tripod_dave
member
Reged: 28/01/2007
Posts: 121
|
|
Just read the piece in this months Superbike and there is a throw away comment ".....disadvantages of the cross plane crank design (i.e. increased friction)".
Is that true?
Why would that be the case?
Surely there are the same moving parts all moving in the same way just at different times compared with a conventionally cranked bike?
The power reduction implied by the article: at 40% throttle its opened the butterflies to 48% - i.e. 20% less efficient than last years bike(!) simply can't be right.
If the design suffers from power sapping friction would Yamaha really use it in MotoGP when fuel is at a premium?
|
RevRun
addict
Reged: 21/09/2008
Posts: 495
|
|
Regardles of what some comic says the R1 bike sales and the WSB,BSB race results speak volumes.
|
KennyP
old hand
Reged: 16/11/2006
Posts: 786
Loc: Croydon via Brussels and Glasg...
|
|
I'll leave this to tech ed Bob to get stuck into when he gets back, but a couple of points are worth making.
The R1 bikes competing in WSB and BSB have precious little in common with the R1 roadbike. The amount of crossover of parts between a roadbike R1 and the MotoGP M1 is...none at all.
And Rev is right, the R1 is a great bike, but maybe not for the 'reason' (singular) we've been sold, sorry, told.
--------------------
kenny_pryde@ipcmedia.com
"There are three sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth." Robert Evans.
Waste more time here http://uk.youtube.com/SuperBikeMag
or here
http://www.twitter.com/SuperBikemag/
|
RevRun
addict
Reged: 21/09/2008
Posts: 495
|
|
If i had the money i would be down the shop in the morning but that's just me,I have been on circuit in the company of both the standard road version and a BSB Superstocker and have fallen for it big time.
The week before last i followed the standard road version around Snetterton although no quicker on the straight then my now very old ex Stu Wilson R1 it was more then a match in other areas.The full Superstocker version i have seen in Steve Mercer's hands is truely awesome and a show stopper at every trackday i have seen it at,regardless of where i see others being raced they are doing well.And it is in my view the bike of 2009 and feel we have not seen such a good bike straight out the box since Colin Edwards SP2.
This is just my opinion but the R1 will take 1st and 2nd in BSB and the WSB Crown and i'm an ex Ducati owner and still a Haga fan.But the truth is Yamaha couldn't of launched it any better in both Spies and Airwaves hand's and getting Rossi and Ago to tour round the TT on one was pure genius.
Although different bikes 2009 is the year of the Yamaha GP,WSB,WSS,BSB.
Edited by RevRun (06/07/2009 21:21)
|
KennyP
old hand
Reged: 16/11/2006
Posts: 786
Loc: Croydon via Brussels and Glasg...
|
|
Quote:
The full Superstocker version i have seen in Steve Mercer's hands is truely awesome and a show stopper at every trackday i have seen it at,regardless of where i see others being raced they are doing well.And it is in my view the bike of 2009 and feel we have not seen such a good bike straight out the box since Colin Edwards SP2.
The superstock R1 is not "doing well" in comparison to other versions of the R1 (WSB, BSB...which is the same bike anyway.
It might seem like I've got a bit of a downer on the bike, which is not the case. I'm sick of reading what a revolutionary bike it is. If it was so good out of the crate, more than two riders would be winning on it (Spies, a bona fide phenomenon and Camier). That's it. In the hands of anyone else, in any other class, in any other series (including AMA and JSB) it's not doing the business.
--------------------
kenny_pryde@ipcmedia.com
"There are three sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth." Robert Evans.
Waste more time here http://uk.youtube.com/SuperBikeMag
or here
http://www.twitter.com/SuperBikemag/
|
RevRun
addict
Reged: 21/09/2008
Posts: 495
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The full Superstocker version i have seen in Steve Mercer's hands is truely awesome and a show stopper at every trackday i have seen it at,regardless of where i see others being raced they are doing well.And it is in my view the bike of 2009 and feel we have not seen such a good bike straight out the box since Colin Edwards SP2.
The superstock R1 is not "doing well" in comparison to other versions of the R1 (WSB, BSB...which is the same bike anyway.
