Have a look at this shit --> http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/241797/1/ducati-reveals-special-winglet-fairing.html (http://www.crash.net/motogp/news/241797/1/ducati-reveals-special-winglet-fairing.html)
It's Ducati's new "winglet faring"
(http://media.crash.net/original/PA2099342.0008.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6p_ES7WoAQ6-Rw.jpg)
It's...uhhhhh...something ;D
If it serves the purpose I'm okay with it (not that anyone at Ducati cares ;D) but I hope nothing like this makes it to road bikes.
Well this is different....
But as Miki says, if it serves a purpose and can get them to win, then go for it!
As far as I know MotoGP racing is not a beauty pageant :)
If it follows the trend of winglets, expect other teams to follow suite.
Got to give it to Ducati, they are definitely investing in aerodynamics.
And if it wins on track, I expect it to hit the road as well ... I mean, people buy Yamaha's crossplane stuff on road bikes (including 2 cyl) ...
Im sure like anything we will all get used to it. I dare say if they revert back to the old shape in the future we will prefer this shape.
But then i do like this...
One word, "Ugly!" :P
Hawk.
Haha, surely people will get used to it, but that won't change the fact that it's ugly as hell. Look at what Yamaha have managed to do with the "winglet fairing" idea. Yamaha's looks even better than before.
(https://cdn-6.motorsport.com/images/amp/Y9o9kGP0/s6/motogp-pruebas-de-enero-en-sepang-2017-alas-internas-yamaha-m1-motogp.jpg)
(https://cdn-8.motorsport.com/images/mgl/YEeQRBwY/s8/motogp-pruebas-de-enero-en-sepang-2017-alas-internas-yamaha-m1-motogp.jpg)
(https://cdn-4.motorsport.com/images/mgl/25k4MGn6/s8/motogp-pruebas-de-enero-en-sepang-2017-alas-internas-yamaha-m1-motogp.jpg)
That more like it Urban. Looks a lot prettier on the Yammy. ;)
But I seriously don't think these winglets make that much difference to the handling of the bike, if at all, that would give any great advantage..... Bikes corner speeds are just not high enough for effective wings(especially not of that small size), and if a rider needs them for the straights then theirs something seriously wrong with the bike. Lol! ;D
I personally think it's just a sales gimmick to sell more road bikes once it becomes the fashion. :P
Hawk.
Quote from: Hawk on March 12, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
But I seriously don't think these winglets make that much difference to the handling of the bike, if at all, that would give any great advantage..... Bikes corner speeds are just not high enough for effective wings(especially not of that small size), and if a rider needs them for the straights then theirs something seriously wrong with the bike. Lol! ;D
I personally think it's just a sales gimmick to sell more road bikes once it becomes the fashion. :P
I personally think you're wrong by a mile.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 01:55:57 PM
Quote from: Hawk on March 12, 2017, 01:49:23 PM
But I seriously don't think these winglets make that much difference to the handling of the bike, if at all, that would give any great advantage..... Bikes corner speeds are just not high enough for effective wings(especially not of that small size), and if a rider needs them for the straights then theirs something seriously wrong with the bike. Lol! ;D
I personally think it's just a sales gimmick to sell more road bikes once it becomes the fashion. :P
I personally think you're wrong by a mile.
Well if someone could explain to me in detail exactly what those winglets are supposed to achieve and how, I'm well open to change my opinion. ;D
Hawk.
The wings increase front wheel downforce for high-speed corners. In Ducati's case, there is an anti-wheelie benefit as well as reduced drag during upright acceleration. It's apparently an effective design, but still it's damn ugly. Trust me, Ducati wouldn't butcher the Desmosedici like this, for a fashion statement.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 02:40:19 PM
The wings increase front wheel downforce for high-speed corners. In Ducati's case, there is an anti-wheelie benefit as well as reduced drag during upright acceleration. It's apparently an effective design, but still it's damn ugly. Trust me, Ducati wouldn't butcher the Desmosedici like this, for a fashion statement.
