MotoGP: Factory team engineers speak out on development

Season after season, the engineers of the racing departments of the various factories involved in MotoGP strive to develop and advance their motorcycles despite technical regulations that are becoming increasingly restrictive. We talked to the lead engineers of each brand, all talented technicians in charge of their respective MotoGP projects, and asked them the same five questions regarding where they think the development direction of MotoGP bikes is currently headed. The six leaders we asked—Kouichi Tsuji (Yamaha), Tetsuhiro Kuwata (HRC/Honda), Gigi Dall'Igna (Ducati), Ken Kawauchi (Suzuki), Romano Albesiano (Aprilia) and Sebastian Risse (KTM)—often gave interesting and sometimes conflicting answers to our questions.

Kouichi Tsuji (Yamaha): Engineers are still trying to find a benefit of aerodynamics. And when they get one, they work to increase it. That's what happened last year with the wings. Today, research continues with a simple goal: to have less drag and more maneuverability.

Tetsuhiro Kuwata (Honda): With less downforce, our performance is affected. Everyone is now thinking about solutions to regain that lost aerodynamic support. It is difficult without adding winglets, but as engineers we are here to find solutions. We need challenges, and this a big one.

Gigi Dall'Igna (Ducati): Without wings, it's not easy. It will be impossible for us to regain the same aerodynamic load. We are now looking to get back the balance we had, but actually our bike is clearly more unstable. We're trying to find the right compromise. We will most certainly begin the season with our 2016 fairing without winglets and the model we are testing since Sepang.

Ken Kawauchi (Suzuki): We all know what the winglets brought to the level of aerodynamic support and we are all now looking for ways to create the lost downforce in a different way. Obviously, it will be very difficult to recreate what the wings provided, but we must work to get the most out of what the regulation allows us to do. As for the agility and the maneuverability of the bike, the disappearance of the winglets hasn't transformed the behavior of our Suzuki.

Romano Albesiano (Aprilia): Much has been said about these winglets. Obviously, no one can deny the gain they brought in terms of stability. We were, moreover, in favor of maintaining them. Nevertheless, I think their effectiveness has been exaggerated. The proof, when Aleix (Espargaro) tried our bike in Valencia without fins, he immediately made very good times. Today, some manufacturers are trying to find downforce with new designs of fairings, others do not make their priority in this field...

Sebastian Risse (KTM): On our side, we have never used these wings. We started to study the subject, but having quickly learned that they would be banned, we did not go any further. I am curious to see what our opponents will develop to compensate for the loss of downforce. Everyone seems to have ideas, but who will take the risk of attacking the championship with a revolutionary fairing without knowing how it will work on this or that circuit? No one can work "step by step", and with only one evolution permitted during the season, one does not have right to the error.

Kouichi Tsuji: Power remains a perpetual quest. However, we must be able to use it and we are working to maintain the best possible character as it helps to run the bike. For us, the engine is a component of the chassis.

Tetsuhiro Kuwata: Even if it does not make it easier, engine development is the easiest to quantify. Obviously, we want to get as much power as possible. A powerful engine is the pledge to accelerate faster and go faster in straight lines. This is one of the best ways to go faster on a circuit lap. Obviously, this power must be usable, and that is why we use it to manage it properly with electronics. The power must also not defeat the chassis. That is the balance we are looking for today.

Gigi Dall'Igna: We never stop working to develop our engine. Our goal today is to improve its ease of use while retaining the power that makes its strength.

Ken Kawauchi: Since last year, we have had a good recovery at low revs. Our engine is usable, easy to use, and this is a characteristic that we obviously want to keep. At the same time, we are looking to improve power at mid and high speeds. All this is balanced, because increasing the power at lower rpm would cause too much sliding and would be too demanding for the traction control, which we don't want. The connection between power at low and medium rpm is very important.

Romano Albesiano: We are trying to improve the torque curve to get a fuller engine. In any case, we know very well that power is essential when we find ourselves fighting with another rider. The faster you go in a straight line, the better.

