Ducati Monster Forum

 ;D

(ok... I know this is a question like …"why is the world round" … not flat;) (... not your twin chick fantasy, sheesh)

what makes twins, L twins, V twins and larger singles thump?

… form some limited experience, and what I know; is it the low compression pistons? or the size of the pistons or the rpms that its running at?  I wonder how much R&D time Ducati put into exhaust note tuning? Like the s2r udder.

… a high revving jap bike is more like a sewing machine with a propeller ready for takeoff when wound up, at idle like a  a quiet purring?

No


In case of big single, (sort of ) yes
)
No.

What you are feeling (the difference between inline 4 engine bikes and big twins) is mostly due to the firing sequence (intervals).

In case of inline four, the firing interval is 180 degree.
In other words, while crankshaft turns twice (720º), camshaft would turn once, firing all four cylinders once.
Every 180º of crankshaft rotation, one of the cylinders fire.

With inline six, such as CBX or KZ1300

(https://themarquisblogger.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/1979.jpg?w=768)

(https://opimedia.azureedge.net/-/media/images/mcc/editorial/articles/magazine-articles/2009/09-01/the-kawasaki-kz1300/kawasaki-cob.jpg)

Every 120º of crankshaft rotation, one of the cylinders fire.

Twins are, somewhat unique. (And, maybe somewhat complicated, to some.)

Ducati L-twins,

1) Horizontal cylinder fires

2)crankshaft turns 270º, then Vertical cylinder fires

3) crankshaft turns 450º, then Horizontal cylinder fires

The firing sequence of Ducati L-twins is uneven.



Firing of inline 4 is like,

BANG - 0 - BANG - 0 - BANG - 0 - BANG - 0 -
(Between "0" and "BANG" is 90º crankshaft rotation. So, above sequence shows one cycle of the engine, which means crankshaft rotate twice = 720º)


Ducati L-Twins are like,

BANG (H) - 0 - 0 - BANG (V) - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

(You can count the number of hyphen, to know how much crankshaft turns. Between the firing of H. cylinder and V. cylinder, there are  three hyphens, so 3 x 90º= 270º, after firing V. cylinder, there are five hyphens before next firing of H,Cylinder, so 5 x 90º = 450º

As you can see, in one cycle of the engine (crankshaft turns twice), on Ducati L-tiwns

there are only two "BANG"s, and they are widely spread apart, and the interval is not even,

as opposed to four "BANG"s at every 180º of crankshaft turn.

The power delivery is smoother, the sound would be more even, ... you get the picture.

Okay, I have to go to bed now.
(It's 2:14 AM now.)






I wonder how much R&D time Ducati put into exhaust note tuning? Like the s2r udder.

… a high revving jap bike is more like a sewing machine with a propeller ready for takeoff when wound up, at idle like a  a quiet purring?
[/quote]

.... they wouldn't be thumpers if they didn't  8)

The real question is why a Ducati 'thumps' but a Harley 'potatos'...

The 45* angle of the V, primarily, which dictates that the cylinders fire at odd intervals.

I refer to the Harley sound as the Engineered Miss. And I'm somewhat of a Harley guy. The sequence is:

A piston fires. The next piston fires at 315 degrees. There is a 405-degree gap. A piston fires. The next piston fires at 315 degrees. There is a 405-degree gap. Etc.

What you hear as the difference between the bikes is mostly the variations of firing intervals, NOT the number of cylinders.

Harley's firing interval is 405º then 315º.

1) The rear cylinder (HD calls this as #1 cylinder) fires

2)cranks shaft rotates 405º, then front cylinder fires

3)crankshaft roates 315º, then rear cylinder fires again

DOF .....DOF ...DOF .....DOF...

... actually, their firing interval is more even than Ducati's.

The reason you feel like HD sounding like more irregular firing order,
while in fact Ducati engines are more irregular firing than HD,
is because

1)You hear HD running at lower RPM than Duc.

2)That (low RPM nature) mostly comes from 45º (narrow angle) "V" bank.

At 45º, you really can't make them revving up high.
(Both pistons come to TDC fairly close together.)

BTW, the earth shaking big vibration nature of HD also comes from this.
Imagine two  big & heavy pistons moving up and down almost at the same time, right front of you.
(Riders would feel "up & down" vibration A LOT MORE than "front to back" vibration.)

Okay, I have to go to work.

