Joined
·
1,137 Posts
Looks fine to me. I've been riding the original Monsters for 27 years, and have put 300K miles on them, and I'm fine if they change the frame design. Once upon a time, all bike frames were welded steel tubes; then in the '80's the Japanese manufacturers all went to extruded aluminum beams for their high performance bikes, because those were better. Ducati couldn't afford the extrusion machines, so they developed a method of triangulating welded steel tubes, combined with a stressed engine design, that was as good at the time, and made that one of their trademark designs.
To me, the thing that makes Ducati special, the reason I ride them, is that I prefer twins over fours, and Ducati was the only real sporting machine that was a 2-cyl design. The desmos are cool, but functionally, they are not a big advantage ; they mainly allow for more aggressive cam timing than valve spring designs.
Other than those 3 things, and Italian design flair, Ducatis aren't much different from other bikes.
So yeah, I'd be fine with an aluminum-framed Monster, with valve springs, and whatever else they wanted to do, as long as it was (a) a naked standard bike, in order to still be a Monster, and (b) a 2-cyl engine, in order to keep what makes Ducati good for what I like. And if they go to a V-4 at some point, I won't claim it isn't a Monster anymore, either. I just won't buy one and would get some other twin -- a KTM or Moto Guzzi or BMW or something.
=====
The Monster doesn't look like all those Japanese bikes. All those Japanese bikes look like the Monster.
What we forget is that the Monster created the segment. I remember very clearly in 1993, because I was looking to get a decent vehicle or two at the time. I'd gotten a good job -- my first job with a career path -- and saved up some money, about $10K. I wanted a decent used car and a decent used bike. For the bike, what I wanted was a light sporty naked bike, sort of a modern reliable version of a Norton Commando, preferably with 2 cylinders, and there was no such thing on the market. Not anywhere, not made by anybody. I was trying to figure out whether I was going to (a) give up on 2-cyl, get a Japanese sportbike and streetfighter it, (b) give up on modern and reliable, buy 2 Commandos and rebuild them in alternate years, or compromise on performance, and get a 1987 Honda Hawk 650GT, which was perfect except for having a measly 37hp.
Then I saw the article in Cycle World on the 1993 Cologne bike show, with one small picture of the Monster prototype. They said they were going to make 5000, allocate 2 per dealer and see if anyone bought it. If not, that would be all there would be. It was exactly what I wanted. So I said "who needs a car, anyway?", looked up the local Duc dealer in the phone book, went and gave him all my money, without having even seen the bike in person, just that one small picture, and waited for them to be produced and shipped.
3 months later, I had my Monster. A few years after that, there were half a dozen copies of it on the market -- everyone was making a naked 2-cyl sporty bike. The Monster was the original, and has continued to be one of the best. It's hard to stand out from the crowd when the crowd is following you around.
=====
The only thing I don't like is the number of plastic bits, and the fiberglass tail.
I keep my stuff for a long time, and rarely let go of a good bike before 80K miles. Plastic doesn't hold up well long enough; it gets brittle and breaks. Fiberglass has similar weaknesses.
One of the things that drew me to the Monster in the first place was how little plastic it had on it.
=====
Below is a pic of my first Monster (red), a 1993 M900 that I bought new and put 265K miles on over 24 years. The pic is from 2016, on the weekend it turned over 250K miles.
And a pic of my current Monster (yellow), a 1995 M900, loaded for a trip.
![1001598]()
![1001599]()
To me, the thing that makes Ducati special, the reason I ride them, is that I prefer twins over fours, and Ducati was the only real sporting machine that was a 2-cyl design. The desmos are cool, but functionally, they are not a big advantage ; they mainly allow for more aggressive cam timing than valve spring designs.
Other than those 3 things, and Italian design flair, Ducatis aren't much different from other bikes.
So yeah, I'd be fine with an aluminum-framed Monster, with valve springs, and whatever else they wanted to do, as long as it was (a) a naked standard bike, in order to still be a Monster, and (b) a 2-cyl engine, in order to keep what makes Ducati good for what I like. And if they go to a V-4 at some point, I won't claim it isn't a Monster anymore, either. I just won't buy one and would get some other twin -- a KTM or Moto Guzzi or BMW or something.
=====
The Monster doesn't look like all those Japanese bikes. All those Japanese bikes look like the Monster.
What we forget is that the Monster created the segment. I remember very clearly in 1993, because I was looking to get a decent vehicle or two at the time. I'd gotten a good job -- my first job with a career path -- and saved up some money, about $10K. I wanted a decent used car and a decent used bike. For the bike, what I wanted was a light sporty naked bike, sort of a modern reliable version of a Norton Commando, preferably with 2 cylinders, and there was no such thing on the market. Not anywhere, not made by anybody. I was trying to figure out whether I was going to (a) give up on 2-cyl, get a Japanese sportbike and streetfighter it, (b) give up on modern and reliable, buy 2 Commandos and rebuild them in alternate years, or compromise on performance, and get a 1987 Honda Hawk 650GT, which was perfect except for having a measly 37hp.
Then I saw the article in Cycle World on the 1993 Cologne bike show, with one small picture of the Monster prototype. They said they were going to make 5000, allocate 2 per dealer and see if anyone bought it. If not, that would be all there would be. It was exactly what I wanted. So I said "who needs a car, anyway?", looked up the local Duc dealer in the phone book, went and gave him all my money, without having even seen the bike in person, just that one small picture, and waited for them to be produced and shipped.
3 months later, I had my Monster. A few years after that, there were half a dozen copies of it on the market -- everyone was making a naked 2-cyl sporty bike. The Monster was the original, and has continued to be one of the best. It's hard to stand out from the crowd when the crowd is following you around.
=====
The only thing I don't like is the number of plastic bits, and the fiberglass tail.
I keep my stuff for a long time, and rarely let go of a good bike before 80K miles. Plastic doesn't hold up well long enough; it gets brittle and breaks. Fiberglass has similar weaknesses.
One of the things that drew me to the Monster in the first place was how little plastic it had on it.
=====
Below is a pic of my first Monster (red), a 1993 M900 that I bought new and put 265K miles on over 24 years. The pic is from 2016, on the weekend it turned over 250K miles.
And a pic of my current Monster (yellow), a 1995 M900, loaded for a trip.
