Speedzilla Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,748 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Heard the same rumor buzzing again, anyone else hear anything like this?... (again?)
 

·
V4 CyclePath...
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
Rossi and Burgess took Yamaha's M1 from zero to hero... just think what
they can do with Ducati's proven winner...

Quote MotoGp Tech..

Yamaha launched Mission 1 (M1) in the autumn of 2000. The bike was
designed from the start to be a well-balanced rider-friendly
motorcycle. By March 2001 testing was underway with ex-World Superbike
and GP250 champion John Kocinski. By the middle of that year Yamaha's
regular GP riders, Biaggi and Checa, were riding it in tests at
Catalunya.

Using their well-developed 500cc two-stroke chassis layout as the
basis, Yamaha stuck with proven ideas: 'If you consider that all the
top 500s are similar in layout and dimensions, this suggests that it
is an ideal configuration. That's why we wanted to continue using our
YZR-style chassis with the YZR-M1 - the engine was designed to fit
within the package, not the other way around.'

Yamaha decided that the very compact configuration of the in-line four
would fit best. There was no second bank of cylinders to squeeze in at
the back and, although the engine was wide, it was wide where there
was room for it to be wide - in front of the rider's legs. And, with
one cam drive, one set of cams and one block, it was relatively light.
Marketing considerations were also taken into account - most of
Yamaha's sport bikes were across-the frame fours. The M1 initially
came in at less than the full 990cc allowed; engine designer Masakazo
Shiohara having designed a 942cc engine to be compatible with the 500
two-strokes of the time, and with the grip available from the Michelin
tyres. Yamaha's reputation has always been to produce real-world
racing motorcycles that are designed from the start to maximise their
cornering ability and their initial acceleration out of those corners,
and everything about the first M1 said that they were following that
philosophy. Yamaha's engines were carburetted, even though the factory
had spent several years in World Superbike with their fuel-injected R7
750-4. They decided that it would be easier to produce a more human
response from the throttles by using carburettors on the MotoGP
engine.

Ichiro Yoda went further: 'Considerable experience has taught us that
the best measure of the overall performance of a race machine is
expressed in the concept of "drivability". Naturally, this was also
the concept we stressed in the development of the YZR-M 1. In other
words, we placed top priority on developing more usable power
development character in the engine. If we were only focusing on max
power output. we could have raised the output. But that would not
necessarily mean better lap times or competitiveness on the racetrack.
We sought to develop engine and chassis characteristics that would
communicate the drive force of the rear tyre to the rider more
directly, create better contact between the rear tyre and the track
surface and produce more efficient tyre performance:

Yamaha's initial ideas of matching torque curve to tyre grip, and
agility to power, took a heavy battering in the first few races of the
first season, and the rest of the first year turned into an unseemly
scrabble for more power, better clutch control and changes in weight
distribution. By the end of the year, however, Yamaha had gone from
being embarrassingly outclassed by the old twostrokes to qualifying on
pole at Valencia. Even now, it's difficult to get from Yamaha the
process by which they improved their bike, but improve it they did,
and the story is a classic case of showing how a revised engine
formula totally changed the shape of motorcycle racing.

By deciding to build an engine to fit the 500 two-stroke space, Yamaha
had fallen into the trap of assuming that the new formula would be the
same, only four-stroke and noisier. Yamaha had also duplicated the
power outputs of the 500 two-strokes, but being a four-stroke this
meant it would carry with it some disadvantages, especially on the
engine-braking front. Two-strokes simply don't have enough cylinder
compression to jerk the rear suspension around as the throttle is shut
going into a corner. Powerful four-strokes, however, most certainly
do. By building an engine that performed similarly to the two-strokes
on track, and not doing enough to eliminate the difficulties going
into the corners, meant that the Yamaha was outclassed by the old
two-strokes during the first three Grands Prix. Rapid development of
an active computer-controlled pump to emulate a slipper clutch action
together with a throttle-kicker motor opening one of the carburettor
slides as the throttles shut. just enough to eliminate some of the
engine braking but not enough to drive the bike forward helped, but
didn't solve the problem.

Several different versions of the chassis were seen during the first
year, all moving the engine around so that different centre-of-gravity
heights and front-to-rear weight distributions could be tried. All
shared the same basic delta box layout, with the steering head
attached rigidly to the cylinder head.

At the start of the second year, Yamaha moved from carburettors to
fuel-injection but, just like their experience with the R7 750, the
throttle response was not as good as they wanted. They also ditched
their computer-controlled clutch and went back to a simple slipper
clutch, but with a more active throttle-kicker system. At the final
IRTA test at Jerez, before the start of the season, it was quite
amazing to hear Barros arriving at the final corner with the wailing
four-cylinder engine suddenly changing into a blubbering 500 twin.
This was that new kicker mechanism keeping one cylinder sufficiently
on an open throttle to destroy most of the damaging effects of engine
braking.

New bodywork was fitted for 2003 - much more aggressive than the older
more aerodynamic fairing and seat. In the search for more power there
was constant experimentation with airbox sizes. (It can be quite
difficult to increase the size of an airbox when there is little room
to put the fuel elsewhere.) Airbox size is a fundamental part of the
way an engine works - too small and it can affect not only peak power
but also, because of the pressure fluctuations that occur within it at
different rev ranges, the shape and smoothness of the torque curve. At
Yamaha they increased the size of the airbox but initially had to
raise the top of the tank to retain the fuel capacity they needed to
finish the races.

