What's Wrong with the Ducati?

stiefel · Jul 30, 2012

nomad said:
From what I've read Burgess and Rossi know exactly what the issue is with the Duc and have been telling them this for the past 18 months but Ducati have been unable to fix it, so there is absolutely no point in Rossi staying because the situation is not going to get any better.

Could be true. On the other hand, I think I know them well exactly what's the issue with the way the country I live in is run and nobody listens to me. Saying that you know what's wrong is easy, fixing things isn't.

basspete · Jul 30, 2012

Scotty said:
Forget the mechanical engineering explanations and theories …Just Put Stoner Back On The Ducati and do what he says for the Ducati….nothing more and nothing less…he’s the GOD of Ducati

.... off you thick .....

Mental Anarchist · Jul 30, 2012

nomad said:
From what I've read Burgess and Rossi know exactly what the issue is with the Duc and have been telling them this for the past 18 months but Ducati have been unable to fix it, so there is absolutely no point in Rossi staying because the situation is not going to get any better.

I disagree. Rossi and Burgess know what makes a Yamaha and a Honda work which would be fine if that is what manufacturer they signed a contract with. But they didn't, they signed with Ducati who have a different philosophy to going fast. Neither Rossi or Burgess have displayed any knowledge of what it takes to make a Ducati a winning bike.

It would also appear the Ducati have no idea of how to be a Yamaha or Honda.

So who is wrong? Ducati had a bike capable of winning races and possibly championships if 'luck' or tyres had continued to go their way. Why is it their fault that they don't know how to be a Yamaha/Honda when they are Ducati?

J4rn0 · Jul 30, 2012

Ducati now reminds me of Ferrari before Schumacher: they were extremely attached to their legendary 12-cylinder engine, a perfectly balanced powerhouse, but their car with that engine was longer than the others (that had only 8 or 10 cylinders) and could not handle as well. They could sometimes win at fast tracks like Monza, but did not race for world titles again until they switched to a 10-cylinder solution.

Talpa · Jul 30, 2012

J4rn0 said:
Ducati now reminds me of Ferrari before Schumacher: they were extremely attached to their legendary 12-cylinder engine, a perfectly balanced powerhouse, but their car with that engine was longer than the others (that had only 8 or 10 cylinders) and could not handle as well. They could sometimes win at fast tracks like Monza, but did not compete for world titles until they switched to a 10-cylinder solution.

Do you believe it's also the case, that like with the chassis, they are scared to let go of current design and start from scratch once again to compete with the japanese who have years more experience with smaller engine configs?

L8Braker · Jul 30, 2012

J4rn0....someone at Audi should put boot to ... and narrow up the angle on the Duc, if they start now, they might have one ready by January?

J4rn0 · Jul 30, 2012

Talpa said:
Do you believe it's also the case, that like with the chassis, they are scared to let go of current design and start from scratch once again to compete with the japanese who have years more experience with smaller engine configs?

Ducati switched to a more traditional frame more because of the engine rule (that penalizes a stressed-engine solution) than because of the pressure from Rossi. Not many alternatives -- then there is also the single tire rule, which obliges manufacturers to adapt the bikes to the tires rather than vice-versa. The possibility to move the engine back and forth in the frame becomes important: Yamaha is the best (maybe the only) bike capable to really do that thanks to the IL4 architecture, Honda mainly do it by churning out as many modified frames as needed.

I agree it is an uphill battle for Ducati, but now they should go all the way (i.e. change the blessed engine architecture) or retire imo.

J4rn0 · Jul 30, 2012

L8Braker said:
J4rn0....someone at Audi should put boot to ... and narrow up the angle on the Duc, if they start now, they might have one ready by January?

It seems they promised Rossi a completely new bike, with a brand new engine, in 6 months. One third of the time that would normally be considered necessary for such a step.

But then it will need to be developed.

HEISMAN · Jul 30, 2012

J4rn0 said:
Ducati now reminds me of Ferrari before Schumacher: they were extremely attached to their legendary 12-cylinder engine, a perfectly balanced powerhouse, but their car with that engine was longer than the others (that had only 8 or 10 cylinders) and could not handle as well. They could sometimes win at fast tracks like Monza, but did not race for world titles again until they switched to a 10-cylinder solution.

I like the F1 reference. Makes sense in terms of how they just need to win and forget what's marketable. But didn't they go to a V10 because of the rules? Either way, no one stopped buying Ferrari's since they stopped racing a V12.

