New R1 uses M1 firing intervals.

[Mashuri]

The tighter packaging gives designers more leeway. They can choose a shorter wheelbase, which would significantly lower turning effort, or a longer swingarm -- the direction they went with the M1. Better to have more forward weight bias vs your V4 competition and improved anti-squat for better drive and more consistent handling out of corners.

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

Granted the I4 is short... but the main reason the M1 flicks as quick
as it does is Yamaha's trick to spin the long and heavy crankshaft
backwards which greatly reduces the overall gyroscopic forces of the
wheels given their size and weights...

All of the MotoGp bikes are extreme examples of packaging
efficiency... The on going problem is not getting the engine where you
want in the frame but finding space for all the new systems... like
traction control computers etc etc etc...

Kawasaki and Yamaha both employ the same short I4... but it's Yamaha's
backward spinning crank makes their I4 a lot more agile than Kawasaki's
forwards spinning crank in the ZX-RR... gyroscopic precession is real and it
is the force you feel during rapid transitions in race mode...

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

I dig handling over power any day of the week. Motor alone has never done it for me......kinda funny that way.

The new R1 is certainly interesting, but would I sell my 996 for one? I very, very strongly doubt it. You should know what infatuation does to one, right?

I also dig handling over power that's why I'm so happy with Mr.RC45... you
would be too... it feels as agile as a 600 with the grunt of V2 and the top
end of an I4... mind altering stuff...

You sound interested but don't ride the new R1 for it will regulate your V2
into a slow handling big bore and all other I4s you know as cammy hit
pretenders to the throne of the new King I4...

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by Realmanken

The new staggered firing order of the cylinders will no doubtedly put the R1 on top of the 1000 CC class untill HONDA makes their new V-4 RC-51 replacement.

Agreed... no doubt the new R1 firing order will champion over the cammy hit
Motor of Deaths in the up coming magazine shoot outs... perhaps Honda will
finally ante up a new 1000cc V4 to take back the top spot...

[mrgrn]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

No, Larry, because if I was going to switch back to a four cylinder, I would do so to the highest technology out there, in terms of engine AND handling - and not to any low-tech V4.

In terms of packaging, NO 90 degree V4 can hope to match the Yamaha I4.

I dig handling over power any day of the week. Motor alone has never done it for me......kinda funny that way.

The new R1 is certainly interesting, but would I sell my 996 for one? I very, very strongly doubt it. You should know what infatuation does to one, right?

while you dig handling most 99% of others who ride bikes don't and power is king

[RufCtr550bhp]

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

Kawasaki and Yamaha both employ the same short I4... but it's Yamaha's
backward spinning crank makes their I4 a lot more agile than Kawasaki's
forwards spinning crank in the ZX-RR... gyroscopic precession is real and it
is the force you feel during rapid transitions in race mode...

HOLY CRAP!!!... I'm sure they would love to hear this! Why don't you send Kawasaki a letter quick, fast, and in a hurry and tell them what they have been doing wrong.

MERCY! I would think the guys that have millions of dollars invested would know what’s going on...not the case. Instead some guy floating around an internet forum had it figured out all along!

[Old Baldy]

The only way Yamaha will take back the top spot (in terms of motor performance for their top street bike), is if they update their combustion chamber designs. It has really little to do with crank phasing at this level. The previous R1 5V and even the later 4V have had poor burn characteristics (as clearly evidenced by their very long spark timing requirements), and they have struggled to get the efficiency of the Suzuki and Kawasaki motors, in terms of BMEP.

They are working hard to improve their efficiency, including addressing the intake tuned length parameters, with their variable length stack design.

Crank phasing will not change this efficiency one iota.

I have no doubt that the new motor will be an improvement in terms of torque and band....but this has nothing/very little to do with the crank phasing, and everything to do with the tuning. Simple as that.

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

I have no doubt that the new motor will be an improvement in terms of torque and band....but this has nothing/very little to do with the crank phasing, and everything to do with the tuning. Simple as that.

So all Yamaha had to do was to tune the old 180º crank phase motor to mimic
the new M1's crank phasing in terms of torque and band???

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by RufCtr550bhp

HOLY CRAP!!!... I'm sure they would love to hear this! Why don't you send Kawasaki a letter quick, fast, and in a hurry and tell them what they have been doing wrong.

MERCY! I would think the guys that have millions of dollars invested would know what’s going on...not the case. Instead some guy floating around an internet forum had it figured out all along!

Kawasaki can read all about the history of their forward spinning crank
shaft struggles starting with the 990 in MotoGp Tech by Neil Spalding
quote:

"Kawasaki motorcycles are part of the consumer products group of the
massive Kawasaki Heavy Industries company and, as much as anything,
they exist as the public face of this vast industrial empire.
Kawasaki's decision to go MotoGP racing was, therefore, more about
KHl's company image than just selling a few extra motorcycles."

"This first prototype was a 'super superbike' using mostly standard super
bike race parts and a big bore kit. Emboldened by the success of the
design, Kawasaki made a new engine, displacing a full 990cc, and a new
frame."

"The engine retained its classic 180º crankshaft spacing, on the basis
that it had worked perfectly well in superbikes. It was somewhat
puzzling that the bike appeared to have little grip under acceleration
in MotoGP. What was also puzzling was the bike's excellent stability,
arguably still too much for racing. This wasn't a particular problem,
except at circuits like Donington Park where there was a need to be
quick turning in the Melbourne Loop chicane section and light enough
for high speed changes of direction down Craner Curves. Another
circuit that was a problem was Assen with its high-speed cornering
giving the Kawasaki riders a very heavy workout indeed."

"These were problems that were supposed to have been solved by the
shorter lighter chassis, so clearly there were other effects at play
here. The most logical would appear to be the long in-line four
crankshaft giving the bike substantial gyroscopic stability at high speed."

