He is the right man, Davide Brivio, to continue on our journey (started with SLICK Volume#18) to discover the reasons for the upheaval that turned the balance in MotoGP in 2022. That is, the turning point that is designing the modern MotoGP. The one that starts now.
Davide Brivio worked for twenty years at Yamaha, winning memorable victories with Valentino Rossi in the legendary era of Masao Furusawa, then built and developed Team Suzuki Ecstar, which won the title in 2020. And then he landed in Formula 1, in Team Alpine (Renault) and was therefore able to verify how far-sighted he himself had been, in the Suzuki years: he had already begun to introduce working systems derived from Formula 1, that is, the kind of mentality and organization that the Italian manufacturers are adopting. And that they will also have to embrace the surviving Japanese ones: Yamaha and Honda.
Thanks to all these experiences, Davide Brivio is able to offer a very interesting point of view on the new situation in which the European Houses are overtaking the Japanese ones, overturning a balance that had been resisting for half a century.
Davide Brivio knows things that, of course, one in his position cannot say. One never reveals certain secrets. However, what he can say is still enough. Just read carefully and weigh the words and the way they are used well. There, there is everything you need to understand.
For example, already the premise is interesting: “Let’s say right away that it’s not about money, but about method. In short, of mentality. One has to accept an incontrovertible fact, but one that perhaps in Yamaha and especially in Honda they have a hard time accepting: the “way” of the Japanese houses is outdated, so they have to change it. And quickly, too! Because it is on this point, that the European Houses are now ahead, as seen in 2022. And they will still go ahead!”
Do you mean that the wave of technology that has invaded MotoGP is a secondary aspect?
“Yes, because technology is a consequence of the way we organize ourselves to use it. So the starting point is that European companies are more aggressive in their approach to racing, so they have established a new way of doing racing. And Yamaha and Honda will have to adapt as well.”
Are you talking about the “way” that comes from Formula 1?
“Yes, it is a bit like that. However, it is limiting to talk only about ‘Formula 1.’ From that maybe the Italian companies have been inspired, they have taken ideas on how to organize themselves but it is the approach that is different: to approach racing by doing everything possible to have motorcycles that perform better and better, leaving no stone unturned and continuing to try to improve, constantly thinking about new solutions…”
But Italian houses have always been aggressive, yet only now are they also very effective.
“That’s true, but it’s different now. That is, in the last few years the Italian manufacturers have been more aggressive in technological research and developing a method, while the Japanese ones have looked more at the so-called “business standard” as it has always been done historically: make a good chassis, a good engine, work on electronics; then handling, braking, acceleration. Instead, the others, Ducati in the lead, have gone further. And I’m not talking about aerodynamics or trim shifters.”
Yeah, because it all seems to come down to that.
“But no. It’s a bit trivial to stop at the fact that Ducati has an advantage in aerodynamics or in the set-up variation system: this is just the result of a difference in approach and therefore in method. That is, the way you have to approach racing in general and therefore also of MotoGP today.”
How can we explain that concept of aggression?
“Italian companies are never content, they keep researching, looking for new ideas, experimenting, to see where even a tenth of a second can be found. Sometimes you take risks but every tenth of a second per lap is important, think over the distance of a race! And this precisely is the mentality of Formula 1, where they study and invest even to gain half a tenth, to save a few tens of grams!”
So we have entered a new era.
“In fact, the problem of the Japanese companies is that they have not fully understood that this MotoGP has nothing to do with that of twenty years ago. As long as the Grand Prix was a business between them, that is, between the Japanese companies, the development of the bikes was done according to the rules of the Japanese companies: long planning, work diluted over months was supposed to lead to the end of the championship without jolts. That’s why new things always came slowly. Did you need a chassis? It took three months. Did you need a different engine? It was talked about for the following year.”
The Italians then sped up this process.
“Especially Ducati. But Aprilia has also aligned, and slowly KTM is coming along. So I would talk about European manufacturers, not only Italian ones: they have always been very aggressive, but in some years they have also messed up in my opinion: in the sense that sometimes there were too many novelties that were not properly tested. Sometimes they went the wrong way, or they lost it, but they always kept this aggressive spirit and once they fixed things it stayed with them. And now that’s the winning mentality: to introduce new things all the time, even small things, to try to improve the bike continuously. And it is thanks to this aggressiveness that they have come to upset the balance.”
Instead, the Japanese have not changed their mentality, right?
