Welcome to Netrider ... Connecting Riders!

Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?
Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.

Ducati 1199 Panigale

Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by mike_dnhm, Oct 10, 2011.

  1. Link

    New ducati: Looks fairly average front on, but its italian, so in production it will probably look fantastic.
    The big thing is it is getting the engine as a structural member, a la motogp bike.

  2. i like the side profile
  3. Unsure about the design at the moment, but the important thing is on the specs sheet:

    195bhp and 176kg in road trim...WET :shock:
  4. Exciting bike to look out for, can't wait to see one in the flesh/carbon
  5. How the hell did they knock 25kgs off.
  6. By using the engine as the frame.
  7. Ah that makes sense. That thing is going to be a weapon. Hope they get this one to turn.
  8. the gp bikes working well at the moment
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Aren't they just about to give Rossi a twin spar aluminium frame though? He can't get any front end feeling because the carbon is too rigid. That's what I heard...
  10. Yep.

    He can't get any feeling, but according to Nicki Hayden and Casey Stoner, the material is not the problem. The problem seems to be the design, or the design concept.

    You can make a box from Aluminium, or carbon. It's still a box. You can do clever things with the layup and direction of the fibres and stuff, that have a significant and predictable and repeatable effect on the way it flexes, but it's still a box. It's never going to flex in the way a boomerang does, or a coil-spring, because the shape and the structure are just different. Nothing you can do with a shoe box is going to make it flex like - or vibrate like a violin. The basic layout of the thing defines the way it moves and flexes.

    If you started with the engine-as-frame idea at about the time Norton were developing the featherbed frame, you might get it to a point today where it could rival a separate chassis. In a manner of speaking we did. The Vincent Black Shadow has a design concept that isn't all that different. But development work and engineering evolution, in racing, has moved on. The Featherbed led to the double cradle, then Bimota gave us the lateral perimeter concept, which Yamaha copied for the FJ11. De Cortanze reinterpreted that in the first beam chassis, which led eventually to the Deltabox. The grand prix bikes made by Yamaha and Honda today are the current iterations and most developed and advanced examples of the deltabox concept. There's been a half century of careful evolution and refinement gone into that concept, of close competitors copying the things that seem to work and abandoning those which don't.

    The engine-as-frame concept is not new, it's been done several times before, but it is an entirely different idea to the deltabox. I honestly don't think you can ever get it to feel like and handle like a deltabox, because the basic shape and layout and structure of the thing is different. If the tyres only gave enough grip for the bikes to lean 40 deg, I don't think it would matter all that much, but with the stress and pressure the chassis has to deal with at 60+ deg of lean, and 230+ hp outputs, the deltabox does seem to be the most effective design.

    Up until the late '80s, there seemed to be no practical reason not to go down the engine-as-frame route, because it seemed that any chassis flex was too much. Old frames flexed all over the shop and they had to be made stiffer, the stiffer the better. Then Yamaha did an experiment. They built a YZR500 frame that was almost solid aluminium, and super stiff and strong. Just to see what happened. Apart from being very heavy, it behaved very well, but offered no feel. The lesson was that you do need a little flex. What we've been doing ever since, is figuring out how much and where and in what directions is optimal. The engine-as-frame idea goes back to the notion that a frame shouldn't flex, or, to the notion that you can build all the flex you need into a little box that connects the steering head to the cylinders. This is true - you can, but you can't engineer the right amount of flex in the right planes and axies that way. A box can only flex like a box.

    Without written rules that include a minimum weight, you might pick up enough from having a much lighter bike that the harder to ride engine-as-frame idea might become competitive again. In superbike, if they can build a clear power to weight advantage, and not have the handling too terrible, they might still have a winner. But in the highest level of racing of all, with the best riders in the world, 60+ deg lean angles and all the other joys of MotoGP - rocket science electronics and what not - I think they'll struggle to compete unless they find another remarkable rider, or they change to a chassis design that seems to suit most riders better.

    I wonder why they don't create a twin-spar or deltabox type frame from carbon fibre. That would seem like the logical thing to me.
    • Like Like x 8
  11. Fugly
    • Like Like x 1
  12. I still laugh at the fact the test rider is wearing a Stoner replica helmet even though he now rides for Honda and Val is at Duc.
    Even the Ducati staff have no faith
  13. New engine video with subtitles.

    Your move, Japan...

  14. I guess that means that the Panigale will also be strange to ride with little feedback as the engine won't flex either. I would expect some mixed reviews then as some journos will hate it because it is so strange feeling.
  15. I would think that most people wouldn't be able to push the bike to that level where it is an issue though...
  16. Yep I'd agree with that but not sure if this just quickly followed on from the gp concept when they thought it was going to be competitive or was always on the cards.

    I think the trouble is that even though most wont be able to use it to the full extent they still want to buy the idea that they have the best/fastest/winning bike out there and at the moment this isn't doing it.

    Still, I'm a realist and would be happy to have a few of these at my disposal.
  17. Well the good thing about road bikes is there is no minimum weight like motogp, so having the chassis like this will give real weight saving results, which i think people will notice, definitely a lot more than chassis flex and debatable front end feel.
  18. Then there's the small matter of this being the Twin cylinder Superbike class model, with little to do with the four cylinder Desmosedici GP bike and it's frightfully expensive roadgoing version.

    If anything, wait and see how it goes in the SBK championship.

    Shaft and belt drives, single sided swingarms, telelever suspension and such aren't to be seen in GP, but are on road bikes and to good effect given the variety of uses.

    I seriously doubt there'll be any discernable issue on the Panigale that would not be way overshadowed by the weight saving and the stunning new engine, plus the tyres, suspension and so on are well different to a GP bike.

    Part of the issue with the GP bike is said to be that they have to use the same tyres now, which are designed to suit the twin spar chassis bikes, and the Ducati design is the odd one out. Also, they're not saying the design can't work, but rather they need to get the bike competitive more quickly, and with the cards they're dealt. Part of the problem is that developing something different within the rules throws another spanner in the works on top of simply needing time they really haven't got to work out how to get it sorted.
  19. This^^^ Within the current rules, there is only enough testing time allowed for refinement of existing tech. Not developement of new stuff. Pretty sad really when the supposed "top level" of the sport can't compete developement wise with street bikes that you and I can buy straight off the showroom floor:(