I. Executive Summary: The Desmosedici Development Paradox

1.1. Current Competitive Status and Performance Discrepancy

The 2025 MotoGP season is characterized by a significant performance divergence within the Ducati Desmosedici stable, a dynamic that has created substantial tension and technical scrutiny. The current championship standings highlight this paradox: the factory team’s dual world champion, Francesco Bagnaia, has experienced inconsistent results, placing him behind both the current championship leader, Marc Marquez, and Marc’s brother, Alex Marquez, the latter piloting the older, satellite GP24 specification machine.¹ While Marc Marquez is redefining dominance in the modern era ³, Bagnaia’s regression has cast a shadow over the incremental development philosophy employed by Ducati Corse.

The core paradox is that the manufacturer sought incremental optimization through “marginal gains” ⁴ for the factory GP25, but the resulting configuration introduced critical mechanical incompatibilities. These incompatibilities specifically undermined the established, championship-winning riding style of Francesco Bagnaia, particularly in the critical phases of braking and corner entry.

1.2. Key Findings: GP25’s Fundamental Technical Deficit in Braking Dynamics

Analysis indicates that the GP25, as initially deployed, is an engine-forward chassis hybrid. Although Ducati made the strategic decision to retain the proven GP24 powerplant base due to issues with a new engine prototype ⁵, the subtle integration of evolved components—including a new swingarm, gearbox, and revised Ride Height Device (RHD) mechanics—disrupted the delicate front-end dynamics.⁶ This shift compromised the precise feel required for world-class deep trail braking.

Bagnaia’s difficulties are not attributed to a sudden loss of skill, but rather to a quantifiable mechanical deficit. The champion explicitly stated that the GP24’s best attributes were its braking and corner entry performance, a level of confidence and feedback the GP25 has repeatedly failed to achieve.⁶ This lack of front-end confidence forces the rider to reduce their input threshold during maximal corner entry speed, resulting in performance inconsistency.⁸ The paddock theory that the older bike is better suited to Bagnaia’s style was decisively validated during mid-season testing. The confirmation that Bagnaia tested the VR46 GP24 specification at Misano ⁹ prompted a technical backtrack. His subsequent, dramatic return to competitive form required reverting the factory GP25 to components derived from the GP24 architecture, specifically older forks, swingarm, and possibly the RHD.¹⁰

1.3. Strategic Outlook and Mitigation Efforts by Ducati Corse

Ducati is currently engaged in an unprecedented exercise of internal technical backtracking, integrating validated GP24 components into the GP25 hybrid platform to restore front-end confidence and stability.¹⁰ This strategy effectively acknowledges a fundamental technical misstep in the initial 2025 prototype development cycle, where new components introduced unwanted complexities. Marc Marquez’s success on the GP25 validates the machine’s overall speed potential and high performance ceiling, demonstrating his exceptional capacity to adapt his technique to the bike’s inherent instability.³ However, Marquez’s performance serves to mask the specific front-end deficiency that affects riders, like Bagnaia, whose styles depend heavily on the GP24’s precise braking setup.

---

II. The Factory GP25: An Engineered Compromise (The “Frankenstein” Hybrid)

The designation of the factory machine as a “Frankenstein” bike is rooted in the complex series of strategic component choices made under strict MotoGP homologation rules, resulting in a machine composed of selective elements from the 2024 and 2025 development cycles.

2.1. Homologation Decisions and the Engine Brake Crisis

The MotoGP regulatory framework, which mandates the freezing of engine specifications for two years ahead of the new 850cc era ⁴, necessitated an early commitment to an engine base. This constraint brought Ducati’s winter testing dilemmas into sharp focus.

2.1.1. Analysis of the Rejected 2025 Engine: Negative Torque and Corner Entry Issues

The proposed prototype for the 2025 engine, while showing potential advantages in overall performance and perceived ease of riding, was ultimately plagued by “persistent braking issues” during the winter tests in Barcelona, Sepang, and Buriram.⁵ Gigi Dall’Igna noted that the new engine “revealed a more complicated engine brake management”.⁵ Further analysis suggested the engine exhibited a difficult “negative-torque character,” which specifically complicated control during corner entry.¹² This inconsistent application of engine braking directly interfered with Bagnaia’s ability to precisely modulate the motorcycle’s pitch and load the front tire during his signature deep trail braking. Unexpected fluctuations in negative torque lead directly to unexpected changes in front tire load, which analysts observed as the bike “shaking like hell” during tests.¹² This confirmed that the loss of confidence was not merely psychological but a direct mechanical consequence of the engine’s interaction with the chassis under deceleration.

