beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 21, 2005 11:52 AM
2006 Yamaha R6 & 2006 Suzuki GSX-R600: On the dyno!
2006 Yamaha R6 on the dyno:
2006 Suzuki GSX-R600 on the dyno:
Blue = Suzuki
Red = Yamaha
Same dyno chart, with 2005 Kawasaki ZX-6R 636cc overlayed:
Green = Kawi
   
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:05 PM
 Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 15:35
GEE I THOUGHT IT WENT TO 18,000 RPM BEFORE HITTING THE LIMITER?!?!?
And the redline was 17,500?
Boy who'd have thought that those claims, screamed in all the magazine articles and even magazine covers, with it being presented that this was the reason the bike
was worth the extreme price premium, were frauds?? 
Looks like the true figure is 16,000, and just barely reaching that. Really more like 15,800 for the effective redline.
While there have been "optimistic" tachs before, I don't recall it ever being used to the marketing advantage that Yamaha did with this bike, screaming the figures
all over the place, nor such an extraordinary degree of "optimism."
Two thousand rpm different from reality is more than a little bit of deception and certainly more than inadvertent or "safety margin" error. Will any magazine
dare say FRAUD?
|
nedragr
Zone Head
Posts: 504
|
posted December 21, 2005 01:49 PM
I find it interesting that the bikes only produce 60 BHP @ 8000 rpm?? Like the old man at the shop notes.......the new 600's are not very user friendly for the urbin folks?? He uses other words but you get the jist. (Can't get out of their own way) It seems to me they've taken any kind of mid range out of the 600 class by making them so rev happy??
Owned an RG500 back a few years ago and it produced 48 BHP @ 4k and an estimated 100 @ 6500??
____________
Real racebikes run premix!!
http://www.bikepics.com/members/nedragr/
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 03:43 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 15:55
Also worth noting that even at that 8000 rpm figure you pick, the Yamama is down about 11 hp compared to the 'Zook (or about 20%) and about
SEVENTEEN HORSEPOWER down on the Kawasaki (or about 25%.)
This is too poor to be anywhere near able to be made up for by the fact that the gearing could be 16/15 shorter than the Suzuki due to the redline/limiter difference
(only about 6%) or in the case of the Kawasaki could be geared about 8% shorter.
It also makes less peak power than the Kwak.
Turns out the "super Yamaha" is a super lie.
|
jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted December 21, 2005 03:44 PM
Trenace, a few weeks ago I said the same thing on another forum about the r6 redline and tach and they acted like I took a shit on their dining room table.
I wonder if the graph drops off because that's where they stopped the pull, or if it's where the r6 actually hit the limiter. Even if it's where they let off, who the hell would really want to take it to 17.5k since it drops off so fast after 14k?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 03:45 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 16:18
Oh, it was obviously a lie from the beginning.
Given the published stroke of the bike, if the redline let alone limiter were where they claim, the piston accelerations would exceed MotoGP bikes. Just not credible, never was.
Actually it appears a worse lie than I expected. I had figured the actual redline would be between 16K and (I think I said) 16.5 at the absolute most. Turns out it's the very bottom end
of that and for practical purposes, really around 15,800.
A good question is why the magazines ever published these lies, let alone put them on the front cover, or printed drivel such as a writer claiming he was now in an exclusive
club even Rossi wasn't in, riding at even higher rpm than Rossi on his MotoGP bike? I mean the magazines laid this one on THICK. I can't believe that guys like
Kevin Cameron weren't smart enough to spot this as patently untrue.
The only mag I saw casting doubt on it was MCN, and they did so politely, but at least did call it into question.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 21, 2005 05:42 PM
Edited By: beansbaxter on 21 Dec 2005 17:45
it never hit the rev limiter. if it did, you would see an erratic line instead of a drop. the dyno operator chopped the juice before it got to redline. hitting the rev limiter is bad.
most bikes drop off the power long before they hit redline.
Just because the dyno operator chopped the throttle at 16k doesnt mean it wont go there. Nor does it mean it is supposed to make peak power there either.
You got some serious brand hatred going on there bro, I would look into that if I were you. Its just a bike!
|
nedragr
Zone Head
Posts: 504
|
posted December 21, 2005 06:49 PM
I'm not sure Bill has hatred for the Yamaha but for what is published by magizines? It still comes down to mathmatics, bore and stroke/piston speed??