If memory serves, Honda, I believe, when they introduced the Shadow V-twin... in typical Honda fashion, they engineered the motor for the best performance, the firing interval took the 'potato' out of the equation.  I guess they did some market research and decided they had to engineer the 'potato' back in to draw the cruiser V-twin crowd to the bike.

ah ha!

… the world is not flat!

and ...omg … some guys know a lot of shit!  [bow_down]
(and assuming you's didn't pull that shit off a google search)

so, Harley's potato IS an engineering mistake?! or an anomaly that couldn't be avoided; in a mistake that couldn't be avoided... in a 360 degree round world; of firing sequences …  im just trying to understand … ya, now that its explained, I see how you feel the Harleys pistons.

so from s21folgore's explanation, with thanks;

ok; … Harley's firing interval is 405º then 315º = 720 … in a 4 stroke sequence ....

interestingly;
Ducati L-Twins are like,

BANG (H) - 0 - 0 - BANG (V) - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 -

(You can count the number of hyphen, to know how much crankshaft turns. Between the firing of H. cylinder and V. cylinder, there are  three hyphens, so 3 x 90º= 270º, after firing V. cylinder, there are five hyphens before next firing of H, Cylinder, so 5 x 90º = 450º
…. = 720
cylinders being oriented at H 270 and V 20 degrees necessitating this crank turning and firing sequence?


but we're hearing that thump from the exhaust, due to the overall size and stroke of the piston?; right? or is it due to a 4 stroke sequence? with just 2 cylinders?

… ach! alas …. the word is flat ...  

I believe what they (Honda) did was to change the amount of dual crank pin offset for US market.

At around that time (or shortly after) Harley was trying to "copyright" that "potato -potato" exhaust sound.
Yes, it's pathetic. But they were trying to just about everything getting copyrighted and trade marked.
(Another pathetic attempt was to get "black and orange color scheme" copyrighted.)

From the business point of view, that move was somewhat understandable.
When it comes to things like Harley, people pay money for an image.
Not for the performance, or build quality of the stuff, or excellence in engineering.
You don't need an engineer.
All you need is lawyers and marketing people.

This is going to take some time.
So, let's try one by one.

About Harley's 45º "V" angled engine.
Why did they choose 45º, instead of, for example, 90º like Ducati?

You have to go back to 1909.

Harley's first V-twin engine motorcycle.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/46/f6/3f/46f63f2b8e92b3cd749e9d6040e16b87.jpg)

The "45º V" configuration was a result of trying to fit an engine into a bicycle style frame and make it work.



Ducati's first "L- twin" motorcycle was 750GT, 1970.

(https://silodrome.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Ducati-750-GT-Main.jpg)

Ducati's L-twin bikes were intended for racing / sport riding purpose from the very beginning.

They way they were borne, there's a big difference in time and background.





Relationship between the 'V angle" and firing sequence of V-twin single crank pin engine (Bothe Ducati and Harely engines are single pin)

360 - angle of "V" = first cylinder's firing crankshaft angle
360 + angle of "V" = second cylinder's firing crankshaft angle

For example,
45º V-twin Harley

360 - 45 = 315º
360 +45 = 405º

60º V Rod

360 - 60 = 300º
360 + 60 = 420º


Ducati 90º

360 - 90 =270º
360 + 90 = 450º

Folklore also has it that the 45* layout of the H-D twin is due to it being based on radial aircraft engines of the time, some of which also had 45* cylinder angles. Internal construction with the fork and knife connecting rod arrangement is also similar. It's easy to simply see the resemblance too. 

I remember that as well... they were on a serious attempt to shut down the competition.  Funny how things change.

Very good point.

I actually wrote about this type of online article (The writer doesn’t know about the subject. The article is written based on minimal online search. )
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=42312.msg1416859#msg1416859






Myth :Harley’s V-twins don’t rev high, are not smooth running because of uneven firing sequence. Ducati’s L-twin revs higher and smoother at higher RPM because 90º V-twins have even firing sequence.

Truth: I already wrote in above post.
Ducati’s firing sequence is even more irregular than Harleys.


Myth : Ducati’s engine can rev up to high RPM because of desmodromic.
Truth : Desmodromic doesn’t make engines being able to rev high. The advantage of desmodromic  is that it prevants valve-surging at higher RPM.

