2009 R1 Shortened Stroke and Crossplane Crank

Very interesting.

I wondered how long it would be before one of the OEMs went to the MotoGP playbook and implemented an engine with uneven firing order. I remember thinking a long time ago that this was something that could give Yamaha the advantage it needed to push past the other manufacturers not only in terms of power delivery, but also in uniqueness.

If the new engine performs like Yamaha hopes, then it will combine the best of both worlds:

-Top-end horsepower of a four-cylinder
-Traction of a twin on corner exit


However, I am surprised about one thing--

Yamaha has shortened the engine's stroke even more than the 2004-2008 model. This is one factor that I am really shocked over. The dip in the torque curve around 7000 RPM that occurs in the 2004-2008 model R1 is well-documented, and is known to be a function of the bore and stroke of the engine. And though the problem can be rectified with fuel map tuning and aftermarket exhaust, the engine is still sorely lacking in low-end and midrange torque when compared to other bikes in its class.

I honestly expected Yamaha to lengthen the stroke.


It will be very interesting to see what effect on low-end and midrange torque the new crossplane crank has. Maybe some of you with better understanding of the internal dynamics of Internal Combustion engines can chime in here: What effect exactly will the new uneven firing order have on low-end and midrange torque, especially considering that the engine's stroke is now shorter than ever at 52.2mm?

To Clarify, The new 2009 R1 does not utilize a big-bang firing order, and neither does the YZR-M1 GP machine.

 

Yeah I didnt get the 90degree crank. So no big bang. Does see how it would work on the street...

 

Good Thread! :thumbup

 

+1 :yesnod

Very interesting.

I wondered how long it would be before one of the OEMs went to the MotoGP playbook and implemented an engine with uneven firing order. I remember thinking a long time ago that this was something that could give Yamaha the advantage it needed to push past the other manufacturers not only in terms of power delivery, but also in uniqueness.

If the new engine performs like Yamaha hopes, then it will combine the best of both worlds:

-Top-end horsepower of a four-cylinder
-Traction of a twin on corner exit

I'm on the fence regarding the corner exit traction, there's a lot of marketing hype going on right now, I think the dyno chart comparison is where we will start to be able to make an informed discussion about this claim.


However, I am surprised about one thing--

Yamaha has shortened the engine's stroke even more than the 2004-2008 model.
I honestly expected Yamaha to lengthen the stroke.

The longer the stroke, the higher the piston velocities and acceleration induced forces at the pistons/rods which stresses the engine's internal components more. Shorten the stroke and lighten things up and you can rev it some more before the parts will have issues during the exhaust cycle.

They only shortened the stroke a tiny bit, if the displacement stays the same and the bore increases just a fraction of a mm to conserve volume, I doubt the block needs to change in width and it might be something necessary to make the cross-plane crank work.

Essentially the inline 4 now has the vibratory cancellation effects of a V8, making the operation much smoother, the dynamic balance for the thing is probably an unholy bitch of an engineering problem, but I know I could solve it, because we did it in my Adv. Dynamics class in grad school (my prof was a car nut), so I'm sure Yamaha probably knocked it out with relative ease.



It will be very interesting to see what effect on low-end and midrange torque the new crossplane crank has. Maybe some of you with better understanding of the internal dynamics of Internal Combustion engines can chime in here: What effect exactly will the new uneven firing order have on low-end and midrange torque, especially considering that the engine's stroke is now shorter than ever at 52.2mm?

To Clarify, The new 2009 R1 does not utilize a big-bang firing order, and neither does the YZR-M1 GP machine.

I am thinking with this design there will be a more linear power delivery across the board instead of that usual "punch"

I have to say, I really love that punch when it comes on in the straightaway, but it still scares the crap outta me when I hear the RPM start coming up toward 7-8k on my 02 and I'm leaned over...

i too didnt like loosing stroke.. but looking at it.. its not much.. hell ktm SX quad is like 12 mm smaller stroke than 525 XC... thats ton.. but SX makes more power, linear.. not slap u in face TQ.. same with yamaha.. think new crank and such will make up for loss in stroke.. its really like 1mm... thats not huge amount. so ill wait till i see dyno charts...but damn i love sound of it.. add pipe... wow... i cant wait to throw leg over it.

:yesnod

My first thought is what the stock dyno pulls are going to look like for this guy, and I think there's probably a lot to be made for after-market work once the emissions regs are removed.

