MotoMatters.com | Kropotkin Thinks

In part 1 of this interview with Corrado Cecchinelli, Dorna's Director of Technology, we talked about how his objective for the MotoGP rules package due to come in from the 2027 season was to improve the safety and increase the sustainability of MotoGP by looking at ways to limit performance without restricting the ability for engineers to explore innovative solutions too much, and to create an environment in which R&D in racing transfers more directly to road bikes.

The aim is to make the racing safer without forcing the tracks to make expensive, and sometimes impossible, safety upgrades, and to reduce the risk of crashing at excessively high speeds. The other important aim is to allow ordinary motorcyclists to benefit from the lessons learned by manufacturers in MotoGP.

In part 2, we turned our attention to the most controversial and difficult topic in MotoGP: aerodynamics. Hated by fans, loved by engineers, and often appreciated as useful by riders, it is a subject which divides opinions. But is also very clear that aerodynamics are making it more difficult to overtake, and increasing top speeds and cornering speeds fairly dramatically.

It is a complex subject which requires a very broad approach, Cecchinelli told me. "There are a number of topics relevant to aerodynamics. One, which is very important for us, is that aerodynamics is unfortunately an area where you still have a big return on investment. So if you are a bigger spender, yeah you go faster," he said.

The underlying problem is that the law of diminishing returns is barely starting to kick in for aerodynamics. The rewards for each additional €1 million are still worth making the additional investment, whereas in other areas, the value of that additional investment quickly tapers off. The tipping point for aerodynamics is still some way off.

Aerodynamics have become the new electronics, in this respect. Before advent of the spec ECU and spec electronics, MotoGP manufacturers would just keep throwing electronics engineers at their bikes, to come up with better and better ways of controlling vehicle dynamics. The more engineers you threw at the problem, the faster you went.

Now, MotoGP factories are hiring in more and more outside expertise to research aerodynamics, and everything they learn helps them go that much faster. The more they spend, the faster they go. "Exactly," Cecchinelli said. "So, this is a good reason against it."

It is of course true that development tends to be budget led, and so restricting certain technologies just means that money gets spent somewhere else. But the most important thing is that spending it on aerodynamics has a very direct impact on performance, which is not the case for other areas. "Spending the same money on hospitality is not as effective at making bikes go faster as spending in a wind tunnel, to exaggerate a little," Cecchinelli points out.

There are more important reasons to oppose aerodynamics, chief of which is the fact that the turbulence they create make it that much more dangerous for riders following behind. "The other good reason against it is apparently, based on riders comments, that it affects riders riding behind another rider a lot in a way that is unsafe, because it makes braking point unpredictable, and the bike is shaking, front tire pressure becomes unpredictable, and things like this."

We have seen numerous examples of this. Marco Bezzecchi getting caught in the slipstream of Pecco Bagnaia at Silverstone and crashing out. Alex Marquez getting sucked in behind Brad Binder and Luca Marini on the straight and nearly missing San Donato. "With the slipstream in the braking of Turn 1 it's very difficult. Because also the bike starts to shake a lot and it's very difficult to brake," Luca Marini explained.

Aerodynamics are very much a double-edged sword in that respect, and Mugello provides a very good example of the downsides and upsides. The crest at the end of the straight is a notoriously difficult point, the front wheel going light while flat out in sixth gear, just before the riders have to brake for the first turn.

At Mugello, Red Bull KTM's Jack Miller talked us through it. "You slowly sit up there, but you’ve got to use yourself as a wind breaker as well. It’s not as hectic as it used to be, because the bikes are a bit more planted when you go over the top of the hill, especially when you’re on your own, the bike’s more stable so you’re more focused on trying to hit your braking point, rather than jumping, shaking and then trying to hit your braking point. The thing’s a bit calmer. You can eliminate one of the things you need to focus on and just focus on getting your braking point right."