Sebastian Risse: Power is there. In terms of its use, we had a good feedback from the various riders who tried the bike last year. Today we have two riders who have known only the Yamaha since they race in MotoGP. The M1 has the reputation of having a very good power curve, being easy to use. They now have to get used to a V4 whose characteristics are different. And on our side, we must continue to make progress. Much work has been done since November and Pol and Bradley's first return on the connection with the gas handle and the torque curve. We're not too bad…

Kouichi Tsuji: From a performance point of view, there are no major improvements to be expected. On the other hand, we must be able to do better in terms of safety.

Tetsuhiro Kuwata: We are not yet 100 per cent. In any case, even though we were ninety-nine per cent, we need keep working to do better.

Gigi Dall'Igna: We can't develop further. We are all at the same level today.

Ken Kawauchi: It's an endless story. I would say that for now we use it at 70 or 80%. We easily have a 20% margin of progression.

Romano Albesiano: For me, there is still room for progress. We are far from knowing all the possibilities of this software: There are thousands of parameters to consider. In my opinion, it will take at least five years to go through it.

Sebastian Risse: This software is a big toolbox. There are not necessarily all those we would have chosen, and there are others that are useless, others that are missing, but everyone has the same thing. So what we have to do is optimize the parameters available and put in place the right procedures to avoid errors. Even if the software is unique, this is quite complex; perhaps even more so than if each one used his own software. Anyway, in the end, it's the best that do the best.

Kouichi Tsuji: Adapting a motorcycle to tires is an endless process since the objective of development is to optimize the operation and performance of these tires on the various circuits.

Tetsuhiro Kuwata: This is by far the last of our problems. I think that today everyone has assimilated the change of manufacturer. In any case the riders do not complain anymore about the behavior of the motorcycle in relation to the tires.

Gigi Dall'Igna: We are always looking for progress in all areas. Today we are in a satisfactory situation even though the ban on the winglets forces us to seek a new equilibrium because of a more unstable machine.

Ken Kawauchi: The tire brand change did not really affect us. Since our return to MotoGP, we have always had a high performance motorcycle in terms of the corner speed, but a little less at the end of the turn. We have made progress on the subject but it has not really been linked to the change of tires.

Romano Albesiano: We found a good balance that is not very different from the base of adjustments that we used before. This change of tires is ultimately more a matter of rider feeling than of motorcycle settings.

Sebastian Risse: We have always worked with Michelin. So we did not have to adapt to a new manufacturer, our motorcycle was developed with these tires. Last year, we kept close contact with Michelin to find out where they were going, and in which direction we needed to work. It was not always easy to go into testing with tires that were not necessarily those that were going to be used during the GP. But overall we are happy with the situation in which we find ourselves.

Kouichi Tsuji: There is still a lot to do with this technical regulation. Moreover, limitations are sometimes synonymous with inventions. In any case, we are satisfied with the current regulation.

Tetsuhiro Kuwata: Restrictions are always a challenge for an engineer. It is up to us to find solutions to deal with the limits imposed on us. It is an interesting exercise. Obviously, we would like more freedom to go further, but we must be realistic and think about the costs. This type of regulation also promotes the commitment of new manufacturers, it is also positive.

Gigi Dall'Igna: We still have room to develop. Although the regulations are restrictive, imagination and creativity remain important in this sport. I hope, however, that there will not be too many new bans in the future, such as today's aerodynamic appendages. Anyway, it's good to be able to develop without resorting to excessive operating budgets at the level of race services.

Ken Kawauchi: As an engineer, I would like to see the regulations, particularly with respect to the development freeze, relaxed during the season. Even if it must be acknowledged that this makes it possible to control budgets, it does not help the work of engineers who can no longer develop the engine after the first race. However, we must continue to work to be ready at the end of the season, and it is not easy. I'd also like to have more test days to help us get to the bottom of the best, to work on ABS ... But I'm talking here as an engineer, not as a team manager.

Romano Albesiano: We saw it with this story of aerodynamic appendages. Engineers never appreciate the prohibitions of new technical solutions. Nevertheless, regulation must be a compromise between cost control and freedom to explore new avenues. I think the current framework is not so bad. Even if there are restrictions, there is room for innovation.

Sebastian Risse: We still have quite a lot of freedom. In the end the job remains the same: we must study the rules and define the limits to see how far one can go. I do not think it damages the creativity of engineers. These imposed regulations are nothing more than constraints, that's all.