EXTRACT FROM SLICK #14 – released August 2021
BORGO PANIGALE – It’s all in the premise: “I came to Ducati at the end of 2013, and at that time everyone saw me as the main enemy: because I came from Aprilia, where I was fighting against Ducati in Superbike. That’s why I invested the first 6 months not to work on a project but to understand people, and to make them understand me. After all, it’s stupid to leave if you don’t understand who can do this and who can do that-and if you don’t know who you can trust.”
Gigi Dall’Igna is a thoroughbred fighter. He manages to be a general and a soldier at the same time, he knows how to put art and brilliance in the service of absolute courage: that is why he exalts himself when he plays at the extreme level, that is, where in order to win everything you have to be willing to risk everything.
He landed at Ducati, after a farewell to Aprilia that caused quite a stir, in the name of a new mission: to reorganize Ducati Corse in its broadest sense. And he achieved the goal, bringing a new vision, proposing a different methodology of work and even thinking.
Recalling the first steps taken at Borgo Panigale, it gives a good idea of what the scenario was at the end of 2013 while not mentioning any names: “We, at the beginning of 2014, thought only about MotoGP, honestly said, because that was an extremely important project-Ducati was coming from somewhat difficult years, and with that project we were playing everything. In fact, I was staking everything on it! If it hadn’t worked, or even if it had gone ‘so-so,’ it would have been complicated for me and for all of Ducati.”
However, those are the moments when history can be made, and that was the case this time as well.
“Certainly something different had to be done, in fact the risks we took at that time, all of us, were really incredible. I can assure you that these are not easy situations.”
Are you referring to expectation, pressure?
“The whole situation. You have to make a premise, always staying in that period: when trouble starts, then you also go looking for trouble, and that can happen to any company. In the last years before I came to Ducati, with the goal of making the engine more drivable they had started to do things where it had also lost a lot of horsepower. So between the end of 2013 and the beginning of 2014 we were really getting screwed into something that is hard to get out of.”
So the decision to recreate a united group first, and then leave, is kind of the secret?
“Yes, and fortunately it went well. In my opinion it was right to start from the human side, that is, from the people and their value. Motorcycles are made by people, and the first thing anyone approaching a racing department, with a new project, has to do is get to know those people.”
In your management it was immediately clear that you wanted to give importance to the vehicle in general, so you broke with the Ducati tradition that was very “motoristic” and very little “chassis.”
“I, for various reasons, want the meetings where we plan the design of new models to be as broad as possible. Because culture is important. You have to spread the culture of the motorcycle throughout the racing department, so instead of having separate meetings for the engine, for the chassis, for the electronics, I want us all to discuss it together. If you have enlarged meetings you spread the culture 360 degrees, so those who do the chassis also start to hear about motor concepts, those who do the electronics hear the problems of the vehicularists, etc….”
Was the cycling that far behind when you came to Ducati?
“It is certainly true that originally the chassis was one of Ducati’s main problems, but I repeat: the situation had become complicated in such a way that not even the engine was able to express its potential. In fact, let’s say that when you did the engine you also did the chassis: because the chassis has to wrap around the engine, and so many points of the engine are fundamental to the chassis. That’s why it’s important for everyone to be at the same table when making decisions. Then in the end one has to make them, but you have to hear the opinions of so many.”
Have you always done this?
“Yes, in fact the spaces for my meetings are never enough. I have to use the biggest rooms, if need be I go and take the meeting room in the Presidency, which is the biggest; but I also went to the Auditorium, as well as to the Ducati Museum where there is an amphitheater. I need people to be inside the same room when ideas come up. I emphasize it again: knowledge and culture are the things you need to do a motorcycle well.”
When did “your” Desmosedici project begin?
“We started thinking about it in June 2014. The engine went to the dyno in January 2015. So in six months we designed and did everything, and then we went racing. That’s why I talk about incredible risks.”
In fact, going to the February tests with an engine that went to the dyno in January…
“That’s why the first test of 2015, in Sepang at the beginning of February, we skipped it. In the second test, also in Sepang, they went with the limiters very low, that is, with the rpm limit lowered by 1500-2000 rpm. Because we had to begin to understand whether the chassis was also born right. Then, at home, we completed the engine durability check, and in the third test, in Qatar, we went to full power.”
And then immediately the race. So, it’s true: it was great risk.
