Talk:Ducati Monster

I have never seen the monster referred to as a muscle bike. The cited source is very weak, Torque is a general motorsports magazine, not a specialized motorcycle magazine. I cannot find any other good sources reffereing to the monster as a "muscle bike". This category would define something like the Ducati Diavel, or the V-maxx, not a Monster. The Monster is widley considered to be the first production naked bike. I am going to insist on removing that citation on this page. Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

To continue, the book Ducati Monster Bible the Monster community considers to be the go to guide for all things Monster does not use the term "Muscle bike" ^[1] or even the word "muscle" once. Link bellow:

The wikipedia page and associated articles define a muscle bike Types_of_motorcycles as "derived from either a standard or sport bike design, that puts a disproportionately high priority on engine power.". I would add that they're all engine and little suspension. Drag machines. Most Monster models, particularly pre-2007 produce around 80HP on a good day and are equiped with two valve, air cooled engines under 1000cc. This is porportionate with it's size. Even the highest performance models, like the S4R would only produce around 120HP, which is very fast, but not "muscle".

If we go to Motorcycle News' webpage, they classify the Monster as a "naked"^[2]. Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

My edit was reverted, I have again removed the phrase "muscle bike". The additional refference: ^[3] actually supports what I am saying. The phrase "muscle bike" is used in that article to describe the Kawasaki Z1000's tribute to "muscle bikes of the 70s". The article explicitly refers to the Ducati Monster as a "Naked Bike" and nothing else. I believe this change should stay. Mustangs6551 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Please lighten up. You're taking these terms way too literally. Nobody literally "classifies" any of these bikes. It's like debating if the weather today is "warm" or "hot". There is no actual difference between a standard, roadster, naked or muscle bike. They're just differnt words thrown around to imply different shades of meaning. "Naked" implies a sport bike with the fairings removed. It's a vague reference to the way streetfighters came about in the early period. Muscle just implies that it's more powerful than your typical standard motorcycle. It's an analogy to a muscle car. Sport bike vs muscle bike, sports car vs muscle car. Language develops by analogy. It's not a scientific, legalistic, deterministic process. It's messy. We aren't lawyers and this isn't a court of law and muscle, naked, streetfighter, standard and roadster are not legal categories.

It is a moving target: in 1990 a middleweight bike might only have 60 or 80 hp. In 2017 middle displacement can mean more like 100 or 110. But that's mainly in the US and Europe. In India, China, southeast Asia, and Africa (i.e. most of the world) far less displacement and horsepower is "standard".

The article only needs to say that the bike is called a naked bike, another word for standard or roadster, and sometimes it has been called a muscle bike to highlight that (some models) of Monster are kind of overpowered. In the opinion of whoever is using the term. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• That sounds fine to me. Without discussion of sources, and both terms sourced (at least at first glance), all things are equal--and "It has been referred to as a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame, and a muscle bike" is just a highly unbalanced sentence; "It is a naked bike, characterized by an exposed engine and frame" as a sentence is just much better. A qualification for the phrase like Dennis Bratland suggests is easier to balance, so what needs to be decided is how much weight either of the terms has, which comes through strength of sourcing (can't just point at one article) and the relative weight (importance) of the two terms, naked vs. muscle. Drmies (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Drmies,I would say you are correct that the weight of the term matters, and also the poor sentence structure on that particular sentence. I am adamant that the term Naked is better because it really defines the bike. The Monster is a production Naked Bike, it came into existence through stripping the fairing off the existing Ducati 888^[4]. Prior to the Monster, Naked bikes were not produced out of the factory that way, they were just sport bikes that had their fairing removed. The monster created the genre^[5]. A muscle bike, is a bike where the manufacturer goes out of their way to put as much raw power into the machine as possible. This was never the case with the monster. Some models have received more impressive engines, and maybe could be called that. The original though, and most of them that have been made? No way.

If we look at weight, yes there are a places out there that will define models of Monsters as Muscle Bikes, can't refute that, but sources like this book that has a clear focus on understanding the bike never refer to it as such.

