Yamaha Crossplane Triple - Page 8 - Triumph675.Net Forums
Home Forum Browse Members Calendar Register Today!  
New Posts Faq / Help? XBOX Live Modifications Classifieds
   
Not A Member Yet? Register today and become part of the community.
Go Back   Triumph675.Net Forums > Daytona 675 & Street Triple 675 Global Forums > News, Announcements, Tests and ride reports

News, Announcements, Tests and ride reports any and all 675 ride experiences and news

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10-09-12, 07:41   #71
TRMN8TR
Senior Member
 
TRMN8TR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Mentor, OH
Posts: 1,810
Thanks: 15
Thanked 54 Times in 32 Posts
Default

I know I'm a day late and a dollar short, but I just read through all this, and had to add...proof that the term "Crossplane" is just a marketing term Yamaha is using:

Quote:
When asked what is the “crossplane concept”, Senior Executive Motorcycle Business Operations, Kunihiko Miwa responded, “It is the philosophy where “crossplane” means the kind of torque character that gives riders the exact torque they want when they need it”.
So in Yamaha's eyes, a 120* triple can still be a crossplane engine because it delivers the torque we want, when we need it. It has nothing to do with "crank lobes" or "crank journals" or whatever you might call them in this 3 cylinder engine. Do you think the average rider has a clue what you guys are arguing about? Nope. They'll just hear "crossplane" and think "Wow, thats what the R1 has too and I hear its sweet! I better get me one of these crossplane R6/Rwhatever triples!"
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 10-09-12, 09:34   #72
h077504
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: taipei
Posts: 1
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

it is possible the crank pins will be one pair at 180 degrees and the other one at 0 degrees?
the firing degrees and the order wil be piston 1, 360 then 2, 180 then piston 3, 180 and Piston 1 again. cus total firing degrees must be 720.
i think 2 pistons 180 out and one 120 doesn't make sense.
firing order of piston 1, 180 then 2, 120 then piston 3, 60 and Piston 1 again can't let piston done all 4 stroke.
for the 180-180-180 crank I'm thinking that would require one counter balancer to balance the piston at 0.
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-12, 20:38   #73
Blinker
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 51
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

You guys should get out more. Or at least around!

http://ashonbikes.com/content/yamaha...-plane-concept

Be sure to click the forum link at the bottom of the article.

I'm thinking this very likely IS the next R6 motor.
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-12, 22:58   #74
pyroking339
Senior Member
 
pyroking339's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Ann Arbor, MI
Posts: 937
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

As I understood it when it came out, the crossplane R1 crank design was intended to smooth the inertia of the moving parts in the engine and smooth the angular velocity of the crank, over the cycle. The resulting more constant angular velocity of the crank makes the force powering the wheel smoother and more constant. The smoother force output has smaller peaks of force that the tire has to manage. The peaks are the point where the tire begins to slip when on the edge of the tire's traction, so lower, smoother peaks means more traction when putting down power.

Applied to a triple, this is definitely marketing. Making a triple with anything other than a 120 crank would be a lot heavier to balance among other things. Maybe they came up with something awesome that none of us are great enough to think of, but probably not. They're jealous of our style.

aand I just realized all of that was covered in the linked articles

Last edited by pyroking339; 10-18-12 at 23:10. Reason: derp
Status: Online
 
Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-12, 09:52   #75
s9pa
Junior Member
 
s9pa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Huskers' Nation
Posts: 117
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default Ruined ride .... :angry:

First MV and now the Japanese !!! The Triple is getting less and less exclusive
__________________
-- Never ride faster than your guardian angel can fly.
-- Got a $5 head? Get a $5 helmet.

-------------
| 08 D675 |
-------------
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-12, 11:01   #76
Bimoto
Member
 
Bimoto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 276
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by s9pa View Post
First MV and now the Japanese !!! The Triple is getting less and less exclusive
You'd think... but MV made a triple from 1966-1974, Kawasaki from 1969-1980, Suzuki from 1971-1977, and Yamaha 1976-1981.

So... MV and the Japanese were doing it long before Hinckley Triumph was.

If you wait long enough, everything comes back into fashion...
__________________
ATGATT saved my life.
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-12, 00:51   #77
sirhosis of deliver
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sunshine coast Australia
Posts: 428
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default

Just been reading this topic on the R1 forum. Many there dont seem to think its such a good idea. Scared of change anyone?
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-12, 01:10   #78
MacBandit
Senior Member
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,345
Thanks: 1
Thanked 64 Times in 60 Posts
Default

Yeah and everyone hated the crossplane R1 when it came out too. At least it's a true crossplane.
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-12, 01:20   #79
sirhosis of deliver
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Sunshine coast Australia
Posts: 428
Thanks: 1
Thanked 3 Times in 1 Post
Default

I just dont understand it though. People complain over there that the R1 is too heavy and bulky, yet wont embrace technology that will help to reduce engine weight and size.

Others see it as a step backwards because they dont think a triple can make enough peak HP ( which is so important apparently) to rival the front runners of the superbike class. Maybe not as a 1000cc bike but with a capacity of 1100/1125cc or there abouts I cant understand why it wouldnt be a viable option?
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Old 11-03-12, 01:23   #80
MacBandit
Senior Member
 
MacBandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 9,345
Thanks: 1
Thanked 64 Times in 60 Posts
Default

It's not really going to help with weight and power should be about the same as the R1. Remember the R1 lost peak power when they went to crossplane. I think people are worried they are going backwards again. The weight issue is the stupid exhaust systems all brands have to carry now to be compliant. They're all heavier then they use to be just some are better liars with their specs.
Status: Offline
 
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump





Forum SEO by Zoints
Copyright 2009 TRIUMPH675.NET Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Motorcycle News, Videos and Reviews
Honda Grom Forum Harley Davidson Forum Honda 600RR Kawasaki Forum Yamaha R6 Forum Yamaha FZ-09 Forum
1199 Panigale Forum Roadglide Forum Honda CBR1000 Forum Vulcan Forum Yamaha R1 Forum Yamaha R3 Forum
Ducati Monster Forum Harley Forums Honda CBR250R Forum ZX10R Forum Star Raider Forum Yamaha Viking Forum
Suzuki GSXR Forum V-Rod Forums Honda Shadow Forum Kawasaki Motorcycle Forum Star Warrior Forum KTM Duke 390 Forum
SV650 Forum BMW S1000RR Forum Honda Fury Forum Kawasaki Versys Forum Drag Racing Forum Ducati 899 Panigale Forum
Suzuki V-Strom BMW K1600 Triumph Forum Victory Forums Sportbikes BMW NineT Forum
Volusia Forum BMW F800 Forum Triumph 675 Forum MV Agusta Forum HD Street Forum Suzuki GW250 Forum
Yamaha Motorcycles Victory Gunner Forum Honda Vultus Forum HD LiveWire Forum