“And I would add that they didn’t have a second plan, there was no parachute. Yes, we really took a lot of risks.”
You ended the race with a second and a third place, though. Maybe the risks were calculated…
“We did well because everyone did well: the project started well, and it was developed well. But when, in June 2014, I began to say that the time frame for implementation should be this, almost everyone looked at me as if I were an extraterrestrial.”
The engine was declined immediately in another version, right?
“From there we made a version for the Superbike, and for the road bike. The V4 engine actually inherited all the thermodynamics of the MotoGP version. In fact, basically the whole engine is really MotoGP-derived.”
How many horsepower did the first new generation version, which started with MotoGP in GP15, have?
“Let’s say, at first, we ran with about 250 horsepower.”
Well, when you consider that the street version of the V4 has 224 hp, it’s not like there’s much difference.
“Exactly, this shows that he inherited the concepts of MotoGP.”
(…..)
LESS DEVELOPMENT, MORE ENTERTAINMENT
On a safety proposition, is there an ethic that should prompt a designer to say, are we making these guys go too fast? The performance of the MotoGP bikes is impressive; on certain straights they are going over 360 mph.
“A limit, sooner or later, is right to be set.”
So it’s a sensitive topic for you as well?
“Ethics itself says that it is appropriate not to exceed certain values. Although there is no single value that should not be exceeded, it is true that we are moving forward by constantly overstepping previous limits, and this situation sooner or later someone needs to try to fix it. Maybe in the next regulations.”
Gabriele Conti says that when you increase speed performance, you also increase the performance of everything else, so a motorcycle is always “prepared” for improvements.
“This is true in the sense that the braking systems and everything else are evolved accordingly, so in the end the bike remains safe in the same way. It’s also true, though, that we’re talking about straight-line speed, whereas what makes the bike dangerous is cornering speed.”
This is true.
“The straight-line speed figure makes an impression, of course, but it is unrelated to the real danger of the bike. It is more dangerous the speed with which you usually fall when you take the curve.”
And to think that it used to be the exit, the danger.
“True! But today is the entry. Because the high side, thanks to electronics, is now at least limited. Instead, the critical stage is the entry, and something should be done here.”
Couldn’t ABS be adopted, since even scooters have it now?
“This is purely a political reason, that is, related to development costs. The motorcycle world is, if you can say, a relatively poor world compared to our car cousins. In order to make a World Championship stand, you have to make sure that the costs necessary to participate (for the Manufacturers and the teams) have to be reasonable for our world; which is not the car world. Then you have to give yourself technical limitations, which are also arbitrary, but they are there to limit the costs of viluppointment. It was decided that suspension and brakes should stay out of development, so they stayed out.”
To develop an ABS Cornering on a road bike, as well as for active suspension, a company spends hundreds of thousands of euros. Thinking that on a MotoGP bike one could even imagine an ABS that even acts according to each type of corner on the track, why is it still not used?
“It’s just a matter of deciding that, that is, allocating resources to that system rather than to other things.”
Such as?
“For example, rather than the ‘Seamless’ gearbox, or other things like that.”
What is the truth, then?
“The truth is this: with the technology we have already developed for anti-spin, it would be relatively easy to make a very good assisted braking system.”
Well, it means that “someone” doesn’t want to. Isn’t it that “someone”-Dorna, just not to mention any names-has decided that no one should go too far in development because otherwise the bikes don’t stay close things anymore and then the TV rights don’t sell for high prices?
“Well, obviously that is also part of making the sport attractive to so many Constructors. Because if the Constructors are relatively close, as a performance, it’s clear that it’s easier to get into MotoGP. Let’s think about the 500 two-stroke, towards the end of its history: it was much sadder in that respect, because there were very few Manufacturers.”
Even in 2011 there were only three houses in MotoGP.
“And now there are six. There must be a reason.”
Of course: motorcycles run about the same. And it can’t be an accident…
“Keep this in mind: the more constant you keep the regulation over time, the easier it is to standardize. Because the current rulebook has been basically the same for so long, it’s harder for the Manufacturers to find opportunities to increase performance significantly. If, on the other hand, you insert discontinuities, as they do in Formula 1-where every 2-3 years they insert a relevant change-it is clear that you increase the disparity between the various Manufacturers. Of course, the costs, however, increase: those who have more resources have a better chance of making a difference.”
CONTINUED ON SLICK#14