What's Wrong with the Ducati?

michaelm said:

I think it probably needed rossi to tell them the bike was inherently flawed. It is probably stoner who did them the dis-service, since his dominant 2007 season appeared to convince ducati of their genius. If you recall it was not just ducati but most others including rossi and burgess who thought the bike just needed a few tweaks prior to 2011, and that it was stoner's development that was the problem. The substance of the article povol posted was that audi wanted to re-evaluate things before spending megabucks on what might be a wrong direction and their takeover has slowed the rate of change this year.



I don't think the impact of the tyre changes can be underestimated either. Maybe the bike was no good anyway, but it definitely was not suited by the same tyres which suited the yamaha and honda, and ducati foresaw this and were quite opposed to control tyre, even offering to become the michelin factory team.

Click to expand...

People over look that the Yamaha and Honda were both changed through the years and for the tires. I posted an article about how Yamaha went to work in developing the bike around the tires and how they learned so much by having Rossi and Jlo on different tires.

Just some of the changes for 2008 M1 from 2007 M1

These issues were addressed with significant chassis alterations, including changes in rigidity, geometry, wheelbase, center-of-gravity height and weight distribution



Read more: http://www.sportride...l#ixzz25ofGLL3q

Click to expand...

Furusawa

Wat else have you changed on Valentino’s bike?

[font=Arial, Verdana, sans-serif]“We have had to work a lot on the chassis setting and we have also changed the geometry of the bike in order to get a good balance with the tyre character. since we moved from 990cc to 800cc higher corner speed is needed in order to get faster lap times and to win. Therefor we have tried many different chassis settings in order to find the best of bike geometry, centre of gravity, rider position, wheel-base length, chassis stiffness and so on.”[/font]

Click to expand...

Ducati simply didn't even bother to ever change their bike or adapt to the changing strategy of point and shoot to the new strategy of smooth and higher corner speeds. Ducati thought they would out hp the Japanese but that didn't last long, looking at the Duc we can see that it was designed for point and shoot as it's still similar to what the bikes were during the 990 era. I don't think any tires will turn the bike good unless we go back to point and shoot riding, the back end of that bike was designed to come round, it's just that Casey was the only rider with the balls to spin the rear enough to exploit that. The hard tires, lower TC setting, and high hp were all the things he used to get her to spin round.

Mental Anarchist said:

I believe that if Ducati went back to the screamer configuration the front end problems would be significantly reduced.

Click to expand...

Shall I forward your solution to Claudio Domenicali? Sounds like you have the answer...

Mental Anarchist said:

The balance of the bike in my opinion was most affected by the switch from screamer to big bang. The extra traction that the new engine firing order generated is what started pushing the front end. I believe that if Ducati went back to the screamer configuration the front end problems would be significantly reduced.



For those with engineering backgrounds: with a lower rpm of 15,500 what would be the benefits of either the screamer or the big bang? Would it make sense to revert back to the screamer style of engine?

Click to expand...

The changing from screamer to big bang made the VSG's worse. Especially in terms of stability of the effect of that VSG, on the traction at the front. A big bang produced VSG ( in a 90 degree twin ) would be like somebody applying an extra strong and gusty ( somewhat unpredictable ) wind on the front and back in proportion to the distances fro the centre of the VSG to the front and rear ...... the front being the most scary.

Zootalaws said:

Shall I forward your solution to Claudio Domenicali? Sounds like you have the answer...

Click to expand...

Pretty sure they'd know it ...... but have to weigh up admitting that a base design they have had for years ... is flawed. especially since just about there entire production range is based on that design also.



They also attempted to get Furasawa to help them but:



He likely saw it as too hard ......... or



he was working as a head of a team when they researched these problems at Yam, and stayed inline 4 rather than V, as that head of the team he may not actually personally have full cognition of the problem ....... it may have been an aspect researched/worked on by a subordinate ...... to whom he may no longer have access.

BarryMachine said:

The changing from screamer to big bang made the VSG's worse. Especially in terms of stability of the effect of that VSG, on the traction at the front. A big bang produced VSG ( in a 90 degree twin ) would be like somebody applying an extra strong and gusty ( somewhat unpredictable ) wind on the front and back in proportion to the distances fro the centre of the VSG to the front and rear ...... the front being the most scary.

Click to expand...

Sorry, nope.



Even IF oscillating pistons produced a significant gyroscopic effect (dude, they don't!), how they hell would the crank timing affect that force? Whatever imaginary forces exist are occurring at hundred of cycles per second. The engine mounts, frame, etc. would dampen any fluctuations.



