Talk:Ducati 848

Clarification on 95/1/EC

Clarification was requested regarding reference to 95/1/EC. This European Directive stipulates test method, measurement and reporting standards on the maximum design speed, maximum torque and maximum net engine power of two or three-wheel motor vehicles. The directive is very detailed, it's referenced and included in the article. The politics are on the first few pages, the enineering detail is really in the annexes. (So read beyond the much protested article 6 authorizing EU member states to ban bikes above 74kW (100 PS); many countries and regions kindly swapped that for a steep increased taxation on 74kW+ bikes). The reason this reference is inserted is that Ducati's power and torque figures are claimed according to this measurement standard. For example "Max power at crankshaft (95/1/EC), kW/HP: 103 kW/140 HP at 10,500 rpm" from the 2011 EVO manual . Other power/torque numbers were previously mentioned in this article without making any reference to the measurement standard, sourced unclear. Take the Don Canet world exclusive first test in CycleWorld, quote from the article: "We obtained the very first EVO-spec bike to arrive stateside and promptly put it through our full street and track test regimen. Strapped to CW's Dynojet dyno, the EVO produced 118.5 rear-wheel hp, a mere 1.5-pony increase over the 848 we tested this past year. While engine performance fell short of what we had anticipated, the EVO still outmuscles .... ". We can not expect full power from a brand new bike out of the crate: 95/1/EC stipulates (p27) that the engine must have been run in in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. For this model that is: max 6000 rpm first 1000km on roads with bends and hills / maintenance incl oil & filter change at 1000 km / as of the oil change : max 7000 rpm up to 2500rpm. Ducati does supply at times their bikes for testing prior to completing run in cycle : 600km on the odo for this Italian plated Multistrada V4 test in Belgium by a Dutch reporter (https://testmotor.nl/2021/test-2021-ducati-multistrada-v4s). Maybe CycleWorld did run-in the engine for 2500km before the dyno test, they do not mention. Alsothey did not convert the rear wheel power measurement to crank according to the 95/1/EC correction factors. A first small step is to include the measurement standard in the article, that is why it was added. It's also a good idea to verify manufacturers claims, they have been overly optimistic at times.

Monoblock brakes

The article had a paragraph discussing the inferior brakes vis-a-vis the 1098, which has been deleted. 848 Evo now has Brembo monobloc, I believe they are the same but don't have enough info (e.g. pre- and post-change model years) to clarify. — Brianhe (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Is orientation an Engine type - Ducati's V-twin or L-twin

The orientation of the Ducati cylinders : one forward and one upright makes that is commonly refered to as an L-twin to differenciate it's lay-out from a classic V-twin (with each cylinder making a 45° angle with the vertical axis in a V-shape. In early days of motorcycling racing air-cooled motorbikes, the L-twin layout assures the rear upright cylinder receives it's fair share of fresh cooling air as opposed to the V-twin configuration where the rear cylinder id cooled by the hot air that already went over teh front cylinder. Disadvantages also exist; most importantly the additional length of the engine block with the front cylinder sticking forward, makes thathe center of gravity is further backwards. Further explenations in the video below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axrN9zq-lq4

Wikipedia pages where the Ducati twin is referred to as an L-twin: Ducati L-twin Ducati 1198

also possible is the full description of the cylinder and crankshaft orientation: from Ducati: "Ducati is best known for high-performance motorcycles characterized by large-capacity four-stroke, 90° V-twin engines,[14] with a desmodromic valve design.[15] Ducati branded his configuration as L-twin because one cylinder is vertical while the other is horizontal, making it look like a letter "L". "; adding that the Ducati's have transverse engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiel4 (talk • contribs) 21:56, August 25, 2021 (UTC)

Hey Ducati SportClassic. That's my old bike! Cool.

Anyway, who is this YouTube guy UmustBk1dd1ng? Videos like this aren't really reliable sources. Maybe it's useful to point to one and say, "this guy makes good arguments", but that's all. It's not a reliable source that carrys real weight. Here's a different random YouTube guy (also not a reliable source) dunking on Ducati for insisting on saying L-twin, for the reasons already mentioned: it is not an engine type. That's all. The BMW K100 has an inline-four engine. The fact that it is oriented on its side is important, and interesting, but the way you tilt an engine does not change what type of engine it is.

