Ducati Supersport 939 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
If you were to compare this bike to any other bike in terms of power, speed, and acceleration. What would you compare it to?

Had some people ask me if it was as fast as a r6 or 636. I don't know because this is my first "sport" style bike. What would you compare this too?

Btw just turned 600 miles and loving every minute of it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
728 Posts
I would suggest that it's pretty close to a Honda VFR800F
I have owned 2 VFR's and this is spot on!:grin2:

As much as it is"like" a VFR, it is 100 times more fun due to the grunt of the twin. That combined with the style and modern electronics puts it over the top.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
I have owned 2 VFR's and this is spot on!:grin2:

As much as it is"like" a VFR, it is 100 times more fun due to the grunt of the twin. That combined with the style and modern electronics puts it over the top.
Good points and I agree.

I would also say that it's similar to a Honda RC51 as far as power/speed are concerned.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Interesting that people feel the SS performs in terms of "power, speed, and acceleration" about the same as a VFR800 (a bike with max torque of 55 ft/lb weighting 250 Kg fully fueled).

Isn't your SS supposed to turn 69 ft/lbs (at considerably lower revs) and weigh 40 Kg less?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
886 Posts
Interesting that people feel the SS performs in terms of "power, speed, and acceleration" about the same as a VFR800 (a bike with max torque of 55 ft/lb weighting 250 Kg fully fueled).

Isn't your SS supposed to turn 69 ft/lbs (at considerably lower revs) and weigh 40 Kg less?
I think people relate to it more than just numbers and about fit, feel, body position and chassis dynamics to the rider. They are comparing it to the whole experience.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
I think people relate to it more than just numbers and about fit, feel, body position and chassis dynamics to the rider. They are comparing it to the whole experience.
I sort of get that, but the OP's question was quite specific e.g. "If you were to compare this bike to any other bike in terms of power, speed, and acceleration. What would you compare it to? Had some people ask me if it was as fast as a r6 or 636. I don't know because this is my first "sport" style bike. What would you compare this too?"

I'm surprised the answer to that specific question is a VFR800. I can comfortable knock of a VFR800 on my 21 year old retro UJM built using a 1976 engine design. Ok neither the engine or suspension is stock, but with similar power to a VFR800 and 30 Kg lighter it will outgun them every time.

An R6 or 636 are however, in the hands of a good rider, in a totally different ballgame all together. The craziest ******* I know rides a KTM 1190 Adventurer, don't laugh that (in my eyes ugly looking thing) is a total hi-tech state of the art weapon. This guy sees every other bike/rider on the road as a race and point to be proven beating them. He told me one day the only bike he's come across on the road that can hold a faster corner speed than him is an R6.

I wouldn't even think of trying to chase down a very good rider on an R6 in the twisties. An R6 is considered as fast as an R1 up to around 100mph.

P.S. leave engine performance to one side, does the SS really have comparable "feel and chassis dynamics" to a 250Kg no front suspension adjustment (and not considered great), linked brakes VFR800? I'm still struggling with this broader interpretation. I can accept they look somewhat similar.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,533 Posts
@John
I used to own a 2005 636. That was a quick bike, it took off like a scalded cat, close to 170 top speed. I did have a very scary tank slapper on it, scared the life out of me. That bike needed a steering damper but I never got round to fitting one.
The SS does corner better and I mean a lot better, but in terms of power, speed and acceleration the 2005 636 has the SS beat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
I sort of get that, but the OP's question was quite specific e.g. "If you were to compare this bike to any other bike in terms of power, speed, and acceleration. What would you compare it to? Had some people ask me if it was as fast as a r6 or 636. I don't know because this is my first "sport" style bike. What would you compare this too?"

I'm surprised the answer to that specific question is a VFR800. I can comfortable knock of a VFR800 on my 21 year old retro UJM built using a 1976 engine design. Ok neither the engine or suspension is stock, but with similar power to a VFR800 and 30 Kg lighter it will outgun them every time.

An R6 or 636 are however, in the hands of a good rider, in a totally different ballgame all together. The craziest ******* I know rides a KTM 1190 Adventurer, don't laugh that (in my eyes ugly looking thing) is a total hi-tech state of the art weapon. This guy sees every other bike/rider on the road as a race and point to be proven beating them. He told me one day the only bike he's come across on the road that can hold a faster corner speed than him is an R6.

