Road testers - Ducati UpNorth

Road testers
Simon Hargreaves
Age 34
Experience
Simon’s ridden
almost every new
bike in the last 10
years. He was at the
1992 launch of
Honda’s first naked
’retro’, the CB1000.
Britain’s most
experienced tester?
Tom Bedford
Age 26
Experience
As an experienced road
tester and former
racer, Tom has been
testing bikes for a
variety of magazines
for the last five years
You name it, he’s
toured, cruised and
raced the lot.
Jim Moore
Age 28
Experience
Road riding for more
than 10 years, road
testing for six years,
freelance tester Jim
recently swapped his
prized R6 for a
CRM250 to
preserve his
battered licence.
the test

WORDS BY SIMON HARGREAVES
PHOTOGRAPHY BY CHIPPY WOOD
Honda’s Blade-engined 900 Hornet, Triumph’s 955i-powered 2002 Speed Triple and
Ducati’s 916-driven Monster S4 – ultimate hooligans or ideal learner upgrades?
Honda Hornet 900
Triumph Speed Triple 955i
Ducati Monster S4
918cc, £6299
955cc, £7999
916cc, £7700
FireBlade motor in a
600 Hornet frame –
sounds like an explosive
combination of high
power and low weight.
On paper, anyway.
First ride December 2001.
The latest version of
Triumph’s Daytona
flagship race rep filters
down to an updated
version of the familiar
Speed Triple chassis.
First ride December 2001.
The legendary 916
motor lives on in
Ducati’s trellis frame
and big-name wheels,
suspension and brakes.
Latest version of a now
classic Ducati. Last
tested May 2001.
HONDA HORNET 900
the test
Price £6299 power 94.6bhp top speed 140mph (est)
Performance criteria for
the test are all marked
out of 20, making a
maximum possible 100.
ENGINE & GEARBOX
14
1998 Blade motor is
missing 20bhp at the top
end. It’s nippy and
responsive without being
memorable. Run forever.
Gearbox is good.
14
CHASSIS
Budget Honda is always
a notch above other
manufacturers’ budget
stuff. Brakes and
suspension work well.
16
VALUE
Compared to the Ducati
S4 and Triumph Speed
Triple, the Hornet is a
bargain.
12
FINISH
Honda quality inside let
down by suspect outside.
Chrome exhaust skins rust,
choke invisible, no
centrestand. Rear
mudguard rubbish – rider
gets sprayed up the back
with road crap. Messy.
IN THE DETAILS...
(from left): Hornet clocks are
clean and uncluttered and, er,
sorry, where were we? The 1998
Blade motor makes 94bhp as
reliably as only a 120bhp motor
can. As it happens, the 1994
Blade Nissin brakes also stop
the 194kg Hornet as effectively
as they do a 185kg FireBlade
COLOUR SCHEMES...
Silver, blue, black
88
IF HONDA SAID, at the start of Blade-mania in 1992, they
were making a streetfighter CBR900RR you’d have had a
coronary. The biggest bike manufacturer just built the most
exciting bike, so a naked version must be fearsome.
Maybe not. Experience says don’t get excited about
‘retros’ using up detuned stocks of yesterday’s sports engines
in budget chassis (early Bandit 1200s aside). They’re never as
mad as they promise. No, if anyone should get excited by
the Hornet 900, it’s Hornet 600 owners looking to trade up.
There’s much in the 900 they’ll find familiar, although
parts are different. The 900’s engine is a 1998 918cc in-line
four Blade with a crucial 20bhp lopped off the top (114bhp
to 94bhp), and fuel injection instead of carbs. The FireBlade
also contributes brakes, wheels and tyre sizes, but everything
B MARCH 2002
else is 600 Hornet-derived – frame is a reinforced version of
the 600’s steel spine, tank three litres bigger, seat 5mm taller,
weight up 15kg, wheelbase up 40mm and steering geometry
roughly the same. Insurance is a group higher and the asking
£1650 steeper at £6299 (cheaper than the Speed Triple or S4).