Somehow I just don't think that rings true. The winglets are no where near big enough surface area to give any really effective downforce at all at the normal speeds a MotoGP bike takes through most corners, and the sort of corner speeds required for such a small surface area to be really effective you have to be somewhere like the Daytona banking. Plus surely there is more than enough downforce from the natural G-forces a bike generates through a high speed corner anyways?
Now if you were talking more about the winglets being there for stability, that I could believe, but really something that shouldn't be required unless they are designing the bikes to be unstable on purpose for some reason these days?
This winglet business just doesn't really make any sense to me personally..... Sorry mate, I'm still not convinced. :)
As far as a motorcycle company creating something like this as a fashion statement: Ask any good salesmen - Most products are sold and wanted because they are in fashion. Fashion is a VERY powerful sales tool with a little media and industry brainwashing to push things along nicely. And what better way to get road riders to buy the latest bikes in-fashion than promote it in MotoGP first to create the market for it. :P
Hawk.
First sight I'd say they help more on straight, keeping the nose down when accelerating hard. of course you need to be at decent speed, but these bike can hit 350Kmh so ...
For motgp bikes, keeping the nose down is probably the #1 problem.
I'm not so sure about their effect in corners, If I recall correctly the initial designs of winglets had actually some troubles in corners.
Put your hand out of the window at 100km/h in your car, will give you an idea. At this level of racing any minimal detail could count.
Lmao, Hawk, effective downforce is not the result of whatever the surface area of contact is. It's the result of the surface area relative to the size and mass of the object to which that surface area pertains, and it's dependant on the medium through which the object is travelling. Those winglets despite their size, provide a very tangible benefit with respect to downforce. If that wasn't the case, manufacturers wouldn't be using them. Additionally, their effects are so significant, they can be felt by other riders as they attempt to slip stream behind a bike equipped with the wings. There were complaints last year about the turbulence those wings caused, and how that would destabilise the bikes of riders behind.
A fluid like air can become very heavy at 200km/h, and increasing the surface area to which it comes into contact can have great consequences. Look at F1's DRS feature and the effect on speed when the small flap on the rear wing opens to allow air through. Despite its small size, that flap means a lot.
Now, a MotoGP bike travels through air at high rates of speed. Rates of speed it reaches very quickly. You see, it's one thing for rapidly approaching air to push against an object, and it's another thing when that object is accelerating in the direction of said air. As an experiment, place your hand about 30cm deep in a pool, and run your hand through the water at a constant speed. Then do the same thing while attempting to accelerate your hand. You will feel a much greater resistance.
An accelerating motorcycle effects a greater force on the air it comes into contact with, so the difference when accelerating from 100km/h to 250km/h can be quite meaningful with wiglets equipped.
Hmm, not sure acceleration has anything to do with the benefits. Accelerating any object, no matter the shape (and even in vacuum) will require more force than keeping the object at constant speed. Sir Newton said so, quite a while ago. Your "hand in pool" example doesn't make sense for our discussion (there are other reasons why an object in a fluid encounters more resistance at higher speed).
@Hawk: in cars you need big wings because you want to generate a downforce to improve tyre grip (thanks to more load).
For bikes, you only need a "little" down force applied on the nose of the bike to prevent it from wheeling: totally different goal (even if it's still a downforce).
Other point: bike vertical, the bike's wings will generate a down force (good as anti-wheeling).
But bike leaning right (for a right turn), the wings will generate a force that is (mostly) pushing the bike outside the turn ... first sight, these kind of wings may even have a negative effect in turns. But then, turn speeds are lower than straight speeds, so one can probably "tune" the wings to have some decent positive anti-wheeling effect on high-speed straights with little-to-no negative effect in turns.
I can definitely side with the theory that these wings help keep the front end down(a sort of more efficient anti-wheelie device) in a straight line other than of any benefit to downforce for extra tyre grip for cornering, so I'm more inclined to agree with what Max is saying here, but still not convinced that other means to do the same trick wouldn't be a better option. After all, has it taken decades of the best engineering minds in MotoGP to finally realise that winglets are the most efficient way to keep the front end down? Again, I'm still not totally convinced this is the only reason they are doing this and that there is another agenda in progress here? :)
Hawk.
