Total Motorcycle Community Forums

I thought my reply to "only 100-horsepower!!" was simple and obvious, but I will expand upon what I was saying: power-to-weight ratios... that is what we're talking about, and old engines vs. new engines.

Firstly: Power-to-Weight ratio

We'll reduce it down to just how much chubbiness does each horsepower have to drag around. This makes a big difference in a true measure of performance such as a quarter-mile time. Since MarkG has asked this question and even answered this question for other bikes, it's something he thinks is a good gauge of performance.

We should all understand that a person carrying 20-lbs of potatoes is slower than the same person (same horsepower) carrying a 10-lb bag of potatoes. Just like the horsies describe the power of a motor.... sooo.... examples... to make it obvious I will fudge the numbers largely in the V-Rod's favour...

Ducati (at lower than normal specs)
80hp / 400lb = 5lb/hp

V-Rod (at better than normal specs)
125hp / 625lb = 5lb/hp

Porsche GT (fast car specs)
600hp / 3000lb = 5lb/hp

Caterham 7 (moderate state of tune)
220hp / 1100lb = 5lb/hp

KTM 250 SX (2-stroke)
50HP / 225lb = 4.5lb/horsepower

These vehicles should accelerate similarly through a quarter-mile. The times are 11.0-11.5 seconds and at about 125 mph. The KTM motocross bike is tricky because it'll wheelie the easiest and then run out of top speed on top due to the much lower standard gearing. Despite very different gearing and torque curves, and since I the fudged numbers to make the math simple it's a bit off, but the results wont vary by more than 0.5 second across the board depending upon the truth of the manufacturers specs.

The Ducati Monster 1100 is just a bit faster than a V-Rod because it's lighter, and the Porsche has the highest top speed because of it's overall higher horsepower and better aerodynamics. The Ducati is light and probably the quickest, even if it is 10% below the claimed hp.

Secondly: As others mentioned above, at 100hp the Duc 1100 Evo is not Ducati's High-Performance engine choice and the Monster wasnt designed to be a pure hooligan bike originally. Ducati met the hooligan request with there liquid-cooled Monster versions. Which brings up two important points.

a) the liquid-cooled versions didnt look so good in the chassis. It lost a little something in styling, and they use that motor is other fun "performance" bikes.

b) This is an AIR-COOLED motor. It's based upon an old old old design, but it looks right at home in that chassis. It's sooo much harder to engineer a motor for high-compression, to control heat and keep proper tolerances without liquid-cooling. And yeah, it's still limited by a 2-valve head which great for mid-range but not for high-rpm. It revs pretty high all things considered. This is only a high-performance engine in terms of it being an updated performance version of an old air-cooled, 2-valve per cylinder motor. Ducati was nice enough to install an oil-cooler from the factory to help control the engine temperature. But in terms of 2000-era tech, it's a very standard engine.

Harley builds a bike and on there own web-site says "Drag-Strip Performance, Sleek Street Style", using a newer motor, with liquid cooling, 4-valves per cylinder, etc.. and yet, is more than 250 lbs heavier than a standard spec Ducati Monster, and thus slower.

Markg1 wrote: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!!!

Little disrespect in my post, just a little chuckle and request for an explanation, unlike yours. You seem to believe in numbers, but don't understand them for there importance. You blow off some ego indulging in your hypocrisy and immaturity, offer little explanation beyond adolecence, more exclamation points and childish misguided insults. I wont expand on that further except to say you seem awfully touchy Mark, especially for someone touting 30 years experience, which by your inability to see truth of the Monster you experienced without actually being there. You want some explanation about the Ducati's lack of power, which you wrongly believe is a high-performance motorcycle. The Monster's history is freely available and has included performance versions in the past. The basics of this 1100 Evo engine are included in the initial posting about the motorcycle, which you failed to read or comprehend, and more amusingly, with 30 years riding experience you shouldnt have to read. So I deduce that you've taken a lot of time off in your 30 years of experience.

Here I used simple numbers which explain that a standard performance old-skool engine is faster than Harley's claimed high-performance engine.

If you want simple OPINIONS than the Cool Wall is the place. But if you make more specific statements that are contrary to others it's only natural that you be questioned for your perspective/experience. Pretty simple really.