The aerodynamics helps keep the front wheel on the ground over the crest. "It’s a lot more stable," Miller said, That is if you are riding on your own, however. Riding in a group in the race it became a lot trickier. "But also, you get a lot more of a wind shift if somebody passes you there. You feel it. You’re always going to feel the wind terribly if you’re doing 360 km/h and another bike comes past you at the same speed and buffers you out. To say it’s worse or not, I don’t know. But in terms of stability over the jump and coming into turn one, it’s definitely easier."

When I put these two sides to aerodynamics to Corrado Cecchinelli, he points out the flaw in this argument. "In general, things that change the physical ability of a bike are often 'sold' by manufacturers as something that is beneficial for safety as it makes the bike more controllable, or predictable, or stable, or whatever."

That is a bit of logical subterfuge, Cecchinelli argues. "This is a big misconception. It would be true for a road vehicle, if the speed remained the same, but the vehicle capability higher, which would in turn increase the safety margin. On the road, bikes which are better will still go at the same speeds as before. But that is not true at all in racing, because with a higher physical limit, the rider will eventually go faster and so crash faster."

That, Cecchinelli points out, is always the only reason anything is done in racing. The only changes you make to racing motorcycle are done in an attempt to make it lap the track faster. So aerodynamics may make the MotoGP bikes more stable, but racing is always done at the limit, so rider use that extra stability to go faster. "So, even if the bike was easier to control and more predictable, the result would always be crashing at higher speeds. Maybe the number of crashes will be reduced, but their potential danger is increased as they happen at higher speeds. Do riders crash less often? Difficult to say. Do they crash at higher speeds? Definitely." he says.

With many tracks already on the limit in terms of safety due to bike speeds, any additional speed makes the tracks that much more dangerous. "When track runoff areas are borderline to just enough, like is going to happen soon, then you can’t afford to crash at even just 1 km/h more," Cecchinelli says. "Even if the chance of crashing was less, as crashing just once against the barriers would potentially have much worse consequences than crashing more times with more of a safety margin to the closest runoff object. Plus the potential physical consequences of a crash depend on speed even without hitting a barrier, even if you think about just tumbling through the gravel."

When tracks run out of run off due to high speeds, then the dangers of speed vastly outweigh the benefits of added stability. "The main point is track safety: when speeds are approaching the point where runoff areas are no longer enough, there’s no debating anymore on increasing or decreasing the chances of crashing, as we can’t afford even just one crash against the barriers," Cecchinelli insists. "We have to prefer two crashes that end with the rider still a long way from the wall."

Cecchinelli draws parallels with how other safety factors have evolved. "There is no doubt at all that racing with present riding gear on present tracks with Giacomo Agostini’s MV would be by far less dangerous than doing that with any of the current MotoGP bikes, despite there cannot be any doubt that any MotoGP bike is safer than Agostini’s MV! This is very simply because MotoGP bikes are that much faster than old machines. It’s as simple as that," he points out.

Aerodynamics are not the only technology that have helped MotoGP bikes go faster, of course. But most of those are different to aerodynamics in important ways, Cecchinelli is at pains to point out. "Some of the modern technical features that have been introduced to make bikes go faster, like traction control for instance, don’t have any other drawbacks apart from making the bikes go faster, but things like aerodynamics have a number of unwanted side effects like turbulence and braking unpredictability. Those side effects make their 'safety contribution' much more doubtful and debatable to say the least, despite it maybe being true that machines are more stable when you are riding alone on track. But that unfortunately is not the case in racing."

One argument that some manufacturers make is that the aerodynamics lessons learned from MotoGP are already making their way onto road bikes. More and more street machines now also have wings, think of Ducati's Panigale V4, or BMW's S1000RR, or Honda's CBR1000RR-R. A better understanding of aerodynamics is also helping improve comfort on touring bikes too, Ducati claiming that input from MotoGP has helped optimize the Multistrada V4's wind protection.

Cecchinelli doesn't buy that argument either, pointing to other technologies which are banned in MotoGP. "I understand that, but for me it's not a deal breaker, because road bikes have electronic suspension, automatic gearbox, ABS and everything," he says. "But I can also see the arguments against banning them completely in racing. And, to be honest, I think, they are a good representation of the high end level of technology in MotoGP. Like some sort of exoticness in racing."

