Skip to content

Discuss This Video: Ducati Monster test - 796 v 696 v 1100 First rides & tests

You are in... Forums > Discuss This > First rides & tests > Video: Ducati Monster test - 796 v 696 v 1100

This is a discussion topic

This discussion topic is linked to an article on this site. You can navigate to the article by clicking on the article name in the first post.

Go to most recent reply




MCN  says:

Video: Ducati Monster test - 796 v 696 v 1100

Ducati's new Monster 796 aims to be novice friendly, but enough of a buzz for more experienced riders.    Find a Ducati Monster for sale To see if it's really the best of both worlds, we test it against the two extremes of monsterdom - the easy-going 696 and rorty 1100. // By use of this code snippet, I agree to...

Reply to this Topic  
  • Posted 5 years ago (16 June 2010 09:30)

Post a message in First rides & tests

Fields marked with an asterisk * are required


Please note. You cannot submit more than 4000 characters as a message.

Upload image(s) from your computer (up to 3 images)


Terms of use

Use of our community areas and forums is subject to important terms of use. By joining our community and using the features you agree to be bound by these terms. See terms of use below. 



Oct 07

Posts: 754

windy12 says:


the matcho best poser image choice.

Maybe it was the choice of roads they were on, I do not know.

However in almost every test it is either the best badge, biggest motor or best poser value which doesnt really say much about the bikes or the ability of the people riding them to explain the pros and cons.

They arent good tests, because anyone who can really ride a bike knows when they are on the right bike for the job and rarely it is the biggest bike, especially an unfaired one the best choice.  If they were all about 20 stone, carried a passenger and were riding in hilly Scotland or Wales I could see it.

The roads in the video did look of the sweeping sports bike suiting type but that is from very limited video. 

If the people doing these look back through the eyes of someone about to buy a bike, what did it tell them?  Not a lot.

Sorry always feel as if I am pulling these clips apart, but is someone thinking before they are started what they want to achieve and say at the end of the test?

A 250 would be better in town, we all know that, a 696 never out of town would be a waste of money, so that video sort of says the 696 is a waste of time?  Is it the same seat height, what is the weight of the 696 to 796 to 1100?  Tank range and so on.  If the 1100 is so much better than the 796 what is the benefit for how much extra money?


Reply to this Topic


Feb 10

Posts: 52

gizmorun says:

how the test should work

1 handling on a closed track (slow and high speed) 2 town riding 3 twisties (a+b roads) 4 motorway compatibility 5 long distance comfort 6 repair section (replace a wheel or forks or something to find out how hard it is to work on) 7 extras and after-market parts availability and range things a real motorcyclist is interested in and yes even small bikes should be put through the long dist comfort test and even big bikes should be put through the town riding section.

Reply to this Topic


Oct 05

Posts: 100

i feel the same as you windy

this test just seems to be a generic unthought of review without actually giving us the MCN reader a detailed reason of what is good and bad with each bike.

some things to think about or maybe add to your review

The tank range is the same on each bike tested  > worth mentioning ?

The insurance group of the 696 and 796 are the same > worth mentioning ?

What do the bikes feel like on a track ? maybe some "real life" realistic times between the models tested using the same rider for consistancey ?

I happen to know the seat design on the 696 and 796 has only just changed recently to provide a more comfortable ride on male and female private parts > worth mentioning ?

The 796 has a single side swingarm the same as the 1100 this is a big plus for pose value/ looks ect and a expensive mod that many 696 monster owners carry out maybe people might like to know about this in a review of this kind ? The 796 and 1100 benefit from this the 696 doesnt.

MPG/costs -  sounds boring but if you are testing models that are primarily the same model with the same kind of look why not let people know the in the pocket differences. Why not mention the difference in rrp and also the insurance differences with a set of quotes for average age ranges of bikers ?

The detailed diferences in components used would have been nice to know. Do the extras that the more expensive bikes have make big differences on the road ? Maybe a few tests to prove ? Does the extra cost of the 796 and 1100 offer real value for money over the lower 696 model ?

This review seems like a jolly good day out rather than a thought out comparitive model test
amateur at best sorry ........

Reply to this Topic


Jan 08

Posts: 274

aphmitchell says:

My prediction is...

That the folks at MCN will write... "thanks guys for your input but this is just a teaser, please buy this weeks MCN to find a full review of these bikes" Well they do that every other time they do a coffee table review. ;-)

Reply to this Topic


Oct 07

Posts: 754

windy12 says:

re: aphmitchell

funny I was thinking the same, but then you would give some insight and info which was not well known, not the conclusion surely???

'Watch Who wants to be a millionaire tonight, he nearly won the million if he didnt the question wrong about the... doesnt quite work!!

Reply to this Topic


Jun 10

Posts: 3

waste of time

Not a test, not a review. Just an invitation to buy the magazine.

Reply to this Topic


May 06

Posts: 92

rmbridge says:

Its free!

What do we expect??  This is not a pay website.  If you want in depth reviews then buy MCN or a bike mag!

Reply to this Topic


Feb 10

Posts: 3

joeyded says:

just kids pissin about on bikes,not one of the testers have any depth

Reply to this Topic


Jan 10

Posts: 5

fenigstein says:

What a waste of time

That was the most miserable review effort imaginable. I want my 3 minutes back. It provided no information, no opinions, and it wasn't even entertaining. Try harder or don't bother, MCN.

Reply to this Topic


Jul 08

Posts: 286

MCN LiamM says:

Thanks for the feedback

Probably worth responding to a few of the points raised...

Perhaps we need to think about whether using the word "test" in our videos, as there's always going to be a limit to how much info we can get into a 2 or 3 minute clip.

As aphmitchell says, what we try to do with these video mini tests is give readers the brief highlights of the full test (which as has been pointed out, can be found in the paper) - though you can also get full details of each of the bikes in our bike reviews section online if you want more detail for free.

We used a young rider who has just passed his 33bhp test as that is one of the types of rider the 696 and 796 are aimed at.

Jonnyconcrete - some good points that we should bear in mind about missing basic info (eg price and spec differences). You''ll find this covered in the review in the paper and in the bike reviews section, though the video would also have been improved with the addition of this info.


Reply to this Topic


Compare Insurance

Save money by comparing quotes. It's quick and easy

Motorcycles for sale


It's only £13.99 to advertise your motorcycle on MCN

Sell your Motorcycle

Motorcycle pricing tool

New! Find used bike prices