[M.S.]

DUCATI SS 1000

The FUTURE !

http://motosketches.blogspot.com

 

[Muschi]

 

[newducati]

amazing

 

[spyvito]

That is very nice looking.

 

[freewheeler2]

Nice, but true SS should have ability to go two up....

 

[Easy]

I fear we will not see another Supersport soon. I guess the market niche would be too small as it would be too close to the 848.

 

[pentathol]

I fear we will not see another Supersport soon. I guess the market niche would be too small as it would be too close to the 848.

+1

And even if we did, I doubt they would let it look so close to the 848/1198. There wouldn't be a point. If you look at the SS's during the 999 and 998 era, they didn't share many design cues from the superbike, so I wouldn't predict that for a future SS or MTS.

 

[seight311]

I dunno about the market, I wouldnt go as far to say it would sell great or that it wont sell at all. I think alot of people like the simplicity and reliability of the DS motor. Although the looks of the bike is far too similiar to the 848/1098, I think it would need to undergo a little redesigning to keep it visually different from its superbike big brothers, and a new SS would need to be ready for a passenger.

And yes this is old news... many other threads open on the new SS pictures and changes people thought were good and bad.

 

[YellowDuck]

Yes, we have done this before - such a shame that it will never happen.

When you look at how light they managed to make the new Monster 1100, it seems like a new air cooled SS could undercut any Japanese 600 for weight, make near 100 rwhp with only mild tuning, and produce as much torque as an I-4 1000, at much lower rpm. With top shelf suspension components (or even nearly) and good brakes it would be the perfect sportbike for the street. Basically, it would be an affordable DB5.

But sadly, only 5% of potential buyers would see past the fact that it doesn't make 150 hp. That's just the way it is.

 

[dirkwrong]

Monster 1100S:
weight: 370 lbs (dry, no battery)
power: 95 hp
PWR: 0.26

Typical Superbike PWR = 0.45

Still, that's pretty good. My bike has a measly 0.19 PWR...

848:
weight: 370 lbs
power: 134 hp
PWR: 0.36

You'd have to go all NCR on the air cooled bikes to get up to a PWR of 0.4... $$$$

I really like the looks of the sketch though, except that I'd make it softer looking. I'd round off the hard edges a bit, which seems to be the Italian way actually. More fluid and less crystalline...

So, if we got a hot rod 1100 DS engine up to 848 specs, we'd have something really good, assuming the bike weighed only 370 lbs of course... I don't know what it would take to get an 1100 DS engine to put out 134 hp though... more $$$$....

I hate to say this, but I really get the feeling that Ducati considers the Sport Classics line to be the new Supersport.

 

[YellowDuck]

You see, it is that type of spec-sheet masturbation that prevents 95% of riders from seeing the value of this type of bike.

We are talking about street bikes here. A typical Japanese I-4 superbike is tuned very much for top end performance - the torque curve rises almost all the way to redline. So yes, it might make 160 hp...****but you CAN'T use it on the street***.

Do you know how fast you are going if you take a ZX-10 to redline in FIRST gear? Almost exactly 100 mph. And if you actually use all of the power in first gear (i.e., actually keep the throttle wide open) you will loop the bike for sure.

You can use WOT in third gear, but by the time you get to the 160-hp power peak, you have lost your license for sure. Anyone who buys a 1000cc superbike for the street because they believe they need and can use 160 hp just has no idea.

A 1000-cc air-cooled twin can provide the same things as a 1000-cc liquid cooled I-4 that are actually important for street riding: heaps of torque to pull you out of corners, and enough grunt to accelerate stoopid-quick up to 80 mph. And, it can do it with a motor that is simple, narrow and light. This SS could weigh under 400 lbs wet. That's 35 lbs less than a GSXR600, and I am guessing about 50 lbs less than a GSXR1000.

 

[YellowDuck]

I hate to say this, but I really get the feeling that Ducati considers the Sport Classics line to be the new Supersport.

You are 100% correct about that I would say. Smart move on their part, because by retreating to the "retro" category they avoid direct spec sheet comparisons with true sportbikes, like the one you made above.

The problem is that they de-contented the bikes too much in the process. Look at what most of us SC owners do - get rid of the spoked wheels and low-spec brakes, tune for more power, and (especially) upgrade the suspension. We are building our own Supersports, because Ducati won't build them for us!

