Total Motorcycle Community Forums

QuietMonkey wrote:It's pretty hilarious that Markg1 says "only 100hp" while we're looking at this thinking "great". Some people don't know what there missing. They get so used to reading a number and thinking without thinking.

If you dont like the looks, there's not much in it, and maybe the V-Rod has lost 200 lbs since I last checked (NOPE). I'd like to know what someone rides for 30 years to not see the true quality of the Duck engine, cuz even back in 1981 100hp wouldve been rolled into a pig heavy-bike in the very best conditions. This motor is perfect for the application, and ONLY lacking in sheer top-speed numbers. Should be capable of easy 1/4-mile times in high 10s range.

Also I neglected to mention the infamous Honda RC51 as a sweet Japanese v-twin (for racing anyway); not so much the VTR1000 sport-tourer.

Hmm...so you call me out quietmonkey. The last I read this was an open forum where members could express their opinions with out receiving flack from people like you. You want to discuss the bike in a respectful manner, lets do it. After all that's what this forum is about. You like the bike, that's great. I think it's ugly! I'm not much for this style of bike. I think 100hp is inadequate, especially for a 1100cc high performance bike. It is a high performance bike... right? Like I said, I bet it's fun to ride but of course I do ride a GEN2 Vmax! That's my opinion, like it or not I could care less! It's one thing to disagree with my opinion (I can handle that), but to question my experience? Let me let you in on a little secret. By the time I was 7 I had more experience than you on a motorcycle! I grew up racing dirt bikes! By the time I was 15 I was on a V65 Magna and have owned many bikes since, including a GEN1 Vmax and loved them all. Zero years experience you say. Let me tell you something else. I love my HARLEY VROD and my VERY FAST GEN2 Vmax! You question my 30 years of experience. Hmm that's funny! Your lack of experience makes me question every comment you've ever made on this forum! Have you taken off your training wheels? Any other comments PM!!!

Ah, what a good debate:

Markg1 (likes the 1100 EVO) vs QuietMonkey (doesn't).

DING!

LOL, please keep it professional, above the belt and friendly ok?

Great debates are all about that (and winning too of course!)

Mike

Markg1 wrote:I think 100hp is inadequate, especially for a 1100cc high performance bike. It is a high performance bike... right?

I wouldn't classify it as a high performance bike and I don't think Ducati does either. The high performance Ducati naked would be the Streetfighter. I don't think any bike with the antique relic 2V Duc engine could be considered high performance by today's standards. That being said, the 2V Duc engines are one of my alltime fave bike engines.

With 76lb-ft of torque on the 1100 EVO that's very close to the new 2012 Yamaha R1 at 84.6ft-lb and we know how hard Yamaha worked on the new R1 engine (and how advanced it is). So, for a "antique relic 2V Duc engine", I say, not bad!

Mike

Remember, tomorrow (Friday) is a new Cool Wall bike! The 2012 Ducati Monster 1100 EVO just needs 10% more in Awesome to beat the top of the charts, the 2012 Yamaha R1!

totalmotorcycle wrote:With 76lb-ft of torque on the 1100 EVO that's very close to the new 2012 Yamaha R1 at 84.6ft-lb and we know how hard Yamaha worked on the new R1 engine (and how advanced it is). So, for a "antique relic 2V Duc engine", I say, not bad!

Mike

It's not bad, but torque is inherent with the v-twin (or L-twin)...it's more impressive to me to see an inline four with a high torque number...as for being a high performance machine...I don't think so...decent performance for sure, but not high performance...my v-twin has more impressive numbers, but it isn't a high performance bike.

Later.

madjak30 wrote:It's not bad, but torque is inherent with the v-twin (or L-twin)...it's more impressive to me to see an inline four with a high torque number...as for being a high performance machine...I don't think so...decent performance for sure, but not high performance...my v-twin has more impressive numbers, but it isn't a high performance bike. Later.

Yes, I definately agree with you there.

On a side note, not directed at anyone in particular, the "Monster" series of bikes from Ducati and IMO are not meant to be "high performance bikes", they created the Streetfighter series for that. The Monster are more of their "all-rounder naked bikes" that are comfortable to ride.

One thing about the monster series is, they sure look awesome.

totalmotorcycle wrote:With 76lb-ft of torque on the 1100 EVO that's very close to the new 2012 Yamaha R1 at 84.6ft-lb and we know how hard Yamaha worked on the new R1 engine (and how advanced it is). So, for a "antique relic 2V Duc engine", I say, not bad!

Mike

The Yamaha engine is not tuned for max torque but max horsepower. The R1 big bang four will spank the DS1100 motor beyond belief in horsepower.

Also the EVO engine's 100 HP at the crank may now be bull dodo. The latest Sport Rider has the rear wheel HP at 83.3 @8700rpm and the torque at 65.2@5800rpm. This may be even less than the rear wheel figures of my 95 horse DS1100 in my 2008 Hyper.

EDIT: I stand corrected, the 95 Hyper engine dynoed at 77.8@7600rpm. However, the peak torque is 64.2, only 1 ft/lbs less but surprise surprise, it came in at 1000rpm less at 4800 rpm and flat as a pancake compared to the peak and valley torque curve of the EVO engine. This is why the Hypermotard is so fun to ride.

HYPERR wrote:Also the EVO engine's 100 HP at the crank may now be bull dodo. The latest Sport Rider has the rear wheel HP at 83.3 @8700rpm and the torque at 65.2@5800rpm. This may be even less than the rear wheel figures of my 95 horse DS1100 in my 2008 Hyper.

EDIT: I stand corrected, the 95 Hyper engine dynoed at 77.8@7600rpm. However, the peak torque is 64.2, only 1 ft/lbs less but surprise surprise, it came in at 1000rpm less at 4800 rpm and flat as a pancake compared to the peak and valley torque curve of the EVO engine. This is why the Hypermotard is so fun to ride.

Interesting enough, I had an email about that on Sept 22nd from a TMW visitor. Now, I've never heard of this CoC before his email so I'm working with him about what it is and means. But here you go:

Re the specs for the Ducati Monster 1100evo 2012 (2011): you are publishing the specs as Ducati would like us to believe they are, via their PR department. Particularly the weight & power are overly positive. Their weight does not include the battery, nor does it include any oil. The dry weight in running order but without petrol, as required for the EC Certificate of Conformity, is 175 kg (= 386 lbs). Similarly, the bike in running order does not produce 100 HP, you only get that as you take off anything reducing power (air filter, alternator, ..). The actual Net crankshaft HP in running order is 95 HP = 70 kW (and it was 90 HP for the previous model).

I felt very much misled by Ducati when I finally received my EC Certificate of Conformity, a couple of weeks after I had paid for the bike. For beforehand you only get to see these overly positive PR numbers, all websites quote only those, without any provisos. It would at least be useful, for future buyers, to mention that those PR values are NOT for the bike in running order. Or mention something like "EC Certificate of Conformity states 95 HP".

FYI my CoC attached.

Quite an interesting final vote!

67% Awesome is nothing to be ashamed of. I think it's "lack of horsepower" caused the vote to be a little lower. So, next up is a back-to-back challange with the 2012 MV Agusta Brutale 1090R!!



Your Coolness Factor of the 2012 Ducati Monster 1100 EVO is..

Awesome 67%
Cool 25%
Uncool 0%
Fail 8%