HOME ARTICLES JOIN GALLERY STORE SPONSORS MARKETPLACE CONTACT US  
Register | FAQ | Search | Memberlist
Username:    Password:       Forgot your password?
BIKELAND > FORUMS > BIKE CHAT > Thread: NCR Macchia Nera: 297 lb 185-crank-hp titanium-frame Ducati NEW TOPIC NEW POLL POST REPLY
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 12, 2005 12:22 PM        
NCR Macchia Nera: 297 lb 185-crank-hp titanium-frame Ducati

MCN had a short article on this bike this week. The claimed weight is pretty amazing, 297 lb. The price will be steep, about 22,000 British Pounds. These pics are from Fastdates.com Pit Lane News, where there is an article there as well:











  Ignore this member   
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 12, 2005 05:01 PM        
shit, put a set of carbon wheels and take damn near everything else off something liek the 10R and it'd prolly be even lighter! given how minimalist and impractical that thing is and all the bits they put on it, i can't say i'm all that impressed by 297lb.
  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
beansbaxter


Needs a life
Posts: 5911
posted October 13, 2005 04:28 AM        
quote:
i can't say i'm all that impressed by 297lb.

how come??

  Ignore this member    Click here to visit beansbaxter's homepage. 
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 13, 2005 04:40 AM        
because of the lengths it took to get there. u apply those same mods to a 10R and i'm pretty sure u'd be lighter still. plus liek i said, the lengths they did take to lighten the bike made it impractical for everyday use. granted everyday use may not be the point of this bike, but to me there is no other use (cept racing, which i dont think this is meant for either). i jsut dont have much appreciation for bieks which are built as "works of art"
  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
beansbaxter


Needs a life
Posts: 5911
posted October 13, 2005 04:53 AM        
what u said makes me open up a long list of questions...at what point do u have appreciation for a motorcycle that some consider a "work of art"? is the mvagusta a "work of art" or does it fall to custom built machines?

i agree with u that i look at the use of a motorcycle as something for everyday use, not a display of art.

can there be a happy medium??

  Ignore this member    Click here to visit beansbaxter's homepage. 
D


Needs a job
Posts: 3365
posted October 13, 2005 05:19 AM        
That beasty was pretty sweet - I think it won it's class or the show (don't remember if that was this year or last year though).
  Ignore this member   
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 13, 2005 11:23 AM        
MV f4 is a good, useable bike, so doenst fall under the Art category for me (even tho it is beautiful enough to be one). the duc above isn't really even a work of art if u ask me, jsut a collection of very tasty tidbits. it would have to look good to be art, and that thing lacks aesthetic appeal.
  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
lizard


Pro
Modulator
Posts: 1483
posted October 13, 2005 01:04 PM        
quote:
MV f4 is a good, useable bike, so doenst fall under the Art category for me (even tho it is beautiful enough to be one). the duc above isn't really even a work of art if u ask me, jsut a collection of very tasty tidbits. it would have to look good to be art, and that thing lacks aesthetic appeal.



You got that right . MV F4 not art.

  Ignore this member   
NinjaNick


Needs a job
'08 ZX14 (Blue)
Posts: 4558
posted October 13, 2005 02:56 PM        Edited By: NinjaNick on 13 Oct 2005 21:56
Start floating after 80mph! :o haha
  Ignore this member   
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 02:33 AM        
Why is being naked non-functional? Agreed it's non-functional past about 140 mph, but there's a lot of riding done below that.

I don't agree you could get a ZX-10R down to that weight.

Removing the fairings and lights is not going to save a lot of weight, and I have no idea where there's 100+ lb to take off that bike.

And if one wanted to add fairings and lights to the above -- which certainly if you've got the sort of money to make buying the bike a reasonable proposition, adding that would be nothing for you -- would it then be functional in your book?

  Ignore this member   
beansbaxter


Needs a life
Posts: 5911
posted October 14, 2005 03:01 AM        
Some pics from from Laguna 2004









This kids father owns the company



  Ignore this member    Click here to visit beansbaxter's homepage. 
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 03:52 AM        Edited By: trenace on 14 Oct 2005 11:01
Here's an article on that silver bike in the last pic Beans posted:

http://www.mcnews.com.au/Testing/ncr/milona/page1.htm

That one is only 260 lb! With fluids! Damn, that Ducati mill must be light.