There is a thread on the SC forum right now, where a vendor has found a way to rectify the ridiculous intake restrictions on the SC models, so that power can get up to what you would expect with a mildly tuned SS1000. Every SC owner wants that mod.

 

[dirkwrong]

You see, it is that type of spec-sheet masturbation that prevents 95% of riders from seeing the value of this type of bike.

We are talking about street bikes here. A typical Japanese I-4 superbike is tuned very much for top end performance - the torque curve rises almost all the way to redline. So yes, it might make 160 hp...****but you CAN'T use it on the street***.

Do you know how fast you are going if you take a ZX-10 to redline in FIRST gear? Almost exactly 100 mph. And if you actually use all of the power in first gear (i.e., actually keep the throttle wide open) you will loop the bike for sure.

You can use WOT in third gear, but by the time you get to the 160-hp power peak, you have lost your license for sure. Anyone who buys a 1000cc superbike for the street because they believe they need and can use 160 hp just has no idea.

A 1000-cc air-cooled twin can provide the same things as a 1000-cc liquid cooled I-4 that are actually important for street riding: heaps of torque to pull you out of corners, and enough grunt to accelerate stoopid-quick up to 80 mph. And, it can do it with a motor that is simple, narrow and light. This SS could weigh under 400 lbs wet. That's 35 lbs less than a GSXR600, and I am guessing about 50 lbs less than a GSXR1000.

Oh come on, that's not fair. I was only using one parameter to compare the Supersport to other bikes, not engaging in "spec-sheet masturbation". I'm very well aware that most of the Superbike power is not usable on the street. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. I should have compared "usable torque" I suppose:

Monster 1100S:
weight: 370 lbs
peak torque: 76 lb-ft
TWR: 0.21

848:
weight: 370
peak torque: 71 lb-ft
TWR: 0.19

So, of course you are correct. Usable power is equivalent to peak torque, not peak horsepower. I can't find data on the GSX-R600 so I don't know, but certainly believe that they have very little usable torque. Suzuki now lists their bikes with curb weight, which means fully loaded with fuel, oil and battery, so it's even harder to compare them now.

Anyway, logically we should be focusing on increasing torque from our engines, not peak hp. Hmmm.....

 

[st2lemans]

We are talking about street bikes here. A typical Japanese I-4 superbike is tuned very much for top end performance - the torque curve rises almost all the way to redline. So yes, it might make 160 hp...****but you CAN'T use it on the street***.

Do you know how fast you are going if you take a ZX-10 to redline in FIRST gear? Almost exactly 100 mph. And if you actually use all of the power in first gear (i.e., actually keep the throttle wide open) you will loop the bike for sure.

My 999R is geared for about 60MPH at redline in first gear, and it will often see such RPM, and at WOT. When I'm in the Alps, with a 20+% loss of torque and HP due to altitude, and I'm trying to pass a tourist buss between hairpins, the difference between my SS and 999R is quite evident.

Also, you can only make a torque comparison if the gearing is identical, otherwise it is meaningless. It is rear wheel torque that counts, NOT crankshaft torque, and rear wheel torque depends on primary drive ratio, gear ratio, and final drive ratio.

Tom

 

[dirkwrong]

Also, you can only make a torque comparison if the gearing is identical, otherwise it is meaningless. It is rear wheel torque that counts, NOT crankshaft torque, and rear wheel torque depends on primary drive ratio, gear ratio, and final drive ratio.

Tom

Well, it's easy to change the sprockets, so the engine's peak torque is an indication of what's possible with the existing engine. Of course it's rear wheel torque that matters, but the peak torque to weight ratio is important too. What's tricky I think is that more torque usually requires more massive drive train components unless you go to exotic materials. There's a fundamental conflict between torque and weight, in other words.

The Yamaha TZ 250 only makes 40 lb-ft, weighs 230 lbs, TWR: 0.17, so many bikes will accelerate faster, but because of the extremely light weight, the bike can carry more speed through corners, requires less braking equipment and can use smaller tires. I admit I have very little experience with this though...

 

[Pacman]

IF IT WERE EVER TO HAPPEN, it'd probably be an 1100cc and likely to have the shittiest brakes and suspension available in the market. Look at the first pics of the SC and the final product. Well.... much of the same.

 

[YellowDuck]

I was just having fun with the "spec sheet masturbation" comment. No offence intended!