Of course engine orientation is important, for several reasons, especially cooling, center of gravity, and general packaging issues. It is significant that Moto Guzzi places the cylinder heads sticking out in the air. It's significant that the crankshaft is oriented transverse or longitudinally: it profoundly affects the whole drivetrain, whether you can use chain or shaft drive and so on. It's all a big deal. But it's not a type of engine.

Like, if the L was backwards, with the vertical cylinder in the front, and the horizontal in the back, with the airflow totally blocked, would it still be an L-twin? Or a Ducati with fully enclosing bodywork, or water cooling? If the thing that makes it an L-twin is the cooling benefits, then if you take those cooling benefits away, it goes back to being a V-twin? Nonsense. Or consider a car: the airflow situation in a car with a longitudinal V6 or V8 is far different from a transverse. If the transverse engine in the Cadillac Allante V8 or Ford Taurus V6 was called something different, a new type of V6 or V8 just because they turned it sideways... well, everyone would laugh at them, right? Of course airflow changes, but it's the same engine type.

It's a marketing technique called product differentiation. A very good example in motorcycles is the monoshock. Nobody just calls their monoshock a monoshock. They all pretend they invented something nobody else has, Unit Pro-Link, Uni-Trak, Full Floater. Audio equipment notoriously always has a special button for some proprietary sound enhancement feature that only that brand has, where it always sound worse if you turn it off. What is it? Market differentiation. "It's not a car, it's a Volkswagen!" No, it's still a car. "It's not a V-twin, it's an L-twin!" No, still a V-twin.

We can sit here and walk through source after source, but were' going to see the same thing. They do not say "L-twin is a different engine type than V-twin". What they say is, "Ducati calls its 90° V-twin an L-twin becasuse... blah blah marketing marketing blah blah blah."

We can cite Ian Falloon, author of many Ducati books, for example "The new 750 V-twin(or L-twin as he called it)..."[23]. Or Falloon again "Knowing the 90° V-twin (he liked to call it an 'L-twin')"[24]. Kevin Cameron has no time for saying "L-twin".[25][26]. Or "Italian manufacturer Ducati makes a V-twin, but the cylinders are narrower ... degrees (an L-twin they say)"[27].

It's not wrong to say L-twin. An L-twin is equivalent to 90° V-twin. We can verify in many sources the terms are interchangeable. And many sources will verify that engine orientation and V-angle are important, and worth describing in an article about a motorcycle. We need to tell readers that when Ducati says L-twin they mean 90° V-twin. But it is false to tell readers L-twin is a distinct type, and it's confusing to throw the term around infoboxes whose purpose is to help readers understand. L-twin is confusing jargon that isn't necessary when we have a better known, and perfectly accurate term, V-twin. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

There is no one definitive authority that tells us what constitutes a seperate engine type. The Webster English dictionary does not contain the word V-twin. Encyclopedia Britannica's article on the subject is elementary and limited to "in-line" and "v-type". Books have been written, but just like our arguments, it's opinion with more or less weight. The purpose of Wikipedia must be to advance reader understanding on micro-topics that may only intrest a small population. The L-twin nomenclature has been adopted to a suficient degree around the world and in many international Wiki articles. Indeed, initiated by Ducati inventing the name. In a same way, VW named the VR engine whereas Britannica would say it's a V type: 2 rows of cylinders. The L-twin has merrit of existance as a specific execution of a V-twin; it inuitively tells you the orientation and the 90° angle. More confusing definitions have made it into acceptance like the "flat-four" - BMW's K100 is a flat four but the term seems reserved for boxers by general acceptance. Ducati did not copyright L-twin, so other may follow. Nobody did. Ducati's marketing team will not insist: their latest Panigale L-twin is called "V2" and it looks fantastic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiel4 (talk • contribs) 20:16, August 27, 2021 (UTC)

So a lot to unpack here.

