Yes please Mr @Tommaso - why was the engine moved back, and then moved forward again on the 1x98 models? My guess is that it was to allow the front wheel to come further back with reduced fork offset for race bikes, and possibly to try and get the rear axle further back.
I feel like I'm back to school, under exam! I'm not a designer nor an engineer. My replies may very well be flawed as I offer them as recollections from almost 15 years ago. The Terblanche fundamental, underlying, fil rouge, in all his concepts, was always balance. Race bikes before and after Terblanche privilege front wheel predominance which, in turn, delivers front solidity and in turn accuracy to the expense of turning speed. To regain some turning speed, this philosophy, requires for reduced front fork offset. In short, this philosophy, engages 2 contrasting concepts (short rake with high front load) to deliver a compromise. Longer wheelbase (longer fork offset) also offers stability, usually in straight, not in turns. This arrangement sacrifices turning speed because of axle length, not because of front load. In other words, turning speed is not reduced by load but by geometry. And Terblanche always held that you cannot fix bad geometry with load/rake. You have to design a bike that is good in its DNA: its chassis geometry. Terblanche, therefore, sought even weight distribution which is, in principle, the best way to let the chassis negotiate forces both under acceleration and breaking. To restore the 998 in turn solidity and accuracy and regain turn speed, he did not touch rake/load, as others did, but rather worked on the rear suspension geometry which became free of being slave to the front wheel predominance. In non Terblanche set ups, the rear suspensions would be tuned after setting the front assembly. Not so with the 999 where you benefit more by balancing the whole chassis, staring from the rear. In fact, any professional racer can confirm that the 999 rear assembly is not as critically progressive as the 998 and offers way morer rigour, balance and linear geometry. The draw back of this balanced setup is that to be fast you have to be smooth and you cannot rely on entry point corrections under stressed or wavering dynamics. You need to put the machine in perfect balance with its own geometry *before* you initiate turn. Any correction during the transition will spoil the balance & exit speed. His approach was opposite to what everyone was doing at the time. And, from what I understand, also from today's approach. 999 race results vs 998 race results should determine which engineering approach is best but, in real life racing teams, rider style receives way more emphasis and attention than the laws of physics applied to motorcycle engineering. Did I earn a pint, next time that I'll be in London? PS: I love the 998 passionately and irrationally, but I'm not biased.
I remember that London pubs were mostly snooty but I remember a few good ones. In fact I remember a very nice one near Rearsby, on the Fosse, between Leicester and Nottingham: the Star inn. 40 years ago they brewed their own ale... Anyone from Leicestershire?
Thanks for that and yeah, next time you're in London look me up and I'll get you a pint! Interesting and thanks for the reply. I do wonder if Terblanche had ever been anywhere near a race track in his life? My guess is he's a road rider through and through and a bit of a plodder at that. Taken 11mm out of the front offset (a hell of a lot) and the rear is raised to the moon to make that bike handle (999). For sure I appreciate different set ups for different racers etc but the as-designed geometry is, IMO, a lazy road sports tourer and not a sports bike. So do you know why Ducati moved the engine forward again? It's not a test I promise!
A fund with an annualised yield of 24% (net, of what? Management fees? Taxes?) has never existed and could not exist except in the realms of fantasy and illusion. The risk/reward ratio would be too high (I no longer have the software to write the equation here but basically in order to generate the potential for such a return, the downside risk would be so high and require such leverage that the investment would not be plausible) and no right minded fund manager would even propose such a vehicule. Mikhail Khodorkovsky has never owned nor managed a fund or investment vehicle available to public subscription. By claiming the aforementioned you undermine the integrity of that which you have written regarding design/geometry etc.
I know that he spoke to official teams and rode laps on race prototypes but I'm not sure if he ever raced. And yes, he was a road rider. He enjoyed bikes a lot. I never won any championships or cups so take my advice with a lot of salt... I was way faster with my street legal 749R than I was with my track tuned 748R. The way I shaved off seconds was not by upgrading the street 749 hardware but by being smoother and more calculating. Many 999 owners setup their bikes exactly as you do but for me it was more about riding as my mentor suggested: riding like "steel silk". Rigours but smooth. Firstly he taught me that to be fast on a 749R I had to be fast and train on a 125cc. Which I bought second hand. In fact, riding a 125cc is an excellent training tool for *any* bike. For a 999 it is a must. Then he taught me to sticipate braking, retarding entry point, smoothing both brake and acceleration progress. In other words, respecting the chassis' geometry and trying not to upset it. The rider adapts to the bike and not vice versa. If you respect the 999 it will be way faster than the 998. I don't claim this to be good advice, I never won anything important, but it worked for me. You can read 999 Superbike champions making more or less the same case. My teacher was a guy called Nagoya san. He would say: "you win by being fast around corners, not in or out of corners". He had one mantra: never begin a turn unless you have a stable bike and when you start applying the "wrist", don't ever stop or slow the rate of twist but, rather, always increase that rotation rate. He also forced me to repeat an exercise over and over: riding at 75% of throttle and 75% of brake power for a whole session on a new track. You do this you mark the rev meter and add a g-meter next to the instruments. Only as the very, very last lap, he would allow me to increase power but only by the same percentage that I would agree to *reduce* braking power. This obliges you to brake earlier and accelerate later. Since at that point I was eager to apply more power, I would always, invariably, fuck up and mess up everything. The lesson was not learning to coordinate acceleration and braking but learning what is "eagerness" and its effects. Eagerness was my enemy. It made me ride 998 style rather than 999 style. If you learn the latter you will be faster than the former. Try it. Try refraining from using full power/brakes until the lat lap of the day and then allow yourself to increase throttle by as much as you reduce g-force. You will learn what impatience and eagerness do to your riding style. It is a real eye opener. I don't know but, at a guess, to adapt to aggressive professional racers' riding style?
