2006 model rumours...

mjt wrote:
 > ("Larry xlax Lovisone" <netters2 DeleteThis @combogusinfocast.com>) scribbled:
 >
   > > > Ummm, Larry? Where's that Yammie V-4 that you said was in
Rossi's future for
   > > > the 2005 MotoGP?
  > >
  > > Rossi won last year on virtual V4... Yamaha's logical step is a
real V4...
 >
 > .... WTF is a 'virtual v4'?? a bike on a computer screen?

It's an inline 4, but with a V4 crankshaft phasing.

The problem with normal inline 4s is that the power pulses are evenly
spaced, which gives the rear tire no time to recover between power
pulses. V4s (and other V-configuration engines) have uneven crankshaft
phasing - 2 power pulses very close together, and then a long pause.
This pause in power allows the tire to regain traction, giving the bike
better drive out of corners.

That's why Yamaha made the M1 a "virtual V4" - they changed the
crankshaft layout and ignition timing to put the power pulses closer
together and lengthen the pause, like in a V4.

But a "virtual V4" like that requires a counterbalancer because with
this weird crankshaft phasing the engine doesn't have perfect primary
balance. So a "normal V4" is better in some ways:

- It can have a perfect primary balance (like Ducati's 90-degree V4),
avoiding heavy and power-robbing counterbalancers

- It's narrower, improving aerodynamics and ground clearance

An inline 4 or a "virtual V4" is cheaper to make, though, and more
compact front-to-back, which allows more flexibility in where the
engine is placed in the frame. Are the V4s really better? I guess we'll
have to wait and see...

-Gniewko<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

(lubecki@hotmail.com) scribbled:

  > > .... WTF is a 'virtual v4'?? a bike on a computer screen?
 >
 > It's an inline 4, but with a V4 crankshaft phasing.
 >
 > The problem with normal inline 4s is

.... thanks for that succinct explanation

--
<< <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com" target="_blank">http://michaeljtobler.homelinux.com</a> (Wall of Voodoo - Tomorrow) >>
Using TSO is like kicking a dead whale down the beach.
   -- S. C. Johnson<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

lubecki DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:
 > mjt wrote:
 >
  >>("Larry xlax Lovisone" <netters2 DeleteThis @combogusinfocast.com>) scribbled:
  >>
  >>
   >>>>Ummm, Larry? Where's that Yammie V-4 that you said was in
 >
 > Rossi's future for
 >
   >>>>the 2005 MotoGP?
   >>>
   >>>Rossi won last year on virtual V4... Yamaha's logical step is a
 >
 > real V4...
 >
  >>.... WTF is a 'virtual v4'?? a bike on a computer screen?
 >
 >
 > It's an inline 4, but with a V4 crankshaft phasing.
 >
 > The problem with normal inline 4s is that the power pulses are evenly
 > spaced, which gives the rear tire no time to recover between power
 > pulses. V4s (and other V-configuration engines) have uneven crankshaft
 > phasing - 2 power pulses very close together, and then a long pause.
 > This pause in power allows the tire to regain traction, giving the bike
 > better drive out of corners.
 >
 > That's why Yamaha made the M1 a "virtual V4" - they changed the
 > crankshaft layout and ignition timing to put the power pulses closer
 > together and lengthen the pause, like in a V4.
 >
 > But a "virtual V4" like that requires a counterbalancer because with
 > this weird crankshaft phasing the engine doesn't have perfect primary
 > balance. So a "normal V4" is better in some ways:
 >
 > - It can have a perfect primary balance (like Ducati's 90-degree V4),
 > avoiding heavy and power-robbing counterbalancers
 >
 > - It's narrower, improving aerodynamics and ground clearance
 >
 > An inline 4 or a "virtual V4" is cheaper to make, though, and more
 > compact front-to-back, which allows more flexibility in where the
 > engine is placed in the frame. Are the V4s really better? I guess we'll
 > have to wait and see...

I found the following to be a pretty well-balanced article on design
trade-offs:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.motorcycledaily.com/21february05_motogpengines.htm" target="_blank">http://www.motorcycledaily.com/21february05_motogpengines.htm</a>
-or-
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/5ruzb" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/5ruzb</a>

It references some other good articles on engine design.

The following link purports to understand Yamaha's thinking on the
choice of an in-line 4 over the alternatives:

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.yamaha-racing.com/motogp/bikes.asp" target="_blank">http://www.yamaha-racing.com/motogp/bikes.asp</a>
-or-
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/5zj4d" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/5zj4d</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

 > It's an inline 4, but with a V4 crankshaft phasing.

