F1technical.net

turbof1 wrote:

J.A.W. wrote:Has anyone published actual telemetry data showing the quantitative down force effect of those aero add-ons?

The same can be asked about tyre wear data. We have neither. And we probably will never have since these are company secrets.

It speaks for itself everything that's been said and discussed here, are opinions.

There are btw voices to forbid aero devices next year.

The use of tire sensors has only become compulsory for the Mugello GP onwards so there may be some info to come out over the race weekend [a certain Mr. Smith will have some insight here regarding a theory he has about the Michelin front tyre], but I don't think there'll be anything in terms of data revealed.

Bomber_Pilot wrote:

turbof1 wrote:There are btw voices to forbid aero devices next year.

There was a discussion about this on BT Sport2 and iirc, there is a meeting taking place today, where they will discuss not only whether should the wings be banned next year, but already this season. Ducati wants to keep them, while other teams don't seem to really care that much about whether they should be allowed or not (apart from safety concerns).

Banning them this season might be too much of a knee jerk reaction. Ducati built the bike around it. Ultimately I feel it's better to get rid of the aero devices to ensure stable grip levels and keep them from cutting the riders, but time should be given to adapt.

From what I've seen, the aero-devices in themselves do not seem to be much of a direct/additional hazard to riders.

If evidence shows they cause a high speed stability problem for chasing/overtaking riders, that's a different issue.

J.A.W. wrote:From what I've seen, the aero-devices in themselves do not seem to be much of a direct/additional hazard to riders.

... yet, but they could be pretty dangerous in case of a crash between two riders, or even without crashing



I´m not sure if I want aero on MotoGP or not, but I´m sure if I´d be a racing rider, I wouldn´t want bikes with that sort of appendices around me

They can also potentially break off at high speeds, which turns them into sharp projectiles. Even in F1 winglets happen to break off from time to time due the structure not handling the pressure.

Now, you can limit the risks by obligating mininum radii (which is what motogp did for this season) and doing stress tests alike what F1 does.

Is there any news already on that meeting about the future of strakes in motogp?

Andres125sx wrote:

J.A.W. wrote:From what I've seen, the aero-devices in themselves do not seem to be much of a direct/additional hazard to riders.

... yet, but they could be pretty dangerous in case of a crash between two riders, or even without crashing
I´m not sure if I want aero on MotoGP or not, but I´m sure if I´d be a racing rider, I wouldn´t want bikes with that sort of appendices around me

Ok, but MM didn't actually suffer any injury due to that winglet contact incident, nor did he need an ah, 'appendectomy'..

The strakes themselves do appear to carry very little mass effect, & snap off readily, as shown in the MM contact event.

J.A.W. wrote:

Andres125sx wrote:

J.A.W. wrote:From what I've seen, the aero-devices in themselves do not seem to be much of a direct/additional hazard to riders.

... yet, but they could be pretty dangerous in case of a crash between two riders, or even without crashing
I´m not sure if I want aero on MotoGP or not, but I´m sure if I´d be a racing rider, I wouldn´t want bikes with that sort of appendices around me

Ok, but MM didn't actually suffer any injury due to that winglet contact incident, nor did he need an ah, 'appendectomy'..

The strakes themselves do appear to carry very little mass effect, & snap off readily, as shown in the MM contact event.

Just because something did not happen, does not mean it could have ended up worse. Dorna even enforced minimum radii this year so you don't have razorsharp edges: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122378

But this going round in circles. Let's see how it ultimately pans out. There were reports of a meeting on the future of aero devices, but I cannot find results on that.

Jokes apart, that´s a proof it may be dangerous in some situations. The winglet mass is irrelevant, it´s the bike + rider mass what counts, applied at a sharp point like a winglet, on a soft part like a human body, it may cause some serious cuts if conditions are unfavourables enough

Andres125sx wrote:Jokes apart, that´s a proof it may be dangerous in some situations. The winglet mass is irrelevant, it´s the bike + rider mass what counts, applied at a sharp point like a winglet, on a soft part like a human body, it may cause some serious cuts if conditions are unfavourables enough

Where is the "proof"?

Pretty sure if there was any "proof" of serious safety concern, the aero-strakes would be scraped off, quick-smart..

As for the relevance of winglet mass, if it flutters away like a butterfly on impact, its surely no big deal.. but, if it flies like an Olympic discus..

J.A.W. wrote:

Andres125sx wrote:Jokes apart, that´s a proof it may be dangerous in some situations. The winglet mass is irrelevant, it´s the bike + rider mass what counts, applied at a sharp point like a winglet, on a soft part like a human body, it may cause some serious cuts if conditions are unfavourables enough

Where is the "proof"?

So you think a picture of a winglet collinding with some other rider´s kidneys on a pretty common race battle is not a proof?

J.A.W. wrote:As for the relevance of winglet mass, if it flutters away like a butterfly on impact, its surely no big deal.. but, if it flies like an Olympic discus..

What if the impact is perfectly perpendicular so no flutter?

J.A.W. wrote:

Andres125sx wrote:Jokes apart, that´s a proof it may be dangerous in some situations. The winglet mass is irrelevant, it´s the bike + rider mass what counts, applied at a sharp point like a winglet, on a soft part like a human body, it may cause some serious cuts if conditions are unfavourables enough

Where is the "proof"?

Pretty sure if there was any "proof" of serious safety concern, the aero-strakes would be scraped off, quick-smart..

As for the relevance of winglet mass, if it flutters away like a butterfly on impact, its surely no big deal.. but, if it flies like an Olympic discus..

That was close ....

I haven't seen any evidence that MM has complained of an injury to his person, attributable to a winglet-to-body contact.

AFAIR, MM's tail-fairing mounted video camera was dislodged, but its not like getting a boot to the handlebar - as a crash cause..
(& oddly enough, that tell-tale telemetry remains 'secret', despite the offer of Honda's race-boss to make it publicly available.)

For Mugello each Ducati factory bike ran discrete 'winglet' arrangements, with AD's machine deleting the lower set pair,
this being - ostensibly - to reduce aero-drag on the high-speed straight.

However IA's bike, equipped with the full array - still made fastest top-end speed ( nearly 355 km/h) - as well as quickest lap..

Aero drag is more then just about top speed. It more likely has to do with fuel consumption in this case.

J.A.W. wrote:I haven't seen any evidence that MM has complained of an injury to his person, attributable to a winglet-to-body contact.

AFAIR, MM's tail-fairing mounted video camera was dislodged, but its not like getting a boot to the handlebar - as a crash cause..
(& oddly enough, that tell-tale telemetry remains 'secret', despite the offer of Honda's race-boss to make it publicly available.)

If the telemetry really showed what Honda claim, they would've released it. IMHO , while the telemetry probably does show an increase in brake pressure, but it most likely doesn't ramp up quickly enough to prove a kick. In other words, MM was probably just trying to cut in for a cross over move when he lost the front.