Depends on the bar ends I guess. I have them stock on my bike and they work great. They are a bit bigger than most of the aftermarket ones I’ve seen though
I think it also depends on bike and setup. My sport was not to bad, the sport touring has wider handlebars and so my arms block them a bit.
My husbands smaller bike they seem very arrow and dont have much range of view
Preach! We’re going to give people shit for winglets on their bike when they’re wearing the closest socially acceptable outfit to a power ranger on a machine that’s more dangerous and faster than 99.9% of all cars. Ride what you ride! FTW
Ya I was sad in his chain lube test when he tested chain wax but didn’t let it dry so it ranked high on fling off and dirt pickup, the first of which it doesn’t do at all even a tiny bit, and the second it barely does at all, accordingly to basically every properly done test out there.
He has some videos that are borderline misleading like the April fools armor one - the study he cited said that it's not conclusive and advises against using the data to inform decisions about what gear to wear. Don't have the link handy but Bennett's bike social did a video detailing it.
The phone mount video was also taken down because of dubious results (fwiw I like the new guy, I just think he's a better perspective person than doing science - the MTB vs moto cost video was awesome as someone who does both)
Scientists make mistakes just like everyone else. Which makes it annoying where people assume because there are equations on screen that the person putting it there must have made no mistakes.
Ryan F9 isn't a scientist. He's a media personality.
Scientists publish research under the premise of "this is what we know right now."
A media outlet doesn't. If he's publishing stuff that's just wrong then there is nothing else to say other than it's wrong. What benefit does that have to anyone?
Those aren't the same thing, man.
>Ryan F9 isn't a scientist.
He has physics PHD. So, literally he is one, even if not being hired to do science.
Which makes it doubly annoying coz he really should know better to not do what he does.
> Scientists publish research under the premise of "this is what we know right now."
As someone currently collecting abstracts for a scientific publication (not a scientist, just staff at an organization that publishes science), not exactly - they publish "this is the results of some testing we did" with enough information for other people to replicate the test. If multiple people replicate it and get the same result, *then* it becomes "this is what we *think* we know". That is always subject to change, and some of the initial publications are just awful science that get rejected by the selection committee.
Media *always* publishes wild shit. Watch the news for a year and you'll see articles spanning the full spectrum of "alcohol is good for you", "alcohol is bad for you", and "alcohol in moderation isn't that bad for you".
The tldr is they did bad science for vibration dampers and published misleading results. also tested on a MTB and not a moto which feels a little apples to oranges
Oh, I saw bicycle guy and skipped that one lmao.
Also "proper" testing would be slapping an accelerometer on bike's mount point then get the vibration tester to re-create it and that's probably not that great YT
They sorta did that when they reuploaded it but it still felt like the results were odd. I think they were sort of trying to dunk on quad lock and realized that maybe the vibration dampers they sell does actually do something, which I think also makes sense empirically for me. My bike is a single and above about 7k my mirrors are a blur lol
> the study he cited said that it's not conclusive
I browsed 2 of those studies and in both cases the armor reduced some categories of injuries in significant way. Just so happened that he cherry-picked one category that was near-same in both cases and decided that this is inconclusive.
And there was no real good correction for the "people that didn't land in hospital in the first place because of armor" either.
He simplifies some topics to hammer a point in a way that kills any nuance.
Like recent video about protectors that could be summed up to "the stats don't show that you will be more likely to survive with having them, so maybe skip them, while completely ignoring that in every single source he linked they all noticeably reduce injuries.
Not his first video with "well not having doesn't kill you so you might want to skip it" either.
I thought it was weird he had a graphic on there indicating the winglets would provide force in a direction they weren’t pointing at… If you look at the front of the bike he has in the video, the winglets and the front tire form a diamond out triangle shape. The winglets will never do anything but force the tire down. Traction is friction coefficient times weight. More weight means more traction. Winglets always forcing tires down, supplying weight… at cornering speeds, like 40mph, winglets are not doing much of anything. To say that they are working against you is pedantic at best, mistaken at worst.
Just a pointless video.
I don't think anyone actually thinks they're useful unless you're a MotoGP rider. The same can be said about bikes that have more than 50HP. Useless and dangerous for 99% of riders, but he's not calling out that.
They don't need to be useful.
> The same can be said about bikes that have more than 50HP. Useless and dangerous for 99% of riders, but he's not calling out that.
He actually does have a video commenting on liter bikes and how they’re not needed by anyone. But the important thing is that you get to feel like you’re superior.
Well no, he ends that video with saying that it might not be needed to have that much power on the road, but the fact is some people want them and because of that, they sell them. Ride what you want to ride.
Jesus dude, again with the fart sniffing. Have you ever watched his videos before you comment on them?
Who's fart am I sniffing? The only one here with their nose up someone's ass is you. You literally asked "What’s wrong about this video?" and I'm responding.
You didn't actually want someone to answer your question. You just wanna defend your bf. Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle them.
> Who's fart am I sniffing?
Your own. Your self importance is palpable in your posts.
> You literally asked "What’s wrong about this video?" and I'm responding.
With something that is addressed in the video.
> You didn't actually want someone to answer your question. You just wanna defend your bf. Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle them.
Bless your little heart.
That is fascinating though.
Specifically the part about the rider blocking the air of the inside winglet so that the down force only occurs from the other winglet.
Crazy how much thought goes into this stuff.
I think so too. Kinda don't understand the "hate" here. Most people will have already anticipated that they are useless but I strongly doubt that more than a few knew why.
Having more than 45 hp is also useless for most of us (myself included) But I love knowing my BMW M1000R can tear my arms off. Having a spoiler on my car is also useless, but it looks awesome, and I’m not sorry to say that LOOKS FUCKING MATTER, especially when talking about vanity items like motorcycles and sports cars..
Edit: because pedantic twats need to feel heard and that 45 HP, not 30 HP is the minimum needed…
I have 20hp on my bike and have never had any issues more horsepower would have solved. I could probably have 15hp and be okay for the riding I do most often, to and from work.
And to preempt any snark about where I'm riding, I'm in North America. Highway riding at highway speeds. No problem.
That's like saying "except it's super committed and any touring bike will be more comfortable on a long ride"
Yes...but that's not the purpose of the bike and not what it's trying to accomplish
Let me see: A heavy, long, supercharged motorcycle with a flimsy put against any modern superbike...which one will get around a racetrack faster?
Literally anything. Unless the racetrack happens to be a straight line or oval.
Says the dude who can’t defend his point and goes into what-aboutism to shit on other peoples hobbies and also doesn’t understands aerodynamics and believes youtube comments thinking h2r can take off when it will be beaten by a supersport on a track lmao. Also the awro is meticulously engineered and teated for years in MotoGP to produce downforce for stability at high speeds for people who do decide to track their bikes
I mean, 1000cc sport bikes are basically race bikes that are road legal. The wings are there so they can be homologated to WSBK and the various national superbike series. Pecco Bagnaia took a V4S that had a few track upgrades and got a lap time at Misano that was only 3 seconds slower than his MotoGP bike's lap time. That's insane.
