Ducati Announces New Monster 695
81 - 100 of 112 Posts
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
I've always been mystified by the number of Harley's on the road. I've always seen them as heavy, ponderous, expensive and relatively behind in technology (excepting the V-Rod, here). Japanese cruisers are usually a much better value for the dollar. I guess you could say that I see them as the motorcycle equivalent of the 1970's era Cadillacs.
My brother's Harley, for example, cost twice what my Thruxton did. We're both happy, both ride every day we can, etc. but I can't get over the fact that he paid twice as much money to get that happiness and got a slower, poorer handling bike that gets worse mileage as part of the deal.
You own Harley ... what makes people pay that kind of money?
I've always been mystified by the number of Harley's on the road. I've always seen them as heavy, ponderous, expensive and relatively behind in technology (excepting the V-Rod, here). Japanese cruisers are usually a much better value for the dollar. I guess you could say that I see them as the motorcycle equivalent of the 1970's era Cadillacs.
My brother's Harley, for example, cost twice what my Thruxton did. We're both happy, both ride every day we can, etc. but I can't get over the fact that he paid twice as much money to get that happiness and got a slower, poorer handling bike that gets worse mileage as part of the deal.
You own Harley ... what makes people pay that kind of money?
Re: Do you understand Jr high math? ratios? division?
"Take 73 hp [and] divide it by the ccs idiot"
Why do I want to do that? Does the cc of the bike change its measured the horsepower output? Mmmm? A 100hp 600cc engine and a 100hp 1000cc engine make the same horsepower. Their engine capacity is irrelevant when you measure horsepower.
I can only assume you are eluding (in a very inarticulate fashion) to horsepower per liter, and then quite incorrectly assuming the higher horsepower per liter number to be indicative of the better powerplant.
If you had an IQ larger than your penis size you would realize that the lower output per liter number would be indicative of a engine that produces higher torque. Not only would that motor have a better spread of power, but more than likely enable the bike to achieve a higher top end, quicker quarter mile and allow the rider to keep to a single gear longer when riding under all condition.
The Buell would cream the Duke in any riding condition.
With the exception of a little Alaskan commie also posting here, you are probably the dumbest individual I have ever come across. No wonder you cannot earn enough to ride anything else than a ricer.
"Take 73 hp [and] divide it by the ccs idiot"
Why do I want to do that? Does the cc of the bike change its measured the horsepower output? Mmmm? A 100hp 600cc engine and a 100hp 1000cc engine make the same horsepower. Their engine capacity is irrelevant when you measure horsepower.
I can only assume you are eluding (in a very inarticulate fashion) to horsepower per liter, and then quite incorrectly assuming the higher horsepower per liter number to be indicative of the better powerplant.
If you had an IQ larger than your penis size you would realize that the lower output per liter number would be indicative of a engine that produces higher torque. Not only would that motor have a better spread of power, but more than likely enable the bike to achieve a higher top end, quicker quarter mile and allow the rider to keep to a single gear longer when riding under all condition.
The Buell would cream the Duke in any riding condition.
With the exception of a little Alaskan commie also posting here, you are probably the dumbest individual I have ever come across. No wonder you cannot earn enough to ride anything else than a ricer.
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
Japanese cruisers are usually a much better value for the dollar
No, they are not. You get the roughly same return on your money buying a ricer as what you get spending the money on hookers. (Difference, hookers have more class than metric cruisers)
I spend more on a Harley but I get my money back when I sell.
"We're both happy, both ride every day we can"
So your brother is going to get his money back. You are not.
Mmmm. I understand why your brother is happy. Why are you happy? I get real pissed when I lose money.
Japanese cruisers are usually a much better value for the dollar
No, they are not. You get the roughly same return on your money buying a ricer as what you get spending the money on hookers. (Difference, hookers have more class than metric cruisers)
I spend more on a Harley but I get my money back when I sell.
"We're both happy, both ride every day we can"
So your brother is going to get his money back. You are not.
Mmmm. I understand why your brother is happy. Why are you happy? I get real pissed when I lose money.