Ducati has said they will probably not use the fairing at all of the tracks. It has negative and positive effects. I guess we will see it on high speed track like Austria. I believe, like mentioned above, that it has negative impact on cornering (maybe not in all types of corners).
Cheers,
/David "Gonzo" Boda #46
There aren't many ways to prevent a wheelie: you can cut the power (manually or electronically), but that ... well, cuts the power :)
Or you make the bike less prone to wheeling with a large big wheelbase (but that will make the bike less agile in turns) and/or low and forward CoG (but you can't move it at will).
So if you can get some decent help from small wings, then that's a deal (assuming rules allow it).
I totally agree with you that often there's some marketing involved, I just don't think it's the case this time. Anyway, Ducati already oozes with marketing, not like they need much more :)
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Accelerating any object, no matter the shape (and even in vacuum) will require more force than keeping the object at constant speed.
Irrelevant.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Hmm, not sure acceleration has anything to do with the benefits.
Have you heard of a little something called inertia? Specifically, there is a relativistic component of the accelerating body's mass in the force exerted by the medium (air in this case).
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 07:40:16 PM
Your "hand in pool" example doesn't make sense for our discussion (there are other reasons why an object in a fluid encounters more resistance at higher speed).
Again: Inertia. We're talking about acceleration, not speed. The effect of speed is obvious. The additional effect of acceleration is my point. Air and water are both fluids. One is just a lot less dense than the other. "The hand in pool" example is applicable here.
No really Urban, are you sure you know a little of what you're talking about ?
My sentence you've labelled "irrelevant" is basically the definition of inertia ... ::)
And relativistic component ? :o Seriously ?! Are you sure you know what relativistic means ?
The hand in pool example is totally irrelevant: if you don't trust me (and you don't) go ask your high school physics teacher, he'll tell you.
[And I'm sorry, I won't answer you any more on this topic]
-The first point is irrelevant in your defence because it supports my argument. Why is more force required to accelerate an object? Inertia. And in a vacuum the force required will be less than in an environment filled with air travelling at x m/s.
-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.
-The hand in pool argument is relevant, for reasons I have detailed.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-The first point is irrelevant in your defence because it supports my argument. Why is more force required to accelerate an object? Inertia. And in a vacuum the force required will be less than in an environment filled with air travelling at x m/s.
Force needed to accelerate a body has zero relationship with aerodynamic forces.
You're mixing up the fact that in a fluid (often) the faster you go the more force you need to sustain that CONSTANT speed.
That has nothing to do with acceleration (as the speed being constant, there's none).
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Force needed to accelerate a body has zero relationship with aerodynamic forces.
You're wrong. Here, look at the word "resistance".
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
You're mixing up the fact that in a fluid (often) the faster you go the more force you need to sustain that CONSTANT speed.
I'm not mixing anything up. You are. The fact that more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid IS EXACTLY MY POINT. What happens when you stop applying the throttle at 300km/h? The bike slows down quickly. Why? aerodynamic RESISTANCE. Contact with the road does not negate that fact. In a vacuum, fluid resistance is not present. MUCH More force is required to accelerate from 200 to 300 in an environment where there is air, than in one where there is no air.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.
A object travelling through air at x speed, is the same as the stationary object having air flowing past it at the same speed. This is relativism, and it's the reason wind tunnels are used for development. As far as mass and inertia are concerned, the force required to push through the air is equivalent to the force excreted by the air on the body. When that force is directed downward at an angle (the purpose winglets serve), there additional weight added to the motorcycle's front end. This counteracts the tendency for the front end to lift up.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 09:06:57 PM
I'm not mixing anything up. You are. The fact that more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid IS EXACTLY MY POINT.
It can't be your point as this true fact (more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid) is totally unrelated to inertia (and you said inertia was your point no more than 3 posts ago).