As I mentioned already (but, yeah, you missed it), if you dont like the style of the Monster, than none of the rest of the bike really matters. And as you can see with Mike's post above, if you dont take time to read things you present more misinformation into the discussion. Because Mike seemed to skim these postings fast enough that he missed the basics: MarkG1 DOESNT like the Ducati, while Quietmonkey DOES like the Ducati. Mike just jumped in the ring to DING the bell. (shrug)

My experience is reasonably well covered in these forums from previous postings over the years. Some of us dont believe that a simple "number of years riding" is much of a true indicator of riding experience. Again, quite obviously because riding different bikes under different conditions can give a person a broader and different level of experience. And people learn at different rates depending upon there initial skills, openness to learning, skills of there tutors (i.e. racing competitors), determination, economics, diversity, etc.

You rode a muscle bike at age 15 and now 15+ years later you ride TWO muscle bikes. This tells me something about the evolution of your riding mentality, or your riding "passion" and it also explains in part your comments on the Ducati Monster.

QuietMonkey wrote:I thought my reply to "only 100-horsepower!!" was simple and obvious, but I will expand upon what I was saying: power-to-weight ratios... that is what we're talking about, and old engines vs. new engines.

Firstly: Power-to-Weight ratio

We'll reduce it down to just how much chubbiness does each horsepower have to drag around. This makes a big difference in a true measure of performance such as a quarter-mile time. Since MarkG has asked this question and even answered this question for other bikes, it's something he thinks is a good gauge of performance.

We should all understand that a person carrying 20-lbs of potatoes is slower than the same person (same horsepower) carrying a 10-lb bag of potatoes. Just like the horsies describe the power of a motor.... sooo.... examples... to make it obvious I will fudge the numbers largely in the V-Rod's favour...

Ducati (at lower than normal specs)
80hp / 400lb = 5lb/hp

V-Rod (at better than normal specs)
125hp / 625lb = 5lb/hp

Porsche GT (fast car specs)
600hp / 3000lb = 5lb/hp

Caterham 7 (moderate state of tune)
220hp / 1100lb = 5lb/hp

KTM 250 SX (2-stroke)
50HP / 225lb = 4.5lb/horsepower

These vehicles should accelerate similarly through a quarter-mile. The times are 11.0-11.5 seconds and at about 125 mph. The KTM motocross bike is tricky because it'll wheelie the easiest and then run out of top speed on top due to the much lower standard gearing. Despite very different gearing and torque curves, and since I the fudged numbers to make the math simple it's a bit off, but the results wont vary by more than 0.5 second across the board depending upon the truth of the manufacturers specs.

The Ducati Monster 1100 is just a bit faster than a V-Rod because it's lighter, and the Porsche has the highest top speed because of it's overall higher horsepower and better aerodynamics. The Ducati is light and probably the quickest, even if it is 10% below the claimed hp.

Secondly: As others mentioned above, at 100hp the Duc 1100 Evo is not Ducati's High-Performance engine choice and the Monster wasnt designed to be a pure hooligan bike originally. Ducati met the hooligan request with there liquid-cooled Monster versions. Which brings up two important points.

a) the liquid-cooled versions didnt look so good in the chassis. It lost a little something in styling, and they use that motor is other fun "performance" bikes.

b) This is an AIR-COOLED motor. It's based upon an old old old design, but it looks right at home in that chassis. It's sooo much harder to engineer a motor for high-compression, to control heat and keep proper tolerances without liquid-cooling. And yeah, it's still limited by a 2-valve head which great for mid-range but not for high-rpm. It revs pretty high all things considered. This is only a high-performance engine in terms of it being an updated performance version of an old air-cooled, 2-valve per cylinder motor. Ducati was nice enough to install an oil-cooler from the factory to help control the engine temperature. But in terms of 2000-era tech, it's a very standard engine.

Harley builds a bike and on there own web-site says "Drag-Strip Performance, Sleek Street Style", using a newer motor, with liquid cooling, 4-valves per cylinder, etc.. and yet, is more than 250 lbs heavier than a standard spec Ducati Monster, and thus slower.

Markg1 wrote: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!!!

Little disrespect in my post, just a little chuckle and request for an explanation, unlike yours. You seem to believe in numbers, but don't understand them for there importance. You blow off some ego indulging in your hypocrisy and immaturity, offer little explanation beyond adolecence, more exclamation points and childish misguided insults. I wont expand on that further except to say you seem awfully touchy Mark, especially for someone touting 30 years experience, which by your inability to see truth of the Monster you experienced without actually being there. You want some explanation about the Ducati's lack of power, which you wrongly believe is a high-performance motorcycle. The Monster's history is freely available and has included performance versions in the past. The basics of this 1100 Evo engine are included in the initial posting about the motorcycle, which you failed to read or comprehend, and more amusingly, with 30 years riding experience you shouldnt have to read. So I deduce that you've taken a lot of time off in your 30 years of experience.

