1299 Geometry Numbers

I tried touching on this before but didnt get a real response. Those of you that really got acquainted with the 1098 series would understand that there ended up being a set formula that made that bike work.
Many on here will never change their geometry, and just rely on the factory settings. Perhaps those settings are "good enough".
I'd like those that know share some numbers in this thread, and get to understand how those numbers influence the performance of the 1299.
The numbers can be generated by a common base technique by suspending the bike so that the front and rear wheels are just clear of the floor, then measure trail, centre pivot height and swing arm angle. ( Plenty of info out there how to measure these). When the "stance" is achieved we could then talk sag numbers and spring rates etc.

I can give a few thoughts on it, not "definitive" it's all subjective, so take what you will from it. We did a lot of experimenting with geometry on the 899, 1199, 959 and 1299, and honestly there is not a HUGE amount to be gained from tweaking beyond what can be accomplished with the OEM components other than for a REALLY fast professional rider who has specific preferences. We worked with the techs at both Ohlins and Mupo on early baselines and worked from there over the years. The OEM 30mm triple clamp offset seems to work well, and we've had a couple set up with RobbyMoto 28mm triples with not much noticeable change. Swingarm pivot in -4mm works well for "most" riders in "most" conditions. Going higher on it to increase the swingarm angle often results in excess wheelspin. Run the swingarm length around 552-554mm and that seems to work well. Ride height running 232-236mm using the Ducati Corse ride height tool, with the swingarm in -4mm position, or less ride height if it's in one of the higher positions.
There is not nearly as big of a problem with "pumping" in the rear as there was with the older bikes, which needed a longer swingarm to overcome that. All of that assumes proper setup of normal suspension settings (sag-springs, damping rates, etc.), no one should be messing at all with geometry until the basic things are correct. And this is ONLY for track/racing use.

Thanks Jarel, you were one of the guys i was hoping would chime in. My 1299 is a base and had std suspension (race bike only), that was giving a lot of pumping on exit. I figured this was due to the Sachs shock collapsing through its stroke under power. I have now upgraded to front and rear Mupo . Still had some pumping issues and have up rated the rear spring to a 95Nm from the 90. I have set my bike with 96mm trail (gem), and lifted the height until I have 11 degrees swing arm angle, still maintaining the 96mm trail up front.
Biggest issue I am still having is UNPREDICTABLE wheel stands from slow corner exits. ( please no hero road riders suggesting I learn throttle control as I'm racing at the pointy end and have raced ASBK , Phillip Island and Mugello etc. Only had V Twins. 1098, 1198, DB8 and 2 EBRs) None of these come up as abrutly with less than half throttle as the 1299. The DB8 and EBR have more RWHP than the 1299 stock .
Any way back to the point , I'm wondering if getting to the numbers above I have set the bike to high and this is not helping drive. Has any one a measure from the floor to the SA pivot.
Much appreciated in advance.

Calderara di Reno said:

Thanks Jarel, you were one of the guys i was hoping would chime in. My 1299 is a base and had std suspension (race bike only), that was giving a lot of pumping on exit. I figured this was due to the Sachs shock collapsing through its stroke under power. I have now upgraded to front and rear Mupo . Still had some pumping issues and have up rated the rear spring to a 95Nm from the 90. I have set my bike with 96mm trail (gem), and lifted the height until I have 11 degrees swing arm angle, still maintaining the 96mm trail up front.
Biggest issue I am still having is UNPREDICTABLE wheel stands from slow corner exits. ( please no hero road riders suggesting I learn throttle control as I'm racing at the pointy end and have raced ASBK , Phillip Island and Mugello etc. Only had V Twins. 1098, 1198, DB8 and 2 EBRs) None of these come up as abrutly with less than half throttle as the 1299. The DB8 and EBR have more RWHP than the 1299 stock .
Any way back to the point , I'm wondering if getting to the numbers above I have set the bike to high and this is not helping drive. Has any one a measure from the floor to the SA pivot.
Much appreciated in advance.

Click to expand...

What's the anti-wheeling (DWC) set to?
Are you running the latest Mupo shock?

This is part of my issue (DWC) I have tried settings from 1 to 4 , and 4 is to intrusive when you can control , i.e. 130 mph + as in power wheelie , but still does not stop this unexpected wheelie i get at lower speeds . This is why I'm chasing the mechanical set up , not electronic. Unless of course the electronics aren't right. I have ridden my mates R1 '15 and you can just pin the throttle and it will come up 3-400 mm without any engine cut what so ever ( that you can feel).
Mupo is the latest , went with the race kit....LCRR cartridge and evo shock with hyd preload.

Calderara di Reno said:

This is part of my issue (DWC) I have tried settings from 1 to 4 , and 4 is to intrusive when you can control , i.e. 130 mph + as in power wheelie , but still does not stop this unexpected wheelie i get at lower speeds . This is why I'm chasing the mechanical set up , not electronic. Unless of course the electronics aren't right. I have ridden my mates R1 '15 and you can just pin the throttle and it will come up 3-400 mm without any engine cut what so ever ( that you can feel).
Mupo is the latest , went with the race kit....LCRR cartridge and evo shock with hyd preload.

Click to expand...

