1199 R Superleggera

Ducati Forum

Help Support Ducati Forum:

Surgut said:
That is what l'm driving at...I don't think we have 195 at the crank.



I don't believe I've implied that for my needs the bike is underpowered , or that I don't the bike, I just doubt the numbers Ducati claims...so, no I don't see much of irony in that.
But I am surprised to see how many people seem to accept factory numbers without any questions...
Click to expand...

The irony is in the fact you're arguing something you think the bike doesn't have, without ever testing you're theory in any way.
 
i guess, the best way to put it, is to assume, that it makes 195 at the crank AT DUCATI IN BOLOGNA in their R&D center, on THEIR DYNO/TEST BENCH.
and that means with italian air, bolognese fuel, tested by a cool test engineer wearing gucci sunglasses all day and whatsoever...

i am not sure, if and how they get their test equipment certified, we have to get it done annually by an independent lab or the OE manufacturer.

so... why would ducati claim different numbers, than what they measure on let's say 10 motors during their B- or C- prototype phase... you don't know if the numbers came from motors with 2 running hours or 2000. there are always differences.

this leads to the "why 195" (or above 200 or 220 with the SL)

bragging? hype? they could have claimed 180. 200. 166. so why lie about 195 under the above mentioned conditions...

just food for thought.
 
Phil said:
i guess, the best way to put it, is to assume, that it makes 195 at the crank AT DUCATI IN BOLOGNA in their R&D center, on THEIR DYNO/TEST BENCH.
and that means with italian air, bolognese fuel, tested by a cool test engineer wearing gucci sunglasses all day and whatsoever...

i am not sure, if and how they get their test equipment certified, we have to get it done annually by an independent lab or the OE manufacturer.

so... why would ducati claim different numbers, than what they measure on let's say 10 motors during their B- or C- prototype phase... you don't know if the numbers came from motors with 2 running hours or 2000. there are always differences.

this leads to the "why 195" (or above 200 or 220 with the SL)

bragging? hype? they could have claimed 180. 200. 166. so why lie about 195 under the above mentioned conditions...

just food for thought.
Click to expand...

No idea how they do it or if they are in anyway mendacious...But they were obviously seeking to beat the 193 claimed by the S1000RR:rolleyes:
 
Phil said:
i guess, the best way to put it, is to assume, that it makes 195 at the crank AT DUCATI IN BOLOGNA in their R&D center, on THEIR DYNO/TEST BENCH.
and that means with italian air, bolognese fuel, tested by a cool test engineer wearing gucci sunglasses all day and whatsoever...

....they could have claimed 180. 200. 166. so why lie about 195 under the above mentioned conditions...

just food for thought.
Click to expand...

I suspect 180 is not cool enough and 200 would make them a laughing stock in the industry....just my take. And I agree, at some point, somehow, they manage to get 195 from an engine they had, does that mean yours bike and mine have 195 HP at the crank?
 
Surgut said:
And I agree, at some point, somehow, they manage to get 195 from an engine they had, does that mean yours bike and mine have 195 HP at the crank?
Click to expand...

Assuming this is what happened (which I don't believe to be the case), Ducati would certainly not be the only manufacturer to employ this tactic. So then, why single out Ducati when every manufacturer could be doing the same thing? The bottom line is you have no evidence to substantiate your claim or identify any significant discrepancy between Ducati and other manufacturers in this regard.
 
Duck41 said:
Assuming this is what happened (which I don't believe to be the case), Ducati would certainly not be the only manufacturer to employ this tactic. So then, why single out Ducati when every manufacturer could be doing the same thing? The bottom line is you have no evidence to substantiate your claim or identify any significant discrepancy between Ducati and other manufacturers in this regard.
Click to expand...

Maybe its due partially to the fact that when riding with S1000rr's in particular those things just stomp the 1199 and given that then its hard to factor in the claim of +2hp... maybe??:cool:
 
Stw said:
Maybe its due partially to the fact that when riding with S1000rr's in particular those things just stomp the 1199 and given that then its hard to factor in the claim of +2hp... maybe??:cool:
Click to expand...

Only if you can accept that as factual (which I can't), and even then there are too many variables outside of crank HP that could be contributing factors to one bike being quicker than another.
 
Duck41 said:
Only if you can accept that as factual (which I can't), and even then there are too many variables outside of crank HP that could be contributing factors to one bike being quicker than another.
Click to expand...

Well... I ride with 3 other Beemers and in the twisties its all down to the rider...But on the hwy those things just fly... So to me its glaringly obvious that the S1000 has way more HP.... Now don't get me wrong.. I am complaining about the 1199.... But reality says in pure HP terms the Bmw has more...
 
ScrapperX said:
Its the power to weight ratio that makes you faster. Not necessarily more HP.
Click to expand...

That makes it even worse...not better...1199 is lighter than the Bmw... No??
S1000rr is 451lbs wet... 1199 is 414lbs wet
 
Last edited:
ScrapperX said:
Its the power to weight ratio that makes you faster. Not necessarily more HP.
Click to expand...

