Most radical GP bikes?

While Honda’s all-conquering RC211V showed that a choosing an odd number of cylinders was a cunning plan under the 2002-on MotoGP regulations, when Aprilia tried to take the same route it fell somewhat flat. The three-cylinder RS Cube was one of the most highly-anticipated bikes of the new era, with more technology than any of its rivals thanks to an engine that was effectively three cylinders from a then-current V10 F1 engine. Just as Honda’s five-cylinder engine allowed it to use the same 145kg minimum weight as a four-cylinder, the Aprilia triple was allowed to weigh the same as a twin – just 135kg. The firm knew that the engine, believed to be the most powerful on the grid at the time with around 240bhp thanks to pneumatic valves and other F1 tech, would be hard to get the best from, so it went all out to tame it with fly-by-wire throttles and traction control. Unfortunately, the electronics of the era just weren’t up to the job, and the RS Cube was a hound to ride. Ironically, after a decade of improving technology, GP bikes and even many road bikes now routinely use the same type of electronically-assisted methods to tame power delivery that Aprilia hoped would be the key to success back in 2002. Sadly the project was dropped in 2004.

Read more: Top 10 oddball 500cc GP and MotoGP bikes - Motorcycle Top 10s - Visordown

Click to expand...

Even before the advent of the four-stroke class in 2002, Aprilia was a firm that tended to think laterally, as its 1994 RSW2 showed. You’d have thought that, in a racing class limited to 500cc, using less than the full capacity would be the equivalent of bringing a knife to a gunfight. But that’s what Aprilia did – the first RSW2 machines were only 410cc. The idea sprang from the fact that at the time the best qualifying times on the 250cc grid were often faster than many of the bikes in the 500cc class. Which got Aprilia’s engineering guru, Jan Witteveen thinking: if he took the firm’s successful 250 racer and bored it out, he might have an instant contender in the 500cc class. The fact that twins enjoyed a minimum weight of just 105kg compared to 130kg for the dominant four-cylinder 500s added even more temptation. And the RSW2 was just that – a big-bore 250 with a 410cc motor. Honda’s twin-cylinder NSR500V was also built using similar logic. Unfortunately, the reality was that while one-lap pace could be good, in a race the four-cylinder bikes would roar off down the straights and block the twins in the corners, eliminating their advantage. Later RSW2s were 430cc, then 460cc and eventually 498cc – but the bikes were never a real challenge to the four-cylinders that dominated the era.

Read more: Top 10 oddball 500cc GP and MotoGP bikes - Motorcycle Top 10s - Visordown

Click to expand...

We couldn’t have this list without mentioning Elf’s Honda-powered efforts of the mid-1980s – after all, the firm’s valiant efforts to prove that forks are not the best way to hold the front wheel onto a bike are the closest anyone has come to actually providing a convincing argument against forks, backed up with real evidence. We’ve picked the 1984-85 Elf-2 here, with its three-cylinder Honda engine, but the Elf-3, Elf-4 or Elf-5 are just as worthy. The Elf-4 was particularly impressive, thanks largely to the superhuman efforts of Ron Haslam who used it to finish fourth in the championship in 1987.

Read more: Top 10 oddball 500cc GP and MotoGP bikes - Motorcycle Top 10s - Visordown

Click to expand...

In recent years Ducati’s dalliance with a carbon-fibre chassis for the Desmosedici racer and the virtually frameless design of the Panigale have brought the term ‘monocoque’ to prominence in motorcycling. But Kawasaki’s KR500 of the early 1980s was a much clearer example of the idea. In its original form, the bike’s fuel tank actually formed its main structure – with the steering head and swingarm pivot structures welded straight to the aluminium tank. Later versions, from 1982, edged away from the idea, with a an aluminium backbone chassis and a more conventional, removable fuel tank.

Click to expand...

Honda has never been short of an idea or two, and it threw several of them at its return to top-level GP racing in 1979. The NR500 was a marvel, with its oval-pistoned V4 four-stroke, with eight valves and two con-rods per cylinder and a rev ceiling of nearly 20,000rpm. Sure, a two-stroke would have been about a zillion times simpler to make, but Honda wanted to prove that four-strokes were the future. But just doing a crazy engine wasn’t enough for Honda. Oh no. So it added a monocoque frame – where the lower ‘fairing’ panels were actually structural – and side-mounted radiators, plus some radical aerodynamics including a vertical windscreen. The story would have been a fairytale if the bike had gone on to destroy the opposition, but fairytales don’t tend to happen, and it didn’t. Honda persevered with the four-stroke, but didn’t return to its winning ways until it gave in and created a two-stroke 500 in 1982.

Click to expand...