Yeah, that sounds like it would be a squat-induced wheelie. Without a potentiometer to measure shock travel, it's hard to pinpoint though. If possible, have someone video the corner exits that you're having problems with so you can see if the bike is physically squatting and starting the wheelie that way. "Feel" doesn't usually work in those situations. Definitely the OEM Sachs shock is not competent for fast race pace, so upgrading to race valved shock should be an improvement. Only other thing to look at is anti-squat, specifically swingarm length and gearing. These bikes seem to be very sensitive to that balance between squat/anti-squat. I had the opposite problem on my 899 that was stuffed with an 1199R engine, it had so much anti-squat that the rear was jacking up under hard throttle and headshaking on the straights due to it. That was resolved by lengthening the swingarm.

I've been confused for a while now , and its frustrating when you cant get access to a track every week.
My last race heat I took some slow speed compression out , (allowing more squat), and the bike really improved, also in other areas. I have looking at the theory of to high and to stiff the chain pull lifting the rear and also the front. Suggesting that when the rear is set stiff and with a bigger swing arm angle it lifts more abruptly ?

I am not at the pointy end...but I do race my 1199R. I will pass on the things that were biggest improvements for me. I am 6'2 220lbs. So this may or may not apply. I was having similar rear "pumping" issues. It was mentioned by at least (2) people who had experience on the panigale that they are oversprung in the rear from the factory. I tend to not listen until at least a couple of people mention it or I trust them. Not to mention no (2) riders are the same. I can say that the lighter spring almost eliminated the pumping. Again, only my experience. The 2nd big piece of low hanging fruit was scooting back in the saddle as much possible...not just in the straights. The stock seat is difficult to do that with. I used a trackday to try and sit as far back as possible. It will burn your quads like mutha but yielded great results for me. So I purchased the Race Seats tank extension/seat combo. I also have the wheelie issue as well. It helped out a lot to use the "195 Lo" setting on the engine power. Not sure if it still an option on the 1299. As stated above...these are not definitive measurements but worked for me. If someone is strolling thru this thread I hope they give a try at least and report back. Stuff like this is why I frequent this site. Great knowledge base if you are able to weed out some of the jackwagons that add absolutely zero to this forum.

At 6ft 2 , your no Pedrosa! I guess you need to dread your mass over the bike evenly. The swing arm angle is what intrigues me , and I feel it has much to do with drive and wheelies. It's becoming obvious just how finicky a small adjustment can make.
On the R they made the swing arm adjustable and most are going -4 , thus flattening the swingarm angle to get more drive less spin . If someone had a measurement of the SA angle it might help

Hi Calderara,
Here's a different suggestion that might be useful. What tyres are you using? On my 1199S I've always used Pirelli slicks or sometimes Supercorsa and they have been fine apart from dropping off badly after about a days use. On the R I had very similar problems to you with the front being light and head shaking badly and my mate recommended trying the Dunlop slicks. I did also have some basic suspension setup that I did but I can't overstate enough how much of a night and day difference it was. The Dunlops stiffer carcass transformed the R and made it feel much friendlier like my 1199S has always felt. The 1299S has a bit of a different character to the manic R but it's well worth trying the Dunlops. From what I have heard the Bridgestones are comparable with a better front and not so good rear as well as a bit cheaper so I'm giving those a go next month in Cartegena and will let you know how it goes.

My swing arm is at -2.

I havn't tried adjusting mine but the general impression I had was that it was related to grip level; whether that is tyre quality vs power or track/road surface quality. I never had the pumping issue on my 1199S but the lower position of the 1299S/R looks to be an improvement where the grip is not so good. I generally ride on pretty good surfaces so will probably look at changing mine up to -2 instead of the stock -4 on the R as well.

Ok the adjuster is to change the sa angle slightly without changing the trail of the front end. 1299 have a different crank case that is set at -4 like the 1199r . I have lost the own settings when I went extra links on the chain and changed out the rear cog to a 41. Didn't have a ride height tool then . So I'm wondering if my bike is set to high all over. I have 96 trail in the front and the angle from centre pivot to centre onf the rear wheel axle is exactly 11 degrees. Maybe this is to much angle for the 1299? Maybe on 1199r with centre pivot at -2 or 0 is 11 degrees
So what I'm after is the swing arm angle with both wheels off the floor , just and or the height of the centre pivot from the floor

Hi Royal, only ever used SC2 on the rear. Yes the pump happens when you are picking the bike on power and the soft wall SC's would be flexing and trying to take up any incorrect hydraulic settings for sure. I think the Pirelli are great when dialled in , but not a forgiving tire and tear to bits if temps are wrong. It's a tough game for a mug!

I know a guy who might have these measurements, I'll make some enquiries.

Jarel: Is there a way to go to -4mm on the swingarm pivot on an 899? I get wheelspin on exit of slow 2nd gear corners, and I know the factory went to that pivot position stock on the 959... Sorry for the thread jack, but I have been looking for a while.

It's be interesting to know how many of the 959 parts you would need to swap over.

I was thinking the R model adjustable parts might work. The 899 engine case where the swingarm bolts up is the same on the 899 and 1199.

Sounds like it might be possible then, but I remember those parts being expensive.

Assuming I found all the right parts, and they work with the stock 899 swingarm, it should be around $300. Not too bad. If I have to convert to SSSA, it will be more like $3000, and in that case I will deal with the spinning some other way. I have already switched to flat-rate linkage which should help. I was hoping Jarel could confirm.