[66droptop]

I'd like to preface this by saying that I am very interested in the 2009 R1 and it's likely that I'll be buying another bike this year. If so, it'll most likely be the R1. In white.


Now I'll just come right out and say that I think the crossplane crank is mostly just marketing hooey. I come to this conclusion based on automotive road course racing and general domestic V8 knowledge. I acknowledge I don't know everything, so I'd like to hear some feedback (positive or negative) and open this up for discussion with the more mechanically inclined.

I think there's a lot of hype and mystery surrounding the R1 and it's crossplane crank. If you look at V8s, most are crossplane setups. Ferraris and many racing engines are flatplane. Look at the two firing orders of V8s, and just cut them in half to form an inline 4.

The reason most V8s are crossplane is because they have less vibration issues with harmonics. The downside is that they have an uneven firing order, with two cylinders on each bank firing next to each other. So you have exhaust from these two cylinders fighting each other, trying to occupy the same space without enough time for the first cylinder's exhaust to move out of the way of the second cylinder's exhaust. Same issue with the intake, only reversed. Put individual throttle bodies on the intake and 180 degree exhaust (like the GT40's "bundle of snakes" or just hot rod style zoomies), and you no longer have the inefficiency issues of a crossplane V8.

Ferraris and most ground-up built racing engines use a flat plane design. This is what gives them their buzzier sound (like two motorcycle engines connected at the crank, because that's essentially what it is) compared to the domestic V8 sound with it's more uneven pulse sound (the muscle car sound). You have better exhaust and intake characteristics, and drivers prefer the smoother torque delivery. There won't be a large difference in power development between the two engines if both are well designed, but they sound drastically different and there's the driver's supposed preference (I've driven but never really pounded on a flat plane V8, so I can't personally say). These engines aren't common in street cars because the frequency harmonics makes them vibrate much more than the common cross plane V8.
Firing order: 1-8-3-6-4-5-2-7

I think it's odd that automobile racing prefers a flat plane, and Yamaha is touting their cross plane crank as being the better style. I honestly don't think it'll make a damn bit of difference on a street bike. But it'll definitely sound different than the other I4 sportbikes. And that's why I want it. I can easily catch up to the Suzuki's power levels with cams. A little nitrous would be great; I really hope to avoid turbocharging another bike.

P.S. If I had the equipment to make my own crankshaft and camshaft, I'd build myself a flat plane V8 in a heartbeat. Because they sound cool. :lol

 

[turd1]

our holden/g.m v8s here have a firing order of 12784563:flex:

 

[Itaride]

All I can say 66 is ride one. There is more to it than marketing hype. How much more may be debatable but it accelerates in a way that most closely resembles a Ducati 1098. I think that a significant part of the bottom end snap comes from the quickest throttle response I have ever encountered. Again, I dont know how much is the crankshaft vs amazing throttle response, but when you ride one you will see that it is different than most anything out there.

 

[66droptop]

our holden/g.m v8s here have a firing order of 12784563:flex:

I think that was the firing order of a SBF I posted, but I don't remember at the moment.

Is this the firing order of GM's LS engines? Those are extremely efficient engines in every sense of the word from packaging to power. It still has 8&4 and 3&1 cylinders firing sequentially despite being on the same bank as their partner.

All I can say 66 is ride one. There is more to it than marketing hype. How much more may be debatable but it accelerates in a way that most closely resembles a Ducati 1098. I think that a significant part of the bottom end snap comes from the quickest throttle response I have ever encountered. Again, I dont know how much is the crankshaft vs amazing throttle response, but when you ride one you will see that it is different than most anything out there.

I do look forward to it. I haven't heard anything negative about it yet, but I wonder how much of the praise is a placebo effect.

 

[turd1]

I think that was the firing order of a SBF I posted, but I don't remember at the moment.

Is this the firing order of GM's LS engines? Those are extremely efficient engines in every sense of the word from packaging to power. It still has 8&4 and 3&1 cylinders firing sequentially despite being on the same bank as their partner.


I

it is the firing order of our holden 253 and 308 cube v8s that we have had since the 1970s. we now use chev v8s.

 

[KLW]

Heres the deal,

The crossplane crank has a max of 270' between bangs, making it a little bang engine as opposed to a big bang which has 360' between bangs.

By going to a 270' engine, the rear tire has more time to regain grip before the next bang unlike a flat plane (normal) crank engine.

