I'm not saying Ducati should not do it. The point is, it is going to be a loosing battle for them against Honda, as you have pointed out in you 1st paragraph.
I disagree on two levels. First, by that argument every battle is a losing one against Honda. They are the biggest and best funded team on the grid, bar none. They can, and have, out spend any one at any time in any area. If that is the case, why should anyone show up?
Second, just because Honda can outspend the competition does not mean that their solution will be the best; nor does it mean that they will implement the right solution in the best way. Smaller, less well funded team can achieve great results by being forced to think of a problem in a different way because of their reduced budget. Ironically, aerodynamics - the very thing being argued against - is the perfect example of this.
Reading between the lines, Honda and Ducati were actually experiencing very similar problems: brutal power delivery, difficult to control motorcycle, reduced feel, etc. Take away Marquez and the Repsol team was doing pretty dismally.... for Repsol at least. Much like Ducati. Honda approached the problem by throwing a lot of money on engine management, traction control, chassis construction and geometry. It was not uncommon for them to show up with enough parts to build three completely different bikes for their riders to test on a race weekend. Without the budget to do that, Gigi had Ducati take a different approach: wings.
All these years later it seems like a simple thing but when Ducati first took the field they were the absolute laughing stock of GP. Now every team has followed their lead and there is a lot of evidence that they provide a tangible benefit to the stability and handling of the bikes that's not just in the riders' heads (as was sometimes stated).
Perhaps the point isn't so much that Ducati can outspend Honda, but the fact that Ducati has a backer who also has deep pockets and can therefore spend sufficient money to come up with a competitive solution regardless of how much money Honda throws at a problem. They have already shown that their creativity can fundamentally change the direction of MotoGP.
True! But the edge would go to the one who has the aeronautics advantage. What moto poo keeps over looking is this bit below
This is not new to Honda on a bike.
Not true at all. The edge would go to the team who could make use of the technology. An excellent example of this from the automotive world would be the Nissan GTR. When it first came out there were more powerful cars, more expensive cars, cars with more exotic materials. It beat them all. Why? Because it made enough power and had enough traction control that it simply... went. So you could throw money at your Ferrari and Porsche to make them lighter and more powerful, but while you were spinning tires on corner exit the GTR was accellerating to the next turn because their car put just enough power to the ground.
Also, while the quote from Nakamoto is intriguing, there would appear to be some inconsistencies between both the quote itself and the significance you assign to it (and that he wants the reader to assign to it). First, an aerodynamically "perfect" bike would look nothing like what you see today. The rider is still, by far, the biggest object of drag on the bike. The rider is essentially a dynamic, unstable parachute. So to be aerodynamically perfect you would have to shield the rider entirely, at which point you would end up with something along the lines of the LitMotors machine. Secondly, if the entire thing was so difficult to ride that it was unusable after one lap (which is just 2 mile give or take) then that is a far cry from "perfection" for a racing machine that needs to be rideable for ten times that distance. "Perfection" is almost always a compromise and it depends on the problem that is being solved. If the race is 10 laps (problem to be solved: navigate 10 laps of a given racetrack) and your machine is unusable after 2, then a 10 speed bicycle is actually a more perfect solution because it actually achieves the stated goal. The way I read Nakamoto's quote is that the bike, by itself, had what they determined to be an ideal aerodynamic rating but it made the machine itself almost unrideable. Not exactly perfect.
The other problem is that we don't know that other manufacturers haven't done something similar in the past. Yamaha also had "faster" bikes that they could have used, for example, but ended up choosing the crossplane crank (which Rossi and Furusawa described as the "slower" bike) because they felt it worked best overall. Considering how dominant it was, it would be hard to argue against that logic. Saying that "it's not new to Honda on a bike" seems to imply that other manufacturers haven't done something similar, which appears erroneous. Also, for all of their experience, Honda was still beaten to the punch on a simple solution that solved many of their problems once they copied it.
It is entirely possible that Honda is more than happy to continue throwing incredible amounts of money at the advancements that they have made and used to steer the direction of MotoGP (seamless gearbox, electronics, etc) instead of such a visible example of someone else's innovation.
