That title sounds strangely familiar, I don't quite know why... I am responding to this... N/A | National - MotoGP 2016 Going back to the 1990s, Ducati had a young engineer who was good with chassis, and he was quite well grounded in all the ... folklore and general opinion of the 'experts' of that time, and then he had an accident and ended up in a wheelchair. But he came back to Ducati and kept working for them, and I rather think nobody was game to question him, or tell him to take a different direction, because of the wheelchair... Some aspects of the generally accepted wisdom of the time, had been challenged and proved wrong, like the idea that the ideal or perfect motorbike (fast roadbike or race bike) would have a chassis that was completely stiff and rigid. Experimenting with 500 grand prix bikes had showed that the ideal flex was a bit less than the typical roadbike of that era had, but if you made the thing too stiff, that didn't work either. For one thing, it had no 'feel.' Ducati used a 'trestle' chassis in all their bikes, and it had certain strengths and weaknesses. It was very well understood. Our young engineer wanted to make an entirely different chassis. He wanted to go back to a concept used in the past by others, including the original Vincent Rapides. Phil Irving had designed the engine for that thing, or at least took two cylinders that already existed and stuck then onto a common crank, and made a V twin. Then he wrote Tuning for Speed, and a small number of technical articles for magazines (about 10,ooo ~ 12,ooo) and then he got drafted by Jack Brabham, to design a cylinder head he could drop onto a (basically) production aluminium Buick V8, and go F1 racing. (That's another story...) So the Vincent had a pressed metal contraption, that bolted to the two cylinder heads, and extended forward and held the steering head. Everything then bolted to those parts. You had a triangular cantilever swing arm that was about 30 ~ 40 years ahead of its time, you had two shocks side by side, laid out like a later mono-shock, and you had this little lump of metal that held the whole front end on. And you had a few brackets and bolt holes and all the other bits and pieces bolted to the central assemble that way... Our engineer in the wheelchair at Ducati liked and admired this concept, and had the brainwave that using modern materials and techniques, you could build a much better bike. So he started to design a "frame" that mounted very solidly to the front and rear heads, and held the steering head bearings, and that's about all it did. It weighed about 3 kg or less, and it was about the size of a shoe-box. The problem with this thing is 1) it costs a motza (that's an Italian word, comes from the Catholic church and it's been used by Ferrari for years) and you can make bits thicker or thinner, you can change the orientation of the weave... but the major paths and directions of flex are dictated by the basic geometry of the object. If you have something along the lines of a conventional old fashioned bike frame, think dual full cradle, like a Norton Featherbed, you can make some bits stronger or weaker and you can dictate how much it flexes, and where, and in what plane, and... and the essential design and layout didn't come from the genius pen of any one man, it came from the pedal bicycle and that came from the Hobby Horse and that was just born of idle curiosity... The essential design and layout of a motorcycle we already have. Now if you try and replace the tubular motorbike frame, which came from the safety bicycle, (or two of them) with a high tech carbon fibre shoe-box, even if you can get it to flex by the right amount, you really can't change where and how and in which direction it flexes. At least not properly. And when you try to experiment with it, it takes six weeks and thousands of $ (lira?) worth of work and fabrication from the people who build fighter planes and F1 cars, to get a replacement. Ie, it's a very very slow (and expensive) concept to experiment with and do trial and error testing.