The bits are different, the philosophy’s the same: like the
600, the 900 is no brain-off shit-kicker but a simple, solid,
bike ideal for recent converts. Despite dimensional increases
over the 600 Hornet, the 900 is tiny (ladies and dwarves
form a queue). It looks it from behind, with VFR-ish waisted
rear end and twin understeat cans. It’s easily manoeuvrable,
with nifty steering and just-so throttle response. Engine
pick-up is sharp and efficient (almost too sharp, thanks to
enthusiastic fuel injection), the budget suspension is quality,
14
WOW FACTOR
The grey bike is uniformly
dull, but even the blue
ones fail to rescue the
Hornet from car park
obscurity.
and one-size-fits-all riding position perfectly placed for
optimum nipping in and out round town. Narrow bars are
low on style, high on convenience – they lower the Hornet’s
frontal area and don’t overstretch arms. This is good – wide
bars look cool but hurt on the road. The Hornet cruises at
100mph – Triumph’s Speed Triple is agony over 90mph.
To keep Horneteers from scaring themselves, the docile
Blade motor surfs through its neat gearbox with such
ruthless inconsequence it’s hard to imagine anything more
civilised and less memorable. There’s enough gearing to
overtake without changing down, but not the torquewrench of big-bore retros like Suzuki’s GSX1400 or the top
end zasp of Yamaha’s Fazer 1000. It leaves the Honda flat and
characterless – it could use the loopy powerband and sonic
booming of the new VFR800. As it is, the only way to make
the Hornet more user-friendly would be to include a free
chauffeur with every bike to ride it on your behalf.
The understressed engine will run forever, but finish is
poor – rust showed on the exhaust skins after a couple of
days. Less serious, but as annoying, is the inaccessible choke
mounted behind the cylinder block. It’d take Honda five
minutes to find elsewhere to put it. But that would be four
minutes longer than they took coming up with the idea of
the Hornet 900 in the first place. In the same way the
original FireBlade was a flash of unalloyed genius, the
Hornet 900 is a masterstroke of mediocrity, plugging a post600 Hornet, pre-FireBlade gap. A perfect upgrade for novice
bikers, but never did a bike more deserve to be painted grey.
70/100
TOTAL
It didn’t have to be a
nutter’s bike, but it could
have been a bit more
interesting. But no – the
sharp edges have been
filed, the point blunted.
Honda built the gun, then
to make it safe left out the
firing pin.
MARCH 2002
B
89
DUCATI MONSTER S4
the test
Price £7700 power 100.1bhp top speed 144mph
Performance criteria for
the test are all marked
out of 20, making a
maximum possible 100.
ENGINE & GEARBOX
15
100bhp 916-derived
effort, feels fit and
delivers Ducati-style
progress. Still a pain at
low rpm – so rev it more.
14
CHASSIS
Has the names, but just
because they work on a
996 doesn’t mean the
same goes for a roadster.
Too harsh for sitting back
and plugging around.
Brakes feel pants, too.
12
VALUE
Lots of money – nearly a
grand and a half dearer
than the Hornet, which is
a lot of money to pay for
character.
13
FINISH
Doesn’t ooze quality –
wouldn’t take too many
winters to rot the
downpipes, corrode the
banjo bolts, seize the
calipers, etc. Lots of
niggly places for crap
to build up, too.
IN THE DETAILS...
(from left): clocks are almost as
dull as the Honda’s, but at least
the flapping flyscreen takes your
mind off them. Meanwhile, the
Sachs shock is buried behind a
maze of carbon fibre, chromemoly trellis frame and alloy
hangers. And the brakes might
be Brembo, but road salt is still
road salt
COLOUR SCHEMES...
Black or red (that’ll be
red, then)
90
THE MONSTER concept began in 1993 as an air-cooled,
two-valve 900SS with no fairing, flat bars and lots of attitude.
