Yamaha Crossplane Triple

[TRMN8TR]

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:

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!"

[h077504]

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, 360º then 2, 180º then piston 3, 180º and Piston 1 again. cus total firing degrees must be 720º.
i think 2 pistons 180º out and one 120º doesn't make sense.
firing order of piston 1, 180º then 2, 120º then piston 3, 60º 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 0º.

[Blinker]

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.

[pyroking339]

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

[s9pa]

First MV and now the Japanese !!! The Triple is getting less and less exclusive

[Bimoto]

Originally Posted by s9pa

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...

[sirhosis of deliver]

Just been reading this topic on the R1 forum. Many there dont seem to think its such a good idea. Scared of change anyone?

[MacBandit]

Yeah and everyone hated the crossplane R1 when it came out too. At least it's a true crossplane.

[sirhosis of deliver]

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?

[MacBandit]

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.