Motorcycle Forum

Motorcycle Forum (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/)
-   Ducati News (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/ducati-news/)
-   -   Ducati Announces New Monster 695 (http://www.motorcycle.com/forum/ducati-news/3340-ducati-announces-new-monster-695-a.html)

m_t_yeo 02-24-2006 03:09 AM

Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
 
So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked.



What could I do with the extra 10K that I saved in the first place ... hmmmmmm. How about I invest it! That way, on top of saving on gas, saving on insurance and saving on repairs, I'm also earning money at the same time with the difference in cost between the two bikes.



Now, this is assuming both bikes are paid in cash. What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest? Depends on what he gets, but he will have to sell for somewhat of a profit to just break even.



This is also assuming that Harleys will always have this kind of cachet in society. Their current resale value is based mostly on perception, not hard measures of value. They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes. Toyota's resale value used to be terrible, but the minute they started making better cars than US companies, their resale value started to climb and climb. Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?



Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right. It wasn't that far back, as another poster noted earlier in this debate, that you couldn't give Harleys away on his showroom floor. That was precisely because they had the public perception as unreliable. Once the gloss wears off for all the weekend riders getting Harley's for the image, then the resale value will tend to settle down to being based on quality. What happens then?




Vigor_Mortis 02-24-2006 03:35 AM

Re: Ducati Announces New Monster 695
 
What is cool about this new Monster is its motor and what changes will probably follow. As has probably been discussed here already, Ducati is in financial trouble. They posted another year of declining sales and financial loses. So they need to cut their costs as well as produce more sales to stay on stable footing.



This new motor is very close to the air cooled 800cc motor they already have. I'm guessing that the air cooled 695 motor will replace both the 620 and 800 air cooled lumps. Leaving only two air cooled motors in their line up, a 695 and the 992DS (And the 400 they build for some markets.)



Essentially Ducati could end up with two main engine platforms. The Testaretta series as found in the Superbikes. And the other family of motors that includes the ST3 desmotre, 992cc Dual Spark, and the 695. Hopefully with as much parts interchangability as possible, such as cases and such. This could boost efficiency.



The 695 ought to remain a fairly light motor and would be great to put into their Hypermotard bike, if they decide to make a smaller version. No it wouldn't be a true supermoto, but it would be a very fun bike to ride. They could put that motor into the Multistrada, giving the small Multi a healthy dose of power without a huge jump in price.




bigdx 02-24-2006 03:56 AM

Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
 
Zzzzzzzzzz

m_t_yeo 02-24-2006 04:11 AM

Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
 
Now this is the type of post I was hoping for.



The point I'm trying to get at is that decisons aren't always made on numbers. My Thruxton is like a Harley in a way; overpriced and underperforming as a rule. I paid 12K CAD and for that same 12K I could have gotten a Ducati S2R. The S2R woud have given me a modern take on the cafe racer styling, but would have been faster, cheaper on gas, better handling, etc. Similar styling, but a better bike all the way around for the same money.



When I went in, I wasn't fooling myself thinking that the Thrux was the best bike for the buck. I knew damn well I was paying the "nostalgia tax" in order to get the Ace Cafe look and that I was paying the "brand tax" by specifically buying a Triumph. What I was buying wasn't just the bike, it was the bike plus the whole scene that went with it, past and present. The S2R would never have filled my jones, not matter how much better on paper it was. Even the Kawa W650 just wouldn't have been the same as a 'real' Triumph, even though it is technically a more accurate replica of a T120 than my Thruxton will ever be.



That's why I paid more for the Thrux ... I was willing to pay extra to get the cafe racer look and the feel that went with the specific bike. I was just wondering if the Harley riders were willing to admit they had done the same thing to a certain extent. ;)

bigdx 02-24-2006 04:43 AM

Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
 
"So your bike is your method of investment? Come on, that's pretty lame and easily debunked."



Actually if you followed the thread you would have picked up that I enjoy riding at a moderate pace. The way Harley produce power makes them a blast to ride from 30 to 60 mph. Very few bikes can compete with a Harley to my requirements.



No bike I have owned or ridden has come close to giving me the pleasure that riding my Harley does, and I have been riding for almost 30 years. Nothing lame in that, no?



"What if the bikes are financed? In this case, the 10K I've saved is out earning me money while it is *costing* my brother money in interest. Will he make enough profit at time of sale to offset this interest?"



I finance all my bikes (and cars).



I max out my mortgage, buy the bike and dump the rest into a tax deferred bond (ee bonds or I bonds). Given low mortgage rates and my tax rate, my return on the bonds have always been higher than my total loan against my property. So upon sale of my motorcycle (or car) I normally break even or better as long as the vehicle has not depreciated too much.



You can argue that with a ricer I could buy more bonds, but with a real yield of only 2% or so, the sharp decline in value of a ricer it will end up costing me money. Harleys cost me nothing.



Not my fault you guys donÂ’t think smart when purchasing motorcycles.



"They aren't more reliable than Japanese bikes, don't get better mileage than Japanese bikes and don't perform better than Japanese bikes."



I have yet to suffer a breakdown, I do not pay for my own gas and no, based on my requirements they outperform anything from Japan by quite a margin.





"Can you say for certain that 5-6 years from now Harley's resale value will *still* be higher than a Japanese cruiser?"



Yes.



"Your whole argument is based on that happening, so I hope to heck you are right."



No disrespect, but you are ignorant of what my argument is.



Regards

bigdx

m_t_yeo 02-24-2006 05:13 AM

Re: It is simply a tussle between haves and have-nots.
 
I think your faith in Harley's resale value is pretty much unfounded. Have you seen how many of those suckers have rolled off of lots in the past few years and how many are showing up used? Eventually the yuppie dollars will eventually flow off to the next fad du jour and the law of supply and demand will take care of the rest.



Anyway, I dealt with resale value because that is what your last post seemed to key on. If you have other reasons for your purchase - and you do - then that is precisely why I was asking the question I was asking. To me, Harley's look like a bad purchase decision and I wanted to know why so many people go this route. Obviously, the yuppie dollars go for the hype, but real motorcycle people who ride a lot still buy Harley's and I wanted to know why that is. There must me *some* reason to buy them, right? Your riding style is a good reason.



Why do you stick with bonds? I use an Internet bank and my return on my savings account alone is 4.8%.

triumph900 02-24-2006 05:23 AM

Re: Ducati has a better performance/cc ratio then Buell
 
Damn, you beat me to it! Anyway, typical blue state shenanigans...

m_t_yeo 02-24-2006 05:24 AM

Re: Do you understand Jr high math? ratios? division?
 
"If you had an IQ larger than your penis size you would realize that the lower output per liter number would be indicative of a engine that produces higher torque."



Not necessarily. It could also mean a poorer overall powerplant that produces less torque as well as less hp. Lower the compression and both torque and overall hp are affected negatively, for example.



A better measure for this whole numbers argument would be the power to weight ratio and the Buell wins that, I think, even with a much larger powerplant weighing it down.

Z1chopper 02-24-2006 05:59 AM

Re: Ducati Announces New Monster 695
 
I wish I could see a bit better but I loved it. Especially with the laughing. You have to love it. It's just so much fun.

Steve

Z1chopper 02-24-2006 06:02 AM

Re: Ducati Announces New Monster 695
 
I was replying to this video.



http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...95294102598198





Steve



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:12 PM.