Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
stay away from twins though...

On Aug 21, 1:27*pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
> it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
> stay away from twins though...

Damn good bike. Better brakes than you've ever had and I'm told by
those with more than ond Ducati "Once you've had a monster between
your legs, well you'll never buy another brand"

Is it worth it? Yeah it's worth it.

--
Keith

On Aug 21, 2:06*pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 1:27*pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
> > it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> > my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
> > stay away from twins though...
>
> Damn good bike. Better brakes than you've ever had and I'm told by
> those with more than ond Ducati "Once you've had a monster between
> your legs, well you'll never buy another brand"
>
> Is it worth it? Yeah it's worth it.
>
> --
> Keith

I disagree if you take out all the Ducati poseur value. The little
Suzuki SV-650 will outperform the 696 in all respects plus it's a
couple grand cheaper OTD. Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects. IMO,
steer clear of those cam belt driven old school Ducati desmo’s.

Bob Nixon..

One fine day in rec.motorcycles, "kingfish@hotmail.com"
<kingfish@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
> it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
> stay away from twins though...
>

Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008 issue.
(I'm a subscriber.) 66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs torque.
Nice sporty curve, and it averaged 43.9 MPG. Bagging it is difficult
because of the high pipes, and plastic tank. The bike is described as
compact, but that makes it ultra maneuverable. Shifting is described as
"smooth and clean", but the clutch engages where the lever is nearly all
the way out. My old V-Star 650 was like that, and I had no problem with
it. The mufflers emit "sweet music", although the power output is
described as "dandy" for lighter and less agressive riders. According to
the tester, it just keeps leaning and leaning and leaning, never scraping
anything, and easily soaking up undulations in the pavement which would
throw other bikes off-line. The suspension is otherwise described as
similar to that of a serious sports car, and the brakes (Brembo calipers
all around) are strong and linear, with extra praise for the back brakes.
Add to that an instrument panel that does everything but your taxes, and
you have quite a contender. They claim the power to weight ratio is better
than the Monster 900, although I imagine the gearing is a tad shorter.

Overall, "a fine entry-level machine for someone who doesn't want to grow
out of their investment".

--
Uncle Vic
04 Kawasaki Vulcan Nomad
92 Nighthawk 750

On Aug 22, 1:53*am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008 issue. *
> (I'm a subscriber.) *66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs torque.. *

Interesting. The Duc site says 80hp & 50.6 torque. Mebbe those numbers
are at the flywheel?

Bob, it's hard to top the Japanese when comaring scoots. Yes the
Zookie will do it as well or better for less $, but if it doesn't
trigger the brain's pleasure center then the savings don't matter. I
like the 696's look where the SV looks to me like a generic metric
bike. (I've had 8 of those already) The Duc will probably require
more maintenance than a Suzuki, but I guess that's the price of
admission.

The "poseur value" comment I will just chalk up to your
contrariness : )

On Aug 25, 8:36*am, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 22, 1:53*am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008 issue.. *
> > (I'm a subscriber.) *66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs torque. *
>
> Interesting. The Duc site says 80hp & 50.6 torque. Mebbe those numbers
> are at the flywheel?
>
> Bob, it's hard to top the Japanese when comaring scoots. Yes the
> Zookie will do it as well or better for less $, but if it doesn't
> trigger the brain's pleasure center then the savings don't matter. I
> like the 696's look where the SV looks to me like a generic metric
> bike. (I've had 8 of those already) *The Duc will probably require
> more maintenance than a Suzuki, but I guess that's the price of
> admission.
>
> The "poseur value" comment I will just chalk up to your
> contrariness *: )

You've obviously never ridden an SV-650. Like I said, It outperforms
the baby Ducati in every way, including thrills per mile

Bob Nixon..

One fine day in rec.motorcycles, "kingfish@hotmail.com"
<kingfish@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 22, 1:53*am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008
>> issue.
> *
>> (I'm a subscriber.) *66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs
>> torque
> . *
>
> Interesting. The Duc site says 80hp & 50.6 torque. Mebbe those numbers
> are at the flywheel?

Right. Claimed power vs measured power at the rear wheel.