From a car racing standpoint (the motorcycle powered race cars that are ruling SCCA prototypes right now) I think this motor is going to be a monster machine and people are really going to love it.

I'm anxiously awaiting what Arnie Lyoning is going to do with one. I'm not going to be surprised if he manages to come up with 200+ to a wheel of the car and approach 100+ ft. lbs.


Suspension Comments

The performance of the front end makes me wonder some. I know someone mentioned that the Ohlins GP forks run the configuration but the FZ1 does the same thing for cost savings.

I'm going to hold judgement on purely cost savings from Yamaha's standpoint, but I have a feeling that the components used on the FZ1 are not anywhere close to what's on the R1, and the internals on the R1 forks are probably very close to what Ohlins has developed for the M1 and we are going to get some serious suspension technology. There's not enough detail to really let me cut my teeth into the thing, but I don't think Yamaha would try to cut costs so much that the R1 would get a downgrade in performance.

I DO have a feeling that the bike got heavy, because my 02 is within 1# of the 07 for dry weight, and my 02's wet weight is supposed to be 424, so with this bike being 454 wet, I think it got heavier by a substantial amount.


Frame

I'm really liking the fact that the engine is a stressed member from a cannibilization standpoint, because I'm sure I'll be involved with ripping the guts from a bike and putting it in a race car, and we have to be very careful with stressing the motors up to this point, so that will will me. I still can't load it in Torsion though, so it doesn't help that much.

Also, my other concern is that frame stiffness could be an issue. When very high lean angles become a reality, minor bumps become large motions in the suspension.

Upright a 1" bump is 1" of suspension travel (including tire deflection)

At 45 degrees of lean, a 1" vertical bump, means the suspenion moves 1.44"

At 60 degrees of lean, a 1" bump is 2" of suspension travel. This is hardly a reality, so the flex of the chassis comes into play.

If you stress up the engine and make the chassis too rigid the bike is going to skitter along and slide very easily on anything but a glass smooth surface. This was highlighted back in the early 90's in the GP machines. Up til the cast aluminum superstructure frames, the chassis flex was too high and so suspension compliance was coupled very closely to the stiffness. When the chassis became too stiff, riders had extreme difficulty dealing with the machines because they couldn't tune the suspension to take the bumps since the chassis wasn't flexing as needed.

 

I'm very anxious to see the dyno chart compared to the other liter bikes and the 08 R1. Gear shift indicator is a pretty cool new feature. I sometimes forget what I'm in while cruising on the highway for a while. Also the different modes is a nice feature similar to the GSXR. I was really hoping they would do a side exhaust though to help mass centralization, but overall the enhancements sound like it will make the R1 very competitive both on the road and track.

 

Thread Etiquette

Hi,

Let's try to keep discussion on this thread orderly, if at all possible.

When posting about a particular aspect of the new 2009 R1, or even how it compares with other machines, please put the subject in the title line of your post.

for example, "2009 R1 Shortened Stroke and Crossplane Crank"


or

"2009 R1 Dual Fuel Injector Setup"

and et-cetera.

Also, when replying to a particular discussion, place the title of the discussion you are replying to in the title line of your post.

THIS way, we can keep things orderly even when we have discussions relating to many different features of the new bike.

Thanks,
John

 

So, there is no headlight lense cover on the '09. Looks like the ram air ducts are next to the projection beams. Seems to me this will be a major bug collector and could damage the projector beams with rocks thrown at it. This thing has got lots of torque throughout the rev range. I wonder what the dyno sheet looks like and if there is the notorious 7K dip?

 

New Integrated Headlight-Intake Duct Unit



Skeet, I wondered the very same thing about the new nose.

I do a lot of group riding in the mountains, and lots of rocks get thrown up, not to mention bugs.

Just this past weekend, a member of our group got a holed radiator from a rock. That's why I'm a believer in the radiator guards sold by companies like Cox.

It does sound like it will be a bug collector, but let's hope not. The current model actually does pretty well at stopping the bugs before they get to the air filter--my filter rarely gets dirty, and I usually don't have to change it but once a year, whereas my Gixxer buddies have to change theirs at least twice a year.

 

It sounds to me like there is more technology and build in the bike then form... Updates everywhere, from what I have read.

 

I spent the last three hours reading about the design implemented behind the motor...I am also surprised about shortening it up... my question leads to why? There is a reason behind it, Secondly I would really like to see what one of these suckers throws down on the dyno... The cans are hideous due to emissions but man that motor growls with stockers on it and all I can do is wonder what in the world its going to sound like once modded out. I really want to get a 6 for next season but this motor design has me thinking differently.

