Monster 20th Anniversary

[PhilB]

Phil, it is all but over for the full trellis frame.  The Hyper gets will be updated soon.  It will be based on the current Multistrada's frame.  The 848 will be phased out after that and will be a Panigale no-frame bike.  The SF will then be done or will evolve into a Panigale based bike.  Within 2-3 years, maybe less, there will be no full trellis frame bike in Ducati's line-up.

The current MultiStrada has a trellis frame.  So if the new HyperMotard is based on it, then it will too.  The 848 is part of the full sportbike line, and I agree it will go with the frameless monocoque.  The StreetFighter may or may not switch over; I think it won't.  I think it will remain part of the group of trellis-framed 4V liquid-cooled bikes that also includes the MultiStrada and the Diavel.  The Diavel is not going to become a frameless monocoque, and neither is the Monster (funny you didn't mention that line at all, you know, the one this board is dedicated to?)

So to sum up -- the full sportbikes are going to the frameless monocoque, and *maybe* the StreetFighter, and everything else is sticking with the trellis for the foreseeable future.

I'm very curious to know if the panigale frame is based on the failed moto GP design. A recent interview with Nicky Haden in which he says he will be using a new frame based on Valentinos aluminum version, which is nothing like the previous carbon fiber box design.
 Was the current box design of the panigale ok'd for production too early before the MotoGP version was race proven?
 What I'm getting at is that I hate to see the proven and beautiful trellis frames disappear for a technology that doesn't work. I imagine there are some very heated meetings happening in the Ducati corse dept.

The MotoGP design was not a complete failure.  They did not get it developed enough to win the races, but it was improved throughout the program, and was within a second or so of the leaders.  It might also be noted that the CF monocoque was not the bike's only problem -- switching to a conventional aluminum twinspar has not improved their results much if any.

The Panigale frame is the same idea, but is executed in aluminum rather than CF, so it is a different design.  A big part of the point of the MotoGP program was to test the frameless monocoque idea as a prototype, under the harshest conditions, to learn enough about it to be able to design a production version that would be competitive as soon as possible.  Since WSB requires the bikes to be production-based, they couldn't start there with the new frame(less) design.  They took what they learned from the MotoGP effort (good and bad) and applied it to the production design, which early indications show will be competitive in WSB.

The trellis frames, meanwhile, had already reached the limts of the design, so sticking with those for bikes at that leel of performance was already known to be a losing proposition.  They HAD to change, so calling it a choice between the trellis frame and the monocoque is false.  It wa a choice between the frameless monocoque, or a (now) traditional aluminum twinspar, or developing something else new.  At MotoGP, or even WSB, levels, the trellis was already dead.

PhilB

[Raux]

The MTS, Diavel, Monster, new HM are all partial trellis, partial cast frames

The SF and 848 are full trellis with trellis subframes.

difference is the partials need the cast part to be actual frames
the full trellis can have their subframes removed and still roll.

the SBK are 'frameless'

the SF will either go frameless or partial cast (and yes, that is a prediction I'll stand behind)


Also, they did try the AL monoque that the Panigale is using in GP, and it also did not work well.

The Trellis frames were not the problem in WSBK, it was the motor. A new motor in the trellis probably would have stomped in WSBK.
This year the Superstock did win some, but did not win the championship. as did the old tired trellis in WSBK.

[Triple J]

Also, they did try the AL monoque that the Panigale is using in GP, and it also did not work well.

True, but you can't discount the tires. It may have worked very well if they didn't have to run the super stiff Bridgestones in GP.

I think WSBK will prove if the current frameless design is good, as the spec. WSBK tires seem to work with about anything.

[PhilB]

The MTS, Diavel, Monster, new HM are all partial trellis, partial cast frames

The SF and 848 are full trellis with trellis subframes.

difference is the partials need the cast part to be actual frames
the full trellis can have their subframes removed and still roll.

the SBK are 'frameless'

the SF will either go frameless or partial cast (and yes, that is a prediction I'll stand behind)


Also, they did try the AL monoque that the Panigale is using in GP, and it also did not work well.

The Trellis frames were not the problem in WSBK, it was the motor. A new motor in the trellis probably would have stomped in WSBK.
This year the Superstock did win some, but did not win the championship. as did the old tired trellis in WSBK.

I'll agree with all of this regarding the production bike line.

However, they did not try the aluminum monocoque in MotoGP.  What they did try for a bit was to have some aluminum inserts cast into the CF monocoque, and that did not solve the problems.  The real root cause problems in MotoGP are not known, but a lot of very knowledgable people think the 90º vee angle of the engine had a lot to do with it, and of course the spec tire.