Again, though, it was obvious that Yamaha had underestimated the
amount of power they needed, and throughout the season they were
revising engine parts in an effort to get on the pace.

During 2003 there was a massive shake up in Yamaha's race engineering
department, putting Masao Furusawa in charge. He was determined that,
to properly celebrate Yamaha's 50th anniversary two years hence, they
would capture the MotoGP title in 2005. By the end of the 2003 season
it was obvious something was up, but it wasn't until Valentino Rossi
announced his defection from Honda to Yamaha that things started to
come together.

For Rossi's initial test session four engines were used - a five-valve
four-cylinder with a conventional crankshaft, a five-valve
four-cylinder with a modified crankshaft giving an irregular-firing
delivery, a conventional crankshaft four-valve engine and finally, the
one that Rossi took forward, a four-valve engine with an
irregular-firing crankshaft. The chassis set-up was radically changed
- the bike being made longer and higher, the forks extended by nearly
25mm and the swingarm stretched by the same amount. These
modifications were made to a chassis that had even more radical front
engine mounts than the prototypes seen at the end of 2003 at Valencia.
Front forks don't work so well when leaned over, and to try to
maintain grip the new chassis allowed the whole head stock to flex a
little when the bike was deep into a corner and leaned right over.

Yamaha had provided a new kit of parts, but it was Rossi and Burgess
who made things work. Jerry Burgess said: 'We identified fairly early
what the problems were. The bike was developed by two very good 250
riders. No slur on them, but what you want for a big bike, a 500 or a
four stroke, is something different. All bikes operate within a
circle, and the circle wasn't anywhere near where I felt it should
be... To ride one of these things, you need to have enough feel to get
the bike to slide; you must be able to feel your way into a slide and
then back out again safely.'


A longer bike required more rider input to get perfect traction, but
the point of having the bike longer was that the rider could choose to
increase or reduce traction by moving his weight forwards and
backwards. By having the bike taller they could run it as a more
stable chassis, but one whose higher centre of gravity would still
allow it to turn into corners quickly. Masao Furusawa: 'For sure, we
have built a bike that Valentino has to move around on to get the best
out of, but our final goal is to build a bike where the rider doesn't
need to move as much.' Burgess, too, revealed something of the way the
bike had been developed, 'Valentino could never understand why he
could outbrake the Yamaha when he was on the Honda, both bikes have
the same basic braking system, and the same tyres. But then we
realised the Yamaha was too low, it couldn't pitch its weight forward
on braking like the Honda could.' Honda were using the tendency of a
bike to pitch forward under braking to load up the front tyre more,
squashing it onto the track and increasing the size of the contact
patch. This allowed the rider to further increase the braking forces,
further increasing the contact patch.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
Larry , did you mean for the quote to SUPPORT your statement ?! Because it does the exact opposite . It's a synopsis showing resoundingly that Yamaha made the correct decision by going with the inline engine , which has , in praxis , none of the limitations you think it has .:clapper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
309 Posts
Larry , did you mean for the quote to SUPPORT your statement ?! Because it does the exact opposite . It's a synopsis showing resoundingly that Yamaha made the correct decision by going with the inline engine , which has , in praxis , none of the limitations you think it has .:clapper
You actually took the time to read through that? Hmm... not sure who I'm more worried about now :)
 

·
V4 CyclePath...
Joined
·
6,827 Posts
Larry , did you mean for the quote to SUPPORT your statement ?! Because it does the exact opposite . It's a synopsis showing resoundingly that Yamaha made the correct decision by going with the inline engine , which has , in praxis , none of the limitations you think it has .:clapper
It shows that Yamaha had a disastrous entry into MotoGp... winning just 2
Gps in 2 seasons (2002 2003)... but along comes the dymic duo of Burgess
and Rossi and they got things turned around but only if Furusawa listened
to Rossi...

The voices for the V4 as the best configuration for MotoGp...
Rossi
Honda
Suzuki
Ducati

The voice for the I4 as the best configuration in MotoGp
Masao Furasawa

Why is Furasawa the only one???

Quote MotoGp Tech...

"Most of the field has opted for V configuration engines, but it is
noticeable that Yamaha have not. Motorcycle design is very much led by
compromise, and the choices made by these companies show that they are
far more concerned with packaging - the ability to place the engine where
they want - over pure mass centralization. It might also show, in the case
of Yamaha, a certain allegiance to their road configurations."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,868 Posts
ROFLMAO...........+1.

Some fools will never get it.

There you are , the Moral Arbiter of Zilla (aka resident useless troll) . You keep forgetting , men are talking here . I miss your personal , sensitive little PM's of complaint to me , you ignorant , feminine little hillbilly . Compared to you , Larry is a genius .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,462 Posts
There you are , the Moral Arbiter of Zilla (aka resident useless troll) . You keep forgetting , men are talking here . I miss your personal , sensitive little PM's of complaint to me , you ignorant , feminine little hillbilly . Compared to you , Larry is a genius .
Another internet badass from Canada.......I laugh at your attempt at being a [keyboard] tough guy.:D

What's mildly amusing is your definition of a troll, I'd be willing to bet most grown ups here think badgering the same dude over the same BS for months on end instead of ignoring him is trolling.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top