WSuperbike faster than PrototypeGP

Dr No

3385611354489587


I too, often wonder how the factories can redesign and re-tool every couple of years on models with such low volumes. And the extent to which these flagships are subsided by other sales. I can understand your suggestion to nobble them in order to reduce costs. But your argument that bikes are too fast and need to be slowed down for safety's sake is rather humanitarian.


Suzuka is a special case due to its layout, but while 1000s are being raced on Irish roads, at titchy circuits in the UK, at Broadford locally...knocking a few km's off the top speed wouldn't have avoided any of the race fatalities I can recall. Including ones that happened in front of my eyes.

Click to expand...

I don't think the manufacturers can retool at the rate just prior to 2009. Engine scaling and modular engine design will probably be necessary to reduce parts variation and alter the manufacturing/pricing strategies for the developed world.


 


Yamaha unveiled a new modular triple concept at Intermot. The engine was essentially an R1 with a cylinder deleted. Therefore, the R1 engine and the concept triple could theoretically share many parts, from pistons, valves, and rods to stator/clutch covers. Honda have already put engine scaling into production. The CBR250R is basically a single CBR1000RR cylinder. The CBR500R appears to be a heavily stroked two-cylinder version of the I-4 600cc architecture.


 


The 750cc I-3 concept is particularly interesting b/c it has superior performance characteristics to a 600cc I-4, but it costs less to manufacturer and maintain, thanks to interchangeable parts, fewer total parts, and modest rev ceilings. Furthermore, a 750cc Supersport triple would be cost-effective to operate in the 140-150hp range found in WSS.


 


The question: Do Supersport 600s get promoted to Moto2?

but there are already some 675s and  even a 750 gsxr available whereas there is nothing to fill the important void that the disappearance of the 125/250 strokes and 400cc four strokes has left us for way too many years with even the new 125 2 strokes only putting out 19hp


how awesome the vfr400 must have been at its time

cliché guevara

3386611354575904


but there are already some 675s and  even a 750 gsxr available whereas there is nothing to fill the important void that the disappearance of the 125/250 strokes and 400cc four strokes has left us for way too many years with even the new 125 2 strokes only putting out 19hp


how awesome the vfr400 must have been at its time

Click to expand...

Had one in the late 90s. Very nice little bike, with proper exhaust note. Those things were a consequence of the draconian Japanese licence laws combined with Japanese engineering excess. They were never officially imported though and would have died a death in the marketplace against 600s if they were. As a grey import, they were interesting and cheap enough for me to be interested....until some arsehole stole it.


I miss, most of all the 250 2-strokes. I hanker after an NSR205SP and am still dark on a mate for selling a 6000km old Aprilia (for bugger all) without asking me when he had to move back to Sydney in a hurry.


Anecdote ain't evidence, but amongst my friend who all used to buy sports bikes, the new thing was nakeds (bleeurgh) now the likes of GS BMWs (also bleeurgh).

mylexicon

3386571354573665


I don't think the manufacturers can retool at the rate just prior to 2009. Engine scaling and modular engine design will probably be necessary to reduce parts variation and alter the manufacturing/pricing strategies for the developed world.


 


Yamaha unveiled a new modular triple concept at Intermot. The engine was essentially an R1 with a cylinder deleted. Therefore, the R1 engine and the concept triple could theoretically share many parts, from pistons, valves, and rods to stator/clutch covers. Honda have already put engine scaling into production. The CBR250R is basically a single CBR1000RR cylinder. The CBR500R appears to be a heavily stroked two-cylinder version of the I-4 600cc architecture.


 


The 750cc I-3 concept is particularly interesting b/c it has superior performance characteristics to a 600cc I-4, but it costs less to manufacturer and maintain, thanks to interchangeable parts, fewer total parts, and modest rev ceilings. Furthermore, a 750cc Supersport triple would be cost-effective to operate in the 140-150hp range found in WSS.


 


The question: Do Supersport 600s get promoted to Moto2?

Click to expand...

I haven't paid the slightest attention to the likes of the CBR250. Except to see the odd one around and wonder if they could make it any uglier. I have no idea as to the actual degree of parts re-use between it and the 1000, but even if no tooling cost is saved, the design and development will be much faster and cheaper.


 


As to The Question.


Nup.


