MOTOGP » Stoner keeps 'new set-up' on top

lazy turning bikes are very stable at the turns, but must be manhandled to make is turn. it is not very "chuckable", as you might say. quick steering bikes are very flickable but are rather nervous.


basically, the duc is a lazy turning but rock steady bike, while the yam is a very chuckable bike.

About the lean angle issue, maybe the Ducati team are trying to make their bike work a bit more like the old-style 990's narrower turning arcs, later braking, earlier throttle opening and less corner speed. The lower corner speed doesn't mean less lean angle because the arc is narrower (obliged by the later braking) but it means the bike spends less time at full lean. You need to set-up the bike differently in order to go fast that way, so motogp.com might mean this.

In general I agree with Is that my Bike's comments, especially the one about how Stoner lost it when he opened the throttle. Abrupt throttle response can be very bad when the bike is near its traction limit, both the front or rear can wash-out.

Is - sorry, I was making a leap from my comment about 'giving more throttle control back to the rider (i.e. using less TC) and your comment, assuming you meant Stoner actually uses minimal intervention TC settings. Frankly I haven't seen anything other than the Alan Cathcart test that is in any way definitive on what he actually uses and I'd be interested to know - any references appreciated. Intuitively you'd think that if Duc had a 'soft' response option then Melandri, at least, would have used it if only to try to gain confidence in the bike. Agree 'time trial' lines don't work in scraps - but if CS bike is more of a 'Busa than an R1 then long lines is the only way he can cut it?

As for handling I maintain that there is masses of visual evidence that corner exit is the problem for the duke ie getting full throttle at apex smoothed out...His crash at Brno was at the apex and on the onboard cam it looks as it he rips open the throttle and then tries to correct as it happens. Have watched it a few times and it's not conclusive of course, imho

Oscar, I don't really know how you got that from my mail...sorry
CS uses full electronic intrusion it's only opinion but it comes from all the experts I've heard including the guys racing the same bike.
As for the other stuff we don't really know what's been going on and so it's pure guess work, I'm pretty sure you don't know what mods have been made and we won't know if it's worked until the race.
Time trial lines don't work if other bikes are involved...We don't know that the duke wasn't on full power, no fuel restrictions, testing the tyre at the optimim would give a better feeback..could be anything is my point...

Jack - nope, it was the motoGp article and the comment: 'Stoner had been tyre testing in an effort to reduce the angle of lean that he carries in corners and keep the bike more upright, allowing better entry and exit speeds – and Ducati believe they have found a way of doing this. The high lean angle is what Stoner blames for his Sunday crash so he will be happy to have made progress on the issue.'

I have no great faith in motoGP articles for either depth or accuracy and that's why I've been hoping someone could put a good technical explanation onto it. Haven't seen any other knowledgable commentary.

Oscar: Do you have any information source from where you know what Ducati have been doing with their bike apart form crash.net and motogp.com? You seem to be pretty sure about how they changed their setting.

Jack - extrapolating from that, would it be fair to say Stoner got himself into the wrong position with Rossi at Laguna (racecraft failure) and then basically outrode himself at Brno (experience failure)? That's how I see it, personally, but I'm still fascinated about how Duc can decrease lean angle and yet pick up - apparently- considerably on overall lap speed as at the Brno test days. Suggests that these machines are squeezing the very last drop of corner speed out of the current incarnation, at least for the combination of tyre size/compound/construction, and we may be approaching the same sort of situation as the old Group B rallye cars - horrendously fast but totally lethal..

Is - I really don't want to open up any surge of silly comments here but we seem to have settled into adult conversations, so: what you're saying is that Stoner didn't use much TC and the change in chassis setting for less lean has worked so quickly because he was able to use it without them having to tweak the electronics? If that's correct than we're in for some interesting racing because it seems to me that it will be much more metre-by-metre in a Rossi-Stoner scrap on the corners rather than each guy planning ahead how to use the bike's best advantage.. what's yout take on that?