News:

Welcome to the DMF

 

Monster 1100 now officially announced

Started by ptooey, September 25, 2008, 03:19:27 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Statler

I didn't like a lot of things about my RS either, but it was the closest bike to what I wanted/pictured so I got it and changed what bugged me.

The 1100 just has more to change (for me), that's all.
It's still buy a flounder a drink month

Raux

the SSS is the biggest change i see on the 1100 besides the engine of course.

the headlight compared to the old bike is like comparing a 2008 Nissan 350Z to a 1972 Datsun. way more advanced. brighter. better.

the new suspension upgrades will be cool for those people larger than 160lbs.

the exhausts are large yes, but in reality very little difference than a lot of people's original mods from low exhausts to high exhausts. they have their drawbacks just like the other high exhaust ducatis. ie no saddle bags. but for cornering clearance. no more dragging pipes

i wonder what the weight and HP figures are. you have to figure it will weigh less than the S2R and have at least that HP. so a better handling, faster bike that the biggest aircooled Monster now.

and unless they build the hypernaked bike, the liquid-cooled monster with 160hp is logically next.

sugarcrook

While only a 750, I think I prefer the Aprilia Shiver to the new Monster, mostly based on ergos. 
2013 BMW R1200R
2008 BMW K1200GT (Traded)
2007 Ducati Monster 695 (Sold)

Popeye the Sailor

Quote from: zarn02 on September 25, 2008, 06:21:17 AM
i still think the exhaust canisters are a tragedy, and i'm still not sold on the tank, but the 1100 is certainly much easier on the eyes than the 696.

(zarn: adept of the left-handed compliment :P)

I just figure they beat the ole udder. Easier just to change the cans than the cans and the cat eliminator, no?
If the state had not cut funding for the mental institutions, this project could never have happened.

Labbedds

370lbs, 95 hp, 70lb torque wowoowwowowowow :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o.  Ditch the stock exhaust and passenger pegs you could get it down to 360 ish.  that's almost 40 lbs off my s2r! with 20 more hp
Wawawiwa

Raux

true, who ever thought that udder thing was a good idea and looked good enough for a ducati should be mauled by you 696-detractors.

herm

wonder how proud they are gonna be of that....
probably more than it will cost me to save up for the ohlins, and some performance engine mods

:P
Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty, and the pigs like it...

Travman

Quote from: Raux on September 25, 2008, 10:29:46 AM
the headlight compared to the old bike is like comparing a 2008 Nissan 350Z to a 1972 Datsun. way more advanced. brighter. better.

They gay bar across the headlight definitely does not make it more advanced or brighter. 

DesmoTull

Quote from: Travman on September 25, 2008, 11:03:15 AM
They gay bar across the headlight definitely does not make it more advanced or brighter. 

Yeah, because the old ducati lamp is the industry standard for brightness....  [roll]

hunduc

Quote from: labbedds on September 25, 2008, 10:40:13 AM
370lbs, 95 hp, 70lb torque wowoowwowowowow :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o.  Ditch the stock exhaust and passenger pegs you could get it down to 360 ish.  that's almost 40 lbs off my s2r! with 20 more hp

but these numbers are the same as the s2r1k, so the engine has a bigger displacement and the same output? (of course the s2 is a lot heavier)

DCXCV

Engine update is good, as with the 696.  Not excited about the stuff wrapped around it, though.  No '09+ monsters in my future.


Quote from: DesmoTull on September 25, 2008, 11:09:04 AM
Yeah, because the old ducati lamp is the industry standard for brightness....  [roll]

All the people who flash their lights at me cause they think my low beam is a high beam must be silly.  I think my "old style" headlight is plenty bright.  Maybe I'm silly?
"I tend to ride faster when I can't see where I'm going. Everything works out better that way." -- Colin Edwards

DoubleEagle

Quote from: 707soldier on September 25, 2008, 05:22:03 AM
let's wait for the ron  [evil] to chime in
How does 2/v w, top model producing  only 95 Hp and 79.5 lb. ft. of Torque float your boat .....Dolph
'08 Ducati 1098 R    '09 BMW K 1300 GT   '10 BMW S 1000 RR

Shortest sentence...." I am "   Longest sentence ... " I Do "

DoubleEagle

Quote from: ICON on September 25, 2008, 08:34:11 AM
So are they going to make an S4R version too? It would have been nice if they gave the s2r1000 the ohlins too.  :( 
Top of the line is the 1100S , 2/v ...no S4R .  or S4Rs !  Dolph
'08 Ducati 1098 R    '09 BMW K 1300 GT   '10 BMW S 1000 RR

Shortest sentence...." I am "   Longest sentence ... " I Do "

lazarus7

Quote from: mmakay on September 25, 2008, 08:21:00 AM
You couldn't be more wrong.  The beauty of the old bikes are that every part drew it's form from the function of the bike's design.  Only a good design engineer can do that.  The new bike's were drawn by "designers".  Plastic tank covers?  No engineer would do that shit.  Big, fat, un-aerodynamic exhaust cans?  What's the engineering purpose in that?  That stupid little zit of a fairing that blocks no wind, and protects no portion of the bike ... sorry, only an "artist" would even consider it.  (The quotes are because good artists, or designers, wouldn't do it either!)

I am an engineer at a very successful product design firm.  The thought that anyone would blame engineers for that bike just pissed me off.  You are welcome to your opinion, but you obviously don't know any engineers or designers. 

Sorry for the rant.

agreed....
form follows function, but in this case the form was the primary focus
e.g. the nutcrusher seating position, which looks unchanged from the 696...
were arguing semantics here,
taglioni and tamburini, et.al. created a MACHINE that WORKED and just happened to wind up
sexy as hell...
THESE people have DESIGNED a commodity to compete in a marketplace they dont need to be in...
cookie cutter robotech tron bikes....
just stick to the soul and youll have a following for as long as you want....
not my cup of tea, but, for example, harley davidson.
i understand theres got to be room for progress, etc, but not at the expense of functionality
just to get attention...
you really want a $12k bike that only makes 100hp because they skimped on the mechanicals to amortize the startup
of a new 'BETTER" looking style...
or would you rather have a natural evolution of the species that gains ground on ALL fronts...
this bike is a loss in power, suspension, ergonomics, over is predecessor....
you really want to trade your bike on for one that is WEAKER, LESS comfortable and visually less appealing....?
i know its a new thing, like i said i OWN a 696 and its growing on me....
but i think theyve really screwed the pooch by putting a their money into STYLE and not so much into SUBSTANCE....
and its not a question of designers vs engineers, dont get your panties in a bunch/ take it personally;
i think the group responsible for the creation of this bike has misread what the important design cues are for
us, and for this particualr machine and market.

just my .02
"...the greatest artists indulge in a 'culpable rivalry' with God."     Stanislas Fumet

RodeoClown

#59
Quote from: lazarus7 on September 25, 2008, 12:14:28 PM
i think the group responsible for the creation of this bike has misread what the important design cues are for
us, and for this particualr machine and market.

+1

unless they really get into the aftermarket parts, then they will make a ton, b/c I can't see someone being happy with that without a ton of upgrades/changes?

I hope it grows on me but I doubt it :'(
2000 M750 Dark(Black Betty); 88 FZR400