2.1.2. Rationale for Retaining the Evolved GP24 Powerplant Base

Given the severe and unpredictable nature of the braking issues, Ducati Corse adopted a preventative “backwards-to-go-forward” strategy.⁴ The team chose to revert the factory GP25s, ridden by Bagnaia, Marc Marquez, and Fabio di Giannantonio, to an evolved version of the GP24 powerplant.⁵ Ducati’s technical team stated they were “already partly prepared” for this outcome after the Barcelona test, having ensured everything was ready to confirm the 2024 version.⁵ This strategic choice prioritized maintaining a known, high-performance base—the GP24 engine—while integrating minor internal updates (excluding the crankcases) to avoid homologating a radical engine design that was fundamentally flawed in the critical braking phase.¹²

2.2. Chassis Evolution and Rigidity Mapping

2.2.1. The Failed 2025 Chassis Prototype: Excessive Headstock Flex and Rear-Push Mitigation

The technical team’s ambition for the 2025 chassis focused on improving mid-corner stability and addressing the recurrent issue of the rear tire “pushing the front,” a factor contributing to crashes suffered by Bagnaia and 2024 champion Jorge Martín.¹² The solution was a radical new frame featuring “much-reduced rigidity around the headstock”.¹² However, this reduction in torsional stiffness paradoxically undermined the bike’s stability during the initial phase of heavy braking and corner entry. Since Bagnaia and Marquez both rely on maximal front-end stability during this phase, the prototype chassis was rejected outright.¹²

2.2.2. The ‘Frankenstein’ Build: Integrating New Components onto the GP24 Base

The resulting GP25 factory hybrid machine uses the validated GP24 chassis frame as its structural foundation. Onto this stable base, Ducati integrated several new or evolved components: a new swingarm, a new gearbox, and updates to the ride height lowering system.⁵ Marc Marquez’s observation that the GP25 and GP24 are fundamentally the same machine highlights this reality.¹⁵ However, the performance divergence confirms that these seemingly minor component changes, designed for “marginal gains,” created the problem. The specific rigidity profile of the new swingarm and the kinematic characteristics of the updated RHD critically influence squat, traction, and the dynamic geometry of the bike under extreme load. When introduced onto the GP24 chassis stiffness map, these ’25 components appeared to subtly shift the weight transfer profile, compromising the highly sensitive front-end feel required by Bagnaia.

2.3. Aerodynamic Strategy: Risk Aversion and Performance Window

2.3.1. Dall’Igna’s Assessment: The Difficulty of Judging New Aero Packages

The selection of the aerodynamic package for the start of the 2025 season was deemed by General Manager Gigi Dall’Igna to be “the most difficult decision”.⁵ Dall’Igna explained the inherent challenge in judging a new development “on just a few tracks and perhaps often under very particular grip conditions”.⁵

2.3.2. Impact of Aero Choice on Front-End Load and Fast Corner Stability

The new aero package, while providing “undoubted advantages” on tracks like Buriram, was deemed too risky for widespread adoption, as it “risked bringing disadvantages on tracks with faster curves like Argentina and Qatar”.⁵ This uncertainty about the package’s performance across a diverse range of circuit characteristics led Ducati to prefer caution, resulting in the factory trio starting the season on the known, stable GP24 aerodynamics.⁵ This decision demonstrates Ducati’s strategic understanding that overall stability and a wider performance window are more valuable than pure peak downforce or top speed metrics that might destabilize the machine under braking or in high-speed corners.

The following table summarizes the key component adoption decisions that define the GP25 hybrid specification at the start of the season:

Comparative Technical Specifications: GP24 (Base) vs. GP25 (Factory Hybrid)

Component System	GP24 (Satellite Spec Base)	GP25 (Factory Hybrid Spec)	Rationale / Noted Performance Impact
Engine Powerplant	GP24 Specification (Homologated)	Evolved GP24 Base Powerplant	Retained due to 2025 prototype’s complicated engine brake management.5
Chassis Frame	GP24 Rigidity Profile	GP24 Base Frame (Rejected 2025 prototype chassis)	Ensures stability; radical 2025 frame was deemed too flexible/unstable.12
Aerodynamics Package	2024 Specification	2024 Specification (Initial Start)	Cautiously retained due to new aero risks on high-speed circuits.5
Swingarm	Standard GP24	Upgraded ’25 Version (Initial New Part)	Successfully implemented, though possibly reverted by Bagnaia later.5
Engine Braking System	Consistent/Predictable Negative Torque	Inconsistent/Complicated Management	Central source of Bagnaia’s confidence loss.6

---

III. Case Study: Francesco Bagnaia and the Front-End Confidence Threshold

Francesco Bagnaia’s technical struggles on the GP25 provide a clear demonstration of how high-level performance is dictated by the precise harmony between rider technique and motorcycle dynamics.

