Ducati.ms - The Ultimate Ducati Forum banner
  • Hey Everyone! Enter your bike HERE to be a part of this months Bike of the Month Challenge!

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Interesting ride report. I don't understand why you feel that naked bikes should be air-cooled. Air-cooling severely limits the performance that can be obtained in a naked bike. The highest performing nakeds in the world are liquid-cooled, like the SF, Tuono and the Super Duke. This is because liquid-cooling allows more heat production in the combustion chamber, thus higher compression ratios, 4-valve technology, etc.
I'm not sure why you found the lower speed handling of the SF so unfriendly. I find it very stable and reassuring at all speeds. It is certainly not nearly as demanding at slow speeds as my Super Duke.
Most people have reported the "flat-spot" in the fueling at around 3500 RPM, not higher as you report. Given this difference in observations, I wonder if your bike was running normally for this model.
I agree that the riding position wears on you after 150 miles or so, but most bikes make a stop around then for fuel pretty welcome ;) .
Regards,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Interesting ride report. I don't understand why you feel that naked bikes should be air-cooled. Air-cooling severely limits the performance that can be obtained in a naked bike. The highest performing nakeds in the world are liquid-cooled, like the SF, Tuono and the Super Duke. This is because liquid-cooling allows more heat production in the combustion chamber, thus higher compression ratios, 4-valve technology, etc.
I'm not sure why you found the lower speed handling of the SF so unfriendly. I find it very stable and reassuring at all speeds. It is certainly not nearly as demanding at slow speeds as my Super Duke.
Most people have reported the "flat-spot" in the fueling at around 3500 RPM, not higher as you report. Given this difference in observations, I wonder if your bike was running normally for this model.
I agree that the riding position wears on you after 150 miles or so, but most bikes make a stop around then for fuel pretty welcome ;) .
Regards,
lol, I understand that a 4 valve liquid cooled motor makes more power - but crazy as it sounds not everyone wants the most power available :D I greatly prefer the 2 valve for the reduced weight (they are A LOT lighter), better aesthetic without all the hoses, radiator, etc... and they produce more than enough power and torque to have a good time on a naked bike.

The 4500 was a typo, just hit the wrong key.
 

·
Bon Vivant
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
I agree with wintermute on several points: I don't find the low speed handling a problem in fact I find it superior to many bikes including a Monster. It sure beats the heck out of my 1098!

Unfortunately at the altitude I live power is always a problem, My SF up here probably feels about like most 2 valve motors at sea level. So I go for all the power I can get.

As for the weight, uhh... check the stats. according to Ducati the streetfighter is slightly lighter than the two valve bikes
SF S = 368 lbs
monster S = 370
Hyper S = 390

So weight is not an argument for the aircooled motor (even after fluids are added and the SF becomes slightly heavier than the other bikes I'd say it's not an argumenting point)

I don't understand about the snap of the throttle that you are not feeling on this bike, mine is downright frightening! (in a very good way!)
And it certainly has more snap than any of the 2 valve bikes I've owned or ridden.

I do find it refreshing to read that the owner of a dealership is willing to acknowledge the fueling issues from Ducati bikes
and I do agree with you about the muted colors on the base model, The center of the bike just disappears...

Nice to read your write-up Anthony - now I think you need to spend a little more time with the bike ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,032 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
If you weigh the 2 valve motor wet and the 4 valve motor wet you'll see a big difference. The weight of the bikes listed is irrevelent. The weight of a SF with a 2 valve motor is the only bit that matters. Wtih twice as many valves, cams, etc... + radiator, hoses and fluids the 4 valve is most definitely heavier.

Maybe our SF demo has more fueling issues than normal as the motor was not snappy at all. This is the only SF I've ridden so I have nothing to compare it to. The 1098S I tested was MUCH more alive. Our Hyper demo is much snappier too (it does have a DP ECU and full exhaust).

Who knows, maybe the SF is just that much smoother in its power delivery at full throttle that it doesn't feel like much... it was a similar sensation to riding a 4 cylinder - twist the throttle and you're going fast, but it doesn't feel like it.

I'll spend some more time on the bike and see what changes. I'll also put an exhaust on it and see about fueling options.
 

·
Bon Vivant
Joined
·
11,430 Posts
twist the throttle and you're going fast, but it doesn't feel like it.
I agree with that - if you are smooth, going 90mph feels like 50mph. But if you are abrupt on the throttle you better be alert!

In some ways I'd rather ride a bike that feels like its going 90 at 50 than one that feels like its going 50 at 90.
It's so hard to ride the speed limit on this bike.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top