FireDave

. . .you can generate as much passion as Ducati has in racing.

I've heard all the lame reasons why some people hate Ducati . . . .cronyism in getting rules in their favor, displacement advantages for twins (yes, ALL twins, not just Ducatis), tires wars, outright accusations of cheating, blah, blah, blah. Seems to me, if you want to go down the path of unfair advantages, there is plenty of blame/influence peddling/unfairness to go around.

Can anyone tell me the real reason so many people dislike Ducatis? Is success an inevitable breeding ground for such loathing?

Some complain about a displacement advantage given to twins in the AMA and WSBK. Why? TWO extra cylinders . . . . now THAT's a reason to bitch, isn't it?

Do humans instinctively grow to hate what they can't have, what they can't master? Seriously . . . .this is a recurring philosophical theme. Unfortunately I'm beginning to believe it.

Rational thought seems to have escaped most of those whose hate Ducati.

I love em, personally, but I'm not blinded by my passion. I don't slam other people or their favorite bikes/racers. That is, unless they've gone out of their way to slam me.

This isn't an invitation to go off on some tangent, or to go off on anybody.

I'm a firm believer in "Thou doth protest too much". The more somebody tries to convince me (or themselves) of their side of the issue, the less I believe them.

You don't hear people trying to convince you that the sun will come up tomorrow, do you?

It's just food for thought. Don't reply unless you're willing and able to put a complex sentence together.

SatansPetFerret

I will ignore the inflammatory pro-Ducati statements above, and simply point out that people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

KillermondoDude

Ducatti is the primpy highschool bitch that noone could afford to date;
whose nose was so far up in the air that they were threatened with drowning during a rainstorm
But when you were able to date her you found out the bitch was wild AND WOULD TAKE IT ANAL Ohhh Yeaaaaa

zooki600

This is by far the funniest comment I've ever heard from you. fkn hilarity.

tokin

Because I can afford a street and track bike for the price of a ducati? Which if, you believe is better then, say a suzuki (which is laughable, but whatever), is going to be marginally better, not 2-3x as much.


Yes, I can afford a Ducati, so lets end that right there.

FireDave

My questions have NOTHING to do with the price you pay at the showroom for a bike. Depending on lifestyle, sacrifices and desires, almost any bike is within reach for anybody with a job. I'm not talking about what you choose to ride . . . I'm talking about racing.

I've NEVER said one bike is better than another. I've vehemently DEFENDED bikes when others have dimissed a brand in THEIR claims of superiority. All I've ever said is I love bikes, a couple brands in particular.

Please read carefully. Then think before you write. Please don't react. Anyone who thinks my post is inflammatory is making my point for me.

Or should I just resign myself to the fact that the word "Ducati" is value-laden by nature? Like the word "sex?" Like the word "religion?"

tokin

You asked a question and I answered.

GixxerPete

For me, it's the cronyism and rule changes in their favor. The hard reality is a V-twin is an inefficient design for racing. An inline will always make more power and weigh less than a twin. Typicall in racing or any competitive environment, superior designs flourish, and inferior ones go away. Not so in Superbike racing, where they just cry to get the rules changed to so their "nostaligic" or whatever design can be competitive. To me, that's bullshit. If your bike needs so many handicaps to be competitive, maybe it's time for a new design?

As for MotoGP racing, I applaud Ducati for their success. As far as the bikes go, in MotoGP there are no handicaps or favoritism in the rules. Ducati hit the mark with the new 800cc bikes, the others missed it to varying degrees. It's the tire wars that ruined the series this year, not the bikes.

