How does ducati manage to do it!!!!

[Saint aka ML]

So lets go to the point, weight of new bikes I mean WTF?!

Why do they do it, how do they do it.

Brief randown of my rant.

2007 Monster 695: 73bhp, 45.5lb-ft and 168kg - Cool weight for small bike
2008 S2r 800: 77bhp, 53.5lb-ft and 173kg - Ok single sided added fair bit plus bit more CC still cool but not improvement over 695 in my view.
2010 Monster 796 (basically same engine as S2r): 87bhp, 58lb-ft and 167kg weight. Nice improvement over S2r 800 so defo nice over m695.

Now comes Scrambler same engien as monster 796 and basically same as S2r.
75bhp and 50lb-ft. How do you manage to do that it is basically same as m695 and that has 100cc less. It is less then same engiened m796. How, why?! Then comes the weight, double sided swing-arm and yet it weighs more then monster 695 (weight differnece is ABS), and more then m796 with ABS.

So they build a bike that looks smaller and lighter then any monster new or old, they make it heavier and with less power then same engined family models.

Again why and how? what is the point?

I like the scrambler but just trying to understand why they do it.

Similar situation as discussed with Monster 1200R vs S4rs not to mention VS 1098SF that is much lighter.

Again how did they manage to get a 1200R version of bike be 13kg heavier then 2010 none R version and have only 5bhp more. That 13kg of weight kills that 5bhp hands down.

I think era of small, light, quite powerfull bikes is over. We are now trully in to American age :)


Rant over.

[Dirty]

With cars it is all down to crash regulations. Remember when you could drive with your elbow resting on the open window. Try that in a modern car and your elbow is pointing at the sky.

Obviously bikes don't have similar regs re crash structures and energy absorption, that would be silly but perhaps there are things that they have to have by law that make them heavier?

[Saint aka ML]

Yes abs for example. But that still does not cover it as 2010 abs model still weighs less.
Catalytic converters were present since long ago

[Yorkie]

With cars it is all down to crash regulations. Remember when you could drive with your elbow resting on the open window. Try that in a modern car and your elbow is pointing at the sky.

How short are you?

Cruising like an orangutan here.

Yorkie

[Albie]

So lets go to the point, weight of new bikes I mean WTF?!

Why do they do it, how do they do it.

Brief randown of my rant.

2007 Monster 695: 73bhp, 45.5lb-ft and 168kg - Cool weight for small bike
2008 S2r 800: 77bhp, 53.5lb-ft and 173kg - Ok single sided added fair bit plus bit more CC still cool but not improvement over 695 in my view.
2010 Monster 796 (basically same engine as S2r): 87bhp, 58lb-ft and 167kg weight. Nice improvement over S2r 800 so defo nice over m695.

Now comes Scrambler same engien as monster 796 and basically same as S2r.
75bhp and 50lb-ft. How do you manage to do that it is basically same as m695 and that has 100cc less. It is less then same engiened m796. How, why?! Then comes the weight, double sided swing-arm and yet it weighs more then monster 695 (weight differnece is ABS), and more then m796 with ABS.

So they build a bike that looks smaller and lighter then any monster new or old, they make it heavier and with less power then same engined family models.

Again why and how? what is the point?

I like the scrambler but just trying to understand why they do it.

Similar situation as discussed with Monster 1200R vs S4rs not to mention VS 1098SF that is much lighter.

Again how did they manage to get a 1200R version of bike be 13kg heavier then 2010 none R version and have only 5bhp more. That 13kg of weight kills that 5bhp hands down.

I think era of small, light, quite powerfull bikes is over. We are now trully in to American age :)


Rant over.

Briefly the scrambler doesn't and didn't feel heavy before I lost the heavy cat exhaust for a termi. Its agile and again it only has one front disc too. Its HP loss is down to them deciding it never had to have loads and they designed it with a old school peanut tank for keeping with the original look. It has a range of maybe just over 120 miles and a good thrash about 90 only BUT its uniqueness is the single injector and not the standard twin set up meaning the tank could be like that. Other wise it would either have a huge tank like a monster or no fuel capacity. Yes it has abs etc and more steel parts by design like brake and gear levers too and a full front to back frame with no bolt ons.
It doesn't feel heavy and that's all that matters. I must admit when I tried to put my m900 on the trailer to take home it was hard work. Too low and low weight. I don't care bout that either.

[Dirty]

How short are you?

Cruising like an orangutan here.

Yorkie

I guarantee not as comfortably as you would have done in a Cortina MkIII or its ilk. I can't remember the date but door/window sizes are now regulated and can't be as low as before. Low volume manufacturing can be exempt of course but I doubt BMW could make the Z1 now.

[Zimbo]

Up to the mid 2000;s Ducati used to quote engine power and torque as measured the back wheel, and I think weight with essential fluids. The Japanese manufacturers always quote engine power at the crankshaft, and weight "dry", which put Ducati at a disadvantage on paper.
Ducati changed their practice to fall in line with the Japanese so like can be compared with like, so quoted power figures suddenly jumped overnight for the same engine and weights apparently came down for the same bike.

[Dave G]

I've never believed the stated weight of any bike, they all lie about it.

What are they weighing on this measure?, some manufacturers leave out all fluids(oil/water/fuel and battery), I think one of them even measured weight without tyres and chain, so until they bring in some standard measure then take all of it with a pinch of salt.

[bigredduke]

It's not my bike's weight that concerns me....................

















It's the fat b*st*rd on board.

[Saint aka ML]

Big red I am concerned by both lol.

[BarnBrian]

Don't have a problem having my arm out in my Caterham Super Seven.

[Dirty]

Low volume manufacturing can be exempt

Don't have a problem having my arm out in my Caterham Super Seven.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/vca//vehicletype/ec-small-series-ecssta.asp

[BarnBrian]

No radio in the Seven, so no low volume!!

[Dirty]

No radio in the Seven, so no low volume!!

Try turning the engine on if you want volume, or perhaps a different shampoo?