Thanks Gniewko... I couldn't have said it better myself...

Larry L
94 RC45 #2
Have a wheelie NICE day...
Lean & Mean it in every corner of your life...
If it wasn't for us the fast lane would rust...
V4'S are music to the seat of my pants...
1952 De Havilland Chipmunk...
Yank and bank your brains loose...
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/" target="_blank">http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/-xlax-/</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/" target="_blank">http://home.comcast.net/~netters2/</a>
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2" target="_blank">http://www.fox302.com/index.pl?s=vg&user=netters2</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

Ari Rankum wrote:
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.motorcycledaily.com/21february05_motogpengines.htm</font" target="_blank">http://www.motorcycledaily.com/21february05_motogpengines.htm</font</a>>
 > -or-
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/5ruzb</font" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/5ruzb</font</a>>
 >
 > It references some other good articles on engine design.
 >
 > The following link purports to understand Yamaha's thinking on the
 > choice of an in-line 4 over the alternatives:
 >
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.yamaha-racing.com/motogp/bikes.asp</font" target="_blank">http://www.yamaha-racing.com/motogp/bikes.asp</font</a>>
 > -or-
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://tinyurl.com/5zj4d</font" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/5zj4d</font</a>>

Good articles. I've seen the motorcycledaily.com article before, but
not the other one. Cool stuff.

-Gniewko<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

Larry xlax Lovisone wrote:
  > > It's an inline 4, but with a V4 crankshaft phasing.
 >
 > Thanks Gniewko... I couldn't have said it better myself...

Yeah, I read way too many motorcycle magazines...

-Gniewko<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

mjt <mjtobler DeleteThis @removethis_mail.ru> wrote in
news:20050316092914.44c911c7@stimpy.local:

 > High Plains Thumper scribbled:
 >
  >> Well, I guess in a virtual sense the older Goldwings are a
  >> virtual 180 degree V-4 and the old Beemers a virtual 180
  >> degree V-Twin. My Savage is a virtual V-Single.
 >
 > ... i guess that means my Busa is a virtual v8 (?)

In a virtual way ....

 > i see you're using KNode to post - does this mean you
 > got the DVD and have suse 9.2 installed ?????

Got the DVD and your E-mail. No, post was from SuSE 8.1.
(Tonight I'm in Winders because of some E-mails I hadn't replied
to in Outlook.) Will pro'ly do the install this weekend. I
have to figure out why I cannot overwrite my botched YaST2. I
used the options to overwrite, but rpm balks at it. At work I
mentioned about using Linux to some coworkers, seems to have
generated some interest today. Some don't realize how much more
fluid the animations are, especially the action games. I plan
to reinstall Heroes of Might and Magic III and Myth2 once 9.2 is
installed.

I also found a website where someone is doing a rewrite of
original Command and Conquer for Linux. I think because of
Linux popularity in Europe and in Asia, we will start seeing
more games written for XP in Linux. Too bad Loki Games was
ahead of it's time and went under.

--
HPT<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

My guess is that the 750 class will breath it's final breath, and the new
class that will evolve with be the 650 class. I mean, the Gixxer750 is no
slouch, but it's not that much faster than a ZX-6R, and it's outclassed by
the liter class bikes. We don't need three classes of cruise missles. Two
is enough, and then have the alternative V twin bike as well.


"sqidbait" <sqid_bait.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1110932344.049992.152980@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
 > This is what I've heard so far in terms of things
 > in the pipe for 2006...
 >
 > 1) Triumph is developing a 680cc triple that will be
 > used for a middleweight sportbike. I guess that's it
 > for the Daytona 650. Maybe we'll get a mini-SpeedTriple
 > as well?
 >
 > 2) Suzuki will release "super-standards"/streetfighters
 > based on the GSXR line. A 150hp SuperBandit? Whoah.
 >
 > 3) The VMax will finally be updated. ( Sure it will! )
 >
 > Any others?
 >
 > Oh, and Bike (UK Mag) said that Honda UK/Europe has
 > commited to having ABS standard on all bikes over
 > 250cc in the next couple of years. It won't be optional.
 > I wonder if this will force the issue in North America?
 >
 > -- Michael
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:13:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1.TakeThisOut@san.rr.com>
wrote:

 >My guess is that the 750 class will breath it's final breath, and the new
 >class that will evolve with be the 650 class. I mean, the Gixxer750 is no
 >slouch, but it's not that much faster than a ZX-6R, and it's outclassed by
 >the liter class bikes. We don't need three classes of cruise missles. Two
 >is enough, and then have the alternative V twin bike as well.
 >
 >


That makes sense, but I've been hearing the same thing for at least
five or six years. It usually goes something like "the 600's are
making almost as much power as the 750's, and the liter-bikes are
getting to be almost as lightweight as the 750's, so what do we need
750's for anyway?"