Look, I know it seems like I'm being pedantic here, but I have a special love for Monsters, I own one and have ridden a half dozen of them. I think this term is a misuse by people who aren't familiar with the bike. The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. Mustangs6551 (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not going to argue with or against it--well, there were "nakedish" bikes. The Honda NTV650 came in such a version, but that was hardly a racer: where I'm from we called these naked bikes "cafe racers", racing from one bar to the next. I always wanted a Duc but could never afford one, though my wife finally gave me one for my birthday a few years ago--a plastic model, which sits on top of my computer. She didn't know I wanted a red one, of course, which is the only proper color. Anyway, I hope you and 72bikers can talk this out here, with the help of sources. If a magazine mentions something in passing, not so much weight. If it spends a few sentences on it and discusses its place in history, more weight. And the quality of the magazine/book/etc matter too. You both know all this, I'm sure, but it bears repeating. Take it easy, and, like my dad used to say, always ride with appropriate clothes on. Drmies (talk) 22:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd be happy to talk it over with him, but he's content with undoing my edits and sending threats to my talk page, that's it. One day I hope you get that Duc. My first was a model of the 999 and then Casey Stoner's Desmosidici. Kids play with those now. Rubber side down. Mustangs6551 (talk) 22:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

From your own admission you appear to be too emotionally tied to this subject. You state things as if you would like to exclude this term muscle bike, simply because you yourself dislike this term for whatever reason. Wiki is suppose to be void of personal opinions.

You said at one point that you feel like this line of bikes is not about power, but I would point out the name of the bike itself implies power. What do you think of when saying monster, a big hairy beast. Naked bikes generally implies a stripped down sportbike but this line of bikes are just purpose built muscle bikes unlike say Yamaha MT-10 or BMW's S1000R naked bikes. Your attempt to imply that this line was started through stripping the fairing off the existing Ducati 888. But the sourced content in the article says it was a "parts bin special" from multiple existing bikes. And no mention on the 888 article crediting it as the start of the monster line and that would also contradict your earlier statement "The monster 400 has 43 horsepower and weighs 384lbs. If anything, that bike is putting a disproportianately LOW priority on engine power. Over 2/3rds of the bike made have been under 900ccs and under 70hp. This is not a muscle bike." I would point out that KTM RC390 make about 43 hp, so this is high output for a 400cc bike.

The sourced content in the article says "he asked Galluzzi "for something which displayed a strong Ducati heritage but which was easy to ride and not a sports bike." and "Bordi's intent was to enter the cruiser market,[15] with a bike that was made to be modified and would eventually have a wealth of bolt-on aftermarket accessories rivaling Harley" Much like bikes you said should be call muscle bikes The term really should apply to the Diavel, Vmax, the Vrod, maybe the Streetfighter. And this sourced content from the article screams muscle bike "Galluzzi penned a "muscular" fuel tank and minimalist bodywork that produced a visual impression of mass and strength."

I also would like to point out it was not me removing sourced content and references, that were there for quite a long time, to simply serve my own like or dislike of any one term. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

72, Thanks for joining the conversation, and I don't mean that as a dig. I'm not trying to have a pissing contest here, I'd like to see this article accurate, because I see it sourced a lot.

I'll give you my bottom line up front if you plan on breezing through what I write. I cannot refute that some people do refer to this series of motorcycles as muscle bikes. You cannot refute that they refer to them as naked bikes, or middleweights, or sport bikes, or standards. These all could inform the reader of what possibly defines this motorcycle. Because of that, I think the solution I most recently offered, by moving the definition "muscle" slightly later in the article in a list of possible categories. As I've been listening to people the past few days, I can see how someone might call the monster a muscle bike, so actually I'd want to see it included there. I firmly disagree that it should define this class/family of bikes as a whole.

If we look at internal consistency for Wikipedia here. The page on Types_of_motorcycles is where I'm looking at that definition for disproportionately high priority on power. Compared to motorcycles as a whole, only the premium top-tier monsters like the S4R or 1200 have any high horsepower ratings. 70 something is nothing compared to the 120 or so a Vrod makes (off the top of my head).