>
> Bob, it's hard to top the Japanese when comaring scoots. Yes the
> Zookie will do it as well or better for less $, but if it doesn't
> trigger the brain's pleasure center then the savings don't matter. I
> like the 696's look where the SV looks to me like a generic metric
> bike. (I've had 8 of those already) The Duc will probably require
> more maintenance than a Suzuki, but I guess that's the price of
> admission.
>
> The "poseur value" comment I will just chalk up to your
> contrariness : )



--
Uncle Vic
04 Kawasaki Nomad 1500
92 Honda Nighthawk 750

Bob Nixon wrote:

> On Aug 25, 8:36Â*am, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 22, 1:53Â*am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008
>> > issue. (I'm a subscriber.) Â*66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs
>> > torque.
>>
>> Interesting. The Duc site says 80hp & 50.6 torque. Mebbe those numbers
>> are at the flywheel?
>>
>> Bob, it's hard to top the Japanese when comaring scoots. Yes the
>> Zookie will do it as well or better for less $, but if it doesn't
>> trigger the brain's pleasure center then the savings don't matter. I
>> like the 696's look where the SV looks to me like a generic metric
>> bike. (I've had 8 of those already) Â*The Duc will probably require
>> more maintenance than a Suzuki, but I guess that's the price of
>> admission.
>>
>> The "poseur value" comment I will just chalk up to your
>> contrariness Â*: )
>
> You've obviously never ridden an SV-650. Like I said, It outperforms
> the baby Ducati in every way, including thrills per mile

Guys make sense here. Looks may matter for you, but they get old quite
fast, and then you are stuck with an uninspiring bike. Now, try to imagine
one of your friends lets you have a ride on his much cheaper Jap. You hop
on it, find it better in every case than your current machine (beside
looks, which got old already) and you try, but fail, to look cool when you
hand them back their keys... I'm telling you, it's hard not to laugh when
you see it.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Aug 21, 9:32*pm, Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects.

BWHAHAHAHA!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKteKYl_Sto

Bob Nixon <bigrex2005@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 1:27 pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
> > > it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> > > my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
> > > stay away from twins though...
> >
> > Damn good bike. Better brakes than you've ever had and I'm told by
> > those with more than ond Ducati "Once you've had a monster between
> > your legs, well you'll never buy another brand"
> >
> > Is it worth it? Yeah it's worth it.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> I disagree if you take out all the Ducati poseur value. The little
> Suzuki SV-650 will outperform the 696 in all respects plus it's a
> couple grand cheaper OTD. Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects. IMO,
> steer clear of those cam belt driven old school Ducati desmo's.
>
Like my eleven year-old one, you mean, that's done 30k miles and never
missed a beat?

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

On Aug 25, 1:04*pm, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
> One fine day in rec.motorcycles, "kingf...@hotmail.com"
>
> <kingf...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 1:53*am, Uncle Vic <addr...@withheld.com> wrote:
>
> >> Rider magazine published an article about it in their August 2008
> >> issue.
> > *
> >> (I'm a subscriber.) *66.1 HP @ 9100 on the dyno, and 43.4 Ft/lbs
> >> torque
> > . *
>
> > Interesting. The Duc site says 80hp & 50.6 torque. Mebbe those numbers
> > are at the flywheel?
>
> Right. *Claimed power vs measured power at the rear wheel.

It's obvious that they're talking crankHP or lying. Just look at the
differences in engine design or old air cooled 2 valve SOHC vs state
of the art DOHC liquid cooled engine in the SV.
>
>
> > Bob, it's hard to top the Japanese when comaring scoots. Yes the
> > Zookie will do it as well or better for less $, but if it doesn't
> > trigger the brain's pleasure center then the savings don't matter. I
> > like the 696's look where the SV looks to me like a generic metric
> > bike. (I've had 8 of those already) *The Duc will probably require
> > more maintenance than a Suzuki, but I guess that's the price of
> > admission.
>
> > The "poseur value" comment I will just chalk up to your
> > contrariness *: )

Ducati's are pouser bikes, Vic and I don't care about how it looks 10
years from now cause I'll be dead then. Even if I was younger I could
care less about profiling.
.

Bob Nixon..

On Aug 25, 2:54*pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 9:32*pm, Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> > cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects.
>
> BWHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKteKYl_Sto

All pouser crap, Saddle. The Engine is still the same old air cooled
SOHC 2 valver that can't even come close to the 11,000RPM red line of
the SV. And of the one comment of leaving the SV quivering on it's
supsension, it was upgraded with the frame in 04. And Dude $9200 for
the Duc vs $6000 for the SV is the biggest joke of all.