____________
Real racebikes run premix!!
http://www.bikepics.com/members/nedragr/
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 07:27 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 21:00
It is not "brand hatred." That is a crazy accusation. Find one shred of evidence to support that.
You're reminding me of Dale -- don't like what somebody says, but you don't have a rational refutation, then call them a "racist" or accuse them of "brand hatred." Brilliant.
No, what I really strongly dislike is out and out fraud, which that rpm claim is. It is absolutely not credible that a production bike is going to have piston speeds higher than
ultra-high-buck pure-race bikes.
Beans, you tell me ONE bike, one dynograph anywhere where they roll the throttle off 2200 rpm before the limiter. For example, show me one ZX-12R dynograph where
they roll it off at around 9500 rpm rather than taking it up to about the true redline or limiter. Let me guess: you can't find a single one. That's a feeble and non-credible excuse.
Nope, the bike has got a tach that lies by about 2000 rpm, and an error that big is deliberate one can be sure, as was the decision to heavily promote that alleged but untrue capability.
|
jimzx9r
Expert Class
Posts: 451
|
posted December 21, 2005 07:49 PM
quote:
it never hit the rev limiter. if it did, you would see an erratic line instead of a drop. the dyno operator chopped the juice before it got to redline. hitting the rev limiter is bad.
Not true. Power drops straight down at the limiter. I know because I've done it on the dyno at least a dozen times while adjusting rev limits through the pcm.
To get erratic lines, the rpms have to keep increasing, which is impossible with a computer controlled limiter.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 21, 2005 09:18 PM
quote:
Not true. Power drops straight down at the limiter. I know because I've done it on the dyno at least a dozen times while adjusting rev limits through the pcm.
To get erratic lines, the rpms have to keep increasing, which is impossible with a computer controlled limiter.
what the hell sort of dyno was that? every dyno i ever operated the bikes still showed a erratic line. rev limiters cut fuel not spark except in the case of carbed bikes. therefore the dyno would still read rpms as it pulls its reading off the plug wire/coil. as long as the motor is turning and a spark is being fired the dyno will read it. are you sure you didnt hit the rev limiter and back out of it the minute you heard it hit?
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 21, 2005 09:24 PM
Edited By: trenace on 21 Dec 2005 21:54
So anyway Beans are you seriously arguing that this engine will operate to 17,500 rpm, that that is its legit redline, but the operator just chose to roll off the throttle at 15,800
rather than test to see if it would do as Yamaha claims or even anywhere near it?
Do you really believe that?
Particularly considering that I predicted in advance (and anyone could have done so) that this engine's redline in truth should be expected to be about 16,000 not 17,500?
Wanna place a bet on future dyno outcomes? 
Here's the bet: it will not exceed 16,500 rpm (a full ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED rpm lower than I say falsely claimed for the limiter, and quite possibly as in this dyno run
a full TWO THOUSAND rpm lower) on any magazine reported dyno, bet ending after tested in 3 magazines.
Or are you not that confident that Yamaha isn't totally lying on this one?
This ain't the few hundred rpm error we've seen on other bikes. TWO THOUSAND RPM off is gross fraud, particularly when the false numbers are used as the key
advertising hook for the bike, as is the case here.
It has nothing to do with your absurd accusation of "brand hatred." Any company that claimed 17,500 rpm redline, 18,000 rpm limiter with that stroke, and made the marketing
hay of it that Yamaha has, I'd call them liars too because it would likewise be an equally huge lie and equally huge marketing fraud.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 21, 2005 11:42 PM
when i run a bike on a dyno i back out of it just before redline. most of the time if i can see the monitor ill watch it and once it is not climbing in the hp department i back out of it. no sense revving it any more if it is not making any more hp.
im pretty sure it will go 17,500. hell some moto gp bikes rev clear up to those rpms and beyond.
a freaking ninja 250 has a 14.5k redline. it has rocker arms held in place by the camshaft and nothing more. if that can rev to 14.5k then a shim under bucket valve train of super light materials should have no problem revving to the moon. hell ill bet that motor will rev to 20,000 if the flow characteristics of the motor were changed to flow more air at higher rpms. for what it is worth, you can make a motor rev to 30,000 rpm if the valve train was light enough and the rods were beefy enough to take it. the only drawback to that is the motor would have no bottom end as the intake tracts of the motor would be huge to flow all sorts of air making intake tract velocity piss poor at low rpms.
the only thing keeping a motor from revving higher is airflow, material strength (and of course a rev limiter if it had one)
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 22, 2005 12:02 AM
Edited By: trenace on 22 Dec 2005 00:57
Why are you "pretty sure it will go 17,500?" (Your stating that air could flow that fast hardly shows that this motor will do that rpm, nor do your statements regarding
the 250 Ninja or MotoGP bikes show that, particularly as Rossi's MotoGP bike has less piston speed than what the new R6 would have if it did the rpm Yamaha claims.
You truly believe this bike outdoes Yamaha's MotoGP bike in piston speed? Well you have to believe that to buy their rpm claims.)
Why do you think this dynochart ends at 15,800 -- 16,000? The operator just felt like rolling it off 2000 rpm early? Does that make a lot of sense?? Does that make ANY sense?
I asked you if you could find a single dynochart of a single bike where the operator decided to roll off 2000 rpm before the limiter, e.g. a ZX-12R dynochart where the operator
decided to go up only to 9700 rpm or so. Can you find one such example?
Isn't it difficult to explain the coincidence -- if you claim it's just coincidence and I'm wrong on the cause -- that the one engine I said the claimed redline on is totally false and
dynographs would show it cannot do nearly what is claimed, is now the one and only such dynograph you can find?
Can you name another production engine that has the piston speeds that would correspond to Yamaha's claims which I say are grossly false? Namely, 17,500 redline / 18,000
limiter with 42.5mm stroke corresponds to piston speeds of 1487/1530 meters per minute or 4880/5020 fpm. What production motor data gives you the basis to be "pretty sure"
the R6 can do this?
Or do you think it makes sense that the piston speed is instead only like the extreme top end of the production range (rather than absurdly far beyond it) and therefore the engine
cannot be expected to exceed about 16,000 rpm and THAT is the explanation for this dyno chart?
Aside from sheer faith that Yamaha could not lie so much, what other basis would you have for claiming I'm wrong?
Anyway time will tell, actually I think this dynograph already has told: you are mistaken and Yamaha indeed has lied that much. By about 2000 rpm.
quote:
hell ill bet that motor will rev to 20,000 if the flow characteristics of the motor were changed to flow more air at higher rpms. for what it is worth, you can make a motor rev to 30,000 rpm if the valve train was light enough and the rods were beefy enough to take it
You are neglecting factors such as bearing loads and ring flutter. The above statements are just very very far from true. The idea that all you need for a motor to spin to 30,000
is a valvetrain that's light enough and "beefy rods" is just not realistic. No 42.5mm stroke motor (you say "that motor," and that's the stroke of that motor) is going to do
20,000 rpm with 2006 technology let alone your 30,000 rpm figure, I don't care how beefy the rods. Point to me one example...
You're living in a moto-fantasy land there, not the reality of what is in fact very well known about engines. Unfortunately, Yamaha's claims are in that moto-fantasy land
as well, and I guess many potential buyers besides yourself aren't able to discern that the claims are obvious lies. What's alarming is, you have a dynograph you
posted yourself and even so you still make the excuses for Yamaha and continue buying their claims. So perhaps even after the magazines repeatedly get dynographs
just like the above that prove (to those that will see) that the rpm claims are untrue, gulled potential buyers like you will continue believing the bike spins 2000 rpm
faster than it really does and gushing about it, thinking that proves it a fantastic super-advanced engine, thanks to a deliberately grossly false tach, a lying company,
and a complicit press. And paying top dollar for it too.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 22, 2005 07:25 AM
Edited By: beansbaxter on 22 Dec 2005 07:27
I am not trying to do the ole "I have a friend who said this" story, but I brought this scenario to a friend of mine who eclipses me in the years of motorcycling, and is a historical Turbo Busa owner and I'd like to share his response and I quote:
"Hey beans, it'll rev to 17500 no problem. Any of our bikes would if we disabled the rev limiter and would allow them to float the valves and push a rod through the bottom end. My dragbike motors would spin up to 14,000 or so using 1985 valve technology and 1497 cc of big block power. It's all in the cams and valve train to hit those RPM's and it takes a hell of a head to flow up there. You also need damn good rods and crank to live in that kind of environment. I always tried to shift around 11500 by the shift light, which put me in the 12200 or so range. I did this not because it wouldn't go higher, but I wanted the engine to live and I only gained 8 or so hp to 13,000 and it would die off around 13600. So I guess what I'm saying is that if the dyno guy was smart and saw the power dropping then he simply cut the throttle and ended the session to make sure that little bike lives another day."
|
ninerrider01
Novice Class
Posts: 70
|
posted December 22, 2005 07:59 AM
Edited By: ninerrider01 on 22 Dec 2005 12:25
It seems arguing whether the motor can or can't is kind of pointless when you can see the torque curve fall off at 14,000. I doubt there's a 3rd hump in the torque curve out there past 15,000.
Those graphs also are great examples of showing how bikes can rev higher only to win "gee-wiz" hp wars. See the R6 torque is never higher than the Suz torque, yet the hp is higher simply because of that big rpm number in the equation for hp. So you get an impressive hp number for the magazines, but I know which bike I'd rather be riding on the street.
The 636! 
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 22, 2005 10:51 AM
trenace, you are looking at this from a way too technical point of view. It is not impossible to engineer a motor that can rev that high. Some would say it is impossible for a Hayabusa to deal with making 500 hp on a turbo with stock engine cases. Alright, if you want to talk about piston speeds exceeding their limits? Think about how fast a turbo charged Hayabusa's pistons are flying up and down in there. Think about how high the cylinder pressures are inside that combustion chamber running 2 bar, and on stock components mind you; not only have you doubled the amount of horsepower you have quadrupled it. Extreme cylinder pressures are capable of increasing pistons speeds just as much as higher rpm's.
As far a motors redlining at 30k, that was just a theoretical example thrown out there. You can build one it is not impossible. There are Formula 1 cars out there with redlines right into the 22,000 rpm areas and still climbing! If you can build a v12 formula motor that can rev to even 20k with way heavier pistons, you sure can build a tiny 600cc motor that can rev to stupid speeds easy.
What I am saying here is motors today are way over engineered, and yes you can build one that will spin to 30k taking all other things into consideration it is possible. Again a 17.5k redline is easily achievable from that motor with no problems.
I would love to get a hold of one of those new Yamaha R6's, I'm sure it wont be too long, and slap a digital tach on it and see exactly how high it can rev. I'm curious also to hear what Yamaha has to say about it.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 22, 2005 11:44 AM
Edited By: beansbaxter on 22 Dec 2005 11:54
Something interesting pops up when I looked up the Bore & Stroke of all of the 06 600 SS bikes.....
Take a look:
06 ZX6RR = 67mm x 42.5mm @ 16,500 redline
06 R6 = 67mm x 42.5mm @ 17,500 redline
06 CBR600RR = 67mm x 42.5mm @ 15,000 redline
06 GSXR600 = 67mm x 42.5mm @ 15,500 redline
They are all identical engine dimensions. The ZX6RR is only 1K lower than the R6s claimed redline. So who knows, maybe Yamaha did tweak enough parameters to allow a 17.5K redline.
However given the exact same engine displacement & geometry the Gix sure seems have more area under the curve, and that's what makes for a good engine.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 22, 2005 12:04 PM
Information I can find shows that F1 engines run maximum piston speeds around 40 meters per second. That is almost 2x the 24.8 mps a 17.5K redline will allow on the R6 engine. Now given the fact that F1 engines often turn into grenades due to that fact, we'd can assume that 30 mps is probably a plenty safe threshold for piston speed. So looks like Yamaha may not really have a problem at all with this redline at least from a piston perspective. Valve train is a whole other story.
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 22, 2005 06:01 PM
Edited By: trenace on 22 Dec 2005 21:07
Beans, actually you've confused "maximum piston speed" with "average piston speed."
That is a very large error both in magnitude and in principle and gives a completely invalid comparison.
Comparing apples to apples, mean piston speed to mean piston speed, the R6 -- if its true values really were 17,500 redline / 18,000 limiter -- would come in at
24.78 / 25.50 meters per second, which I say shows the claimed rpm values to be obvious lies. F1 motors, which you choose to use for comparison, today reportedly have mean piston
speeds of about 26.0 meters per second.
If you truly want to bet that a production street bike engine is going to be turning that close to F1 piston speeds -- which engines you yourself acknowledge are on the edge
of grenading despite using much tricker and more expensive parts, for example and quite relevantly much lighter pistons -- you go right ahead. I'm always up
for an easy profit...
