English
Italiano
Corrado Cecchinelli was technical manager for Ducati in MotoGP and then joined the Dorna group that actually writes the MotoGP regulations. His role today is as Dorna's director of technology, and in Sepang we took advantage of his kindness to talk at length about so many topics involving the new regulations, Yamaha's choice of V4 development, the elimination of lowering devices, and really so many others, all addressed with great precision by Cecchinelli.
There are rumors regarding a possible Moto3 revolution, what can you tell us?
"I heard about it from you! let's say I'll make it a diplomatic joke, it is not a question at the technical level at this moment, it is obvious that I know the discussions that are taking place. I also read opinions released recently, for example KTM who stated that it considers disproportionate the cost for such a category so as it is also obvious that as far as we are concerned it might be interesting to go towards a formula for example more suitable for riders of a larger build and more physically continuous than Moto2. Now there is quite an important step between Moto3 and Moto2. So there are a number of issues starting with the economic one but also others that could bring about a reformation of the category with a different regulation plausible."
Do you think it is right then as an idea?
"I as a technician also include a technical misalignment compared to Moto2 and MotoGP. That is, Moto3 is more technologically advanced today than Moto2, so there is a bit of a technical-technological hole that formally I don't really like. But the level of discussion right now is at my level nonexistent, we are not at a technical table where a formula has been identified or even a concept. I mean not even whether it should be a Moto2 type formula of prototype chassis and unified engine or Red Bull Junior type or categories like that where it's all unified, so we're very far away."
Another topic of the moment is Yamaha's V4 engine. Does it make sense in your opinion to design a 1000 engine today when from 2027 it will be 850?
"So there are a few things to say. Let's stay with the rumors, in the sense that we don't know exactly what the strategies are, what the development plan is. It is to be considered an acquired news that they will come sooner or later with a V-engine and that they will likely start the new era from 2027 with the V-engine. What will happen in the meantime? It's a bit more fuzzy. In principle, the fact that they are working on it today doesn't necessarily mean that they want to use it as early as 2026. My guess is that if working on the V4 they realize that it is better than the inline 4, they could introduce it as early as 2026, something that would also serve to keep a strong rider like Fabio Quartararo on the team, who if he is not the strongest is one of the strongest around today. It might have been the only argument they had, a political and economic move between political and technical to keep him, maybe in continuity with the new era."
So also a strategic move.
"Yes, not to keep Fabio in 2026, but to be able to base the new era on him. That might already be one reason. The other reason might be that he is really doing so much better so that in 2026, I exclude in '25, they really make that leap in performance that we all expect, that is, they go from the current situation that certainly doesn't live up to the Yamaha name to a situation where they win or not. Then a lot of other things count, but maybe they become among the consistent podium candidates at least. For example, if in 2026 they win the world championship in my opinion they have already done well and let's not even talk about what they can then carry on to 2027. It's okay even if they then throw it away."
Wouldn't it then be possible to downgrade the 1000 and make it 850?
"The project is definitely a hellish one, because in my opinion they are to be considered two engines; an 850 Vee, despite the fact that it is Vee the 1000 they will then have to make. They are two different engines, because at this level of technical exasperation of competition, in my opinion you can't do things that maybe you could do in production, like keeping the same crankcase, the same cylinder block, even the same gearbox going from a 1000 to an 850. In my opinion these are far-fetched operations so you're going to be redoing a complete engine, these are two engines that are physically different in virtually everything. Because when you start saying they have to be different - the pistons, the shaft, likely the gearbox, the crankcase, but also the whole bike. Because Yamaha won't allow itself not to take advantage of a smaller engine by mounting it on an unnecessarily big bike...so the designs are completely different. There is, however, in my opinion, one part that you take home anyway. If you're someone who's been used for a while, let's say forever in the MotoGP era like Yamaha has been, to working with an inline engine, there's still a whole experience of running a V-engine that you take home a year or a year and a half or two in advance and it's useful. All the packaging of the bike, the airbox design, the fairing design, all these things here. Certain concepts of the engine, how the timing will be done, you can carry it forward. How the crankcase architecture will be done, however they are experiences you carry forward."