I wouldn't even think of trying to chase down a very good rider on an R6 in the twisties. An R6 is considered as fast as an R1 up to around 100mph.

P.S. leave engine performance to one side, does the SS really have comparable "feel and chassis dynamics" to a 250Kg no front suspension adjustment (and not considered great), linked brakes VFR800? I'm still struggling with this broader interpretation. I can accept they look somewhat similar.
And according to MCN - UK, which is a credible source internationally, they state the SS is better than the panigale on road in the twisties. Somewhere on the net in youtube and on here there's a review including those two and a VFR and kawa z - something. Surprise surprise the SS came out tops. My reference is to your statement about R1 & R6 on the road.
BTW the R6 would be chasing me down, I'm not good at following others. On the other hand the SS is not a track bike with mirrors whereas the Z6 and R6 are so they are not comparable bikes to the SS, hence why many feel the VFR is one of the closest comparable bikes since the SS is essentially in its own class. A market the others are still going to learn to tap into.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I think the interceptor is close in seating positions and looks. It certainly has less power, more weight and is bigger. It also doesn't have the rider aids and suspension. It does have a low maintenance smoother engine and comes in Red.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
And according to MCN - UK, which is a credible source internationally, they state the SS is better than the panigale on road in the twisties. Somewhere on the net in youtube and on here there's a review including those two and a VFR and kawa z - something. Surprise surprise the SS came out tops. My reference is to your statement about R1 & R6 on the road.
BTW the R6 would be chasing me down, I'm not good at following others. On the other hand the SS is not a track bike with mirrors whereas the Z6 and R6 are so they are not comparable bikes to the SS, hence why many feel the VFR is one of the closest comparable bikes since the SS is essentially in its own class. A market the others are still going to learn to tap into.
Based upon the frequency of being held up in corners by both small and large Panigales on the popular ride roads around Sydney every weekend, I have no trouble believing that an SS is faster in the twisties. I've always wondered if it was just the riders, their inability to set the bike up for road conditions, or the bike itself on less that perfect track conditions.

The VFR800 was originally designed as a sport-bike to compete with a Suzuki GSX-750. It wasn't competitive due to lack of power and excessive weight (which has only increased over the years), so some marketing genius decided to simply 're brand' it as a sport-tourer. That's what it is, a soft lardy under-powered expensive to buy and operate, obsolete sport bike. It has no more 'touring' functionality than any other bike on 2 wheels. In fact a lot less than many due to its fairly steep rider forward lean angle. However, if someone wants to call it a sport-tourer, at 250kg its even heavier that a Ninja 1000 at 235Kg. A VFR800 won't even see which way a Ninja 1000 went on the open road.

I'm not bagging the SS, the exact opposite. It's the comparison of it to a VFR800 in terms of performance and handling that is surely an unwarranted put-down. If you want my opinion as to its natural competitor, its clearly a Suzuki GSX-S1000F. Identical concept (upright faring sportbike tuned for the road), identical weight, both current design motorcycles. How does an SS compare performance wise, you guys should know, I'm still waiting to encounter an SS on the road to see what they can do. :grin2:

And expecting the I4's have no 'character' nonsesnse.... suppose this thing doesn't have any, sure..........

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
The RC51 was a pure sport bike with uncomfortable ergos, not focused on road riding like the SS.
True. But that wasn't the OP's question. Everyone keeps getting caught up in the overall comparison, including ergos. I agree with @John on this one...the OP's question pertained to power, speed and acceleration numbers only.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,431 Posts
Based upon the frequency of being held up in corners by both small and large Panigales on the popular ride roads around Sydney every weekend, I have no trouble believing that an SS is faster in the twisties. I've always wondered if it was just the riders, their inability to set the bike up for road conditions, or the bike itself on less that perfect track conditions.

The VFR800 was originally designed as a sport-bike to compete with a Suzuki GSX-750. It wasn't competitive due to lack of power and excessive weight (which has only increased over the years), so some marketing genius decided to simply 're brand' it as a sport-tourer. That's what it is, a soft lardy under-powered expensive to buy and operate, obsolete sport bike. It has no more 'touring' functionality than any other bike on 2 wheels. In fact a lot less than many due to its fairly steep rider forward lean angle. However, if someone wants to call it a sport-tourer, at 250kg its even heavier that a Ninja 1000 at 235Kg. A VFR800 won't even see which way a Ninja 1000 went on the open road.