Moto2 seems to be a healthy class  [I'm biting my tongue here, as the 250s were the pinnacle of race bikes....]. They certainly aren't as slow as I feared. The open chassis rules allow more participation by outside/non-factory engineering firms. And the chassis is probably the best area for these firms to compete/participate while still being part of the game...I wonder how much cash Sacchi lost on his Ioda project last year....

Andy Roo

3386081354537223


 


 


Time Michael, I started on CraSH, graduated to Powerslide  was an obnoxious ..... then started realizing there was a zen path to follow. It doesn't happen over night. 


 


Lex with whom I agree 30% time is a smart cookie and doesn't invite derision, but does invite debate. 


 


A question Lex didn't answer. Remember when the 100hp rule was touted. wasn't enough. I call 130hp with good torque enough, I prefer a handling package over a power package anyway. 


 


We all different. I can do the 200hp no worries but the best ride has a little shake and rattle with a bit more twist and roll. 

Click to expand...

Roger/chopper once called me a bigmouthed do-gooder to which I must perforce plead guilty your honour.


 


The deal has made plenty of good posts and his previous objection to football posts in a motogp thread was in retrospect quite justified.


 


I do regret the loss of some previous posters like babelfish who eventually got sick of nitpicking and namecalling. I guess I don't need to worry about the likes of lex and david emmett, the contributions of whom I value, as they don't seem to abash very easily.

BJ.C

3385851354524977


It could be considered asinine if you quoted it correctly - THE MOST PROFIT, not MOST OF THEIR PROFIT. The money made of a $15000 sportsbike is a lot more than that made off a $1500 125 in Asia. Not only in raw terms, but in percentage terms.

Click to expand...

 


I see what you're saying, we are clearing talking about two different points. 10% of 15k is definitely bigger than 10% of 1.5k. You are correct.


 


On the liter bike issue, they're a vanity line. Scooters and 250 Ninjas are paying the bills.


 


In my defense I read most of this after waking up, before work.


 


I still wonder after R&D, Tooling, Manufacturing, how much Honda actually makes on a CBR1000RR. I'm very curious, and the internet really isn't helping me out.

mylexicon

3386571354573665




Engine scaling and modular engine design will probably be necessary to reduce parts variation and alter the manufacturing/pricing strategies for the developed world.


 


Yamaha unveiled a new modular triple concept at Intermot.

Click to expand...

 


BMW 'introduced' the concept in 1985 - the K100 and K75. Triumph 'introduced' the concept with the 750/900/1000/1200 in 1989.


 


It isn't new, even if it is new to you.

bluegreen

3386671354590728


 


I see what you're saying, we are clearing talking about two different points. 10% of 15k is definitely bigger than 10% of 1.5k. You are correct.


 


On the liter bike issue, they're a vanity line. Scooters and 250 Ninjas are paying the bills.


 


In my defense I read most of this after waking up, before work.


 


I still wonder after R&D, Tooling, Manufacturing, how much Honda actually makes on a CBR1000RR. I'm very curious, and the internet really isn't helping me out.

Click to expand...

The profit per unit on something like the Yamaha 125 sportsbike compared to that of their 125 asian commuter is massive. They make a hundred dollars a unit on the commuter, but lots in spares over the much longer life of the bike, they make 50% of the manufacturing cost of the sports 125, because the market will bear it, but bugger all over the lifetime - most are binned.


 


These are obviously off-the-cuff numbers, but gained from a guy I know that works in Yamaha's biggest factory in Indonesia. The sports 125 is made in India, where the wages are higher, but the workforce is better trained and skilled.


 


With bikes like the R1 and R6, they make it, add a margin and that's what they sell at - because there is a demand, or was. There is little demand in Europe for the kind of bike they sell by their millions in Asia, which is a pity - they are much better at being a moped than the bikes they sell for that purpose in the EU.


 


Looking at supply and demand, so much of that is due to legislation in Europe. In the US, with no mandatory requirement to do your time on a 50, 125 before progressing to a bigger bike, the figures are much less influenced by legislation - and predominately, big sells. In the US a 600 is considered small, a litre bike is a 'rice rocket' and you aren't  real man unless you have 1400cc+ of iron humping away between your legs.


 


Part of that is price - you can buy a 1200cc Hardley for under 10k sticker, but you won't even buy a 600 sports bike for 30% more than that. If you want a 1000cc, you are looking at at least double. If you want something exotic, expect to part with more than $25k.


