It's a great motor, with gobs of smooth power. It just needed to be unshackled and stuck in a great chassis like your Bimota. Cheers!
[/QUOTE]
This comment in response to the dyno figures churned out my by SB6R brings to a head why I believe the original Bimota company ended up out of business, in addition to the well-publicized V-due fiasco, and perhaps the real reason for its demise, with the V-due simply the last nail in a coffin already well along in construction.
The original Bimota concept (pre-DB1) was to take the newly developed four cycl Japanese engines (Kawasaki Z1, Honda 900, Yamaha 1100 ) which offered power no Italian, American or British bike could approach and address their then inherent problems, poor handling, overweight, and flexi chassis/poor braking. (This was not purely a street bike issue, the early Japanese Grand Prix bikes, especially Honda, had chassis issues that allowed MV to stay ahead with lesser engines) and then build a great sportbike by developing the SB2, HB2, K1 etc which cut weight dramatically, and offered handling and braking that was miles above the contemporary Z1 etc.
Even the intial Ducati powered models were there to provide the same type of answer. The company was having cash flow issues because of the Tesi projects and racing focus. The DB1 ended up saving the bacon at that point by doing what the earlier 4cyl models had done -- taking a great engine and putting it into a light weight, great handling package the 'donor' bike could not match.
The DB1 took its powerplant from the then newly-released Ducati 750 F1. The latter was inherently flawed and had issues with handling and many other factors that made it the swan song of the original Ducati company, which was in transition to Cagiva after the F1 was developed but before it was released to an unimpressed public. By contrast, the DB1 was an unprecedented success for Bimota and was, as the earlier 4cyl models, the classic formula of a good donor engine in a platform that outhandled and outperformed the donor bike.
But the rest of the industry changed and Bimota did not. Kawasaki and Suzuki engines continued to go into Bimota frames, and while the Bimota models maintained the same general platform (YB4 through 10, and the pre SB6 series) the donor bikes developed faster and the Japanese brought out models with the same engines but now lighter and with handling and braking that matched their powerplants.
Buy the Bimota road test compilations and you can see this happening. The early tests of the K1s, the HB2 and the Y series are glowing, while the later tests say, "good, but not that much -- if at all -- better than the donor bikes." This reached its peak in the last gasp of the Yamaha series, the YB11, which was not any better, and perhaps a lesser bike than the much less expensive Thunderace. Ditto for the YB9 series. At this point, Bimota was also using the aluminum frame in the YB11 that traced its design back to the YB4, and had now found its way into bikes such as the Yamaha donor and the contemporary Hondas and Suzukis. At that point, the extra price for a Bimota made them near impossible to sell.
Fortunately for Bimota, the GSXR 1100 came along, and the bike had the engine from heaven, but in a poor handling, overweight package. Bimota then unveiled the last (and still used in Santamonica form) chassis platform for their 4 cycl products, the "Straight Line Connection" frame of the SB6, a model that sold in very large numbers and offered substantial improvements over the donor Suzuki. The revised SB6R was even better, staying with the new frame and improving handling and performance -- while the YB11 built at the same time stayed with the older platform. The former was a significant step up for a buyer and offered potentially the state of the art in a street superbike, while the latter was, and I apologize to owners of this model in advance -- a very nicely built and beautiful old school ride.
But the Japanese continued to improve their bikes, as did Ducati. The DB series was a good seller for Bimota, but not all that much 'above' a Ducati with the same engine and now in a good chassis in its own right. The GSX 1100 R was dropped, and the lighter, smaller discplacement (but increasingly powerful) Gixxers rolled out of the factory. Yamaha and Kawasaki followed suit, and Bimota no longer had a superior four cyl product nor even a reasonable alternative to the Ducati. Time, and developing technology in Japan and at Ducati (and at MV, Aprilia, etc) had undercut Bimota's market niche.
The SB8R didn't do much to change the picture. The donor bike for this model, the Suzuki TL series, was a reversion by Suzuki to the decade before, a great engine in an overweight bike with serious handling issues. Bimota took that engine, juiced it up a tad, and then put it into a revised SB6R chassis which resulted in a four valve V twin every bit as good as the Ducati Superbikes of the same era. Indeed, the one I now own performs right up there with my 07 999S Part Unlimted Ducati, albeit the SB is too new to push to its limits, but initial feel is, as others have noted, very much a 4valve Ducati in response and handling. (See the Alan Cathcart test at the Bimota Enthusiasts website.)
But, and as much as I cherish my SB8R, would I have bought it when it came out in 1999 and 2000 at a very high price? No. The best you could say about the SB8R (and that bike and the DB4 were all Bimota could really offer as a result of the V-due disaster) was that they offered performance no better than the parallel offerings from Ducati but at much higher prices. Sure, I just bought a new one seven years later, but at a sharply reduced price for a bike that still will run with a new Ducati 4 valve at or under the same price but which has a look and feel I appreciate and which should hold its value now that it has 'depreciated' as far as it will go and should hold or increase its value in the years to come.
So that is why I feel Bimota folded at the start of this century, it no longer had an 'answer' for a problem that had gone away. It could no longer offer an improvement in performance and handling over the donor models, and often could not even match them. Prices were always an issue for Bimota, but we paid them when they offered something we could not get elsewhere for less. At the end, Bimota offered image but no 'edge' and their market evaporated regadless of the failed V-due project. Sure, the cash drain of the V-due was the last nail, as I said before, but the patient was terminal long before that when the market niche went away, and Bimota did not find a new one.
Now what about the 'new' Bimota? They do not tout improved performance or technical innovation (save for the Tesi 3D.) Instead, they take a stock Ducati 2v and put it in a chassis that is light and superb handling, but sells it to the public based on its fine detailing and low production, a bike for someone who appreciates it as mechanical 'art' rather than cutting edge technology.
Did they pull it off? Or, did they revert to their original role without telling Ducati about it?
I was offered a DB5 for a good price, I tried it and found a great engine (the 1000DS) in a 364 pound package with incredible handling. Good grief, did Bimota stumble on something Ducati had missed? Ducati last offered this engine in a sport bike package in the now discontinued 1000DS SS. It sold poorly and they no longer make a 2v sport bike except in the new Sports Classic series. I owned a Paul Smart, liked it, but when I got the DB5 I sold it.
Why? The DB5 took the same great engine, put into a chassis as slim as riding a bicycle, cut off 50 pounds of weight, and then put on all the bits and pieces necessary to give the bike uncanny ride, handling and response. Once again, Bimota has found a way to take a donor engine that is world class, put it into a platform that is superior in performance and handling to the donor, and offered it to the public.
Sorry for the long rambling observation here, but this is my spin on why Bimota really died, and why I have high hopes for the new company. Dave
Linear Mode