BTW, if you wanted to compare maximum piston speeds, while I can't give the value for the R6 without having the rod ratio, if the rod ratio is anything typical of motorcycles
then the R6's maximum piston speeds -- if rpm values were as claimed -- would I'm pretty sure be HIGHER than the F1 motor's, since the F1 motor these days enjoys much
longer rod ratios than motorcycle engines typically do, and this causes less difference between maximum and average piston speeds. But that's a point I don't even need
to make, it's just something extra added in there to yet further demonstrate how completely absurd Yamaha's claimed rpm levels are. No chance in hell that they are true.
I don't tend to feel your arguments above are likely really technical ones, but just some sort of optimistic "oh they can do anything" philosophy. No, there are things that
are beyond technical feasibilty and these piston speeds are well beyond present technical feasibility for streetbikes. Period end of story (unless one confuses mean speed
with maximum speed or something and thus vastly underestimates what's being talked about.)
However I see no point in continuing to go back and forth with you on it. I say the following dyno curves will show the same thing -- the true limit is about 16,000 on the R6,
with the tach and the advertising claims grossly false, by about 2000 rpm. You claim different, that Yamaha is being honest with their claims. Time will prove to others
which is correct without my having to say another word.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 23, 2005 03:08 PM
tren, while i have to agree with you that yamaha is fudging their numbers to gain some sales i still do not doubt that you can easily build a 17.5k motor.
mean piston speeds are not the limiting factor on how fast an engine can spin before it grenades. while it is a good baseline to establish a safe amount of rpm a motor can turn the real governing factor is how much stress can the rods, carnk and bearings can take and if the motor is efficent enough to flow the air it needs to obtain those speeds.
every day enginers are looking for ways to lighten the valve train and pistons so they can obtain higher speeds from the motor. on of the biggest problems is the effect of inertia on the rods from heavy piston weights and that is why slipper pistons are all the rage now. cutting down the weight on a piston reduces the amount of force applied to the rod on the upward strokes of the piston.
still i am willing to bet that if that motor could flow enough air into it the motor will rev to 17.5 k . how long will it live for is another question.
|
nedragr
Zone Head
Posts: 504
|
posted December 23, 2005 03:41 PM
Edited By: nedragr on 23 Dec 2005 15:52
Honda built the MC22 (250cc) starting in 92 that would spin 18 k., some claiming 20.
Sweet little bikes. All the figures I can find on it though only state the maximum HP @ 14.5 So there is an argument there Beans??
As far as livability of the motor.........have a good buddy that rode his @ Brainerd (mile long straighaway) for 2 years and never laid a figure on it. Indestructable!!
http://www.cr-x.org/cbr250/faqs/RRRdiff.asp
____________
Real racebikes run premix!!
http://www.bikepics.com/members/nedragr/
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 23, 2005 04:20 PM
Edited By: beansbaxter on 23 Dec 2005 16:21
honda had a rc115 in the mid 60s that had a 20,000 rpm redline. it was 50 cc with a pretty short stroke. still the pistons were pretty heavy slugs for an engine that small.
i firmly believe that if it was not for the fact it was a 2 stroker it would have grenaded long before that as no valve train of those times could deal with that. valves would be floating all over the place.
EDIT
my bad. just found more info on that RC115. it was indeed a 4 cycle engine
Bore and stroke are now 34 x 27.4 mm, giving a total capacity of 49.75 cc. The enclosed valve angle 72 degrees for the RC114, it is now 56 degrees, with 24 degrees for the inlet valves and 32 degrees for the exhaust valves.
Drive to the camshafts is still with a gear train on the right hand side, but is now taken from the clutch drive instead of from a gear on the crankshaft, as can be seen in the first Engine picture. What also can be seen in this picture, is that the megaphones are not welded to the down pipes as usual for Hondas, but slipped over them - necessary because they're made of aluminum, to save weight.
Carburetors have the flat slides.
Power output is a healthy 15 bhp at 20,000 rpm.
Lubrication is by wet sump; there are nine speeds in the gearbox. Dry weight is 50 kg - compare that with the 61 kg of the single cylinder CR110!
|
trenace
Needs a job
Posts: 3056
|
posted December 23, 2005 08:11 PM
I agree one can build a 17.5K street motor -- but not with a 42.5mm stroke and today's technology.
|
beansbaxter
Needs a life
Posts: 5911
|
posted December 28, 2005 08:18 AM
I guess Yamaha has fudged the tach's as well eh.
http://www.motorbox.com/static/upl/y/yamahar6filmato-7235-300-f.wmv
http://www.yamaha-motor.it/products/information/New2006/R6_filmato.jsp
|
|
|
|
|
HOME
NEW TOPIC