Triumph Rat Motorcycle Forums banner

Anybody find this irritating?

3K views 27 replies 13 participants last post by  TBird Daryl39 
#1 ·
#2 ·
I agree. This bike is not a traditional cruiser at all and reclassification of the Ducati offering by one magazine does not make it so. I was kind of taken aback by the article. In fact, there was a previous article, maybe other magazine, that said that Ducati was NOT a cruiser. In my experience, the Triumph Thunderbird got cruiser of the year in 2009 and 2010 for good reason. Moreover, Triumph really priced the bike right. When a manufacturer makes a bike that tracks beautifully, has good HP and torque, fully usable around 2750 rpm, belt drive, has excellent brakes with their ABS, gets around 42-45 mpg on regular fuel, has a really smooth shifting set of cut gears and Metzelers matched to the bike, what is not to like? The Ductati is a nice bike, plenty of power, but placing it as a cruiser did not seem justified to me.
After chasing down the disconnected MAP sensor hose and a defective O-ring between the tank and the engine, the motorcycle has been just great, good purchase and a keeper.
 
#3 · (Edited)
This has been discussed elsewhere at length. So far i have only seen one person who says it IS a cruiser. But of i think 6 or 7 reviewers who all took part and each gave thier opinion at the end, all said they couldn't pick the ducati even if they liked it better because it's not a cruiser. But the mag called the duc COTY anyways. Insane....just completely insane. What will they do next....have a sportie shootout and include the bird. Then maybe give the bird the win because it tours with better comfort. Someone is putting drugs in the coffee machine at CW, gotta be.

Do i find it irritating? heck yeah ! I find it downright stupid. Either ducati is paying someone or there is at least on moron working at CW who has final say and doesn't care that he's the only one that thought this was a good idea. Take a sportbike, lower the seat, and whoopie, ya got yerslf a cruiser !!! How do they explain this cruiser has less torque than the Tbird? Simple.....maybe not simple to whoever the idiot that made this call, but the Tbird engine is a cruiser engine.....tuned for torque at the expense of HP. Notice every single sportie is the opposite and like the ducati they all have much more HP than the bid and much less torque at a higher RPM. That alone is one VERY important difference between a cruiser and a sportbike, but the ducati displays none of the cruiser engine details. Oh F it....idiots...
 
#4 ·
I agree, I've seen this a couple of times now where magazines were "trying" (even if not enthusiastically) to classify the Diavel as a muscle cruiser. I'm not sure exactly where it should be, but definitely not a cruiser. In my mind I keep seeing it more in the naked bike category. Ducati may have aimed this at the cruiser market, but calling it a cruiser is a stretch. I kind of view this bike as Ducati's version of the V-Rod; the bastard child that's kind of cool, but nobody quite knows what to do with.
 
#5 ·
It's a flash in the pan...

...this bike, in my oppinion, will not find a niche in the market over here. Especially not in the cruiser segment.

So they can say what they'd like, write what they will, but the end game is what the consumer accepts-purchases-says.

And I think the consumer will say, "Uh, nooooooo"

CYA
 
#7 ·
Muscle bike or muscle cruiser?

Back when bikes like the v-max and the kawasaki Eliminator first showed up on the market they called them muscle cruisers! Still today with the re-introduction of the new v-max it doesnt really qualify for anything other than a muscle cruiser. Looking at the history of how and why they called these bikes muscle bikes/cruiser I would have to say that the new Ducatti fits that description better but would assume they just dont want to have a classification with only 2 bikes in it (v-max and ducati). maybe 3 because the intent of the harley v-rod is questionable and its performance claims seem to be geared toward that muscle cruiser catagory also.

For me a long time muscle bike owner (Kawi Eliminator) I would have to put the new ducatti in that muscle bike stable and question anyones choice to label it otherwise!

Dont really care what bike they pick as I think my money spoke louder than thier words when I plopped it down on a new Thunderbird!

Have a Nice DAy everyone!
 
#8 ·
I dunno. I think CW should have picked the Nissan Altima as best Touring Bike. It has much more storage capacity than a Road King, better load capacity than a Gold Wing and a much better sounding stereo than the BMW that they chose this year. And it will go farther on a tank of gas than any of those, in more comfort to boot.:cool:
 
#10 ·
I have a brand-new Ducati Multistrada, would LOVE to have a Diavel, but found this VERY irritating as well :mad:

In no way could the Diavel be classified as a "cruiser"... What about "muscle bike"??? Oh, never mind... They didn't have that category :rolleyes:

... And I still LOVE my Thunderbird...
 