GixxerTek

I don't hate Ducati's. How can anybody hate them they are Art-N-Motion. But they have and are whining to get changes in Racing,PERIOD! I like to see racing not the Ducati cup because they are allowed to run a +200cc advantage. That isn't racing. It is buying a title. I don't hate Honda's either but I didn't like the fact they changed the RC51 so they could get a few upgrades. No different then allowing Harley-Davidson to run the VR1000 when they didn't have a production based model. It wasn't a threat to the other bikes but it was unfair even if it didn't pay off for them.
Two extra cylinders? What the inline-4 have two extra? It isn't about the cylinders it is about the displacement. When the V-twin could run 1000cc and the I-4's could only run 750cc that is as you put it "A reason to bitch,isn't it?" Or am I way off?
I don't think people are "hating" Ducati as you are implying I think people want to see racing that is on the up and up and straight across the board. As long as any manufacturer is allowed to manipulate the rules or threaten pull-outs they will have tainted titles and people looking down on them. My .02

jwfzr

I do hate "with a white hot heat" Ducati superbike racing. A couple of people have already stated why. Ducati racing to me is an effete snob that has no shame.
The FIM should have told them to go to hell when they threatened to pull out. When Triumph,Hd, BSA and all the old racing brands were left in the dust of technology they folded up camp and racing continued. Take a look at flat track. HD still dominates because the rules pretty much preclude everything else from competing with them. You'll notice that the health of Flat Track Flat lined years ago. So in summation Ducati WSBK racing can go suck it.
I do love some of their street bikes.

vtwin

HD produced the AMA production requirement amount needed, so your wrong there. And although it wasnt a threat, they did win a race and podium`d a couple times. And if coming out with the VROD from harleys racing didn't and still isnt pay off for them, then i guess all the Vrods you see are money losers.
Its not the manufactures fault, its the racing sanctions fault for not having separate classes for the twins and inlines. They`d rather give squids 5 different classes geared to make you happy about the bike you own. Theres more manufactures that could race twin class than inlines and used to be that way 10 years ago with battle of the twins. They ran it right between supersport and superbike during daytona 200. BMW, Buell, Ducati, Harley, Moto Guzzi, and some customs used to run that class. So fuck the AMA for selling out racing for "brand classes".

GixxerTek

Well technically maybe, but do you know anybody who has purchased a VR100? Other than maybe somebody like J Leno and his oodles of $$$$

jwfzr

+
thats exactly right. I wonder if the AMa feels any pressure to bring back the class? The new twins endurance series by the NASCAR people has been pretty successful.

vtwin

Yes i do, a local guy has one and has taken it to the AHDRA events.
As ive seen a couple out in Sturgis over the years.

vtwin

Doubt it, they fucked up big time and they have to know it.
When they canceled the twins, is when Suzuki, Honda, Ducati, and Aprilia all came with nice twins. Of course only Ducati and Honda (oh geez they got the same rule breaks as ducati but you dont hear any complaining there) with the 51 kept in AMA for a couple years.
AMA wanted HD to be involved in racing, because they knew there was another 300,000 HD riders at every bike week that didn't care to go watch jap bikes run. Just think of the $$ potential if they could just get that base to buy tickets. You go to AHDRA or flat track during bike week and those places are jammed packed.

the chemist

He's pretty much right. No other bike I've ever ridden compares to my duc. No, the specs might not show that it'll out perform a zuk by 3x. But, the feeling of the bike, the response, everything feels better. Of course, you ride what feels best and Im not saying that other people wouldn't find it uncomfortable.


The hate comes from people who stereotype. You have the people who chill at starbucks and the people who ACTUALLY ride a lot. It happens on all bikes, but since there is fewer ducatis they get noticed sitting at starbucks, burger joints etc way more.


And they dont break down anywhere near what everyone seems to think they do.

GixxerPete

Honda produced the RC51 AFTER the rule changes made for Ducati. Honda realized the only way to be competitive with the current rules was to run a twin, so they did.

GixxerPete

Outperform a Suzuki by 3x?

And you wonder why people hate Ducatis? It's delusional statements like that. In WSBK trim complete with handicaps, it's competitive with a Suzuki. But in stock street trim, it doesn't even perform as well, let alone any better. Did you happen to see the new Sport Rider test? The GSXR1000 is quicker, faster, and runs better lap times on the track than the 1098, and costs way less. Even the CBR600RR ran faster lap times than the Ducati. A 600 outperforms an 1100, for half the cost.

