Yamaha R6 Forum: YZF-R6 Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
28 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
To be honest, I don't find the 2017 R6 design as great as the previous model.

It somewhat looks like the Ducati GP bike and of course the Yamaha M1. It doesn't have that aesthetic road bike look.

Looks more like a track bike. What do you guys think?
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
I guess it's a hit or miss for people. Some like it some don't. I like it, but then again I was always a fan of the latest gen R1 so I might be a little biased. I would be happy with either one aesthetically. I think they're both great looking bikes.

The reason why I got the 2017 was because I just didn't want to see it next year when it arrives and regret not just waiting for it. There's a possibility it may be going to the track on some occasions also so the upped suspension, electronics, etc was just something I didn't want to have to worry about because it came with the bike.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Horsepower Whisperer
Joined
·
617 Posts
Not everybody will like every bike. That's the beauty of choices.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
It looks like the 15-17 R1, like almost exactly, and I find that to be a good thing.

It's too bad though that they did nothing with the engine, it would have been interesting to see a crossplane 600.
 

·
UR B-hind Da 8 Ball
Joined
·
5,832 Posts
It looks like the 15-17 R1, like almost exactly, and I find that to be a good thing.

It's too bad though that they did nothing with the engine, it would have been interesting to see a crossplane 600.
Except the fact that there is absolutely no reason to do a cross plane 600. The cross plane configuration spreads the pulses to prevent wheel spin....not as much of an issue on 600's. It sacrifices top end power for a little more mid range, but it wouldn't gain as much as going to a 3cyl 675, and that would be a whole new ballgame that they would have to develop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27 Posts
Except the fact that there is absolutely no reason to do a cross plane 600. The cross plane configuration spreads the pulses to prevent wheel spin....not as much of an issue on 600's. It sacrifices top end power for a little more mid range, but it wouldn't gain as much as going to a 3cyl 675, and that would be a whole new ballgame that they would have to develop.
You actually have that backwards, it sacrifices some low end and mid-range, and given a bike like an R6 is essentially all mid-range and top end it could compliment it. I'm not saying it's a great idea for a 600, but it would be interesting to see how it would turn out if they went for it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,876 Posts
Except the fact that there is absolutely no reason to do a cross plane 600. The cross plane configuration spreads the pulses to prevent wheel spin....not as much of an issue on 600's. It sacrifices top end power for a little more mid range, but it wouldn't gain as much as going to a 3cyl 675, and that would be a whole new ballgame that they would have to develop.
also the crossplane engine adds more heat. I'm betting it will go way of the 5 valve cylinder head and go back to the normal I4 with the next gen R1.
suzuki actually considered using a crossplane engine in the new GSXR but opted not to because of all the drawbacks it comes with. it's a lot more complicated engine to design and adds weight to the engine. the block needs more material in certain areas and then it also needs a huge counter balance shaft that adds another several lbs of spinning mass.
sounds awesome but is actually piss poor design for efficiency. suzuki said they were able to counter the wheel spin stuff with a better designed swingarm and chassis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
The Bottom Line

Crossplane Crankshaft Advantages: Smooth, vibration-free performance; distinctive American muscle car burble.

Crossplane Crankshaft Disadvantages: Heavier (harder to rev), requires larger crankcase.

Flat Plane Crankshaft Advantages: Lighter, more compact, more responsive (high-revving), better exhaust scavenging.

Flat Plane Crankshaft Disadvantages: Prone to vibration, lower torque levels.

Or you can read the whole article: Flat Plane Crankshafts vs. Crossplane Crankshafts
 

·
UR B-hind Da 8 Ball
Joined
·
5,832 Posts
You actually have that backwards, it sacrifices some low end and mid-range, and given a bike like an R6 is essentially all mid-range and top end it could compliment it. I'm not saying it's a great idea for a 600, but it would be interesting to see how it would turn out if they went for it.
No, I don't have it backwards. If you compare dyno charts from the 2007 R1 vs the cross plane versions, you see that there is lower top end and a lower peak HP. The advantage is found in low to mid range grunt out of a corner....mainly due to lessened wheelspin because the bike doesn't need the higher rpm, and the pulses are smoother. But the trade off wouldn't be as great as it is with a liter bike that has a longer stroke which produces more torque. Trade offs being weight, and lower rpm.

The attached graphs are difficult to compare since they are from separate shoot outs, but they are from the same dyno
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
284 Posts
I think the new bike looks good. I agree, OP with your assessment of the looks. I mean, I'm going to be honest, I didn't expect the new bike to look better than the 3rd gen. And I'm ok with that, really. The 3rd-gen is as beautiful as a bike could ever be, even after seeing that design for all of these years. The redesign was due and the 17 looks cool. I don't think it's better than a 3rd-gen but that doesn't mean it is a bad thing. The new R1 is pretty sweet and it make sense to move the R6 in that direction. So I think Yamaha did good and it gives the 3rd-gen guys something to hold on to, if they are still digging the older style more than the new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,876 Posts
The Bottom Line

Crossplane Crankshaft Advantages: Smooth, vibration-free performance; distinctive American muscle car burble.

Crossplane Crankshaft Disadvantages: Heavier (harder to rev), requires larger crankcase.

Flat Plane Crankshaft Advantages: Lighter, more compact, more responsive (high-revving), better exhaust scavenging.

Flat Plane Crankshaft Disadvantages: Prone to vibration, lower torque levels.

Or you can read the whole article: Flat Plane Crankshafts vs. Crossplane Crankshafts
I'm not sure if that's your opinion or you got that from a publication but it is not smooth. it feels like a V-Twin. it smooths out after 8k rpm but in the low end it's like a damn harley. ok not quite that bad but it has a big shake to it.
it's far more buzzy than a I4 of like the R6. what they mean by smooth is the crank isn't speeding up and slowing down like a I4 does. so it gives the tire a break from the shock of the crank speeding up. the 2015 is the first R1 I've ever owned. so I have no experience with the benefits. I did let a friend of mine ride it that has always had an R1 and he confirmed it is a lot easier to feel what the wheel is doing. he said his bike is like a on/off switch and makes it hard to tell when it's ok to get on the gas. (he rode mine with the TC off)

there's a good article that just came out where suzuki explains all the reasons they didn't use one. it kind of does lose low and mid range power. another negative that suzuki didn't want to sacrifice. 2nd paragraph. http://www.motorcycle.com/ask-mo-anything/why-are-yamaha-the-only-ones-to-use-a-crossplane-crankshaft.html
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top