Awesome [clap]

As an unusual side bar:

When building the Coup D’etat (Monster Bobber), I wanted to play around with the sound the bike made, so since a carbed bike runs a wasted spark, I tried all three other cam timing scenarios to see how the bike sounded.  I didn’t run it long this way, just idled and revved a bit.

I phased the V cam only out 180’:  sounded like crap.
I phased the H cam only out 180’:  also sounded like crap.
I phased both cams out 180’: sounded like crap.

I returned the cams to original and it sounded good again.

In case anyone finds this useful....ever....in the history of time....this will be the thread they look for it in, so I wanted to share.

And here's me thinking only the Citroen 2CV ran a wasted spark....

Well there ya go.

waow;  - this! - above - is what the subject question was / is getting at, perhaps along with the detailed explanations above.

not an unusual sidebar; glad to hear you tested all that out on your own amazing!

… and I wonder if Ducati & Harley & triumph, ural, etc,  made a conscious decision early on in the piston & cam setup with the resultant sound & vibration; etc in the engine design; to make there own unique moto sound that's still with us today; along with performance engineering, that's a part of what makes them unique bikes.
(...interesting to think about how Asian bike design came about too...)

Perhaps the further broader question is "what makes the ultimate moto bike?" ... and the Monster lovers will be in this corner, … and the Harley dudes will be in another corner …. etc,
ha see,
the world IS round!

 [Dolph]

I didn’t do the cam phasing for any power.  The Bobber runs a ‘W’ headed 900 so it’s almost worthless for power.  The bike is unique so I thought I would try something unique.

I doubt Ducati set timing for a particular sound.  They did it for power.  (I would wager.)

No, they didn't.
Engines are not music instruments.
Engineers are NOT marketing people.

Deep inside their hearts, all engineers are warriors and philosophers.
Marketing people are merchants.

BIG difference.

NO engineers on the surface of this planet will design engine with "exhaust note as top priority".

Whenever the company make that kind of move, it is because the decision was made by marketing department.

Talented, able engineers tend to do opposite thing( performance first, form follow the function kind of mental set), and, as a result, the product sometimes are "failure" from marketing stand point.

As far as motorcycles are concerned, Honda did that more than anybody else.

Excellent idea from the engineering point of view, the market just didn't get it.



Ducati's iconic "L-twin" could have been one of those examples, if it had not been Fabio Taglioni.

Look at the GT750's photo I posted a while back.
Or, this may be even better example.

(https://kickstart.bikeexif.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/ducati-750-super-sport.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/kv-MCTQdCzs/maxresdefault.jpg)

90-degree "L-twin" layout has some pros, but there are more "cons", inherent cons.

It takes someone(or group of people) who's really creative and passionate, committed to his own creation, to make things work.

Other example?

Much less exotic, and much less famous, but Honda CX (GL) 500's V-twin was, (still is) amazing example of what
really passionate engineers can do.
(IF you know anything about how to design an engine for mass production, you can easily see why this is so amazing.)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/76/fe/d5/76fed50340439b19545f575823591a14.jpg)

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4e/9a/8b/4e9a8bc51684bd8bd940d6bfdeb1d7d8.jpg)

Remember, it’s a high performance motorcycle & not a musical instrument.

Jiminy Cricket!,  .....  you guys know a thing or two about a thing or two.

A Ducati guy once told me that the L twin cylinder configuration on a Duc was closer to the V-8 engine configuration and that's why, at least partially, the Duc engine has the "throatier" sound vs. V twin?

My 2 cents is the noticeable exhaust note difference between a single pin crank on a V twin and a dual pin crank. The single pin crank has that distinct "potato-potato-potato" exhaust note  vs. the less desirable exhaust sound from a dual pin crank on a V twin.  Honda made the Aero 1100 [ a stylized Shadow ] from 1998 to 2002. They went from a single pin crank to a dual pin in 2001. Big "sound" difference between the 2. Smoother engine with a little more power on the dual pin crank but no potato exhaust.  I don't know if they ever used a single pin crank on any of the other V twins.

...anyway, great topic and information.

Yes, there was.


(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/1a/5a/bf/1a5abf9365bf0f40cd64b4cfdbae3942.jpg)



Offset dual-pin crank was first used by Honda, for reducing the vibration of narrow angle V-twin.

90-degree v-twin (that includes Ducati "L" - twin) has ONE major advantage over other configuration.

