Aprilia's Romano Albesiano And Massimo Rivola Speak About Ducati's Rear Spoiler, And The Cost Of Aerodynamics

After yesterday's sitting of the MotoGP Court of Appeal, ruling on Ducati's rear swing arm-fitted spoiler, no official announcement was made, and next to no information leaked out from other sources. There is still no decision, and what was discussed behind closed doors, is staying behind closed doors for the moment.

On Saturday, however, Aprilia held its Aprilia All Stars event at the Mugello circuit, a day to celebrate the fabulous machines the Italian factory has produced, and the great champions who have ridden then. Along with riders past and present, there was also Massimo Rivola, Aprilia Racing CEO, and Romano Albesiano, Aprilia Racing Manager.

That meant that they had their chance to give their side of the argument to the assembled media. In a press conference, Rivola and Albesiano explained why they had protested against Ducati's use of its spoiler during the opening race of the 2019 MotoGP season at Qatar, and made clear that it was not their intention for Andrea Dovizioso to be stripped of the win in that race.

What's good for the goose...

At the heart of their complaint was the fact that Aprilia had submitted a similar design to MotoGP Technical Director Danny Aldridge, and had it rejected. They had sent the design to Aldridge on 19th February, but Aldridge had ruled that it violated the guidelines sent out after the Qatar test.

"We discussed about a device to be fitted in that area," Romano Albesiano explained. "Then we learned that you can say a wing can be useful for refreshing everything, no? But we were clearly told that a device fitted in that area should not have an aerodynamic purpose, and would have been taken off if it was dry. So we stopped thinking about anything in that area." So when Ducati turned up with a spoiler fitted to the bottom of the swing arm, they had been surprised, Albesiano said. "We were really surprised that a wing fitted in that area was allowed."

From Albesiano's perspective, it is clear that Ducati's spoiler creates downforce. "In the new edition of the guidelines which was issued the day after the IRTA test in Qatar, it was clearly said that a device fitted in that location should not be designed to create a downforce," he explained. "A downforce is one of the aerodynamic effects mentioned, and the purpose of the downforce is grip." The triple wing fitted to the GP19 clearly did that. "A wing creates downforce," Albesiano said.

Albesiano rejected the idea that the amount of downforce created was negligible. "It's not one pound [of downforce]. It's much more than one pound in the calculations we have done, it's much more. And when the range of riders is separated by hundredths of a second, even a few kilograms of downforce can be a help and make the difference."

Aprilia has the data

Albesiano gave some details from the spoiler Aprilia had designed and which Aldridge had rejected, saying that their device generated a significant amount of downforce. "We did the virtual wind tunnel testing, so called CFD, computational fluid dynamics. We simulated this device in straight line conditions, braking conditions. We have figures on the downforce, the drag, and the cooling effect that this device can give. I'm not sure I can give numbers today, but from the downforce point of view, it's not negligible, it's something that can make a difference in performance. "

What Aprilia wanted from the Court of Appeal was some clarification, Massimo Rivola explained, and not for the results to be scrapped. "First of all, I will say once more, we never asked for the race result to be different than it was," Rivola said. "Even at the time of the protest and the appeal, that was clear, at least to Aprilia."

But Aprilia did expect the rules to be clearer and applied more consistently, Rivola said. "I don't expect something to change in the very short term, but I expect that everybody understands that there is a need for some clarification." It was better to protest at the first race and have the rules cleared up, than to let it fester through the year, Rivola explained. "I think that the fact that we made this fuss at the first race, I think it's better to do it straight away. Now we can say, I told you so."

Cost control

The real objection to aerodynamic experimentation was of costs spiraling out of control, Rivola explained, something he was all too familiar with from his time in F1. "From my experience in Formula 1, if we decide to go to the aerodynamic field, it will cost a fortune to everybody. Probably for a very little gain, especially in the areas which are now free, like that one attached where it is. And even more, it is very difficult to police."

"So, you spend a lot of money, the federation cannot control the rules, so far the federation allowed and gave its OK looking at the part and saying, 'if you say it's for cooling the tire, then I think it's OK'." The level of knowledge inside the FIM, IRTA, and Dorna to police the rules needed to be raised, Rivola said. "I think we need to raise the level. When we say about professionalism? Yes, this for me is something which is not acceptable. And I think you can't disagree, to be honest."

While Ducati is waiting to hear whether it will be allowed to use its spoiler in Argentina, Romano Albesiano hinted that if the part is ruled legal, they could take a second look at the part which Danny Aldridge had previously rejected. "We stopped every kind of development in that area, and we are waiting for the result of the appeal," Albesiano said. "We still hope that the guidelines will be applied, and this device will be banned for the future. Otherwise, if it would be allowed, we could do something based on our experience."