Bob Nixon..

On Aug 25, 3:04*pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:
> Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 1:27 pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site-
> > > > it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> > > > my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seem to
> > > > stay away from twins though...
>
> > > Damn good bike. Better brakes than you've ever had and I'm told by
> > > those with more than ond Ducati "Once you've had a monster between
> > > your legs, well you'll never buy another brand"
>
> > > Is it worth it? Yeah it's worth it.
>
> > > --
> > > Keith
>
> > I disagree if you take out all the Ducati poseur value. The little
> > Suzuki SV-650 will outperform the 696 in all respects plus it's a
> > couple grand cheaper OTD. Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> > cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects. IMO,
> > steer clear of those cam belt driven old school Ducati desmo's.
>
> Like my eleven year-old one, you mean, that's done 30k miles and never
> missed a beat?
>
> --
> BMW K1100LT *Ducati 750SS *Yamaha XT600E *Honda CB400F
> chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
> "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
> and hassle for no tangible benefit."- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yup, I dare say an SV would smoke your old 750 DUC.

On Aug 25, 9:38*pm, Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 2:54*pm, saddlebag <saddle...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 21, 9:32*pm, Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> > > cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects.
>
> > BWHAHAHAHA!!!!
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKteKYl_Sto
>
> All pouser crap, Saddle. The Engine is still the same old air cooled
> SOHC 2 valver that can't even come close to the 11,000RPM red line of
> the SV.

It's about power, not rev capacity.

> And of the one comment of leaving the SV quivering on it's
> supsension, *it was upgraded with the frame in 04.

He knows, that's what he does for a living.

> And Dude $9200 for
> the Duc vs $6000 for the SV is the biggest joke of all.

And for that you also get an extra year of warranty, 2 years of
roadside assistance, radial brakes, hydraulic vs cable clutch, hex
head vs phillips head screws and so on.

When I wrecked the Duc, I hopped right back on it and rode it home. A
similar incident with a friend on his SV left his snapped cast toy
incapacitated.

http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/truckoshame.jpg

http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/broken.jpg

Guess that still beats a GSXR though, those bike's entire *frame* was
known to crack!

http://joeski.org/?tag=cracked-motorcycle-frame

On Aug 25, 9:40*pm, Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 25, 3:04*pm, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
>
>
>
>
>
> Gentleman) wrote:
> > Bob Nixon <bigrex2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Aug 21, 2:06 pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Aug 21, 1:27 pm, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > Anybody know anything about this scoot? I saw it on the Ducati site -
> > > > > it's a new bike but I'm not sure how long it's been out. Since I sold
> > > > > my VTX and FXLR I'm starting to get "that itch" again. Can't seemto
> > > > > stay away from twins though...
>
> > > > Damn good bike. Better brakes than you've ever had and I'm told by
> > > > those with more than ond Ducati "Once you've had a monster between
> > > > your legs, well you'll never buy another brand"
>
> > > > Is it worth it? Yeah it's worth it.
>
> > > > --
> > > > Keith
>
> > > I disagree if you take out all the Ducati poseur value. The little
> > > Suzuki SV-650 will outperform the 696 in all respects plus it's a
> > > couple grand cheaper OTD. Fact is, the SV performs as good as the air
> > > cooled, two valve 1000cc Ducati and better in many respects. IMO,
> > > steer clear of those cam belt driven old school Ducati desmo's.
>
> > Like my eleven year-old one, you mean, that's done 30k miles and never
> > missed a beat?
>
> > --
> > BMW K1100LT *Ducati 750SS *Yamaha XT600E *Honda CB400F
> > chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
> > "What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
> > and hassle for no tangible benefit."- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Yup, I dare say an SV would smoke your old 750 DUC.

Well if "smoking" is the only criteria one should use to own a
motorcycle, then I guess everyone without a Turbo Hyabusa is sucking
ass.

Bob Nixon <bigrex2005@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yup, I dare say an SV would smoke your old 750 DUC.

One of our bike club has one. They're just about identical in
performance. The Duke has the edge on handling: the SV is easier to ride
in town.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

saddlebag wrote:

[...]
>> And of the one comment of leaving the SV quivering on it's
>> supsension, Â*it was upgraded with the frame in 04.
>
> He knows, that's what he does for a living.

