Do you think we'll see a crossplane crank

[RTSR1/FJR]

Sounds as a natural progression for Yamaha. More torque is always good! I think it could be a possibility on the next gen.

 

[jzzmusician]

Ya know, I was just thinking about whether the FJR needs more power, torque, grunt yesterday. I finally got out to ride after too much snow, and an abundance of cold.

I finally decided that no, I don't need any more power. But I would love to have about 100lbs less weight. Probably not possible, or if it is, then it's probably not affordable. But given the current power, a drop of 100lbs would be a very serious performance boost and it would handle better besides.

my .02, and worth exactly that or less.

Bob

 

[spalkin]

I second that! Weight savings would be preferable to HP gains.

I wish Yamaha would make more use of the 90° L-Twin engine like Ducati. Check out the weights of their bikes. Very light.

For a slab eater like the FJR, though, some weight is welcome. I actually sort of like the heaviness of it. It's a big gun and should feel that way.

 

[Barabus]

Cross plane crank what? Representing the less tech savvy reader, I like less weight and more power. I think I can say that definitely.

 

[Capt. Bob]

But I would love to have about 100lbs less weight. Probably not possible, or if it is, then it's probably not affordable. But given the current power, a drop of 100lbs would be a very serious performance boost and it would handle better besides.
my .02, and worth exactly that or less.

Bob

Deja vu

Clicky

 

[RTSR1/FJR]

I doubt that the FJR will lose much weight. If it lost 25 lb. I'd be very surprised! First, it's viewed as a 2 up touring bike and needs to be safe over weight saving. Second, Yamaha puts this in a sport touring category, not supersport (racing) where weight is critical. Basically saying that if you want a light bike, buy an R1, R6 or FZ1. I personally think the FJR is fine in the weight dept. This type of bike needs some weight for stability. If it weighed 500 lb. It would be jittery, or if they gave it the geometry to stabilize it, it would handle like a pig. Now seeing that back in the intro of Exup in '87 for the FZR 1000 Yamaha claimed that a 600cc would not benefit for it, but now the R6 has it. For that reason I see the crossplane crank developed for the R1, being utilized in the 1300 for more torque and enhancing the driving of the machine in traffic. I also believe as technology progresses it will show up in a lot of engines and even the R6 eventually (Yamaha and other manufacurers). It's just my .02, whatever that's worth.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

I wish Yamaha would make more use of the 90° L-Twin engine like Ducati. Check out the weights of their bikes. Very light.

True (somewhat) -- less cylinders = less parts and less parts can = less weight. As to the 90 degree V-Twin -- Yamaha's come close: the original Virago is kind'a a Ducati copy 'cept at 75 degree angle. I think anyone who's wanted one has had a chance to have one -- almost 30 years, now. The latest iteration: BT1100 Bulldog (not sold here) didn't sell well.

Then there's the hi-tec XZ550 Vision -- 72 degree V-Twin: buyers stayed away in droves.

For a slab eater like the FJR, though, some weight is welcome. I actually sort of like the heaviness of it. It's a big gun and should feel that way.

You can always add weight to a light bike (wherever you want to put it) -- but, it's hard to make a heavy bike lighter.

There's the story of when, years ago, the AMA racing rules determined that the GSXR (that year) was too light -- Suzuki added a bit of weight to their racers that year "in the exact place that would do the most good -- for handling, etc.".

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

I doubt that the FJR will lose much weight. If it lost 25 lb. I'd be very surprised!

Why not? It used to be considerably lighter (than it is now) -- if they can make them heavier, why can't they make them lighter?

First, it's viewed as a 2 up touring bike and needs to be safe over weight saving.

Strong and light are not mutually exclusive. In fact, an argument could be made for excess mass being dangerous.

Second, Yamaha puts this in a sport touring category, not supersport (racing) where weight is critical. Basically saying that if you want a light bike, buy an R1, R6 or FZ1.

Yamaha actually coined a new term: "Supersport Tpuring" for the FJR. Most view R1s & R6s as "Sportbikes"; while the FZ1 might come closest to a "Standard" (I think Yamaha terms it a "Naked"?).

I personally think the FJR is fine in the weight dept. This type of bike needs some weight for stability. If it weighed 500 lb. It would be jittery, or if they gave it the geometry to stabilize it, it would handle like a pig.

Oh really, is it that simple?