I would agree this is a stereotype. Just like all sport bike riders aren't wheelies-in-traffic hooligans, not all Ducati riders are blatant posers. But I will still argue that simply by their high price and exclusivity, they attract more posers and people that aren't true riders, just have a lot of money and want to show everyone. And so yes they make a rather visible segment of Ducati owners.


I don't think they break down all the time, but there's no doubt they are definitely less reliable than the Japanese brands, require a lot more and expensive maintanence, and cost a lot more to repair. Just check that thread were someone tried to jack dude's 1098 and buggered his ignition and scratched the tank. The estimated repair is as much as a brand new GSXR1000!

FireDave

I think this may be the crux of the argument: A lot of people, especially you who argue against the displacement increases allowed for twins, have concluded that DISPLACEMENT is THE determining spec for engine performance.

Displacement is important, of course, but so are many other parameters. Why have you decided, who taught you, that displacement trumps all other specs? Clearly, the rules committees, who probably know a lot more about racing than we do, think that other parameters are similarly important.

Why not just dyno each bike, and set limits on weight, HP and torque, and leave everything else wide open?

The competition committees, the boys that make the rules, have always had to wrestle with the tech-spec issues. IMO, that leads to better competition, more rapid expansion of the technology.

Who would have ever thought you could get get 180 hp from a twin? That's frickin' awesome power, and it probably would never have happened if Ducati, Aprilia, Honda's RC, etc weren't allowed to race them.

FireDave

Pete, he said the specs show it DOESN'T outperform a Suzuki by 3x. He was making a comparison, with just a touch of hyperbole, of spec sheet vs the feel.

Your passion against Ducati is compelling, and you have several good points in this thread. However, your reaction to his post is exactly my point of this entire thread. I think DucatiDuane made a good observation, very accurate, not delusional at all.

jwfzr

I don't trust the rules committee as far as I could throw them. They saw fit to leave the old displacement rule in for far to long."1000twin vs. 750inlines" allowing Ducati a huge advantage over the 750s for far to long. The only reason there was an RC51 was because Honda realized they could not make their 750 win against the big twin. Which is another reason I think they should have their own twins class.
In fact the only big progress made by the series in the last 20 years was made when they allowed cc parity.Now they are giving Ducati back the unfair advantage they enjoyed for so long.
I really should wait to see I guess before I pass judgment but I find it impossible to "just trust the rules guys to do their jobs" Like I said earlier and what I believe this post is about is Ducati racing" which I despise" and not about Ducati street bikes in general. I've loved the 916 series and not so much so the 999 but the 1098 is a beautiful machine. IMO. One thing that has always stuck in my craw was thier advertising all the world championships they won. The majority of them unfairly I believe.
It is amazing that they've been able to get that much power out of their twins but really it does not matter one bit to me. When they have to change the rules to keep a manufacturer competitive because said company will not build a bike that they can afford to compete with I believe it is just wrong.

My Name is Doc

Duc's suck.

APRILIA FOR LIFE BEOTCH!!!!!



I have no clarification or reason or evidence to support my opinon.

vtwin

Twins have always had different rules, it didnt just happen in 1998. Buell had ran the 200 in 1984 (right before superbike class change) and of course recently again with complaints, as well as Harley in the 90`s, so you need to quit thinking its a "Ducati rule change" when its not.. You sound like the old cry baby Matt Mladin when he complained about the twins being allowed larger air boxes than his stock GSXR. And Honda made the RC after every manufacture had already made their twin. But we know how honda makes sure their bikes and riders *cough** cough* Duhamel get rules and even change the Daytona 200 format from Superbikes so he could get more "Daytona 200" wins.
Again its the AMA`s fault for not keeping a battle of the twins class. Its made it hard for non trendy manufactures to keep developing twins and other unique bikes (the Britten). Then when somebody like Buell tries to race to get RD to put out a new bike (ala the 1125) or Ducati the 1098, its with solid resistance. Theres pleanty of riders who don't want to ride the same 3 bikes (gsxr, R1, ZX) yet have modern performance.