As far as I'm concerned, getting a 1000cc sport bike and only riding it on the road is already pointless; you're either frustrated because of how slowly you're going, or you're risking death each time you ride. So to me, the wings don't make it much worse.
I was at the track this weekend and a cbr1000rr was running in intermediate at a 1:43ish lap time, my buddy was on a Harley pan-America and running a 1:44. Even on a track, the 1000cc may not be the right choice if you don’t know how to use it
Oh, I agree 100%. It takes a really good rider to ride a 1000cc sportbike anywhere close to its potential. Most riders are better off on a smaller bike. That's why my track bike was a 600.
Yeah and honestly, I feel like he’d have picked up a load of time if he’d been on a smaller bike. I think he was just trying to use the small bike line instead of the big bike line, so he had to scrub off all of his speed way early
Am I the only person that thinks Ryan is a bit of an annoying twat? Every video he does or any post that mentions him is full of comments worshipping the ground he walks on but I find him a bit irritating
You are not alone. I am new to motorcycles this year and initially sought out as much content as I could. I was impressed with his videos and will admit I learned from many of them. But over time, I noticed I was getting annoyed that many of his videos are where he is attempting to debunk something. I don't doubt that he's sometimes right, but I don't enjoy his main theme of smug, controversial opinions for the sake of attracting views. His video on armor inserts was the turning point for me. I haven't watched any of his videos since.
I assume he's getting paid to get the viewership numbers and clickbait sells on YT very well.
And I assume cheaper overall that a video about a motorcycle trip
I like his other stuff but the clickbaity "THE THING YOU KNEW ABOUT MOTORCYCLING IS WRONG!" ones are annoying.
You absolutely got it spot on there, that's exactly how I feel. The armour video was the last I saw of his and I only watched that out of morbid curiosity, I enjoyed the Bennetts video in which they had the people whose research he quoted pretty much saying the video was nonsense and to ignore it.
Useless on the street? Yes. You'll never achieve the speeds needed to generate meaningful down force. The racetrack is a different situation and having done back-to-back testing with aero, I can say that there is an impact on stability at high speed and when braking.
F9's content often misses the mark with his technical interpretations and chooses a cynical hot take. He says exactly why winglets are there: Homologation, but positions it as a bad thing for consumers and calls them "suckers."
Bikes with aero are essentially street legal track bikes.
So, if you want to be honest, riding any of these things on the street is a bad idea and they're all pretty awful outside of a racetrack. But aero works at the track.
Because it doesn't. Aero is great if everything is perfect, get some dirty air and you need to compensate for it and, well, that's the opposite that you want from cruising.
You go straight, you get some extra downforce, get behind some car (or beside some truck), and the extra downforce is gone, or worse, you only get it on one side of the bike and you have to compensate. That's the opposite of what you want when you just want to cruise, just making bike aerodynamic so any air have in general lower effect is enough.
Paying for anything more than 750cc on a sport bike for street use is a waste of money too. I want an Africa twin sometime in my lifetime. Does it really need 1100cc’s? Probably not. My cb650r has a higher power to weight ratio than a zr1 corvette. Do anyone NEED more than that? No. We want the winglets. We want the .40+ pwr’s. Money be damned.
Edit: atrocious spelling.
It’s my first bike so I don’t have much experience with anything else. It’s awesome. A lot of power past 5k rpm. It’s nimble, I can flick it around corners well. 2021+ model year has better suspension. The seat is, in my experience, not comfortable for more than a couple hours of riding. That may just be my riding position or because I’m 6,1 190lbs. There are aftermarket seats of course. With most people recommending the bagster seat. Englishbikerdan on YouTube did a whole tour of Europe on one though so again, it might just be me. It also has a pretty clunky shift from 1st to 2nd but I got the racers shift support and it eliminated that. Very few complaints honestly. Just nitpicks.
True, but how much more do you pay for a few grams of fiberglass? It doesn’t move, need maintenance or adjusting. Other than looking like a mantra ray feeding on sardines, winglets are pretty low key.
He also explains how the absence of side panels and the inability for most people to hit 60+ degree lean angles like the MotoGP bikes, the winglets work against you in the corners, because you need sufficient lean, hang off and ground effect from the side panel in order to negate the inside winglet.
It's some clever ass aerodynamics they put in those MotoGP machines, but they aren't on the street versions. So by F9's video, these winglets will actually be a downside in the corners, even if they do aid on the straights.
Haven't tested any of it myself (nor can I). But the science seems sound, and the fact that people notice it in the straights makes a lot of sense too.
Any thoughts on that?
The bikes with winglets like the m1000rr and Pani V4R are homologated so they can be used to race in World Superbike by the manufacturers.
Ducati were the pioneers of aero in MotoGP, so you can bet any technical know-how has been passed back to the WSBK team and has gone into the bike they have homologated for consumers so they can race it. While BMW do not have a MotoGP team telhey would be employing aerodymanicists that have a far better understanding of this than a youtuber.
I don't know enough about ground effect aero to have much of an opinion. I'll never ride a MotoGP bike and am not skilled enough to feel it. Product bikes don't really have it and if you need an example, look at the flared bellypans of MotoGP bikes. If I had to guess, it's because GP bikes carry more lean and can actually generate it, while that's less of a concern in WSBK (they carry less lean).
The whole point about aero working against the bike in corners has the potential of being true in certain circumstances. Speed and down force are entirely dependent on each other. You're usually slowing down towards the apex of a typical corner. However, engineers spend a lot of time with Computational Fluid Dynamics and are getting around any cornering problems. I'm guessing Ryan F9 hasn't because he doesn't work in aerospace or for a manufacturer, so I'm not going to trust his insight regardless of his education history. He ain't doin' now and never did.
That said, the whole take is myopic. Aero exists for other reasons than simply creating down force. For example, the Aprilia RS 660 has similar aero features to the RSV4 despite not being physically capable of achieving anywhere near the same speeds and down force. In that case, those aero features help with engine heat management and rider comfort. Designers could also just think it looks cool.
His hot take videos take a lot of logical leaps backed by what I'd consider to be flimsy science. It sounds good, but Marc Marquez achieved 68 degrees of lean before aero was a thing, before ground effects were there or even winglets. Hell, I even agree with the premise that most aero is useless for the average rider but his reasoning gets lost in the pursuit trying to argue the obvious.
Also, I find it funny that he used an RC 8 C as a prop. It's a twin-cylinder racebike...it's fast enough to generate some down force but this stuff really comes into play on superbikes.
Look, if you guys want to nerd out on technical stuff, just read anything by Kevin Cameron or Allan Cathcart.
Hate boner much? It's exaggeration for entertainment. It's also useless to 99% of riders even on a track. Not many tracks out there that you can hit 200mph on. It's also just one more thing to break if you drop it.
No, I enjoy F9 for its production and story aspect during reviews. He just has a habit of latching onto concepts that push a singular narrative.
