Yamaha Crossplane Triple

[sirhosis of deliver]

Yes, it lost peak HP but as a past owner of an 09 R1, I have to say that the engine was the best part of the bike. It had very tractable power everywhere, while earlier R1s ( or 04-07 at least) seemed to have a lot less useable midrange but a slightly higher peak number.

The different engine characteristics didn't seem to effect the success the bike has had as a platform for a race bike either.

People complain about it being porky though and the crossplane I4 is a relatively wide engine which in turn makes the current R1 really quite whide. The triple would give the appearance of being smaller and lighter even if the actual weight difference was minimal. That triple looks very compact from the pics I have seen.

The exhaust is a biggie weight wise but I still think that the engine could be realistically made lighter with one less cylinder too, depending on which way they go about it all. Obviously a low slung exhaust, ala Honda, BMW would also save a lot of weight and centralise it nice and low too giving the impression of less weight as well.

[phiglit]

Originally Posted by sirhosis of deliver

Yes, it lost peak HP but as a past owner of an 09 R1, I have to say that the engine was the best part of the bike. It had very tractable power everywhere, while earlier R1s ( or 04-07 at least) seemed to have a lot less useable midrange but a slightly higher peak number.

The different engine characteristics didn't seem to effect the success the bike has had as a platform for a race bike either.

People complain about it being porky though and the crossplane I4 is a relatively wide engine which in turn makes the current R1 really quite whide. The triple would give the appearance of being smaller and lighter even if the actual weight difference was minimal. That triple looks very compact from the pics I have seen.

The exhaust is a biggie weight wise but I still think that the engine could be realistically made lighter with one less cylinder too, depending on which way they go about it all. Obviously a low slung exhaust, ala Honda, BMW would also save a lot of weight and centralise it nice and low too giving the impression of less weight as well.

You want as much weight centered on the bikes natural plane of axial rotation and as close to it as possible if you want to "hide" it. Mounting a low exhaust on a bike designed for something like our under tail puts the weight below this plane and thus moves the center of mass to below the roll center of the bike, although you are usually shedding enough raw mass that the overall effect is hard to argue. Redistributing the center of mass would make the tip-in feel different, and not necessarily better.

Just cutting out the sand cast merge collector and exhaust valve + valve motor and welding in some actual tubing saves what, 6-8 pounds by its self? Then mounting up a lighter slipon so that the mass removed from below and above the plane of rotation is more equal. That would be my approach at least.

Not to mention he long-ish primaries and long secondary help even out the power delivery, and short pipes are harder to quiet down and need more baffling to keep below normal noise restrictions.

[Echo3Niner]

Don't know if this was posted before or not...

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2012/Dec/121206d.htm

[Cloud22116]

All I know is I want those rims.

[TRMN8TR]

Definitely, those look badass.

[i NO need hellmits]

No way this is awesome! I can't wait to see the finished product.


Sent from my iPhone using Motorcycle.com Free App

[Strider]

This is a great thread. I'm pretty lost but I'll sit in front of it for a while longer. Maybe put my beer down too, that could help.

Semi related question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big-ban...linder_engines

In the above article they state that...

"Because of a big bang engine's power delivery imbalance, there exists more vibration and stress in the engine. This imbalance can overwhelm the rear tire, and generally makes a slide harder to catch."

That being said they also state that the Desmosedici is a big bang as well. If I look at that firing order chart it doesn't seem to uneven to me, I mean it could be WAY more out of wack. Could this be a contribution factor in the current version of the bike being a POS? I'm aware there is plenty more going on to cause them problems but I wonder if this is something they will change at some point, if they haven't already.

"In 1997 Mick Doohan wanted to run a 180° screamer engine. HRC crew chief Jerry Burgess explains why: "The 180 got back a direct relationship between the throttle and the rear wheel, When the tire spun I could roll off without losing drive. The big bang has a lot of engine braking, so it upsets the bike into corners, then when you open the throttle you get this sudden pulse of power, which again upsets the suspension. Mick's secret is corner speed, so he needs the bike to be smooth and the 180 is much smoother."

[Tumbleweed]

While I do love the triple power plant, I don't want other companies catching on. The triple made Triumph unique in the modern sportbike world. Hopefully Yamaha will take it in a different direction and not directly compete with Triumph.

[Glocken]

Originally Posted by Tumbleweed

While I do love the triple power plant, I don't want other companies catching on. The triple made Triumph unique in the modern sportbike world. Hopefully Yamaha will take it in a different direction and not directly compete with Triumph.

well mv already made one purposely to go up against the triumph; wouldnt doubt if yamaha did the same.

i think the triumph is unique in the fact its a gear driven triple.

[DecepticonDon]

apparently not in the US yet. but looks alright.



http://www.motorbiketimes.com/news/makes/yamaha/yamaha-unveils-new-mt-09-sport-bike-after-dark-side-teaser-campaign-$21382390.htm