 

Mass centralization



My guess is to make the chassis more compact and improve balance. Overall the motor seems to have more midrange and still maintains the top end power it had previously. Sounds like the best of both worlds.

 

2009 R1 Fork

I've got a bone to pick with Yamaha here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Yamaha not pull a cost-savings move here?

Placing the rebound damper on one fork leg and the compression damper on the other fork leg is not new. This particular setup is used on the current FZ-1 (2006-2008), and has been used in the past as well.

However, I think Yamaha did this to save $$$.

Though this is one way to prevent compression damping from interfering with rebound damping (and vice-versa), I just can't imagine that this fork would perform better than a unit which has BOTH rebound and compression damping on both legs.

Yamaha smugly comments on the R1 site that "compression and rebound damping are now separate, just like on the YZR-M1."

THey are trying to imply that it's the same setup as on the GP bike, which IT IS NOT. The M1's fork (and shock) does indeed separate the individual functions of rebound and compression, but Ohlins sure doesn't do it by putting compression on one leg and rebound on the other leg!!!

Some of us aren't fooled, Mr. Yamaha. We know that you did this to reduce production costs, NOT to improve handling/suspension damping.

What say you, DanQ? I know you're itching to put your 2 cents in.

 

I've got a bone to pick with Yamaha here.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but did Yamaha not pull a cost-savings move here?

Placing the rebound damper on one fork leg and the compression damper on the other fork leg is not new. This particular setup is used on the current FZ-1 (2006-2008), and has been used in the past as well.

However, I think Yamaha did this to save $$$.

Though this is one way to prevent compression damping from interfering with rebound damping (and vice-versa), I just can't imagine that this fork would perform better than a unit which has BOTH rebound and compression damping on both legs.

Yamaha smugly comments on the R1 site that "compression and rebound damping are now separate, just like on the YZR-M1."

THey are trying to imply that it's the same setup as on the GP bike, which IT IS NOT. The M1's fork (and shock) does indeed separate the individual functions of rebound and compression, but Ohlins sure doesn't do it by putting compression on one leg and rebound on the other leg!!!

Some of us aren't fooled, Mr. Yamaha. We know that you did this to reduce production costs, NOT to improve handling/suspension damping.

What say you, DanQ? I know you're itching to put your 2 cents in.

Ohlins does in fact have Superbike forks with each leg seperately handling rebound and compression, they have been doing it for a couple seasons now

 

Shorter stroke thoughts

Just a guess on my part but the shorter stroke, while it looks sort of odd the the street folks probably has to do with the racing aspect of the bike and I'm sure the power up options that will be available through the YEC race department. The BIG two can exhaust is solely emmisions driveen I'm certain and if you looks closely at the way the back of the bike is styled makes me believe the race exhausts for this bike will be a single can under the seat or a single can shorty side exit which goes along with the really small tail end we've already seen on the new Honda..... and bringing weight a CG back down lower on the racing versions of this bike.

I'm intrigued by the new firing order engine and the power upgrades that will be soon to follow for this bike.....

Like Skipper said in another thread, can't wait to see what happens with the racing versions of this bike

 

Forks

I spoke to Dan earlier and he actually said most people will think that this is a cost saving move but that isn't the case. He told me all of the reasons why and I know weight savings is one of them. I won't steal his thunder or jack up what he said, So I digress until he comes in.

 

Forks

I spoke to Dan earlier and he actually said most people will think that this is a cost saving move but that isn't the case. He told me all of the reasons why and I know weight savings is one of them. I won't still his thunder or jack up what he said, So I digress until he comes in.

Very interesting.

 

Bore X Stroke

With the crossfire crank could the shorter stroke minimize vibration and stresses on the engine? With the addition of a couterbalancer its something to consider.
Also looking at the tach it still redlines at 14750, same as my 05, but in race trim I wouldn't be surprised to see 16000.
As for the single can in racing it wont happen, at least not in WSB. Rules there dictate the exhaust be in the same style as factory.

 

With the crossfire crank could the shorter stroke minimize vibration and stresses on the engine? With the addition of a couterbalancer its something to consider.
Also looking at the tach it still redlines at 14750, same as my 05, but in race trim I wouldn't be surprised to see 16000.
As for the single can in racing it wont happen, at least not in WSB. Rules there dictate the exhaust be in the same style as factory.