OK so what does that mean to me?

If you are skilled as say Aaron Yates, with the crossplane engine you can run softer tires and the tires will survive 30 laps where on a regular engine the tire may go off after 25 laps.

TIRES WIN RACES!

Yoshimura Suzuki has been using traction control for the past 6-7 years, most of that time illegaly. What traction control did was allow Aaron Yates on his supersport bike to pin the throttle exiting corners and not spin up the tire, thus allowing him to use a softer tire than he normally could have. Without the traction control the tire would have burnt up. This is why Yosh has dominated racing in the liter classes. Tires win races!

HONDA years back built a V Twin to compete with Harley on the dirt track miles. The Harley 750 dominated dirt track miles because of the engine configuration allowing the tire to better grip the dirt in the manner of which the power pulses were put down. Honda basically copied the same winning design then dominated that racing till they got tired and quit.

In Summary, the crossplane crank will do absoloutely NOTHING for the street rider except sound good or different depending on your persepctive of it.

The handling improvments on the 09 R1 will have nothing to do with the cross plane crank in the street environment but will be due to improvements in the chasis and suspension that Yamaha made whether the 09 had cross plane or not.

Yamaha will sell a boat load of these bikes just on the sound and cool factor alone and my hats off to them. But the street rider and most everyone else that doesnt have the skills to use softer tires under race conditions will benefit 0 from cross plane. Thats what crossplane does. It is easier on tires powering out of corners. Thats its only advantage, but that is a HUGE advantage to have if you have the skills to exploit it.

So for 99.5% of us, it is marketing hype, except for the sound which is real for 100% of us.

Now lets see what Suzuki has for 09. Probably nothing I will want, be we shall see.

JJ

 

[All Smiles]

Yeah, your right, its not like its been proven on any sort of factory bike or anything, it definitely is hype. Yamaha will be able to fool everyone, and just add some funny packing to make it sound different also......please, buddy, no offense, give your head a shake.

 

[chris514scott]

Yeah, your right, its not like its been proven on any sort of factory bike or anything, it definitely is hype. Yamaha will be able to fool everyone, and just add some funny packing to make it sound different also......please, buddy, no offense, give your head a shake.

:stpd::iamwithst:stpd:

 

[66droptop]

the rear tire has more time to regain grip before the next bang unlike a flat plane (normal) crank engine.

This is a good point. I can understand the larger gap between firing can allow for the tire to have more time to catch. But what about when the engine is firing? It would seem that a more even pulse would make for less tractive issues and easier modulation because what about when those two closely spaced pulses hit? Akin to smoothly letting out the clutch (flat plane firing) to a chunkier release of the clutch (cross plane firing).

I need to look into this more.

Yeah, your right, its not like its been proven on any sort of factory bike or anything, it definitely is hype. Yamaha will be able to fool everyone, and just add some funny packing to make it sound different also......please, buddy, no offense, give your head a shake.

Funny packing to make it sound different? I'm sorry you didn't read or understand my post. Thanks for offering nothing constructive, pal.

 

[johnwolfe13]

Having now ridden my 09 R1 almost 100mi in a day, but not being an expert, compared to my 01 R1 it puts the power to the back wheel better. ie> it doesn't feel like the end wants to slip as much in either direction when accelerating and it is slightly smoother (in my opinion) when leaning around a curve. Also, it is not as jumpy when it does accelerate under power (smoother power). Alas I am not an expert racer, and I remember my 01 R1 like it was yesterday (late 05 was the last I rode an R1); but it does seem smoother and more powerful. (Note: my old R1 was jetted, piped, and +2 teeth in the back gear.)

 

[chris514scott]

IT not all hype... Some people just feel the need to stir the pot sometimes :finger

 

[diel11]

That was the problem that Kawasaki and Ducati both ran into in Motogp when they used full big bang motors. They had two pistons hitting at the same time which "pushed" the tire into the ground harder but so hard it would cut loose. So Kawasaki couldn't really get it figured out properly but Ducati did something else. By using a "twin pulse" firing order what they did is convert a v4 that fired like a huge vtwin into a v4 that fired two pistons within 90 degrees, then a break, the the other two would fire within 90 degrees. So it was like a big bang but with enough spacing to let the tire get a strong pulse but no so strong that it would "hop" the tire. Ducati's D16RR has this firing order right now.