Here I used simple numbers which explain that a standard performance old-skool engine is faster than Harley's claimed high-performance engine.

If you want simple OPINIONS than the Cool Wall is the place. But if you make more specific statements that are contrary to others it's only natural that you be questioned for your perspective/experience. Pretty simple really.

As I mentioned already (but, yeah, you missed it), if you dont like the style of the Monster, than none of the rest of the bike really matters. And as you can see with Mike's post above, if you dont take time to read things you present more misinformation into the discussion. Because Mike seemed to skim these postings fast enough that he missed the basics: MarkG1 DOESNT like the Ducati, while Quietmonkey DOES like the Ducati. Mike just jumped in the ring to DING the bell. (shrug)

My experience is reasonably well covered in these forums from previous postings over the years. Some of us dont believe that a simple "number of years riding" is much of a true indicator of riding experience. Again, quite obviously because riding different bikes under different conditions can give a person a broader and different level of experience. And people learn at different rates depending upon there initial skills, openness to learning, skills of there tutors (i.e. racing competitors), determination, economics, diversity, etc.

You rode a muscle bike at age 15 and now 15+ years later you ride TWO muscle bikes. This tells me something about the evolution of your riding mentality, or your riding "passion" and it also explains in part your comments on the Ducati Monster.

Boy, for not liking numbers you sure used a lot of them in this post. I can tell your respected in this forum from all the responses you have had. Have you ever owned a motorcycle? Oh...you probably just ride in the back...that's okay a lot of people like it in the rear!

It's amazing how little a guy like you can learn because you're so busy insulting someone else when they show you that you missed the point. If you werent so foolish you could easily find pieces of my varied riding experience on this web-site covering the mid-80s to present. But instead you *choose* to act like a donkey.

How hard is it for a guy like you to wake up and say, "I didnt realize this was an old air-cooled motor, and Ducati doesnt just build high-perf bikes; i didnt realize the monster weighs 2/3rds of my V-Rod... or I didnt realize my High-Perf V-Rod only has 122 horsepower, and this Monster is actually faster than it."

Funny how people responded to this Ducati Monster post because they noticed that this engine seemed pretty good considering the purpose of the bike. I think Hyperr and I are the only two people contributing posts to have ridden the similarly engined Ducati Hypermotard, although HighSide has/had some Monster at one time.

With your latest response the label on your forehead reads: "Mark is especially sensitive to criticism and prone to replaying the insults of his longgg childhood rather than learning to accept his mistakes. He's too proud to learn from others, but quick to make false assumptions merely to help him foolishly insult someone who notices his mistakes. Due to this character trait he can sometimes become less intelligent and more like a child with every response." Really the above posting shows that you're simply too proud and arrogant to be questioned and to learn from your mistakes. Above all else you're trying hard to make sure people know that you're not going to change and will continue to believe in this blindness with religious faith when things just don't add up. That'll be great when H-D sells you a 150hp V-Rod Ultra Limited (weighing in at 760lbs in all the shining chrome glory)... ooohh it's soo fast...

hey you two, keep it friendly ok?

QM: I don't think you can use the data of the:

Caterham 7 (moderate state of tune)
220hp / 1100lb = 5lb/hp

I know these cars (as I'm in the UK), and they are completely different to a "normal" car. Amazing yet, but it's a kit car with very little other than an engine and frame.

totalmotorcycle wrote:QM: I don't think you can use the data of the Caterham 7...... completely different to a "normal" car. Amazing yet, but it's a kit car with very little other than an engine and frame.

While Caterham's may be very simple cars, and although not quite normal in looks or accoutrement's to most current vehicles, they are quite normal (compared to a T-Rex or Can-Am Spyder even). They are available with luxury options like a heater, windshield (and wipers), soft-top, and stereo... and they are available in various states of build or as component "kits".

Although the UK offers some of the most liberal vehicle registration laws, Caterham's have been available for decades as turn-key road-legal cars in many countries world-wide, including Canada (even with a Hayabusa engine)... http://www.super7cars.com/

I thought the Caterham made a nice addition to the post, as did the 250 2-stroke motocrosser. I would've used other crazier Caterham's or an Ariel Atom (especially the V8) if i was trying to stretch the rules on freaky cars: