Ducati 1199 Panigale

I predict it will have an MSRP $1k higher than the standard 1198 has.

1st...Bayliss beat his best time ever at Mugello (I think, maybe Monza) by 2 seconds while testing the 1199.

2nd...The GP bike is a world of difference from the WSBK or street bike, in very large part due to the Bridgestone tires and their very hard carcass. Nevermind the motor bore and configuration, and the GP riding style). The difficulties with the frameless design probably won't be seen on the 1199. Bayliss' testing lap times seem to back this up.

3rd...a trellis is not coming back to MotoGP. If anything it will be a twin spar aluminum frame like the Japanese all use, or an aluminum frameless design. The trellis GP bike was a POS as well, with only Stoner being consistently fast on it. Bayliss was largely unsuccessful except for his one wild card ride win in 2006, and Capirossi only had moments of success. No one else could ride it, and there were some good riders trying. Lesson...stop looking at GP bikes when considering WSBK or street bikes, as they're a world apart.

4th...If it fails in WSBK there will be a problem. Real Ducatisti recognize that GP bikes aren't what they buy and are essentially testing platforms.

JJGeo,
You are waiting your breath with that troll. He is on every new bike thread with the same drivel.
Gary

I know...moment of weakness.

Seriously. Can we get a 'generally unpopular members will be banned' clause added to the rules?

Geo what you said is true except that Bayliss was 2 seconds faster on the 1199 than on his WSB racebike...
If that would have been the case they would have been back in WSB instantly with a factory team running the 1199 instead of letting Checa take the title on basically a 5 year old machine...
Not good for marketing especially where Rossi failed so badly on essentially the same frame design that will grace their new 1199 superbike.
The only difference being for co$t rea$on$ made from aluminum instead of carbon fibre...
They have a big marketing problem here especially a company that boasts itself to market race-technology when the stuff doesn't work.
And a twin making more than 90 hp from a single 600cc cylinder is impressive but again for how long until co$tly rebuild$ are due ?
Also a bike that light and hugely torquey won't be necessaryly fast on the track because the front will spend most of it's time in the air...

I'm no engine expert, nor do I play one on TV so school me if i'm wrong.

But if were talking units of Hp and Ft/lb in the posted chart, why don't the lines cross at 5252 rpm. (provided the horizontal axis is RPM)

Y'know, I had wondered that myself. :huh

Jeff I can't give you an answer either but what I see on the dyno graph is that the elastic band of this build to the max engine is very narrow...
Only 2000 rpm wide from 8500 to 10500 rpm between the torque peak and hp peak.
That is the unfortunate byproduct of those engines cammy engines build to maximise hp.
Less peaky engines with lower hp numbers but wider torque band are generally more fun to ride in the real world but we'll see.
Like the old french saying;the more things change the more they stay the same..
But the Ducatisti won't care looking at their new bikes and high number dyno sheets over a glass of Chianti...
As long as Checa wins who cares if the chicken-strips on that shiney Pirelli 200 are an inch wide as long as it makes 195hp on paper...
50 hp more than Carl Fogarty's WSB winning racebike from over 10 years ago !
Mike Hailwood did an almost 120mph average and won the TT on a Ducati despite making only a lousy 75hp 30 years ago...to put things into perspective.

Agreed - I'm really wondering about the streetability of this engine. Looks great for the HP/Torque numbers, but the torque curve it what worries me; it's not suitable for my riding.

Its got a fatter midrange than the vaunted CBR http://web5.soundandvisionmag.com/m...articles/2010/2010_honda_cbr1000rr_-_dyno_run

(note dynojet..optimistic) but that evil duc makes 20 more hp than the CBR1000 at 6000 RPM


Its just looks strange because the peak is so high.....complete with a down slope from too much intake length or lack of airbox volume (volume I'd wager) Streetability is going to come down to crank weight and final drive anyway.

It'll be interesting to see what happens when its in customer hands.

Yes, something is amiss.

What are you talking about? They couldn't have raced the 1199 this season...it wasn't ready and hasn't been homologated even f it had been. As far as not racing it next year in WSBK...they didn't race the 999 its 1st year either, and that bike turned out fine.

Anyway...turns out he beat his best time ever on an 1198 at Mugello by 0.6 seconds (not 2 seconds). He also claimed nothing currently on the street will match it. We'll see. The point being though, the frameless configuration doesn't appear to be an issue on the 1199.

They don't cross where you'd expect because they use different scales. The HP curve uses the scale on the left axis, the Torque curve uses the scale on the right axis. If you use independent scales you can make them cross wherever you want them to.

If you look at what torque the engine is making at 5252, and compare that to what HP the engine is making at 5252, you'll see they're the same.

Let's all wait and see what she'll do on two wheels with Checa at the helm!

You are correct.

Seems silly to grid it with independent scales. Nice salesmanship however. Makes torque look huge at first glance.

.....the torque is pretty huge...ye gods, 130ft/lbs at 8500 RPM

Especially considering how over-square ..errr supreoquatro....the pistons are.

Usually the shorter stroke means that there is less torque compared to a similar displacement motor with a longer stroke (look at the numbers between a stroked -mouse 377ci and a de-stroked 400ci, both are 377ci motors, but the extra 1/4" bore on 40 block makes it MUCH more rev happy, and less "torquey" compared to a long-rod 377"

Thanks for the clarification, I do see what your saying now.

It's still confusing to plot it that way.

For any cam chain nay sayers:

Looks like a simple run with only two sprockets and not even a two to one reduction. Further reduction is taken care of at the gearing.
Should last better than most. IMO

No, the torque is not 130. That's what we're talking about. The torque according to the factory is 98 ft/lbs, according to the grid on the opposite side of the chart. That's what we were talkign about, and that's why I called it a nice bit of salesmanship. Most people, me included, thought that at first glance.

But 98 ft. seems much more realistic, if inflated as all companies seem to do. If I recall that figure is more a function of engine size and there's not as much variable. A Harley xr1200 sportster engine supposedly puts out 74 ft.lbs. Just doesn't spin nearly as fast...thus much less peak horse power.

My guess...and this is just a guess...is that when it's hooked up to a dyno this engine will make about 80 to 85 ft/lbs at the rear wheel..