Now seeing that back in the intro of Exup in '87 for the FZR 1000 Yamaha claimed that a 600cc would not benefit for it, but now the R6 has it. For that reason I see the crossplane crank developed for the R1, being utilized in the 1300 for more torque and enhancing the driving of the machine in traffic. I also believe as technology progresses it will show up in a lot of engines and even the R6 eventually ...

The crossplane crank is just another tool in the engineers' toolbox -- and one that currently appeals to Mr. V. Rossi. I think it may (or may not) be seen elsewhere in the Yamaha line (or, other manufacturers). Yamaha has tried repositioning the crank throws on other models with mixed results (TDM/TRX). I think: if it appeals to the rider?, great -- if not, it's just another spec on the spec-sheet.

 

[squeezer]

Well, my own .02, and worth every penny:

Weight savings are always nice, but to be honest, the first thing I did was add a bunch of weight to it. Top box, driving lights, larger screen, larger saddle, pegs, etc. Ultimately, form follows function and the purpose of this bike, of course, isn't just to go fast, but to go far and do it in relative comfort. To be honest, when I look at the alternatives, it seems Yamaha got the compromises just about right. This is a pretty awesome design.

That said, the basic design has been out there about a decade now. It wouldn't surprise me if Mama Yama is starting to think about taking a clean sheet of paper and rethinking sport tourers again. And I can't imagine them sticking a new engine with a crossplane crank into a sport-touring model unless they were also designing a new chassis. That is, I think if you're going to retool for a radically different engine, you might was well address the whole package. On the other hand, with the head honcho at BMW claiming that the sport-touring market is fading, maybe we're not going to be on any manufacturer's radar for awhile.

I have, incidentally, figured out a way to reduce the weight of the bike and I'm hoping my ride will be 25 to 40 lbs. lighter this year. It's called diet and exercise. I'm finding it a lot tougher than removing the top box, but I like my luggage space.

For those of you wondering what a crossplane crank is, check out this link on Yammie's new MotoGP bike. Crossplane cranks are usually used in engines with a V configuration. I think using them in an in-line 4 is a pretty new idea.

 

[ionbeam]

One of the primary reasons for a crossplane crank is to control the power pulses in a way that lets the tire contact patch recover traction between pulses while heeled over in 10/10 cornering. If you are riding like that on the street where the crossplane crank is actually returning value you aren't going to live long.

IMO.

 

[squeezer]

One of the primary reasons for a crossplane crank is to control the power pulses in a way that lets the tire contact patch recover traction between pulses while heeled over in 10/10 cornering. If you are riding like that on the street where the crossplane crank is actually returning value you aren't going to live long.

Oh, now don't go getting all reasonable and everything.

 

[charismaticmegafauna]

Mr. Rossi's crew chief, Jeremy Burgess, feels that you can only use maximum power a few places on the racetrack (long straight-aways) -- but, good, effective, acceleration can be used all over the race track; thus Mr. Rossi's, 'crossplane crank', M-1.

Now, with the '09 R-1, all the "Walter Mitty V. Rossis" can have it too. (Maybe?, many riders will like the 'crossplane' design? Maybe, it time, we'll find out -- successful technology, ot just another idea?)

 

[ionbeam]

A game we used to play at upper management meetings was Buzz Word Bingo. Before the meeting we would take part of our lunch and use an Excel template that we made to make bingo cards with buzz words or short business phrases. During the meeting we would both play bingo for a winner but also rate the BS factor in some of the projects and business initiatives (bingo word).

I would most dearly like to see the FJR's Buzz Word Bingo card fully populated with all the right features --> Crossplane crank; ABS; wave rotor; fully floating; monocoque chassis; wireless transponder; Tetra-Lever Shaft Drive; slipper clutch; tri-axis gearbox shafts; carburized connecting rods; ceramic composite cylinder bores... ****, if you can check most of the blocks on your bingo card then your motorcycle just has to be the baddest on the block

 

[Toecutter]

One of the primary reasons for a crossplane crank is to make your bike sound cooler with aftermarket pipes.

Fixed.

It wouldn't surprise me if Mama Yama is starting to think about taking a clean sheet of paper and rethinking sport tourers again. And I can't imagine them sticking a new engine with a crossplane crank into a sport-touring model unless they were also designing a new chassis. That is, I think if you're going to retool for a radically different engine, you might was well address the whole package.

And then sell it exclusively in Europe.