“Eh yes. On this the Japanese have always had a conservative approach, and it has remained: that is, you test everything well and if it doesn’t give benefit you don’t use it, if the test team hasn’t tried a part the official rider never sees it… For them, today it’s like yesterday: once you make a bike, you make a small evolution and then the rest they put on the next year’s bike. They’ve always done it that way. Also because in the golden years–from Doohan to Marquez through Valentino–that bike was enough to win: there was no need to make hasty evolutions, so when new ideas came, they put them on the next year. But now the approach to racing requires continuous development and constant evolution. But there is also more, and here we enter the realm of technology instead.”
Is it about the possibilities of making better use of it?
“A few years ago there was no big data as there is now, a sophisticated data analysis system, dedicated engineers to identify a problem with scientific precision and then look for a solution. The “old guard” of technical leaders has a hard time keeping up with this evolution, which is why you need a lot of engineers. And it is better if they are young, that is, without the preconceptions you get if you come from a bygone era. Because now you need a lot of data analysis from the weekend on the track not just at home, to understand exactly what’s happening on the bike. And that’s something they’re not used to doing in Japan.”
Why?
“There has remained the idea of distinguishing between what happens in the factory and what happens on the track. There is where the problems arise, the complaints of the riders, where you can study the competition, you can constantly and immediately analyze what is happening, and that is where the development and evolution of the vehicle has to start. They consider them two different things, but today that’s a mistake because the track has evolved a lot: Ducati, but also Aprilia and KTM, have started to do more and more sophisticated data analysis, while the Japanese companies on the track still work like 15 years ago. And if you do that, the information coming home from the track is not clear and comprehensive enough. If you don’t have engineers of the same level as those in the factory in Japan, the level of information that comes in doesn’t exhaust their desire and need to understand where the problem or weakness is. The work on the track has to complement the work in the factory.”
How do you mean?
“For two reasons. First: they are not enough to solve the problem in the immediate term, since you can’t really understand why there is a problem. Second, because that data is not enough to guide development for the following year.”
It is a matter of connection, then.
“Yes, they do. The European manufacturers have a direct and constant connection between the track and the factory, and because they do very careful data analysis at the track, with sophisticated software, the team is able to provide the factory with very precise information on how to solve problems and how to improve the bike.”
So is this where the Japanese houses have fallen behind?
“Yes, it is still like that in Japan: the team that goes to the track does not provide enough accurate data and more details to those at home. Yamaha and Honda are paying for this limitation now. After all, for the Japanese manufacturers, the factory has to understand the problems and think how to solve them, then on the track there is a team that does the last part of setting to try to win races. But it doesn’t work that way anymore. It used to be said: the Japanese make motorcycles and the Europeans race them. Here, that’s over, so Japanese companies have to do like European companies: track and factory have to work together, with the same mentality and especially with the same expertise.”
And how does it work now?
“The on-track team has to become an integral part of the MotoGP program, so there has to be a big synergy between those at home and those on the track: they should no longer be two separate groups. You have to make the bike together, and together you have to make it work on the track. This is the concept introduced by Ducati and Aprilia. And KTM does it too, especially now that they have taken several important engineers from Ducati.”
So the Japanese never evolved the “system.”
“Not all of them. Let me point out that Suzuki was different: we, when we started building the organization, immediately considered this aspect. We were at the beginning of this change of mentality, and it worked. For example, at least twice a year our Italian engineers would go to Japan to explain their point of view on certain problems they were experiencing on the track. Obviously they were not going to give orders, but to explain in our opinion what the bike needed to be better, even thinking about the following year. They would say, “In our opinion there is a need for this or that,” and the Japanese engineers in the racing department would study the situation, and the data we provided. They were skeptical at first, but then they were the ones who were always asking us for the data, and using it all the time. Then, of course, they would do what they thought was best, but we were able to transfer information to Japan that would otherwise struggle to get through. In fact, slowly we grew to win in 2020-and we didn’t have the budget that others always had. So let’s say that we were never the classic old-fashioned team.”
And what did it do, the old-style team?
“I’ll try to give an example even though I’m not an engineer. In an old-style team, a rider says, ‘our bike doesn’t have the braking of Ducati.’ And the team says to the Japanese engineer, ‘we need to improve the braking.’ Well, and then what? I mean, they don’t explain how it needs to be done, so the engineer doesn’t get hard data to work with. He has to look a little bit on his own for the nature of the problem by letting the team work through its weekend routine. But it’s quite different if you go to the engineer and say, “We did a comparison with the Ducati, based on our data and our analysis we saw that it brakes (I give an example, heh) on average 7 meters down. And you prove it to them with the comfort of data. So you can explain, for example, “we think that they probably have this technical difference that we have analyzed and that helps them, that we have to compensate somehow, but if we can do this also maybe they bring us closer to them…” I mean by talking like this, it’s easier to understand the problems and solve them. But to do these talks, you need the support of a high level of analysis and engineers who understand them and know how to explain themselves.”