What is it ?

ZERO primary vibration, that's what it is.

Reciprocating engines have inherent balancing problems.

It comes from the fact that you have to convert reciprocating movement of the piston(s) (back and forth in line) to rotating movement (going round and round).

So, 90-degree V-twin is free from primary balancing problem, meaning it can rev freely without balance shaft (which adds weight, production cost, saps power) to higher PRMs.

When the engineers choose 90-degree V, that's the main reason.

Saying some hing like they had chosen that configuration for the sound is actually an insult to Taglioni.


"Free from primary balancing problem" was the reason Honda used 90-degree, on this one.

So which engine was it (the picture on top)?

...I have to go for now. I just moved, have tons of stuff to do ... will come back later.

(https://d1uzk9o9cg136f.cloudfront.net/f/16783276/rc/2018/02/03/35bbd2a1ce8cc61750e54834bac9b22b344bf02a_large.jpg)

1983 Honda VT250F

This engine was in production up until 2017.
(The V-twin that red zone starts at 13,000RPM.)
It had been in production for 35 years, virtually unchanged.

In the early 80s. Honda was actually ready to ditch all their inline-4 series, and move onto "90º V" engines.
The first ones were V45 Sabre and V45 Magna, in 1982.

V45 Sabre
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/04/8e/1b/048e1bdc2b60c051a5c29d2fbe67bbe8.jpg)

V45 Magna
(https://opimedia.azureedge.net/-/media/images/mcc/editorial/articles/magazine-articles/2016/05-01/leapfrogging-the-competition-1982-1983-honda-v45-magna/utr-hondaad-jpg.jpg)

They were 90º V-4. All of their new "V" engines were 90º, because of the primary balancing I explained in the last post.

Look at the Sabre and Magna's side view photos above carefully.
Then, look at these.


VT250F 1983
(https://www.scalemates.com/products/img/3/5/0/105350-11104-30-pristine.jpg)

VTR250 2006
(https://www.throttleroll.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Honda_VTR_Cafe_Racer_5410.jpg)


Pay particular attention to

1) Where crankshaft is located (where the engine is mounted)

2) Front fork Caster angle (rake angle)

3) Wheel base (How long does the bike look like)

Now, this,

1978 Ducati 900SS
(https://www.airtech-streamlining.com/images/ducati900ss1977leadinimage.jpg)

Put a rider on,
now, can you see the "biggest con" of "Ducati L-twin"?

(https://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2011/03/12-keira-knightley-ducati-chanel.jpg)

(https://www.motorcycle.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/031418-skidmarks-keira-knightley-ducati-supersport-750-f.jpg)

Keira Knightley is 5'7", and look how she's stretched out on a bike.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cf/a7/16/cfa71645cbee476f8b17b8ab0c6ecfaf.jpg)

Actually, this could be her stunt double ...hard to tell ...  but it doesn't matter.

The point is, ... can you see the biggest problem of "L" twin layout?

Look at V45 Sabre's side view again. Notice the engine is tilted forward, like Ducati's L-twin, whereas VT250F's engine is more conventional "V" layout?

"L" layout, front cylinder almost parallel to the ground, severly limit the chassis design freedom.

Because the front cylinder is sticking out forward, the engine must be mounted fairly far back, and the front forks are raked out in order to clear the cylinder.
That, inevitably makes wheel base longer.
(750 / 900SS wheel base 1500mm / 59 - inch,
    V45 Sabre wheel base 1562mm / 61.5-inch)

You can't mount the engine forward, like Buell.
Also, look at the difference in caster angle.
Buell like front end geometry is simply impossible with "L" layout.

The engine must be mounted in certain location, there's no room to move it forward / backward.
That forces you to make wheel base (and over all length of the bike) longer.
That forces you to put more cater angle to the front end.

So, why "L" layout was chosen?

If it (the engine) is tilted back (like most other 90º V engines, like VT), the chassis design would be much easier.
Or, it the angle of V bank is narrowed down, again, that would make everything so much easier.

So, the question is,

1)Why did it have to be 90º V-twin ? Not 45º, not 75º, BUT 90º? and "V"?
2)Why did it have to be tilted forward ("L" layout)?

There's a reason.
And it has nothing to do with exhaust sound.
(The distinctive exhaust note was simply a by product.
NO engineer would design an engine / vehicle in order to produce "nice sound".)
"
There are two key points, about choosing "V", not just any "V", but "90º V".
The more you get into engineering, the more "90º V" start looking like ultimate configuration.