For seven years it stayed the same, bar minor styling, engine
and chassis mods (and fuel injection in 2000). Then, in
2001, came the S4 label and an overhaul. Ducati repeated
the trick – they de-faired their outdated sports tourer, the
916-engined ST4, and styled-up what was left with big-name
chassis parts: 43mm adjustable usd Showa forks, adjustable
Sachs rear shock, Brembo brakes, lightweight five-spoke
wheels and more carbon than you can shake a hugger at.
If the Hornet is a logical progression from its smaller,
600cc bro, the 900 Monster is an illogical progression from
the 750cc and 620cc Monsters. Where the Hornet is so
mainstream it’s drowning, the Monster is ankle-deep in a
B MARCH 2002
cultural backwater, the choice of connoisseurs and perverts.
Where the Hornet has one annoying flaw, the Monster has
many. And where the Hornet is reliably dull, the Monster is
either entertaining or irritating, depending on your point of
view (ironically, Bike criticised the S4 in our first test, May
2001, for having less character than the original Monster).
This is not a bike for novices. They’d hate the snatchy
low down V-twin power that makes dawdling a pain, and the
weight of the controls – clutch is too heavy, brakes too sharp
for newbies. And they wouldn’t understand why the mirrors
blur, and even less why the restricted steering lock gives the
Monster a planetary orbit-sized turning circle. There’s no
sidestand lug either, so you can’t get a foot on it to flick it
down. In fact, you don’t have to be a novice to find this
WOW FACTOR
15
More stand out than the
Hornet, less than the
Speed Triple. Doesn’t look
as good as the old
Monster, we reckon. The
916 engine was never built
to be beautiful to the eye.
distressing. I’ve been riding for 20 years and it bugs me.
But senior ed Hugo, whose long termer this S4 is, has
ridden for centuries and loves the Monster. “It’s a top
motorcycle,” he says. “It’s so much fun, it’s all I want.”
What Hugo likes is involvement with a bike which goes
beyond getting on, pressing the starter, riding it, and getting
off. And the S4 delivers. From ignition to engine stop, you’re
intoxicated by a visceral overload of hot metal and oil,
bellowing airbox and exhaust, and rough-hewn V-twin
vibes. The S4’s 100bhp comes from a different place to the
Hornet’s 96bhp. The Honda has a smooth, innocuous rush
of power, the Ducati makes you feel every suck squeeze bang
blow. The riding position is odd, too – the raised clip-ons tilt
the rider into an aggressive, forward-leaning stance,
shoulders spread and feet tucked neatly below. It’s not
uncomfortable but it’s different. With the flyscreen, it makes
the S4 the most comfortable long distance, or at speed.
Handling is different, too. The Hornet demands no work
– every operation is preordained, directed by remote control
from Japan. The Italians just get on with it – on stock
settings the S4 doesn’t have the ride quality of the Hornet.
Ducati sets up its bikes, from race reps to sports tourers, for
bum-smooth racetracks. If you want them to work anywhere
else, tough – that’s what damping screws and ride height
adjusters are for. In the meantime, feel the bumps and hear
the engine bark under pressure – this is real motorcycling,
not for beginners. Yes, an imperfect upgrade for novice
bikers, but never did a bike more deserve to be painted red.
69/100
TOTAL
Too charismatic to score
highly – you have to be a
Ducatiphile to get the
point, and if you aren’t
besotted with the marque
you’re unlikely to be
converted by the S4. If,
on the other hand,
you’re sure you want
a naked Ducati, you’ll
love it to bits.
MARCH 2002
B
91
TRIUMPH SPEED TRIPLE
the test
Price £7999 power 112bhp top speed 125mph 0-60mph 4.2s
Performance criteria for
the test are all marked
out of 20, making a
maximum possible 100.
ENGINE & GEARBOX
16
The best here. Pulls from
low down, stacks of midrange, good top end. All
this and character too.
15
CHASSIS
Not as nimble as either
the Honda or the Ducati,
but not exactly a bus.
