If it's good enough for Leno....

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

....it's good enough for me!:)
http://www.cyclenews.com/articles/industry-news/2009/04/21/leno-gets-a-suzuki-gsx-r1000

Anxiously awaiting the first real review of this and the new R1, and especially a literbike shootout. I'm not convinced that the R1's new crank is anything but a marketing ploy, like the 5-valve heads they used to have and then finally dumped years later because it was less powerful than a standard 4-valver. It's amazing how a company will still with something less efficient for years even in the face of a performance deficit because the marketing guys like their "signature" feature......

[ChrisCBX]

That bike will be going into a great collection. I'd like to visit Jay's garage someday.

Maybe he'll park the Gixxer next to his CBX. He still has a CBX that he bought new back in the day.

[~Barn~]

If it's good enough for the 2nd best Late Night host.....

[mra# 527]

The new R1 crankshaft is not a ploy as you put it.
I work at a shop and have taken the bike out and its great.
It's really on par with all the 1000's. The power seems the same
as the 08. However the way the power is put out is what sets it apart.
I also love the way it sounds. IE: like a (VFR).

I ride Ducs so I like the twin torque. The R1 has the feel of a twin
but the top end of a I4. Also far from being a ploy the Crank is based
directly off of the M1 Rossi rides. I have nothing against the GSXR I just
thought your post is a bit biased as you ride a GSXR.

The Suzuki is great no doubt. I think Spies would tell you the new
R1 has proven itself very competive in WSB.

Just my 2 cents.

[Mental]

If it's good enough for the 2nd best Late Night host.....

Even if that was true, (which it ain't) he is, without a doubt, the world's greatest gearhead.

So to all the Gixxer haterz...

HA!
My squidlyness is Jay Leno approved!

[~Barn~]

<snip...> he is without a doubt the world's greatest [celebrity] gearhead.

It's hard to disagree with this.

The late Paul Newman and David Letterman are both up there, but Leno's affection for motorcycles in addition to cars, is very cool. :up:

[Mizzybeff]

ooo its pretty! I like it

[asp_125]

+1 Leno strikes me as the kind of celeb gearhead that would let friends ride/drive his stuff. Apparently he is a regular at the Rock Store in Malibu, showing up on one of his bikes.

[Dracus]

Anxiously awaiting the first real review of this and the new R1, and especially a literbike shootout. I'm not convinced that the R1's new crank is anything but a marketing ploy, like the 5-valve heads they used to have and then finally dumped years later because it was less powerful than a standard 4-valver. It's amazing how a company will still with something less efficient for years even in the face of a performance deficit because the marketing guys like their "signature" feature......

MCN did a video review of it not too long ago and said it's faster than the 1000RR now. http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/videos/2009/February/feb1909-video-yamaha-r1-vs-honda-fireblade/

I think it looks ugly as hell but you can't argue with the power they were able to squeeze out of it. I still love my 'Blade :)

[Mental]

It's hard to disagree with this.

The late Paul Newman and David Letterman are both up there, but Leno's affection for motorcycles in addition to cars, is very cool. :up:

I would call Letterman a car guy, but not a gear head. Leno turns wrenches and bust knuckles.

But Newman, yeah you're right..Newman was an old school gearhead, like Leno, before he became famous. In my youth I watched newman race at Road Atlanta (my Dad was with Nissan) He was more than a very talented racer, he was approachable and humble. He ate lunch in the Nissan/Datsun tent with everyone else and was just a great guy. I have some pics around my house.

Its funny you should mention those names, another board I waste time on had this link, its awesome...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCxxMO2dG1U

Sorry for the thread hijack, please resume GSXR praise.

[ChrisCBX]

+1 Leno strikes me as the kind of celeb gearhead that would let friends ride/drive his stuff. Apparently he is a regular at the Rock Store in Malibu, showing up on one of his bikes.

This is true and has been proven by my buddies and club members many times.

I have a buddy that met up with Jay not too long ago, when he was doing a club date in California. He said that Jay was very nice and definitely a motorhead.

Here he is at the Rock Store, speaking with a CBX owner that I know.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HpUNNaF49g

And.............

I'm obviously not brand loyal but I do love my Gixxer. Jay got a heck of a present from Suzuki.