One is primary balancing nature of 90º V.
The other is driveability, or, should I say, "traction" (tractorbility), especially coming out of the corner.

Let’s go back in time, to 1902, for a moment.

When Harley-Davidson decided to choose 45º V-twin,
Was that a mistake from engineering point of view?

No. Not at all.

Did they do it for the sound?

Absolutely NOT.

Looking at pros and cons of 45º V-twin, it was perfectly understandable decision, and “cons” weren’t really cons, given the situation back then.


Pros of 45º V-twin

Relatively simple and easy to mass produce
(Not just the number of parts. The more time it takes at assembly line to assemble, the more expensive it gets.)
Better performance than single
Easy to design the chassis, or easy to fit into the existing chassis.

Cons

Vibrations, just as bad as singles
Because of the nature of being massive vibrator, it won’t rev up to higher RPM.



Cons weren’t really cons, back then.
And, … they weren’t, even after 40 years.

Harley Davidson WLA 1942

(https://myfloridamotors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/hdwla.jpg)

These side-valve 750cc v-twins tops out just a little bit over 4,000 PRM.

Transmission has three speed. And, shift change by HAND.
(The clutch is on the left foot board.)

On top of that, there's no CDI, no automatic ignition advancer back then.

You'd have to manually advance / retard the timing, while you are riding.
(U.S. Army's operating manual calls it "spark grip", which is on the left hand grip.)




You are not revving it up to 10,000RPM, quickly shifting through closed ratio transmission.

45 degree V-twin was still NOT a mistake, by any means.

And, they (H.D. and U.S. Army) didn't choose that layout because of the sound.

Fast forward to 1969.
In order to understand the engineer’s thinking process, let’s pretend you are Fabio Taglioni, in the late 1960s.
So, you are the chief engineer / technical designer / director, for this company.
I’m not going to write the history of Ducati motorcycle from 1947 Cucciolo to the late 1960s. You can find the story about them on the net easily.

(https://kickstart.bikeexif.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/duccutters_cucciolo.jpg)

Instead, I’m going to explain, HOW the engineer’s mind work, when making a big decision, such as choosing engine layout.

Your job, this time, is to sketch out the bike for the next production run.

There are (roughly) two big things you need to keep In mind.

ONE: Ducati was in pretty bad financial trouble, at that time. (In fact, they were owned by Italian government since 1969.)

TWO: Japanese bike's domination, on both racing and street, had already started.

1969 Honda C750 Four
(https://www.cycleworld.com/resizer/psuu97f3FKqwZO6hm7Ez3d3m1Ys=/1200x628/smart/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-bonnier.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3AF37AKUIBNMXLZOUMVUDMTLBY.jpg)

Honda CB750 Four already hit the market, practically sweeping away British twins such as Triumph , Norton which were the king of big sport bikes.
The company (Ducati) wanted / needed new model, in bigger displacement (a lot of it had to do with exporting to US market), and (preferably) something can be turned into production racer. (In other word, NOT a cruiser bike, they needed / wanted high performance sport bike, in 650 – 750 cc range.)
So, you have to put performance on top of the priority list.
The company needed something that performs good,
NOT something that sounds cool.

Since the company never produced the bikes in this class, you’d have to start from the scratch.

First, you need to decide the engine layout.

Single is out of question, since you are aiming at 750cc class. (And you're pretty sure, later on, it will be expanded to sub 1-litter class.)
(Technically, 750cc single is possible, but there’s no benefit. At that engine displacement size, the negatives outweigh the positives (of the single cylinder). Forget about sub 1 litter single engine.)

How about inline 4 ? , or, even, inline 6?
(Taglioni designed 4-cylinder, 8-cylinder,…. He had tons of experience.)

Well, you, and the market have already seen CB750 Four.

You (and the public) also have seen Japanese multi cylinder race bikes

1966 Honda RC166
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-am3KCdJYzw4/WDFrgWKNcII/AAAAAAAAxic/OoVWiGpKbt0QWi9cpVRc6aH_5doD2VkWwCLcB/s1600/rc166-3.jpg)
250cc inline 6 that revs 20,000RPM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o57JwibqCb8

Mike Hailwood on RC166
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woB5Ht-Zuk0

No, you don't want to do inline-4 (or 6) the company have seen all of these. (And that’s why they abandon the idea of competing in small (250cc, 350cc) class racing.)