Also, I'm not sure the engine packaging is the problem. Honda raced a V4 90 degree engine in the 90's with the RC30 and RC45, and both were successful. Plus I'm not sure 15 degrees makes that much of a difference

hawkdriver · Jul 30, 2012

HEISMAN said:
I like the F1 reference. Makes sense in terms of how they just need to win and forget what's marketable. But didn't they go to a V10 because of the rules? Either way, no one stopped buying Ferrari's since they stopped racing a V12.

Also, I'm not sure the engine packaging is the problem. Honda raced a V4 90 degree engine in the 90's with the RC30 and RC45, and both were successful. Plus I'm not sure 15 degrees makes that much of a difference

Why do you think they aren't using it anymore and the RC45 wasn't that great especially considering the money Honda poured into keeping it competitive. Where else do you see a 90 V4 doing anything in current racing, there's a good reason for that.

HEISMAN · Jul 30, 2012

The RC45, even though only has one title in WSBK was a highly successful bike. It was designed to win the Suzuka 8 hour and that it did. Other than that no one else as of recently has had the gall to really race 90 degree V4 besides Ducati. Also their engine in the RC30 was highly successful, no?

RC45 Racing

While the RC45 was a superb road bike, its main aim was of course, to win races. It has to be remembered that the RC45 had to win one thing more than any other, and this shows in its design -- the Suzuka 8 Hours Endurance Race.

The RC45 stayed at top level endurance racing for over seven years from 1994 until 2000. In that time it won the 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998 and 1999 Suzuka 8hr races, and finished 3[sup]rd[/sup] in 1996. It also won the World Endurance championship twice to go hand in hand with its one World Superbike championship in 1997.

HRC continually developed the RC45 over these years and many of their parts were made available in the form of HRC kits to the public. This is covered in the tuning section.

I think it did it's job pretty well.

http://force-v4.com/racing/

My opinion of why they didn't go back to a 90 degree was because originally they designed the V5 in order to fit the RC211. Therefore when they went to a V4 for the 800 era, it made packaging easier instead of having to do a complete redesign. But then again it's only a guess. I didn't bother to ask that to Nakamato yesterday (and yes I did meet him in the paddock yesterday when my friend asked him to sit on his Rc45)

hawkdriver · Jul 30, 2012

HEISMAN said:
The RC45, even though only has one title in WSBK was a highly successful bike. It was designed to win the Suzuka 8 hour and that it did. Other than that no one else as of recently has had the gall to really race 90 degree V4 besides Ducati. Also their engine in the RC30 was highly successful, no?

I think it did it's job pretty well.

http://force-v4.com/racing/

My opinion of why they didn't go back to a 90 degree was because originally they designed the V5 in order to fit the RC211. Therefore when they went to a V4 for the 800 era, it made packaging easier instead of having to do a complete redesign. But then again it's only a guess. I didn't bother to ask that to Nakamato yesterday (and yes I did meet him in the paddock yesterday when my friend asked him to sit on his Rc45)

The gall, more like they are more intelligent, you're comparing technology that's more than 20 years old, you don't think things get better or that Honda didn't have something better? The bikes are all about mass centralization now as they were in the past, the bikes and technology evolve. The RC30 did fine but you have to remember that those bikes had to be sold to the public and Honda wasn't going to throw that much technology into any mass produced bike because of SBK rules. Just like the CBR doesn't get a fancy V engine now.

Honda's exotic V-five has its origins in a promising V6 prototype called the FXX, which RC211V project leader Tomoo Shiozaki helped develop back in 1988. This was designed specifically with the goals of compactness and mass centralization. It outperformed the RC30, Honda's all-conquering V4 sportster, and handled superbly. But with the market demanding race-replicas and Honda competing successfully with RC30s in the new World Superbike series as well as Formula One and endurance, the V6 never reached production

Read more:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/features/honda_rc211v_gp/#ixzz22APAfutB

You the public can't have that, it's to expensive

The V5, whose layout places three cylinders facing forwards and two rearwards at 75.5 degrees, is considerably smaller than alternative engines with fewer cylinders

Read more:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/features/honda_rc211v_gp/#ixzz22AQrMXO2

As you can see even way back then Honda was making things as small and compact as possible and that's still the goal of most engineering today, those engines are actually very similar to VW engines and probably where the inspiration came from.

Mick D · Jul 31, 2012

Heisman - now factor in the Bridgestones. The tyres limit engine choices plain and simple.

J4rn0 · Jul 31, 2012

It's not that a technical solution is good or bad in itself. Ducati have been very successful in WSBK with a 90° twin, and won MotoGP races and one title with their D16 as it was originally conceived. The necessity for them to move on is dictated by the evolution of the tires and by current regulations about tires and engines.