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 09:06:57 PM
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:50:44 PM
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 08:39:23 PM
-Yes, there is a relativistic mass component of the interaction specified. If you don't understand that, I can explain it to you.
Can't resist, please do, explain it to me. I'm all ears.
A object travelling through air at x speed, is the same as the stationary object having air flowing past it at the same speed. This is relativism, and it's the reason wind tunnels are used for development.
Relativistic (the term you originally used) means something totally different, go check out.
The only thing you've explained is that you don't know what relativistic means (no biggie about that) and that you've confused (
chaotic ?) ideas about inertia and aerodynamics. Good night.
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/aFEMFqZpDrkRy/200w.webp#68)
Quote from: JamoZ on March 12, 2017, 09:49:54 PM
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/aFEMFqZpDrkRy/200w.webp#68)
How many pictures do you have of that bloody fox!
Quote from: matty0l215 on March 12, 2017, 09:51:47 PM
Quote from: JamoZ on March 12, 2017, 09:49:54 PM
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/aFEMFqZpDrkRy/200w.webp#68)
How many pictures do you have of that bloody fox!
Not enough!
This was actually in a popcorn gif gallery, i just had to pick this one over the michael jackson one :P
I was actually in bed when a friend awoke me with a phone call. In the process I wound up reading your nonsense.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 09:44:28 PM
It can't be your point as this true fact (more force is required to maintain speed in a fluid) is totally unrelated to inertia (and you said inertia was your point no more than 3 posts ago).
Inertia is a body's
resistance to motion.
A FLUID'S RESISTANCE TO MOTION FROM A PARTICLE PERSPECTIVE IS THE REASON IT REQUIRES GREATER FORCE FOR AN OBJECT TO MOVE THROUGH IT Jesus. The fact that I have to explain that to you demonstrates you're a lost cause. Max it seems you do not possess an ability to reason. You do not address the arguments, because you cannot address them, So you instead say that you're right, with nothing to show for it. I am wasting time on someone who refuses to think.
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 09:44:28 PM
Relativistic (the term you originally used) means something totally different, go check out.
The only thing you've explained is that you don't know what relativistic means (no biggie about that) and that you've confused (chaotic ?) ideas about inertia and aerodynamics. Good night.
Again, you post nothing but nonsense which does not address any arguments because you know you're wrong. Hahaha, you're a fucking joke. Good night indeed. I'm off to bed.
Wow.
I hope Star Trek make this into a movie. I can imagine this is what happens when Vulcans and Gangsters collide. :o
Maybe Newton was wrong after all ::)
F=ma and inertia and aerodynamic drag are constants
Interesting, I see a trend going on here. It seems as if a thread go's in a bad direction as of lately the name (Urban Chaos) seems to be the in the middle of it all?
Other than the Fox eating popcorn there is nothing good about this thread! Another wasted space on Piboso.com.
So who should we blame and tell me who is the victim?
Its a good thing I'm not Admin as someone would be typing their frustrations else where for a little while until they learn how to play nice. This is getting really old ::)
Urban- you have just as much say as the next person here but arguing is getting old and maybe you should cool it man? For everyone else, if you have a problem with Urban, then please ignore posts that allow Urban to gather power over the situation.
With Love-
-WALKEN- :)
Quote from: WALKEN on March 13, 2017, 12:17:41 AM
...if you have a problem with Urban, then please ignore posts that allow Urban to gather power over the situation.
Hahaha, I'm not the oppressor here Walken, and I do not roam this forum looking to command the skies to shower thunderous rains of confrontation onto the threads in which I am present. HornetMax is simply offended by the reality that somebody much, much younger than him is a far better thinker than he is. This seemingly harsh truth, being too great for him to bear caused him to do what we witnessed him doing. I was quite tired, and apparently such tiredness struck me with a propensity to "see where the foolishness lies". Certainly I am fault here in the sense that I entertained the foolishness.