Joined
·
1,072 Posts
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
Japanese cruisers have...Let's see less money more performance, less problems.. oh I forgot you are bad with math bigdrk. HDs (except the V-Rod) are ancient, underpowered, heavy, expensive....etc...
Japanese cruisers have...Let's see less money more performance, less problems.. oh I forgot you are bad with math bigdrk. HDs (except the V-Rod) are ancient, underpowered, heavy, expensive....etc...
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
I've had lots of different bikes, the Dyna I have now is the 5th Harley and a blast to ride. I paid 12k OTD, put another $1500 or so in comfort and performance enhancements and I'm happy as a clam everytime I ride it. It sounds good, carburates clean from idle to redline, is all day comfy and up to 100 or so is competetive with any other cruiser type bike on the road. I had it dyno'd at 75 hp at 5.8k and 83 lb foots of torque @ 4800. If you check most charts this is real world power, not racetrack 14.5 k peaks.
I freely admit it's heavy and has moderate lean angles, any sportbike from an '83 GPZ 750 (which I also owned) on would leave it on the horizon, however that's not why I bought it. I bought it to be a fun and comfy bike I could put miles on and that's exactly what I do. I don't consider myself a "badass" but at 6ft, 300 lbs, most people really don't want to f*ck with me, I mind my own buisness and expect you to mind yours. If you don't want a Harley or Triumph or Honda, Suzuki whatever, then don't buy one, Believe me I really don't care what you ride or do for a living.
I think mid-management-doctors-dentist-accountants playing tuffy are foolish as well, but it's their trip, not mine. I ride a Harley because it's fun, no more, no less. When it quits being fun I'll buy a Triumph or Suzuki or a f***in' Mazda if I feel like it .
Don't like it? don't look.
I've had lots of different bikes, the Dyna I have now is the 5th Harley and a blast to ride. I paid 12k OTD, put another $1500 or so in comfort and performance enhancements and I'm happy as a clam everytime I ride it. It sounds good, carburates clean from idle to redline, is all day comfy and up to 100 or so is competetive with any other cruiser type bike on the road. I had it dyno'd at 75 hp at 5.8k and 83 lb foots of torque @ 4800. If you check most charts this is real world power, not racetrack 14.5 k peaks.
I freely admit it's heavy and has moderate lean angles, any sportbike from an '83 GPZ 750 (which I also owned) on would leave it on the horizon, however that's not why I bought it. I bought it to be a fun and comfy bike I could put miles on and that's exactly what I do. I don't consider myself a "badass" but at 6ft, 300 lbs, most people really don't want to f*ck with me, I mind my own buisness and expect you to mind yours. If you don't want a Harley or Triumph or Honda, Suzuki whatever, then don't buy one, Believe me I really don't care what you ride or do for a living.
I think mid-management-doctors-dentist-accountants playing tuffy are foolish as well, but it's their trip, not mine. I ride a Harley because it's fun, no more, no less. When it quits being fun I'll buy a Triumph or Suzuki or a f***in' Mazda if I feel like it .
Don't like it? don't look.
Joined
·
3,415 Posts
Re: Buz, someone needs your help.
snot-gobbling toad, tiny brained wiper of other peoples bottoms, eater of eggs of questionable origin, babylonian soddomite, hebrew ****....Why do you continue? at least move so the Puget Sound area isn't tainted by your stain.......I'm about as far left as you can get, but you NAMBLA posterboy are an embarressment even to me..
snot-gobbling toad, tiny brained wiper of other peoples bottoms, eater of eggs of questionable origin, babylonian soddomite, hebrew ****....Why do you continue? at least move so the Puget Sound area isn't tainted by your stain.......I'm about as far left as you can get, but you NAMBLA posterboy are an embarressment even to me..