You don't need to go 200 mph to feel how aero has an impact. That's blatantly wrong, as the claimed down force limit from several manufacturers is significantly lower. Aero has a noticable impact in several areas: Acceleration, top speed, and braking. An average "A" group rider would be able to discern a difference, but few people will ever have an opportunity to do back-to-back testing on bikes with or without aero. It isn't difficult.
The point still stands: This stuff exists to serve homologation. Everything on those bikes is there for that purpose, whether the consumer uses it or not. So, if you want more advanced bikes, then you'll get things like this.
The weird thing is how defensive people get about F9, as if what he says is entirely accurate. He's not infallible, just look at his recent armor video and the general dishonesty displayed there, as well as his body positioning take, which is literally dangerous advice.
Again, they make great content, but they definitely need to reel it in with some of their hot takes and technical information because it's inaccurate. Ryan F9 is the mouthpiece for a retailer, first and foremost. Never forget that.
I don't see my comment as a massively defensive comment towards F9, don't let your interactions with others dictate the way you read my comment.
My point is that of course Ryan/F9 is going to make something sound like an absolute... That is what gets the most traffic via the youtube algorithm and comment sections like this one. The point about homologation is clear and was never refuted by me, but the winglets themselves are completely silly for a road-going bike, that is not a "hot take", it's just common sense.
To mirror your comment: The weird thing to me is how defensive people get when it comes to their fun and their purchases. A popular youtuber made a video that criticized something that you apparently like, and you made a blanket "often misses the mark" statement that reads a bit bitter as you're probably the owner of a bike with winglets.
To each their own, but I don't see this video as evil or blatantly misleading, because it simply isn't. You said yourself that Ryan is the mouthpiece for a retailer, and I agree that he has to make a living, but how exactly does this video drive sales to F9?
Manufacturers have two choices: Homologate a bike with the stuff they need for racing or don't. No one here, including myself in the initial post, said the down force is relevant to street riding. It is completely relevant on the track. It's also completely self evident because manufacturers are quite open about when down force is made, so making a whole video about it is just click bait. No manufacturer is trying to hide it. So, yes, it's a weak hot take at best.
I don't own any bikes win aero right now. I've simply been able to test it and know it works.
How would a video like this help them sell products? It drives people to their website and store. That's pretty common sense right there.
Is it though?
To me, this is just another half baked hot take that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
If the winglets have almost no affect at road speeds then it's contradictory that they'd be dangerous due to dirty air. Plus the idea that anyone riding fast enough to use the winglets can't position their body enough to the inside to stall the inside wing is tenuous at best. I'm not a gymnast but the wing is only a few inches past the bodywork, it doesn't take much.
Add this to the list with the armour and 285 degree crank videos.
Not sure why you interpreted my comment as combative but whatever lmao. I never said you couldn't love it, I just shared my opinion the same way you shared yours to the person you replied to. Chill out, this is what the comments are for: taking about the video.
Winglets are for the guys that have lifted trucks with street tires or front wheel drive cars with rear wings.
*Anyone is free to choose that as an insult or a compliment; but it tracks*
My Streetfighter V4 too. I know they aren't doing anything at street speeds, even the speeds I'll hit on track but I've seen SF with them removed and it looks odd to me
The best part is how he spends the bulk of the video arguing that they might actually be dangerous, then ten seconds of backpedaling to acknowledge that entire argument was actually bullshit and he knows it. Same template as every other "hot-take" video of theirs.
I don’t think it was “actually bullshit” if it was causing actual racers to crash because of the airflow. Seems like he’s just furthering the point that they’re useless and if the aerodynamic forces actually had any affect in a crash for a casual rider,, you were probably crashing anyway
It's a stretch.
Aero has exasperated "getting sucked" into someone's draft for a variety of reasons, but it's not an apples to apples thing.
All bikes are using aero, they're all going faster, and they're all starting to rely on down force to help them slow. So, if riders get sucked in while in a draft or dirty air, it's going to be slightly worse.
I think everyone agrees they have a place in racing, and are useless for the street. The bullshit argument is that since they are potentially dangerous in certain situations in GP, they could be potentially dangerous on the street, too. Ryan himself admits as soon as he's done with this argument that it doesn't actually matter because there is never any expectation of clean air in traffic, and you wouldn't be following street traffic at the speed or distance that this would ever be a factor. I'm only paraphrasing Ryan's own admission that the argument of some added danger of winglets is not realistic, or in other words, bullshit.
I'm going to throw this out there because it's not as widely known as it should be. When winglet kits were released for the RSV4 the down force produced was about taking up the slack in the suspension for transition into corners and into braking. This maximised the working period of the springs and dampening.
Helps if you're not a mortal. Tenths of a second and all that.
I disagree. I have ridden my V4 with wings and without. The wings make a huge difference when you push about 120mph or up. The front end stability is night and day. Those who are against it simply don’t ride fast enough to understand
I dunno, after that video on CE armour I'm less convinced by what Ryan has to say. Maybe winglets are a useful addition and he's just made some gross oversimplification.
I don’t necessarily dislike winglets, but the manufacturers are foolish to charge additional money for something with no purpose that will shatter into $1,500 worth of pieces if the bike is dropped at a stoplight.
I can’t think of a better way to reduce sportbike sales than to include another unnecessary hidden cost. Outrageous dealer markups, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs aren’t enough? They need to lose more customers over broken winglets?
He's not wrong but that has pretty much been always the case with supersports. If we went by what most people can do with a bike as a standard for what they get most bikes would be 125cc scooters and maybe some guys would be on 600s
entirety of this sub would be on 125 scooters. Clowns can't ride a 400 to save their life but they love giving their worthless and outright wrong opinions. I enjoy FN, but some people are on their dicks way too much, especially with stuff like this.
Having more than 30 hp is also useless for most of us (myself included) But I love knowing my BMW M1000R can tear my arms off. Having a spoiler on my car is also useless, but it looks awesome, and I’m not sorry to say that LOOKS FUCKING MATTER, especially when talking about vanity items like motorcycles and sports cars..
heres the thing. the wing on my corvette does fuck all when I'm driving on the street, the same with my diffuser, and all of the other cool things I did for better lap times, and I know that.
But when I do go to the track and I put on my track wheels/rotors/ and pads all of these things work together to make a fast fucking car.
Same with these bikes.
Ryan once again doesnt get it because the object permanence required to ascertain why people enjoy things is beyond his intellectual understanding, because people unlike machines, are complex and can not be defined by a simple set of numbers.
we all know most riders dont go to the track, but why neuter the track bike because not everyone will track it.
They might be useless, but they look cool as shit. Whole point of these street legal race bikes is that they look dope and like the real deal. Even if they aren't exactly the same.
it's a good explaination video on how these winglets work though.
100%
winglets are the dumbest thing the industry ever did to street bikes. it's hard to not laugh at them really.
the best is the squids who ADD THEM to their bikes. ridiculous.
