The FIM is taking further steps to contain the cost of aerodynamics. The banning of winglets decided earlier this year was made on two grounds: removing the danger of being struck by a protruding wing, and reducing the potentially astronomical cost of an aerodynamic war beginning.

Banning winglets would prevent the first issue from being a problem, but would do nothing to address the second point. Indeed, with the aerodynamics cat well and truly out of the bag, the factories have already hinted that their focus would switch to fairing design.

The Grand Prix Commission have moved to stop that war starting before it begins. From 2017, factories will have to homologate fairing and front mudgard designs, with only one upgrade to each allowed per season.

The idea behind it is to allow factories to continue to develop aerodynamics, but to limit the amount of time and money spent in search of wheelie prevention.

The rules do leave one loophole open, however. The aerodynamic homologation rules apply to each rider separately. In theory, each rider on a Yamaha, Honda, or Ducati could start with a different fairing, the results of which could be assessed by the factory to help develop the next homologated version of the fairing for use in mid-season.

Theoretically, this could mean that Ducati could start the season with 8 different fairing designs, one for each of the different bikes on the grid. They could then take this data and improve the fairing design for each individual Ducati rider, supplying 8 different upgrades.

This would of course be prohibitively expensive, but there is a chance that some factories (especially Ducati, who are convinced of the benefits of aerodynamics) could phase development, providing early updated versions of fairings to satellite teams, to assess performance before rolling them out to the factory teams.

The allowance of an aerodynamics package per rider also recognizes the different needs of riders. For example, Dani Pedrosa has abandoned wings altogether this season, while Marc Marquez has pushed for ever larger wings.

This new rule would allow the two riders to run different fairings with different aerodynamic characteristics.

Airbags in Leathers

The Grand Prix Commission also introduced a rule making airbags in rider leathers compulsory from the 2018 season. This has been made possible by the main manufacturers of airbags, Alpinestars and Dainese, agreeing to license their technology to other manufacturers.

That means more leather manufacturers will be able to use airbags without having to develop the complex electronics and sensor systems which are required for the airbags to trigger correctly.

Moto2 Electronics

The final announcement of interest in the minutes of the GPC meeting is the putting out to tender for a spec-electronics system in Moto2. With the contract to supply engines to Moto2 coming up for renewal at the start of 2019, this is opening new opportunities for engine suppliers.

The change of engine suppliers also allows Dorna and IRTA to get a tighter grip on the electronics. One of the constant problems which Moto2 has faced has been the fact that the HRC kit ECU has been so easy to hack, mainly because the kits is in widespread use in 600cc racing series around the world, and a lot of people have had an opportunity to crack the system and change the parameters.

That has been made more difficult in recent years, with a more secure upgrade introduced at the beginning of last season. Despite that, there are paddock rumors that the new system has also been cracked, and that teams are running the Moto2 engines beyond the supposed limits set by the HRC ECU.

Having a bespoke spec-system should prevent that. Having control over the Moto2 ECU software should allow Dorna and IRTA to clamp down more effectively on cheating in Moto2.

However, the call for tender for the new spec-ECU reveals that Dorna expect electronics to become more sophisticated in Moto2. The system will be required to manage two injectors per cylinder for up to four cylinders, allow ride-by-wire, and supply various engine and chassis strategies.

The named requirements include gearshift management (i.e. quickshifter management), traction control, wheelie control, launch control, engine braking and torque maps.

The change to a more sophisticated electronics package should make the transition from Moto2 to MotoGP a little easier. At the moment, the electronics in Moto3 are far more sophisticated than Moto2, meaning riders go backwards before advancing on to the (even with spec-software) much more complex strategies of MotoGP.

The call for a more complex spec-ECU and software package should provide a better middle ground between Moto3 and MotoGP.

Source: FIM; Photo: © 2016 Scott Jones / Photo.GP – All Rights Reserved

This article was originally published on MotoMatters, and is republished here on Asphalt & Rubber with permission by the author.

  • Keith

    Using cost as an excuse regarding aerodynamics is the biggest crock of $&@! yet. What hard evidence did they have for that? Hard whining, more like it, and we all know by who. Spineless weasels…

  • MrDefo

    Interesting moves, I think the decision about aerodynamics might be the best possible choice out of them all. I foresee a lot of questionable rule bending, for sure. Definitely love the compulsory airbag choice. If anything that’s going to help it trickle down to us regular folks.

  • spamtasticus

    at what point does a crease become a wing?

  • spamtasticus

    i predict flat windshields

  • Alam R

    Aero was the death of F1 and could potentially destroy the sport so I am all for it. I had hoped that the limit to the Aero would have allowed a pair of wings of a determined size permissible to all teams. In fact having an open IP on wings (not sure how to police this) within the parameters set would have been best. Meaning all teams could access each others wing designs.

    However I think stopping this from turning into an aero competition would be costly and not add anything to the show. I still like the fact the riders are the biggest influence on the performance on the bike.

    Air bags – again I am all for it and was hugely disappointed with the legal kerfuffle between dainese and Alpinestars. A monopoly of theis technology would have been a bad thing.
    I personally have invested in the Dainese air-bag suit for the track and will be buying a misano leather jacket for the street. Its the future and I like to protect myself. So good news all around.

    On the matter of moto2 electronics… I am against this somewhat. I love the fact that this series is close and largely without rider aids.
    A closed spec package which provides basica traction, wheelie control and quickshifting up and down would be ok as long as its the same for everyone and policed.

  • TCWB

    NOOO!!! DON’T MESS w/ Moto2!! No electronics!! There’s already too much of a gap!! :(

  • 9fingers

    This proves Da’ll Igna’s point, that the “safety” argument was just BS. Same for Nakamoto’s rhetoric.
    Whenever they want to ban something and in lack of cogent arguments, they abuse the safety card. Just like they did with the change to 800cc…

  • jake woods

    Keith, I cant say I agree with you.

    Banning aero has always been about cost rather than safety. Aero is a never ending quest to see who can spend the most on minimal improvement. Aero has killed f1, and many other race series.

    I much prefer a more standardized race series, that provides exciting racing at the expense of exotic engineering. I want privateers to compete, rather than having zero hope to finish top 5, let alone top 10.