HP plays more of a role on the hwy... weight differences diminish exponentially as velocity picks up, leaving the major variable to be power / HP. Of course this is neglecting the other various roles of aerodynamics etc.

Power to weight makes you quicker. HP makes you faster.
 
Stw said:
That makes it even worse...not better...1199 is lighter than the Bmw... No??
S1000rr is 451lbs wet... 1199 is 414lbs wet
Click to expand...

Why would it be worse? unless you are saying the HP4 is quicker or faster than the 1199. I would say I disagree and I haven't seen an HP4 faster. In my experience the 1199 Base/S hits the rev limiter at top end faster do to the restriction they put in the ECU so the bike starts to lose power and the HP4 starts to walk it down at top end. I have not raced an R against an HP4 personally but I always see the R take it down because the R ECU is unrestricted unlike the base or S. If you unrestricted the ECU on the S/Base the HP4 would not keep up.
 
Stw said:
Well... I ride with 3 other Beemers and in the twisties its all down to the rider...But on the hwy those things just fly... So to me its glaringly obvious that the S1000 has way more HP.... Now don't get me wrong.. I am complaining about the 1199.... But reality says in pure HP terms the Bmw has more...
Click to expand...

And does your Panigale not fly? I had a chance to ride an S1krr for a day and while I will never claim it to be anything less than a formidably fast bike, I did not think it was any faster on the highway than the Panigale.

Do your fellow BMW riders have the same physical attributes as you? Over what duration were the test runs and are the start of these races on a controlled count (honks, nods, hip thrusts)?
 
We do not race per se... But joining the hwy we like to get "up to speed".. and those beemers fly.... these guys vary in physical dimensions but I would say none are particularly svelte...lol
 
Duck41 said:
Assuming this is what happened (which I don't believe to be the case), Ducati would certainly not be the only manufacturer to employ this tactic. So then, why single out Ducati when every manufacturer could be doing the same thing? The bottom line is you have no evidence to substantiate your claim or identify any significant discrepancy between Ducati and other manufacturers in this regard.
Click to expand...
I do not believe Ducati has been singled out as the only manufacture. My initial statement came as a reply to Dennis's statement that Ducati does not under deliver.
As far as the proof goes, according to you standarts anything short of taking an engine out of a bike and strapping it to a some kind of certified dyno has no bearing in this discussion, thus making your defense of Ducati's claim equally pointless. This is just people exchange their views.
 
Nitrouz said:
HP plays more of a role on the hwy... weight differences diminish exponentially as velocity picks up, leaving the major variable to be power / HP. Of course this is neglecting the other various roles of aerodynamics etc.

Power to weight makes you quicker. HP makes you faster.
Click to expand...

True. But Power to weight ratio is more important for racing application. If you take two Identical bikes with the bike same horse power the only difference is the one weighs 20 lbs less. Which one will reach the finish line first? Simple laws of physics. If you take a bike with 5 HP more but weighs 100 lbs more which one will reach the finish line first? Its the Power to weight Ratio that racers are more concerned about. Sure more HP is a good thing but useless if your bike is heavy.
 
ScrapperX said:
True. But Power to weight ratio is more important for racing application. If you take two Identical bikes with the bike same horse power the only difference is the one weighs 20 lbs less. Which one will reach the finish line first? Simple laws of physics. If you take a bike with 5 HP more but weighs 100 lbs more which one will reach the finish line first? Its the Power to weight Ratio that racers are more concerned about. Sure more HP is a good thing but useless if your bike is heavy.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong I completely agree with you. Because the lighter bike will accelerate "quicker". But I was simply stating the ultimate velocity. The lighter bike will reach top speed quicker than the heavier bike theoretically speaking, all others given equal.

So yes I completely agree that power to weight ratio is more important for racing applications due to acceleration due to "distance". I was speaking more of when distance isn't a factor and just terminal velocity.

So in other words, my 600hp, 4000lb car will lose to a 195hp, 420lb bike for sure in acceleration (Quicker). But if we're testing who can get to a higher speed (faster), I'd take the car everytime.
 
Last edited:
Surgut said:
I do not believe Ducati has been singled out as the only manufacture. My initial statement came as a reply to Dennis's statement that Ducati does not under deliver.
As far as the proof goes, according to you standarts anything short of taking an engine out of a bike and strapping it to a some kind of certified dyno has no bearing in this discussion, thus making your defense of Ducati's claim equally pointless. This is just people exchange their views.
Click to expand...


Your comparisons of competing manufacturer dyno numbers suggests an attempt to validate a hypothesis by identifying a significant discrepancy from the statistical norm. If, however, you believe Ducati is stating false numbers and also believe other manufacturers employ this tactic as well but cannot identify which ones, then you agree there is no established identifiable standard from which to base your claim and, as such, concede the very foundation of your claim does not hold up.

These are not my standards, but basic research standards and no, engine dynos are not the only way to draw a well-supported conclusion. I never made a claim that could be rendered pointless; rather, I merely stated that your claim is not only unsupported but, based on the data we do currently have access to, is probably also without merit.
 

Register CTA

Register on Ducati Forum! This sidebar will go away, and you will see fewer ads.

Recent Discussions

Back
Top