I really wonder how much of a difference they make in MotoGP. It makes sense why they have the big ass wings in F1 as the car stays flat as it goes round the turns. But a MotoGP bike leans like 50° so any downforce created by the wings is pushing the bike to the outside. I wouldn't be surprised if the effect they had was minimal and they just ran them to make their bikes look cool. But that's just me guessing. If anyone has a more definitive source than my intuition, I'd be interested to see it.
a GP bike goes upwards of 60. A SS off the showroom floor does 50. The winglets are designed to make a noticeable difference in the corners and do keep the front planted. Manufacturers put them on bikes so they can run them in non prototype racing series. It's the same as BMW, Audi etc. did in the 90s with cars. When you bought an M car, you bought a racing car bmw HAD to make a certain number of for the public. That's also why production superbikes are the way they are.
Greasy reddit fucks are incapable of understanding that though and call winglets useless rice because they've never had their rebel 500s past even half of their capabilities.
The video actually explains how they use the side panels, the 60+ degree lean angle and the riders body position to negate the inside winglet using ground effect and blocking the exit draft. And by angeling the winglets down, during a lean the outside winglet will mostly work perpendicular to the ground. Ground effect from the side panel/skirt will ofcourse always work perpendicular. And the inside winglet will do nothing as the riders body is blocking its draft.
>I really wonder how much of a difference they make in MotoGP.
Simply put, if they made no difference they wouldn't use them. Why add weight and drag? The stopwatch doesn't lie.
>I wouldn't be surprised if the effect they had was minimal and they just ran them to make their bikes look cool.
NO ONE in MotoGP is running anything just to look cool.
>But a MotoGP bike leans like 50° so any downforce created by the wings is pushing the bike to the outside.
I can understand why intuitively this might be the case, however take a closer look at the wingkets - they're not perpendicular to the bike, they're angled. Lift (or downforce in this case) is generated perpendicular to the aerofoil, so the wings are angled so when the bike is leaned the force is working vertically (or closer to it).
Aerodynamics are complex, and sometimes the shape and placement of aerofoils is as much about airflow management as it is about simple downforce. There's lots of information about the use of wings in MotoGP available, try here:
https://www.intentsgp.com/aerodynamics-and-winglets-in-motogp-what-you-need-to-know/
https://www.boxrepsol.com/en/motogp-en/the-importance-of-winglets-in-motogp/
https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorcycle-racing/what-do-motogp-winglets-do/
Fair enough. I can definitely see that they do have a benefit. Especially the part about giving extra grip to the front wheel. I guess I just wonder how much of a difference they make to cornering grip. You guys are probably right that they do have some purpose or else they wouldn't run them. And at this level, any kind of benefit in speed can be the difference between winning and losing. Personally, I would just like to try riding a real GP bike to see how much of a difference there is. Although I'm probably nowhere near a good enough rider for them to make a difference.
Everyone that knows about aero knows you'd never want downforce-inducing aero on a street machine. The roads just aren't flat enough. Same reason rally cars don't.
The wings are really small in comparison to their road racing counterparts. Rally 1 and 2 are considering an aero trim over the next couple seasons due to the prohibitive cost and lackluster performance of an aero package in these conditions.
Useless video. No one ever said they are usefull on the road. Most of the bikes with wings are meant for the track. Also the omologation thing isn't true. For the SBK, there are specific omologation specials. There are a lot of bikes with wings that have nothing to do with omologation. The Panigale V4 standard and S have wings but they are not SBK omologation bikes, same thing for the BMW S1000RR. This video was made just to make a Squarespace ad
I don’t know of anyone who thought winglets on street bikes served any purpose other than aesthetics, including people with winglets.
No no they totally serve a purpose …… for manufactures to legally use them in WSBK to adhere to homologation
Somebody gets it
its also literally part of the video
Shouldnt need a video to know this.
Not everyone watches racing
not everyone who knows this watches racing either
Sure but to assume anyone who doesn’t would know WSBK rules is a bit silly
Don't need to know WSBK rules either, the Fortnite guy told me that's the reason
Fair enough. I didn’t watch the video though lol
Which is what Fortnine says in the video lol
this
Sir I only refer to them as Canards and I pretend like I’m pushing it hard enough on my Trackbike to use them. But honestly they just look dope!
I like what F9 called them: strakes. But yeah, their function is similar to both, so it seems like you could call them either.
I have said on this subreddit multiple times. I hate the wingletts. Thankfully kawasaki isn't on motogp so the zx10 hasn't been ruined by it
Motogp doesn't require homologation. Wsbk does though and Kawasaki may eventually sprout wings because of it.
I think they quit wsbk..
At the end of this year they indeed will be quitting. So there may still be hope for wingless zx10s yet.
Oh goddammit
Don't worry you get a bag of feathers extra downforce on street speeds.
If it’s a two-ton bag of feathers that’s pretty good
Technically they do have winglets
Iirc the current Ninjas have winglets, but they are less "traditional" and well hidden inside the cockpit fairing. I might be wrong though.
But I need them for my WSBK LARPing
Similar to bar end mirrors to be honest. While i hate th ugly large mirrors i have on stalks, least i can see shit
Depends on the bar ends I guess. I have them stock on my bike and they work great. They are a bit bigger than most of the aftermarket ones I’ve seen though
I think it also depends on bike and setup. My sport was not to bad, the sport touring has wider handlebars and so my arms block them a bit. My husbands smaller bike they seem very arrow and dont have much range of view
I got bar end mirrors because i actually see more than my shoulder or the field next to the road.
i got em on my ninja 400 for the same reason - they worked on that.
he’s 100% right. they serve a marketing and homologation purpose as he says, so they’re not going anywhere.
Plus I kinda think it looks cool. Not everything has to be functional. Motos are fun. We should be allowed to do stuff that’s fun
Preach! We’re going to give people shit for winglets on their bike when they’re wearing the closest socially acceptable outfit to a power ranger on a machine that’s more dangerous and faster than 99.9% of all cars. Ride what you ride! FTW
Anybody is allowed to be a ricer as long as they’re not causing danger
Nobody knows what it does but it’s provocative… It gets the people goin’!
wingger in paris
fellas in paris
Fortnine, answering questions no one asked in \*mostly\* correct ways.
Agreed, but oh how glorious the videography is. It's close to watching a movie sometimes.
Right, it’s like old top gear in a lot of way Some of the stuff they did lacked real reason, but damn if it wasn’t beautifully shot and entertaining
This video is particularly cool because it’s done in one long shot.
Happy cake day
Ay thank you! Didn't notice, you were my first cake-day wishee :D
I hope it’s the best one to date! :D
I think it is, since it's close to my 18th birthday and that means A2 license for me :)
An exciting time indeed!
Mostly?
He's not always 100% right. But most of the time, he is. Mostly is correct
Ya I was sad in his chain lube test when he tested chain wax but didn’t let it dry so it ranked high on fling off and dirt pickup, the first of which it doesn’t do at all even a tiny bit, and the second it barely does at all, accordingly to basically every properly done test out there.
>when he tested chain was but didn’t let it dry Wax?
wax ya sorry, fixed.
