MotoMatters.com | Kropotkin Thinks

The past few years have seen a massive change in the way MotoGP machines perform, and more significantly, how they achieve that performance. Ducati's early experiments with aerodynamics in 2010 went from a curiosity to wings and other aero add-ons becoming ubiquitous, and an integral part of motorcycle design. The Bologna factory repeated the feat with the holeshot device, which morphed into ride-height devices, forcing the other manufacturers all to copy Ducati and try to catch up.

All of these changes have had an immense impact on the racing. Top speeds have gone through the roof. At Mugello in 2015, Andrea Iannone was the fastest through the speed trap with a top speed of 350.8 km/h. This year, in the sprint race, Brad Binder hit an astonishing 366.1 km/h in the sprint race. That's an increase of 15.3 km/h or 4.4%.

But it isn't just top speeds: the combination of aerodynamics and ride-height devices have made passing more and more difficult, with riders taking ever greater risks to try to make a move. The first corner has taken on an oversize importance, with pile-ups at the start an increasingly frequent occurrence.

In the short term, there is little that the FIM and Dorna can do about the situation. The technical regulations are set for five-year periods in contracts between Dorna and the MotoGP manufacturers, with the current period ending in 2026. It has raised the stakes for the technical regulations for the next contract period, however.

Discussions for the new regulations, to come into force from the 2027 MotoGP season, are just getting started. The person in charge of overseeing those discussions and guiding the technical regulations is Corrado Cecchinelli, MotoGP Director of Technology. At Barcelona, I sat down with him to hear how he sees the future of MotoGP, and the direction they are trying to steer the new rules.

We covered a lot of ground, and so this interview has been split up into three parts. In the first part, Cecchinelli explains the main objectives for Dorna and the FIM with the new regulations, and why he prefers a reduction in maximum bore size rather than a reduction in engine capacity. In the second part, he explains how MotoGP can restrict the effect of aerodynamics on the sport, but also, why the series should keep a very limited amount. And in the final part, he explains how MotoGP will monitor and enforce the switch to carbon-neutral fuels, both for the 2024 season and for 2027, when fuels have to be 100% non-fossil based.

But we started off with a discussion of how to slow MotoGP bikes down. Higher top speeds on the straights and cornering speeds mean that tracks need ever more run off, and at several circuits, we are running into physical limits of the terrain. Hills can't be moved, ground can't be bought to move walls back further and increase gravel traps.

Even Ducati Corse boss Gigi Dall'Igna had acknowledged that top speeds were getting too high, proposing that engine capacity be reduced from 2027 to address the problem. So is slowing MotoGP bikes a priority for Dorna? "I would say the priority is safety, as always," Cecchinelli clarified. "So slowing the bikes down, of course, is a very easy way to achieve safety. So, yes, slowing the bikes down is in turn the first goal, if you want, but not a first principle. The principle is safety. I'm making this distinction because going slower makes safety, but you can achieve safety by also doing other things."

Those other things might included changing the tracks to accommodate faster motorcycles, but that is a much more expensive and difficult than slowing the bikes down to improve safety. "This is why they are usually synonymous, improving safety and slowing down the bikes. Because this is a practical way to do that," Cecchinelli explained.

The process of building a new set of technical regulations to address safety concerns was still in a relatively early stage, Cecchinelli said. "The present situation is that sometime ago during last season, we let each of the manufacturers unofficially have our ideas on what to do for the future regulations. Which includes not only the item of safety, but also, as a secondary goal, sustainability in general."

That was sustainability in the broadest sense of the word, he added. That was meant to include the long-term viability of the championship. "So sustainability, like everybody understands the word, means being more environmentally friendly, but also in terms of the overall sustainability of the sport and the championship, which is not exactly the same thing. With a focus within sustainability, a particular focus on road relevance."

Dorna had presented this outline to the manufacturers to give the discussion on the rules some direction, rather than just offering them a blank slate. "You know, it is always better to start from black and white, than from just asking, 'what do you think?' With just nothing," he said.