Compare the monster to bikes overall and 43hp isn't a lot. Lets look at closer analogs, take a Twin cylinder, naked sport bike like the SV650N putting out 70hp at the rear wheel with a 650cc engine. A 2007 Monster 695, with an additional ~50cc's makes 73hp. Neither of these are impressive, they're decent, sporty ish numbers.

if you look for the term Muscle bike, you just don't find the monster associated with it. When you look at shootouts, the Monster isn't included^[6][7]

Type in the phrase "naked bike". First result will usually contain the monster. ^{[8] [9]}

Regarding the Monster starting as a 888, I cited that, page 6 of the Ducati Monster Bible. The book explains it's origins as being inspired by a stripped down 888 built by designer of the Monster Miguel Galluzzi. Claudio Castiglioni saw this bike he made and asked to make a production machine. This is a book, written not by someone cranking out a magazine article but by someone thoughtfully researching the subject, which I think makes weigh more as a matter of authority on the subject. It should be pointed out in particular that the word "muscle" isn't used in the book a single time. It also gives more explatation on the name: ″The term 'monster' was derived from the Latin word 'monstrum.' referring to a divine sign, a prodigy, or something exceptional. Originally a monster was the sudden emergence of something extraordinary that violates nature and acts as an omen and warning to mankind.″. The book continues: ″Out of a combination of existing components Galluzzi cleverly created a naked and minimalist street bike, with all the eminent sporting credentials of a Ducati″

Apparently I've triggerd a few wiki faux pas. It wasn't my intent to just bully my way in. I'm learning the system, so I'd ask you to excuse me and maybe work with me. It's very frustrating to see someone jump on, erase your change and not explain why, despite trying to engage on the talk page before I did anything. I do understand this is your hobby and you've probably seen this a lot. But would you consider someone might know more about this specific model than you if it's where they specialize? I'm just trying to make the page better/more accurate.

^[10]

Mustangs6551 (talk) 18:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Look you appear to be running around in circles and constantly contradicting yourself. Stating on one hand it is a striped down sportbike and then on the other saying it is grossly under powered. And then trying to deduce facts simply from your own opinions. My stance comes from cited information in the article. You would appear to think that your opinion should matter more than cited information, I would point out to you this is not allowed and is just "original research" WP:OR. I believe you have not dismissed any of the facts I have already presented.

I would like to thank you for providing the link to the "Ducati Monster bible" it was a nice read. Of which they only sate they were inspired from seeing a stripped down 888. You should go to the 888 article and include that information along with the reference. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 21:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

At this point all you're doing is Ad Hominum attacks on saying I'm over emotional instead of engaging with the argument I'm making. People have biases on information. You're ignoring what I'm saying because YOU like the term Muscle, so how about we knock it off with that sort of talk and engage the actual argument being made. Saying something is not particularly powerful doesn't exclude something from being called a sport bike, the bike can be under powered but nimble and still called a sport bike. The term "muscle bike" requires high horsepower. We lack that on a lot of monsters. Source ^[11] after source ^[12] after source ^[13] after source ^[14] after source ^[15] reffer to the bike as a naked bike without ever mentioning the term muscle. Even the article from Torq that to you seems to be the final authority on defining the monster prefaces their use of the term "muscle bike" with the word "naked".

I am arguing against the cited information, because other information contradicts it, as does logic. The obvious solution, if you're not completely married to the term "muscle", is to describe it as broadly as possible as a motorcycle or maybe sportbike and then mention later on some of the categories the bike could fit into. This makes a lot of sense, particularly considering that the monster is a family of bikes, not one specific model (another edit I think that should be made to this page). And lets not act like I'm changing somehting that has always been written on this page, the edit that added the term muscle appeared a year ago.

You're also arguing that this bike has more in common with the Vrod than Street Tripple. I don't know how you could find yourself fit to write about motorcycles if you make a mistake like that. Mustangs6551 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your personal attacks speaks volumes. You have not produced anything to counter the in-depth multiple source reasoning I have provided. I can truly say I have no like or dislike of the term muscle bike. It is simply what the sourced content of the article would sermonize. Cheers -72bikers (talk) 19:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

so your position is if one source describes thing "X" as "A" and another source describes it as "B", we should leave it as described as "A" because that's what's on the page. Even if "A" could only practically describe some of "thing Xs". Do you not see the illogic? Do you even understand the point I'm making? Mustangs6551 (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I am admittedly new to editing, but I uploaded a photo of an S4R, which another editor just deleted shortly after my addition thereof to the Monster page. My question is simple: Why delete it? What is the standard for keeping vs. deleting?