The alphanumeric combo ‘NSR500’ probably conjures images of relentless wins and an era of Honda domination in GP racing. But the first bike to carry the title wasn’t so auspicious. The 1984 NSR – which was intended to replace the title-winning NS500 – had its fuel tank under the engine and exhausts on top, under a dummy ‘tank’ cover. The idea was that the fuel’s weight would be carried low and the bike’s handling would alter less as the tank emptied. Unfortunately it didn’t quite work like that, and while Freddie Spencer won the second round on the bike he opted to use the previous generation three-cylinder machine for all the rest of his wins during 1984.

Click to expand...

For most, Honda’s 1983 season was notable because it marked a full-scale return to two-strokes and the firm’s first world title since the 1960s, carrying Freddie Spencer to his first 500cc championship. But at that year’s Tokyo Motor Show the firm revealed the four-stroke machine that it had also developed in 1983, the latest iteration of the NR500, and it was mind-blowing. Yes, the engine was still a weird, oval-pistoned marvel, this time made largely of titanium and magnesium, but the bike it was mounted in was even more advanced. The frame was carbon fibre. So was the swingarm. And the wheels, for that matter. Oh, and the fork tubes. And the brakes. Basically, if it could be made of carbon, it was. Would it have been competitive? Probably not, or Honda would no doubt have actually raced it. But no other bike has pushed the limited of its contemporary technology quite so hard.

Click to expand...

#22 said:

1979 Honda NR500

Click to expand...

Arrabbiata1 said:

Ha! I knew this would be in there before I started reading. The NR (which was christened nearly ready) must have been an absolute ....... nightmare to work on and was possibly the most inaccessible race bike ever built. Look at the ....... thing!!! The monocoque frame was also the fairing consisting of two aluminium pressings running from the steering head to the swing arm pivot. Just to change the jets they had to split the chassis and to access something as simple as the spark plugs meant the entire front half of the bike had to be removed separating the brake lines and the electrical connections in the process. Although its main advantage was it weight saving, unsurprisingly the second iteration reverted to a steel tubular frame.

Actually, when you think about it I reckon one of the most radical GP bikes ever built was the V5 RC211v. The customer version that Stoner rode for LCR in 2006 was one of the loudest race bikes I've ever heard. The original Desmocedici GP03 was out there too.

Talking of tasty sounding race bikes - the six cylinder 350cc MV was mental.

Surprised this list didn't contain the carbon frame Cagiva V593. It took the netherworldy genius of Lawson to get the thing into Parc Ferme and on top of the block, cost Randy his career, Mladin his sanity and 'Lil John (already a certified lunatic) only managed to win two Grand Prix at Laguna and Eastern Creek on the thing due to a race of attrition and a shrewd tyre choice. Always thought it was one of the most beautiful race machines ever built though.

Click to expand...

Dr No said:

(oh and that Moto Czyzc was a joke, doesn't even deserve to be uttered in the same thread as the Britten)

Click to expand...

Gaz said:

Not thinking of this one Kesh?

ELF Honda | Bike EXIF

BTW I realise that we have an ELF in the original post but this one is the single sides same side swingarm variant

Or are you thinking more the RC30

Click to expand...

Jumkie said:

Yeah, what a loser. I mean come on, not even an original design, its like he is just a clone of some other version, eh Doc? NO, you're right, not even in the same thread, hell, not even in the same forum.

Click to expand...

Band On The Run said:

Im pretty sure they had that Kwaker on display at Daytona a few yrs back. I'd have to look it up but I have a few pics somewhere. I was impressed by how basic and rudimentary it was. It was that generation where parts came straight off the lathe and bolted onto the bike. There was a bunch of more modern superbike and GPs next to it but that was the one I was most interested in

Click to expand...

Dr No said:

I got it wrong. The E bike is ok. Because it actually raced.
The "MotoGP" bike was a vanity project. With bizarre engineering features (longitudinal narrow angle V4...ffs) that were lapped up as innovative by dickheaded journos. Though I know an engineer that had a nicely paid job in the States for a while pandering to Mike Czyzc's ego.
Czyzc v Britten?
No ....... contest.
(and the Britten wasn't without faults)

Click to expand...

Jumkie said:

Well, I wasn't trying to pit either against eachother. And frankly, thats kinda futile not to mention a bit presumptuous. If you could go back and search my takes on Britten, you would see that I have a great admiration for what he did, and I lament his loss in a universal scale.

But im not going to rubbish Czyzc because I think so highly of Britten. Maybe you understand the project better than I do, but to this lay person, the E1 is quite amazing. I saw it, touched it, I spoke to the man behind the project (nice down to earth dude) and watched it race around Laguna, and it was a big thrill.

Click to expand...

Dr No said:

No problem, Jum.
I've sat on a Britten. The late Holden's one? Also a big thrill.
As I said the E1 is interesting, the motoGP stuff was not.
If you've met Czyzc, then I defer to your assessment.

Click to expand...