MotoGP Aero.....

[chapmanlung]

Just saw the photos for the new Ducati in MotoGp this year....pretty cool..

http://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/s ... g-670590/

Something that really stood out was the aero setup they had on the bike. I've never seen anything like this before...

[bdr529]

This is last years bike Desmosedici GP15 that Stoner will test on Sat/Sun. We'll get to see the new bike on Monday

[bill shoe]

I've heard MotoGP aero is currently just to hold the front of the bike down during hard accel. So there is significant overlap between "going fast enough to make use of aero" and "going slow enough to lift the front wheel off the ground during hard accel". MotoGP bikes aren't for boys.

Fascinating and terrible. Bike downforce is a new, unregulated, vast area in an otherwise stagnant world of motorsports engineering that simply refines details. But bikes have maintained great and close racing for years largely due to... lack of downforce.

[cmF1]

Wouldnt the air become unstable around high speed corners? Seems dangerous to me.

[Tommy Cookers]

when producing 230 hp motorcycles will tend to be front end light even in top gear ? (ie at full speed)

DF of the kind envisaged will benefit cornering grip whenever the bike lean angle is less than the rider lean angle
and when the bike is cornering fast in an oversteering attitude there's some helpful 'whole-body' aero force from the -AoA effect
ie a downward component and a (centripetal) component helping the turn

presumably the rules prevent more extensive development of aero forces ?

[Manoah2u]

allright, so, since we're thouching aero for frigging motorbikes, let's go on safety too and strangle it into what is being done to f1 now.


pilot protection and aerodynamics.

moar









nothing new on aero.

either way, motorbike aero belongs on touring class or commuting, not in racing. as much as a closed canopy or aerodynamic wheel flares for example belong in LMP1, not in F1.

i am a frequent motorbike rider and the essense of motorbike soul is riding free, not how much miliseconds you can gain in your travel/ride.

the fun about motoGP is that its balls-to-the-walls racing and weird anough being able to get catapulted off is actually the safest thing there is in a motogp race, but it's not about how much you can find to your aid to be slightly faster then your competition through tweaks that the 'rules allow'. its about the racers and the basic machines.

the day aero takes over motogp is the day motogp turns into f1 becoming a uncontrollable parody of its glorieous former self.

ask me, motogp must ban appendages like f1 did after the crazy appendage craze. stay true to the nature of the game.

[eniacon]

FIM World Championship Grand Prix Regulations 2016

Considerably shorter than the FIA Tech Regs governing Bodywork...

2.4.4.7 Bodywork
1. The windscreen edge and the edges of all other exposed parts of the
streamlining must be rounded.
2. The maximum width of bodywork must not exceed 600 mm. The width
of the seat or anything to its rear shall not be more than 450 mm (exhaust
pipes excepted).
3. Bodywork must not extend beyond a line drawn vertically at the leading
edge of the front tyre and a line drawn vertically at the rearward edge
of the rear tyre. The suspension should be fully extended when the
measurement is taken.
4. When viewed from the side, it must be possible to see:
a) At least 180 degrees of the rear wheel rim.
b) The whole of the front rim, other than the part obscured by the
mudguard, forks, brake parts or removable air-intake.
c) The rider, seated in a normal position with the exception of the
forearms.
Notes: No transparent material may be used to circumvent the above
rules. Covers for brake parts or wheels are not considered to be bodywork
obstructing the view of wheel rims in regard to the above rules.
5. No part of the motorcycle may be behind a line drawn vertically at the
edge of the rear tyre.
6. The seat unit shall have a maximum height of the (approximately) vertical
section behind the rider’s seating position of 150 mm. The measurement
will be taken at a 90° angle to the upper surface of the flat base at
the rider’s seating position, excluding any seat pad or covering. Any onboard
camera/antenna mounted on the seat unit is not included in this
measurement.
7. Mudguards are not compulsory. When fitted, front mudguards must not
extend:
a) In front of a line drawn upwards and forwards at 45 degrees from a
horizontal line through the front wheel spindle.
b) Below a line drawn horizontally and to the rear of the front wheel
spindle.
The mudguard mounts/brackets and fork-leg covers, close to the
suspension leg and wheel spindle, and brake disc covers are not considered
part of the mudguard.
8. Wings may be fitted provided they are an integral part of the fairing or
seat and do not exceed the width of the fairing or seat or the height of
the handlebars. All edges of any wings fitted must have a minimum
radius of 2.5 mm. Moving aerodynamic devices are prohibited.
9. The lower fairing has to be constructed to hold, in case of an engine
breakdown, at least half of the total oil and engine coolant capacity
used in the engine (minimum 5 litres for MotoGP). This measurement
should be taken with the fairing fitted to the motorcycle, whilst both
wheels are on the ground and the motorcycle is upright at 90° to the
horizontal.
The lower fairing should incorporate a maximum of two holes of 25 mm.
These holes must remain closed in dry conditions and must be only
opened in wet race conditions, as declared by the Race Director.