In WSB, the trellis frames were not the problem *yet*, but they had developed it as far as they could, and if they didn't come up with something else soon, the frame was going to become a problem.  If the motor had been the only problem, they could have designed the SuperSqualo and easily just put it in a trellis frame -- that's the biggest advantage of the trellis; it's easy to modify.  That's why Ducati has used them historically.

PhilB

[Raux]

I wrote a long response but here's the issue back to the 20th Anniversary.

The true full trellis will go the way of the dodo. I could see it come back for the next SportClassic redo. and that's it.

[Raux]

... but a lot of very knowledgable people think the 90º vee angle of the engine had a lot to do with it,

So they do the same for the Panigale?

The 1199, was committed to before they acknowledged the failure of the frameless 90deg vee setup

As far as AL, i'm pretty certain they had a complete AL monoque at one point.

[PhilB]

I wrote a long response but here's the issue back to the 20th Anniversary.

The true full trellis will go the way of the dodo. I could see it come back for the next SportClassic redo. and that's it.

If by "true full trellis" you mean a one-piece trellis frame that runs from the steering head to the taillight, then yes, it already has become essentially extinct in the current line.  I think only the 848 still has that, and we all agree it will most likely follow the Panigale's lead.

But a partial trellis, as currently practiced on the rest of the line, won't go away soon.

So they do the same for the Panigale?

The 1199, was committed to before they acknowledged the failure of the frameless 90deg vee setup

As far as AL, i'm pretty certain they had a complete AL monoque at one point.

The 90º V-twin is a trademark, and that has worked fine for them.  The MotoGP engine was/is a 90º V-four, so it is a different design than the Panigale.

And the 1199 engine was committed to before they gave up on the frameless design in MotoGP, so they were pretty much stuck with that, for better or worse, but those two are not related.  The 1199's frame(less) design was in the works, but if they had decided that the monocoque really was a failed design (which they have not ever "admitted"), they could easily have made a trellis frame for it -- again, that's one of the big advantages of the trellis; it's easy to design, build, and modify.  But they did not; they *chose* to move forward with the monocoque on the Panigale, using what they learned in MotoGP, and further develop it in WSB now that they have a production version to race there.  So no, they are not just using it in the Panigale because they were stuck with the commitment to it; they are using it because they think it is the best way forward for the bike and for the brand.

And if they did use an aluminum monocoque in MotoGP, it must have flashed by for one or two races only and no effort to develop that.  But I really don't think it was done at all.  If you have any evidence for it, I'd be interested to see it.

PhilB

[Raux]

http://www.ducatinewstoday.com/2011/09/check-out-the-aluminum-frame-on-rossis-ducati/

[PhilB]

http://www.ducatinewstoday.com/2011/09/check-out-the-aluminum-frame-on-rossis-ducati/

OK, it does look like they gave it a brief try, but didn't do any more than that.  I think they gave up on the monocoque in MotoGP too soon, and instead should have pushed hard for the end to the spec tire rule.

PhilB

[Raux]

should have pushed hard for the end to the spec tire rule.

PhilB

 

[Pedro-bot]

For those that want a good read on what ails Ducati's MotoGP efforts, here you go.

http://www.motomatters.com/analysis/2011/08/08/the_trouble_with_the_ducati_desmosedici_.html


For those who would rather skip reading the entire article;
here's my take-away on the crux of the problem.

[The much bigger problem, in my view, is the layout of the engine. It is physically large, the 90° L4 layout making the engine long, and placing the cylinder banks in awkward locations when packaging a racing motorcycle. The size and shape of the engine make compromises on layout inevitable, and precisely these compromises are what are preventing the Ducati from generating the necessary load in the ultra-stiff front Bridgestone tire, and leaving the front end of the bike feeling vague. With no confidence in the front end, neither Valentino Rossi nor Nicky Hayden - nor indeed any of the satellite Ducati riders - can push the bike to the extent needed to be competitive.

Abandoning the L would be the biggest step Ducati could make towards becoming competitive again. It would open up avenues which the current layout makes it impossible to explore. The weight distribution would be much more flexible, giving Rossi, Burgess and co. more options to explore. A more compact V or even an inline 4 layout could turn around Ducati's prospects.

/quote]

[Raux]

ooo ooo

Ducati makes in I4 and then builds a parallel twin and mono out of it 

[junior varsity]

how about just rotate the V so its guzzi style

[Pedro-bot]

how about just rotate the V so its guzzi style

Because then it would be a guzzi.
 

[junior varsity]

Fine, rotate it to the guzzi position, then turn 180 degrees so the weight is lower. (screw cornering clearance)