Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Bike Reviews, Questions and Suggestions' started by [FLUX], Dec 6, 2007.
Bikes are completely stock.
So basicly from 0 - 100 the duc has it, From 100 - 200 The R6 has it, and then the duc takes over again.
but either way, there is only a bee's d!ck in it.
Well, the Ducati is clearly geared higher. Run them both at the same gearing so that they both are topping out at the same speed, and the Ducati would be ahead of the R6 everywhere.
IMO, the graph is somewhat misleading for the type of analysis you're aiming for. What I thought was more notable was the relative power outputs of the engines.
Just had the first 848 delivered to us. However no one has ridden it yet. The bike is on the showroom floor.
Should be interesting to ride if the power output is the same as the bike in the graph
what the 15% greater peak power?
But it has over 30% more capacity, so you would hope it had more grunt.
graphs shmaphs, the 848 is soooo sexy in a slutty italian kind of way! I want one but alas :grin:
Okay. The point here being that the 848 is pretty much a super-sport weight bike, in a super-sport sized chassis, with super-sport handling, but has the extra grunt/power. It is the 3/4 weight equivalent of the GSXR750.
In recent times I've been developing a theory that the ideal road-going sports bike is something that sits in-between the current crop of super-sports and the current crop of litre-bikes. The super-sport capacity (600cc 4's, 675cc 3's and 750cc 2's) falls marginally short of what today's sticky road tyres can easily handle - which in my mind is around the 125-130rwhp mark. With a small bump in capacity, we address that short-coming, while still fitting in the same sized chassis and weight as a regular super-sport, and end up with what I can discern to be the best balance of weight, handling, and power using today's manufacturing criteria.
The 848 hits the mark. With a system, filter and remap, it'd be absolutely spot-on. The GSXR750 also hits the mark, but from all reports, lacks a bit of mid-range. An 800cc triple would also hit the mark.
In short, the graph demonstrates to me that the 848 goes straight to the top of my most desired bike chart, which looks like this:
#1 - 800cc triple if one ever gets made
#2 - Ducati 848
#3 - Triumph Daytona 675
#4 - Suzuki GSX-R750
All of the above make for the most supremely balanced road/track dual-duty bikes available, IMO.
Flux good analysis, also in order of prettiness you are spot on.
What about the dollar-per-hp ratio ? How much is the duc ?
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you are saying it's 3/4 of the weight of the gsx-r it's just not true. The suzuki weighs in at 163kg as opposed to 168 for the duck. Even the 1000 comes in about that figure.
What I noticed about the above graph is the 15 hp deficit in the mid range. That's behind a 600 which are mid-range deficient anyway.
This thing would rely very much on gearing to make it ridable.
Well a power commander, pipes and gearing should see the 848 clean up nicely. Would think performance should match about the Gixxer 750 but with a lot more sluttlyness as mentioned before! :twisted:
That is not what I meant. Super-sports are referred to as middle-weight bikes. Litre bikes are referred to as open-class or "full weight" bikes. 750cc bikes are 3/4 weight. It's a term that refers to the engine capacity/power output.
Once again, it's a graph of speed vs power, and the mismatched gearing can cause those who aren't aware of the significance of such to believe that the 848 is of a lesser mid-range than the R6, when it is not.
Well my theory is that if the bike is not in the corner screaming at you to ride it then it wont get ridden as much.
mmmmmmm sluttlyness :grin:
848 is about $23K on the road
Sounds nice as well!
Interesting Stew - thanks for the post.
OK, so to make up for the gearing you slide the black line to the left so they both stop at the same spot. in which case it is a bit more mid range and a lot more top end. but its a 850 vs a 600 and its a lot more in $$$.
so it doesn't impress me. maybe all the other aspects of its build, finish, handling, whatever are great, but as far as looking at graphs ( which is how this thread started whether you like graphs or not ), for what it is, its not flash at all.
Should also note that this IS the '08 R6 we're talking about here. I just compared it against an '06/'07 R6 graph, and the '08 R6's graph has immensely more mid-range.
I then overlaid my 675's power graph on top of it, adjusted for speed/gearing, and while the 675 still makes more power across the entire range than the R6, the gap has closed considerably.
I then adjusted the 848's power curve, to match the speed/gearing and compared the 3.
The 848 is ahead of the R6 through the lower 40% of the rev-range, neck and neck between 40% and 80%, and starts pulling away again in the last 20%.
The 675 is neck and neck with the 848 in the lower 40%, is 10% ahead between 40% and 70% through the range (i.e. 675 has a stronger mid-range than the 84, the 848 is fractionally ahead (2-3%) between 70 and 85%, and the 848 is ~5% ahead in the last 10%.
Read into that what you will.
Another point would be that more riding is done in the area in which the R6 is stronger on the street ( with gearing staying as it is on both bikes ).
more importantly, that is the power, but offset that against the weight. are they all the same weight? a few extra kg will quickly counter a few extra kw
Not really, the 848 is better under 100kph (not the graph is in imperial) it is only between 100 and 200 kph that the R6 is better, then the 848 is better all teh way up to ludicrous speed.
But under 100 which is where "more riding is done" (leagaly) the 848 is definately more powerfull.