Other than the fundamentals (meaning: the photo is a decent image, in focus, not altered or retouched, properly cropped, and there is no underlying copyright violation of the image (as I took it myself), etc.), I notice three basic things: (1) for the Monster to be such a popular and high-grossing bike for Ducati, its Wikipedia entry is fairly short, limited in substance, and lacks the wealth of photos etc. that many other bikes' pages have -- given that Wikipedia is supposed to be encyclopedic, more information, greater coverage of sub-models and specifications, engines, color schemes, etc. is therefore welcome, together with more visual support such as photos of various models for identification; (2) there is currently no image of this model of the Monster range (the S4R), so there is value in having it depicted, especially in the (rare) blue-and-white color combination; and (3) the user who deleted the photo has one of his own photos uploaded that forms part of the Monster article (namely the 1200 Monster).

I don't have an issue with the deletion per se (especially if its rationale is well-founded, or I am missing some major Wikipedia guidance here); I would just like to get some other editors' input on the reasoning for this edit / deletion, perhaps even the deleting user's own explanation for it?

Thanks. SeriousContributor (talk) 00:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)SeriousContributor

In general we look for the highest quality image for a model, properly framed and without pincushion, dirty lens, or other degradation to the image. Quality (prosumer/professional) equipment is preferred to cell phone imagers. We follow WP Automobiles standards which can be found here Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Minimum standards. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

"Muscle" is an opinion. It's relative. It depends a great deal on what your local region, your generation, your period in history, thinks of as a "normal" power output for a "normal" bike. It varies widely by market and over time. Some models of Monster that were made over the years can be said to have had a disproportionate amount of power, but not all, and not even that many. It's definitely a "standard motorcycle", and you can call it a "naked bike" if you prefer more esoteric terminology 9that cries out for a lot of unenlightening explanation), but not everyone calls it a muscle bike, and nobody can call all monsters muscle bikes. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Dennis, I guess you are in favor of this edit by an anonymous editor. Is there any motorcycle that in your opinion should be called a "muscle bike"? Should the section Types of motorcycles#Muscle bike even exist? ☆ Bri (talk) 02:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Bri I was the author of one of those edits changing "muscle" to "naked", I kicked off the RFC a couple of years ago that ended inconclusively. I've made an exhustive attempt above to show why the term "muscle" bike is incorrect. MOST Monsters would not fall under the category of Muscle Bike, certainly none of the Desmodue/2 Valve motored ones. I'd also like to highlight, that the main opponent to my changing the entry has since been banned from wikipedia for abusing the system. The one source used to call the Monster a Muscle Bike was a non motorcycle magazine that I would say was an exceptionally poor source. Regarding what could be considered a Muscle Bike, the Harley VROD and Yamaha VMAX are prime examples. Very powerful engines, lack of emphasis on handling. The --Mustangs6551 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I bought a load of UK magazines, mainly 1980 to 2004 a few years back. Looking at Motorcycle Sport and Leisure (which morphed from the 1962-originated Motorcycle Sport, a two-wheel companion to the four-wheel Motor Sport (magazine)) for September 2000 - the early days of internet and pre-Wikipedia - and the buyer's guide section lists the following as Muscle bikes:

The other categories are:

--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Does it list the Honda CB1300? I actually owned one in Japan. It’s sometimes listed as a muscle bike, e.g. by MCN. But contradicts our definition at Streetfighter (motorcycle) because it has both fairing and windscreen in the Super Bol d'Or variant, called "muscle tourer" by RideApart, yuck. My point is it’s going to be hard to make any cohesive definition that matches everyone's usage of the term. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Brian, it's listed as Honda CB1300SF X-11; the other multis are Suzuki 1200 Bandit, Kawasaki ZRX1100, Triumph Speed Triple, Yamaha XJR1300. It's the magazine's take on lumping together comparisons, without any axe to grind or point of view to make. I only listed the V engines similar to Ducati, although V Max was a four and IMO crossover with Cruiser.

I didn't include Hesketh Vortan, being a type of exotica, and also Laverda 750 Strike as I didn't know what it was! You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michel von Tell (2nd nomination). rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The Monster as a series of bikes has plenty of models that would fall well outside any reasonable "muscle" category(m620, m400, etec. 696), all of which aren't listed in this source. Given these examples that fall within the scope of this page, but outside the source,I think this source is insufficient to lable all monsters as "muscle bikes". Mustangs6551 (talk) 01:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)