The case centres around a winglet on the bottom of this Ducati, at the front of the back tyre, which has been trialled by factory driver Danilo Petrucci and then utilized by Petrucci, his victorious team-mate Andrea Dovizioso and Pramac’s Jack Miller in the Losail race.

Ducati has defended the part’s legality for a method of heating the tyre, but the protesting teams have plenty of reasons to assert that the piece creates downforce – that could make it illegal under the principles created to control the proliferation of winglets lately.

The key driving force of this complaint was Massimo Riyola, newly named as Aprilia’s racing CEO and a man with over twenty decades of experience from the Formula 1 paddock; he functioned for Minardi and before landing at .

At the beginning of March, some days before the beginning of the season, MotoGP technical manager Danny Aldridge delivered an email to the teams covering the use of add-ons like the main one Ducati conducted in Qatar.

In the previous version of the regulations it was clear that such a deflector might be used in wet races, even as its main function was to evacuate water from round the tyre in order to make sure driver safety.

The new rules add-on opened the doorway to its use in dry races, even after Ducati cautioned that in that case this kind of piece can be utilized to cool the back tyre.

In the opinion of one different manufacturers (Yamaha decided to remain from this, because it used an identical apparatus from the wet race in Valencia last year) it is more than clear that the winglet comes with an advantage.

Valentino Rossi, Yamaha Factory Racing in Valencia

, Yamaha Factory Racing running the winglet at Valencia

Photo by: Gold and Goose / LAT Images

These issues were voiced to Race Direction with the support of a extensive technical document prepared by Rivola, which strongly emphasised the downforce created by Ducati’s part.

“A few weeks ago, Ducati went to the technical manager with an appendix to the back swingarm and a cover to the front tyre,” explained Suzuki team director Davide Brivio.

“It contended that its main function was to diminish the temperature of the back tyre.

“The technical manager gave his approbation and put several rules for the teams March 4”

Before filing a formal complaint, according to the routine (which means after the beginning of the race),” Riviola and Brivio touch base with Ducati’s general manager Gigi Dall’Igna to tell him that at the event that one of his bicycles conducted the deflector, they were going to submit a demonstration.

And so they achieved it fully mindful that the ambiguity of the regulations could make the stewards dismiss the complaint in first case, and convinced that case will be decided by the allure of their motorcycle racing’s governing body the FIM – which is what will indeed happen.

“Ducati supplied the rushing bicycles of its own riders with brand new appendixes, which triggered us to complain,” Brivio added. “We did it because we hed to describe the situation once and for all.”

They have been uncertain about Ducati’s insistence that the chief function of the deflector was to get tyre cooling because track temperature didn’t reach 25°C at Qatar therefore the major challenge was to sufficiently heat the tyres as opposed to to keep them cool.

And considering that, only as in f 1, minimising surplus weight is critical to a MotoGP bike, they are also convinced that the part has to have a significant enough performance benefit to be worth the excess burden it adds.

A verdict from the FIM is expected within days.

Jack Miller, Pramac Racing

Photo by: Gold and Goose / LAT Images