Keshav · Jul 31, 2012

J4rn0 said:
Ducati switched to a more traditional frame more because of the engine rule (that penalizes a stressed-engine solution) than because of the pressure from Rossi. Not many alternatives -- then there is also the single tire rule, which obliges manufacturers to adapt the bikes to the tires rather than vice-versa. The possibility to move the engine back and forth in the frame becomes important: Yamaha is the best (maybe the only) bike capable to really do that thanks to the IL4 architecture, Honda mainly do it by churning out as many modified frames as needed.

I agree it is an uphill battle for Ducati, but now they should go all the way (i.e. change the blessed engine architecture) or retire imo.

This.

Zootalaws · Jul 31, 2012

J4rn0 said:
It's not that a technical solution is good or bad in itself. Ducati have been very successful in WSBK with a 90° twin.

Ducati have been very successful with a 200cc advantage and a weight advantage - but now they are heavier than the 1000s, things aren't so rosy.

ROCKGOD01 · Jul 31, 2012

Ducati should really be trying that Alan Jenkins designed frame style that had Capirossi doing so well. Now with the bigger motor and with their already vast understanding of that chassis, it seems like they could make it work.

J4rn0 · Aug 1, 2012

Zootalaws said:
Ducati have been very successful with a 200cc advantage and a weight advantage - but now they are heavier than the 1000s, things aren't so rosy.

That's oversimplifying things. Ducati have been successful in WSBK through many years and different sets of rules. Nothing prevented other manufactuerers to exploit the rules as well, if they really contained such a clear advantage. Honda and others in fact had twins in production, and racing, as well.

HEISMAN · Aug 1, 2012

hawkdriver said:
The gall, more like they are more intelligent, you're comparing technology that's more than 20 years old, you don't think things get better or that Honda didn't have something better? The bikes are all about mass centralization now as they were in the past, the bikes and technology evolve. The RC30 did fine but you have to remember that those bikes had to be sold to the public and Honda wasn't going to throw that much technology into any mass produced bike because of SBK rules. Just like the CBR doesn't get a fancy V engine now.

You the public can't have that, it's to expensive

As you can see even way back then Honda was making things as small and compact as possible and that's still the goal of most engineering today, those engines are actually very similar to VW engines and probably where the inspiration came from.

Good article, but my intention is not to say the 90 degree is the best option, just that it's capable of winning as the past has shown. Honda went into a different direction and it clearly works for them. Yamaha is winning with their inline four, but if they weren't, people would be saying they should switch to a V-Four. It's all relative to what success you have with it.

In other words, even though a particular layout or configuration is not used (whether due to rules, costs, etc) doesn't mean it can't be successful. I just don't believe Ducati needs to go the route of decreasing the angle on their engine in order to get better. The frame...ok, that needed to be done because of the rules, but I'm sure they still can be successful with the current engine layout.

Hell if it were up to me, I would have let Norton race their rotary in the series.

HEISMAN · Aug 1, 2012

hawkdriver said:
The gall, more like they are more intelligent, you're comparing technology that's more than 20 years old, you don't think things get better or that Honda didn't have something better? The bikes are all about mass centralization now as they were in the past, the bikes and technology evolve. The RC30 did fine but you have to remember that those bikes had to be sold to the public and Honda wasn't going to throw that much technology into any mass produced bike because of SBK rules. Just like the CBR doesn't get a fancy V engine now.

You the public can't have that, it's to expensive

As you can see even way back then Honda was making things as small and compact as possible and that's still the goal of most engineering today, those engines are actually very similar to VW engines and probably where the inspiration came from.

Good article, but my intention is not to say the 90 degree is the best option, just that it's capable of winning as the past has shown. Honda went into a different direction and it clearly works for them. Yamaha is winning with their inline four, but if they weren't, people would be saying they should switch to a V-Four. It's all relative to what success you have with it.

In other words, even though a particular layout or configuration is not used (whether due to rules, costs, etc) doesn't mean it can't be successful. I just don't believe Ducati needs to go the route of decreasing the angle on their engine in order to get better. The frame...ok, that needed to be done because of the rules, but I'm sure they still can be successful with the current engine layout.

Hell if it were up to me, I would have let Norton race their rotary in the series.

What's Wrong with the Ducati?

Help Support MotoGP Forum:

stiefel

basspete

Mental Anarchist

J4rn0

Talpa

L8Braker

J4rn0

J4rn0

HEISMAN

hawkdriver

HEISMAN

hawkdriver

Mick D

J4rn0

Keshav

Zootalaws

ROCKGOD01

J4rn0

HEISMAN

HEISMAN

Similar threads

Recent Discussions

Recent Discussions