#11 ·
Interestingly enough one of my riding buddies just traded in his old Susuki Valusi for a Ducati Diavel. THE ONLY thing cruiser like about it is the somewhat upright riding position - that alone is not enough to make it a cruiser, never mind win an award. That said it is really cool to go out riding with him - I have yet to see another Thunderbird or Diavel on the road, period, whether I'm riding or car"ing" - so everywhere we go we get the little gathering wondering what our bikes are...2 unique ones traveling together.
 
#12 ·
Don't get me wrong. I think the Diavel is a cool looking bike, but it does not belong in the "Cruiser" category. When I think about it, Triumph did a lot of advertising in CW back in '09 and '10 but not so much lately; however, Ducati is doing a lot of advertising this year. Hmmmm.....:cool:
 
#13 ·
I almost demo'd one when i was waiting to have my tire mounted a couple weeks ago. But i didn't want to fill out the paperwork and hang around any longer than necassary. But i did have a good long look. And to be honest IMO it looks like a jap bike next to my Tbird. I see no comparison in finish quality. A lot of it looks cheap like textures you'd see on a a 80's jap bike. I just don't dig it at all. I'd like to sample it's go tho.
 
#14 ·
I see no comparison in finish quality. A lot of it looks cheap like textures you'd see on a a 80's jap bike.
I agree with this. When I sat on one at my local dealer a lot of it felt like cheap plastic. For all I know the plastic on it is very expensive to produce, but it just came across as very Fisher Price feeling. When I sit on my Thunderbird I feel like I'm sitting on a quality machine.
 
#17 ·
Most of them were cheap...REALLY cheap. There are 3 or 4 that park where i work everyday and it's dead obvious that they are made of a ton of pot metal with cheezy paintwork (not talking just tank and fenders) and enough plastic to put the fear of god into the green crowd. Maybe not all, maybe not yours, but it's called generalizing. That was the worse period for jap bikes as quality goes, and just because there are a few exceptions doesn't change the facts.
 
#18 ·
I would argue with you on the quality, as it was one of the main reasons I got rid of the Harley and went with the jap bikes back then.
We will just have to agree to disagree on this subject or wait 26 years and one hell of a lot of miles for me to be able to compare the quality of my Thunderbird to the old reliable jap bikes of yesteryear.
I'll bet you that my jap bike will still be running then too!
 
#20 ·
That has to do with mechanical design, and i never said they were bad in that regard. The Japanese build very reliable engines. Where did I say different? That wasn't the point. Those bike at work i mentioned are still running after all those years. bit if you look at the build quality they look like something you'd find in one of those one dollar stores. Compare to the Tbird they aren't in the same league, not even remotely close. Today they are still not in the same league, but much better than the 80's.

We can disagree and thats fine, but lets first make sure we are disagreeing about the same thing.
 
#19 ·
Err, lets have it right, at the end of the day it only shows what spending on advertizing can do , don't know why your all so suprised .

I know you don't really buy too many bad bikes nowadays , but most reviews very rarely knock a bike , The testers and writers are very wary with what trhey say , because after all you will not keep your job long, or get to test many bikes if the manufacturers say to the editor , You can test any of our bikes BUT BLA BLA is'nt riding it or we refuse to give you bikes .

Editors are not stupid they know they have to have a broad range to choose from . and advertizing dollars speak volumes. .

My guess is they take turns.
 
#26 ·
Thats how i felt when i demo'd a Rocket. Unreal power, almost yanked my hands off the bars when i whacked the throttle, but i was glad to get back on my bike afterwards. And my bike at the time was just a speedmaster ! I think like me, you won't sacrifice everything you like about a bike just for speed. The duc's power may be unreal, but if i wanted that i'd just buy a Busa and kick the diavels azz. But neither bike floats my boat in any way whatsoever other than power, and even there i don't care near as much for high RPM HP....i much prefer a low RMP motor with a ton of torque down low. The R3 has that, but it also has a number of things i don't like. The Tbird for me is the ultimate bike thats ever come of the production line in any plant.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top