3.1. Riding Style Profile: Reliance on Trail Braking and Maximal Front-End Feedback

Bagnaia’s technique is dependent on carrying extreme brake pressure deep into the corner, maintaining front-end load and feedback far beyond the typical MotoGP braking zone. This style—trail braking to the apex—requires the chassis geometry and suspension to provide absolute, unchanging predictability and support, allowing him to operate confidently at the absolute limit of front tire adhesion. The consistent, predictable handling of the GP24 was the enabling factor for this technique.⁶

3.2. Technical Diagnosis of GP25 Instability: Braking Zone and Corner Entry Deficits

Bagnaia’s core complaint focused on instability under braking and during corner entry.⁷ A direct causal link exists between the evolved engine characteristics and the chassis dynamics.

3.2.1. Correlation between Engine Characteristics and Braking Performance

While Bagnaia praised the GP25’s smoother and more precise power delivery, he immediately identified a regression in the bike’s braking and corner entry capability compared to the GP24.⁶ He theorized that the engine’s internal construction and setup, though derived from the GP24 base, were responsible for this change in feel. The implication is that even subtle modifications to the torque mapping or internal components (internals were changed, but crankcases were not ¹²) altered the engine braking signature. This minute difference in the flywheel effect or negative torque delivery created an unpredictable front-end pitch during the critical deceleration phase. For a rider operating at the absolute limit, this fluctuation in front-end loading is perceived as instability and a loss of confidence, leading to the severe chassis shake reported by observers.¹²

3.2.2. The Role of Suspension Components and Ride Height Devices (RHD) in Dynamic Inconsistency

The “shaking like hell” reported by observers points directly to issues of inconsistent geometric behavior or insufficient damping under load.¹² The GP25 incorporates the latest generation of RHD systems, which lower the rear end on straights and disengage under braking.¹⁴ If the updated RHD or the new swingarm and forks ¹⁰ introduced to the GP25 altered the rate or timing of the front-end compression and rear-end rebound cycle, the bike’s geometry would become inconsistent precisely when Bagnaia needed it most: during his braking reference point. This failure to provide kinematic harmony means the required front-end support for his braking technique vanished, forcing him to ride “more stiffly on the bike,” which only compounded the issue and resulted in slower lap times.⁸

3.3. The Misano Validation: Quantification of the GP24 Component Advantage

The decision to test the VR46 GP24 specification, confirmed by team principal Alessio Salucci ⁹, was a critical admission by the factory team that a component architecture mismatch was occurring. Following the Misano test, Bagnaia achieved a dramatic performance turnaround at the Japanese Grand Prix, admitting that a return to “items used in the past” led to his breakthrough.¹⁷

The fix involved selectively reverting components on the GP25 to 2024-derived specifications, specifically the forks, the swingarm, and potentially the RHD.¹⁰ This component reversal immediately resolved the front-end woes, resulting in his first sprint victory of the season and a dominant performance.¹⁰ The test successfully demonstrated that the marginal gains sought by the ’25 components were negatively synergistic with Bagnaia’s highly specific requirements for front-end feedback. The factory team’s move was to selectively reintroduce the older, proven component architecture onto the GP25 frame to restore the integrated kinematic feel that defined the successful GP24 platform.

The timeline below illustrates the immediate correlation between technical configuration changes and competitive results:

Bagnaia’s Performance Fluctuation and Technical Causal Factors

Race Cluster/Timeframe	Bike Configuration	Observed Technical Issue	Performance Trend (Relative to Marquez)	Causal Factor
Early Season Testing	GP25/New Engine	Complicated Engine Brake, front shake 5	Significant struggle/lack of confidence 6	Inconsistent engine mapping disrupting front-end load transfer.
Mid-Season (Pre-Misano)	GP25/Hybrid Setup	Front-end Instability under Braking 7	Inconsistent points scoring; major loss of speed in braking zones.	Mismatched kinematic behavior of ’25 components (Swingarm, RHD) on ’24 chassis base.10
Misano Test (Post-GP)	VR46 GP24 Components Tested	Superior Front-end Feedback/Confidence Gained 9	Validation of optimal configuration for riding style.	Confirmation that component architecture, not fundamental design, was the source of instability.
Motegi GP (Post-Fix)	GP25 (with Reverted Parts)	Resolved Braking Confidence; first sprint victory 10	Dominant performance, immediate return to champion-level pace.	Restoration of known component stiffness/damping profile.

