Gear ratios and HP/TQ

[Buster Hymen]

wait a sec.....do you mean 620lbs dry and 683 wet? that would make a bit more sence to me....

617 lbs wet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamaha_V-Max

 

[Heretic]

Huh?? I thought they were going to be used with the original talks of advancing the timing for more power on the 1800cc?? Are the scoops really functional or just for show like the original?

They are functional on the new Max, but if you look at the pictures they have more material and are much more substantial, and involved than our scoops.


"Engine is bigger so it weighs more? how does that work?? when was the last time a bigger hole in a donut made it more to eat?"

The 'old' Max is 624lbs wet according to Clymer, the 'new' Max is 683lbs wet according to Yamaha.

Traditionally when you increase the mass of something it increases the weight. I am not sure what the engine weight is I'm only making a logical deduction. Larger pistons, crankshaft, engine cases, etc., will typically weigh more than their smaller equivalants. Look at the New V-Max micro site. The exhaust is HUGE and what I imagine the cat to be is much larger than a soup can. 5lbs here and 5lbs there can add up to a lot. Maybe when someone here buys a new Max we can have them completely disassemble the bike and weigh each individual piece to decifer exactly where the extra weight is located. Care to volunteer? unk:

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

They are functional on the new Max, but if you look at the pictures they have more material and are much more substantial, and involved than our scoops.


"Engine is bigger so it weighs more? how does that work?? when was the last time a bigger hole in a donut made it more to eat?"

The 'old' Max is 624lbs wet according to Clymer, the 'new' Max is 683lbs wet according to Yamaha.

Traditionally when you increase the mass of something it increases the weight. I am not sure what the engine weight is I'm only making a logical deduction. Larger pistons, crankshaft, engine cases, etc., will typically weigh more than their smaller equivalants. Look at the New V-Max micro site. The exhaust is HUGE and what I imagine the cat to be is much larger than a soup can. 5lbs here and 5lbs there can add up to a lot. Maybe when someone here buys a new Max we can have them completely disassemble the bike and weigh each individual piece to decifer exactl where the extra weight is located. Care to volunteer? unk:

hahaha sure i l help!! as long as we are disassembling your 2009 bike.

I guess im not being very clear with my thoughts....tough to write everything your thinking. I will re try some thoughts on you all......

The engine:


Todays engine weighs 230 pounds, using iron liners and 25 year old components. Yes its 1200cc and the new is 1700 bu that does not make it Bigger in the sense of more weight. the cracked connecting rods used in the motor are within grams of the original if not lighter and so are the pistons...i would extract that from my knowledge of replacing oll junkyard chev motors with new parts similar to this. Since this puppy has the new coated aluminum cylinder walls a real huge savings in weight was received on the total package...this is factual engine tech here. Factor in the reported magnesium case covers (which used to be aluminum) and this all makes no sense... I have never seen a motor get heavier with this tech applied in the design. Havening worked with many casting companies on aluminum components i can assure you that a lot of time is spent in any casting project, eliminating unnecessary aluminum from the design. Its standard procedure to drive down costs by making sure you do not use more aluminum than you need. All these factors push a design like this engine toward lighter weight or same weight at the very worst (remember it started at 230 pounds...which is very easy to improve on compared to more recent 4 cylinder efforts). the physical outside dimensions of the motor will be smaller than before not bigger...engine technology and design just dosent work any other way. you can even see it in the cylinder side panels and the removal of the "cooling " fins from the original design.
Fuel injection and the variable intake are not going to weigh more than the vboost and carbs set up... may even weigh less.... 4 injectors a harness and the computer are your difference here....whats that 2 pounds at the worst.

Exhaust:

The current exh, if you have ever removed it...is a boat anchor... HDs have lighter weight exhausts.....shit Massy Ferguson makes lighter pipes!!!
Its a good 30 pounds on my bike.... i cut it half the other day and there are 4 layers of steel in there....its a crazy design.... But for science i have also cut a few other exhausts up.... 749/999 and 1098 ducatis to be specific.... the cats in these bikes are like average size soup cans in both size and weight. you could put those in and exhaust stream and see little weight penalty....however if your redesigning the whole exhaust (and starting with the above mentioned boat anchor) it would be impossible to not drop a few pounds even with the cats... I believe the actual cans on the new bike are aluminum....which makes this even more of a silly situation. Cats on bikes do not come even close to weighing what they do on cars...

The 5 pounds here 5 pounds there theory:

My wife suggested the same idea ....this one really freaks me out..

60 pounds/ 5pounds = 12......
You would then have to suggest at least TWELVE (!!!) items on the bike that weigh 5 pounds more than the original 25 year old steel and aluminum design.
(any of you make hamburgers at the family bbq? think 5 pounds of ground beef...5 one one pound packages PER ITEM! ok dont cook?
Think of that 5 pound plate at the gym....12 of them on various parts of the bike? )
So if i was gonna be sarcastic i could do this:

Headlight +5 pounds
Handle bars +5 pounds
Guages +5 pounds
Scoops +5 pounds
foot pegs +5 pounds
engine mounts +5 pounds
brakes +5 pounds
signal lights +5 pounds
seat foam +5 pounds
tail light +5 pounds
extra rad +5 pounds
more plastic +5 pounds

ya i know...some of you feel the scoops might weigh as much as the us federal deficit but bigger isnt heavier with casting technology these days...but ok so be it. And the extra rad has gotta weigh something so there ya go...

But come on guys..
...some of us have made huge mods to our bikes involving a lot of these things (bored out motors, wide tires, sport bike rims, new lights and do-dads all over the frekin place etc, sport bike font ends and bigger brakes plus plus plus) These bikes are not a lot heavier....than the originall old pig no?? i got the R1 front on mine and an the big brakes and the 240 mocked up as well as a full fuel injection system to go on it..... the rear wheel and hub are very heavy yes...but if i put a rim back there to support a 200 it would be no difference at all.... these parts have not added a whole lot if anything, to the parts that were replaced.


honestly.....seriously....and with total exhaustion....i ask you to look at this critically and think about it.....

680 pounds is silly....if yamaha screwed a big uranium plate to the bottom of the exhaust just to add 100 pounds so it would launch better ok, i get it.
Big performance secret for next year would be to use the Star Accessories performance exhaust....and reduce bike weight by 100 pounds... ha....
at this point i would believe it because the alternatives are so bizarre (as in the engineers haven't got a clue and they ADDED cost to the bike by using too much material??? i just cant accept that.)

One ,ok several, last thought:

the motor makes over a hundred pounds of torque and yet revs to 9500 rpm....has special tech to allow speed limiter to be overridden if drag racing.... has tech to improve top end rev range power..... um, all kidding aside on the cruiser debate...this is not a cruiser motor in any way shape or form...
they put an electronic throttle on it.... there is a missing link here..... throttle by wire really comes into its own when a traction control algorithm is used.... the sensors for the abs are there and part of the same equation.....

regardless of what we have read and been told there is more to the story here...this bike was set up for traction control but it was pulled at some point.... probably because the the engine detuning was down to an acceptable ridable level, along with a little added ballast.

deep breath here....:
My guess...and i know i will get hate mail for saying this.... but we havnt seen the real vmax yet....
its coming....
dont know when or how...

But take a long look at the vrod destroyer....

Think Yamaha accessories....

Think drag race contingency program...

and if your not getting me i will spell it out......

Limited addition vmax with stupid power levels, full drag machine with all the tech you could want for some vrod Destroyer type money.... maybe even not road legal.... Thats where you will see the 300hp motor, trac control (if sanctioning bodies allow) special clutch, swing arm and bars... serious exhaust etc etc etc....

 

[fastmax1]

They are functional on the new Max, but if you look at the pictures they have more material and are much more substantial, and involved than our scoops.

What is their functionality? Do they act as ram air and are forcing air into the throttle bodies? I know Yamaha was going to use them in their original plan with the larger motor but I have not heard how these new scoops are actually being used other than looks.

 

[maleko89]

I don't think they're ram air but they are intakes that lead to the air box.

 

[fastmax1]

Ah, ok. Makes sense!

 

[Buster Hymen]

But take a long look at the vrod destroyer....

Think Yamaha accessories....

Think drag race contingency program...

and if your not getting me i will spell it out......

Limited edition vmax with stupid power levels, full drag machine with all the tech you could want for some vrod Destroyer type money.... maybe even not road legal.... Thats where you will see the 300hp motor, trac control (if sanctioning bodies allow) special clutch, swing arm and bars... serious exhaust etc etc etc....

Interesting theory and quite possible. If not, they should hire you as their idea guy, because that is a great angle.

 

[Heretic]

So RJ do you think that Yamaha is lying or made a mistake when posting the specs on the website?

 

[Rusty McNeil]

I had mine on the scales at the track several times when it was bone stock and WET--but on low fuel light it always came in at 610-620, which if you add 3 more gallons to get the full wet weight it comes in at 631-641,

I can't attest to the accuracy of the scales other than to say they run a lot of national events and fully sanctioned points races at Houston Raceway Park so they shouold be good scales.

My original owners manual say 635 wet so I believe it is a FULL wet weight.

I don't have any problem believing the new bike gained 50 pounds, it more than 4 inches longer to begin with, you know the engine cases have to be stouter, stronger, the swingarm alone; regardless of being aluminum, is much, much thicker and massive, so is the final drive. Just becuase it go an aluminum frame doesn't mean that was a weight loss either, the original tube frame stripped bare doesn't much more than 45-55 lbs anyway (so I've been told)

Aluminum is a "accumulative stress" material, meaning it doesn't "flex" like steel without taking permanent stress damage.