It is not a powerful bike: the base model has the base Ducati aircooled engine which only puts out 85 rear wheel hp. However, considering power to weight (and wrongly excluding the rider) that would be like 520 lb bike with 170 rear wheel hp so it's understandable acceleration at least at modest speeds is still fairly good, but obviously it's a handling-oriented bike. The author of the article thought the handling was phenomenal.

An upgrade with an additional 20 hp is available, so that makes it comparable in power to a sports 600... but way lighter and more primo.

Also, here's another bike from the same company -- minus the weirdness of the graphics it would look good -- 264 lb for the lightest version of this one, though apparently if you want electric start that's another 11 lb:


  Ignore this member   
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 14, 2005 04:02 AM        
damn, now that 1000NE biek is impressive. taking off that extra 40 pounds had to have been a bitch. plus, it appears real world useable.

trenace, the reason i consider it not practical has nothing to do with fairings. it has more to do with half the engine bits being open, which has got to mean u never ride the thing, or rarely ride it and spend an incredible amount of time cleaning the bike.

as to getting the 10r to that weight, i think it runs around 370 doesnt it? so 70 lbs is what has to come off. i know i have seen 12Rs and Busas take off 60 to 80lbs and that's still with full bodywork and lights. how take into account adding a CF swingarm (which i believe that top NCR has) and a TI frame (which i dont know u could do on a 10) and i suspect u'd be at or below 297. of course, that is little more than semi-educated guessing, so i could very well be wrong, but i doubt it. midn u, i'm assuming the 297lb figure is dry. if it is weight, that would be impressive (still think it sucks cause of the exposed engine bits tho)

  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 05:06 AM        
I am not sure on that weight. At least one of those other weights was reported by Mcnews.au as being with fluids, but that doesn't mean they all have to be.

It depends on where you live I guess on the seriousness of the exposed engine parts -- I actually rode the 12 for quite a while with the lowers off just due to their being more work I was going to do so I figured I'd leave them off till I had that done. It didn't bother me at all having the engine exposed and gave me no trouble for cleaning, nor have I had trouble with actually naked bikes e.g. KZ1000's or for that matter my first streetbike a KZ650.

However there may well be places where that is not so, that bad grunge develops and is a real pain.

It does seem one ought fairly to add more weight to come up with a realistic street weight than just adding lights and if desired, fairing. Since answering your first post I've learned some of these NCR bikes do not have starters while others apparently do. Most don't have kickstands (neither does my KTM 525 SMR.)

The bikes are pretty much custom made so I would think a given bike could be ordered with starter even if usually without... but it looks like (from the company's webpage) that the difference between a bike with starter and without (But with other differences as well that may confuse that) is about 11 lb.

You may be right on the weight possible to be lost from a ZX-10R and I could be wrong. I don't know of anyone who has gotten rid of that much weight, and my guess is it's far harder to lose weight from the 10R than the 12R due to the pieces being so much lighter in the first place. Aftermarket replacements just won't save as much each.

However, I don't think even the ZX-10R Superbikes are weighing anything like that light unless I'm very mistaken?

  Ignore this member   
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 14, 2005 05:17 AM        
just to clarify one point, i dont have a problem with naked bikes (i ride that way myself) it is the exposed clutch, cam chains, and the like that concern me. this does bring up an interesting point tho: who has the lightest 10R out there? or for that matte,r the lightest liter bike period, and what did it take to get there?
  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 05:25 AM        Edited By: trenace on 14 Oct 2005 12:29
I would also be very interested to know that!

Not the same thing, but I once found a website of a guy that had lightened his, I think, K4 Gixxer to just stunning levels. He detailed every single thing he did and I found it fascinating information. I cannot now recall how much weight he took off -- if I had to guess I'd say it was 60 lb but that could be very inaccurate. In any case, considering how light the Gixxer is in the first place, it was one impressive result.

I had the reasoning at the time that that suggested that the ZX-10R could be made equally light, the reasoning being, those parts that are heavier, it would have even more potential on; those parts that are the same, it should have equal potential; and those parts that are lighter in the first place, should hardly hold back the final result. Sophomoric logic perhaps but it seems to have some potential partial validity anyway.

Unfortunately, I'd posted the info on the ZRXOA site which chooses to willfully delete posts with time, so the link is lost.