---

IV. Counter-Analysis: Marc Marquez’s Adaptation and Competitive Advantage

The dichotomy between Francesco Bagnaia’s difficulties and Marc Marquez’s dominance on the GP25 hybrid platform is central to the technical debate. Marquez’s success is a testament not just to the bike’s potential speed but to his unique ability to adapt to its deficiencies.

4.1. The Marquez Methodology: Riding Style Elasticity and Rapid Setup Tolerance

Marquez’s exceptional run, which has placed him far ahead in the championship standings ¹, is fundamentally enabled by his “chameleon-type approach”.³ His riding style possesses a high degree of elasticity, allowing him to quickly adjust his physical input and technique to suit varied setups and unstable dynamics. Unlike Bagnaia, who requires absolute precision for his trail braking style, Marquez is adept at forcing the bike to work, compensating for a lack of front-end confidence or geometric inconsistency through physical manipulation and movement on the machine. He achieves maximum profit from his strong points and the bike’s strengths, regardless of whether the setup is conventionally “perfect”.³

Marquez acknowledged that confidence loss directly translates to a deficit in the braking zone, often equating to two or three tenths per lap across multiple braking areas.⁸ However, his personal performance demonstrates that his threshold for maintaining confidence despite mechanical inconsistency is significantly higher than that of his factory teammate.

4.2. Technical Interpretation of Marquez’s Stance on Bike Similarity

4.2.1. Analyzing the “GP25 is a GP24.9” Narrative

Marc Marquez has consistently insisted that the factory GP25 is “exactly the same bike” as the satellite GP24s used by riders like Alex Marquez.¹⁵ He has referred to the difference as subtle, lying in marginal component changes.¹⁵

While the factory GP25 is known to incorporate slight differences in engine internals and technical upgrades like the ride height device ⁷, Marquez’s declaration serves a competitive purpose. By downplaying the technical gap, he accomplishes two objectives: first, he manages expectations within the factory team, minimizing pressure for radical technical fixes. Second, and more critically, he reinforces the narrative that his current championship success is primarily a function of superior skill in maximizing a common platform. This narrative exerts significant psychological pressure on Bagnaia and other Ducati riders who struggle on what is perceived to be the same base machine.⁸

4.2.2. Differential Use of Advanced Components

Despite his public stance, Marquez also operates strategically, showing a willingness to selectively test new components and revert to proven specs if the advantage is not immediate or consistent.¹⁶ This confirms that even the most adaptable rider requires a stable base. Marquez’s consistency, therefore, is achieved through a combination of superior riding technique and careful component selection, not a blind endorsement of every 2025 innovation.

4.3. Competitive Dynamics: Psychological Impact on Teammates

The disparity in technical adaptation has created a potent competitive dynamic known as the “Marquez effect”.⁸ Marquez’s ability to dominate on a bike that the reigning champion finds volatile generates significant external and internal pressure on Bagnaia. The observed change in Bagnaia’s body language—appearing “more stiff on the bike” ⁸—is a common symptom of a rider battling a loss of confidence. This tension directly hinders the free flow required for optimal performance, manifesting as slower reaction times and less precise handling in high-stakes environments, thereby amplifying the inherent mechanical inconsistencies of the GP25 hybrid.

---

V. Engineering Roadmap and Forward Strategy for Ducati Corse

The GP24/GP25 divide represents a high-stakes, mid-season technical diagnostic and correction effort for Ducati Corse. The forward strategy must be meticulously managed under the constraints of homologation rules while seeking to restore confidence for all factory riders.

5.1. The Challenge of Iterative Development within Homologation Constraints

The regulatory constraints are the primary defining factor for Ducati’s technical roadmap. Since the fundamental engine design is frozen for two years ⁴, any dynamic issues stemming from torque characteristics or engine response must be solved exclusively through electronic mapping, software updates, or permissible changes to non-homologated internals, such as the gearbox (which successfully passed early testing).⁵ The team’s primary avenue for substantial improvement lies in the chassis and aerodynamic packages, which offer greater flexibility for in-season updates.⁵

5.2. Proposed Chassis and Aero Updates to Restore GP24 Braking Feel

Ducati’s immediate focus is a technical backtrack, followed by a highly cautious iterative advancement.

