Honda, Aprilia, Suzuki and KTM putting a complaint against Ducati over the legality of this winglet, which the Italian manufacturer connected with the swing arm of its own bike, claiming it can be utilized to cool down the rear tyre.
Ducati’s rivals believe the primary purpose of the winglet is to create additional downforce.
Earlier this year, MotoGP technical director Danny Aldridge delivered an email to all teams, opening the door for such add-ons to be used in races that were dry, as previously such a deflector could only be used from the wet to disperse water from around the tyre.
Motorsport.com asked ex-Formula 1 engineers to reevaluate the Ducati winglet and so they believe there is no doubt the winglet creates aerodynamic loading.
To start with, because any part that’s subjected the manner this you is generates, and it might also help reduce the bicycle’s haul.
“You have to bear in mind and the effect it creates has an immediate impact on a corner end. Since it’s connected to the swing arm, the airflow must not be passing though any other part of the motorcycle.
“The issue is that the means by which the rules are written, you open up a Pandora’s box because there may be no particular way to prohibit it”
Cuquerella, now chief engineer of the Mahindra Formula ETEAM, included:”The FIM now faces the necessity to describe the circumstance. It appears obvious that Ducati is ahead of the others in terms of aerodynamics, also they were quite smart in the way they interpreted a void from rules”
Even a McLaren F1 team-employed aero expert who chose to remain anonymous agreed with Cuquerella’s view.
“It is obvious that the system creates downforce.
“In F1, aero-dynamics experienced a significant iNFLuence on the functioning of the cars for the last 30 decades. In motorcycling, the impact is smaller, therefore it is normal that FIM isn’t used to dealing with this particular sort of cheekiness,” said Cuquerella.
“But in F1 there’ve been cases where a loop hole in regulations allowed a intelligent team to interpret the rules in a way that it was able to use something that it had been banned. We can not forget Brawn GP’s double diffuser and Red Bull’s blown diffuser.”
Last summer, the Grand Prix commission approved a rule – voted against by Ducati – that aimed to stop the teams’ from investment in aero-dynamics development, as a way to slow down the escalating costs related to it.
Nevertheless, the simple fact that Ducati’s winglet has been closely connected with the swing arm and isn’t recognised by regulations as part of the bike’s aero human body, opened the door for its German engineers to introduce the device without breaking down the rules.
Cuquerella reasoned:”After Ducati told MotoGP technical director Danny Aldridge that the major role of the device had not been to direct water away from the wheel except to cool the rear tyre down, they were able to make it approved for dry races.
“The FIM might have to rewrite the technical regulations, because what’s obvious is the fact that it won’t be able to take the bicycles, one by one, and set them in a wind tunnel to measure the amount of downforce that each part creates.
“You can not prohibit parts that generate downforce if you can’t prove that they are generating it. What you are able to do is define some dimensions in rules”
Ducati remains convinced that these devices is within the regulations and says it would not have installed it had it had any doubts regarding its legality.
“We’re calm because we know that we have followed the technical regulations,” sporting director Paolo Ciabatti told Motorsport.com at Qatar.
“There is an email that was distributed on the list of teams on March 2, which obviously specified how to use this type of deflector on the trunk of the motorcycle.
“When we had believed that this element could pose a risk of punishment, then we’d not have run with it. However, it is not like that”