 


But let's compare apples with apples - the Hardley is an F350. The RSV4 is a Ferrari. The R1 is a ZR1. The R6 is a fully souped-up Subaru. 

BJ.C

3386691354594375


 


BMW 'introduced' the concept in 1985 - the K100 and K75. Triumph 'introduced' the concept with the 750/900/1000/1200 in 1989.


 


It isn't new, even if it is new to you.

Click to expand...

The 4-2-1 Grand Prix cylinder rules were based on modular engine design. It's not new to anyone. However, Yamaha's engine concept is new b/c it is the first 3-cylinder derivation of a modern WSBK engine, and the first time, to my knowledge, that a manufacturer has scaled a cross-plane four-cylinder engine in the moto market. Triumph added a cylinder to the Daytona 750, but to my knowledge that bike never competed under the international rules.

mylexicon

3386741354597087


The 4-2-1 Grand Prix cylinder rules were based on modular engine design. It's not new to anyone. However, Yamaha's engine concept is new b/c it is the first 3-cylinder derivation of a modern WSBK engine, and the first time, to my knowledge, that a manufacturer has scaled a cross-plane four-cylinder engine in the moto market. Triumph added a cylinder to the Daytona 750, but to my knowledge that bike never competed under the international rules.

Click to expand...

Lex,<u> real</u> modularity of cylinders in Grand Prix only really took place once they went 2 stroke (not to mention that the rules were 4 (500) [3 edit] 4  (350)2 (250)2(125) 1(80/50)...if we're talking '69. I think. The 4-2-1 came about in the 80s when they killed the 80 class).


 


I'll have to have a look at the R1-sans-a-cylinder concept. I can't see how the cross-plane concept applies to a triple. Completely different firing/balance requirements.

<blockquote data-author="Dr No

3386771354599390


 



 

I'll have to have a look at the R1-sans-a-cylinder concept. I can't see how the cross-plane concept applies to a triple. Completely difference firing/balance requirements.

Click to expand...

 

Click to expand...

There's a reason for that: "The crossplane crankshaft has four crankpins, each offset at 90° from the adjacent crankpins."


 


120deg opposed triples have been around as long as MV... but they're not crossplane. 

mylexicon

3386741354597087


The 4-2-1 Grand Prix cylinder rules were based on modular engine design. It's not new to anyone. However, Yamaha's engine concept is new b/c it is the first 3-cylinder derivation of a modern WSBK engine, and the first time, to my knowledge, that a manufacturer has scaled a cross-plane four-cylinder engine in the moto market. Triumph added a cylinder to the Daytona 750, but to my knowledge that bike never competed under the international rules.

Click to expand...

 


Where do you get this s stuff from?


 


When has there been a 4-2-1 'modular' rule that applied? When there has been a 4-2-1 cylinder mix, two of those classes were two-stroke, one was 4-stroke. You're making .... up again.


 


Prior to MotoGP, you had 3/4/5 cylinder bikes running in the same class. I suppose you could claim you erred and meant to write 1-2-3? 125 single, 250 V-twin, 500 V3. But then, at the same time there were parallel twins, square 4s, V5s...


 


I'd love to see these 4-2-1 rules you are touting.

BJ.C

3386811354600147


There's a reason for that: "The crossplane crankshaft has four crankpins, each offset at 90° from the adjacent crankpins."


 


120deg opposed triples have been around as long as MV... but they're not crossplane. 

Click to expand...

 


120 deg triples are the norm, so calling them crossplane is getting into marketing-speak. Best balance from the minimum of cylinders is a straight 6 with 120 deg throws. Chopping off half the cylinders means that the couple that was cancelled out by having a paired, opposing piston returns. Vibey. But not as vibey as 180deg.


Same concept as what Yammie did with the R1. Instead of the usual flat-crank, they (as you wrote above) twisted it around in 90deg increments, exchanging the primary balance and secondary vibes for a completely different set of harmonics. (Harmonics do my head in)


And only loony Jotas had 180 cranks (that I know of).

BJ.C

3386821354601051


 


I'd love to see these 4-2-1 rules you are touting.

Click to expand...

Was No's info insufficient? Were you unaware that the rules were 500cc 4-cylinder, 250cc 2-cylinder, and 125cc 1-cylinder? Also, I never claimed the 4-2-1 rules were from the 60s, I was merely mentioning an engine scaling concept that most of us would have known about before today.