It might seem like I've got a bit of a downer on the bike, which is not the case. I'm sick of reading what a revolutionary bike it is. If it was so good out of the crate, more than two riders would be winning on it (Spies, a bona fide phenomenon and Camier). That's it. In the hands of anyone else, in any other class, in any other series (including AMA and JSB) it's not doing the business.
Kenny i did write in what series i have "seen" it in i dont follow all so dont know it's results in other classes but would add where a healthy budget and support allows.It was good out of the box Camier showed that at the first round as for that at the time being the same spec as Spies i think not.
You can't just have the bike to make it a winner that's why GSE Airwaves were given the main task by Yamaha and not Rob Mac "nothing against Rob Mac".As we all know factories go racing to sell bikes and it's picture's and articles of these pretty things that sell the many bike publications it's all about what sells.
Love it or hate it the results and sales will speak volumes and i doubt if it's U.S sales will be to bad having Spies on one.This is it's first year kenny and come the end of next if a two year history doesn't show a good race, road bike i will be happy to come back and eat my hat.
|
Bob_Gray
stranger
Reged: 11/12/2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Perhaps 'unexplained' would be a better description than 'throw away' comment, Dave. Those are generally the reserve of forums. 
Yes, it is true. The reason being that all engines do not have the same number of moving parts. The R1 has a balance shaft for instance, a ZX-10R does not.
But, the number of parts alone does not dictate the drag in an engine. Take two otherwise identical engines, change the width or diameter of the crank bearings, and it will make more or less power. In the case of the new R1, Yamaha has increased the size of the bearing surfaces and therefore increased the engine's drag (as well as its weight).
In terms of the implied power reductions, you are, unfortunately, completely wrong - even though your math appears correct.
On a 2008 R1, if you move your hand to 40% throttle, the engine also gets 40% throttle.
On a 2009 R1, if you move your hand to 40% throttle, the engine gets up to 48% throttle (depending on Mode and RPM).
What you perhaps missed is the fact there is no direct link between your hand the and how much throttle the R1's engine sees. So, your argument should have gone something like this:
When a 2009 R1 engine sees 48% throttle (in standard mode) it produces 96.16bhp.
When a 2008 R1 engine sees 50% throttle (the closest to 48% I could find), it produces 101.47bhp.
Bearing in mind the 2009 engine is seeing 2% less throttle than the new bike, it produces 5.5% less power. So, any frictional loses are, at the very most, less than 5.5%.
As for the MotoGP reference, bear in mind an engine built to last 20,000 miles is built very different to an engine designed to last just 500 miles - which gives engineers flexibility to offset any downsides against potential benefits.
As for the sales arguments, I agree. I think Yamaha have done a superb job and will sell shed loads of R1s (and rightly so). But in this instance, I consider it my job to try and find out how the bike achieves this. If people accept whatever a marketing man tells them at face value, we'd soon find ourselves riding around on bikes with rotary rear shocks again. And look what happened then.
|
tripod_dave
member
Reged: 28/01/2007
Posts: 121
|
|
Bob, first of all an apology; perhaps 'throw away' wasn't the right choice of words. I'm not trying to score points here: I'm genuinely interested.
Thanks for your reply.
Firstly, I do understand that there is no direct link between throttle opening and butterfly position.
Of course my maths are wrong - that, in essence, is my point. As you point out in your reply the losses have to be less than 5.5% and yet Yamaha have chosen to open the throttle an additional 20% @ 40% throttle to 48%.
"It would appear the disadvantages of the cross-plane crank design (i.e. increased friction), can be offset by opening the throttle more. For example, in std mode at 40% throttle, the 2009 R1 makes 93bhp. But the ECU really opens the throttle 48% on your behalf."
In your article I took your statement (above) to mean that you think that Yamaha open the throttle an additional 8% to offset the frictional losses of the cross plane crank design. Upon reading it again that's still what it looks like you're saying to me. What I think is happening is that Yamaha increase the throttle opening to improve feel and to offset the increased inertia of the heavier engine.