That won't ever happen again. If ever I ignore an argument or a comment, it will be for an overt display of irrationality on the part of the second party.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 05:50:16 AM
HornetMax is simply offended by the reality that somebody much, much younger than him is a far better thinker than he is.
Oh well ... let's settle with that, my far better thinker. It's fine.
@All the others: in case I (or others) don't comment Urban's next "explanation" of physics phenomena, just don't take it at face value. Give it a quick check with any high-school physics book ... 5min, job done.
Wow, that was an "interesting" read. Aerodynamic theory is incredibly complex and really not something my caveman brain is going to get into on the internet. :D
That Ducati is indeed ugly as sin though. ;D
grimm my old buddy, how you doing bro :D?! Trust me, you're not the one with the caveman brain here. That title belongs to a washed up fool of maximum unintelligence. Good thing the creature is now on my ignore list.
UG UG!!!
DD = DOH DOH
:o That was awful passive aggressive.
I've got a great deal of respect for the group here on the GPB forum. There is alot of history of the forum changing venue and also how small the original group was that was following the Piboso title GP Bikes. I came around at the start of Alpha3, and was instantly hooked, ended up joining the forum, and the rest is a long, cool, personal history of watching some extremely technical discussion happen through the years. Max isn't just on about nothing, he's extremely intelligent when it comes to, and discussing, everything physical about motorcycles. As well, there is a hand full or two of other members here that I've grown to respect the replies of in stuff like this, just like I enjoy reading Max's comprehensive list of evidence to support his stance on things as mysterious as aerodynamic force applied to a motorcycle at racing pace.
Compared to them, I am, indeed, not worthy of contribution to this discussion as I am no where near as intelligent about the topic as they are. I know when I should just sit back and read what others have to say, it's a good skill to have. And when I talk, it's usually long winded because I address the entirety of the topic in one fell swoop, in detail. Like now... ;D
Not at all trying to "take sides" here, but personal argument between two people, in the middle of a fantastic discussion about the how and why of the recent era ushering in aerodynamic modifications in top tier motorcycle racing, kinda ruins it a little and spoils the excitement of speculating on what this whole thing is really about. Sure the bike is indeed ugly, but, it was a great catalyst for identifying the true reasoning for winglets and all matter of bodywork changes we've seen recently.
Anyway, carry on, I'm off to go bang some rocks together in an attempt to make fire while the brains of the operation figure out why MotoGP has winglets. lol 8)
Quote from: HornetMaX on March 12, 2017, 08:19:18 PM
No really Urban, are you sure you know a little of what you're talking about ?
that's usually a no.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 10:29:53 PM
Hahaha, you're a fucking joke.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 05:50:16 AM
somebody much, much younger than him is a far better thinker than he is.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 09:19:42 AM
That title belongs to a washed up fool of maximum unintelligence. Good thing the creature is now on my ignore list.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 12, 2017, 10:29:53 PM
I was actually in bed when a friend awoke me with a phone call.
With this kind of attitude i`m surprised you even still have friends :')
Quote from: h106frp on March 12, 2017, 10:53:10 PM
Maybe Newton was wrong after all ::)
F=ma and inertia and aerodynamic drag are constants
I read that as Norton at a first glance ;D
Could anyone explain though how this would help in corners? I can't quite get my head around it providing useful downforce.
Quote from: grimm on March 13, 2017, 10:07:05 AM
...just like I enjoy reading Max's comprehensive list of evidence to support his stance on things as mysterious as aerodynamic force applied to a motorcycle at racing pace.
Yeah, except he did no such thing. I am the one who brought the evidence and the rational arguments. To avoid his own clear embarrassment at not knowing enough about the subject he resorted to saying 'I know what I'm talking about. You don't know what you're talking about'. Making no attempts whatsoever to address the points. He even said 'relativism' and 'relativistic' are completely different. Haha. Hahaha. Look: My apprehension of the English language, far surpasses his to the extent that I would never degrade myself so as to even address the lunacy in his ridiculous statement. I don't like revealing anything about myself online (other than the fact that I'm turning 20 this year, and am African), but academically, I am in a position to tell him what's what, when it comes to these things. He is not.