The crossplane crank on cars has been around forever like you said. But you can't compare a double track vehicle to a single track vehicle that easily. Even when you compare F1 high revving engines to Motogp ones, it's very hard to compare traction needs. The crossplane crank has been in use since 05 in motogp. People always say that the whole thing works because of Rossi, but really it's the only inline 4 in the grid that actually wins or podiums regularly. The Kawasaki is nowhere to be found, everyone else is running v4's.

And back in the day tires alone won races, now is power delivery, especially smooth power delivery. Tire life is still an issue of course but now is more about mid corner grip and speed. You can have the softest tire out there but if the delivery is not smooth enough, it won't help you one bit. Even the best tire gets obscured and completely beat by too much hp. If you can have a crank that eliminates what Furasawa calls inertial torque, then all of a sudden you can tell exactly what's happening on the rear.

 

[strat1701]

That was the problem that Kawasaki and Ducati both ran into in Motogp when they used full big bang motors. They had two pistons hitting at the same time which "pushed" the tire into the ground harder but so hard it would cut loose. So Kawasaki couldn't really get it figured out properly but Ducati did something else. By using a "twin pulse" firing order what they did is convert a v4 that fired like a huge vtwin into a v4 that fired two pistons within 90 degrees, then a break, the the other two would fire within 90 degrees. So it was like a big bang but with enough spacing to let the tire get a strong pulse but no so strong that it would "hop" the tire. Ducati's D16RR has this firing order right now.

The crossplane crank on cars has been around forever like you said. But you can't compare a double track vehicle to a single track vehicle that easily. Even when you compare F1 high revving engines to Motogp ones, it's very hard to compare traction needs. The crossplane crank has been in use since 05 in motogp. People always say that the whole thing works because of Rossi, but really it's the only inline 4 in the grid that actually wins or podiums regularly. The Kawasaki is nowhere to be found, everyone else is running v4's.

And back in the day tires alone won races, now is power delivery, especially smooth power delivery. Tire life is still an issue of course but now is more about mid corner grip and speed. You can have the softest tire out there but if the delivery is not smooth enough, it won't help you one bit. Even the best tire gets obscured and completely beat by too much hp. If you can have a crank that eliminates what Furasawa calls inertial torque, then all of a sudden you can tell exactly what's happening on the rear.

Very well said. :thumbup

[email protected] 'the kawasaki is nowhere to be found' Man, I've been saying that shit for YEARS and everyone else thinks I'm crazy to say that amid the green bleeders but even though I own one, doesn't mean I carry their motogp flag! results are results!

In addition to power delivery I think electronics are now starting to be more of a thing than tyres alone. I remember watching some on board footage of Dingo and Rossi and Dingo is like throttle 100% 97% of the time, and touch of brake. As soon as he's in mid apex he's pinning the throttle in one swoop to 100%, whereas Rossi you can clearly see is rolling it on smoothly to 100% and you RARELY see him bucking about on corner exit. Put Dingo on an old 500cc two stroke and watch him fly back to Kiwiland riding the way he does. He'd rack up more frequent flyer 'air time' than Lorenzo did last year. Ducati's got the electronics thing and a bit of the power delivery problem solved, but I think the M1 has always had the power delivery and suspension mastery which makes it a cut above the rest. It is down on top end HP due to the crossplane and counter rotating crankshaft. I don't think it's ALL Rossi because I guarantee you stick him on Dingos bike and he won't be that fast.

 

[66droptop]

IT not all hype... Some people just feel the need to stir the pot sometimes :finger

I'm not on this board to start fights, but I need to get my readers' attention. Nothing too inflammatory and nothing factually incorrect, but even like KLW said, 99.5% of us will not know the difference between the cross plane and flat plane engine. It's a street bike after all, and everything on this bike is being attributed to the crank design. I'd like to wade through it all before I hear that it cures cancer. :lol

That was the problem that Kawasaki and Ducati both ran into in Motogp when they used full big bang motors. They had two pistons hitting at the same time which "pushed" the tire into the ground harder but so hard it would cut loose. So Kawasaki couldn't really get it figured out properly but Ducati did something else. By using a "twin pulse" firing order what they did is convert a v4 that fired like a huge vtwin into a v4 that fired two pistons within 90 degrees, then a break, the the other two would fire within 90 degrees. So it was like a big bang but with enough spacing to let the tire get a strong pulse but no so strong that it would "hop" the tire. Ducati's D16RR has this firing order right now.

