I guess I just don't get the attraction of a naturally unbalanced engine (parallel twin) compared to a naturally balanced engine (V twin). When I think of par twins, I think of Triumph, BSA, Norton and all of the other Brit bikes from my wasted youth.....none of them were well made and all of them required constant mechanical attention....when the Honda Dream came out, they were toast. Although, admittedly, they persist in Europe and Yamaha makes one that is a complete dinosaur but continues to sell year after year for reasons unknown. And the MZ has its followers (brain damaged drug abusers, no doubt ). I just don't get what the appeal is. Oh, damn, I just remembered that I have a Ninja 250 in the back of my barn.....nevermind.
__________________
Only one left not in captivity.
I guess I just don't get the attraction of a naturally unbalanced engine (parallel twin) compared to a naturally balanced engine (V twin). When I think of par twins, I think of Triumph, BSA, Norton and all of the other Brit bikes from my wasted youth.....none of them were well made and all of them required constant mechanical attention....when the Honda Dream came out, they were toast. Although, admittedly, they persist in Europe and Yamaha makes one that is a complete dinosaur but continues to sell year after year for reasons unknown. And the MZ has its followers (brain damaged drug abusers, no doubt ). I just don't get what the appeal is. Oh, damn, I just remembered that I have a Ninja 250 in the back of my barn.....nevermind.
what are you basing your assessment of the balance of the configurations on? i have ridden a shit ton of both, and i would hazard a guess and say a larger number of different models and makes of par twins, and probably a higher number in general since ex500s ex250s and gs500s are the staple of my business....and i have to say in my experience v twins vibrate a lot more than parallel twins...
the vast majority of bikes people ride getting into the community are par twins. the 650r is crushing the svs out in the southwest...its a design thats cheaper to build, more fuel efficient, weighs less, and can be run in more ways, than a v twin, in short it is much more versatile, and easier to use....i dont see the downside. i like them more than v twins, always have. they are unique. they sound unlike anything else.....i can understand larrys fascination with v4s....but the par twin is much simpler, has huge history. i am pretty sure if you numbersof the total number of units ever built, singles would have the highest number of units produced, followed by parallel twins....its a more popular and more efficient design than a v twin.
Engine configurations all have advantages and disadvantages. Packaging and wieght savings are advantages of a parallel twin. only 1 cam drive, 1 cam, 1 head, 1 cyl block. Since some of those items can be paired up there can be a fair amount of metal saved in the manufacturing process and resulting weight savings. Also, as we have seen in various forms of racing, perfect balance or smoother firing orders may not be desirable to induce traction. Thus Yamaha's cross plane cranks and the differences between all the crank configuration on parallel twins.
Honestly, one of the most astethically pleasing looking engines I think is the Norton Commando line. They just look so right. I think the Honda dream/Laverda line come in second.
Linear Mode