 


Furthermore, modularity isn't limited to adding/removing cylinders. As I stated earlier, block modularity is achievable by sleeving the engine, and creating a new cylinderhead. Many of the engine parts are not interchangeable with sleeving, but the remainder of the motorcycle can remain unchanged as the block fits to the original frame. Stroking is another form of engine block modularity with a good deal of engine parts overlap, and the engine still fits the frame. Not only do I understand modularity, I've already mentioned another variety of modularity earlier in this thread.


 


If you pay attention to the car industry, you'll find that many companies are turbo-scaling, a third genre of engine modularity of which I am already aware.


 


I appreciate the BMW info, but it did not illustrate a new concept. It was just another uppercut thrown in my direction over a small nuance (that you didn't even understand) in my engine scaling post.

bluegreen

3386671354590728


 


I still wonder after R&D, Tooling, Manufacturing, how much Honda actually makes on a CBR1000RR. I'm very curious, and the internet really isn't helping me out.

Click to expand...

 


Depends on how much they're discounting them to the Dealers....


 


Intriguing question.


Let me talk to some guys in the trade, which will give us one side of it, how much they buy them for from Honda. Then we can look at production volumes...and start assuming some costs....


Difficult, eh?

mylexicon

3386871354603661


Was No's info insufficient? Were you unaware that the rules were 500cc 4-cylinder, 250cc 2-cylinder, and 125cc 1-cylinder? Also, I never claimed the 4-2-1 rules were from the 60s, I was merely mentioning an engine scaling concept that most of us would have known about before today.


 


Furthermore, modularity isn't limited to adding/removing cylinders. As I stated earlier, block modularity is achievable by sleeving the engine, and creating a new cylinderhead. Many of the engine parts are not interchangeable with sleeving, but the remainder of the motorcycle can remain unchanged as the block fits to the original frame. Stroking is another form of engine block modularity with a good deal of engine parts overlap, and the engine still fits the frame. Not only do I understand modularity, I've already mentioned another variety of modularity earlier in this thread.


 


If you pay attention to the car industry, you'll find that many companies are turbo-scaling, a third genre of engine modularity of which I am already aware.


 


I appreciate the BMW info, but it did not illustrate a new concept. It was just another uppercut thrown in my direction over a small nuance (that you didn't even understand) in my engine scaling post.

Click to expand...

The biggest problem with modularity is that it has a tendency to make the smaller iterations bulkier/heavier/more over-designed than they need be.

[quote name="Dr No" post="338688" time="1354604362"] 
Depends on how much they're discounting them to the Dealers....
 
Intriguing question.
Let me talk to some guys in the trade, which will give us one side of it, how much they buy them for from Honda. Then we can look at production volumes...and start assuming some costs....
Difficult, eh?[/quote]

Sounds cool, I'd be interested in hearing about your findings. Like I said, info online is hard to come by.

cliché guevara

3386611354575904

but there are already some 675s and  even a 750 gsxr available whereas there is nothing to fill the important void that the disappearance of the 125/250 strokes and 400cc four strokes has left us for way too many years with even the new 125 2 strokes only putting out 19hp
how awesome the vfr400 must have been at its time

Click to expand...

Ninja 300?

too heavy,too slow.


they are good  beginner bikes (at least the 250 that i'm familiar with) ,just like the cbr250 but they are definately not very good at being sportsbikes.at least when being compared to other 400s of old or the 250 or even 125 aprilia


at least 400cc,better 500-600cc singles or twins ,wet weight 150kg.absolutely doable for the manufacturers

cliché guevara

3387081354630460


too heavy,too slow.


they are good  beginner bikes (at least the 250 that i'm familiar with) ,just like the cbr250 but they are definately not very good at being sportsbikes.at least when being compared to other 400s of old or the 250 or even 125 aprilia


at least 400cc,better 500-600cc singles or twins ,wet weight 150kg.absolutely doable for the manufacturers

Click to expand...

 


It's doable, but it's not cheap. You're basically asking for a $10,000 CBR500R with SBK suspension all around, and a decent set of tires that can actually handle the weight of a four stroke and the additional horsepower it must make over its 2-stroke counterpart. A 450cc single would be cheaper, but they don't rev cheaply.


 


Kick start is the only method of cost-cutting and weight reduction that comes to mind. You shed about 5kg-10kg in battery and starter, but I don't know if kickstart would sell.