You know other Japanese manufactures will follow.

You know outperforming those Japanese inline 4 (or 6 ) with the “same layout” would be next to impossible.

You know the company (Ducati) needs something really special, to stand out in the market.

AND, (this is very important), that SOMETHING SPECIAL has to be, … something that can be brought into reality WITHOUT too much trouble.
Remember, the company IS in DEEP financial trouble.
Investing in new factory line and facility, that’s a pretty big gamble.
The last thing you want to do is to choose the engine layout because it sounds good.
(I’ve got to go to work now.)

yep Tangolini  designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi, by Ducati in Bologna, Italy, in 1992. A naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame, he created a (somewhat) unique bike design with the Monster; that fit the times; showing the trellis frame & Ducati desmo L twin along with some unique and decent performance and handling characteristics, with a resultant unique Ducati thump and chatter of a dry clutch; and not saying this is a a musical instrument; being a bit fachious (sp!? ok facetious!); but when you hear that sound, you look to see what Duc is being ridden; and yes of course performance would take precedence over the sound, but interesting to hear how the firing sequence, piston layout influences the sound. "Si, capisco?".

Mostro in Italian; is the naked bike designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi and produced by Ducati in Bologna, Italy. It is a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame.

ok; always got to be on your toes with the dmfers,  I stand corrected; got the wrong guy; I ws close  :P

Taglioni didn't design Monster.

What Monster was to Cagiva / Ducati was, what 240Z was to Nissan.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcSSWfsQ8xwRGkSZtxQEozw2hGDcbP5IowJcqA&usqp=CAU)

(I've got to run now)

Galuzzi designed the Monster

Yup.
Some of you may not know, but Ducati Monster was very unique from the  very beginning, even before it was born.


One
They were both tremendous financial help to the companies.
Very, very low developing cost and great success in sales means HUGE profit for the company.

In fact, because of Monster’s success, Ducati was able ot pay off their debts.

TWO
They (240Z and Monster) were both cheaply put together “(existing) parts bin special.”
From engineering / technological point of view, there’s NOTHING to look at, on both vehicles.
Engine, frame, running gears, … everything is borrowed from the existing model.
Nothing new to develop = HUGE money (and time) saving


THREE
“Looking good is primary, everything else is secondary”
In both cases, “styling” was the most important key.
They guy who designed the 240Z’s body line had to work really hard.
The “long nose, short deck” classic sport car body design was the most important element of the project.
However, L24 engine is just too tall to fit into the original sketch body line.
(Can you see how the cylinder head is sticking out?)

(https://www.engine-specs.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/L24.jpg)

The only way to solve the problem was to raise the engine hood, but it would destroy the elegant body line flow.

(https://s3files.core77.com/blog/images/1093405_81_101233_5QKGAd_QC.jpg)
In the end, they came up with the idea of raising only the center portion of the hood, just enough to clear the cylinder head.

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/c8/80/60/c88060734f15c714fff3972735dc8000.jpg)



Yes, the hard work was NOT about developing the functional parts, but to keep the styling close to the original concept sketch.



Fast forward to 1992.

Ducati Monster concept sketch by Miguel Galluzzi



(https://cdn-2.returnofthecaferacers.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ducati-monster-anniversary-1.jpg)

His famous quote
“All you need is: a saddle, tank, engine, two wheels, and handlebars”
(His design philosophy about Ducati Monster)

In order to bring this concept to the reality, the approach they took was the true “MAD MAX” style, “A bit from here, a bit from there …”

https://youtu.be/qUi5Lo9SHTY

The frame from 888, the engine from 900SS, the front end from 750SS, …

Read his design philosophy again.
What do you need to enjoy the ride?
By 1990, Ducati had already established the “brand image”.
Unfortunately, that “brand image”, at least part of it, was deeply connected with snobbism.
So, those (some of )Ducati enthusiasts were MAD, at this cheaply put together (that’s how it looked to them) Frankenstein style parts-bin special bike.

BUT, that’s exactly why Monster became successful, that’s why it was, and still is, so unique.

IF the motorcycles were human, the superbikes, such as 916, Panigale would be serious athletes, who are on mission, to win the competition, to set the record.
Monster would be the guy who’s with a lot more relaxed attitude, having fun and looking good is far more important than seriously practicing sport.