[Matty]

Apparently he is a regular at the Rock Store in Malibu, showing up on one of his bikes.
He doesn't stop at the Rock Store much anymore.. he usually comes down Kanan to the General Store about 2 miles south of Mulholland. He does however make a stop at the Over Look just past the Rock Store along Mulholland in usually one of his rare vehicles.

He really is a nice guy. And doesn't mind chatting it up with anyone who approaches him about his vehicles.

[DanFZ1]

....it's good enough for me!:)
http://www.cyclenews.com/articles/industry-news/2009/04/21/leno-gets-a-suzuki-gsx-r1000

Anxiously awaiting the first real review of this and the new R1, and especially a literbike shootout. I'm not convinced that the R1's new crank is anything but a marketing ploy, like the 5-valve heads they used to have and then finally dumped years later because it was less powerful than a standard 4-valver. It's amazing how a company will still with something less efficient for years even in the face of a performance deficit because the marketing guys like their "signature" feature......

5 valves per cylinder would have made for a very expensive marketing ploy considering that if they were wrong, and there was no benefit, there would have been the added expense of an extra valve for every cylinder on every bike from 1985 up through 2005/6? That's quite a lot of long-term management commitment for a marketing ploy. :)

When the FZ750 came out in 1985, the GSXR was listed as having 100 hp @ 10,500 rpms, but the "less powerful" 5-valve per cylinder (or twenny-vee as I like to call her) had 105 hp @ 10,500 rpms. The 5 extra ponies probably comes from the fact that you end up with 3 valves for air intake. Unfortunately, FZ750 weighed 460 lbs. while the GSXR only weighed 388 lbs. and had that all alumimum frame, while the FZ750 still had a more conventional steel tube sub-section. GSX-R750 was considered to be the better handling and more track focused bike, but the twenny-vee was never found lacking for power.

Both bikes topped out at 145 mph (on paper) that year.

[DanFZ1]

I would call Letterman a car guy, but not a gear head. Leno turns wrenches and bust knuckles.

But Newman, yeah you're right..Newman was an old school gearhead, like Leno, before he became famous. In my youth I watched newman race at Road Atlanta (my Dad was with Nissan) He was more than a very talented racer, he was approachable and humble. He ate lunch in the Nissan/Datsun tent with everyone else and was just a great guy. I have some pics around my house.

Its funny you should mention those names, another board I waste time on had this link, its awesome...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCxxMO2dG1U

Sorry for the thread hijack, please resume GSXR praise.

...and let us not forget Steve McQueen. :siesta:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

MCN did a video review of it not too long ago and said it's faster than the 1000RR now. http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/News/newsresults/videos/2009/February/feb1909-video-yamaha-r1-vs-honda-fireblade/

I think it looks ugly as hell but you can't argue with the power they were able to squeeze out of it. I still love my 'Blade :)
Well, at this point it's all strictly subjective instead of objective measurements made strictly on the street. I'll wait until the real test. The "butt dyno" is remarkably inaccurate.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

The new R1 crankshaft is not a ploy as you put it.
I work at a shop and have taken the bike out and its great.
It's really on par with all the 1000's. The power seems the same
as the 08. However the way the power is put out is what sets it apart.
I also love the way it sounds. IE: like a (VFR).

I ride Ducs so I like the twin torque. The R1 has the feel of a twin
but the top end of a I4. Also far from being a ploy the Crank is based
directly off of the M1 Rossi rides. I have nothing against the GSXR I just
thought your post is a bit biased as you ride a GSXR.

The Suzuki is great no doubt. I think Spies would tell you the new
R1 has proven itself very competive in WSB.

