongue in side cavity or whatever its called. I wrote the jk part to clarify
 
Exactly. Funny thing: Back in '83 I took the MSF class and there were two guys, both with big-... touring bikes, both had ridden cross-country multiple times. Both (at the beginning of the classes) said they'd never used the front brake for fear of going over the bars. LOL!

When I took the MSF course both instructors taught using the rear brake. Blows my mind how commonplace it seems to be too not use it on the street. I can't imagine riding any bike without using the rear brake.
 

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions

Back
Top