[Manoah2u]

i wonder what FIM would come up with if they were to get the freedom to 'envisionise' a formula GP series. i have a feeling it would kick the lilly arses out of the FIA's F1 spaghetti of rules and confusion. and im not even a fan of motoGP. i mean i like and respect it, but im not a fan. not that that matters though.

[Facts Only]

I'm probably about to sound stupid here (but I'll carry on regardless as most people I know already think I'm an idiot), I don't really do aerodynamics but surely the problem with adding "downforce" to a motorbike is that "down" on the straight become "outwards" when going round a corner as the bike leans in?

So if (massively simplified wording here) you have 100Kg of Downforce provided by wings on a straight at 100mph, when you are going round a corner at 100mph and lean over by 45° your wings also lean over by 45° so you have 50Kg of downforce pushing the tyre down but also 50Kg of force pushing the bike outwards essentially adding to the centralpetal acceleration that the tyres are trying to overcome in the first place? Is that really gaining anything? As well as adding a load of drag?

Perhaps you could have some sort of ground effect mounted at an angle on the side of the bike that is only active when the bike leans in and the tunnels gets closer to the floor?

Or wings on the side of the bike that are mounted at an angle, as the rider leans in he/she could then block the flow to the inside wing with their leg while putting the knee down so only the wing on the outside/top is now working?

This is all just thoughts spilling out of my bored brain while I wait for my computer to calculate something.

[turbof1]

I'm probably about to sound stupid here (but I'll carry on regardless as most people I know already think I'm an idiot), I don't really do aerodynamics but surely the problem with adding "downforce" to a motorbike is that "down" on the straight become "outwards" when going round a corner as the bike leans in?

So if (massively simplified wording here) you have 100Kg of Downforce provided by wings on a straight at 100mph, when you are going round a corner at 100mph and lean over by 45° your wings also lean over by 45° so you have 50Kg of downforce pushing the tyre down but also 50Kg of force pushing the bike outwards essentially adding to the centralpetal acceleration that the tyres are trying to overcome in the first place? Is that really gaining anything? As well as adding a load of drag?

Perhaps you could have some sort of ground effect mounted at an angle on the side of the bike that is only active when the bike leans in and the tunnels gets closer to the floor?

Or wings on the side of the bike that are mounted at an angle, as the rider leans in he/she could then block the flow to the inside wing with their leg while putting the knee down so only the wing on the outside/top is now working?

This is all just thoughts spilling out of my bored brain while I wait for my computer to calculate something.

Although your reasoning is not unlogical, the reason we see the current aero profiles on motogp is much simpler (as far as I am informed): it is to stop the bike making a wheelie under acceleration. I believe secondary effects are the use of vortices to clean up boundary airflow. It is not about aiding cornering speed. I have readed somewhere that in cornering, the produced lift (I don't mean to imply upside down downforce with that, but I do not think downforce is the correct term given the 3 dimensional position of the wings during cornerning) gets cancelled out by its own.

[Andres125sx]

I'm probably about to sound stupid here (but I'll carry on regardless as most people I know already think I'm an idiot), I don't really do aerodynamics but surely the problem with adding "downforce" to a motorbike is that "down" on the straight become "outwards" when going round a corner as the bike leans in?