Gathering the background information for detailed articles such as these is an expensive and time-consuming operation. If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting MotoMatters.com. You can help by either taking out a subscription, by making a donation, or by contributing via our GoFundMe page. You can find out more about subscribing to MotoMatters.com here.

Source: 

Back to top

Comments

" it's not negligible, it's something that can make a difference in performance. "

or

"Probably for a very little gain"

Total votes: 15

...that initially there will be big things like this but once they go down the rabbit hole more and more will be spent for smaller and smaller gains.

Total votes: 23

I think he meant that lot of money, time, and resources would be spent for relatively little performance gain.

Total votes: 16

The reference to F1 seems apposite. There, aerodynamic development has created some wondrous engineering solutions at huge cost. That then contributed, if not caused, a massive drop-off in racing at close quarters, multiple overtakes/dicing - much of what many love and define as bike racing at its highest level. Athletes in battle for glory.

F1 drivers are technology jockeys: highly skilled and highly paid. I like F1, but I love MotoGP.

i am hoping that the Court does not just deliver a legal finding, but create a direction that does not lead to the neutering of what makes MotoGP the wonder that it is.

Total votes: 20

... with Dorna (Aldridge) poorly enforcing the rules through ignorance or negligence. This really sounds like an open and shut case to me; either Ducati must loose the swingarm aero (yes it is aero), or everyone can/will start running them. There’s also the not-insignificant issue of Ducati misleading Aldridge with this “it’s only for cooling the tire” business.

Total votes: 27

I agree with your post, but there may be a catch. Yes, first of all it sounds like Ducati was allowed this device by simply telling Aldridge it was for cooling purposes, while Aprilia was denied it when they asked straightforward if they could use an aero part there. But their defected engineer Gigi Dall'Igna seems to be quite sure of his case that the part is within the rules, so I would not be surprised if it turns out that the rules are written in such a clumsy way that you are allowed to use it if it ALSO has a cooling purpose. Even if  the tyre now runs just 1 degree cooler and there is 10 kilos of downforce. And éven when all the cooling effect comes from less wheelspin because of more downforce... I'd like to read the exact definition in the rule book.

 

Total votes: 12

I'm with Matt Oxley's view on this one until season's end... then review it a'la F1. If it fits and you like it under your swingarm wear it. You can also do it KTM! I hearken back to 2003 season and Capirex winning Ducati's first ever at Catalunya in their first season in MGP. Aprilia 'cube' explosions etc. Ducati then ran the Prezziosi D16 without a front fender...I guess it was to allow Loris to get a little more cooling through the radiator and hence to himself...aero retrograde in the interest of 'cooling' ...maybe the front tire. From an Aprilia, Honda, Suzuki, KTM perspective and Yamaha, I'd say ... bring your swingarm equivalent bits to Rio Hondo and run what you brung. The thing looks like a piece of fabrication no more difficult to fabricate and fit than a bash plate on an MX bike. Much ado about nothing! Revisit the aero come seasons end. In the interim, if it fits in the jig, its good to go.

Total votes: 17

    would seem to me that the angle of the "aero appendage" would change to much with swingarm movement. F1 went to great lengths to "trim" wing  angles at high speed, with this arrangment  the angle of attack varies constantly. At times dissapearing above the belly pan therefore catching effectively no breeze. It`s also located a long way forward on the swingarm, looks about one third back from piviot to axle, in which case 10kgs force would equate to about 3kgs at wheel. I wonder if its a decoy to take attention from something else?   P.S. i`m no aero engineer.

Total votes: 11

I agree that the trim changes with swingarm movement, but it is a tiny bit, especially with the ultra-long swingarms that are being used on modern racing bikes. They are being made so long exactly to minimize geometry changes in the rear suspension for a given wheel travel. And I would not say that the spoiler will at any time disappear above the bellypan, the movement at that point is way to small for that.

Another thing is the leverage in relation to the swingarm axle and wheel axle, that the spoiler is not very effective because of that. I have read this line of reasoning a few times before, for instance on German site Speedweek. It does not work like that. The downforce that is created at that point will not magically disappear because of swingarm geometry, it simply works on the motorcycle as a whole. So if it is say 10 kilos, those 10 kilos will be divided between the front an rear wheel based on the position between the wheels. Probably about 3 kg on the front and 7 kg on the rear, or something like that.

Total votes: 10

I see the angle of the mentioned device is kind of 45 degrees, maybe a little more, so there will be downforce but there will also be "rear force", 1 to 1 if it's 45 degrees, less reward force the more the angle gets parallel to the ground, but that reaward force will be converted to upward force because of the pivoting nature of the swingarm, no?

So any downforce gain is basically lost to mechanical upward force and in the end you have a spot that creates [i]drag[/i] 

Total votes: 1