First, no, Wikipedia does not exist for the goal of advancing understanding of micro-topics. If you read things like Wikipedia:Fancruft or WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we notice that this encyclopedia barely tolerates enthusiast-only detail. It isn't necessarily deleted on sight, but it has to take a back seat. Wikipedia is written for the general audience. See WP:AUDIENCE, WP:OBVIOUS, and MOS:LEAD. The purpose of Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:Purpose, among other places. "The goal of a Wikipedia article is to present a neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge". The idea of existing mainstream knowledge is premised on the belief that knowlege exists. It's not just a bunch of opinions. Not necessarily Truth with a capital T, but knowledge. This encyclopedia rejects radical skepticism and presumes that knowledge, not mere opinion, exists. Maybe you disagree, but you can read for yourself, Wikipedia is built on the idea that there is such a thing as knowlege.

How do we do this? Read WP:WEIGHT. Take for example the Featured Article Climate change. Wikipedia does not say man made climate change is a matter of opinion. It's a fact. Why does Wikipedia say that? Again, read WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE. Or look at the Featured Articles Pluto and Definition of planet. Pluto is not a planet. Fact, not opinion. Do you see where this is going? Refer again back to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:VOICE and WP:FRINGE. What that tells us is that if I can cite dozens of examples of widely recognized experts such as Kevin Cameron, Mick Walker, Ian Falloon, L. J. K. Setright, and so on and so forth who very consistently tell us that L-twin is just a name Ducati uses for a 90° V-twin, I have satisfied Wikipedia's standard for WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. It is true that you can cite, or I can give you, citations of Mirco De Cet and Darwin Holmstrom[28] who will vouch for Ducati's claim that L-twin is a unique type. Which means you can maybe claim it's a significant minority point of view. If it was a WP:FRINGE belief, like eating horse paste for COVID, we could ignore it. But I will grant you that it's a significant minority opinion, so it deserves mention. But not in an article's infobox or the intro section. It's fine to mention below the top of an article that Ducati claims "L-twin" is in a class all its own. But I can present a mountain of evidence that Ducat's self-serving claim is not widely accepted, even by stalwart Ducati fans like Walker or Falloon. I note you cite no evidence that anybody accepts "flat four" as the correct term for the K100 engine. That's why we would never call it that.

You don't have to read all the things I've linked to, but at least take the time to read the most important ones: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. These are core polices, and they're vital to anyone who wants to edit Wikipedia. It's OK do disagree; I disagree with Wikipedia all the time. But we also have to be realistic, and recognize that like it or not, these are the rules you have to work with if you want to edit Wikipedia. Keep in mind that lots of people got sick of these rules and created sister projects like Wikibooks or Wikinews so that they could create content within different boundaries. Those can be great options.

If you've read the Core content policies I'm pointing to here and you still want to push this, then we should initiate an RfC with other members of the Motorcycling and Automobile WikiProjects, to see if there is consensus for treating L-twin as a type of engine. But please do the reading first. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

That's a well built and balanced argumentation Mr.Bratland. I'll rest my case realizing the is more homework to this. L-twin is not an engine type... while I remain in the camp of a silent significant minority. Thanks for all these insights, highly appreciated. I assume it is OK to insert somewhere in the body text : Ducati branded this configuration as L-twin because one cylinder is vertical while the other is horizontal, making it look like a letter L. For what it's worth: I would never call the K-100 engine a flat four either. It was meant to provoke thought that an engine type name like "flat four" refers to orientation and count only, leaving ambiguity at first sight as to the number of cylinder rows. Our significant minority is of the wrong impression that a V-type engine refers to orientation as well. Closing the discussion on this 848 page, I now notice there is a 2008 discussion on Talk page of Ducati L-twin engine with remarkable similatities. I do not mind if all the above is teleported to over there, if that is done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michiel4 (talk • contribs) 19:44, August 28, 2021 (UTC)

Excellent. Expanding coverage of this is a great idea, both on this article and others. Keep in mind that it's OK if we repeat the same information across multiple articles, such as here and on Ducati itself, and Fabio Taglioni and Ducati L-twin engine. How and why Ducati uses this terminology reflects on the company itself, and Taglioni as a personality. I know there are books and articles about Ducati's company culture, and the dedication to particular design choices (desmo, L-twins, trellis frames) is worth looking at, and it's really what an encyclopedia is about. How factoids fit together with each other and the world at large. Wikipedia:Summary style is a good overview on how we repeat summaries of the same information in various articles while presenting it in depth in the topic's main article. I'd go ahead and expand and grow articles now and later on stand back and see how they look as a whole, and only then prune back anything that is excessive. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)