Suspension gives a better
ride than the Ducati, and
the brakes are stronger.
13
VALUE
The dearest here, by a
few hundred quid –
worth being easier to use
than the Ducati and more
interesting than the
Honda? You could do a lot
of modifying to the
Honda for £1400.
14
FINISH
Triumph paint scores
highly, while nothing
rot-worthy of note.
IN THE DETAILS...
(from left): now this is more like
it. Triumph nick the clocks
straight off the 955i Daytona
and, rather than change the logo
on the clocks, rename the Speed
Triple instead. The engine is the
most visually stimulating of the
bunch, even with the Valentine’s
Day massacre-style bolts
COLOUR SCHEMES...
Blue, pink
92
OF THE THREE bikes here, the Speed Triple is the cheekiest.
If the Hornet is a Blade engine in a 600 Hornet chassis, and
the S4 a restyled ST4 minus the fairing, then the Speed Triple
is built on the Daytona 955i production line right up to the
very end, when Triumph fits a fairing and clip-ons to one
bike and bug-eye lights and flat bars to another.
It’s so close I’m surprised Triumph doesn’t just sell the
Daytona with a quick-release fairing and a conversion kit.
Take around 30 seconds to swap them – bingo! Two bikes for
the price of one. The seat unit, seat, frame, subframe, brakes,
engine casings, major engine components, front wheel,
forks, shock, mudguard, tank, even the new clocks are a ripoff (the digital speedo looks disembodied, yet strangely
pleasing, hovering above the pair of headlights). The factory
 MARCH 2002
can’t even be arsed to remove the 955i logo from the tacho –
it’s cheaper to stick the number in the bike’s name instead.
The only substantial differences between the two are the
Triple’s single-sided swing-arm (the stock Daytona has a
conventional swing-arm) and the Triple’s 112bhp compared
to the Daytona’s 130bhp (achieved mostly by dragging the
Daytona’s rev limit forward 1000rpm). And it doesn’t matter
a fig, because those changes are enough to make the Triple
completely different in character to anything else in
Triumph’s range. Or in anyone else’s, for that matter.
The Speed Triple’s motor dominates the bike in a way
neither the Hornet’s nor the S4’s do. It’s the most powerful
of the group, with gargantuan mid-range and a totally
meaningless top-end rush, but what really sets it apart is its
16
WOW FACTOR
The best here again. Bugeye lights are a turn on, the
imposing motor gives the
bike a retro-industrial look.
Whatever that is.
sheer effortlessness. It’s so potent and smooth it’s possible to
spend many miles in fifth gear, thinking you’re in top. It’s
not built to be seen – like the 916-engined S4, the motor
looks best hidden behind a fairing – but the machinegunned bolts in the casing look funky enough.
As does the other main styling feature of the bike, the
headlights. They’re cool – they work well, but the best thing
is you can see, in each chrome casing, a wide-angle reflection
of yourself as you ride. It looks like a mad, split-screen onboard video, and it takes your mind off the pummeling your
upper body and neck is taking from the lack of fairing. A tiny
fly-screen is available – spare your osteopath and get it. The
immense lack of wind protection seriously restricts the
Triple’s usefulness.
The riding position doesn’t help. The high, wide bars are
a long way from the seat, stretching arms so it gets harder to
use the clutch and throttle as you go faster. Once you get up
to around 100mph, it actually becomes difficult to roll off
the throttle.
Given how close the Speed Triple’s chassis is to the
Daytona 955i, it’s no surprise to find it handles. Brakes are
class, steering neutral (but remote – the wide bars take away
the immediacy), suspension controlled and supple. It works
as well as the bike needs, without intruding.
All these things make the Triple a suitable bike for new
riders, a bit of a tool for serious riders and a good-looker for
driveway queens. Never did a bike more deserve to be
painted any colour you like. As long as it’s not pink.
