PDA

View Full Version : M1200 review - uber-torquey, but rather porky!


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.

AndyC_772
19-05-2014, 06:33 PM
What is it that really defines the Monster?

To some people, it's a bike that's everything you need and nothing you don't. Two wheels, an engine, somewhere to park your bum, and the classic trellis frame to bolt it all to.

To others, it's a perfectly proportioned design icon. And to some, it's an affordable entry point into the Ducati brand.

Enter the Monster 1200, which is none of these things.

Costing well over ten grand, and built around the thumping great engine from the Multistrada and Diavel, the Monster 1200 is quite a different proposition. It bears the Monster name on the tank, but it's a very different bike from the air cooled 695 and 696 Monsters which Eleanor and I have in the garage.

An unscheduled trip to the workshop for the 696 meant we found ourselves a bike short for the 2014 Weekender, but thanks to the generosity of Tom at Snells, that shortfall was met with the loan of a brand new, straight from the box 1200 for the duration. The brief for the weekend? Get some miles on it, and don't scratch the paintwork.

It's a hard life!

My first encounter with the 1200 was wheeling it around the driveway for a photo before the trip. Getting the 695 into position was effortless, but I couldn't say the same about the 1200. According to Ducati's official figures, the difference in dry weight between the two bikes is just 14kg, but that small difference on paper doesn't reflect how the two bikes feel to pick up off the side stand and move around. The M1200 feels a heavy beast, and I couldn't help but feel that didn't seem right for a Monster. Even my Z1000SX, which is supposedly 22kg heavier fully loaded, doesn't feel as reluctant to move.

It's a good job the M1200 has plenty of grunt, then, and despite being slightly detuned in Monster form, the 11 degree Testastretta engine has never been accused of lacking in motive force. Originally developed by NASA for adjusting the orbits of small moons, the M1200's engine makes such light work of hauling the bike around that those few extra kg are instantly forgotten the moment the clutch starts to bite.

Controlling such an engine with delicacy and finesse can be a challenge, and like the other bikes in which it's appeared, the M1200 features three different riding modes which govern how it responds to inputs from the rider's wrist - and to explain how they feel, imagine a bike with a throttle cable made of elastic.

In 'urban' mode, that elastic cable would barely hold up your trousers. Small throttle openings result in some noise from the exhaust but little effect on forward progress, and the available power is capped at a level which gives a bike a power-to-weight ratio a mere 40% greater than that of the current Porsche 911 Turbo S. Perfect for bimbling along in town, then.

In 'touring', the engine's full power is available, and the ride-by-stretchy-wire system tries to even out the delivery to make for smoother progress. In practice I found this just made it more difficult to maintain a constant speed - any speed - and I found I was making continual small adjustments to the throttle position. It was hunting and surging, just like the early Multistradas, and I just wanted to get back to my 695.

AndyC_772
19-05-2014, 06:34 PM
Something was clearly wrong. The latest Monster actually NOT being the bike of choice for the next day's riding? There must be something missing, something I've not yet tried.

Sport mode. Turn down the electronic interference and give me an engine that actually does what it's told. It's amazing how such a simple thing can make such a big difference to the riding experience, but sometimes simpler is better. Let me control the power with my right wrist. Seriously, I'm a grown-up. I've ridden big bikes before and I promise I can handle the concept of "turn this way to open throttle and the other way to close it".

With almost-but-not-quite direct control, the bike suddenly came alive and started working properly. I relaxed. I stopped thinking about the engine, and started enjoying it. Problem solved.

This was the base model 1200, not the even more powerful, Ohlins-equipped 1200S. Sometimes I wonder whether motor manufacturers deliberately nobble features on lesser bikes in order to justify the more expensive top-of-the-line models, but the ride on the standard suspension was something I rarely thought about. This is a a Good Thing (TM), even if the bigger bumps (which it doesn't cope with nearly as well as smaller surface imperfections) come as more of a surprise. If you live somewhere that has roads as bad as they are here in the south east, the 1200S might be the better bet if you're averse to being kicked up the backside. If not, the standard 1200 is a much better value option and won't disappoint.

The M1200 isn't perfect. It's heavy, the LCD instrument panel becomes completely unreadable in sunlight, and if I were buying a premium naked motorcycle then I'd want to see the engine rather than various bits of vaguely engine-shaped black plastic. But I'd forgive it as soon as it thundered into life; even the standard pipes are LOUD. Handling is as neutral and fluid as any bike I've ridden, and it responds exactly how I expected it to from the moment I first climbed aboard to perform a U-turn.

For me, that superb handling was the M1200's most likeable quality, and the reason I was sad when it had to go back several hundred miles and as many splattered insects later. The chassis is superb, but I couldn't help but feel it was over-engined and that downsizing in this department would result in a much better overall package. The weight reduction alone would transform the bike into a far more appropriate successor to the Monster name.

If the rumours turn out to be true, the Monster 820 could be fantastic.

Black Bob
19-05-2014, 07:10 PM
Fab write-up, you two.

A much better ad for Snells than for the bike itself, I reckon. That was bloody good of them.

Rally
19-05-2014, 07:15 PM
A great write up from two riders rather than viewers means a lot. I'm still sure thought that the script said "Mustn't be raced, but may be Rallied" I'm still waiting both of you! Lol

pompone
19-05-2014, 07:21 PM
Good write up. Is funny the observation on the ride by wire as I found the one on the panigale not much different than a "real" one..

AndyC_772
19-05-2014, 07:31 PM
A much better ad for Snells than for the bike itself, I reckon. That was bloody good of them.

Absolutely, service well above and beyond the call of duty. If you're reading this, then thanks again guys.

A great write up from two riders rather than viewers means a lot. I'm still sure thought that the script said "Mustn't be raced, but may be Rallied" I'm still waiting both of you! Lol

Sorry mate, it had the low seat on it. Didn't want you to have to bend your knees too far!

Good write up. Is funny the observation on the ride by wire as I found the one on the panigale not much different than a "real" one..

I left it in Touring mode all day on Saturday because that was the mode I liked best on the Diavel when I took one out last year, and I'd found that bike's sport mode too sharp. I wish I'd discovered earlier that the M1200 clearly has a different set of maps.

LouSCannon
20-05-2014, 08:49 PM
Looking forward to feeding back how it performs on track and being well and truly spanked next week!

Good point about the Monster 820, given the 796 gave a good all round package and best value the 820 could well be the much better option...!

LCjohnny-again
05-11-2016, 11:36 AM
Well it is a bit massive
But god it looks good and goes well
And I like the handling of the S (so far)
The sensible seat height (I am 5'9") and the comfortable pillion position were the cherry on the cake