24% net after fees. I think that you can find records somewhere online. I have reason to not make affirmations myself but others claim that it was less than legitimate and lawsuits were filed, some of which are now being settled. The Russian fund was under an offspring of the Yukos group and it was accessible to numerous investors, it was not private as you mention but, of course, you would require to be introduced. If you hope that I release the accounts that I used, simply to prove it, then you're out of luck. But you're welcome to your opinions and to draw any conclusions. In fact you're welcome to not read the posts that you find not worthy of your time/trust. *EDIT* A quick Google search shows that the best performance ever was actually 32.8%. Here: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-01-05/2014-hedge-fund-hall-fame-100-best-performing-hedge-funds ... and here: https://www.mfs.com/wps/FileServerS...tools/mfsvp_20yrsb_fly&servletCommand=default This is a PDF that you have to download, sorry. and even higher here:
I have no need to ask of anything, I'm merely making an observation: There are in fact many funds with the potential to occasionally achieve returns in excess of 25%, but not annualised over the lifespan of the fund. Inherent with the potential for high return is of course downside risk thus in order for one to invest with a target return in of 25% (net? annualised?), assuming no leverage, one would have to accept a risk/reward ratio of 1:4 on every single trade over the lifespan of the fund. Therefore 12.5% of the funds assets would need to be 'risked' at each trade and the fund manager would have to be absolutely right 25% of the time or if wrong, on the next trade have to double the stake (leverage)in order to recoup etc. The fund would have the potential within four unleveraged trades to lose its entire equity which is just not feasible and no fund outlining such high stakes in its prospectus would attract any investment, public, private offering or otherwise, blah blah blah etc etc! The tradeoff when posting on a public forum is of course that you are inviting observers to read the posts in order for them to ascertain whether they are worthy of the time/trust!
I agree, members ascertain if and what they choose to read. You posted your case and I mine, adding a few, simple, Google search results, as evidence. I guess that next you will want the photo of my garage...
That is very interesting @Tommaso and thank you for responding with such detail and clarity, it makes a refreshing change 'on the internet'. I agree completely regards the "ride it like a 125" view and have found this to be the case with every Ducati I have owned for the past decades. I had always believed that the reason for this is the 'stupid' engine layout/configuration/positioning that Ducati had chosen (for valid 'engine balance' reasons). Thankfully they have now been forced to come to their senses and have done what needed to be done with the new V4 layout and positioning. I believe it is because the engine was too long for-and-aft. The front wheel was always way out in front and the swingarm always too short. This makes a bike that does not want to turn rapidly, necessitating the need to 'draw arcs' with the bike as opposed to 'zig-zags'. I think this is something that Ducati had never understood until the genius that is Masao Furusawa forced open their eyes, much to the displeasure of the Japanese. In my limited experience of trying to ride alongside the latest and most powerful superbikes from Japan and Germany I find this approach uncompetitive as I have to set my corner speed too early by comparison and find someone else stealing my 'next piece of track' as they can turn quicker, and thus brake later, on my inside. Therefore I think the ability to stop-turn a motorcycle, as well as to quickly-adjust its line mid corner, a real benefit to fast riding on track. If the bike was alone on track then it wouldn't matter but when you have faster-turning bikes around you it does make a difference IMO. This is why many fast set ups see people trying to get the front wheel into the engine and the swingarm longer. Ducati attempted to help by giving us adjustable steering neck tubes but still the racers had to fit massively reduced offset clamps, at the same time constantly extending the swingarm. It is all work to try and get around the fundamental problem that is the engine is too long. The latest SBK Panigale has a 30-35mm extended swingarm for example. Still, the new V4 is where it's at in terms of what will be possible simply because the engine length will allow it. Thanks for your advice on impatience and eagerness and I agree with what you've written on that 100%, I find it a constant battle to try to contain eagerness with the throttle resulting in lower lap times, even though it may 'seem' faster at the time, same with the brakes. Very interesting comments, thank you.
No not really, I'm quite happy with my own and don't really understand that comment. I read with interest your observations on design/dynamics however I'm calling bullshit on your investment story but don't be disheartened, you should only be offended by the opinions of those whose opinions you value and if that doesn't include me, you should lose no sleep. If it does, send me your address and I'll mail you your own 'cut out and keep' sincere apology which you can read whenever the need takes you!