74/100
TOTAL
Good engine, good
chassis, good looks, no
bad habits. Only the high
speed wind protection
limits its usefulness, but
it’s a naked bike
ferchrissakes.
MARCH 2002
B
93
70/100
69/100
Honda CB900 Hornet
Ducati Monster S4
Triumph Speed Triple 955i
£6299
140mph (est, weather prevented testing)
45mpg
31mpg
37mpg
918cc, four-stroke, 16v,
dohc, in-line 4
71 x 58mm
10.8:1
fuel injection
6-speed, chain
steel box-section spine
43mm telescopic fork
none
rising-rate monoshock
preload
2 x 296mm discs/4-piston calipers;
240mm disc/1-piston caliper
Wheelbase
Rake/trail
Dry weight (claimed)
Seat height
Fuel capacity
Warranty/mileage
NU insurance group
Service intervals
Michelin Hi-Sport
120/70-ZR17; 180/55-ZR17
1460mm
25°/98.7mm
194kg
795mm
19 litres
24 months/unlimited
15
4000 miles
£7700
144.0 (figures from May 2001 test)
47mpg
35mpg
42mpg
916cc, dohc, 8v,
90° V-twin
94 x 66mm
11:1
fuel injection
6-speed, chain
chrome moly steel tube trellis
43mm usd telescopic fork
preload, compression, rebound
rising-rate monoshock
preload, rebound, compression
2 x 320mm discs/4-piston calipers;
245mm disc/2-piston caliper
Pirelli Dragon Evo
120/70-ZR17; 180/55-ZR17
1440mm
24°/n/a
192kg
802mm
16 litres
24 months/unlimited
13
6000 miles
£7999
125.2mph
42mpg
32mpg
39mpg
955cc, dohc, 12v,
in-line triple
79 x 65mm
12:1
fuel injection
6-speed, chain
tubular aluminium perimeter
45mm telescopic fork
preload, compression, rebound
rising-rate monoshock
preload, compression, rebound
2 x 320mm discs/4-piston calipers;
220mm disc/2-piston caliper
Bridgestone BT-010
120/70-ZR17; 190/50-ZR17
1429mm
23.5°/84mm
189kg
815mm
21 litres
24 months/unlimited
14
4000 miles
PRACTICALITIES
Spares prices
Indicator
Mirror
Tank
£50.30
£33.87
£414.21
£13.71
£81.07
£833.07
£19.73
£51.82
£735.30
Living with it...
No centrestand, good mirrors, poor finish
on chrome exhaust skins prone to rust.
Relatively easy to clean engine. Will run
forever on minimal maintenance.
No centrestand, mirrors vibrate, steering
lock limited, sidestand hard to use, comes
with immobilising ignition. Needs regular
servicing by a sympathetic dealer (tea and
biscuits).
Vibey mirrors are a pain above certain
revs. Nuts and bolts have to be watched or
Loctited. Takes a lot of looking after but
the rewards are worth it.
And your pillion...
Big, wide grab rail, comfy seat and low
pegs make the Hornet a sensible two-up
choice. Will give the bike a tendency to
wheelie, though.
Pillion seat narrow, grab rails under the
seat on the subframe at each side. Short
trips only.
Is positioned nicely. The pegs are okay, but
there’s no grab rail and the extra weight of
an average weight pillion messes up the
handling too much.
Price
Top speed
Fuel consumption Best
Worst
Average
Engine
Bore/stroke
Compression
Fuel system
Transmission
Frame
Front suspension
Adjustment
Rear suspension
Adjustment
Brakes front; rear
Tyres front; rear
the test
74/100
Road testers say...
Honda CB900 Hornet
Simon Hargeaves
(above): in a rarely-seen, superstitious
biking ritual, Tom, Jim and Simon swap
leather jackets
(below): the quantity of filth gatheredyby
a five-minute, cross-fen, mid-winter jog
has to be seen to be believed. Half of it
ends up sprayed across the rider’sback
back– –
the Honda needs a longer rear mudguard
d
or a wider numberplate
(bottom): unlike Honda’s previous bigbore naked effort, the CB1100X, the
Hornet has unlinked brakes. Which
means you can misbehave
Tom Bedford
Ducati Monster S4
Jim Moore
Freezing weather conditions prevented top speed testing and optimum acceleration figures. Data is only comparative to this test.