Yeah I forgot about that rule..... well they will definately be smaller cans than stock - lol

 

i too didnt like loosing stroke.. but looking at it.. its not much.. hell ktm SX quad is like 12 mm smaller stroke than 525 XC... thats ton.. but SX makes more power, linear.. not slap u in face TQ.. same with yamaha.. think new crank and such will make up for loss in stroke.. its really like 1mm... thats not huge amount. so ill wait till i see dyno charts...but damn i love sound of it.. add pipe... wow... i cant wait to throw leg over it.

 

New R1 Torque



But could the R1 really afford to lose any more stroke?



I have another question (actually several):

What effect will the larger bore have on engine output?

How will the huge bore affect fuel burn, horsepower, torque?

What impact/potential will the new "big-bore" engine have for people wanting to tune the new engine? Will this design make it easier or harder to tune this engine? For example, I know from lurking in the Headwork Winter Project thread that tuning the old 5-valve engine presents special challenges that don't necessarily apply for engines with conventional 4-valve cylinder heads.

 

Torque

There's been talk on the forum that this new crank will make up for the shorter stroke. I couldn't understand how this could be but I may have finally done so.
If we consider that torque is defined as the force acting on an object which causes it to rotate and that that force is greatest when the con rod is perpindicular to its crank throw than on a crank with even firing intervals such as the new 09 R1 you get 4 equal and even torque moments. Basically the crank is always accelerating instead of speeding up and slowing down.
I still think the shorter stroke is for longevity but I now also believe that the revised firing order may actually improve torque output.
We wont know until one gets on a dyno, but it is fun to speculate on new tech.

 

There's been talk on the forum that this new crank will make up for the shorter stroke. I couldn't understand how this could be but I may have finally done so.
If we consider that torque is defined as the force acting on an object which causes it to rotate and that that force is greatest when the con rod is perpindicular to its crank throw than on a crank with even firing intervals such as the new 09 R1 you get 4 equal and even torque moments. Basically the crank is always accelerating instead of speeding up and slowing down.
I still think the shorter stroke is for longevity but I now also believe that the revised firing order may actually improve torque output.
We wont know until one gets on a dyno, but it is fun to speculate on new tech.

Disregard most of this.
I've done some reading on the topic and FIRING ORDER HAS NO EFFECT ON TORQUE OUTPUT. The new crank improves torque quality not quantity.

 

R1 Motor -vs- Twin riding style

I am wondering now after watching the 6 minute & 25 second video on the Yamaha website of the R1 intro with Colin Edwards on deck.

What I'm wondering is what kind of riding style is this motor going to cater more to, twin or inline? What I'm trying to determine is from my own experience owning a 2002 RC51 and a 1999 R1 at the same time I really hated the RC51. Reason being is my style of riding isn't very smooth I'm more abusive and try to run near the limiter so the inline was the bike I preferred. In contrast every time I got on the RC I was tapping into a rev range that just wasn't there so I sold the RC51.

So during this video I spoke about above I noticed a few shots of the bike coming out of a turn and the rider was pulling up the front wheel, but the motor sounded tapped and the front end was on it's way down. Wheelies aren't everything, but it sure looks as if the bike revs out quick like a twin
even though it has a 14+ limiter? I can't say that Haga didn't have his input on this bike to try and knock the ducati off in WSB. I wonder if this new R1 will be similar to the Honda RC51 race bike being nothing like the production bike? Granted Haga's WSB bike is not stock but it can be duplicated much easier that say the old WSB RC51 bikes you all know what I mean?

Anyway I made a few points that I would like addressed about a motor I know nothing about, I like violent power my 06 Gixxer was peppy. How will this new motor feel in your opinion my fellow riders?

:dunno

 

Another benefit of shorter stroke on a motor is less gyroscoptic effect on handling, The higher the rpm the gyroscoptics are multiplied tremendously.....

 

Also gives you the oppurtunity for bigger valves = better breathing = more horsepower.:thumbup
Not to be overlooked a bigger bore also promotes quicker burning which will have a positive effect on emissions.

 

Dual Filement...

I see they smashed in the nose and tucked in the azz like our competitors...I do hope they packed those projectors with a dual filement bulb unlike our competitors otherwise, my first mod will be a costly...I don't want to be winking at oncoming traffic...