Don't count on that too much. While journalists typically will understand
more than your average biker, suspension is difficult and it tends to
confuse them.

Anyway, people are racing SV. For the difference in price you could
probably have ride-in/ride-out service on SV somewhere, and then have
something which _really_ handles. Stock Duc suspension isn't very good.
At least I know for sure, that Monster 1000 has crappy suspension, so I
don't suspect that their lowend bike would be any better.

>> And Dude $9200 for
>> the Duc vs $6000 for the SV is the biggest joke of all.
>
> And for that you also get an extra year of warranty, 2 years of
> roadside assistance, radial brakes,

No difference.

> hydraulic vs cable clutch,

No difference.

> hex head vs phillips head screws

What? I mean, who cares?

> and so on.
>
> When I wrecked the Duc, I hopped right back on it and rode it home. A
> similar incident with a friend on his SV left his snapped cast toy
> incapacitated.
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/truckoshame.jpg
>
> http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/broken.jpg
>
> Guess that still beats a GSXR though, those bike's entire *frame* was
> known to crack!
>
> http://joeski.org/?tag=cracked-motorcycle-frame

Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build quality
as an argument? You have to be blinded by love. ;-)

--
Andrzej Rosa

On 26 Aug, 12:55, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build quality
> as an argument? You have to be blinded by love. ;-)
>

Someone, some time ago, said that Ducats have a skin-contact
hallucinogen in the paint that changes one's perception of reality.

All I can really comment on is my own 1997 750SS, which was always the
cheap value-for-money Ducati sports bike of the era. Suspension is
crude, yes, the the weight distribution, geometry and frame rigidity
means it still handles superbly. It also stops superbly.

Top speed? Tested at between 125-130mph, so same as the SV.

Comfort: brilliant. The last thing I expected. An excellent seat, and
a very good seat/footrest/bar relationship.

Reliability: the most reliable bike I have ever owned. It ate one
(Japanese) spark plug, which did bring it to a halt, once. Oh, and two
neutral light switches. Everything else is stuff like two chain &
sprocket sets, tyres, steering head bearings (1 set), wheel bearings
(1 set).

Build quality. Ah... the quality of the paint is brilliant. The paint
is coming off the engine, but then it is not cleaned often. Some
fasteners corrode. The orange fluourescent (dayglo) paint on the
instrument needles has faded to a delicate pink!

When they were discontinuing the 750SS in Britain, they were being
sold off at £4000.

On Aug 25, 5:18*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Guys make sense here. *Looks may matter for you, but they get old quite
> fast, and then you are stuck with an uninspiring bike. *

And *this* is an argument for buying a generic looking scoot like the
SV? An odd reversal of logic...

> Now, try to imagine one of your friends lets you have a ride on his much cheaper Jap. *
> You hop on it, find it better in every case than your current machine

That's a bit of a stretch. Reread my response to Bob. The Japanese
bikes do *most* things equal to or better than higher priced scoots,
but if a bike doesn't do anything for you visually, it's just an
appliance. Which is why your first statement makes no sense.

I've owned 7 metrics and 1 HD, and liked every one of them for
different reasons. Nothing else I've seen looks like that Monster 696
though. I'm not getting why Bob has such a burr up his ass over Ducs,
but everyone's entitled to an opinion..

kingfish@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Aug 25, 5:18Â*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Guys make sense here. Â*Looks may matter for you, but they get old quite
>> fast, and then you are stuck with an uninspiring bike.
>
> And *this* is an argument for buying a generic looking scoot like the
> SV? An odd reversal of logic...

It's just an argument against looks. They do get old. Pretty bike or ugly
bike, no matter. After several months of looking at it every day, it's
just a bike which looks normal.

>> Now, try to imagine one of your friends lets you have a ride on his much
>> cheaper Jap. You hop on it, find it better in every case than your
>> current machine
>
> That's a bit of a stretch. Reread my response to Bob. The Japanese
> bikes do *most* things equal to or better than higher priced scoots,
> but if a bike doesn't do anything for you visually, it's just an
> appliance. Which is why your first statement makes no sense.

Don't you guys actually ride your bikes?