So if (massively simplified wording here) you have 100Kg of Downforce provided by wings on a straight at 100mph, when you are going round a corner at 100mph and lean over by 45° your wings also lean over by 45° so you have 50Kg of downforce pushing the tyre down but also 50Kg of force pushing the bike outwards essentially adding to the centralpetal acceleration that the tyres are trying to overcome in the first place? Is that really gaining anything? As well as adding a load of drag?

DF of the kind envisaged will benefit cornering grip whenever the bike lean angle is less than the rider lean angle

Perhaps you could have some sort of ground effect mounted at an angle on the side of the bike that is only active when the bike leans in and the tunnels gets closer to the floor?

Or wings on the side of the bike that are mounted at an angle, as the rider leans in he/she could then block the flow to the inside wing with their leg while putting the knee down so only the wing on the outside/top is now working?

Interesting, using the rider as some sort of active aero... that´s a loophole! =D>

[variante]

Perhaps you could have some sort of ground effect mounted at an angle on the side of the bike that is only active when the bike leans in and the tunnels gets closer to the floor?

Exactly! That's the only way you could achieve any improvement while cornering at an angle of 45° or beyond.

I was thinking of something like this:


The positive gain of the wing in ground effect would overcome the "centrifugal" effect of the other one.
Still, such system would face many issues... Kerbs, excessive angles, low efficiency,...

On the Ducati, those wings become useful if the typical cornering angle is smaller than 45°, or under braking (in certain conditions only); they also make wheelies less probable, as turbo said. As for the vortices...possibly.

[turbof1]

lean angles vary too much across a lap, from 40 degrees to over 60 degrees. Unless the ground effect produces enough downforce to compensate less then optimal riders lean angle, I don't think it's going to benefit.

[Facts Only]

I'm probably about to sound stupid here (but I'll carry on regardless as most people I know already think I'm an idiot), I don't really do aerodynamics but surely the problem with adding "downforce" to a motorbike is that "down" on the straight become "outwards" when going round a corner as the bike leans in?

So if (massively simplified wording here) you have 100Kg of Downforce provided by wings on a straight at 100mph, when you are going round a corner at 100mph and lean over by 45° your wings also lean over by 45° so you have 50Kg of downforce pushing the tyre down but also 50Kg of force pushing the bike outwards essentially adding to the centralpetal acceleration that the tyres are trying to overcome in the first place? Is that really gaining anything? As well as adding a load of drag?

Perhaps you could have some sort of ground effect mounted at an angle on the side of the bike that is only active when the bike leans in and the tunnels gets closer to the floor?

Or wings on the side of the bike that are mounted at an angle, as the rider leans in he/she could then block the flow to the inside wing with their leg while putting the knee down so only the wing on the outside/top is now working?

This is all just thoughts spilling out of my bored brain while I wait for my computer to calculate something.

Although your reasoning is not unlogical, the reason we see the current aero profiles on motogp is much simpler (as far as I am informed): it is to stop the bike making a wheelie under acceleration. I believe secondary effects are the use of vortices to clean up boundary airflow. It is not about aiding cornering speed. I have readed somewhere that in cornering, the produced lift (I don't mean to imply upside down downforce with that, but I do not think downforce is the correct term given the 3 dimensional position of the wings during cornerning) gets cancelled out by its own.

I wasn't really referring to the planes on that Ducati, they're clearly for flow conditioning, stability and front wheel lift. I was more musing on what would happen if you actually tried to add significant downforce to a bike with some wings.

[turbof1]

I think that's simply not viable without active aero. Even then, the body of the rider at lean angle will partly disrupt the airflow. Which also answers this:

Wouldnt the air become unstable around high speed corners? Seems dangerous to me.

Well, the airflow itself would not, but the production of downforce would be unstable. Lean angles change greatly depending on where you are in the corner. In S's, riders change the lean position from left to right or vice versa very quickly, which give problems for airflow attachment.

It's why we had active suspension in the 90's in F1. Even though that sport does not have to deal with things like lean angle, having a stable aero platform at all times is literally worth several seconds, or differently said: the reduction of the aero penalty for having instabilities. bike racing is inherently unstable. If we try to answer the question from Facts Only in the most direct way: it will result in a lot of crashes due drivers not being able anymore to predict how the bike will behave.