In any case it's all experience so...
"Let's say it's an operation that brings home some know-how in time to fully exploit it in 2027, but it doesn't bring home any physical engine parts. My guess is maybe they keep the screws. The bore goes from 81 to 75, which is a non-proportional number. That is, the 850 engines will have a lower bore/stroke ratio than the current ones, that is, they will be less extreme engines, so to speak. The RPMs I expect will be the same as the current ones, because the stroke is the same."
When we switched to the 800 in 2007, the bikes became much faster in the corners. Will the same thing happen?
"I don't see any particular reason why these bikes should go faster in the corners. The cornering speed is basically dictated by the tires, and so without knowing what tires we are talking about, we are already talking about nothing. Again, let's make the assumption that the tires are the same as they are today, irrespective of the evolution they will have, there is no great reason why they should be faster. That is, the only reason why the bikes might go faster, is a theoretical secondary one, which is that it is that since there is today a non-negligible aerodynamic component as the bikes are lighter, the aerodynamic forces, let's say proportionally, will be more important. So in the classic scheme of the leaning bike, once you didn't put the aerodynamic force that helps you. When the bike is lighter, the aerodynamic force has even more importance."
Will the lower weight be very important?
"The bikes will be 4 kg lighter. The minimum weight is not very little, however, it is a secondary value, that is, there is no inherent reason for the lower displacement to make these bikes go better. They will go better because of the evolution that will have been made, so they would go better even those now, that is, because they will have better tires if that is the evolution, and evolved aerodynamics. However, in certain cases, because we are reducing the aerodynamics I expect, that in the very fast corners for example, the bikes will be slower because the aerodynamic effect will be less than today, although partly. Because the lower part of the fairing remains the same and now it seems to me that we are working more on that part than on the wing part."
Aerodynamics has become a really integral part of these bikes.
"It used to be that studying aerodynamics was trying to make as little drag as possible going forward, then you started with an embryo of aerodynamics to generate force, downforce in short. The first wings attached to the belly pans or noses were designed to keep the nose down under acceleration, that was the purpose in a primordial state. Now, on the other hand, it affects so much the speed and load in the middle of the corner. Since in this area the regulations in essence do not change, I think they will go better mainly because of the lower weight and maybe more advanced tires. It remains an area where there is room for maneuver, in fact we sometimes see bikes going down the track, even here in Sepang, with tailpieces equipped with wings or not, so they haven't found an objective formula yet."
Another issue will be the disappearance of the lowering devices. What do you think the engineers will do about this issue?
"The power will decrease, and this is one of the key points in the evolution of the regulations. Certainly not enough to cancel the benefit of keeping the lowering devices, but they are very useful the more powerful the bike is. I simply think that experienced riders manage the physical limit of the bike, if the physical limit is lower they will go slower it's not that they will crash more."
Yet lowering concepts are also coming on production motorcycles, why ban them?
"Let's say that in production motorcycles, the reasons could be to ensure safe support when the bike is stationary, as well as that of a constant load-independent elevation that makes everything about the bike work optimally, especially the suspension. We prohibit them because they are items that greatly increase the physical limit of the motorcycle, thus the speed at which the motorcycle for example travels around the track, and thus impose greater safety requirements on the circuits. But though, circuit safety is to be considered an independent variable, it's not as if you can increase escape routes disproportionately in a circuit with an infinite escape route, in theory you could afford higher performance or not. That's a good reason first of all, then because they make the bikes almost, I don't want to use an excessive adjective, but almost superhuman to ride. You have to in my opinion allow a human being without doing surgery and within his ability to control to ride these things. For me one is a bit borderline and in addition one also risks depersonalizing the riding. Take the starts, with the lowerers they are all much closer together. Eliminating them will certainly result in arriving at the first corner with less compact groups. Often then they are simple elements, we don't eliminate them as a matter of cost."