The fact that MotoGP bikes are immediately identifiable as as such because of their aero packages are one argument in favor of allowing some form of aerodynamics, Cecchinelli acknowledges, but that doesn't mean aero has to continue in its current, extreme form.

"These are all the arguments, the topics in favor. So for me - and again, this is in our proposal, by the way - the way is to reduce them," Cecchinelli says. "The simplest way to achieve the goal of reducing aerodynamics to a lower extent for me, for us, is simply reducing aero surfaces. Which means we have now sort of dimensions template. Just reducing that. And this is our proposal."

This gets around the awkward question of banning aerodynamics altogether. "I mean something that moves in the air is an aerodynamic object," Cecchinelli points out. Technically, a fairing is an aerodynamic device, as is the speed hump on a rider's leathers. Instead of getting bogged down in philosophical arguments, it is better to define a limit on the amount of aerodynamic surface allowed.

In an ideal world, aerodynamics would be policed by setting limits on the downforce produced at a specific speed. But doing that would be both expensive and impractical. "First of all, because you should have your own wind tunnel," Cecchinelli explains." And then, because it is not possible to take all the racing bikes with all of the rider combinations in that specific wind tunnel to make exactly the same test. And then because you should do that at any change."

Each time a factory updates an aerodynamic package, it would need to be retested. And because each rider is allowed their own aero package, tailored to their height and position on the bike, it would mean an immense amount of testing. "For instance, when Ducati brings the wings on the fork, Aprilia brings the wings on the fork, you should go back to the wind tunnel," Cecchinelli says. "This is not practical. But this is in principle what we want to control by an easier way, which is reducing the surfaces. Because the goal is reducing the downforce."

There are some regions not included in the aerodynamics rules, and there is no real need to change that, the Italian explains. "The reason why they are not defined as aero-relevant regions is because they have a limited effect. So for me, if you are talking about putting winglets on the seat, yes we would like it better if they did not put them, but I don't think that is the problem for braking 15 meters later."

That only really affects a small area of the bike, he explains. "The area which is not regulated is what is in the aerodynamic shadow of the rider. So everything behind the rider. But not the spoon [the swingarm spoiler], the spoon is regulated. So there's really a small portion of the bike, which is basically the seat cowl which we didn't regulate on purpose – which we tried, but MSMA opposed to put a rule on that because they say that that is a part that is deeply related with ergonomics, so it must be free because of the rider's seating position and so on."

That is a compromise that Dorna and the FIM are willing to live with, though even there Cecchinelli sees room for intervention. "So we have to leave it in the understanding that, yes, they can do something there. Not a lot because there's a minimum height, so those sort of wings can't be higher than 1250mm. And by the way, in our proposal that height is reduced."

And what of ride-height devices? Would they also be banned? "This is our proposal," Cecchinelli said. "We really hope so." But so far, these are still just proposals and nothing is yet agreed. The manufacturers still have to agree to the new rules, or come up with counterproposals.

Overall, though MotoGP's Director of Technology is optimistic in the upcoming negotiations with the factories involved in MotoGP. "Consider that we are talking about, I don't know, 20 points, I think that, let's say three quarters of them will be accepted as they are, or they will work on them, but I would expect really few of them will be refused altogether. I think maybe we are proposing down-boring, and that becomes downsizing. Maybe we are proposing to narrow the aero by, I don't remember, 50mm and it will be 40mm. I would expect that very few points will be completely rejected."

The final product, however, should remain distinctively and immediately identifiable as a MotoGP machine, an extreme motorcycle pushing the envelope of engineering and performance. They will still look like exotic racing machines. "Yes, and sound like a racing machine," Cecchinelli adds finally.

In the last part of this interview, we will take a more technical look at how MotoGP will be enforcing the use of fossil-free fuels, and the complexities and complications that entails.

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.