Cycle News

VOL. 53 ISSUE 8 FEBRUARY 28, 2017 P113 sandwiching vanes presum- ably angled to return at least a modicum of the downforce that they were obliged to give away, by deleting their large droopy soup-trays of last year. Suzuki and Aprilia were not far behind, each positioning their own down-force ducts rather higher, on the handlebar shields. Slitty intakes, staggered outlets, and a whole new styling ele- ment. And this last aspect might be the most important, consider- ing that back when wings first started to become more widely used a season and a bit ago, many riders were dubious about what effect they actually had. Can these concealed aerody- namic add-ons be that much different? The rules are clear. Anything that sticks out of the fairing is now out of the question. Putting the wings inside ducts solves that, while it is also possible that ducting the airflow might add to their efficacy. Nor need they have been shortened, because rules on the overall width of fair- ings remain as before. Six-hundred millimeters to be precise. And handlebars can be no narrower than 450mm across, giving little room to play with. The more you look at them, the more restrictive the regs ap- pear. It is no wonder that racing fairings look more or less the same. This is not because the traditional "dolphin" design is the best there can be, but because every dimension is defined and limited. Windscreens can be no wider than 300mm. The fairing nose can project no further forward than 150mm beyond a vertical line from the front wheel spindle. No bodywork may extend be- yond the rear wheel. Front mudguard dimensions likewise draw the strictest pa- rameters. The whole of the front wheel rim must be visible, save where it is necessarily obscured by forks, mudguard mounting struts and braking appendages. The front of the guard can ex- tend only to 45 degrees ahead of the spindle; the rear can be level with it. Intriguingly, "removable air intakes" are excepted from these rules, seeming to give design- ers the freedom to slam some disguised protruding wings back on. But at the same time the Technical Director has the final say, and is unlikely to let anyone get away with it. Given the modern refinements triggered by the decision to ban Ducati's winglets, these basic rules date back to the second decade of world championship racing, which began in 1949. They were formulated in re- sponse to a growing fashion for experiments that included the so-called "proboscis" Norton, with an inelegant lengthy snoot, and the fully enclosed "kneeler" from the same firm, and culmi- nated in a growing number of fully enclosing "dustbin" fairings of highly variable quality and efficacy. The best, like Moto- Guzzi's, were scientifically devel- oped in wind tunnels. The worst were flimsy and scary. Their banning back then was a far bigger backward step for motorcycle aerodynamics than this year's banning of wings, stopping worthwhile aerodynam- ic improvements on the track, and as a result also on the road, where fashion is a more effective marketing tool than engineer- ing, and sporting riders were persuaded that what they really wanted was bikes that looked like grand prix racers. Probably didn't take much per- suading, to be fair. The same considerations apply today, which is why the banning of wings, and the resultant new-generation of double-skinned ducted fairings, is likely to lead to the same thing on sporting street bikes sooner rather than later. And if the ducting does actu- ally work, given that said sport bikes can all too easily reach speeds where aerodynamics become a factor (although not usually within the law), then the banning of wings and their reap- pearance out of sight will not have been—if you'll pardon the pun—in vane. CN

• Cover