999 Dymag Carbon Wheels... An Opinion.

That looks very nice.

 

Mmmmm - anyone we know

 

haha

Loving the red comment'

 

Yes, it's true Ducati's look better in yellow, it's in black and white

 

i had the same wheels fitted to my Old 999r, and the difference to the bike was remarkable, just rolling the bike out of the garage as you mentioned seemed to be lighter.
I had to re adjust the suspension to regain the planted feeling I had with the standard wheels to be honest.
and I must admit the thin spoke design of the R or similar wheel was my preference, but all the same I prefer these to the BST wheels as they have a little rougher appearance to them that I liked.
I have considered the dymag wheel for the 1299 so we will see
bike looks great by the way, I sometimes wish I hadn't sold mine on.....

 

Like he just did too

 

but I remind myself that the replacement is a huge step forwards in technology,
jumping from the 999r to a 1299s was always going to be a 'challenge' in general....

the 999r was a handful at times, the 1299 is a monster ( as it showed me when I crashed it a month ago..Doh!)

 

Need pics of your new V4 mate!

 

This comment wont be popular?
I had a carbon tank, light as a feather; think large eggshell full of petrol
Ducati race tanks, like 998RS had very thick heavy cheeks, (above knees), feel very strong, very heavy, very crash resistant.
I gave the tank away, wouldnt use it, think it was a "Carbon Dream" I put the guy got it, off using it to. Smashed is bad, smashed and burnt/cooked is worse?
I just thought needed to remind people light carbon tanks have risks in a crash

not criticizing Kamna products or their tank only pointing out light as a feather is not necessarily and advantage unless compensation is allowed for the non ductile failures of thin carbon tanks ie. bladders change the safety risk
I have plenty of their products on my road bike

 

When I look I see performance, I dont see fat carbon spokes I see light carbon wheels, better suspension response and handling, and I see a significant performance upgrade delivered very cheaply, I see BEAUTY f...ing AMAZING
In case anybody gets offended accept my apology offered tentatively in advance and record no offense

 

What you criticizing the great 5 spoke 998, not on here, they are children of the ICONIC 916, (3 spoke) you sir are a HERETIC.
WHERE YOU THINK THE 10 SPOKES CAME FROM?
HOW YOU THINK A 916 WOULD LOOK WITH PANGALIE WHEELS??? BLOODY STUPID, 5 spokes on a 999 Perfect lol

 

My ears are bleeding, so why all the SHOUTING breakout998? PS Lovely looking 999S yellowducmaniac. All credit to you.

 

Ah don't worry mate, people here post all sorts... particularly their bins! A bike's a bike and we all like bikes, that's about the only thing we have in common most of the time!

 

Yeah all this bollox about CF from the great unwashed, I've been running a carbon tank and my bike's crashes more often than a fail video... no problems, no blazing inferno, no global genocide.

 

A steel tank will spark as it scrapes along the road and is finally ruptured and therefore the explosive potential is higher, particularly as the fumes which are the most volatile are still in the tank. I think a carbon fibre one is more likely to either wear away without sparks causing a leak or in worst case fail comprehensively allowing the fuel and the vapour to escape. When you see spectacular crashes with fireballs etc the tank usually has lost its mountings and is flailing about losing fuel from the ruptured lines and the distorted filler cap. Just saying

 

Sort of.

When carbon suffers a severe impact it can splinter. That's why you put aramids (dyneema, Kevlar, boron etc) in there or use a hybrid like the carbon Kevlar that was in vogue during the 916 era.

It doesn't just wear away like a slab on a linisher unless you have the thickness to sacrifice.

The issue is the fuel them pisses all over a hot engine or chassis which in itself might be sparking nicely, which results in combustion.

The steel or metal tank also has another property which carbon doesn't have, the ability to deform with impact, so that metal tank will probably dent rather than have a titanic iceberg style rip down its side.

Works tackle also has the benefit of the-engineering for trackside ease rather than road durability, so that tank might well have quick release pins or engineered sacrificial break points to save the rest of the chassis if it all goes Pete tong.

Perfect examples of this level of engineering are Suzuki Sert or Yamaha endurance bikes- you do everything to save the chassis and rebuild the machine quickly, so all the peripherals are engineered to strategically break at the right point. Bonkers clever shit endurance bikes

WSB & MotoGP don't have such concerns and so probably stop at the quick release easy to strip mechanisms.

But I digress... MotoGP bikes with carbon tanks have a bladder inside them as its puncture proof and will deform.

The KR3 mode as tanks I made in 98 were also bladdered. This gave us a great advantage that we could make the skin walls very thin, using honeycomb cores to add thickness and rigidity. Once you have that you could lay strengthening plies where you needed them in strategic places. The actual laminate skin thickness globally was probably .5mm

The benefit of this is that the "tank" weighs under a kilo but can support the riders full weight on it, hanging off at full lean. But then it's also made of structural composite rather than a bodywork system which most consumer carbon is.

What you have with run of the mill is none of the above. Only because the cost is prohibitive, and road riders demand a certain aesthetic standard and product life.
"I buyed me some genuine track stuff from back in the day and would ya know it it's gone and looked shit before me very eyes".

Nowt wrong with buying them but my problem is I know how good they could be rather than a thick (er) lump of charcoal with a load of sealant in.