So the pilot’s commentary, once held sacred, no longer suffices?
“In today’s MotoGP, no. The rider is perfectly fine, because he is the one riding, however, his judgment, his feeling, should be supported by more precise scientific data. It just becomes the stimulus to start the research. It is a “complaint” then they have to suffer the investigation. That is the evolution. MotoGP is now a much more technological environment, and new technologies have to be used. Because the riders always say the same things: there is little grip, there is no acceleration, there is little feeling on corner entry… But you have to understand why, and today this is explained by more serious and sophisticated data analysis. Modern MotoGP dictates that you do that, and the European manufacturers now do that.”
Does it have anything to do with the famous Team Performance?
“That’s exactly it!”
A kind of special team, different from the test team.
“It is the group of engineers dedicated to data analysis. And it’s part of the team, with the task of supporting the factory team during the race weekend. To solve problems, maybe grip problems, then to improve performance on Sunday. And then, with the data it analyzes, Team Performance also helps the racing department, for the development of the bike. In fact, if the on-track team has evolved, it’s because of the sophistication of the data analysis, so thanks to the work of the performance team.”
Does Ducati have it?
“Yes, it was perhaps the first to create it… Followed later by us at Suzuki.”
Then you were ahead.
“Oh yes, we in Suzuki created it back in 2016, our second year of racing. We were the first to have it, among the Japanese, so we were the closest to the Europeans. However, Suzuki is still a Japanese company, certain characteristics have remained: let’s say that we kept had a mentality that was somewhere in between; that is, very European in the track approach, very Japanese in the bike development process, traditionally more conservative.”
It worked, though: the 2020 feat went down in history.
“And now the surviving Japanese manufacturers have to change their approach: in Suzuki they were doing it, but the Board closed the racing program, in order to invest in electric-powered products and new Auto technologies. I can’t give myself an explanation for that, because in my opinion it could all be done anyway, but that’s the way it went.”
So that now leaves Honda and Yamaha.
“Yes, and they have not yet taken this step forward. The problem, however, is another one: figuring out how to do it. Because the situation can’t change in a few months: you have to know what to do, where and how to invest, what skills to bring into the racing department and into the team even at the level of new engineers. It is not enough to hire a certain number of engineers, but we need to organize them, coordinate them in an approved way making sure that it is a functional team. And a multi-year plan is needed.”
However, the concept of the unique racing program, in which “track” and “company” are connected and work together, Marquez also expresses them. He has only been doing it for a few months, but on this at least he is evolving.
“Recently I heard Marquez say, ‘I once asked the team why we tried that particular piece, and they replied that they didn’t know.’ Well, it means that in Honda they are still using the old method: they seem to be throwing on pieces, copying what they see around, to see what effect it has. But this is not good.”
Speaking of Marquez: does it still make sense today to tailor the bike to a rider’s needs?
“Not so much, in fact this is another aspect of MotoGP today. Data and technology impose a very different work to get to the point of making the bike effective, that is, able to take advantage of the grip of the tires. It is no longer the time when the problem is solved with a chassis dedicated to a rider, or by making the bike with the characteristics of a particular rider.”
Exactly, as is the case with F1 help.
“Yes, because what was there before is wrong! You have to organize the work at home and on the track first, then coordinate everything. The work starts there. So Honda and Yamaha really have to re-found their MotoGP project and I think they are already doing that but the effects will be seen later. You need a multi-year plan where you restructure the work that you do on the track, so that the track is able to send the right information to the company; and in the company they have to have the tools to work and do what is needed on the track.”
Like in Furusawa’s time, and you were there: Yamaha changed its mindset, so everything changed.
“In my opinion Furusawa, being intelligent, would have gotten there. He would have evolved quickly. But those were other times. There wasn’t this huge component of technology available; today those who use it in the right way benefit. And the situation was also different because the Italian and European manufacturers are now very strong, they have figured out how to organize themselves to use the technology, while Honda and Yamaha still have to go through this transition. This is an evolution that started in the last 5-6 years. And Yamaha gives the idea that they are still working as they did in Furusawa’s time.”