> I've owned 7 metrics and 1 HD, and liked every one of them for
> different reasons. Nothing else I've seen looks like that Monster 696
> though. I'm not getting why Bob has such a burr up his ass over Ducs,
> but everyone's entitled to an opinion..

Fine. Go and get one if you like it. Have a lot of fun too. I'm not a
Ducatisti myself, though if I wanted a good looking Ducati, I'd buy an
older version of Monster myself.

Who am I kidding? If I wanted a bike like that, I'd buy Bandit 400. Damn
nice machine, that.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Aug 26, 1:30*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's just an argument against looks. *They do get old. *Pretty bike or ugly
> bike, no matter. *After several months of looking at it every day, it's
> just a bike which looks normal.
>

Agreed. Buying a bike (or a car) just for its looks can lead to
disappointment. It's gotta be pretty AND functional.


> Fine. *Go and get one if you like it. *Have a lot of fun too. *I'm not a
> Ducatisti myself, though if I wanted a good looking Ducati, I'd buy an
> older version of Monster myself.

I'm not a Ducatisti either, I just like the look of that particular
bike. Back in '95 my roomie bought a new 916 just when they came out.
I put 150 miles on it during its break-in. Cool looking bike & fun to
ride, but not for me.
*

> Who am I kidding? *If I wanted a bike like that, I'd buy Bandit 400. *Damn nice machine, that.

Nice looking standard and tossable, but I think the 400 might be a tad
buzzy & underpowered for somebody my weight (250lb).

kingfish@hotmail.com wrote:

> On Aug 26, 1:30Â*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Who am I kidding? Â*If I wanted a bike like that, I'd buy Bandit 400.
>> Damn nice machine, that.
>
> Nice looking standard and tossable, but I think the 400 might be a tad
> buzzy & underpowered for somebody my weight (250lb).

Buzzy? I don't know, it's revvy for sure, and it didn't feel underpowered
when I tried it. I own and normally ride gsxr1100 rated at 148 HP, or my
brother's mildly tuned B12 (which feels stronger than my gix). That little
buzzer had about twice the power I expected it to have. It would be nice
to have such a little, nimble bike for around town work or for twisties.
Under a good rider it's capable of leaving all current sportbikes in its
wake, which I'm sure would feel wonderful.

--
Andrzej Rosa

TOG@Toil wrote:

> On 26 Aug, 12:55, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build
>> quality
>> as an argument? You have to be blinded by love. ;-)
>>
>
> Someone, some time ago, said that Ducats have a skin-contact
> hallucinogen in the paint that changes one's perception of reality.

If it makes you happy, who cares? I'm not against being senseless while
choosing bikes. My is a piece of crap too, which I'll never sell. Ever.

> All I can really comment on is my own 1997 750SS, which was always the
> cheap value-for-money Ducati sports bike of the era. Suspension is
> crude, yes, the the weight distribution, geometry and frame rigidity
> means it still handles superbly. It also stops superbly.
>
> Top speed? Tested at between 125-130mph, so same as the SV.
>
> Comfort: brilliant. The last thing I expected. An excellent seat, and
> a very good seat/footrest/bar relationship.
>
> Reliability: the most reliable bike I have ever owned. It ate one
> (Japanese) spark plug, which did bring it to a halt, once. Oh, and two
> neutral light switches. Everything else is stuff like two chain &
> sprocket sets, tyres, steering head bearings (1 set), wheel bearings
> (1 set).
>
> Build quality. Ah... the quality of the paint is brilliant. The paint
> is coming off the engine, but then it is not cleaned often. Some
> fasteners corrode. The orange fluourescent (dayglo) paint on the
> instrument needles has faded to a delicate pink!
>
> When they were discontinuing the 750SS in Britain, they were being
> sold off at £4000.

You obviously liked this bike. All that matters.

--
Andrzej Rosa

Andrzej Rosa <bakters@yahoo.com> wrote:

> You obviously liked this bike. All that matters.

I still do. I still have it. See sig.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Yamaha XT600E Honda CB400F
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
"What you're proposing to do will involve a lot of time
and hassle for no tangible benefit."

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 05:45:24 -0700 (PDT), "TOG@Toil"
<totallydeadmailbox@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Reliability: the most reliable bike I have ever owned. It ate one
>(Japanese) spark plug, which did bring it to a halt, once. Oh, and two
>neutral light switches.