You were the poster on this board I was hoping most would post in this thread to explain this. What you've explained makes more sense and builds on what KLW had posted.

On a side note, I only make comparisons to the 4 wheeled world because that's what I know and do (only at an amateur level). I haven't followed MotoGP since probably '05 coincidentally, so I'm behind the upper echelon bike development curve, ergo this post.

Any word on cams? You mentioned them once for your bike. Plans for them to work on stock valves and head?

 

[diel11]

Thank you.

One thing KLW and I see different is I think the average street rider will be able to tell the difference. Not because of sound or vibration but because of feel. So we'll see how that goes.

If you want more information on the whole MotoGp engine development and engine configurations, pick up the book "MOTOGP TECHNOLOGY" by Neil Spalding. It breaks down the motogp 990cc era and why Yamaha went the crossplane way. Also talks about Honda, Ducati, Kawasaki and others. Very good read.

About cams, my head just arrived in the UK and cam development will start hopefully as soon as next week. I'll post up when we have something concrete. We are trying to keep it to be able to use stock springs and valves, so we'll see what happens.

 

[strat1701]

Thank you.

One thing KLW and I see different is I think the average street rider will be able to tell the difference. Not because of sound or vibration but because of feel. So we'll see how that goes.

If you want more information on the whole MotoGp engine development and engine configurations, pick up the book "MOTOGP TECHNOLOGY" by Neil Spalding. It breaks down the motogp 990cc era and why Yamaha went the crossplane way. Also talks about Honda, Ducati, Kawasaki and others. Very good read.

About cams, my head just arrived in the UK and cam development will start hopefully as soon as next week. I'll post up when we have something concrete. We are trying to keep it to be able to use stock springs and valves, so we'll see what happens.

+1 on that book I have it too!

I also agree with you about the average street rider can discern a difference.

I come from a 6r and while i don't ride the piss out of it on the streets, when I do spin it up on corners in comparing just 45 miles on my 09 R1, I can honestly tell you that I do feel more 'connected' to the back end than on my ninja. Maybe it's the added weight of a liter, maybe it's the crossplane, I dunno but I do think that having better grip, torque and immediate drive available on the streets is a great thing to have. Torque your way out of something effortlessly with this vs. having to drop down 2 gears in my ninja and wind it up to 12K to drive away from something and feel the rearend get lighter and less connected. Believe me, I'm FAR from any type of motorcycling pro but even me who'se been riding for a little over 5yrs total, I can tell that whatever the new R1 is doing, it's planting that thing on the ground more solidly. I test rode a 10r too once and this feels NOTHING like that.

 

[Aron213 ti]

I think that was the firing order of a SBF I posted, but I don't remember at the moment.

Is this the firing order of GM's LS engines? Those are extremely efficient engines in every sense of the word from packaging to power. It still has 8&4 and 3&1 cylinders firing sequentially despite being on the same bank as their partner.


I do look forward to it. I haven't heard anything negative about it yet, but I wonder how much of the praise is a placebo effect.

SBF firing order is 15426378 or 13726548, depends which cam you put into it

LSx family18726543

SBC family has 18436572 or if you feel like 18736542 cam you can get a little bit different torque curve

There you have 5 different firing orders for 90* V8 engines

 

[Motorbike Universe]

Yamaha didn't do this new crankshaft design to make street riders life easier. Yamaha wants to win races in AMA and WSBK finally, and they hoping this will put them on the podium this year. It works great in MotoGP, and it DOES works the way it was explained before. Since you can not modify crankshafts and firing orders in WSBK and AMA from OEM design, this was the only way to do for them...

 

[1longR1]

there is alot more to it than we think. i saw interview with one of yamaha guys..and one word he said alot.. "In Theory". so that tells me they are thinking outside box, and some things they know and dont know.

 

[sss r1]

eh , i miss the days of gary mccoy . he tought the wolrd what spinning the rear tire will really do

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGIPmTLSxGI

spinning the rear is not as bad as u think it is.

anyway next year some of the other liter will probably have traction controll and then the cp crank will loose its only advantage .and the other liter will kill the r1 @ top end.
then yamaha will be stuck with the cp design ,as they were stuck with the 5 valve heads for a few years ,without any advantages.