Every time aluminum is flexed or forced to bend the stress damage is permanent and "cumulative" over time.

That is why cast aluminum frame and suspension parts are usually quite massive compared to their steel counterparts.

To me it all adds up even without doing the math.....

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

So RJ do you think that Yamaha is lying or made a mistake when posting the specs on the website?

I appear to be heading that way eh?

Pre production numbers? lies?
Wishfull thinking on my part? haha

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

I had mine on the scales at the track several times when it was bone stock and WET--but on low fuel light it always came in at 610-620, which if you add 3 more gallons to get the full wet weight it comes in at 631-641,

I can't attest to the accuracy of the scales other than to say they run a lot of national events and fully sanctioned points races at Houston Raceway Park so they shouold be good scales.

My original owners manual say 635 wet so I believe it is a FULL wet weight.

I don't have any problem believing the new bike gained 50 pounds, it more than 4 inches longer to begin with, you know the engine cases have to be stouter, stronger, the swingarm alone; regardless of being aluminum, is much, much thicker and massive, so is the final drive. Just becuase it go an aluminum frame doesn't mean that was a weight loss either, the original tube frame stripped bare doesn't much more than 45-55 lbs anyway (so I've been told)

Aluminum is a "accumulative stress" material, meaning it doesn't "flex" like steel without taking permanent stress damage.

Every time aluminum is flexed or forced to bend the stress damage is permanent and "cumulative" over time.

That is why cast aluminum frame and suspension parts are usually quite massive compared to their steel counterparts.

To me it all adds up even without doing the math.....

Good info here thanks.... i like your description of aluminum alloy characteristics... its true that its "stiffness" is generally grater than mild steel per the weight however.... there are equally stiff steel alloys but they are HEAVIER and therfore not used (also expensive and difficult to weld etc)

But this simply isnt the forgone conclusion when you look at a zx14 frame or even the hayabusa....both 550 pounds bikes with aluminum frames that are very similar over the top designs... massive yes....680 pound bikes no....

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

frame looks stout! nice piece.....but lets compare...

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

I agree with this guy....how do you lighten a 680 pound bike that has already got all the tricks supposedly applied??

http://www.bikeland.org/board/viewthread.php?FID=49&TID=39851&set_time=1213570406

 

[Rusty McNeil]

Good info here thanks.... i like your description of aluminum alloy characteristics... its true that its "stiffness" is generally grater than mild steel per the weight however.... there are equally stiff steel alloys but they are HEAVIER and therfore not used (also expensive and difficult to weld etc)

But this simply isnt the forgone conclusion when you look at a zx14 frame or even the hayabusa....both 550 pounds bikes with aluminum frames that are very similar over the top designs... massive yes....680 pound bikes no....

I don't really have the answer but one thing is that the current Max motor weighs like 230lbs or more, what's a 1200-1300cc inline 4 weigh? I don't know but I'm guessing maybe 140-160.

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

I don't really have the answer but one thing is that the current Max motor weighs like 230lbs or more, what's a 1200-1300cc inline 4 weigh? I don't know but I'm guessing maybe 140-160.

Im interested in why you would think that... see to me a v4 has a shorter crankshaft, that may or may not be lighter but certainly isnt any heavier... and as for the rest...why? con rods and pistons are all same right? gearbox is same... you perhapse have more aluminum in the v4 because two cylinders have a 4 sided box around them... the inline 4 would need a thick wall betwen two cylinders to equate to the same thing....
Double the amount of cams but half the size each.... hmmmm....i give the v4 about 12 pounds more aluminum but thats it... there are references to it being lighter...
Moto gp bikes v4 are light...not a fair comparison but they equal the inlines 4s there...

Hey i just realized something....yama-mama is still making the venture.... so this new engine is a stand along hi tech deal not to be shared with the tow truck bike? cool..... oooops...its gone for 2009...and it was 800 pounds in 2008....i guess we can surmise it will be a new design based on the vmax and be what 900 pounds once yamaha adds all their light weight technology..haha

 

[Rusty McNeil]

Im interested in why you would think that... see to me a v4 has a shorter crankshaft, that may or may not be lighter but certainly isnt any heavier... and as for the rest...why? con rods and pistons are all same right? gearbox is same... you perhapse have more aluminum in the v4 because two cylinders have a 4 sided box around them... the inline 4 would need a thick wall betwen two cylinders to equate to the same thing....
Double the amount of cams but half the size each.... hmmmm....i give the v4 about 12 pounds more aluminum but thats it... there are references to it being lighter...
Moto gp bikes v4 are light...not a fair comparison but they equal the inlines 4s there...