Re: Lets try this again
Engines produce torque, not horsepower. If, of two engines of similar displacement, one produces more torque than the other at similar rpm, then it is more efficient, and probably of a more modern design. If one produces more peak horsepower than the other, it will be because it can rev higher, which is a function of its valvetrain dynamics and the reciprocating weight of its internal engine parts. This is why 600cc sportbikes can rev so high. Having a broad rev range will also mean that it can be geared lower to reach a given top speed, which will give it better acceleration. This is the basic formula for a sportbike. This whole buell/ducati/jap sportbike argument comes down to whether, at 70 mph, you want the engine underneath you to be turning at 4000 rpm with 60 lbs of torque or 6500 rpm and 40 lbs of torque. If you want it relaxed, get something with bigger pistons: if you want it frenetic, buy something with smaller pistons. It's that simple. Of course, in all cases, the less weight you have for the torque to propel, the better, since in accelerating and decelerating you have to overcome the inertia of the whole machine.
Engines produce torque, not horsepower. If, of two engines of similar displacement, one produces more torque than the other at similar rpm, then it is more efficient, and probably of a more modern design. If one produces more peak horsepower than the other, it will be because it can rev higher, which is a function of its valvetrain dynamics and the reciprocating weight of its internal engine parts. This is why 600cc sportbikes can rev so high. Having a broad rev range will also mean that it can be geared lower to reach a given top speed, which will give it better acceleration. This is the basic formula for a sportbike. This whole buell/ducati/jap sportbike argument comes down to whether, at 70 mph, you want the engine underneath you to be turning at 4000 rpm with 60 lbs of torque or 6500 rpm and 40 lbs of torque. If you want it relaxed, get something with bigger pistons: if you want it frenetic, buy something with smaller pistons. It's that simple. Of course, in all cases, the less weight you have for the torque to propel, the better, since in accelerating and decelerating you have to overcome the inertia of the whole machine.
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked.
What could I do with the extra 10K that I saved in the first place ... hmmmmmm. How about I invest it! That way, on top of saving on gas, saving on insurance and saving on repairs, I'm also earning money at the same time with the difference in cost between the two bikes.
Now, this is assuming both bikes are paid in cash. What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest? Depends on what he gets, but he will have to sell for somewhat of a profit to just break even.
This is also assuming that Harleys will always have this kind of cachet in society. Their current resale value is based mostly on perception, not hard measures of value. They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes. Toyota's resale value used to be terrible, but the minute they started making better cars than US companies, their resale value started to climb and climb. Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?
Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right. It wasn't that far back, as another poster noted earlier in this debate, that you couldn't give Harleys away on his showroom floor. That was precisely because they had the public perception as unreliable. Once the gloss wears off for all the weekend riders getting Harley's for the image, then the resale value will tend to settle down to being based on quality. What happens then?
So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked.
What could I do with the extra 10K that I saved in the first place ... hmmmmmm. How about I invest it! That way, on top of saving on gas, saving on insurance and saving on repairs, I'm also earning money at the same time with the difference in cost between the two bikes.
Now, this is assuming both bikes are paid in cash. What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest? Depends on what he gets, but he will have to sell for somewhat of a profit to just break even.
This is also assuming that Harleys will always have this kind of cachet in society. Their current resale value is based mostly on perception, not hard measures of value. They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes. Toyota's resale value used to be terrible, but the minute they started making better cars than US companies, their resale value started to climb and climb. Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?
Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right. It wasn't that far back, as another poster noted earlier in this debate, that you couldn't give Harleys away on his showroom floor. That was precisely because they had the public perception as unreliable. Once the gloss wears off for all the weekend riders getting Harley's for the image, then the resale value will tend to settle down to being based on quality. What happens then?
Joined
·
4 Posts
What is cool about this new Monster is its motor and what changes will probably follow. As has probably been discussed here already, Ducati is in financial trouble. They posted another year of declining sales and financial loses. So they need to cut their costs as well as produce more sales to stay on stable footing.
This new motor is very close to the air cooled 800cc motor they already have. I'm guessing that the air cooled 695 motor will replace both the 620 and 800 air cooled lumps. Leaving only two air cooled motors in their line up, a 695 and the 992DS (And the 400 they build for some markets.)
Essentially Ducati could end up with two main engine platforms. The Testaretta series as found in the Superbikes. And the other family of motors that includes the ST3 desmotre, 992cc Dual Spark, and the 695. Hopefully with as much parts interchangability as possible, such as cases and such. This could boost efficiency.