I'm not bagging the SS, the exact opposite. It's the comparison of it to a VFR800 in terms of performance and handling that is surely an unwarranted put-down. If you want my opinion as to its natural competitor, its clearly a Suzuki GSX-S1000F. Identical concept (upright faring sportbike tuned for the road), identical weight, both current design motorcycles. How does an SS compare performance wise, you guys should know, I'm still waiting to encounter an SS on the road to see what they can do. :grin2:

And expecting the I4's have no 'character' nonsesnse.... suppose this thing doesn't have any, sure..........

IMO that suzuki bike is a grave mistake. It is that bike bike they expect to replace the bandit. Seriously I would like to see it with a pillion and panniers, it just won't happen and simply cannot. The reason I have kept my ever reliable and dependable bandit 1250 is for it's wide seat for the Mrs. I could be wrong but the market has gone silly, for a touring bike it seems we are being manipulated into owning an adventure bike which in itself is BS because most of them cannot handle a simple dirt road yet they are allegedly dual sports. Utter nonsense. The only dual thing about them is that they have two wheels. I have a project lined up in the kalahari desert so I have been looking into all sorts of off road bikes and only the KTM 1190, 990 or 1290 is capable of being a dual sport adventure bike. Anyway the SS gets parked up soon and I will likely be bouncing around on the KTM690R as my mode of transport. At least it will preserve the mileage a little.

So my point after all that is the Suzuki mentioned is nothing fantastic albeit the hp and torque is reasonable. I see the old SV is now a naked too. Not sure what they are thinking but to me Suzuki are clutching at straws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
545 Posts
@John
I used to own a 2005 636. That was a quick bike, it took off like a scalded cat, close to 170 top speed. I did have a very scary tank slapper on it, scared the life out of me. That bike needed a steering damper but I never got round to fitting one.
The SS does corner better and I mean a lot better, but in terms of power, speed and acceleration the 2005 636 has the SS beat.
What a surprise. A supersport bike outruns a street bike. Yes, I have an MV F3 675 that would also outrun an SS, but that has little/nothing to do with my bike choice. I want an SS because it's a better street bike.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
If you were to compare this bike to any other bike in terms of power, speed, and acceleration. What would you compare it to?

Had some people ask me if it was as fast as a r6 or 636. I don't know because this is my first "sport" style bike. What would you compare this too?

Btw just turned 600 miles and loving every minute of it.
As a potential future buyer I am also genuinely interested in the answer to your question. Got to admit scratching my head why you need to ask, being you own one. Ride with others and surely you'll quickly find out. Ride the popular roads in my neck of the woods and you'll quickly come across someone more than happy to have a friendly 'I think mine is bigger than yours'. All good fun.

Anyhow, so far I think its fair to say the bike as expected doesn't have the acceleration of an R6 or 636. Think that point has been clarified.

To me the most useful acceleration benchmarks would be the Triumph Street Triple, and the Yamaha MT-09. Current bikes, things are everywhere, so most people have a pretty fair idea of how they go even if they've never thrown a leg over one. Both generate roughly the same HP as an SS, and are in the ball-park weight wise. I believe the MT-09 to be faster than the ST, but the latest generation Street Triple with the bigger engine may have closed that gap, dunno. (That the ST and MT don't have a fairing is surely totally irrelevant to an acceleration comparison)

Anyone care to comment?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
442 Posts
I traded a 15 Triumph Street triple for the SS and have also demoed new one. The Street is a fantastic bike. The SS have more torque and a sportier ergonomics. The STR is lighter and very flickable. You also have to get used to the bug headlights. The triple has a wonderful growl. I find the SS more planted.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,240 Posts
@John - have you ridden one, yet? If so, was the power sufficient enough for you? I've had a few REALLY powerful bikes in my day and I just don't need that anymore. The SS has plenty enough for any civilized riding, even aggressively. If I'm ever in the mood for more track days, I'll get one more designed for that. This bike can do 99% of all riding I currently do...including drag knee, and do it in comfort.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top