Yamaha FZ-09 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
I see our friend, Aaron Colton was one of the test riders.

They should have had KTM in the mix to name just one. The 690 Duke would have blown away the Guzzi.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
They should have had KTM in the mix to name just one. The 690 Duke would have blown away the Guzzi.
that's more of a naked sport bike over a scrambler no?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,444 Posts
The only thing that makes me wonder, is why did Ducati de-tune the engine? was it for better fuel mileage? or to tune it down for a more beginner riding crowd?

Ducati Monster 796 (803cc)

Max Power 87 hp 64 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 8.0 kgf-m 58 lb/ft @ 6250rpm

Wet Weight 187 kg / 412 lb

Ducati Monster 800S2R


Ducati Scrambler Icon (same 803cc engine)

Max Power 75 hp / 55 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 50 lb-ft / 68 Nm @ 5750 rpm

Wet Weight 198 kg / 410 lbs

Ducati Scrambler icon
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steve101

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
that's more of a naked sport bike over a scrambler no?
I would say none of them really strike me as scramblers. What qualifies a bike to have that handle? The 690 Duke with knobby tires would be a major player. And, way more fun than the ones in this test.

Someone posted a vid on this site of the FZ9 with knobby tires and jumbo rear sprocket running up a gravel twisty in the mountains and ripping through a forest. Now that was scrambling! These other two(not counting the MG) aren't even in the same league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
The only thing that makes me wonder, is why did Ducati de-tune the engine? was it for better fuel mileage? or to tune it down for a more beginner riding crowd?

Ducati Monster 796 (803cc)

Max Power 87 hp 64 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 8.0 kgf-m 58 lb/ft @ 6250rpm

Wet Weight 187 kg / 412 lb

Ducati Monster 800S2R


Ducati Scrambler Icon (same 803cc engine)

Max Power 75 hp / 55 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 50 lb-ft / 68 Nm @ 5750 rpm

Wet Weight 198 kg / 410 lbs

Ducati Scrambler icon
Are those HP figures to the wheel? Could it be the drivetrain is more inefficient than what they're using on the monsters? Though i wouldn't be surprised if your assumption about just de-tuning because the rider segment. Many probably associate price with ease of riding - the cheaper the more beginner friendly. Obviously we all know that's not the case riding the FZ :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
I would say none of them really strike me as scramblers. What qualifies a bike to have that handle? The 690 Duke with knobby tires would be a major player. And, way more fun than the ones in this test.

Someone posted a vid on this site of the FZ9 with knobby tires and jumbo rear sprocket running up a gravel twisty in the mountains and ripping through a forest. Now that was scrambling! These other two(not counting the MG) aren't even in the same league.
Good point, the V7 does seem out of place but i guess it's kind of that vintage cafe type bike segment - i've always though as scramblers as Cafe bikes that you can handle very light off road duty.

Before they started talking about it - i only thought Triumph really had a bike that truly fit the definition - if you can even call it that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
The only thing that makes me wonder, is why did Ducati de-tune the engine? was it for better fuel mileage? or to tune it down for a more beginner riding crowd?

Ducati Monster 796 (803cc)

Max Power 87 hp 64 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 8.0 kgf-m 58 lb/ft @ 6250rpm

Wet Weight 187 kg / 412 lb

Ducati Monster 800S2R


Ducati Scrambler Icon (same 803cc engine)

Max Power 75 hp / 55 kW @ 8250 rpm

Max Torque 50 lb-ft / 68 Nm @ 5750 rpm

Wet Weight 198 kg / 410 lbs

Ducati Scrambler icon
They de tuned it because it was impossible to ride it under 35 mph. I had a Hypermotard 796 with the same motor...and even with a PC5 and an Auto Tune ...it was jerky as hell at low revs. I always thought it was because the throttle body diameter was just too big for the motor......but I decided to get rid of it before I spent another 2k trying to make it right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beck

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,628 Posts
Another good theory CD.

I test rode a Multistrada 1000 and it ran like crap below 4000 rpm. 30 mph and under were strictly first and second gear and it still wasn't very smooth. Maybe if it were detuned as well. Makes me wonder if the short lived 620 Strada was more manageable. It was down 30 lbs and 30 hp from the 1000 cc model.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,842 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
that can't be fixed with an ECU type flash?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,170 Posts
So....though they were hesitant to say it, the throttle is jerky down low, the oil pan position puts it at risk, suspension is soft and seat is uncomfortable for long rides. Sounds like what they said about the FZ09!

Regarding Ducatis, I though the Ducati v-twins were smooth and torquey down low...what about the original monsters?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,155 Posts
Regarding Ducatis, I though the Ducati v-twins were smooth and torquey down low...what about the original monsters?
Uhh..no. Ducks do have torque down low....but no rideabilty below 3k RPM's. Italians don't know how to make a v-twin run smooth..or don't care. Honda, Suzuki...even Hysong...figured it out....but not Ducati.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36 Posts
I ride all my bikes like I stole it, so I don't seem to have that low rpm jerk issue.

Current bike is a Monster 1200s

 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,470 Posts
I ride all my bikes like I stole it, so I don't seem to have that low rpm jerk issue.

Current bike is a Monster 1200s

That's one of the Top Photo's I've seen on this here forum.:cool:
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMSTuner

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,444 Posts
Are those HP figures to the wheel? Could it be the drivetrain is more inefficient than what they're using on the monsters? Though i wouldn't be surprised if your assumption about just de-tuning because the rider segment. Many probably associate price with ease of riding - the cheaper the more beginner friendly. Obviously we all know that's not the case riding the FZ :)
The only thing I can see to be a possible advantage is lowering the rpm's for the max torque? Helps so you lug the bike more at lower rpm's?

Or lower the hp to cut back the max speed a bit?

I am curious if it's a physical change or just an ECU change that they used to de-tune the engine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
The standard would be the old Hondog SLs..... Or Triumphs, etc. High pipes and semi knobbies.

I would say none of them really strike me as scramblers. What qualifies a bike to have that handle? The 690 Duke with knobby tires would be a major player. And, way more fun than the ones in this test.

Someone posted a vid on this site of the FZ9 with knobby tires and jumbo rear sprocket running up a gravel twisty in the mountains and ripping through a forest. Now that was scrambling! These other two(not counting the MG) aren't even in the same league.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
730 Posts
Most fueling issues with modern, fuel-injected bikes is not enough dyno time AND real-world test and tune before production. Most factories, esp. the smaller (Italian) factories, won't spend the money.....

Another good theory CD.

I test rode a Multistrada 1000 and it ran like crap below 4000 rpm. 30 mph and under were strictly first and second gear and it still wasn't very smooth. Maybe if it were detuned as well. Makes me wonder if the short lived 620 Strada was more manageable. It was down 30 lbs and 30 hp from the 1000 cc model.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top