I would actually argue that peak hp is important, because hp divided by the total gearing (transmission and final drive) gives you the torque at the wheel, which is what produces acceleration. A high torque value is useless if it arrives at a very low rpm, because by the time you apply enough gearing to give a normal road speed, the torque at the rear wheel is greatly reduced (as stlemans already explained).

This gets a bit confusing, because the following is true, even though it seems like a dichotomy: in any given gear, maximum acceleration occurs at the engine speed that produces maximum crankshaft *torque*, but if you can choose the gearing, maximum acceleration occurs in the gear that gives maximum crankshaft *hp*.

Frankly, if you can't wrap your head around that, you can't really fully understand this topic. Peak hp *is* important. My point about the I4 bikes is that they produce peak hp at such high rpm that it is essentially inaccessible at anything like normal street velocities (unless of course your alter the gearing really really radically, or spend all of your time in first gear!).

So, comparing power to weight ratios between something like a DS1000 and a GSXR1000 is not that meaningful, because you are comparing a peak hp value that you can actually use (arrives at 7500 rpm) with one that you can't (arrives at 13000 rpm, and you are already speeding in first gear).

I'm not saying that a DS1000 is going to be as fast as a GSXR1000 in street riding where the upper limit is held to, say, 80 mph. I am just saying that the difference between the two will be a heck of a lot smaller than one might guess by looking at something like the power to weight ratio.

(Oh, and about really *light* bikes and power-to-weight...don't forget to factor in the weight of the rider when you do those calculations. We are not really comparing 350 lbs to 450 lbs (29% difference), we are comparing 500 lbs to 600 lbs (20%), or even 550 lbs to 650 lbs (18%)....)

 

[dirkwrong]

I was just having fun with the "spec sheet masturbation" comment. No offence intended!

I would actually argue that peak hp is important, because hp divided by the total gearing (transmission and final drive) gives you the torque at the wheel, which is what produces acceleration. A high torque value is useless if it arrives at a very low rpm, because by the time you apply enough gearing to give a normal road speed, the torque at the rear wheel is greatly reduced (as stlemans already explained).

This gets a bit confusing, because the following is true, even though it seems like a dichotomy: in any given gear, maximum acceleration occurs at the engine speed that produces maximum crankshaft *torque*, but if you can choose the gearing, maximum acceleration occurs in the gear that gives maximum crankshaft *hp*.

Frankly, if you can't wrap your head around that, you can't really fully understand this topic. Peak hp *is* important. My point about the I4 bikes is that they produce peak hp at such high rpm that it is essentially inaccessible at anything like normal street velocities (unless of course your alter the gearing really really radically, or spend all of your time in first gear!).

So, comparing power to weight ratios between something like a DS1000 and a GSXR1000 is not that meaningful, because you are comparing a peak hp value that you can actually use (arrives at 7500 rpm) with one that you can't (arrives at 13000 rpm, and you are already speeding in first gear).

I'm not saying that a DS1000 is going to be as fast as a GSXR1000 in street riding where the upper limit is held to, say, 80 mph. I am just saying that the difference between the two will be a heck of a lot smaller than one might guess by looking at something like the power to weight ratio.

(Oh, and about really *light* bikes and power-to-weight...don't forget to factor in the weight of the rider when you do those calculations. We are not really comparing 350 lbs to 450 lbs (29% difference), we are comparing 500 lbs to 600 lbs (20%), or even 550 lbs to 650 lbs (18%)....)

You make some good and valid points, of course. My feeling is that the requirements for a good street bike are very different from what makes a race bike. A TZ 250 is not a very good street bike, for example, just as a Harley is not a good race bike. I believe torque rules on the street and hp rules on the track. An 848 and a Monster 1100S weigh the same, but I bet the Monster accelerates faster on the street, but the 848 would stomp it on the race track. The Monster would be far more comfortable to ride on the street too.

A friend of mine has a MV Agusta 750 Brutale and when he got a Ducati SC he really liked the Ducati for the street. He said the power band on the Ducati was much more usable than on the MV. He didn't like riding along on the MV at 12,000 rpm. He felt the Ducati was far more relaxed.

 

[Easy]

I am absolutely convinced that a lightweight sportbike with the 1078 cc Desmodue engine could be a perfect solution. There is a reason why you can buy bikes like the Bimota DB5 or the Pierobon F042 Street.

However, I do not expect to see a new Ducati Supersport soon.