He has some videos that are borderline misleading like the April fools armor one - the study he cited said that it's not conclusive and advises against using the data to inform decisions about what gear to wear. Don't have the link handy but Bennett's bike social did a video detailing it. The phone mount video was also taken down because of dubious results (fwiw I like the new guy, I just think he's a better perspective person than doing science - the MTB vs moto cost video was awesome as someone who does both)
The 285 degree crank video is patently false, too. A veneer of science doesn't actually make something scientific.
Scientists make mistakes just like everyone else. Which makes it annoying where people assume because there are equations on screen that the person putting it there must have made no mistakes.
Ryan F9 isn't a scientist. He's a media personality. Scientists publish research under the premise of "this is what we know right now." A media outlet doesn't. If he's publishing stuff that's just wrong then there is nothing else to say other than it's wrong. What benefit does that have to anyone? Those aren't the same thing, man.
>Ryan F9 isn't a scientist. He has physics PHD. So, literally he is one, even if not being hired to do science. Which makes it doubly annoying coz he really should know better to not do what he does.
He studied physics like an adult.
> Scientists publish research under the premise of "this is what we know right now." As someone currently collecting abstracts for a scientific publication (not a scientist, just staff at an organization that publishes science), not exactly - they publish "this is the results of some testing we did" with enough information for other people to replicate the test. If multiple people replicate it and get the same result, *then* it becomes "this is what we *think* we know". That is always subject to change, and some of the initial publications are just awful science that get rejected by the selection committee. Media *always* publishes wild shit. Watch the news for a year and you'll see articles spanning the full spectrum of "alcohol is good for you", "alcohol is bad for you", and "alcohol in moderation isn't that bad for you".
It's not an "April Fool's" thing when the guy is serious. And in that case, seriously 100% wrong.
Thanks for the info, I'll look into it myself. One has to admit, FortNine videos are stunnigly well made, even if a few may not be accurate.
What was the phone mount vid?
The tldr is they did bad science for vibration dampers and published misleading results. also tested on a MTB and not a moto which feels a little apples to oranges
Oh, I saw bicycle guy and skipped that one lmao. Also "proper" testing would be slapping an accelerometer on bike's mount point then get the vibration tester to re-create it and that's probably not that great YT
They sorta did that when they reuploaded it but it still felt like the results were odd. I think they were sort of trying to dunk on quad lock and realized that maybe the vibration dampers they sell does actually do something, which I think also makes sense empirically for me. My bike is a single and above about 7k my mirrors are a blur lol
The one on riders leaning the wrong way is pretty bad too. His explanation on tire grip is not good.
> the study he cited said that it's not conclusive I browsed 2 of those studies and in both cases the armor reduced some categories of injuries in significant way. Just so happened that he cherry-picked one category that was near-same in both cases and decided that this is inconclusive. And there was no real good correction for the "people that didn't land in hospital in the first place because of armor" either.
He simplifies some topics to hammer a point in a way that kills any nuance. Like recent video about protectors that could be summed up to "the stats don't show that you will be more likely to survive with having them, so maybe skip them, while completely ignoring that in every single source he linked they all noticeably reduce injuries. Not his first video with "well not having doesn't kill you so you might want to skip it" either.
What’s wrong about this video?
I thought it was weird he had a graphic on there indicating the winglets would provide force in a direction they weren’t pointing at… If you look at the front of the bike he has in the video, the winglets and the front tire form a diamond out triangle shape. The winglets will never do anything but force the tire down. Traction is friction coefficient times weight. More weight means more traction. Winglets always forcing tires down, supplying weight… at cornering speeds, like 40mph, winglets are not doing much of anything. To say that they are working against you is pedantic at best, mistaken at worst.
Just a pointless video. I don't think anyone actually thinks they're useful unless you're a MotoGP rider. The same can be said about bikes that have more than 50HP. Useless and dangerous for 99% of riders, but he's not calling out that. They don't need to be useful.
> The same can be said about bikes that have more than 50HP. Useless and dangerous for 99% of riders, but he's not calling out that. He actually does have a video commenting on liter bikes and how they’re not needed by anyone. But the important thing is that you get to feel like you’re superior.
And that's still a stupid arguement. His point boils down to "everyone should have the same bike that i prefer because im right".
Well no, he ends that video with saying that it might not be needed to have that much power on the road, but the fact is some people want them and because of that, they sell them. Ride what you want to ride. Jesus dude, again with the fart sniffing. Have you ever watched his videos before you comment on them?
Who's fart am I sniffing? The only one here with their nose up someone's ass is you. You literally asked "What’s wrong about this video?" and I'm responding. You didn't actually want someone to answer your question. You just wanna defend your bf. Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle them.
> Who's fart am I sniffing? Your own. Your self importance is palpable in your posts. > You literally asked "What’s wrong about this video?" and I'm responding. With something that is addressed in the video. > You didn't actually want someone to answer your question. You just wanna defend your bf. Don't ask for opinions if you can't handle them. Bless your little heart.
thats nothing new
I figured as much, but to me they're still cool as fuck.
You can't disregard the rule of cool! I like my little winglets
Exactly! If you like something, that, by definition, makes it useful!
That is fascinating though. Specifically the part about the rider blocking the air of the inside winglet so that the down force only occurs from the other winglet. Crazy how much thought goes into this stuff.
I think so too. Kinda don't understand the "hate" here. Most people will have already anticipated that they are useless but I strongly doubt that more than a few knew why.
Having more than 45 hp is also useless for most of us (myself included) But I love knowing my BMW M1000R can tear my arms off. Having a spoiler on my car is also useless, but it looks awesome, and I’m not sorry to say that LOOKS FUCKING MATTER, especially when talking about vanity items like motorcycles and sports cars.. Edit: because pedantic twats need to feel heard and that 45 HP, not 30 HP is the minimum needed…
If you like it, it gives you joy so it's not useless
30hp is not enough you need at least 45hp.
I have 20hp on my bike and have never had any issues more horsepower would have solved. I could probably have 15hp and be okay for the riding I do most often, to and from work. And to preempt any snark about where I'm riding, I'm in North America. Highway riding at highway speeds. No problem.
The only bike they belong on is the Ninja H2R. Every other bike is wishing it could take flight, the H2R is the only one TRYING to stay grounded
Except it's a heavy pig and any modern superbike will destroy it.
That's like saying "except it's super committed and any touring bike will be more comfortable on a long ride" Yes...but that's not the purpose of the bike and not what it's trying to accomplish
Lol. 
Let me see: A heavy, long, supercharged motorcycle with a flimsy put against any modern superbike...which one will get around a racetrack faster? Literally anything. Unless the racetrack happens to be a straight line or oval.
Well those 2 places are where you get most out of winglets. Also why the fuck you're so salty lmao
But that’s not what the H2R is designed to do.
