New R1 uses M1 firing intervals.

[hebgan]

Originally Posted by sburns2421

I know that the overly tall gearing on many bikes is due to the testing procedures for sound and/or tailpipe emissions. It may be that Yamaha has been able to reduce these enough to offer lower gearing from the factory, rather than the first mod some people do of changing sprockets.

Okay, the very first thing that came to my mind was they were trying to overcome a weak low end and midrange by gearing it low.

[Old Baldy]

Originally Posted by hebgan

Okay all your race and tech types what do you make of this????

Yamaha has posted in the R1 the specs section the gear ratios of the 2009 R1. I don't have a complete understanding of WHY certain gear ratios/primary and secondary might be chosen. BUT, I do know that using a speed/gearing calculator I found over at RC51.org that the gears are much lower than my ZX10R. For me to gear my ZX similiar for speed/rpms I would have to go front -1 and rear +1 to be close.

That seems REALLY big to me.

Why would Yamaha choose or need to do this?

I don't see the final drive spec, so unless it's somewhere on the site, we really don't know the overall gearing of the bike....and can't drive any real conclusions yet. One must know all the gear ratios (including the primary reduction, the transmission ratios AND the final drive), to determine the overall gearing factor.

Of course, historically, the R1 has had relatively low BMEP and torque with the 5V head, and even the newer 4V head has not been much better (not as good as the Kawa or Honda or Suzuki), but I've no doubt that yahama have worked hard on this, and improved the BMEP/torque of the motor further.

[hebgan]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

I don't see the final drive spec, so unless it's somewhere on the site, we really don't know the overall gearing of the bike....and can't drive any real conclusions yet. One must know all the gear ratios (including the primary reduction, the transmission ratios AND the final drive), to determine the overall gearing factor.

Of course, historically, the R1 has had relatively low BMEP and torque with the 5V head, and even the newer 4V head has not been much better (not as good as the Kawa or Honda or Suzuki), but I've no doubt that yahama have worked hard on this, and improved the BMEP/torque of the motor further.

Full specs on the yamaha site:

Primary Reduction Ratio 65/43 (1.512)

Secondary Reduction Ratio 47/17 (2.765)

Gear Ratio - 1st Gear 38/15 (2.533)

Gear Ratio - 2nd Gear 33/16 (2.063)

Gear Ratio - 3rd Gear 37/21 (1.762)

Gear Ratio - 4th Gear 35/23 (1.522)

Gear Ratio - 5th Gear 30/22 (1.364)

Gear Ratio - 6th Gear 33/26 (1.269)



I used a gearing calculator from another site using the above info and used the same tire diameter for both bikes. I compared it to my 2006 ZX10R and the 2009 R1 geared MUCH lower.

Again, I'm just wondered why it would be geared so much lower. If you want I can post my ZX10R and my 2005 GSXR1000 gearing/primary/secondary for comparison.

[Old Baldy]

Originally Posted by hebgan

Full specs on the yamaha site:

Primary Reduction Ratio 65/43 (1.512)

Secondary Reduction Ratio 47/17 (2.765)

Gear Ratio - 1st Gear 38/15 (2.533)

Gear Ratio - 2nd Gear 33/16 (2.063)

Gear Ratio - 3rd Gear 37/21 (1.762)

Gear Ratio - 4th Gear 35/23 (1.522)

Gear Ratio - 5th Gear 30/22 (1.364)

Gear Ratio - 6th Gear 33/26 (1.269)



I used a gearing calculator from another site using the above info and used the same tire diameter for both bikes. I compared it to my 2006 ZX10R and the 2009 R1 geared MUCH lower.

Again, I'm just wondered why it would be geared so much lower. If you want I can post my ZX10R and my 2005 GSXR1000 gearing/primary/secondary for comparison.

Damn, sorry man! I didn't see the secondary/final specs listed. My bad!

Haven't cross-checked the overall ratios against the Kawa or others yet, but you're right, this would seem to indicate the revvy nature of the motor

BTW, what IS the difference between the 3 bikes you mentioned, in, say, 1st and 6th gear, with the overall gearing ratios? How much difference is there, percentage wise?

[hebgan]

Okay, so just some really quick numbers (for bikes I have already figured out the speed/rpm gearing calc)

For all 4 bikes I have listed the speed in 6th Gear at 6000 rpm:

2005 GSXR1000 speed is 97.8mph

2006 ZX10R speed is 95.1mph

2008 CBR1000RR speed is 96.3mph

2009 YZF R1 speed is 88.0mph

I know I don't have all the current bikes to compare, but this does suggest that yamaha is using much lower gearing.

[hebgan]

Originally Posted by Old Baldy

Damn, sorry man! I didn't see the secondary/final specs listed. My bad!