5.2.1. Chassis Focus and Component Re-integration

The technical team’s highest priority is the development of a factory-evolved 2025 chassis that successfully marries the required stiffness profile of the GP24 base with the new component mechanics (swingarm, RHD). This is not a simple re-adoption of the old frame, but a subtle engineering exercise focused on tuning the kinematic movement and damping rates to ensure stability. By selectively reverting to GP24-derived components (like forks and swingarms ¹⁰), Ducati effectively established a baseline of confidence. The subsequent development goal is to iteratively reintroduce ’25 components only after extensive, cross-validated testing ensures they maintain or improve Bagnaia’s threshold for front-end feedback. This operational phase functions as a critical internal quality control process, ensuring future GP25 components are universally beneficial and avoid technical divergence based on rider style sensitivity.

5.2.2. Aerodynamic Strategy

Ducati is limited to a single in-season fairing update.⁵ Given the earlier caution regarding the new aero package’s unpredictable behavior on high-speed circuits ⁵, the revised package will likely be introduced only after extensive testing validates its stability and ensures it does not compromise the regained front-end load under braking. This update must stabilize aerodynamic downforce generation across various lean angles and speeds.

The following table summarizes the technical progression and required fixes:

Key GP25 Technical Compromises and Developmental Status

Technical Area	Original 2025 Prototype Goal	Mid-Season Status (Hybrid GP25)	Current Developmental Fix	Severity of Compromise
Engine Braking	Improved Performance/Ease of Riding	Retained GP24 Evolved Powerplant	Refined ECU mapping/internal component selection 12	Moderate (Fixed via reversion/software)
Chassis Rigidity	Reduced Headstock Stiffness	Reverted to GP24 Frame Base	Iterative testing of new chassis designs/flex profiles 12	High (Fundamental component failure)
Front-End Components	New Swingarm/Forks/RHD	Selectively Reverted to GP24 Spec	Re-integration of validated GP24 geometry items 10	Critical (Directly impacted Bagnaia’s confidence)
Aerodynamics	Peak Efficiency/Drag Reduction	Retained GP24 Aero Package	Single fairing update planned for stability optimization 5	Moderate (Risk mitigation priority)

5.3. Competitive Implications: Balancing Marc Marquez’s Adaptation with Bagnaia’s Specific Needs

The primary competitive challenge for Ducati is engineering a common solution that maximizes Bagnaia’s braking feel without disrupting the successful setup currently utilized by Marc Marquez. Marquez, due to his high adaptability, is less sensitive to marginal setup shifts. However, his current successful configuration must be preserved. This requirement necessitates a greater degree of specialization in the setup packages offered to the factory riders, guaranteeing that Bagnaia receives component architecture precisely tuned to his sensitive braking requirements, even if the base machine remains consistent.

5.4. Long-Term Outlook: Technical Direction toward the 2026 Regulation Changes

The performance volatility of the GP25 prototype serves as a crucial lesson for Ducati Corse as they look toward the radical 2026 rule changes, particularly the transition to the 850cc engine era. The immediate failure of the new engine prototype due to unpredictable engine braking ¹² and the compromised dynamics of the new chassis underscore the peril of pursuing marginal gains at the expense of fundamental stability. The experience with the GP25 hybrid will undoubtedly inform the design philosophy for the new engine formula, likely favoring a stable, predictable power delivery and engine brake character over raw, unrefined peak performance, ensuring that the new platform offers a wide, usable performance window for all elite riders.¹⁹

---

VI. Conclusions

The division between the Ducati GP24 and GP25 is not a case of radical year-on-year technical divergence, but rather a failure of component integration. Ducati’s commitment to an evolved GP24 engine base was necessitated by the critical engine braking deficiencies of the 2025 prototype. However, the subsequent attempt to integrate subtly modified chassis components (swingarm, forks, RHD) onto the proven GP24 frame altered the dynamic geometry just enough to undermine the highly specialized riding style of Francesco Bagnaia, specifically in the critical phase of trail braking.

Marc Marquez’s championship success, enabled by his superior adaptability, effectively masked this design flaw for the initial half of the season. However, the mid-season validation that Bagnaia required a return to GP24-derived architecture confirms that the GP25 hybrid, as initially deployed, represented a technical compromise that severely limited the maximum performance of the incumbent champion. Ducati’s current roadmap involves a delicate process of technical reversion and iterative reintroduction of evolved components, striving to restore the front-end confidence of the GP24 while leveraging the proven marginal gains of the new components to secure the championship.