Hey i just realized something....yama-mama is still making the venture.... so this new engine is a stand along hi tech deal not to be shared with the tow truck bike? cool..... oooops...its gone for 2009...and it was 800 pounds in 2008....i guess we can surmise it will be a new design based on the vmax and be what 900 pounds once yamaha adds all their light weight technology..haha

Pretty good questions but I don't really know the answer.

The only Reason I think that is because Don Smith ans Sean morely have both claimed weights somewhere around 230lbs.

I've never picked one up but I did have the engine out of my old V65 1100 when I replaced the 2nd gear on it and it weighed around 200lbs at least.

I think the heads are a big part of it, two cam chains etc.

I two cylinder head off of a V4 looks to me to be close to 2/3 the width of an inline 4 head.

I don't know if inline 4's carry a balancer shaft but the V4's do.

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

I normally associate the original vmax engines weight with the fact that its 25 years old....not so much that its a v4.......

By the way aprilia has a sport bike coming out with a v4, and ducati released one last year.....they aint heavy....or at least not any heavier than a inline 4.....or a twin for that matter...

 

[Rusty McNeil]

I normally associate the original vmax engines weight with the fact that its 25 years old....not so much that its a v4.......

By the way aprilia has a sport bike coming out with a v4, and ducati released one last year.....they aint heavy....or at least not any heavier than a inline 4.....or a twin for that matter...

Yeah, I've seen the wrietups on that aprila V4, that's one bad mofo; 210hp

It looks like it's about half as wide as a Vmax motor.....


Rusty

 

[RJ RJ RJ]

Yeah, I've seen the wrietups on that aprila V4, that's one bad mofo; 210hp

It looks like it's about half as wide as a Vmax motor.....


Rusty

yes that thing is cool.... the v4 really is the perfect bike motor in a lot of ways

 

[Maximus]

I was kind of hoping someone else would do this...

Max speed at redline per gear:

NEW
1st 63mph
2nd 83mph
3rd 107mph
4th 135mph
5th 161mph

OLD
1st 58mph
2nd 83mph
3rd 110mph
4th 137mph
5th 159mph

This of course is sans air/wind resistance and other real world factors. Even if the top speed limiter is removed I wonder how much more in reality this new bike will be able to do.

The gear ratios are fairly close between the old and new.

NEW
Primary ratio:1.509
Secondary ratio:3.082
Gear ratio-1st gear 2.375
Gear ratio-2nd gear 1.810
Gear ratio-3rd gear 1.400
Gear ratio-4th gear 1.115
Gear ratio-5th gear 0.935

OLD
Primary ratio:1.775
Secondary ratio: 2.851
Gear ratio-1st gear 2.529
Gear ratio-2nd gear 1.772
Gear ratio-3rd gear 1.347
Gear ratio-4th gear 1.076
Gear ratio-5th gear 0.928

If 10.18 is really it Yamaha won't re-take the crown for 'Fastest Production' as Motorcyclist mag has gotten into the 9's with the new 'Busa. Yamaha will probably be providing a 'ringer' bike for the mags to test though.

I have tried to compare the different ratios to give a picture of what we can expect from the new VMax.
By multiplying the primary and secondary ratio by each gear ratio we get the following numbers for "total ratio":

NEW

1st gear 11.046
2st gear 8.418
4rd gear 6.511
4th gear 5.186
5th gear 4.348

OLD

1st gear 12.798
2st gear 8.967
4rd gear 6.817
4th gear 5.445
5th gear 4.696

This means the following change in "total ratio" between the new and old:

1st gear 16% (12.798 - 11.046) / 11.046
2st gear 7%
4rd gear 5%
4th gear 5%
5th gear 8%

If we add in 7% ekstra weight (bike + driver 90 kg) and a 6% larger rear wheel we get the following numbers for "extra load":

1st gear 31% (1.16 x 1.07 x 1.06)
2st gear 21%
4rd gear 19%
4th gear 19%
5th gear 23%

Since acceleration is a function of force, which again is "equal" to torque, we can see that the new VMax needs 31% extra torque to beat the old one in 1st gear, 21% extra in 2nd and so on.

Since we dont know the torque-curve for the new VMax, we cant say anything about how it will perform at several RPM's. But if we assume the "max torque"-ratio (166Nm/117Nm ~ 1.42) for the entire RPM-range the new VMax has the following extra power/acceleration:

1st gear 9% (117 increased 31% = 153, 166/153 ~ 9% extra)
2st gear 18%
4rd gear 20%
4th gear 20%
5th gear 16%

I dont know how much this will reduce the time for a quarter mile, but it will definatly be better.
Better aerodynamics and, hopefully, a bit more efficient drive-train, will give additional savings.

And ofcourse there are many other factors, not at least the driver!

PS! Calculations were done in a hurry, so I will not be hung if anyone find errors

______________
Leon