Also, you never answered the question - If your phantom VSG forces are so great, how does an I4, with upright cylinders, manage to roll over onto it's side? And once on its side, with the cylinders pointing nearly sideways to the bike's travel, the same (phantom) VSG forces should prevent the bike from turning.



This is clearly not happening.

But but but.... isn't there proof somewhere??? Barry, say it ain't so!

Ducati will race with the new frame and swingarm at Misano.

http://www.motogp.com/en/news/2012/Rossi+speaks+openly+about+Ducati+woes+and+Yamaha+switch

[font=Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]Rossi summed up why he was not able to replicate his winning ways on the Desmosedici: "We are not able to create enough grip from the front tyre and enough contact on the ground. This was the biggest problem from the Valencia test in 2010, and unfortunately after almost two years we have more or less the same problem."

Click to expand...

[/font]

mike02467 said:

http://www.motogp.co...d Yamaha switch



[/font][/color]

Click to expand...

amazing isn't it, the front of the bike has been more or less ..... since 2009 without a special BS tyre. This just continues to smell of a engineering department unwilling to do what is necessary, and/or not having the skill to translate the feedback from the team, feedback we know is currently second to none. And now they are just throwing more riders at it for next year, but without a major upheaval in all workings in Bolonga, nothing will change-what they should hope for now is to at least try to stay ahead of the CRT's in 2013-which is even proving very difficult now.

Geonerd said:

Sorry, nope.



Even IF oscillating pistons produced a significant gyroscopic effect (dude, they don't!), how they hell would the crank timing affect that force? Whatever imaginary forces exist are occurring at hundred of cycles per second. The engine mounts, frame, etc. would dampen any fluctuations.



Also, you never answered the question - If your phantom VSG forces are so great, how does an I4, with upright cylinders, manage to roll over onto it's side? And once on its side, with the cylinders pointing nearly sideways to the bike's travel, the same (phantom) VSG forces should prevent the bike from turning.



This is clearly not happening.

Click to expand...

Crank timing is everything, they went from f small forces acting closer together to double the mass increase of double, at the same revs. its not a liner function either its exponential ...... thats why its so bad. ....... And unpredictable ...... which is prbably the worst thing ....... its like one of those science fiction movies where when all the planets align ( only its a resonance in much higher frequency to the point where it will occure several times in any one corner ) ....... Rossi falls off!!! :shock:



You need to read up about VSG's ....... and maybe work in force measurement for a few decades!! oops Arab will have a field day with that one!!



I4's definitely have VSG's ( apparent from the side to side distances between the pistons etc. ) ........ but in an I4 the plane of ....... action ..... is 90 degree to what the duc is experiencing, and that bank of pistons is closer to the centroid of the bike. Matter of fact I'm now beginning to wonder if thats all why Rossi at yamaha always had hassles with "wheelieing" and wanted it fixed electronically so much ...... what a game! how good would it be to be one of the guys getting to work on all that ....!!



Phantom !! my arse!! ....... the only thing "phantom" about it is your amount of knowledge on VSG's

BarryMachine said:

Crank timing is everything, they went from f small forces acting closer together to double the mass increase of double, at the same revs. its not a liner function either its exponential ...... thats why its so bad. ....... And unpredictable ...... which is prbably the worst thing ....... its like one of those science fiction movies where when all the planets align ....... Rossi falls off!!! :shock:



You need to read up about VSG's ....... and maybe work in force measurement for a few decades!! oops Arab will have a field day with that one!!

I4's definitely have VSG's ( apparent from the side to side distances between the pistons etc. ) ........ but in an I4 the plane of ....... action ..... is 90 degree to what the duc is experiencing, and that bank of pistons is closer to the centroid of the bike. Matter of fact I'm now beginning to wonder if thats all why Rossi at yamaha always had hassles with "wheelieing" and wanted it fixed electronically so much ...... what a game! how good would it be to be one of the guys getting to work on all that ....!!



Phantom !! my arse!! ....... the only thing "phantom" about it is your amount of knowledge on VSG's

Click to expand...

This reminds me of a friend asking why is everything always ....... squared in regards to formulas

hawkdriver said:

This reminds me of a friend asking why is everything always ....... squared in regards to formulas

Click to expand...

Yes ..... thats it. only wit VSG's and Ducati's ....... put that in a lucky dip

Now we know why Duc's are commonly fastest, the Vsg's are giving them a push down the straight.

