I came across this article and thought I would share - some candid words from Terblanche about the Development process. “As we later found out with MotoGP,” he said, “Ducati never really knew how bikes handled well until they got the ex-Aprilia guys in to sort it out. Ducati never really had a lot of testing [for frames], whereas Aprilia did. When I worked at Aprilia, at Moto Guzzi, I asked them why their chassis were so good, and they said it was because they’d never built engines – they used to buy them in – so all their expertise was on the chassis. So their bikes invariably worked really well, and even today with the RSV4, it’s still an extraordinary bike even though it’s getting a bit long in the tooth now. “You have to remember that Ducati is based in Bologna, near Ferrari, and their engineering school is very good, particularly when it comes to engines. When you go to Aprilia, they have Padova University just down the road. There was a guy there who wrote one of the definitive books on chassis design, and they did a lot of theoretical stuff on chassis work at Padova University. “And because it’s just down the road, those students are going to go to work for Aprilia. So some companies develop fantastic engines and others end up with good chassis. For many years Ferrari didn’t have good chassis either, and Ducati was like that for a long time in MotoGP, fast in a straight line but they didn’t really want to go around corners very well. Now they’ve got into shape, so the bikes really handle, and that’s down to [former Aprilia designer Gigi] Dall’Igna and I’m sure he must be from Padova University.” (Ed: he is.) https://amcn.com.au/editorial/the-development-of-ducatis-916/
Interesting article and photo. I think the rectangular headlight 916’s are for the Australian market? Some issue with homologation of the classic twin headlight design I believe. Ruins the line of the front.
Agreed with the above post, They look dreadful with those square headlights as opposed to that very sexy twin setup that we all know and love.
I suppose prices for used swingarms are going up after reading this.. “During the whole life of the 916 we kept the swingarm quite short, but we never had a short swingarm on a race 916. It just didn’t work; I remember Tamburini going up to Mugello when they tested the 916 for the first time, and it just didn’t handle. So they took two swingarms and chopped them up to lengthen the wheelbase by 18mm or 20mm to put more weight on the front, and then it started handling. But in fantastic Italian fashion they never actually updated the roadbikes – they had that flaw all the way through."
I was wondering how many people would click the link and read the full article! There’s a lot of little gems of info in there! You can still buy a Superbike extended swing-arm £719.99 https://www.moto46.co.uk/product/ducati-superbike-swing-arm/
“beautiful blonde who can’t cook, can’t read, but looks pretty hot” I’m going to steal this and put it in a wanted ad!
At age 61, I bought my first Ducati, a 996S 2001, without extensive Ducati knowledge, I learned a lot from you guys, confirmed T1 cams, Nitrated Front legs, Ohlins rear, 5 spoke Marchesini's 123.9 BHP on the dyno. So I guess it's a 2001 SPS engine, still not sure... Anyway this bike is way beyond my ability to race it, to me it feels like the best sports bike I have ever ridden , long or short swingarm, I feel like a racer on it, fell in love with the model 27 years ago and finally bought one last year
Yes the 996S 2001 (EU) does have the SPS engine - there’s only 1 major difference and that’s the ECU. The 2001 S has a 16M and the SPS has a P8. This caused some running problems - here’s a link to an old blog post http://www.bikeboy.org/996stradaeproms.html. http://www.bikeboy.org/996eproms2.html Obviously it’s quite a few years down the line so your bike may have been modified to remedy the issue by now Edit - ignore me - I hadn’t seen this final post! http://www.bikeboy.org/996stradaum222eprom.html The previous posts had obviously been written before they knew if the EU spec bike would have the same issues! “It only happens on bikes with Strada cams – none of the 996S (Euro spec, SPS cams) bikes ever did it”
So…….. I was introduced to the 916 when I was around 10 years old, my dad bought one , to me it was beautiful , it was the most stunning bike I’d ever seen and with the foggarty/916 era around then I wanted one. all my life I wanted one , I wanted one right up until 2 years ago until I bought one (35 yr old by now) And it was………..awefull. Uncomfortable, slow and didn’t handle. Maybe I just bought a bad one I don’t know but it only lasted 2 weeks and I moved it on.. bubble well and truly burst
That's a shame mate, my 996sps is the longest I've kept a bike. But you are right they are uncomfortable and slow but still feel special when riding them.
If the 916 is a beautiful blonde who can’t cook, can’t read, but looks pretty hot... then what's the 999 that Terblanche designed? A bike with a face only a mother could love, and a model range that Ducati scrapped as soon as possible after they realised what they'd done (i.e. fucked up). The reality is the vast majority of testers disagreed entirely with Terblanche's assessment of the 916 as a poor road bike. Here's the late, great Kevin Ash with one of the earliest reviews: https://www.rideapart.com/reviews/254075/kevin-ash-on-the-916/
After all those years of anticipation it seems a bit of a shame to give up on the machine so quickly. 916s are multi adjustable machines that can be made very bad or much better, depending on who’s done what and what one’s preferences are.. When i bought my first 996 in ‘03 I was initially rather unimpressed. It was basically stock, other than slip ons, and it was slow to steer, wouldn’t hold a line, was super sluggish to respond to throttle inputs, and generally felt lazy and ponderous. At that point I’d been lusting for one since ‘93 when I first saw pics and wasn’t about to give up on it without a bit of effort. Lowering the absurdly tall gearing, raising the rear ride height ( to sharpen turn in ), ditching the 190 rear for a 180 ( to help it hold a line on the throttle exiting a corner), wider bars ( for more leverage), and a lighter flywheel, were all inexpensive changes that made a dramatic difference to how the bike responded to inputs and how she felt in general. The bike was so transformed by those initial changes i decided to keep going and still have her to this day, in much lighter, much more powerful guise than twenty years ago!
Exactly. Also, lighter (mag, carbon) wheels and fine tuning the injection (TPS + Synchro + mixture) with CO set at 5,5% instead of the too lean 2% they came out of factory with, will make these bikes an absolute blast to ride. Shortening the caster (hope that’s the right word in English, had to look it up) using the eccentric located at the steering headstock is also supposed to get these bikes way more easy to go into corners. Never tried it personally though, as I prefer keeping the locking functionality.
I had an early 916 from new, and to be honest I was disappointed as well, certainly with its speed. I did a fair few track days on it as the handling was pretty good. Speed problem sorted by buying a 996sps.....all the looks of a 916 with the power to back it up. I think Terblanche made a mistake with vertical headlights on the 999, successful styling usually mimics cues from the animal world
Caster is a correct word but we would usually refer to it as Rake - because Caster is more associated with describing the same thing in cars. I’m ill at the moment so everything is giving me a headache - I tried to read this article - but it also gave me a headache - it might be good - I have no idea! https://suspensionsecrets.co.uk/motorcycle-front-geometry/