He keeps saying: 'you don't know what you're talking about', and refusing to actually engage the topic, so that when he's found out by someone, he can say "Oh well I was obviously just trolling the kid. Haha, he fell for it". If he's not found out, he can maintain the allure of being another know-it-all on an internet forum. Most of you seem either to lack the knowledge to point out the obvious here, or are too intimidated by Mr. Know-it-all HornetMax and his imposing attitude, to be able to point out the obvious.
Regarding this, I'm done. I shan't partake in any longer in this "discussion". Given that I'm ignoring him, I wouldn't see his baselessly arrogant, and narcissistic response anyway. Unlike him, I keep my word. Once I say I'm done with this, I'm done with this.
Quote from: matty0l215 on March 13, 2017, 10:52:55 AM
Could anyone explain though how this would help in corners? I can't quite get my head around it providing useful downforce.
It won't (despite what you-know-who said earlier in this topic). See here (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=4748.msg72286#msg72286) and here (http://forum.piboso.com/index.php?topic=4748.msg72288#msg72288).
It should just help keeping the nose down when accelerating hard on long straights (long because you need to be at decent speed for the down force to appear, so it' won't help, for example, when starting from the grid).
Thanks :D
Quote from: matty0l215 on March 13, 2017, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: h106frp on March 12, 2017, 10:53:10 PM
Maybe Newton was wrong after all ::)
F=ma and inertia and aerodynamic drag are constants
I read that as Norton at a first glance ;D
Could anyone explain though how this would help in corners? I can't quite get my head around it providing useful downforce.
Unfortunately Norton are still a bit off the pace with these fancy aerodynamic designs and even Newton doe not seem to be able to help ;)
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/99/e8/9799e8842a192c53e0239ab3655f7aeb.jpg)
Quote from: matty0l215 on March 13, 2017, 10:52:55 AM
Quote from: h106frp on March 12, 2017, 10:53:10 PM
Maybe Newton was wrong after all ::)
F=ma and inertia and aerodynamic drag are constants
I read that as Norton at a first glance ;D
Could anyone explain though how this would help in corners? I can't quite get my head around it providing useful downforce.
The benefits are explained here: http://www.sportrider.com/motogp-aerodynamics-after-winglet-ban#page-3 (http://www.sportrider.com/motogp-aerodynamics-after-winglet-ban#page-3) and here http://www.cycleworld.com/2016/03/07/motogp-racing-motorcycle-racebike-winglets-function-kevin-cameron-insights (http://www.cycleworld.com/2016/03/07/motogp-racing-motorcycle-racebike-winglets-function-kevin-cameron-insights)
Example:"Now consider corner exit. The rider throttles up as much as rear grip and front lift allow. And what if rear grip allows the front to lift? The front tire stops steering the bike, which runs wide. Riders pull themselves forward on the bike to prevent this, but it's not enough. Even a modest downforce in this situation could usefully increase the amount of throttle the rider can use."
With a design like the Ducati i would have thought the changes to aerodynamic drag and CofP at high speed would be more significant than anything else that's happening or could be gained at the lower cornering speeds. How does its sector times compare to bikes without the fancy front fairing?
Quote from: h106frp on March 13, 2017, 12:37:51 PM
With a design like the Ducati i would have thought the changes to aerodynamic drag and CofP at high speed would be more significant than anything else that's happening or could be gained at the lower cornering speeds. How does its sector times compare to bikes without the fancy front fairing?
I'm not sure: the air passing through the "holes" may still hit the rider sitting behind the fairing so in terms of cp it may even be worse (to be honest it's impossible to say without wind tunnel testing or aero simulators).
Of the two links posted above, the Sport Rider article is foggy, very foggy:
QuoteAt this point we know that there are basically two advantages the wings created for MotoGP: reducing the wheelies and keeping the front wheel firmly on the ground. While those two aspects may seem the same, they are not. The first—wheelie reduction—is through the downforce generated by winglets to help prevent the electronics from cutting power to the engine when they detect that the front tire is too high in the air.