Just my 2 cents.
From what I read the power was DOWN a few hp from last year, in spite of the 13.7:1(!) compression ratio. This ratio increase should have increased the hp by more than that, and will make it very sensitive to gas quality, especially at sea level. A 180deg crank engine will make more hp as it scavenges (exhaust) better and it has perfect primary balance, unlike the 90deg crank.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

5 valves per cylinder would have made for a very expensive marketing ploy considering that if they were wrong, and there was no benefit, there would have been the added expense of an extra valve for every cylinder on every bike from 1985 up through 2005/6? That's quite a lot of long-term management commitment for a marketing ploy. :)

When the FZ750 came out in 1985, the GSXR was listed as having 100 hp @ 10,500 rpms, but the "less powerful" 5-valve per cylinder (or twenny-vee as I like to call her) had 105 hp @ 10,500 rpms. The 5 extra ponies probably comes from the fact that you end up with 3 valves for air intake. Unfortunately, FZ750 weighed 460 lbs. while the GSXR only weighed 388 lbs. and had that all alumimum frame, while the FZ750 still had a more conventional steel tube sub-section. GSX-R750 was considered to be the better handling and more track focused bike, but the twenny-vee was never found lacking for power.

Both bikes topped out at 145 mph (on paper) that year.
Hey Dave!
The FZR was water-cooled, allowing higher compression, and the old Gixxers had notoriously restrictive exhausts and intakes (had an '86 1100 bought new). Yamaha DID drop the 5-valve. The problems are an oddly-shaped compression chamber, and "shrouding" of the intake valves. Ferrari did extensive studies on the 5-valve vs. 4-valve heads, and found the 4-valve was better. F1 is a great test of that, even more so than MotoGP. If it isn't demonstratably better, it doesn't get used. To my knowledge, 5-valve heads are not used in either series though they're legal. I know it was a marketing thing because I've worked for companies that did the same thing with their inferior "trademark" designs.

[rybo]

If it's good enough for Leno (to get one for free) then it's good enough for Rybo! I'll take my new Gixxer out when they give me one for free.

[mra# 527]

Yeah what Rybo said. Give me a free one and I will ride it.

QUOTE: Cycle Monkey:From what I read the power was DOWN a few hp from last year, in spite of the 13.7:1(!) compression ratio. This ratio increase should have increased the hp by more than that, and will make it very sensitive to gas quality, especially at sea level. A 180deg crank engine will make more hp as it scavenges (exhaust) better and it has perfect primary balance, unlike the 90deg crank.



So what does that mean????/ Can you or will you notice this on the street? Maybe on the track but again look at Spies and what he's doin
on it. Also if a 180deg crank will make more HP then why would Rossi and
Yamaha use a 90deg in the M1??? Not to bash the GSXR as I stated its
a great bike but other than in AMA racing what have they done? In WSB
nothing in years. In moto GP nothing in years. In all Euro racing nothing in years. So other the Yoshi & Jordan team in AMA what make the GSXR so
much better? IMO all the the Liter bikes are so close in performance what
does 2hp or so matter on the street?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Yeah what Rybo said. Give me a free one and I will ride it.

QUOTE: Cycle Monkey:From what I read the power was DOWN a few hp from last year, in spite of the 13.7:1(!) compression ratio. This ratio increase should have increased the hp by more than that, and will make it very sensitive to gas quality, especially at sea level. A 180deg crank engine will make more hp as it scavenges (exhaust) better and it has perfect primary balance, unlike the 90deg crank.



So what does that mean????/ Can you or will you notice this on the street? Maybe on the track but again look at Spies and what he's doin
on it. Also if a 180deg crank will make more HP then why would Rossi and
Yamaha use a 90deg in the M1??? Not to bash the GSXR as I stated its
a great bike but other than in AMA racing what have they done? In WSB
nothing in years. In moto GP nothing in years. In all Euro racing nothing in years. So other the Yoshi & Jordan team in AMA what make the GSXR so
much better? IMO all the the Liter bikes are so close in performance what
does 2hp or so matter on the street?
Like I said, I'll wait to see the OBJECTIVE comparison tests. HP measured at the sales brochure is questionable. And, a MAJOR raise in compression AND less HP? that tells me the engine is less efficient. In MotoGP, it's easy enough to make more peak power than is usable, Yamaha is trying to make it more usable by trying to make it more useable at the expense of peak power, much like Honda did with the "Big Bang" 2-stroke engine in GP1 years ago. I believe this is because they don't have as sophisticated a traction control as Ducati, who make the most power but can tame it the best with their superior electronics (Magnetti Marelli of F1 fame). The uneven firing order of the 90deg crank adds all kinds of other problems.