The 695 ought to remain a fairly light motor and would be great to put into their Hypermotard bike, if they decide to make a smaller version. No it wouldn't be a true supermoto, but it would be a very fun bike to ride. They could put that motor into the Multistrada, giving the small Multi a healthy dose of power without a huge jump in price.
This new motor is very close to the air cooled 800cc motor they already have. I'm guessing that the air cooled 695 motor will replace both the 620 and 800 air cooled lumps. Leaving only two air cooled motors in their line up, a 695 and the 992DS (And the 400 they build for some markets.)
Essentially Ducati could end up with two main engine platforms. The Testaretta series as found in the Superbikes. And the other family of motors that includes the ST3 desmotre, 992cc Dual Spark, and the 695. Hopefully with as much parts interchangability as possible, such as cases and such. This could boost efficiency.
The 695 ought to remain a fairly light motor and would be great to put into their Hypermotard bike, if they decide to make a smaller version. No it wouldn't be a true supermoto, but it would be a very fun bike to ride. They could put that motor into the Multistrada, giving the small Multi a healthy dose of power without a huge jump in price.
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
Now this is the type of post I was hoping for.
The point I'm trying to get at is that decisons aren't always made on numbers. My Thruxton is like a Harley in a way; overpriced and underperforming as a rule. I paid 12K CAD and for that same 12K I could have gotten a Ducati S2R. The S2R woud have given me a modern take on the cafe racer styling, but would have been faster, cheaper on gas, better handling, etc. Similar styling, but a better bike all the way around for the same money.
When I went in, I wasn't fooling myself thinking that the Thrux was the best bike for the buck. I knew damn well I was paying the "nostalgia tax" in order to get the Ace Cafe look and that I was paying the "brand tax" by specifically buying a Triumph. What I was buying wasn't just the bike, it was the bike plus the whole scene that went with it, past and present. The S2R would never have filled my jones, not matter how much better on paper it was. Even the Kawa W650 just wouldn't have been the same as a 'real' Triumph, even though it is technically a more accurate replica of a T120 than my Thruxton will ever be.
That's why I paid more for the Thrux ... I was willing to pay extra to get the cafe racer look and the feel that went with the specific bike. I was just wondering if the Harley riders were willing to admit they had done the same thing to a certain extent.
Now this is the type of post I was hoping for.
The point I'm trying to get at is that decisons aren't always made on numbers. My Thruxton is like a Harley in a way; overpriced and underperforming as a rule. I paid 12K CAD and for that same 12K I could have gotten a Ducati S2R. The S2R woud have given me a modern take on the cafe racer styling, but would have been faster, cheaper on gas, better handling, etc. Similar styling, but a better bike all the way around for the same money.
When I went in, I wasn't fooling myself thinking that the Thrux was the best bike for the buck. I knew damn well I was paying the "nostalgia tax" in order to get the Ace Cafe look and that I was paying the "brand tax" by specifically buying a Triumph. What I was buying wasn't just the bike, it was the bike plus the whole scene that went with it, past and present. The S2R would never have filled my jones, not matter how much better on paper it was. Even the Kawa W650 just wouldn't have been the same as a 'real' Triumph, even though it is technically a more accurate replica of a T120 than my Thruxton will ever be.
That's why I paid more for the Thrux ... I was willing to pay extra to get the cafe racer look and the feel that went with the specific bike. I was just wondering if the Harley riders were willing to admit they had done the same thing to a certain extent.
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
"So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked."
Actually if you followed the thread you would have picked up that I enjoy riding at a moderate pace. The way Harley produce power makes them a blast to ride from 30 to 60 mph. Very few bikes can compete with a Harley to my requirements.
No bike I have owned or ridden has come close to giving me the pleasure that riding my Harley does, and I have been riding for almost 30 years. Nothing lame in that, no?
"What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest?"
I finance all my bikes (and cars).
I max out my mortgage, buy the bike and dump the rest into a tax deferred bond (ee bonds or I bonds). Given low mortgage rates and my tax rate, my return on the bonds have always been higher than my total loan against my property. So upon sale of my motorcycle (or car) I normally break even or better as long as the vehicle has not depreciated too much.
