MrsC_772
19-05-2014, 05:57 PM
Firstly, huge thanks to Snells for letting me have their fresh out of the box 1200 Monster demo bike to play with for the weekender, when a belt-tensioning-bearing failure on my 696 risked leaving me Monsterless. :thumbsup:
Like the Diavel (which I test rode last year), it has 3 riding modes - urban, touring and sport. I stayed mostly in touring, partly because the clock display in touring gave me the most useful information (trip counters, clock, revs, speed, mpg). Throttle response in the 1200's sport mode was less snappy, more usable, than the Diavel's sport mode.
Concessions to practicality include:
- height adjustable standard seat, although the lower of the two settings was still too tall for me, so Snells lent me a super-low aftermarket seat;
- under-seat fabric loops to attach a tailpack (although fitting my Kriega packs took longer on the 1200 than the 696 due to having to unthread buckles to use the loops);
- a metal fuel tank (for the ethanol-phobic);
- proper pillion grab handles.
Ergonomically, I found my knees bent at a sharper angle than the 696 and 695. Footpegs are high. Riding position was more upright than 696 and 695.
The good points:
- The torque! Immense! The 1200 pulls like a train! Moving off from standstill, even before opening the throttle, it strains at the leash when you start to let the clutch out. On the move, open it up in 4th gear and head for the horizon at warp speed with a massive grin.
- The handling - super stable, utterly planted in corners. No effort needed to turn the wide bars, and it went exactly where I wanted, no drama. The best, most confidence inspiring handling, of the 3 Monsters I've ridden.
- The front brake - the best on any bike I've ridden. The front brake on the 1200 was effective but progressive and predictable with no harshness so I could use it to come to a standstill (when on my 696 I'd use the rear brake).
The bad points:
- The weight - my first impression of the 696 was its lightness. My first impression of the 1200 was its mass - sat on it, levering it up off the side stand to vertical, and also trying to push it around a carpark. The Diavel is on paper heavier (wet weight 239kg compared with the Monster 1200's 209kg wet weight), but the Monster feels heavier.
- The clocks - stupid colour smartphone type screen, virtually unreadable in sunlight. Night mode is a marginal improvement, but I prefer the 696 clocks.
- At around 4000ish revs the fuelling seems a little lumpy, rocking-horsey surging, probably deliberately inflicted to get through emissions tests.
- Rubbish back brake - good job the front brake is ace!
- The heat - I was surprised just how much heat it pumped out. Whereas my 696 toasts the back of my left leg sat at traffic lights on a warm day, the 1200 roasted both legs on the move and at standstill. I was suprised, given the exhaust routing and water cooling.
- The looks - to me, it lacks the elegance, simplicity and coherence of Galluzzi's original Monster design. It's as if someone said "we're going to call it a Monster, so better add a bit of trellis frame (whether it needs it or not)". I'd rather have the purposefully ugly Diavel over the cluttered bitty 1200 with an oil-cooler that looks like an afterthought.
- I got a few false neutrals going from 1st to 2nd.
While I've listed more niggles than specific good points above, the good points are very good indeed. It is a cracking good bike with an awesome engine. But for me, being small and weedy (and a bit of a klutz), the mass of the 1200 is a showstopper, and I look forward to being back on my 696.
Like the Diavel (which I test rode last year), it has 3 riding modes - urban, touring and sport. I stayed mostly in touring, partly because the clock display in touring gave me the most useful information (trip counters, clock, revs, speed, mpg). Throttle response in the 1200's sport mode was less snappy, more usable, than the Diavel's sport mode.
Concessions to practicality include:
- height adjustable standard seat, although the lower of the two settings was still too tall for me, so Snells lent me a super-low aftermarket seat;
- under-seat fabric loops to attach a tailpack (although fitting my Kriega packs took longer on the 1200 than the 696 due to having to unthread buckles to use the loops);
- a metal fuel tank (for the ethanol-phobic);
- proper pillion grab handles.
Ergonomically, I found my knees bent at a sharper angle than the 696 and 695. Footpegs are high. Riding position was more upright than 696 and 695.
The good points:
- The torque! Immense! The 1200 pulls like a train! Moving off from standstill, even before opening the throttle, it strains at the leash when you start to let the clutch out. On the move, open it up in 4th gear and head for the horizon at warp speed with a massive grin.
- The handling - super stable, utterly planted in corners. No effort needed to turn the wide bars, and it went exactly where I wanted, no drama. The best, most confidence inspiring handling, of the 3 Monsters I've ridden.
- The front brake - the best on any bike I've ridden. The front brake on the 1200 was effective but progressive and predictable with no harshness so I could use it to come to a standstill (when on my 696 I'd use the rear brake).
The bad points:
- The weight - my first impression of the 696 was its lightness. My first impression of the 1200 was its mass - sat on it, levering it up off the side stand to vertical, and also trying to push it around a carpark. The Diavel is on paper heavier (wet weight 239kg compared with the Monster 1200's 209kg wet weight), but the Monster feels heavier.
- The clocks - stupid colour smartphone type screen, virtually unreadable in sunlight. Night mode is a marginal improvement, but I prefer the 696 clocks.
- At around 4000ish revs the fuelling seems a little lumpy, rocking-horsey surging, probably deliberately inflicted to get through emissions tests.
- Rubbish back brake - good job the front brake is ace!
- The heat - I was surprised just how much heat it pumped out. Whereas my 696 toasts the back of my left leg sat at traffic lights on a warm day, the 1200 roasted both legs on the move and at standstill. I was suprised, given the exhaust routing and water cooling.
- The looks - to me, it lacks the elegance, simplicity and coherence of Galluzzi's original Monster design. It's as if someone said "we're going to call it a Monster, so better add a bit of trellis frame (whether it needs it or not)". I'd rather have the purposefully ugly Diavel over the cluttered bitty 1200 with an oil-cooler that looks like an afterthought.
- I got a few false neutrals going from 1st to 2nd.
While I've listed more niggles than specific good points above, the good points are very good indeed. It is a cracking good bike with an awesome engine. But for me, being small and weedy (and a bit of a klutz), the mass of the 1200 is a showstopper, and I look forward to being back on my 696.