BTW, with the 12, I believe there's about 90 lb to be taken off, of which I've at least ordered almost all the parts (lacking only the billet kickstand I think.) Actually I know of a couple pounds more than that but they're not worth the cost (titanium axles, CF gas tank cover, CF lower cowl.)

Oh yeah, that reminds me: Gunner, did you ever find out on that cam mod we talked about? Thanks!

On the exposed dry clutch and cam -- uh, belts? not sure -- not having any experience with them, I don't know how big a deal it is that they're exposed. I understand your point now though, thanks!

Anyway, back to the 10R, I agree, it would be outstanding info to learn what can be done with it regarding weight savings.

Though if the figure for available weight savings is really high, you all will be forcing me to buy a 10 then!! So hopefully the figure is not that impressive!

  Ignore this member   
gunner


Needs a life
Posts: 5778
posted October 14, 2005 05:09 PM        
No Trenace I haven't. It's been a really bust time for me as of late. We imported about 250 k worth of srewed up AK's and I've been designing and building some new equipment for our shop so we can straiten out that mess. I finally got it worked out but it still needs streamlining so we can make our production numbers. Yes Sir! It's great to be the Boss . It's all proffit and not troubles at all. As Gilligan always said " There's nuttin ahead but Smooooth sailing Skipper!"
  Ignore this member   
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 05:36 PM        Edited By: trenace on 15 Oct 2005 00:37
I'm sorry to hear about that trouble, Gunner.

I was also reading in article in one of the gun papers -- not Shotgun News I don't think, but a similar one -- on troubles with imports due to new BATF shit and was thinking of you, hoping that was not going to be causing you more troubles. Unbelievable shit really. Some guys have had huge losses, so hopefully that hasn't been an added problem for you as well.

  Ignore this member   
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 14, 2005 06:26 PM        Edited By: trenace on 15 Oct 2005 01:35
On this super lightweight business, I just had a thought: the Japanese 600's I am guessing are heavier than they otherwise might be on account of the price point they're built to.

The 2005 ZX-10R had a curb weight of 432 lb with 4.5 gallons of gas.

Now, I would think it would stand to reason that a 600cc motor built to "the same level" should inherently be lighter by at least 40 lb. Not, it's not built literally to scale, but to a substantial extent it's close to that, and it puts out only 3/4 the hp and only about 60 percent the torque, so why shouldn't it have a weight savings of 25-35% let's say?

I don't have a weight for a 10R motor (I would be interested in having it though!) but as a guess I'd be very surprised if it were under 140 lb... that to me seems being pretty aggressive in estimating how light it might be. Saving 30% of that would be 42 lb.

So does the ZX-6R have a curb weight 42 lb lighter, or 390 lb with same amount of gas?

(Actually there should be compounded savings as well due to the frame carrying a lighter motor, torque being less, etc.)

No, it's 424 lb with the same gas! Only 8 lb lighter!


Why?

My thought is, ZX-10R was $11,199 list. The ZX-6R was $8,699 list.

The part count is about the same. There's really fairly little manufacturing savings inherent to the smaller displacement. The 600-class bike can be $2500 cheaper only from either losing a lot of money or profits or from being built to a much cheaper price.

So I am guessing that's where the weight went -- it's at least 34 lb heavier than it might potentially have been compared to the 10R on account of it being built to sell $2500 cheaper.

I guess it won't happen that the Japanese will build 600s to the same price point as the literbikes, but looks like it would be cool if they did! That 42 lb estimation of weight savings that seems reasonably commensurate with the smaller motor could well be a low figure too, and isn't accounting for cumulative effect. If so, maybe a 600 built to the same price and quality as a literbike could wind up more like 50 or 60 lb lighter. That would be pretty cool.

Or is it totally unrealistic for them to build a 600-class bike to literbike price levels? Hmm, I dunno... could Kawasaki sell ZX-6RR's that were $3k pricier than the standard ZX-6R but 40 lb lighter?

Maybe so! They would at least get some good press splash out of it. Certainly they wouldn't sell nearly as much as the bikes going out the door for $8K though. Maybe not enough for the volume to be worth it. But it would be cool, if they could achieve that weight, and it seems reasonable that they could do it with a 600.

Of course, these NCR's are way lighter than that.