Two neutral lights? Why? You couldn't have had it in neutral that
much.

--
Turby the Turbosurfer

On Aug 26, 7:55*am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> saddlebag wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> And of the one comment of leaving the SV quivering on it's
> >> supsension, *it was upgraded with the frame in 04.
>
> > He knows, that's what he does for a living.
>
> Don't count on that too much. *While journalists typically will understand
> more than your average biker, suspension is difficult and it tends to
> confuse them.
>
> Anyway, people are racing SV. *For the difference in price you could
> probably have ride-in/ride-out service on SV somewhere, and then have
> something which _really_ handles. *Stock Duc suspension isn't very good..
> At least I know for sure, that Monster 1000 has crappy suspension, so I
> don't suspect that their lowend bike would be any better.
>
> >> And Dude $9200 for
> >> the Duc vs $6000 for the SV is the biggest joke of all.
>
> > And for that you also get an extra year of warranty, 2 years of
> > roadside assistance, radial brakes,
>
> No difference.

Wrong!

Suzi

12 month unlimited mileage limited warranty.

No roadside assistance.

No radial brakes


> > hydraulic vs cable clutch,
>
> No difference.

Tell me about it after you spend hours stuck in BFE because of a
broken POS cable.

> > hex head vs phillips head screws
>
> What? *I mean, who cares?

It's just another more expensive touch that Ducati adds. Just like
the chrome-moly frame.

> > and so on.
>
> > When I wrecked the Duc, I hopped right back on it and rode it home. *A
> > similar incident with a friend on his SV left his snapped cast toy
> > incapacitated.
>
> >http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/truckoshame.jpg
>
> >http://www.members.aol.com/saddlebag/broken.jpg
>
> > Guess that still beats a GSXR though, those bike's entire *frame* was
> > known to crack!
>
> >http://joeski.org/?tag=cracked-motorcycle-frame
>
> Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build quality
> as an argument? *You have to be blinded by love. ;-)

I'm just pointing out reasons Ducs are slightly more expensive.
Another obvious one is exclusivity. A can of Starkist is cheaper than
fresh Tuna too. And the shitty Dollar to Euro ratio doesn't help us
either.

saddlebag wrote:

> On Aug 26, 7:55Â*am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> And Dude $9200 for
>> >> the Duc vs $6000 for the SV is the biggest joke of all.
>>
>> > And for that you also get an extra year of warranty, 2 years of
>> > roadside assistance, radial brakes,
>>
>> No difference.
>
> Wrong!
>
> Suzi
>
> 12 month unlimited mileage limited warranty.
>
> No roadside assistance.
>
> No radial brakes

I meant only radial brakes here. In practice there is no real difference.
I doubt that even most racers could see a difference in their lap times
between those two kind of brakes. Radials tolerate overheating better and
can be a bit lighter.

>> > hydraulic vs cable clutch,
>>
>> No difference.
>
> Tell me about it after you spend hours stuck in BFE because of a
> broken POS cable.

I don't know what's BFE. Anyway, clutch cables don't "just brake", they
give enough warning signs before they go. Contrary to hydraulic clutches,
which can "just brake". But of course Suzi can be ridden clutchless. I'm
not sure about the Duc.

>> > hex head vs phillips head screws
>>
>> What? Â*I mean, who cares?
>
> It's just another more expensive touch that Ducati adds.

What? It's pennies. Really.

> Just like the chrome-moly frame.

Since when steel frames became expensive? Chromoly can be slightly lighter
than normal steel frames and that's it. It will rust more, though.

>> Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build
>> quality as an argument? Â*You have to be blinded by love. ;-)
>
> I'm just pointing out reasons Ducs are slightly more expensive.

They are more expensive, because Italians don't know how to mass-produce
bikes cheaply, and because even if they knew, they wouldn't be able to sell
much more.

> Another obvious one is exclusivity.

Of course. That's the niche Ducati tries to occupy. Buying the cheapest
possible exclusive product is kinda, you know, fishy? Something isn't
right here, for sure.

> A can of Starkist is cheaper than
> fresh Tuna too. And the shitty Dollar to Euro ratio doesn't help us
> either.

I'm from Europe. Ducs are overpriced here too. And they break. New ones.