"Spies" is the key word. He'd be kicking a$$ on whatever he rode, as evidenced by where his teammate is in the points. I think he'd do especially well on the Gixxer. You must have forgotten that Corser won the title in the Gixxer a few years ago, something Yamaha has never been able to do. Biaggi was REALLY close to repeating that a few years ago in his first season. Also, look at how the Gixxers do in the IOM races, and especially US and FIM endurance racing. They have been dominant for years, actually.

[Sean]

+1 with Rybo. I'd be happy with any free bike. While I really enjoy the feel of a Yamaha, there's a lot of evidence that the gsxr is a great bike. A huge percentage of racers in the top 10 of local and national race leagues are gsxr's. It seems as if they have the strongest presence at the club level. I'll strongly consider one for my next bike. I know it always comes down to the rider, but it says something when so many top riders are choosing the same bike.

[DanFZ1]

Hey Dave!
The FZR was water-cooled, allowing higher compression, and the old Gixxers had notoriously restrictive exhausts and intakes (had an '86 1100 bought new). Yamaha DID drop the 5-valve. The problems are an oddly-shaped compression chamber, and "shrouding" of the intake valves. Ferrari did extensive studies on the 5-valve vs. 4-valve heads, and found the 4-valve was better. F1 is a great test of that, even more so than MotoGP. If it isn't demonstratably better, it doesn't get used. To my knowledge, 5-valve heads are not used in either series though they're legal. I know it was a marketing thing because I've worked for companies that did the same thing with their inferior "trademark" designs.

...ahem...

Just because companies come up with "cute" names that can be patented and trademarked (which is totally true) doesn't mean that 5-valves is a marketing ploy.

F1 matters not to me in the least because on a bike, space is more limited, how much something weighs is far more important, and balance and rider "feel" (and therefore rider psychology) is everything. So cars and motorcycles are not an apples to apples comparison for me.

Yamaha's claim that 5-valves had their advantages is measurable.

When you look at the little air inlets staring back at you, you will notice that on the Yamaha, they are individually smaller. This is true. So the total valve area would be marginally smaller than if you were using two larger inlet valves. However, the total circumference of all three inlet valves is greater. This is the more important factor because valves are almost always only partially open. ...and that is why they did it.

So this is a more analog solution (compared to today's standards) which allows for a larger volume of cool air to pour straight into the motor, prior to using the more digital fly-by-wire approach that replaced it. In a digital world, air and fuel are dealt with in the form of a Yamaha Chip Control Intake (YCC-I) electronic variable-length intake funnel system and, a Yamaha Chip Control Throttle (YCC-T) fly-by-wire throttle system.

If Yamaha wanted a marketing ploy, I think they probably would've gone with something that did not require so much effort when it came to convincing the public. This wasn't the "feature" that sold the bike. 5-valves per cylinder met with resistance that had to be overcome just to begin to have a chance at selling the bike. The FZ750 was not a big seller when it first came out.

Your mention of F1 is a good one though. :) Because back in the 80's Bimota (which has always used what ever motor they thought was best, including Honda and Suzuki) was running the FZ750 5-valve per cylinder Yamaha motor in the form of the YB4 when Virginio Ferrari won the Formula One world championship, which just happened to be the leading four-stroke racing series at the time.:siesta:

Bimota has gone with the Yamaha 20-valve motor from time to time but not because it was a gimmick. They just happened to think it was the best motor at the time. Like when they went with the YB11 for the 1996 model year. For the 2000 model year they came out with the SB8K because they thought there was a lot they could do with the Suzuki TL 1000R. Gobert won at Phillip Island on that bike by the way,:hump: but it sure wasn't an inline 4 with 16 valves. :)

So, saying that the twenny-vee is just a "marketing ploy" is like saying that the "mono-shock" or the "Deltabox" aluminum twin-beam frame was also just a marketing ploy. Or just like Honda's Pro-Link and Kawasaki's Uni-Trak. They probably don't prefer those in F1 either. :slap:

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

Hey Dave. Yes, there is more valve area, but as I mentioned the shrouding of the middle valve caused more problems with flow. Both Ferrari AND Yamaha eventually dropped the design. The Ferrari's was even superior to the Yamaha in that the valves were splayed in a more hemispherical design. The still changed back to the 4-valve heads as the flowbench data does not lie. As I said, it's easy to get around the patent, and if it DID yield real advantages, why did both of them drop it? To go further, if it's an advantage, why aren't F1 engines, where cost is no object and performance rules absolutely, made with 5-valve heads?