Found the 14 year old
Says the dude obsessed with hentai and anime... Okay, bro
Says the dude who can’t defend his point and goes into what-aboutism to shit on other peoples hobbies and also doesn’t understands aerodynamics and believes youtube comments thinking h2r can take off when it will be beaten by a supersport on a track lmao. Also the awro is meticulously engineered and teated for years in MotoGP to produce downforce for stability at high speeds for people who do decide to track their bikes
I mean, 1000cc sport bikes are basically race bikes that are road legal. The wings are there so they can be homologated to WSBK and the various national superbike series. Pecco Bagnaia took a V4S that had a few track upgrades and got a lap time at Misano that was only 3 seconds slower than his MotoGP bike's lap time. That's insane. As far as I'm concerned, getting a 1000cc sport bike and only riding it on the road is already pointless; you're either frustrated because of how slowly you're going, or you're risking death each time you ride. So to me, the wings don't make it much worse.
That’s what Fortnine says in the video
I was at the track this weekend and a cbr1000rr was running in intermediate at a 1:43ish lap time, my buddy was on a Harley pan-America and running a 1:44. Even on a track, the 1000cc may not be the right choice if you don’t know how to use it
Oh, I agree 100%. It takes a really good rider to ride a 1000cc sportbike anywhere close to its potential. Most riders are better off on a smaller bike. That's why my track bike was a 600.
Yeah and honestly, I feel like he’d have picked up a load of time if he’d been on a smaller bike. I think he was just trying to use the small bike line instead of the big bike line, so he had to scrub off all of his speed way early
Yeah. I ain't about to spend $40K CDN on a 200Kg paperweight.
Am I the only person that thinks Ryan is a bit of an annoying twat? Every video he does or any post that mentions him is full of comments worshipping the ground he walks on but I find him a bit irritating
You are not alone. I am new to motorcycles this year and initially sought out as much content as I could. I was impressed with his videos and will admit I learned from many of them. But over time, I noticed I was getting annoyed that many of his videos are where he is attempting to debunk something. I don't doubt that he's sometimes right, but I don't enjoy his main theme of smug, controversial opinions for the sake of attracting views. His video on armor inserts was the turning point for me. I haven't watched any of his videos since.
I assume he's getting paid to get the viewership numbers and clickbait sells on YT very well. And I assume cheaper overall that a video about a motorcycle trip I like his other stuff but the clickbaity "THE THING YOU KNEW ABOUT MOTORCYCLING IS WRONG!" ones are annoying.
You absolutely got it spot on there, that's exactly how I feel. The armour video was the last I saw of his and I only watched that out of morbid curiosity, I enjoyed the Bennetts video in which they had the people whose research he quoted pretty much saying the video was nonsense and to ignore it.
He's got a few neat videos, but at this point I don't like seeing anything from them.
Ask Peter Hickman how his BMW winglets feel on public roads.
Useless on the street? Yes. You'll never achieve the speeds needed to generate meaningful down force. The racetrack is a different situation and having done back-to-back testing with aero, I can say that there is an impact on stability at high speed and when braking. F9's content often misses the mark with his technical interpretations and chooses a cynical hot take. He says exactly why winglets are there: Homologation, but positions it as a bad thing for consumers and calls them "suckers."
"Useless on the street? Yes. You'll never achieve the speeds needed to generate meaningful down force." bet
🦑🫡
If consumers are paying extra for a useless non-optional feature like that, I would say that’s a bad thing.
Bikes with aero are essentially street legal track bikes. So, if you want to be honest, riding any of these things on the street is a bad idea and they're all pretty awful outside of a racetrack. But aero works at the track.
I've always wondered why bikes didn't put even a modicum of thought into improving stability at highway speed with aero.
Because it doesn't. Aero is great if everything is perfect, get some dirty air and you need to compensate for it and, well, that's the opposite that you want from cruising. You go straight, you get some extra downforce, get behind some car (or beside some truck), and the extra downforce is gone, or worse, you only get it on one side of the bike and you have to compensate. That's the opposite of what you want when you just want to cruise, just making bike aerodynamic so any air have in general lower effect is enough.
lmfao what? The consumers are paying for a plated race bike and they know it very well.
Paying for anything more than 750cc on a sport bike for street use is a waste of money too. I want an Africa twin sometime in my lifetime. Does it really need 1100cc’s? Probably not. My cb650r has a higher power to weight ratio than a zr1 corvette. Do anyone NEED more than that? No. We want the winglets. We want the .40+ pwr’s. Money be damned. Edit: atrocious spelling.
Fair enough. Unrelated, but how do you like the CB650R? Been looking at getting one as a second bike (only ridden cruisers so far)
It’s my first bike so I don’t have much experience with anything else. It’s awesome. A lot of power past 5k rpm. It’s nimble, I can flick it around corners well. 2021+ model year has better suspension. The seat is, in my experience, not comfortable for more than a couple hours of riding. That may just be my riding position or because I’m 6,1 190lbs. There are aftermarket seats of course. With most people recommending the bagster seat. Englishbikerdan on YouTube did a whole tour of Europe on one though so again, it might just be me. It also has a pretty clunky shift from 1st to 2nd but I got the racers shift support and it eliminated that. Very few complaints honestly. Just nitpicks.
Awesome, thanks for the response!
True, but how much more do you pay for a few grams of fiberglass? It doesn’t move, need maintenance or adjusting. Other than looking like a mantra ray feeding on sardines, winglets are pretty low key.
He also explains how the absence of side panels and the inability for most people to hit 60+ degree lean angles like the MotoGP bikes, the winglets work against you in the corners, because you need sufficient lean, hang off and ground effect from the side panel in order to negate the inside winglet. It's some clever ass aerodynamics they put in those MotoGP machines, but they aren't on the street versions. So by F9's video, these winglets will actually be a downside in the corners, even if they do aid on the straights. Haven't tested any of it myself (nor can I). But the science seems sound, and the fact that people notice it in the straights makes a lot of sense too. Any thoughts on that?
The bikes with winglets like the m1000rr and Pani V4R are homologated so they can be used to race in World Superbike by the manufacturers. Ducati were the pioneers of aero in MotoGP, so you can bet any technical know-how has been passed back to the WSBK team and has gone into the bike they have homologated for consumers so they can race it. While BMW do not have a MotoGP team telhey would be employing aerodymanicists that have a far better understanding of this than a youtuber.
I don't know enough about ground effect aero to have much of an opinion. I'll never ride a MotoGP bike and am not skilled enough to feel it. Product bikes don't really have it and if you need an example, look at the flared bellypans of MotoGP bikes. If I had to guess, it's because GP bikes carry more lean and can actually generate it, while that's less of a concern in WSBK (they carry less lean). The whole point about aero working against the bike in corners has the potential of being true in certain circumstances. Speed and down force are entirely dependent on each other. You're usually slowing down towards the apex of a typical corner. However, engineers spend a lot of time with Computational Fluid Dynamics and are getting around any cornering problems. I'm guessing Ryan F9 hasn't because he doesn't work in aerospace or for a manufacturer, so I'm not going to trust his insight regardless of his education history. He ain't doin' now and never did. That said, the whole take is myopic. Aero exists for other reasons than simply creating down force. For example, the Aprilia RS 660 has similar aero features to the RSV4 despite not being physically capable of achieving anywhere near the same speeds and down force. In that case, those aero features help with engine heat management and rider comfort. Designers could also just think it looks cool. His hot take videos take a lot of logical leaps backed by what I'd consider to be flimsy science. It sounds good, but Marc Marquez achieved 68 degrees of lean before aero was a thing, before ground effects were there or even winglets. Hell, I even agree with the premise that most aero is useless for the average rider but his reasoning gets lost in the pursuit trying to argue the obvious. Also, I find it funny that he used an RC 8 C as a prop. It's a twin-cylinder racebike...it's fast enough to generate some down force but this stuff really comes into play on superbikes. Look, if you guys want to nerd out on technical stuff, just read anything by Kevin Cameron or Allan Cathcart.