 

Alot of good info posted up so who is getting one? And posting your number asap

 

from the european site:

http://www.yamaha-motor-europe.com/products/motorcycles/supersport/yzf_r1.jsp?view=techspecs

Maximum power 133.9 kW (182 PS) @ 12,500 rpm (without air-induction)
Maximum torque 115.5 Nm (11.8 kg-m) @ 10,000 rpm

i was expecting more... pls reffer to 2008 specs:

Maximum power without induction : 132.4 kW (180 PS) @ 12,500rpm with induction : 139.0 kW (189 PS) @ 12,500rpm
Maximum torque without induction : 112.7 Nm (11.5 kg-m) @ 10,000rpm with induction : 118.3 Nm (12.1 kg-m) @ 10,000rpm

well, we all see how it works once it goes on dyno & track

 

With this engine it should have a BROAD torque band, meaning more usable power

 

Does anyone know what functions the dash (cluster) will have, i.e lap timer, fuel gauge etc ..

 

it has a gear indicator this year! thats a pretty cool feature that i really miss from my gixxer

 

I have a stupid question about the "D" Mode Throttle control "'Standard' for optimal performance in a wide variety of riding conditions. 'A' mode which delivers EVEN sportier low to mid-range engine performance..." I got the info from the 6:25 minute video in the video section. Does that mean that in "A" will have "more low to mid-range torque" than "Standard"

 

ACTually it should create more. standard crank, both 1 and 4 move up together and down. same with 2 and 3. in one revolution, there are 2 combustions. one for lets say number 1, then #3(number 4 is on exhaust stroke as well as # 2) so basically 2 explosions, one every 180 degrees. obviosly 1 and 4 cant fire at same time, same with 2 and 3. now with new crank, there will be that force at 90 degrees, 270, 180 making motor produce more Tq. should be very linear and help TQ be smooth even from low rpms, which we lacked badly before. im no scientist, so not saying that everything i typed as gospel. but with offset crank there will be more force turning crank, instead of typical inline 4 cylinder.

anyone else notice profile of motor, how narrow it is.. and clutch cover(profile on canada website) hmmmm makes me wonder if tranny will all come out side instead of splitting cases??? SO far im digging it.... not all of it just yet... things i dont like, like profile of front aka cbr1000r, and 2007 zx10 rear tail, but overall im excited about it... much more so than i was of 07 and 08 models, which was warmed over 04-06 with 4 valves and little body changes and all ycc electrical gizmos. really want to see it in person. my boss is at show and emailed me pics of yellow one in person. he says its cool. guess tomorrow when he gets back i can find out when avail is, tho im sure its on website somewhere

 

ACTually it should create more. standard crank, both 1 and 4 move up together and down. same with 2 and 3. in one revolution, there are 2 combustions. one for lets say number 1, then #3(number 4 is on exhaust stroke as well as # 2) so basically 2 explosions, one every 180 degrees. obviosly 1 and 4 cant fire at same time, same with 2 and 3. now with new crank, there will be that force at 90 degrees, 270, 180 making motor produce more Tq. should be very linear and help TQ be smooth even from low rpms, which we lacked badly before. im no scientist, so not saying that everything i typed as gospel. but with offset crank there will be more force turning crank, instead of typical inline 4 cylinder.

I thought the same thing, but like I said I did some more reading and found that I was incorrect. Im no engineer either but the total size of the explosions is the same so torque is the same.
This brings up another point tho. If the bore is bigger cant you put more fuel into the cylinder and make a bigger bang and hence more torque?

 

any ideas why this thing is soooooo heavy?? according to specs:

Wet weight 206 kg !!!

 

Weight

any ideas why this thing is soooooo heavy?? according to specs:

Wet weight 206 kg !!!

According to Yamaha's published specs (and we know the OEMs are prone to be optimistic on this), it weighs less than my '07 R1.

2007-2008 R1 ~460 lbs
2009 R1 ~454 lbs

 

According to Yamaha Canada its 13.2lbs more than the 08.

 

There will be more power earlier.

The new crank design allows smoother, more consistent power. I would hazard that it will be more linear as well.

I would also guess that under 3-4k rpm it will be a little sluggish to pick up.

 

Isn't the non-linear power delivery from twin engines their most desirable characteristic? Why is making an even more linear power delivery than a standard inline 4 more desirable?

I've read about this crank configuration and it has been tried and abandoned in the past. I guess, in theory, it would improve the intake flow by eliminating in the current two intake pressure waves per revolution. This may help maximize on a ram air intake system but those gains are marginal at best anyway.