[tmoneyr007]

FYI they have the new R1 in the Yamaha tent at the MotoGP Race. It's really compact and "chunky"

The exhaust around the tail section looks pretty big, besides that it's a good looking bike. They had the best tent out of all the vendors. KTM had the RC8 there, not impressed at all. The 1098 on the other hand.... NICE!

[Old Baldy]

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

So all Yamaha had to do was to tune the old 180º crank phase motor to mimic
the new M1's crank phasing in terms of torque and band???

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

[thatkindasux]

Originally Posted by tmoneyr007

FYI they have the new R1 in the Yamaha tent at the MotoGP Race. It's really compact and "chunky"

The exhaust around the tail section looks pretty big, besides that it's a good looking bike. They had the best tent out of all the vendors. KTM had the RC8 there, not impressed at all. The 1098 on the other hand.... NICE!

where is the RC8!?!?
yeah the front of the new r1 is... uh... wide. drop the stock cans off and the backend wouldnt be bad.

[mrgrn]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

The only way Yamaha will take back the top spot (in terms of motor performance for their top street bike), is if they update their combustion chamber designs. It has really little to do with crank phasing at this level. The previous R1 5V and even the later 4V have had poor burn characteristics (as clearly evidenced by their very long spark timing requirements), and they have struggled to get the efficiency of the Suzuki and Kawasaki motors, in terms of BMEP.

They are working hard to improve their efficiency, including addressing the intake tuned length parameters, with their variable length stack design.

Crank phasing will not change this efficiency one iota.

I have no doubt that the new motor will be an improvement in terms of torque and band....but this has nothing/very little to do with the crank phasing, and everything to do with the tuning. Simple as that.

i have a hard time wondering where my R1 is having a hard time at 160hp and damn near 80 ft lbs of torque these bikes are monsters and poor burn sounds like you like to just hear yourself talk

[tmoneyr007]

Originally Posted by thatkindasux

where is the RC8!?!?
yeah the front of the new r1 is... uh... wide. drop the stock cans off and the backend wouldnt be bad.

Uhhh the Big KTM trailer in front of the museum, next to the Star, Buell and HD (if I recall correctly). On the inside of the tunell in between turns 1-2 (oval track).

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

Sorry, I don't understand your question.

Apologies Baldy... if you have no doubts that the new motor will be an
improvement in terms of torque and band....but this has nothing/very little to
do with the crank phasing, and everything to do with the tuning... then why
wouldn't Yamaha just tune the bike in the first place and skip the expense of
rephasing the crank???

[Mashuri]

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

Apologies Baldy... if you have no doubts that the new motor will be an
improvement in terms of torque and band....but this has nothing/very little to
do with the crank phasing, and everything to do with the tuning... then why
wouldn't Yamaha just tune the bike in the first place and skip the expense of
rephasing the crank???

The crank rephasing is all about how it delivers that power. It does virtually nothing to the actual powerband.

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by Mashuri

The crank rephasing is all about how it delivers that power. It does virtually nothing to the actual powerband.

What??? if the new crank phase delivers a more linear power whereas the old
180º delivery does not... then that is virtually something new about the
actual powerband...

[Old Baldy]

Originally Posted by Busy Little Shop

What??? if the new crank phase delivers a more linear power whereas the old
180º delivery does not... then that is virtually something new about the
actual powerband...

No, it does not, Larry. The crank phasing has nothing to do with the powerband, just as your assumption that a v8 tuned the same way as an I4 automatically gets some miraculously broad powerband is also totally false. They (powerband and crank phasing) have almost nothing to do with each other. (and I say "almost nothing" instead of "nothing" only because there are some minor differences in frictional losses between the configurations, otherwise, if the engine's state of TUNE was the same, both motors would develop identical torque, horsepower and "powerband."


This scientific FACT, is the reason so many of us who understand that....

1. HP is a derived from torque and RPM ONLY (NOTHING to do with a cylinder's angle), and

2. TORQUE is derived from BMEP and displacement (NOTHING to do with a cylinder's angle) and

3. BMEP is derived from the state of tune of the motor (cams, combustion chamber design, valve area and flow, port design, compression ratio, intake design and exhaust design, fuel mixtures, fuel type, etc) - (and again..... NOTHING to do with the cylinder's angle)

......smile whenever you bring forward your "cammy hit" and "powerband" discussion. Any automotive engineering student worth his salt knows that there is no (or more correctly, very little) relationship between hp, tq, powerband and a cylinder's crank phasing. It is about OTHER things....

The angle of the cylinder or the close-coupled firing order of the motor is simply not relevant in terms of torque or horsepower or powerband. (other than some differences in frictional and stress losses).

The only thing that changing the firing sequence of the motor does, is help rear tire traction while driving out of the corner, and now, in Yamaha's research, to reduce the amount of this "inertia torque" of the motor - which AGAIN has NOTHING to do with the horsepower or torque or powerband of the motor, but rather to help the rider feel and control the rear tire without the extraneous "noise" introduced by the effects of the inertia forces within the crank.

BTW, your beloved 90 degree V4 360 crank design is NOT as good as the cross-plane I4 crank in this new inertia torque discussion. Please don't think that the M1 cross-plane crank is simply a clone of the 90 degree V4 in these terms. It is not. It has a superior distribution of this inertia torque, and in these terms, the V4 motor is a poorer design. Sorry, had to bring that up...

[247]

They can't do an R6 style exhaust, it won't fit.

Originally Posted by Realmanken

It would look perfect if they would get rid of the old underseat exhaust design and give it the GP style exhaust like on the R6. I like the red and white one the best. The new staggered firing order of the cylinders will no doubtedly put the R1 on top of the 1000 CC class until