The second effect the wings have is to generate load on the front axle which establishes firm contact between the front tire and the ground, allowing the rider to feel it at all times.
And how do one generate load on the front axle if not with a downforce? I really don't see what they mean with "The two aspects are not the same". To me they are the very same.
The second article seems better to me. Urban has posted only the part that he thinks confirms what he said (that wings help in turns), but if you read the whole article you can find this:
QuoteIt was clear that for every pound of downforce that wing generated when the bike was upright, it would generate at least half a pound of sideforce tending to push the bike off the track on fast turns.
(quiz question: can you see where does the "at least half a pound" stuff come from ?)
QuoteThe bike winglets of today are mounted up front, rather like "moustaches" on the front of the fairing. Their clear purpose is to provide a force that opposes front wheel lift and the loss of control it causes. Remember that in 2004, Valentino Rossi said, "The wheelie is the enemy."
The sentence on corner exit is still on the wheeling problem, nothing more.
The last point in the CycleWorld article is interesting: the variable angle of attack (wing inclination) underlines how using wings you get a worse cx (which could be a positive tradeoff anyway, if you're unable to keep the nose down). In principle you could have the wing pivoting in the horizontal plane to stay horizontal no matter the bike lean angle: that would solve the problem of the "force pushing you outside of the turn" (because the force would be vertical, no matter the bike lean angle), but is likely pretty hard to implement and probably already illegal before the current ban on wings.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
I am the one who brought the evidence and the rational arguments.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
To avoid his own clear embarrassment at not knowing enough about the subject
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
You don't know what you're talking about
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
My apprehension of the English language, far surpasses his to the extent that I would never degrade myself
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
I am in a position to tell him what's what, when it comes to these things. He is not.
And you are blaming him for being a know-it-all ROFL !! ;D
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
Most of you seem either to lack the knowledge to point out the obvious here, or are too intimidated by Mr. Know-it-all HornetMax and his imposing attitude, to be able to point out the obvious.
Well, here you are directly insulting everyone's intelligence.
You dont have a clue what the knowledge of everyone in this forum can be and assuming we are too coward to discuss with Max, big mistake Mr young know-it-all
Quote from: h106frp on March 13, 2017, 12:37:51 PM
With a design like the Ducati i would have thought the changes to aerodynamic drag and CofP at high speed would be more significant than anything else that's happening or could be gained at the lower cornering speeds. How does its sector times compare to bikes without the fancy front fairing?
Jorge seems to have benefited quite a bit. He moved up to fourth since the upgrade. But that might only be due to the use of soft tyres.
Quote from: Warlock on March 13, 2017, 02:47:11 PM
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
I am the one who brought the evidence and the rational arguments.
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
To avoid his own clear embarrassment at not knowing enough about the subject
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
You don't know what you're talking about
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
My apprehension of the English language, far surpasses his to the extent that I would never degrade myself
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
I am in a position to tell him what's what, when it comes to these things. He is not.
And you are blaming him for being a know-it-all ROFL !! ;D
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
Most of you seem either to lack the knowledge to point out the obvious here, or are too intimidated by Mr. Know-it-all HornetMax and his imposing attitude, to be able to point out the obvious.
Well, here you are directly insulting everyone's intelligence.
You dont have a clue what the knowledge of everyone in this forum can be and assuming we are too coward to discuss with Max, big mistake Mr young know-it-all
Quote from: Urban Chaos 2.0 on March 13, 2017, 10:55:06 AM
I'm turning 20 this year
Puberty is a bitch Warlock ;)
Quote from: JamoZ on March 13, 2017, 04:23:54 PM
Puberty is a bitch Warlock ;)
Seems you and puberty have something in common Jamoz.
Cheers
Wow, just don't get it.
Food for thought- In life there will always be a "know it all" its the quiet/humble person who holds value. Its OK to grow and resist, its part of finding your way.
That being said, there are rules to follow!
topic closed. :(