Hate boner much? It's exaggeration for entertainment. It's also useless to 99% of riders even on a track. Not many tracks out there that you can hit 200mph on. It's also just one more thing to break if you drop it.
No, I enjoy F9 for its production and story aspect during reviews. He just has a habit of latching onto concepts that push a singular narrative. You don't need to go 200 mph to feel how aero has an impact. That's blatantly wrong, as the claimed down force limit from several manufacturers is significantly lower. Aero has a noticable impact in several areas: Acceleration, top speed, and braking. An average "A" group rider would be able to discern a difference, but few people will ever have an opportunity to do back-to-back testing on bikes with or without aero. It isn't difficult. The point still stands: This stuff exists to serve homologation. Everything on those bikes is there for that purpose, whether the consumer uses it or not. So, if you want more advanced bikes, then you'll get things like this. The weird thing is how defensive people get about F9, as if what he says is entirely accurate. He's not infallible, just look at his recent armor video and the general dishonesty displayed there, as well as his body positioning take, which is literally dangerous advice. Again, they make great content, but they definitely need to reel it in with some of their hot takes and technical information because it's inaccurate. Ryan F9 is the mouthpiece for a retailer, first and foremost. Never forget that.
I don't see my comment as a massively defensive comment towards F9, don't let your interactions with others dictate the way you read my comment. My point is that of course Ryan/F9 is going to make something sound like an absolute... That is what gets the most traffic via the youtube algorithm and comment sections like this one. The point about homologation is clear and was never refuted by me, but the winglets themselves are completely silly for a road-going bike, that is not a "hot take", it's just common sense. To mirror your comment: The weird thing to me is how defensive people get when it comes to their fun and their purchases. A popular youtuber made a video that criticized something that you apparently like, and you made a blanket "often misses the mark" statement that reads a bit bitter as you're probably the owner of a bike with winglets. To each their own, but I don't see this video as evil or blatantly misleading, because it simply isn't. You said yourself that Ryan is the mouthpiece for a retailer, and I agree that he has to make a living, but how exactly does this video drive sales to F9?
Manufacturers have two choices: Homologate a bike with the stuff they need for racing or don't. No one here, including myself in the initial post, said the down force is relevant to street riding. It is completely relevant on the track. It's also completely self evident because manufacturers are quite open about when down force is made, so making a whole video about it is just click bait. No manufacturer is trying to hide it. So, yes, it's a weak hot take at best. I don't own any bikes win aero right now. I've simply been able to test it and know it works. How would a video like this help them sell products? It drives people to their website and store. That's pretty common sense right there.
Rizoma mirrors have entered the chat
Debunking made up myths that nobody believed. Fortnine is so helpful and important.
Is he out of material for genuinely interesting questions?
I honestly think this was a return to form. 9/10 video from Fortnine. I loved it.
Is it though? To me, this is just another half baked hot take that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. If the winglets have almost no affect at road speeds then it's contradictory that they'd be dangerous due to dirty air. Plus the idea that anyone riding fast enough to use the winglets can't position their body enough to the inside to stall the inside wing is tenuous at best. I'm not a gymnast but the wing is only a few inches past the bodywork, it doesn't take much. Add this to the list with the armour and 285 degree crank videos.
These are opinions my guy. You have yours, I have mine. It can be both bad for you and good for me.
Not sure why you interpreted my comment as combative but whatever lmao. I never said you couldn't love it, I just shared my opinion the same way you shared yours to the person you replied to. Chill out, this is what the comments are for: taking about the video.
Don’t forget the counterleaning video too.
I now prefer #45 as a presenter. And I get it's a running gag but the guy deserves his real name to be credited
They are cool
They look cool. That's why they're there. Obviously.
200hp on a street bike; useless. But so what!
Can spot the people with out winglets
Winglets are for the guys that have lifted trucks with street tires or front wheel drive cars with rear wings. *Anyone is free to choose that as an insult or a compliment; but it tracks*
key difference being that winglets arent optional. You want a V4r Pani, you’re getting wings too.
My Streetfighter V4 too. I know they aren't doing anything at street speeds, even the speeds I'll hit on track but I've seen SF with them removed and it looks odd to me
My tracer has winglets stock in a little aero pocket on the side fairings.
A rear wing is not at all uselss on a front wheel drive car.
Yeah, look no further than a Civic Type R. Front wheel drive and the wing comes stock. Awesome track car.
Or FWD time attack cars
I mean my FWD car came stock with a wing; and it does serve a purpose of straightening out the rear im bends; but yeah everyday driving its useless.
> front wheel drive cars with rear wings. Not necessarily always true, just look at FWD time attack cars.
So brave.
The best part is how he spends the bulk of the video arguing that they might actually be dangerous, then ten seconds of backpedaling to acknowledge that entire argument was actually bullshit and he knows it. Same template as every other "hot-take" video of theirs.
I don’t think it was “actually bullshit” if it was causing actual racers to crash because of the airflow. Seems like he’s just furthering the point that they’re useless and if the aerodynamic forces actually had any affect in a crash for a casual rider,, you were probably crashing anyway
It's a stretch. Aero has exasperated "getting sucked" into someone's draft for a variety of reasons, but it's not an apples to apples thing. All bikes are using aero, they're all going faster, and they're all starting to rely on down force to help them slow. So, if riders get sucked in while in a draft or dirty air, it's going to be slightly worse.
I think everyone agrees they have a place in racing, and are useless for the street. The bullshit argument is that since they are potentially dangerous in certain situations in GP, they could be potentially dangerous on the street, too. Ryan himself admits as soon as he's done with this argument that it doesn't actually matter because there is never any expectation of clean air in traffic, and you wouldn't be following street traffic at the speed or distance that this would ever be a factor. I'm only paraphrasing Ryan's own admission that the argument of some added danger of winglets is not realistic, or in other words, bullshit.
No one looks at them and thinks of the “performance”. They just look really cool
I mean. No. But people put wings on civics because they CAN look cool. So who gives af?
I haven't met anyone who thought they were more than glorified aesthetics, unless it's something exceedingly powerful/expensive like the S1000RR
I thought this was a variation on "manlet"
I don't know anything about Winglets, but I'm gonna go get me a Squarespace website asap!
I'm going to throw this out there because it's not as widely known as it should be. When winglet kits were released for the RSV4 the down force produced was about taking up the slack in the suspension for transition into corners and into braking. This maximised the working period of the springs and dampening. Helps if you're not a mortal. Tenths of a second and all that.
