Frameless ducs?

[gm2]

Forgive me for picking fly shit out of the pepper, but it looks to have two frames; one in front and one in back.

there's an airbox, a swingarm, and a subframe.  the engine is bolted to all three.  if the engine weren't there, there would be nothing to connect them to.

generally a frame is something the engine bolts into.. something that, er, frames it and the other major pieces.

if you want to get peppery about it, the engine is the anti-frame. 

[superjohn]

I think that is the point.  The engine joins together the two monocoque frame sections.  It looks pretty awesome to me.  And light.  And light is fast. 

I, for one, welcome our semi-monocoque overlords.

+1. Despite the inevitable wave of "Ain't got no trellis, it ain't no Ducati" I think it's a great idea for the superbikes. Get that weight down and make 'em faster.

That said, it wouldn't make a naked as pretty.

[abby normal]

as someone mentioned, that's pretty much what the vincent had.  and not too different from
the Britten either.  not bad ideas, but not new either.

[ducpainter]

+1. Despite the inevitable wave of "Ain't got no trellis, it ain't no Ducati" I think it's a great idea for the superbikes. Get that weight down and make 'em faster.

That said, it wouldn't make a naked as pretty.

No trellis here...it's undoubtedly a Duc...says so right on the tank.

[sbrguy]

think about it, it would probably make the "perfect" naked bike.

why? because the headtube to engine part doubles as an airbox so you can hide also ellectronics and such up there even better than a monster once the tank is on, the subframe and rear swing arm are there but basically they are hollow too so you can hide more things up in teh subframe area connection, meaning all that is left is literally the engine hanging down now.  so in a way all that you can see is the engine block and the radiator in front. 

that two frame design probabgly if they tried would make an engine look very very clean for a naked bike.  with any luck in 10 years maybe that carbon monocoque frame will be just as normal as the steel trellis frame on road bikes. we can only hope.

[Scottish]

If you look at our Monster frames or even better, the frames used on the SC and I believe it was the old SS's as well, all that is really cut out is about 9 inches of tubing that connects the top rail of the frame from front to back. Then they reworked it to connect to the cylinderhead instead. So it may be a technological step forward and superior in many ways I have no doubt, I do doubt however that weight savings would be of any note assuming both designes used similar size and material in the tubing. In fact with the extra gussetting that may be required for the frame and engine there may be no weight savings apples to apples.

[FastAndLight]

If you look at our Monster frames or even better, the frames used on the SC and I believe it was the old SS's as well, all that is really cut out is about 9 inches of tubing that connects the top rail of the frame from front to back. Then they reworked it to connect to the cylinderhead instead. So it may be a technological step forward and superior in many ways I have no doubt, I do doubt however that weight savings would be of any note assuming both designes used similar size and material in the tubing. In fact with the extra gussetting that may be required for the frame and engine there may be no weight savings apples to apples.

I think it is likely lighter and stiffer, or else they wouldn't have done it.  If the CF is properly laid and shaped it can be significantly lighter than the comparable strength Al frame would be, much less a steel one.  Also, they were probably able to make a significantly more rigid frame while maintaining low weight which will allow the bike to handle that much better.

[NorDog]

Plus, I would think that any weight savings would be up high, so, less weight up high would equal a lower center of gravity which also helps in the handling department.

Buell calls it "centralization of mass".

[danaid]

  The article did mention that the patent was for mainly the GP9 and 10 technology, which we could all see down the road as standard race bike technology, but I wonder if this patent has anything to do with the new Moto GP rule changes which gives weight and fuel bonuses to the manufactures whose bikes use a more "production based" design. Maybe we'll see a new batch of limited edition Desmosedicis based street bikes on the GP 9 and 10 design?
 Detroit used this tactic in the early days of drag and stock car racing to allow mega engines and special parts on the track.    

[DucatiTorrey]

  The article did mention that the patent was for mainly the GP9 and 10 technology, which we could all see down the road as standard race bike technology, but I wonder if this patent has anything to do with the new Moto GP rule changes which gives weight and fuel bonuses to the manufactures whose bikes use a more "production based" design. Maybe we'll see a new batch of limited edition Desmosedicis based street bikes on the GP 9 and 10 design.
  Detroit used this tactic in the early days of drag and stock car racing to allow mega engines and special parts on the track.     

yeah they announced this last summer i thought.

[Popeye the Sailor]

If you look at our Monster frames or even better, the frames used on the SC and I believe it was the old SS's as well, all that is really cut out is about 9 inches of tubing that connects the top rail of the frame from front to back. Then they reworked it to connect to the cylinderhead instead. So it may be a technological step forward and superior in many ways I have no doubt, I do doubt however that weight savings would be of any note assuming both designes used similar size and material in the tubing. In fact with the extra gussetting that may be required for the frame and engine there may be no weight savings apples to apples.

The article was estimating around 5 kg-that's pretty big, IMO.

[gm2]

  The article did mention that the patent was for mainly the GP9 and 10 technology, which we could all see down the road as standard race bike technology, but I wonder if this patent has anything to do with the new Moto GP rule changes which gives weight and fuel bonuses to the manufactures whose bikes use a more "production based" engine design. Maybe we'll see a new batch of limited edition Desmosedicis based street bikes on the GP 9 and 10 design.
  Detroit used this tactic in the early days of drag and stock car racing to allow mega engines and special parts on the track.     

[Turf]

  The article did mention that the patent was for mainly the GP9 and 10 technology, which we could all see down the road as standard race bike technology, but I wonder if this patent has anything to do with the new Moto GP rule changes which gives weight and fuel bonuses to the manufactures whose bikes use a more "production based" design. Maybe we'll see a new batch of limited edition Desmosedicis based street bikes on the GP 9 and 10 design.
  Detroit used this tactic in the early days of drag and stock car racing to allow mega engines and special parts on the track.     

It's fairly easy to see a V4 frameless SBK after the reign of the 1198.

[justinrhenry]

[Raux]

Ducati could easily put a V4 high end bike marketed above the 1198 for around 30-40k and sell it well.
the original D16 did well, but at that price couldn't sustain sales. 30-40k less and it could be sustained in small numbers. the question is can Ducati make it for less than that.