To Duc from HD ? about 1100 vs 696

[Saxiety]

I also posted this on DM.ORG so I apologize if this is a double read for you.

I am looking at trading in my HD Low Rider for a sportier bike and I have been after a Monster for awhile. I test rode an 1100s yesterday and loved it, but I really don't want to spend that much on another bike which leads me to the 696. My biggest concern is that I will be disapointed with the 696 compared with the 1100. I tried searching for some good comparo stuff, but didn't really find much.

- How much difference is there really b/w the 696 and 1100 given the diff. in weight?
- Difference in the wet vs. dry clutch.
- Does the 696 have the same great sound with a full termi system?
- I mainly ride in the twisties, Blue Ridge PKWY so will the 696 have the torque to really pull out of the corners when traveling up hill?
- Anything good sources of info either reviews, videos or such?

I am going to test ride the 696 on Monday, but of course there is only so much you can determine in a 30 minute ride. The twisties aren't so close that I will have time to ride them w/i a test ride. From my reading it would seem switching to a 14t front sprocket would be a definate req. The dealer tried to get me to test ride the 696 before I left yesterday, but I'm hard headed and always want the biggest engine, but have found more than once that while getting the most bells/whistles, I would have been greatly satisfied with (in this case) a 4k savings.

Thanks for dealing with a newb.

[JBubble]

Here's the answer to your wet clutch/dry clutch question

http://ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=20634.0

[superjohn]

I think the biggest difference would be the suspension and not so much the engine. The 1100 has much better forks and shock even in base form and the 'S' is even better.

The 696 isn't bad, and it's got plenty of power and torque for the street. The sound is still good (the only way people know my M620 with Ex-box is so small is when I tell them). I find that I am actually faster on my 620 than on my 900SS because with less power there's less chance of overdoing it coming out of a corner and going for an unpleasant ride.

At the end of the day, ride both and see which one floats your boat more.

[red baron]

Even the 696 has more power than the HD does.

[Slide Panda]

I also posted this on DM.ORG so I apologize if this is a double read for you.

I am looking at trading in my HD Low Rider for a sportier bike and I have been after a Monster for awhile. I test rode an 1100s yesterday and loved it, but I really don't want to spend that much on another bike which leads me to the 696. My biggest concern is that I will be disapointed with the 696 compared with the 1100. I tried searching for some good comparo stuff, but didn't really find much.

- How much difference is there really b/w the 696 and 1100 given the diff. in weight?
- Difference in the wet vs. dry clutch.
- Does the 696 have the same great sound with a full termi system?
- I mainly ride in the twisties, Blue Ridge PKWY so will the 696 have the torque to really pull out of the corners when traveling up hill?
- Anything good sources of info either reviews, videos or such?

How much difference in what? 
- 696 will sound pretty good w/ an aftermarket exhaust.  Note won't be as deep as the 1100, but will still be a good sound.
- 696 should have some good puch to it, especially if you opt for shorter gearing.  Though the 696 is down vs the 1100, it will feel like a rocket vs most of the HD offerings. 

1100S vs 696
- The 1100 will have nicer suspension, the 1100S will be even nicer.
- 1100 has lighter wheels
- 1100 Single sided swing arm

[Saxiety]

How much difference in what? 

I was thinking faster than I was typing there.  I meant to ask, is the 1100 that much faster given that there is a difference in weight.  If I were to switch out a lot of plastic parts to CF, would there be much performance gain with a 5-10 lb reduction in weight or is it mainly cool factor.  I'm not trying to be a weight weenie here, but it can help in gaining approval from the boss in future purchases. 

[bobbydoll]

>>but I'm hard headed and always want the biggest engine

go with the bike that you'd be 100% happy with. you don't want to make such a significant purchase, then regret it later.

>>I mainly ride in the twisties

another interesting difference between the bikes is that the 696 has lower ground clearance. one review i read actually implied that it was dangerous.

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/102/2446/Motorcycle-Article/2009-Ducati-Monster-696-Comparison.aspx

"In fact the only thing that limits the amount of cornering fun you can have on the Monster is its ground clearance or more specifically lack thereof. As opposed to the Aprilia the first thing to rub against the asphalt is the side stand. Continue to lean the bike over and you'll start to feel footpegs and shift levers scrapping. Don't worry though, because the Monster's smaller Bridgestone Battlax tires continue to grip and will continue you to carry you until you hit a mid-corner bump and high center on a hard part. Consider yourself warned."

[Privateer]

I think the biggest difference would be the suspension and not so much the engine. The 1100 has much better forks and shock even in base form and the 'S' is even better.

Unless you fall into the 696 suspension's weight rating, the 1100 will ride better.

Is there enough plastic to replace that the CF would make a difference?

[Takster]

If I were to switch out a lot of plastic parts to CF, would there be much performance gain with a 5-10 lb reduction in weight or is it mainly cool factor. 

No offense to the newb, but am I the only one here that thinks it's hilarious that he's talking about 5-10 lbs of carbon after coming from an HD?

[Saxiety]

No offense to the newb, but am I the only one here that thinks it's hilarious that he's talking about 5-10 lbs of carbon after coming from an HD?

Easy. 

Yeah, even I have to admit that seems a little strange.  The whole reason I'm getting rid of the HD is so I can carve some road though.  Tired of scraping pegs every time I lean a little.  The writer of the magazine article that talks about lean angle has no idea. 

[peanut_man]

Easy. 

Yeah, even I have to admit that seems a little strange.  The whole reason I'm getting rid of the HD is so I can carve some road though.  Tired of scraping pegs every time I lean a little.  The writer of the magazine article that talks about lean angle has no idea. 

I think that pretty much settled the score.  (Unless you need the lower seat height) Go for the 1100.  1100S if you could ($2k more, I think, is a bargain for all the Ohlin stuff).  I can drag my boot pretty easily on the 696.  But on the 1100 you are up higher and thus has more clearance for cornering.

[Popeye the Sailor]

Just to play devils advocate-have you considered the older line of monsters?

It'd be cheaper to get one, with the mods done, so you'd save money. If you get one of the S*R series you'd get plenty of cornering height and a really nice carving bike.

It's worth a look, unless you have your heart set on the new style.


I would also vote 1100.

[silentbob]

I had a turbo charged Harley and I have ridden the entire Monster line including the 696 and 1100S.  Any of them will be more fun in the twisties than the Harley.  But, you sound like you will regret not getting the 1100S if you buy a lesser model and I can certainly understand that.  It will be much cheaper to spring for the top of the line now, rather than trying to upgrade the engine and suspension later.  Plus the 1100 looks cooler.

[sfarchie]

Having owned a M696 and now a M1100S, the biggest diff is in the torque. You can easily pop accidental wheelies if not careful on the 1100. As noted the height diff is also noticeable, but at 5'9" I like it. I can't say I feel the weight diff too much when going through twisties. I won't knock the 696, it's a great bike. I absolutely loved riding it (sans the clutch lever). I'm a fan of the dry clutch.

Regardless of which one you get, they are totally different from a HD and you won't be disappointed. If speed is your desire, don't worry about which bike. Red is the fastest color!

ps I never really understood the fast color comments, but I thought I would throw that in there. 

[teddy037.2]

ps I never really understood the fast color comments, but I thought I would throw that in there. 

because it's true 

sorta like, at least in HI, it was determinted that the silver painted ones were more prone to breakage