You can argue that with a ricer I could buy more bonds, but with a real yield of only 2% or so, the sharp decline in value of a ricer it will end up costing me money. Harleys cost me nothing.
Not my fault you guys dont think smart when purchasing motorcycles.
"They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes."
I have yet to suffer a breakdown, I do not pay for my own gas and no, based on my requirements they outperform anything from Japan by quite a margin.
"Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?"
Yes.
"Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right."
No disrespect, but you are ignorant of what my argument is.
Regards
bigdx
"So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked."
Actually if you followed the thread you would have picked up that I enjoy riding at a moderate pace. The way Harley produce power makes them a blast to ride from 30 to 60 mph. Very few bikes can compete with a Harley to my requirements.
No bike I have owned or ridden has come close to giving me the pleasure that riding my Harley does, and I have been riding for almost 30 years. Nothing lame in that, no?
"What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest?"
I finance all my bikes (and cars).
I max out my mortgage, buy the bike and dump the rest into a tax deferred bond (ee bonds or I bonds). Given low mortgage rates and my tax rate, my return on the bonds have always been higher than my total loan against my property. So upon sale of my motorcycle (or car) I normally break even or better as long as the vehicle has not depreciated too much.
You can argue that with a ricer I could buy more bonds, but with a real yield of only 2% or so, the sharp decline in value of a ricer it will end up costing me money. Harleys cost me nothing.
Not my fault you guys dont think smart when purchasing motorcycles.
"They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes."
I have yet to suffer a breakdown, I do not pay for my own gas and no, based on my requirements they outperform anything from Japan by quite a margin.
"Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?"
Yes.
"Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right."
No disrespect, but you are ignorant of what my argument is.
Regards
bigdx
Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
I think your faith in Harley's resale value is pretty much unfounded. Have you seen how many of those suckers have rolled off of lots in the past few years and how many are showing up used? Eventually the yuppie dollars will eventually flow off to the next fad du jour and the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest.
Anyway, I dealt with resale value because that is what your last post seemed to key on. If you have other reasons for your purchase - and you do - then that is precisely why I was asking the question I was asking. To me, Harley's look like a bad purchase decision and I wanted to know why so many people go this route. Obviously, the yuppie dollars go for the hype, but real motorcycle people who ride a lot still buy Harley's and I wanted to know why that is. There must me *some* reason to buy them, right? Your riding style is a good reason.
Why do you stick with bonds? I use an Internet bank and my return on my savings account alone is 4.8%.
I think your faith in Harley's resale value is pretty much unfounded. Have you seen how many of those suckers have rolled off of lots in the past few years and how many are showing up used? Eventually the yuppie dollars will eventually flow off to the next fad du jour and the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest.
Anyway, I dealt with resale value because that is what your last post seemed to key on. If you have other reasons for your purchase - and you do - then that is precisely why I was asking the question I was asking. To me, Harley's look like a bad purchase decision and I wanted to know why so many people go this route. Obviously, the yuppie dollars go for the hype, but real motorcycle people who ride a lot still buy Harley's and I wanted to know why that is. There must me *some* reason to buy them, right? Your riding style is a good reason.
Why do you stick with bonds? I use an Internet bank and my return on my savings account alone is 4.8%.
Re: Do you understand Jr high math? ratios? division?
"If you had an IQ larger than your penis size you would realize that the lower output per liter number would be indicative of a engine that produces higher torque."
Not necessarily. It could also mean a poorer overall powerplant that produces less torque as well as less hp. Lower the compression and both torque and overall hp are affected negatively, for example.
A better measure for this whole numbers argument would be the power to weight ratio and the Buell wins that, I think, even with a much larger powerplant weighing it down.
"If you had an IQ larger than your penis size you would realize that the lower output per liter number would be indicative of a engine that produces higher torque."
Not necessarily. It could also mean a poorer overall powerplant that produces less torque as well as less hp. Lower the compression and both torque and overall hp are affected negatively, for example.
A better measure for this whole numbers argument would be the power to weight ratio and the Buell wins that, I think, even with a much larger powerplant weighing it down.
81 - 100 of 112 Posts
Join the discussion