BarryMachine said:

Crank timing is everything, they went from f small forces acting closer together to double the mass increase of double, at the same revs. its not a liner function either its exponential ...... thats why its so bad. ....... And unpredictable ...... which is prbably the worst thing ....... its like one of those science fiction movies where when all the planets align ( only its a resonance in much higher frequency to the point where it will occure several times in any one corner ) ....... Rossi falls off!!!

Click to expand...

I sincerely worry for you, Barry. This babbling is utterly incoherent, in both a grammar and technical context. You don't sound entirely healthy.



I don't dispute that a piston that is moving forward as the bike is yawing will gain rotational velocity at the expense of the bike. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the same piston will return that energy to the bike on the downstroke. The effect is exactly like the old 'ice skater' analogy. Arms out slows the spin, arms back in and she speeds back up. Repeat as often as you like - there is no mechanism that will cause this exchange of energy to be inefficient (create drag.)



The rest of your paragraph is incomprehensible gibberish. I won't even try to interpret it, much less bother to reply. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you could spin a better story?

You need to read up about VSG's ....... and maybe work in force measurement for a few decades!! oops Arab will have a field day with that one!!

Click to expand...

I doubt he'll bother. No one believes your silly claims anymore, Dude.

I4's definitely have VSG's ( apparent from the side to side distances between the pistons etc. ) ........ but in an I4 the plane of ....... action ..... is 90 degree to what the duc is experiencing, and that bank of pistons is closer to the centroid of the bike. Matter of fact I'm now beginning to wonder if thats all why Rossi at yamaha always had hassles with "wheelieing" and wanted it fixed electronically so much ...... what a game! how good would it be to be one of the guys getting to work on all that ....!!



Phantom !! my arse!! ....... the only thing "phantom" about it is your amount of knowledge on VSG's

Click to expand...

More insane babbling.

I will point out that the distance from the center of rotation (What I think you mean by 'centroid.') is largely irrelevant - the stroke distance, the change in the piston's location, is the important factor in the equation.

Geonerd said:

I sincerely worry for you, Barry. This babbling is utterly incoherent, in both a grammar and technical context. You don't sound entirely healthy.



I don't dispute that a piston that is moving forward as the bike is yawing will gain rotational velocity at the expense of the bike. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the same piston will return that energy to the bike on the downstroke. The effect is exactly like the old 'ice skater' analogy. Arms out slows the spin, arms back in and she speeds back up. Repeat as often as you like - there is no mechanism that will cause this exchange of energy to be inefficient (create drag.)



The rest of your paragraph is incomprehensible gibberish. I won't even try to interpret it, much less bother to reply. Maybe if you knew what you were talking about, you could spin a better story?

I doubt he'll bother. No one believes your silly claims anymore, Dude.







More insane babbling.

I will point out that the distance from the center of rotation (What I think you mean by 'centroid.') is largely irrelevant - the stroke distance, the change in the piston's location, is the important factor in the equation.

Click to expand...

You worry for me!??



Really?



What a ...... :rolleyes"





Like I said ......do some research ...... it would notbe such "gibberish to you then" :wink:

BarryMachine said:

You worry for me!??



Really?



What a ...... :rolleyes"





Like I said ......do some research ...... it would notbe such "gibberish to you then" :wink:

Click to expand...

Yawn...



Back into the Banished Bit Bucket for you, Barry.



- Over and out.

Geonerd said:

More insane babbling.

I will point out that the distance from the center of rotation (What I think you mean by 'centroid.') is largely irrelevant - the stroke distance, the change in the piston's location, is the important factor in the equation.

Click to expand...

You do know that the centroid or geometric centre is also known as the barrycenter?



(OK, well really it is the barycenter, but it was too good to resist )

Geonerd said:

I will point out that the distance from the center of rotation (What I think you mean by 'centroid.') is largely irrelevant - the stroke distance, the change in the piston's location, is the important factor in the equation.

Click to expand...

Stop thinking engine only ..... I quite clearly said the centroid of the bike, the thing with VSG is that it can alter the acting centroid of that bike, and in the 90deg Vtwins it pulses out toward the front in a resonating manner. I don't think you have the slightest idea of what we are on about here

"What's wrong with the Ducati"



Well, after today, apparently nothing.

Zootalaws said:

"What's wrong with the Ducati"



Well, after today, apparently nothing.

Click to expand...

It did look to be a hell of a lot smoother but still pushing a little, I think it is important to remember that they tested here before the race, but they look to have taken a big step. Can we finally get excited about possibly having another competitive set of bikes on the grid? To bad they'll only have 4th place riders next year.