Haven't cross-checked the overall ratios against the Kawa or others yet, but you're right, this would seem to indicate the revvy nature of the motor

BTW, what IS the difference between the 3 bikes you mentioned, in, say, 1st and 6th gear, with the overall gearing ratios? How much difference is there, percentage wise?

No prob! I'm just curious... I really want the new R1, but if I can just gear down my ZX10 and FEEL just as fast why bother?


Edited to add:

In 6th gear the new R1 is 8% lower than the 06 ZX10, 9% lower than the 08 CBR1000RR, and 11% lower than the 05 GSXR

In 1st gear the new R1 is 11% lower than the 06 ZX10, 1% HIGHER than the 08 CBR1000RR, and 9% lower than the 05 GSXR

[sburns2421]

Originally Posted by hebgan

No prob! I'm just curious... I really want the new R1, but if I can just gear down my ZX10 and FEEL just as fast why bother?

It won't just feel faster, for any given gear you will have more thrust available at a given road speed. This also assumes an increasing level of power vs. RPM (4500 rpm has more power than 4300, 7000 has more than 6500, etc). It is not that the R1 is geared low, it is that most if not all bikes come geared too tall from the factory, but this is usually what they have to do.

Back to the R1...
One of the sound tests (SAE J331) involves accelerating from a certain speed (30 mph? can't remember) from a distance of 50 feet from the microphone. This measures total sound output from the bike, rather than the stationary tests which measure exhaust only. So if Yamaha could make other parts on the bike more quiet, or make the exhaust sound pressure level (aka SPL) for the critically tested frequency range less. They could then operate the bike at a higher RPM for the tested speed. It is all about tailoring the bike to pass the test. Perhaps the big-bang firing makes this easier using a time-averaged SPL testing procedure. Hopefully CW or RRW will address this in their tech overviews of the bike.

The engine running at a higher speed would mean shorter overall gearing could be used for reasonable gear spacing (basically all sportbikes are now "close-ratio" compared to 20 years ago). Lower gearing=more thrust. I would predict at least in testing of stock bikes, the R1 will kick butt in roll-ons.

[Ducs1k]

Originally Posted by GAMBLER

rock out with your cock out

Just as an aside after seeing the video, it seems as if US buyers will have to pay a price premium to buy the non-chavtastic black version that canada and the rest of the world get

[Latebraker]

Does the crankshaft spin forwards or backwards in the new R1? I also wonder if they raised the rev limit, 14000+ RPM perhaps?

[sburns2421]

Originally Posted by Latebraker

Does the crankshaft spin forwards or backwards in the new R1? I also wonder if they raised the rev limit, 14000+ RPM perhaps?

I was wondering the same thing tis morning about the crank. To get the full "M1 effect" they would have it running backwards from conventional cranks. If they had to add a balance shaft, this could of course be used to reverse direction to the gearbox.

[Old Baldy]

I'd be very surprised if they're running the street R1 crank backwards.

[aus_rc45]

Why are bikes getting uglier????? Who's styling these things??????

[GAMBLER]

intermot

[sburns2421]

Wouldn't it be cool if your job was to make these cutaway bikes. Take some brand new design and saw most of it in half.

[GAMBLER]

Video: Improvements to 2009 R1 News Article // RoadracingWorld.com
good video

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by GAMBLER

Video: Improvements to 2009 R1 News Article // RoadracingWorld.com
good video

Translated... good bye cammy hit hello virtual V4...

[mikstr]

in making it a virtual V4, did they also lengthen it, shorten the swingarm and do all those other wonderful things that cause handling to deteriorate, just like a real V4?

[nomo]

Apparently an uneven firing order (which Yamaha states emphatically should not be called "big bang") puts a great deal more stress on the primary drive and transmission , requiring such race bikes to have the gears changed much more often than with the "screamer" config . I wonder how this will affect street bikes in the long run . Surely the designers took this into account with tougher gears , but does this mean more weight than expected ?

[Busy Little Shop]

Originally Posted by mikstr

in making it a virtual V4, did they also lengthen it, shorten the swingarm and do all those other wonderful things that cause handling to deteriorate, just like a real V4?

Mercy mikstr... no need to lengthen it nor shorten the swingarm... I4s and V4s share the
same great weight bias for good handling... whereas V2s don't...

[mikstr]

come now Larry, an engine can't be narrower and shorter at the same time.... so, granted the V is narrower (a fact eclipsed by wider rads anyhow), they are inevitably longer, which leaves no/less room for a stacked transmission. The end result is a shorter swingarrm which means more torque effect and less stable handling... it's simple physics... unlike the engine configuration affecting output and powerband characteristics....