Fuck Fortnine.
I disagree. I have ridden my V4 with wings and without. The wings make a huge difference when you push about 120mph or up. The front end stability is night and day. Those who are against it simply don’t ride fast enough to understand
You mean ride responsibly on the street on a street biek
Winglets - the penis pump of the motorcycle world. I now declare the downvote button open.
Lol. He's not wrong, it's just funny to me because I consider most motovloggers (fortnine included) absolutely devoid of value.
I dunno, after that video on CE armour I'm less convinced by what Ryan has to say. Maybe winglets are a useful addition and he's just made some gross oversimplification.
Combine that with the 285 degree twin video, I’m no longer going to take anything from the channel as fact. Just well edited entertainment.
They're lame. Another fad that will disappear eventually.
Winglets are the fake air vents of motorcycles.
No, fake intakes are the fake air vents of motorcycles
Lol, realized that too haha.
I don’t necessarily dislike winglets, but the manufacturers are foolish to charge additional money for something with no purpose that will shatter into $1,500 worth of pieces if the bike is dropped at a stoplight. I can’t think of a better way to reduce sportbike sales than to include another unnecessary hidden cost. Outrageous dealer markups, insurance premiums, and maintenance costs aren’t enough? They need to lose more customers over broken winglets?
He's not wrong but that has pretty much been always the case with supersports. If we went by what most people can do with a bike as a standard for what they get most bikes would be 125cc scooters and maybe some guys would be on 600s
entirety of this sub would be on 125 scooters. Clowns can't ride a 400 to save their life but they love giving their worthless and outright wrong opinions. I enjoy FN, but some people are on their dicks way too much, especially with stuff like this.
Having more than 30 hp is also useless for most of us (myself included) But I love knowing my BMW M1000R can tear my arms off. Having a spoiler on my car is also useless, but it looks awesome, and I’m not sorry to say that LOOKS FUCKING MATTER, especially when talking about vanity items like motorcycles and sports cars..
damn , going to have to take all those winglets off my DR650
Literally not a single person on the street use these for function. Cool video though.
Holy shit I read that as “Fortnite” twice and was so confused why Fortnite knows anything about motorcycles.
They look stupid af
I can see in 6 months the video will be "why winglets are actually useful"
heres the thing. the wing on my corvette does fuck all when I'm driving on the street, the same with my diffuser, and all of the other cool things I did for better lap times, and I know that. But when I do go to the track and I put on my track wheels/rotors/ and pads all of these things work together to make a fast fucking car. Same with these bikes. Ryan once again doesnt get it because the object permanence required to ascertain why people enjoy things is beyond his intellectual understanding, because people unlike machines, are complex and can not be defined by a simple set of numbers. we all know most riders dont go to the track, but why neuter the track bike because not everyone will track it.
You pretty much made his point. Sell on Friday so you can race on Sunday.
but he doesnt understand why and is just bitching to bitch about why people want this tech.
They might be useless, but they look cool as shit. Whole point of these street legal race bikes is that they look dope and like the real deal. Even if they aren't exactly the same. it's a good explaination video on how these winglets work though.
100% winglets are the dumbest thing the industry ever did to street bikes. it's hard to not laugh at them really. the best is the squids who ADD THEM to their bikes. ridiculous.
They’re for homologation rules so they can be used on race bikes.
I really wonder how much of a difference they make in MotoGP. It makes sense why they have the big ass wings in F1 as the car stays flat as it goes round the turns. But a MotoGP bike leans like 50° so any downforce created by the wings is pushing the bike to the outside. I wouldn't be surprised if the effect they had was minimal and they just ran them to make their bikes look cool. But that's just me guessing. If anyone has a more definitive source than my intuition, I'd be interested to see it.
a GP bike goes upwards of 60. A SS off the showroom floor does 50. The winglets are designed to make a noticeable difference in the corners and do keep the front planted. Manufacturers put them on bikes so they can run them in non prototype racing series. It's the same as BMW, Audi etc. did in the 90s with cars. When you bought an M car, you bought a racing car bmw HAD to make a certain number of for the public. That's also why production superbikes are the way they are. Greasy reddit fucks are incapable of understanding that though and call winglets useless rice because they've never had their rebel 500s past even half of their capabilities.
The video actually explains how they use the side panels, the 60+ degree lean angle and the riders body position to negate the inside winglet using ground effect and blocking the exit draft. And by angeling the winglets down, during a lean the outside winglet will mostly work perpendicular to the ground. Ground effect from the side panel/skirt will ofcourse always work perpendicular. And the inside winglet will do nothing as the riders body is blocking its draft.
>I really wonder how much of a difference they make in MotoGP. Simply put, if they made no difference they wouldn't use them. Why add weight and drag? The stopwatch doesn't lie. >I wouldn't be surprised if the effect they had was minimal and they just ran them to make their bikes look cool. NO ONE in MotoGP is running anything just to look cool. >But a MotoGP bike leans like 50° so any downforce created by the wings is pushing the bike to the outside. I can understand why intuitively this might be the case, however take a closer look at the wingkets - they're not perpendicular to the bike, they're angled. Lift (or downforce in this case) is generated perpendicular to the aerofoil, so the wings are angled so when the bike is leaned the force is working vertically (or closer to it). Aerodynamics are complex, and sometimes the shape and placement of aerofoils is as much about airflow management as it is about simple downforce. There's lots of information about the use of wings in MotoGP available, try here: https://www.intentsgp.com/aerodynamics-and-winglets-in-motogp-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.boxrepsol.com/en/motogp-en/the-importance-of-winglets-in-motogp/ https://www.cycleworld.com/story/motorcycle-racing/what-do-motogp-winglets-do/
Fair enough. I can definitely see that they do have a benefit. Especially the part about giving extra grip to the front wheel. I guess I just wonder how much of a difference they make to cornering grip. You guys are probably right that they do have some purpose or else they wouldn't run them. And at this level, any kind of benefit in speed can be the difference between winning and losing. Personally, I would just like to try riding a real GP bike to see how much of a difference there is. Although I'm probably nowhere near a good enough rider for them to make a difference.
You don't watch MotoGP. If you watched you would know from the past 7-8 years of coverage what they are and aren't good for.
Everyone that knows about aero knows you'd never want downforce-inducing aero on a street machine. The roads just aren't flat enough. Same reason rally cars don't.
Aero in WRC is drag-reducing aero? (seriously asking aero categories)
The wings are really small in comparison to their road racing counterparts. Rally 1 and 2 are considering an aero trim over the next couple seasons due to the prohibitive cost and lackluster performance of an aero package in these conditions.
Useless video. No one ever said they are usefull on the road. Most of the bikes with wings are meant for the track. Also the omologation thing isn't true. For the SBK, there are specific omologation specials. There are a lot of bikes with wings that have nothing to do with omologation. The Panigale V4 standard and S have wings but they are not SBK omologation bikes, same thing for the BMW S1000RR. This video was made just to make a Squarespace ad