Believe me, I was all for it when it forst came out. I thought it was a great idea.....until I started seeing the data.

[konichd]

How dare you question FRANK! He obviously knows more than 200+ Engineers in Japan that work 40+ hours week ;)

[Tipys]

Frank must be borrowing your DK money to do this.

[DanFZ1]

Hey Dave. Yes, there is more valve area, but as I mentioned the shrouding of the middle valve caused more problems with flow. Both Ferrari AND Yamaha eventually dropped the design. The Ferrari's was even superior to the Yamaha in that the valves were splayed in a more hemispherical design. The still changed back to the 4-valve heads as the flowbench data does not lie. As I said, it's easy to get around the patent, and if it DID yield real advantages, why did both of them drop it? To go further, if it's an advantage, why aren't F1 engines, where cost is no object and performance rules absolutely, made with 5-valve heads?

Believe me, I was all for it when it forst came out. I thought it was a great idea.....until I started seeing the data.

In answer to your question as to why it was dropped, I would just like say that this is perfect example as to why it is that comparing cars to motorcycles is fraught with peril. :banghead:

Now, What Kind Of Valves Does Ferrari Use?

Answer: Pnuematic.

What Kind Of Valves Does Yamaha Use?

Answer: NOT Pnuematic. :)

Explanation: Ferrari used 5 valves per cylinder in every V12 they made from 1989 to about 1993. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. (The likely-hood of me getting something wrong when discussing the racing history of anything with 4 wheels is in fact greater than random chance, so please pay attention.) So, Ferarri (who I couldn't care less about) switched to 4 valves per cylinder.

Question: What Did Ferrari Do In 1992?


Answer: They switched over to pneumatic valve springs instead of using springs made of "metal".

Explanation: It is a rip roaring pain in the tukus to fit DI, a spark plug, and 5 valves into a compression chamber.

Trick Question: Why Did Yamaha Make The Move To 4-valves Per Cylinder?

Trick Answer: Yamaha 4-stroke dirt bikes, which are not subject to more restrictive emissions laws, still use 5-valves per cylinder.

Other advantages includes the ability to use lighter valves (cause they're smaller) which are less prone to float which means they can rev higher.

Lighter valves also reduce wear and tear on valve seats. In 4-stroke motocross, Yamaha is the only manufacturer which does not routinely experienced valve seat wear issues and, they are the only ones using 5-valves per cylinder. This also allows for a shorter, lower profile head because you don't need as much valve lift.

So, 5-valves per cylinder has many benefits and is not a marketing ploy. :)

Yamaha has said that the reason they went back to 4-valves per cylinder on their streetbikes is because of emissions regulations. They say that it's too hard to manufacture the combustion chamber for optimal emissions when the head has a 5-valve layout.

Question: If Everybody's running lighter, titainium valves, what possible advantage does 5-valves have?

Answer: Frank, you are not paying attention to what I am saying to you.

What happens if you remove the rev limiter on a car that makes peak power before redline? Unless you also improve the breathing at higher RPMs, it's not going to make any more power.

However, on a dirtbike or motard there are benefits to having those extra RPMs at your disposal. You can hold a lower gear a little longer, which can be quite useful depending on how much power you have when you are in the over-rev region and beyond peak. Extra revs under certain track conditions is something a rider can actually make use of because it makes for a more flexible engine. A rider like Jeremy McGrath can use that to his advantage. He can sense it and feel it and use it from the back of a bike, but not when he's sitting in a car.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

How dare you question FRANK! He obviously knows more than 200+ Engineers in Japan that work 40+ hours week ;)
It was those same Engineers that decided to drop the 5-valve heads when it became obvious that is was inferior. Like I said, Ferrari tried it and dropped it as well. Why? 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.:)

I forget the year, but Suzuki made a very large-bore/short-stroke Gixxer750 motor that made great power in stock form......but fell flat on it's face heavily modified in racing because it was TOO oversquare. It took them a year or 2 to reverse that trend.