"So this was the idea behind us letting the manufacturers be aware of what we think. This is not an official agenda for discussions at the moment. We are not talking at the MSMA meetings, we are just waiting for feedback. That - and from now on it's just my personal opinion - I hope they will come within this year."

That means that the discussions are still not at the stage where Dorna would start submitting official proposals to the MSMA. "There are no proposals from any of the stakeholders. And by that, I mean, us as the organizer as a whole, or any of the manufacturers, or the manufacturers as the MSMA. No proposals from any of these parties. Just sort of, they know what we would like to achieve."

Was everything on the table, from engine capacity reduction to a reduction in bore size to a reduction in the number of gears, I asked? "This is all open, yes. Most of what you said is on the table," Cecchinelli replied. That included a reduction in both engine size and maximum bore size. "In displacement or bore, or both," he affirmed.

Those of us who have been in the championship for a long time will remember the last time capacity was reduced. MotoGP switched from 990cc to 800cc for the 2007 season, in the hope of slowing the bikes. That proved to be a failure: to compensate for reduced capacity, the manufacturers chased revs, and used electronics to manage the power delivery. By mid-season, lap times of the 800s were as fast as the old 990s, and top speeds were exceeded not long after that.

Cecchinelli was keenly aware of the pitfalls of merely reducing engine capacity. "I personally would prefer - and this is one of the things the manufacturers know – down-boring a one liter engine." Reducing the maximum bore size to make a less oversquare engine has a number of advantages, he explained. "Of course, what we are looking at is reducing maximum power. Which you can achieve by both down-boring and reducing displacement. But for me, down-boring has a number of good side effects, which have more road relevance. More durability, which means more sustainability. And, I would say for sure, but I say hopefully, a better efficiency."

Reducing the maximum bore size would improve combustion efficiency, he explained. "Normally a race engine has a good efficiency because of course, you are interested in making it, but the bigger you go with the bore, the worse the combustion chamber shape becomes. So when you are designing a racing engine, of course you will design with the best technologies and the information you have. You will be focused on reducing friction, correct fuel injection, timing and everything. But if you have a bore constraint, you will end up with better efficiency than if bore size is free."

Less is more

Would that also make the engine cleaner, because combustion is improved? "This is my hope in principle. Which is still to be proven, but it's one of the reasons why I would prefer a down-boring. The rest is certain, a longer engine life, more road relevance, and possibly for me, a better rideability."

Reducing bore size is a way to produce a better torque curve, so would that better rideability make for better racing? "In principle, yes," Cecchinelli believes. "And by the way, to me, it should be an engine that makes reducing the gear options easier. A better power delivery is to be expected."

That opens up other possibilities as well. "It opens the door to many other things that would be come for free, you know? To give a practical example, one of the proposals is less engines per season. That would come more or less for free if you down-bore the present engines. You can say minus one engine is equal to the current situation."

Physics vs engineers

An important principle within any new set of technical regulations is that engineers should be free to work within the limits, and not have any artificial restrictions placed upon them. "For me, I understand the point of some limitations being more in the racing spirit than others," Cecchinelli said. "For instance, I am the biggest fan and pusher of a rev limiter but I understand that this is not really in the racing spirit. I mean, it can be argued as a racing limitation, because it's like a speed limit. It works, but in some way, it conflicts with the spirit of racing, I understand that."

Using the laws of physics to set a limit was a much fairer way of restricting speed. "So for me, down-boring is a clever and elegant way of reducing RPMs without giving a specific number, so that whoever is better than the others still has an advantage. Which is fair in racing," he explained. "Because you are always in conflict between closing technical gaps, but rewarding the best engineers. You still want that someone who is better will be rewarded. You don't want a flat championship in which whatever you do, you are with the top. I mean, this is not fair racing. So for me down-boring represents all of this."

In part two of this conversation, we turn our attention to aerodynamics. Can it be controlled? And will the manufacturers be willing to accept such restrictions?

If you enjoyed this article, please consider supporting MotoMatters.com. You can help by either taking out a subscription, supporting us on Patreon, by making a donation, or contributing via our GoFundMe page. You can find out more about subscribing to MotoMatters.com here.