--
Andrzej Rosa

On Aug 26, 6:12*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I meant only radial brakes here. *In practice there is no real difference.
> I doubt that even most racers could see a difference in their lap times
> between those two kind of brakes. *Radials tolerate overheating better and
> can be a bit lighter.

Maybe, maybe not, point being that more expensive bikes have them.

> >> > hydraulic vs cable clutch,
>
> >> No difference.
>
> > Tell me about it after you spend hours stuck in BFE because of a
> > broken POS cable.
>
> I don't know what's BFE.

Bum Fuck Egypt.

> *Anyway, clutch cables don't "just brake", they
> give enough warning signs before they go. *Contrary to hydraulic clutches,
> which can "just brake". *But of course Suzi can be ridden clutchless. *I'm
> not sure about the Duc.

I've never been stranded with hydraulics. And good luck shifting
without a clutch. Maybe Suzuki will honor your warranty for a
thrashed gearbox, but I wouldn't count on it. To the contrary, I've
had Ducati honor their warranty AFTER the time and mileage criteria
were surpassed.

> >> > hex head vs phillips head screws
>
> >> What? *I mean, who cares?
>
> > It's just another more expensive touch that Ducati adds. *
>
> What? *It's pennies. *Really.
>
> > Just like the chrome-moly frame.
>
> Since when steel frames became expensive? *Chromoly can be slightly lighter
> than normal steel frames and that's it. *It will rust more, though.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...9072849AACrrSu

"It's a fact that aluminum is generally 1/2 the weight of steel but it
is also 1/3 the strength. This means that you need 3 times the volume
of aluminum to meet the strength of steel. This is why cheap aluminum
frames tend to weigh more than their steel counterparts. Aluminum also
has a limited life- it will eventually fail- while steel has a
relatively unlimited life."

> >> Are you trying to argue for a Ducati and against Suzuki using build
> >> quality as an argument? *You have to be blinded by love. ;-)
>
> > I'm just pointing out reasons Ducs are slightly more expensive.
>
> They are more expensive, because Italians don't know how to mass-produce
> bikes cheaply, and because even if they knew, they wouldn't be able to sell
> much more. *

True of Ferrari too I suppose. I'd still take one over some Toyota
look alike though.

> > Another obvious one is exclusivity.
>
> Of course. *That's the niche Ducati tries to occupy. *Buying the cheapest
> possible exclusive product is kinda, you know, fishy? *Something isn't
> right here, for sure.

You gotta start somewhere. I read one article where the author
thought the 800cc was the best aircooled engine Duc ever made. Now
strap that engine in the new 696 frame and throw on some Ohlins
dampers on her and you got yourself a fantastic streetbike. You can
have the lil Suzi.

> > A can of Starkist is cheaper than
> > fresh Tuna too. And the shitty Dollar to Euro ratio doesn't help us
> > either.
>
> I'm from Europe. *Ducs are overpriced here too. *And they break. *New ones.

That's okay, I got a backup.

On Aug 26, 9:20*am, "kingf...@hotmail.com" <kingf...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 25, 5:18*pm, Andrzej Rosa <bakt...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Guys make sense here. *Looks may matter for you, but they get old quite
> > fast, and then you are stuck with an uninspiring bike. *
>
> And *this* is an argument for buying a generic looking scoot like the
> SV? An odd reversal of logic...
>
> > Now, try to imagine one of your friends lets you have a ride on his much cheaper Jap. *
> > You hop on it, find it better in every case than your current machine
>
> That's a bit of a stretch. Reread my response to Bob. The Japanese
> bikes do *most* things equal to or better than higher priced scoots,
> but if a bike doesn't do anything for you visually, it's just an
> appliance. Which is why your first statement makes no sense.
>
> I've owned 7 metrics and 1 HD, and liked every one of them for
> different reasons. Nothing else I've seen looks like that Monster 696
> though. I'm not getting why Bob has such a burr up his ass over Ducs,
> but everyone's entitled to an opinion..

Bob hates anything to do with style. He figures the homlier it is,
the better it must work.

Bob Nixon wrote:

>The Engine is still the same old air cooled SOHC 2 valver

Is the exhaust on the rear cylinder (stupidly) routed out the back? I
was in the store the other day, and saw that Ducuti does that on some
their air-cooled bikes, and I couldn't hardly believe my eyes.
Stupid. Cheap.