Do you have any evidence that the 2009 R1 suffers from increased friction over the 2008 R1 motor? If so, what is that evidence and what are the losses?
Thanks for taking the time to get into these discussions.
|
tripod_dave
member
Reged: 28/01/2007
Posts: 121
|
|
sorry that should read 'an additional 20%' not 'an additional 8%'
|
RevRun
addict
Reged: 21/09/2008
Posts: 495
|
|
Neil Spalding eat your heart out 
|
KennyP
old hand
Reged: 16/11/2006
Posts: 786
Loc: Croydon via Brussels and Glasg...
|
|
Bob's a busy fella and to be honest, I'd rather he spent his time on the mag than on the forum, so I'm going to try to 'help' here.
Quote:
In your article I took your statement (above) to mean that you think that Yamaha open the throttle an additional 8% to offset the frictional losses of the cross plane crank design. Upon reading it again that's still what it looks like you're saying to me.
That's NOT what we are saying.
Quote:
Do you have any evidence that the 2009 R1 suffers from increased friction over the 2008 R1 motor? If so, what is that evidence and what are the losses?
A heavier crank with bigger bearings and (therefore) larger bearing surfaces will generate more friction, yes? How much more? We don't know.
--------------------
kenny_pryde@ipcmedia.com
"There are three sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth." Robert Evans.
Waste more time here http://uk.youtube.com/SuperBikeMag
or here
http://www.twitter.com/SuperBikemag/
|
Biggles
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/05/2007
Posts: 3089
Loc: Orion arm of the milky way
|
|
Something else that stood out in Bobs reply was a bike that is designed to last 20,000 miles. Was he using this euphamistically or is that really the "design life" of an R1 now?
Frightening thought if it is.
--------------------
Quote me as saying I was miss-quoted.
|
Bob_Gray
stranger
Reged: 11/12/2007
Posts: 4
|
|
Thanks Dave. In that case please forgive my sensitivity to it as well - there seem to be an endless queue of people lining up to say I'm wrong based on the fact 'they've got an R1, can leave their mates for dead and ride 'flat-out' everywhere'. Strangely, none of them, including other publications seem interested in what's really happening before spouting off and saying I'm wrong.
In fact we've spent several weeks collecting data, checking numbers then re-checking it all to be as sure as possible that what we print is correct. We're still doing so. The reason the throw away comment irritated me was simply because a lot of thought had gone into every comment in that story. There are lots of 'things' I suspect about that engine. There are lots of things I've been told from people who should know, but until I can see/prove them, I've tried to be careful to avoid saying them because I think anyone who reads the bike press in the UK has been let down by many of the headlines and features run on the bike. Therefore what went in, and was left out, of that story had a great deal of thought.
In the case of the extra friction, it was mentioned but not quantified because I don't have a measurement of it yet. What I have seen from stripped down motors is how there are more bearing surfaces and how they're wider than before. An extremely; clever man I knew ten years ago measured this and showed area and drag to be related. Add to that the trend several years ago (which went unmentioned), for manufacturers to 'gain' additional horsepower by slimming everything down - including bearing surfaces and you have not a solid fact, but something quite strong.
As Kenny said, I'd clarify the point that I don't think the throttle 'issue' has much , if anything to do with either increased friction or inertia (not cross-plane crank inertia, but engine inertia because the combined components have more mass). But that's just a thought - and so I'd be happy to be proved wrong or challenged on it. In which case, the fact it wasn't clear what I meant was simply poor writing on my part, for which I apologise.
To Biggles - the 20,000 versus 500 mile comment was (laughably!) throw away. It was simply meant to emphasize the point that MotoGP engines can be designed in a different way because they're never going to get an angry punter standing in a shop going on about how his engine failed after X miles. They of course have to be designed to last, and produce more power, but still they're not bound by the same rules a road engine is.
You perhaps know I ran a 2008 R1 last year. This went back to Yamaha with 17,800 miles on the clock. It had done hundreds (no exaggeration) of dyno runs, numerous performance tests, several track days and many miles of road riding.
I'd changed the oil twice, filter once, serviced the plugs once and that was it. The engine never missed a beat (unless it was something I did - like fitting the quick-shifter), and felt as good when it went back as it did after 2,000 miles. In short, it was a staggeringly good bike I thought.