  Ignore this member   
gunner


Needs a life
Posts: 5778
posted October 15, 2005 01:23 AM        
Trenace I have an 05 636 and 05 10R both now. I'll get them weighted and give some real life reports on the weight dif. And YES the BATF are very hard to deal with most of the time. They are the front line in the fight to disArm AMERICA! The laws change weekly to suit whatever case they're working on at that time. And if you're caught with a shipment out on the water when the laws change and before the boat docs YOU'RE SCREWED!!!!!!! You can't send it back and they won't allow it to come into the country. I've seen this happen. Man it's tough I tell ya. I'm thinking of opening a flower shop
  Ignore this member   
gunner


Needs a life
Posts: 5778
posted October 15, 2005 01:30 AM        
OH! One more thing on this thread and back on topic. Ti makes a PISS POOR choice for a frame!!!!!!!! It has way way too much flex to it. Elmer Trett built a Ti framed bike 20 years ago it was trick but that's about All It was JUNK! Ti does however make a great set of wheelie bars. Most all top Pro Mod and Pro Stock cars have Ti bars. The flex is factored into the adjustment and actually help to ease the transition onto the bars. But most people don't know that the bars actually carry very little weight if the car is set up properly. An improper set up ith the 4 link or too much Base in your clutch setting will wadd up your 3000 buck Ti bars in short fashion.
  Ignore this member   
frEEk


Administrator
ummm... yeah
Posts: 9656
posted October 15, 2005 03:08 AM        
trenace, u bring up a very interesting point with the 600vs1000 issue, tho (of course) i disagree on the reason for the lack of weight difference. i think the reason they weight about the same is because they are about the same size physically. the engine may be 40% smaller in terms of displacement, and some parts can be made lighter cause they need less strength (crank, rods), but most of the engine is bound to be very similar in weight, and the frame, electronics, suspension, bodywork etc has to be damn near identical to the 1000cc version. consider that it still has to fit and support the weight of a human, just like the literbike and the forces of acceleration and braking are gonna be very similar too. still, u can maybe lose a few pounds off the frame by making it a touch less strong, and a couple [pounds by going to a 180 rear tire/wheel, but what else? the question that this raises in my mind, i show do they manage to make those bieks 2G cheaper? i suspect it is by using slightly cheaper components, putting less resources into R&D, and sales volume.
  Ignore this member    Click here to visit frEEk's homepage. 
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 15, 2005 03:09 AM        Edited By: trenace on 15 Oct 2005 17:42
Now c'mon Gunner when I posted that Ti flexes and stretches more, unless the weight is much closer to steel than the comparison people usually make and you were making, you responded as if I were a moron for saying that.

If the frame is thick-wall and large-diameter enough it can flex as little as Cromoly if desired. It would then be fairly close to, but not quite, the weight of CrMo rather than the "2/3" or even 60% figure people tend to quote for converting to Ti, though.

Whether that's the case, or whether they made it too thin-wall and too flexy, I don't know.

However since NCR builds racebikes at fairly top levels (Superbike) I suspect they know how to make a frame with appropriate flex. Whether this particular one is or not I cannot say though my personal guess would be it's more likely they knew what they were doing.

  Ignore this member   
trenace


Needs a job
Posts: 3056
posted October 15, 2005 03:13 AM        
frEEk, it would be really interesting if people had the weights for the 10R engine and the 6R engine. It's possible I'm wrong, but it certainly seems to me one ought to be able to build the 600cc (or 636cc) engine about 40 lb lighter (as a rough figure) since it can be narrower, not as tall, and need transmit only 2/3 the force.

I wonder if the ZX-10R-sans-engine is lighter than the ZX-6R-sans-engine? My guess is that it is, and by 30 lb or more, that being possible by the higher cost, and being needed to come in at the same weight despite the physically bigger engine built to transmit greater forces.

If it is not, then my idea was wrong.

  Ignore this member   
All times are America/Va < Previous Thread     Next Thread >
BIKELAND > FORUMS > BIKE CHAT > Thread: NCR Macchia Nera: 297 lb 185-crank-hp titanium-frame Ducati NEW TOPIC NEW POLL POST REPLY

FEATURED NEWS   Bikeland News RSS Feed

HEADLINES   Bikeland News RSS Feed


Copyright 2000-2022 Bikeland Media
Please refer to our terms of service for further information
0.57739806175232 seconds processing time