http://images.paultan.org/2009/maserati-250f-diagram-large.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kptyson/232199490/sizes/l/

to me, functional art, motorbikes and architecture, are contrived if they don’t respect the nature of the materials used. we can see this in F1. F1 cars are art, but only partially because of the creativity of a designer. the purpose, pushing the envelope of G’s and speed, dictates the purity of the implementation, which in turn, dictates it’s design and only when the designer finds an honest way to use the materials and maximizes their desired properties does engineering become art.

CF in trellis form is not CF’s most efficient shape (weight vs stiffness) and therefore NOT honest to CF’s nature! the same goes for steel frame buildings skinned over in brick to make it look like a solid brick building, but it is not solid brick, its load bearing core is steel, brick is just a facade. and while both may be lovely to behold in their final forms, they lack a purity of purpose and therefor are contrived and less appealing.

now if you ask me, isn’t the DB6 SL magnificent? well, yes it is a technical marvel, but so are breast implants, but i rather always have the real thing.

Reply to comment:
Someone at Ducati once said about the air vs water cooled engine in the HyperMotard, it is up to the artist/designer to create and it is up to the engineers to make it work. So goes the trellis vs box designs. It will be interesting to see how all this carbon fibre craze evolves. Wonder how it looks after sitting in an old barn for
for 50 years. What a find that will be for some future motorsickle nut.

however, Carbon Fiber (CF) is structurally and materially different than Ti or CoMoly. My gut tells me, as lovely as this is to behold, that using CF would dictate a different structure than a trellis frame. a trellis space frame is appropriate for metal, but a twin spar, as ugly as it is, is the correct design for structural CF in frames. i mean, just look at the GP10, Ducati did not make a CF trellis version of the GP9 frame, they completely redesigned the frame to take advantage of the CF’s properties. again, the DB6 SL is magnificent looking, the CF joints are works of art, but it feels “dishonest” to CF’s structural nature and therefor nags on my sub-conscience as one of those times, when an artist asked if they could and not if they should. i strongly believe that the ascetics of a design are dictated by the purity of the implementation of the materials. anything less misses the mark for me. which is why the D16RR and old TT1′s are so coveted. it all comes back to purity of purpose.

that said, the DB6 SL is a *very* light bike (348lb) and has a punchy, but manageable 80ft-lbs, 95hp engine that is intended for the street and the odd track day. I am 100% sure the DB6 SL CF frame design exceeds all the applications requirements, where the GP10 is simply too insane (forces wise) to take a risk with a traditional trellis frame in CF approach.

i love the DB6 SL, but don’t know if i could live with it knowing what i do about the materials and how they were employed. ok, yes i could! =)