EXTRACT FROM SLICK #14 – released August 2021
BORGO PANIGALE – The man who makes Ducatis more efficient by drawing inspiration from race car studies and a passion for airplanes is an aeronautical engineer who speaks in a low voice and a slow cadence, with no noticeable alterations.Edoardo Lenoci, the Head of Aerodynamic Development at Ducati Corse, is a man who spreads serenity. These days he might lash out at those who change the regulations almost only to slow Ducati down-thereby mortifying his work, since it was with him that Ducati set new limits in aerodynamics-but when provoked the ultimate grievance is this : “The regulation system in MotoGP is a bit exotic.”
For that matter, even when he lists his experiences-and it is a list to make one’s chest swell-he describes them as if there is nothing that deserves at least some emphasis: “I used to work in a company that was in the area where Ducati is located, and which no longer exists: it was created by a former F1 figure, Migeot, who had founded Fondtech (in Casumaro, in the province of Ferrara) and Aerolab (in Sant’Agata Bolognese). He worked many years in F1, from the late 1980s to the early 1990s, in Tyrrel, McLaren, Renault and Ferrari. From that experience, and with help from Gabriele Rumi, who had Fondmetal (rim manufacturer), he created a very first wind tunnel in 1993. There, I started there. So from 2002 to 2013 (in Fondmetal) I worked on experimental aerodynamics on racing cars. I was involved in Formula 1, Nascar, the 24 Hours of le Mans, the DTM, F3. After 2013 I came to Ducati.” Does it seem little to you?
However, calm is apparent, because the battle over aerodynamics has left its mark: “It is true, though, that our competitors complained about the dangerousness of this ‘thing’ (the wings) when they didn’t have it, then when they had it too, it was no longer dangerous to anyone. This is a fact, not conjecture.”
Exactly.
“The thing in my opinion that is a bit strange, or curious, is the fact that until 2016 opening the FIM Regulations one could have read that a fairing “could be fitted with wings.” That is, “wings,” identified by the English term “wing,” so not “sidepod” or other definitions. The regulations said that the width of the bike had to be up to 100 mm, within which wings could be fitted. So it was already written: it’s not like we found a hole in the regulations and put wings because it didn’t say anything; it was specified, that word.”
So what happened next?
“Perhaps because we have begun to have interesting results, other competitors finding themselves lagging behind us have preferred to emphasize danger.”
And FIM had to intervene.
“Yes, but at the regulatory level the FIM has basically done two things: the first is to have created these sort of profiles (wings) that are curved on the inside, and that in my opinion from a safety point of view doesn’t change anything. Which then, by the way, from a product homologation point of view there are not all these problems that there were in MotoGP, because the outer surfaces are graded according to minimum radii (i.e., how angular they are) and that’s enough for a production bike. Whereas, as mentioned, for MotoGP, the wing concept has been somewhat twisted.”
And the second thing that FIM did what is it?
“It was to homologate the aerodynamic development, meaning that there are only two homologations (two evolutions, or modifications) that can be made during the year: so you take one for the first to race, then there is the possibility of only one more update.”
It serves to limit costs, at least that’s what they say.
“Yes, but if you went and did serious research on how much the millisecond of lap time obtained for aerodynamics costs us, and how much the millisecond of lap time obtained for engine development costs us, my guess is that you would find very different results: that is, even by a couple of orders of magnitude.”
Ducati believed in this matter much earlier, and much more, than others: did you play a role in this choice?
“Let’s say I came from a world where there was a lot of investment and knowledge, because aerodynamics in the automotive world started in the late 1970s. So I found myself working in a very different world. I tried to catch up with what I had learned, especially in terms of methodology, then to apply it to motorcycles. From the aerodynamic point of view if the automobile is a squat body, the motorcycle is even more so. There are far fewer surfaces, so you can affect it in a much more limited way at the performance level.”
Could it be that the two points to start from, regarding Ducati, could be 2010 and 2015, given the evolutions that were made during those periods?
“So, in 2010 actually the first aerodynamic appendages appeared on the Desmosedici. I was not yet in Ducati, however, I remember that it was a controversial issue in the sense that the riders were skeptical. Then in 2015 the first, let’s say, second-generation appendages appeared, and the full delivery was in 2016.”
And coincidentally, from 2017 regulatory restrictions began.
“Yes, with two motivations: one was due to safety on the track, the other was due to budget. But actually from there there was then a progressive limitation, year after year, and that maybe went beyond those two main issues: the limitation was a little bit more oriented only to what could be changes. So the rulebook system in MotoGP is a bit exotic: there are a lot of articles but then there is a clause that anyway the responsibility for approval goes through the technical director; and that is something that, in my opinion, should not be written in the regulations.”
Why?
“This “approval” to date is still not regulated. I mean: how do you “see” the component, maybe it’s a picture or a drawing? The indeterminacy of that kind of approach has meant that there has been a progressively tightening limitation of what can be done on the bike. One fact is that, beyond appendages, today even a cooling duct has to be submitted to the judgment of the technical director, something that before wings was not in question at all.”
So has the wing controversy generated more attention, or tension?
“There, ‘tension’ seems correct to me. In my opinion, the motivation for everything is the fact that MotoGP should not become like F1, aerodynamically – that is, a very complex vehicle, not very recognizable aesthetically because it has so many details – but I think that is an unfounded fear. The rider having an essential role, motorcycles still have a certain kind of performance so it’s not like you can think of adding weight by creating hypercomplicated shapes like there are on F1 cars; that is, a vehicle that rolls very little, with fairly constant gaits. We are dealing with completely different driving conditions, very different position of the vehicle: we can’t go out of our way to optimize one position of the vehicle on the ground (like the car) by creating who knows what from the point of view of appendages without then caring about their effect in all other gaits.”
Starting from an automobile perspective: does aerodynamics really affect motorcycles so much as well?
“Let’s put it this way: in the world of cars between a car with sophisticated aerodynamics and a neglected one there can be even a difference of seconds on a lap, whereas in the case of MotoGP there is a few tenths. But those tenths, when multiplied by about twenty laps, still make the difference maybe between a first and a fourth place. So: on motorcycles it doesn’t make as much difference as it does in other areas, such as four wheels, but it is still appreciable. That said, it’s true that aerodynamics applied to motorcycles is a bit of an ugly beast because of the unknowns that are there.”
What is the major one?
“The rider. On a motorcycle, the rider affects not only because he drives but also aerodynamically, since he doesn’t stand still. So it changes the dynamism of the moving vehicle.”
Talking about aerodynamics in 2021 is no longer just about “wings,” right?
“I speak for Ducati, of course. We started with a methodological development, that is, as a real approach to aerodynamics. So, yes, it’s not just a matter of developing wing appendages. We created the basis to be able to study aerodynamics in general, so not only “cold” aerodynamics but also the study of thermal flows. This, initially, led us to the development of the appendages; then, with the basis already in place, we can apply ourselves to the study of the whole vehicle, and that is what we are doing. We kept the studies on the aerodynamic appendage, but we also started to study what’s around it.”
That is, you are studying other parts of the vehicle.
“Of course. In F1 there are quite significant revisions of the regulations, whereas this is not the case in MotoGP: so you get a bit of a ceiling as far as the most visible part of the appendages is concerned. The objective limitation is that you can’t go out of your way to particularly optimize one condition of the vehicle, because then you have to deal with other situations: cornering, braking, changes of direction, etc….”
CONTINUED ON SLICK#14