There must be SOME reason, but it escapes me at the moment.

Of course, I have a Ducati two-valve V-twin -- "The literbike with
two-thirds the power of a 600!"




--
Scott Gardner

"This space intentionally left blank."<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

Scott Gardner wrote:
 > On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:13:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1.TakeThisOut@san.rr.com>
 > wrote:
 >
 >
  >>My guess is that the 750 class will breath it's final breath, and the new
  >>class that will evolve with be the 650 class. I mean, the Gixxer750 is no
  >>slouch, but it's not that much faster than a ZX-6R, and it's outclassed by
  >>the liter class bikes. We don't need three classes of cruise missles. Two
  >>is enough, and then have the alternative V twin bike as well.
  >>
  >>
 >
 >
 >
 > That makes sense, but I've been hearing the same thing for at least
 > five or six years. It usually goes something like "the 600's are
 > making almost as much power as the 750's, and the liter-bikes are
 > getting to be almost as lightweight as the 750's, so what do we need
 > 750's for anyway?"
 >
 > There must be SOME reason, but it escapes me at the moment.
 >
 > Of course, I have a Ducati two-valve V-twin -- "The literbike with
 > two-thirds the power of a 600!"

Damn Scott, how do you ever manage to get where you're going?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:25:26 -0500, Saddlebag <user.TakeThisOut@example.net>
wrote:

 >Scott Gardner wrote:
  >> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:13:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1.TakeThisOut@san.rr.com>
  >> wrote:
  >>
  >>
   >>>My guess is that the 750 class will breath it's final breath, and the new
   >>>class that will evolve with be the 650 class. I mean, the Gixxer750 is no
   >>>slouch, but it's not that much faster than a ZX-6R, and it's outclassed by
   >>>the liter class bikes. We don't need three classes of cruise missles. Two
   >>>is enough, and then have the alternative V twin bike as well.
   >>>
   >>>
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >> That makes sense, but I've been hearing the same thing for at least
  >> five or six years. It usually goes something like "the 600's are
  >> making almost as much power as the 750's, and the liter-bikes are
  >> getting to be almost as lightweight as the 750's, so what do we need
  >> 750's for anyway?"
  >>
  >> There must be SOME reason, but it escapes me at the moment.
  >>
  >> Of course, I have a Ducati two-valve V-twin -- "The literbike with
  >> two-thirds the power of a 600!"
 >
 >Damn Scott, how do you ever manage to get where you're going?

Slowly, man...slowly. (grin)


--
Scott Gardner

"Are you still here? The message is over. Shoo! Go away!"<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

 > That makes sense, but I've been hearing the same thing for at least
 > five or six years. It usually goes something like "the 600's are
 > making almost as much power as the 750's, and the liter-bikes are
 > getting to be almost as lightweight as the 750's, so what do we need
 > 750's for anyway?"
 >
 > There must be SOME reason, but it escapes me at the moment.

My 750 does quite well against both 600's and literbikes. Without the
obvious pain in the neck issues of either.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours... 

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:20:46 -0500, Scott Gardner <gardners14.DeleteThis@cox.net> wrote:

 >On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 05:13:02 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1.DeleteThis@san.rr.com>
 >wrote:
 >
  >>My guess is that the 750 class will breath it's final breath, and the new
  >>class that will evolve with be the 650 class. I mean, the Gixxer750 is no
  >>slouch, but it's not that much faster than a ZX-6R, and it's outclassed by
  >>the liter class bikes. We don't need three classes of cruise missles. Two
  >>is enough, and then have the alternative V twin bike as well.
  >>
  >>
 >
 >
 >That makes sense, but I've been hearing the same thing for at least
 >five or six years. It usually goes something like "the 600's are
 >making almost as much power as the 750's, and the liter-bikes are
 >getting to be almost as lightweight as the 750's, so what do we need
 >750's for anyway?"
 >
 >There must be SOME reason, but it escapes me at the moment.
 >
 >Of course, I have a Ducati two-valve V-twin -- "The literbike with
 >two-thirds the power of a 600!"


Maybe insurance ratings.

Ben<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: 2006 model rumours...