Think someone like Fonz.

https://youtu.be/wUjheLRgj24

Or, think Superbikes are temperamental supermodels.

And Monster as, someone like Mary Stuart Masterson in “Some kind of wonderful (1987)”

https://youtu.be/t9wjEaW0XOA

… ya miss-spelt the designers name  ;D

… bike designed by Miguel Angel Galluzzi …

ok; always got to be on your toes with the dmf-ers,  I stand corrected; got the wrong guy; I was close  :P

Outsider

The name of the guys aren’t that important, but the story behind, … is.

Yes, nothing is stranger than the truth.
Monster was an outsider, black sheep, ugly ducklin, to Ducati.


Fun fact #1

It WASN’T Ducati’s idea to create the naked bike.
That was Galluzzi’s idea, and he has NEVER been hired, or part of Ducati.
He was simply hired by Cagiva Head Quarter, and that’s where his position was, in the time of Ducati Monster development.

Fun fact#2
SOME Ducati enthusiasts didn’t like this Frankenstein style creation.
Ever heard “ Ducati is Ferrari’s equivalent in two-wheel world”?
I personally don’t agree on that, but there are quite a bit of people who think / feel that way.
Those were the ones who reacted negatively to Monster (in the early 1990s.)
But, this ugly ducklin actually saved the company from the huge debts.

Fun fact#3
Galluzzi had to keep himself (physically) far away from Bologna.
Yes, there were “too much noise” coming from the Ducati factory.
He needed to isolate himself from Ducati factory guys.

Fun fact #4
Monster WASN’T created for any serious purpose.
It’s not going to win on the race track.
(Buy Superbike, if that’s what you want)
It’s not going to be a good serious long distance tourer.
(Buy Beemer or Guzzi, or Gold Wind, then.)
The reason it (M900) got 900SS engine was, simply because they were available at the reasonable cost.
(888 frame was okay to use, but the water cooled 4-vavle engine was just  too expensive for this project.)
The components were mostly chosen based on the cost and availability, NOT the performance.

I met the guy.  Nice fellow.  He even knew who I was.  He brought Monster #000000 to this motorcycle show.  Ducati gifted it to him as a thank you.  It wore the original tires.  It was very very special...  Or, is special as I’m sure he still has it.

Ducati Monster Fun Fact Special
e]

“Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness.”

― Oscar Wilde

(https://shop.r10s.jp/webike-rb/cabinet/tnk0247/ix-oh6017-vcg_1.jpg)

Look closely, around the engine, frame's rear engine mount area, and logo on the fuel tank !

This is something Cagiva could have done.
(Remember Cagiva Mito 125?

(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e6/02/80/e6028074dc289c49c1b72f9cc286ca67.jpg)

If they had produced 125cc version of Monster, with the fuel tank  showing same masculine shape as the original, that would have been very cool.)

Anyhow, look at this ...
https://youtu.be/MJCJuaOe5Zs

Before 0:59, that's stock exhaust system.
1:00 - 1:46, Moriwaki ZERO exhaust, no baffle,
Then, same exhaust with baffle.
Watch the video till the end,  he shows very interesting home made system.

NOW, close your eyes, just listen to the exhaust note. (Especially Moriwaki with baffle part)
THEN, listen to this exhaust note. (Preferably with the headphone, NOT the one for listening music, but the headphone for video / studio monitoring. Music listening headphones enhance certain frequencies, so they won't let you hear the true sound.)

https://youtu.be/YhErmkw9eUI

https://youtu.be/tgdDKMuDd7Q

90 degree V-twins produce the same tone, regardless the brand of the bike, engine displacement.
what makes that sound is firing sequence.

… were talking about sound, the exhaust note ….

ok done much detailed research and explanation here beyond what most of us mortal earthlings would ever know or what Galluzi ever realised when he was tasked with designing a new moto that evolved into and became "Il Monstrosity"; a very interesting evolution of design, and success.




more amazing factoids and stuff; the appeal of the monster is the the Ducati brand name; Italian shick euro styling; some performance, along with a naked bike trend that is taking off in Europe at the time with an unique L twin and desmo valve setup ...

This helps me understand the bike more. Often the best creations are improvised. I've had good luck making omelettes that way.

S21FOLGORE you are obsessed.