The Hornet’s 94bhp – a mere shadow of the
125-odd bhp the engine is capable of – is
roughly the same shape and size as a CBR600,
only 3000rpm down the rev range. The
Monster is a bit more frisky, with a steep
bulge at 6500rpm and a good peak. But the
Speed Triple aces the lot, with 112bhp.
Thankfully it’s not all top end – if it was, the
Triple would be fairly useless because it has
the worst high speed riding position (excellent
for cruising, though). But the Triple is big in
the mid-range too – not fat, you understand,
but cuddly.
The S4 is my least favourite because I think Ducati V-twins don’t work
in anything other than sportsbikes. They’re too lumpy at anything less
than full bore. Riding position feels odd too. I can’t split the Hornet
and Speed Triple. I like the Hornet for ease of use – perfect for a
novice – but a bit bland. But the Speed Triple is more exciting and has
quirky styling. It’s a tough choice.
The Honda’s the most useful of the three, but also the most bland. It’ll
sell well, though. My heart sides with the Triumph, which is the most
rewarding to ride. A great road bike which would be even better with
a screen. Then there’s the S4. I make no secret of my liking for Ducatis
– to me they’re more than bikes, they’re an experience. And the S4 is
the best experience offered by a Monster yet.
Triumph Speed Triple 955i
All prices are on-the-road, including the pre-delivery inspection (PDI), number plates and a year’s tax
Dyno graphs explained
The Hornet is a good bike, which is fine except we’ve come to expect
great bikes from Honda – VFR800, Blade, CBR600, etc. It actually has
less attitude than a 600 Hornet and is more like an overgrown CB500.
The Ducati is too specific to have mass appeal, but if you like naked
V-twins, this is the one. The Speed Triple, though, combines the best
of both character and usability. At a price.
 Honda Hornet 900
94.6bhp @ 8840rpm
60.9lb-ft @ 7620rpm
* Refer to our insurance ready reckoner on p157 for a
rough guide to the cost of insuring these bikes with
Norwich Union.
 Ducati Monster S4
100.1bhp @ 8440rpm
64.9lb-ft @ 6870rpm
 Triumph Speed Triple
112.6bhp @ 9450rpm
66.9lb-ft @ 7840rpm
* Bikes are measured on BSD’s
fantastic Dynojet dyno using the
EEC power standard
 On all our road tests and European adventures,
we’re covered by RAC breakdown and European
assistance. Phone 0990 722722.
 Motohaus Marketing for Nady MRC-11 Radio
Communicators (01256 704909).
 BSD Motorcycle Developments (01733 223377).
“
verdict
B
AS USUAL THESE DAYS you can’t buy a bad bike, you can only buy the wrong one. The Hornet, Speed Triple and
Monster S4 are the right bikes for the right people – and the Hornet will be the right bike for more of the people,
more of the time. It’s easy to use, easy to run and the least intimidating. Perfect for novices or casual bikers, it also
costs a packet less than the other two. The Ducati Monster S4 is the hardest to use, the most time-consuming to run and has
enough quirky bits to fill a big box marked ‘Quirks Only’. People with patience call this character. People who just want to ride
and not worry about it will find the S4 irritating.
The Triumph is between the extremes – more funky than the Honda, less annoying than the Ducati. The engine is beefy,
the handling reassuring and the riding position purpose-made for preserving your licence (fine up to 90mph, intolerable over
it). Only the price is a downer – it’s way too rich, and instantly excludes it for most people. And once you‘ve added
the list of extras (most of which other manufacturers fit as standard) you‘re looking at the best part of £8000,
almost two thousand pounds more than a Hornet.
”