Sources

1. “One of the WORST” – Bagnaia’s BRUTAL Self-Assessment | MotoGP 2025 – YouTube, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF-jeL1rFDU
2. Francesco Bagnaia: Fighting Alex Marquez for MotoGP second place – Motorsport.com, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/francesco-bagnaia-sets-sight-on-beating-alex-marquez-in-motogp-2025/10763413/
3. Marc Marquez: Adapting riding style “one of my strong points” in MotoGP domination, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1082298/1/marc-marquez-adapting-riding-style-one-my-strong-points-motogp-domination
4. Ducati goes backward to go forward – Márquez and Bagnaia to race GP24.9s in 2025, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/motorcycles/motogp/ducati-goes-backward-to-go-forward-marquez-and-bagnaia-to-race-gp24-9s-in-2025/
5. Gigi Dall’Igna reveals “most difficult decision” for GP25 – and it wasn’t …, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1063423/1/dalligna-aerodynamics-not-engine-most-difficult-decision-gp25
6. MotoGP, Bagnaia: “The Ducati GP25? Better engine, worse braking.” – Reddit, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/motogp/comments/1iig27j/motogp_bagnaia_the_ducati_gp25_better_engine/
7. Ducati GP25 vs GP24: What’s Really Going On With Bagnaia’s Bike? Can Assen MotoGP round bring change? – IAMABIKER, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://iamabiker.com/avin/2025/ducati-gp25-vs-gp24-whats-really-going-on-with-bagnaias-bike-can-assen-motogp-round-bring-change/
8. Marc Marquez on Bagnaia’s struggles, the ‘Marquez effect’, and confidence – MotoGP, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.motogp.com/en/news/2025/08/28/marc-marquez-on-bagnaias-struggles-the-marquez-effect-and-confidence/757720
9. VR46 conferma che Bagnaia ha provato la Ducati GP24 a Misano : r/motogp – Reddit, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/motogp/comments/1nwxwmb/vr46_confirm_bagnaia_tested_gp24_ducati_at_misano/?tl=it
10. Pecco Bagnaia predicts “completely different” MotoGP season with Motegi changes, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1082653/1/pecco-bagnaia-predicts-completely-different-motogp-season-motegi-changes
11. Will Fabio di Giannantonio get Bagnaia’s Ducati parts for Indonesian MotoGP? – Crash.net, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1082979/1/will-fabio-di-giannantonio-get-bagnaias-gp25-parts-indonesian-motogp
12. Inside Ducati’s MotoGP tech office: the reason for Bagnaia’s downfall …, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/motogp/comments/1nzo4t4/inside_ducatis_motogp_tech_office_the_reason_for/
13. Marc Marquez: “The decision has been made, we will use the 2024 engine” : r/motogp, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/motogp/comments/1inqn2x/marc_marquez_the_decision_has_been_made_we_will/
14. Bagnaia reborn: What has Ducati done to his Desmosedici? – Motor Sport Magazine, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/articles/motorcycles/motogp/bagnaia-reborn-what-has-ducati-done-to-his-desmosedici/
15. MotoGP, Marc Marquez: “The GP25 and GP24 are the same, but with the new features everything will change” – Reddit, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/motogp/comments/1l7hezb/motogp_marc_marquez_the_gp25_and_gp24_are_the/
16. Marc Marquez reignites Ducati MotoGP bike spec debate after Aragon sprint dominance, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.crash.net/motogp/news/1072908/1/marc-marquez-reignites-ducati-motogp-bike-spec-debate-after-aragon-sprint
17. Francesco Bagnaia admits tech throwbacks but won’t confirm Ducati GP24 rumours, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.motorsport.com/motogp/news/francesco-bagnaia-admits-tech-throwbacks-but-wont-confirm-ducati-gp24-rumours/10764044/
18. Marc Marquez Claims Ducati GP25 Identical to GP24, Bagnaia & Ducati Boss Fires Back! | MotoGP News – YouTube, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdlYKTdQsZk
19. Ducati Motorcycles World Première 2026 | Witness the Future of Performance, accessed on October 9, 2025, https://www.ducati.com/us/en/home/ducati-world-premiere

Our Social Media Handles

• Instagram : LivingWithGravity
• Medium : Akash Dolas
• YouTube Channel : Gear and Shutter
• Facebook : LivingWithGravity