Getting back to the throttle thing, we have one more set of things to publish on the matter. I'll avoid going through them here though as I'm still working through and therefore don't want to contradict myself later on.
It remains however a great bike and I'm glad it won our group test. We're simply trying to establish if its greatness is as simple as the marketing would have everyone believe.
|
chappers
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 31/12/2006
Posts: 6701
Loc: Mind your own business
|
|
Quote:
In the case of the extra friction, it was mentioned but not quantified because I don't have a measurement of it yet. What I have seen from stripped down motors is how there are more bearing surfaces and how they're wider than before. An extremely; clever man I knew ten years ago measured this and showed area and drag to be related. Add to that the trend several years ago (which went unmentioned), for manufacturers to 'gain' additional horsepower by slimming everything down - including bearing surfaces and you have not a solid fact, but something quite strong.
Completely logical and correct IMHO although the bearing faces don't actually "rub" during operation they are separated by a thin film of oil, the oil itself will have it's own drag coefficient. wider bearing surface = more oil more oil = more drag. Part the reason why oil companies develop 0 viscosity oils for racing which I believe (with help from a recent article in SB)can add 1bhp+. friction/drag is also the reason why an engine producing 150bhp at the crankshaft will only produce 135ish at the rear wheel.
1 Bhp = 550 foot pounds of effort per second so it's no nominal figure. Put into perspective, a healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp briefly and sustain about 0.1 hp indefinitely, and trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp briefly and 0.3 hp for a period of several hours.
--------------------
Say what you think and think what you say.
|
tripod_dave
member
Reged: 28/01/2007
Posts: 121
|
|
Bob / Kenny
Thanks very much.
I know you are very busy and I appreciate the time and effort you have taken with your replies.
Interesting that in "Bring the Noise" the real V4 won against the ersatz V4.
|
RevRun
addict
Reged: 21/09/2008
Posts: 495
|
|
The most interesting stuff i have seen on here for a long time Kenny and Bob please call again.
|
Biggles
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 05/05/2007
Posts: 3089
Loc: Orion arm of the milky way
|
|
+1 Very true
--------------------
Quote me as saying I was miss-quoted.
|
BlindLemonAde
journeyman
Reged: 19/08/2008
Posts: 68
Loc: Kent
|
|
So, to summarise for the hard of understanding (ie me...) are we saying:
The new R1's ability to put the power down like a Twin is due to its revised firing order, enabled by the much-vaunted crossplane crank?
This R1 compensates for its (relative) lack of power by opening the throttles more than you'd expect, until it runs out of throttle to open...
All the hype about "inertial torque" was so much marketing hogwash, designed to fool the average MCN reader/writer?
Er, what are the firing intervals on the new R1, and how do they compare to a Ducati and the Aprilia V4?
And why is it so pig-ugly?
--------------------
Homeopaths! Save money on petrol by filling up at the water pump. Your bike will remember the petrol from your previous fill.
|
immy
veteran
Reged: 09/11/2006
Posts: 1350
|
|
Sorry chaps @ SB but this months mag is a bit OD on the new R1
Cover(includes)the nu R1
Pages 8 an 9-decribing the power of the nu R1
Pages 43 to 60-test bikes including-------the nu R1
Pages 82 to 85-comparison test old and errrr the nu R1
Page 110-of course. Bobs long termer. Guess what? the nu R1!!!
Arrragghhh-to much nu R1
And its a pig ugly bike IMO
|
KennyP
old hand
Reged: 16/11/2006
Posts: 786
Loc: Croydon via Brussels and Glasg...
|
|
Given the hoopla and hype surrounding the new R1 as well as the amount of real interest it has generated, we felt we needed to give it a good seeing to. After all, nobody else was doing it properly, were they?
--------------------
kenny_pryde@ipcmedia.com
"There are three sides to every story. Yours. Mine. And the truth." Robert Evans.
Waste more time here http://uk.youtube.com/SuperBikeMag
or here
http://www.twitter.com/SuperBikemag/
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
