Yamaha "invent" "new" triple

You're dead right Grant - I hopped on the Jota 120 expecting a Jota 180 with smoother running. Just didn't feel the same. When I rode the RGS, I was expecting a tourer but found it pretty nimble..

So my expectations for the RGS were lower, I guess.  ;)
 
I know to manufacture a built up cranks components would be the same regardless of phasing.but i assumed maybe incorrectly it would take more time to set the crank up with cross plane phasing in a jig than a plane crank.And as for the v6,it was never going to be a viable production engine.
Neale
 
Grant said:
Some more guesses.
http://hellforleathermagazine.com/2012/10/what%e2%80%99s-the-deal-with-yamaha%e2%80%99s-new-three-cylinder/
Click to expand...

I'm hoping it might be something along these lines.  Yamaha has got to come up with something new, something that hasn't been done before.  Have already calculated a 360 "twin" with a middle piston at 90/270?, turns out quite favourable vibration and bearing load wise but with increased rocking couple as in the 120?.  A balancing shaft can do away with that easily. :D

piet
 
Fuck it!  I would just fire it  two outers and then the inner  just like that!  180 appart!  Big bang, Little bang  etc etc.  Wouldn't that sound fun!
Need to think about it harder maybe but I recon it could be made to balance quite favourably!  and NO rocking couple!

Julian
 
Julian,
The torque peak from the outer cylinders firing together would be pretty significant, would also need a fair bit of flywheel to maintain rotational velocity at low revs, plus cranking it over would be interesting.  But yeah, would probably sound cool!
Cheers
SteveB
 
When Honda made their V5 racer the rear 2 pistons were bigger than the front 3, to help balance things out.
Maybe an opposed triple could have one big piston and 2 smaller ones.
 
And as for the v6,it was never going to be a viable production engine.
Click to expand...

If that's a reference to the Laverda V6, you should have heard Piero's talk at Cadwell.  He outlined the extent of the engine's modular application: V-twin; V-four as well as a triple. He commented that the costly part of any engine design needing a high level of expertise is the top end (gloriously described as the 'thermic' components!)  Crankcase & gearbox are more straightforward.  Certainly the V6 wouldn't have been cheap - their costings indicated just over twice the price of the triple - but who knows what may have been if other variants had seen the light of day?
 
In a talk with Richard Slater one time about the V6 he mentioned it would have had to cost around 10,000 GBP, and that would have been in the mid '80s.
This is in contrast to a magazine article where Massimo was reported to have said it was never designed as a production engine.
Hmmm.
 
Interestingly, Yamaha's move to triples comes hot on the heels of Honda's announcement that it will make a new V4 superbike ? a layout that was once synonymous with the firm. The sheer performance of modern bikes has reached a point at which it's hard to persuade buyers to trade up to the latest model ? many find their existing machines are already more than fast enough, so the lure of a handful of extra horses isn't the temptation it was a few years ago. Honda, and now Yamaha, have recognised that by giving their machines a distinct character ? without sacrificing performance ? they stand a better chance of distinguishing themselves from their rivals.

Read more: http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-news-new-bikes/next-yamaha-r6-and-r1-will-be-triples/21621.html#ixzz29mQcEjVq


  Taken them a while to clock on to this.  ;)


      Keith
 
There were a whole bunch of 3 cylinder specials on the club racing scene in the 1970s. Alan Blasdell's Konig, Laurie Sadler's Saab and Dave Hanigan's Mercury engined "Motortrike" are three that immediately come to mind but I'm pretty sure there were others.
 
The "Sparton" springs to mind - a water cooled triple racer based on the GT380 Suzuki. Think it was the basis of the Barton Phoenix Silver Dream Racer from the film of the same name... ?
 
So this is what all the fuss was about

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/New-bikes/2013/May/jun1113-new-yamaha-mt09-breaks-cover/_/R-EPI-140745

Engine highlights
? 850cc liquid-cooled 4-stroke 3-cylinder DOHC 4-valve
? ?Crossplane philosophy? for linear torque output
? 115hp @ 10,500rpm
? 85 Nm @ 8,500rpm
? 78mm x 59.1mm bore x stroke
? 120? crank with firing sequence at 0?, 240? and 480?
? Forged aluminium pistons and direct-plated cylinders
? Newly-designed 6-speed transmission with compact clutch
? Yamaha D-mode switchable mapping

Cheers
Jason
 
Which still doesn't begin to explain what the "crossplane" bit actually means in this context. Is it the balance factor? A balance shaft? Otherwise it sounds like an oversquare 120...

???

--
Dick
 
If the journos haven't messed up the description of the crank / firing sequence that's a headscratcher... same as any non-Lav-180 triple ever made. (??)
Maybe just a masterpiece of marketing doublespeak.
 
Hi Steve, Same feelings here, Yamaha seems to have deliberately mixed up 2012 and 2013 information. Those of 2012 showed a real big bang engine (180/90/180 or so, see pictures) and those of 2013 show us a poor standard 120 degr 3 cylinders. The economic crisis has something to do with that surely but the marketing seems to be stuck in 2012!
JL
 
andrew_uk said:
Agree with the Kawasakis except for the 125? A 125 triple???
Hinkley triples from 900, add 955 and 1070 (and an 800 now? Adventurer?) You mention the 2.3L Rocket
Suzuki GT 380,550,750 two strokes

Andrew
Click to expand...

Don't forget Hinkley 750's (Trident,Daytona), revvy triples.

Haakeik
 
haakeik said:
Don't forget Hinkley 750's (Trident,Daytona), revvy triples.
Haakeik
Click to expand...

All even-fire 120's AFAIK.  Hell, even the Lav V6 is an even-fire 120 for that matter (stands back and waits for the 180 troglodytes to call it gay...).  :D

Seems MV is right and somewhere between the marketing waffle in 2012 and the production reality in 2013 they forgot they were meant to be making something different.  A bit perplexing really, as a 180 triple with a little bit of vertical counterbalancing would be smooth and sound mad - marketing nirvana.

All that aside - a mid-size reliable (presumably!), plentiful, torquey and cheap triple, soon to be available crashed at a wrecker near you... will it fit in a Zane frame?

SteveB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top