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

In answer to your question as to why it was dropped, I would just like say that this is perfect example as to why it is that comparing cars to motorcycles is fraught with peril. :banghead:

Now, What Kind Of Valves Does Ferrari Use?

Answer: Pnuematic.
Ferrari used the 5-valve heads on the original F355 V8 street engine, which is not pneumatic.

What Kind Of Valves Does Yamaha Use?

Answer: NOT Pnuematic. :)

Explanation: Ferrari used 5 valves per cylinder in every V12 they made from 1989 to about 1993. I am sure you will correct me if I am wrong. (The likely-hood of me getting something wrong when discussing the racing history of anything with 4 wheels is in fact greater than random chance, so please pay attention.) So, Ferarri (who I couldn't care less about) switched to 4 valves per cylinder.
If you're talking about F1, I know they dabbled in 5-valve heads for a while, around the time of the F355, but they dropped them as well. Regardless of the type of valve springs, if 5-valve had a benefit, they'd be used.

Question: What Did Ferrari Do In 1992?



Answer: They switched over to pneumatic valve springs instead of using springs made of "metal".



Explanation: It is a rip roaring pain in the tukus to fit DI, a spark plug, and 5 valves into a compression chamber.



Trick Question: Why Did Yamaha Make The Move To 4-valves Per Cylinder?
From what I read, power production, and quality.


Trick Answer: Yamaha 4-stroke dirt bikes, which are not subject to more restrictive emissions laws, still use 5-valves per cylinder.


Other advantages includes the ability to use lighter valves (cause they're smaller) which are less prone to float which means they can rev higher.
True, but the exhaust valves become the limiting factor then, as well as piston acceleration.


Lighter valves also reduce wear and tear on valve seats. In 4-stroke motocross, Yamaha is the only manufacturer which does not routinely experienced valve seat wear issues and, they are the only ones using 5-valves per cylinder. This also allows for a shorter, lower profile head because you don't need as much valve lift.


So, 5-valves per cylinder has many benefits and is not a marketing ploy. :)


Yamaha has said that the reason they went back to 4-valves per cylinder on their streetbikes is because of emissions regulations. They say that it's too hard to manufacture the combustion chamber for optimal emissions when the head has a 5-valve layout.


Question: If Everybody's running lighter, titainium valves, what possible advantage does 5-valves have?
None, but Ti would make the smaller 5-valve valves lighter too.:)


Answer: Frank, you are not paying attention to what I am saying to you.


What happens if you remove the rev limiter on a car that makes peak power before redline? Unless you also improve the breathing at higher RPMs, it's not going to make any more power.
True, but, I'm missing your point?


However, on a dirtbike or motard there are benefits to having those extra RPMs at your disposal. You can hold a lower gear a little longer, which can be quite useful depending on how much power you have when you are in the over-rev region and beyond peak. Extra revs under certain track conditions is something a rider can actually make use of because it makes for a more flexible engine. A rider like Jeremy McGrath can use that to his advantage. He can sense it and feel it and use it from the back of a bike, but not when he's sitting in a car.


I can't seem to find the info I'm looking for. Honestly, the I-net is useless sometimes. But I'm a tech-head, and I remember reading about the flow issues. I'm going to search some more. Like I said, in the rarified arena of F1, and to a lesser extent, MotoGP, if there was a power advantage, why aren't more people using 5-valve engines?

[CYCLE_MONKEY]

From the comparo test:
"But, as we suspected at the Yamaha’s intro, this new motor is lacking a bit of the old bike’s revvy surge up top, peaking with just 146.1 hp at 11,800 rpm. This is the lowest output of all the literbikes, even less that the Ducati’s 150.4 hp, and it’s down from 2008’s 153.5 hp. Max torque is down incrementally to 73.1 ft-lbs at a relatively low 9000 rpm.
Overall, this is a very interesting and satisfying engine, but there’s no escaping the fact that it’s down about 10 ponies from the most powerful engines in this group. The R1’s missing top-end pull became evident when the bike was unable to make up ground on the V-Twin Duc down Willow’s front straight. While this speaks volumes about the 1198’s bodacious V-Twin, it also writes a less impressive chapter in the R1’s story."