Learn me about bike engines!

[Christoffee]

You guys often talk about different types of bike engines: IL4 ad V twin coming up a lot.

What can you teach me about the main bike engines, their pros and cons, and different performance characteristics.

Thanks for all your biker brains!
____________________
Bike: CBF125

[mentalboy]

Firstly, it's all about the horses. It doesn't matter how old the horses are just how many.
However should you find an old dog all will not be well.
A pony ( or a monkey) mean that you haven't paid enough (or too much if Paddy sold it to you).
KFC does not sell chickenstrips.
Do not kill kittens under any circumstances and if your bird offers to show you her puppies you know you've got the right one
____________________
Make mine a Corona.

[Robster]

V Twins sound reet nice they do, like proper flatulence

[Scythe]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_twin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inline-four_engine

You can get a single cylinder engine, or a V4 engine (same as Vtwin but with 2 more cylinders.

V twin and IL4 are generally the most common for bigger bikes.
____________________
2009 Yamaha YBR125 -> 2000 SV650S -> 2005 Kawasaki ZX6R 636

[mentalboy]

Dropping the word 'Wankel' into a discussion with older bikers will usually elicit a lengthy chat
____________________
Make mine a Corona.

[stinkwheel]

In fairness. In terms of registrations the biggest selling motorcycle over 125cc last year was the R1200GS which is a horizontally opposed four stroke twin. Also known as a boxer twin.

They are an archaic engine design dating back to the second world war. Because the engine rotates across the axis of the bike rather than along it, the clutch and gearbox arrangement is more like a car than a motorcycle.

They sound more like a tractor than a motorcycle and have issues with valve lubrication because the cylinder heads stick out sideways. They also lean over to one side when you blip the throttle. They are in theory a perfectly balanced engine as the pistons are located exactly 180 degrees apart. In harsh reality, they are dog rough.

Up until 2004, they were an oddity of a bike bought by a few people who wanted a very large bike that could be used to haul a lot of luggage huge distances over rough terrain. Souped up versions were used for the Paris-Dakkar but they had little relevance to the mainstream motorcycle market.

Then Ewan McGregor did a TV program and everyone wanted one. Weight and complexity has gone steadily up, suitability for purpose and build quality has gone steadily down since then.

Which goes to show performance and a weighing of pros and cons of different engine types has absolutely nothing to do with the general publics motorcycle selection. If it did, nobody would buy a BMW R-series.
____________________
“Rule one: Always stick around for one more drink. That's when things happen. That's when you find out everything you want to know.”
I did the 2010 Round Britain Rally on my 350 Bullet. 89 landmarks, 3 months, 9,500 miles.

[-Matt-]

Would be quite interested as well on this topic - I know the basic differences but not much in detail.

Same said for shaft drive Vs chain drive Vs belt drive.

Is there such thing as an ideal combination of drive/engine for the average biker, or does it greatly depend on its weight/power/purpose

[mentalboy]

[Christoffee]

[-Matt-]

Crux of the problem I guess

As i've understood it for example.

Chain drive = best delivery of power but requires more maintenance and replacement

Belt drive = less delivery but less maintainence and replacement compared to a chain

Shaft drive = much less need for replacement and maintenance but heavier and less efficient

So could a sports bike potentially use a shaft drive if used only occasionly for high-performance riding, or wouldn't it be up to the delivery at all/damage it sooner or later if it was really pushed to its limits. This is the sort of thing thats crossed my mind

Do feel free correct me on any of that I may be totally wrong

[Northern Monkey]

[Pete.]

[qarka]

Single - one cylinder, most 125cc bikes, seem to make most power low down in the rev range, lots of vibrations. Big singles are a lot of fun!

Parallel Twin - two cylinders in line, don't know anything about them.

V Twin - two cylinders in a V shape, sounds great, narrow, bit more revvy than a single but still most power low down.

In-line 4 - four cylinders all in a line, most sports bikes, most power high up in the rev range, not much low down, they scream at you when you rev them, needs 4 spark plugs

V4 - two v-twins stuck together, can only be worked on by a japanese midget

All IMHO from bikes I have ridden.
____________________
Previous - Sinnis Apache - Honda Bros 400 - Yamaha SR500 - Honda Transalp - Kawasaki ZX-7R - Honda CB-1 - Honda 929 Fireblade - Honda NTV650 [b]Current[\b] Honda CB500

[Mark 37]

After reading your title, I think we should start with English first.
____________________
No matter how fast light travels, darkness was always their first.

[Northern Monkey]

[Polarbear]

Boxer engines, well bike wise the best one is a Goldwing engine. Flat 6 1500 or 1800cc. Smooth as silk.

Big twins I'm not keen on. The ones I have ridden have been a pig in traffic. Even my Paso750 was a wrist killer becuause you were forever on the clutch.

IL4's I like but especially big cc ones where you don't have to wring the neck to get the speed.

Now, I'm into the Triumph 3 cylinder set up. It's a best of both worlds (or a dilution of either depending on your view.)

My next bike, if it isn't a Triumph, will be either another Goldwing or the 6 cylinder beemer tourer.

Drives - Me being a very lazy rider (read old) now. Big cc engine, shaft drive. No stress!

A chain is the most efficient way of transferring power but it has to be kept in tip top condition. On any bike over about 120bhp you could put a shaft on and 90% of riders wouldn't even notice.

Belts, not a fan when they are exposed. The GL1000, 1100 and 1200 4 cylinders Goldwings used belts rather than cam chains which was fine. As an exposed final drive I wouldn't be happy. Saying that, they have been fitted to Harleys/cruisers for years.

So my ideal bike, Big CC, shaft drive and a maid with a credit card to fill it up.

OK, 2 out of 3 ain't bad
____________________
Victory Cross Country American tractor.

[Christoffee]

[deadwolf]

[Rogue_Shadow]

https://www.animatedengines.com/otto.html

[panrider_uk]

V4 + shaft = smooth and easy
____________________
Current bikes: Honda ST1100 Pan European. Moto Guzzi V85 TT Travel

[Teflon-Mike]

Ignoring, slightly the Wankel reference; we're talking 'reciprocating-piston' engines; of which the major components are;
1/ a piston, that 'reciprocates'... goes up and down, driven by the expansion of hot gasses caused by burning a combustable 'charge' in
2/ A cylinder, a tube, sealed at the top, by a cylinder-head, and at the bottom by the afore mentioned piston. This sits over
3/ The Crank-Shaft; a shaft with a step in it, that goes round; and converts the upety-downy motion of the piston, into roundy roundy motion to turn cogs and wheels and stuff. Between piston and crank-shaft is..
4/ The Con-Rod. Basically a metal plate with two holes in it. One end hinges on the piston, other on the 'step' bit of the crank-shaft, connecting the two together, transmitting forces between them.
5/ Bearings. Little balls or bushes that help support bits that would rub on other bits; they 'bear' load. Usually one on either end of the con-rod; the 'little end' cos its usually smaller, at the piston end; One at the crank shaft end, known as the 'big-end' cos its generally bigger. Then there's one on either side of the step in the crank, known as the 'main' bearings.

Got all that? Oh-Kay, then. Onto the 'Otto-cycle'. Suck, squash, bang, blow. Four 'phases' of the internal combustion engine.

1/ Suck, or in technical tems 'Induction' - 'charge' the combustable mixture of fuel and air, has to some-how get sucked (or pushed - turbo or Super-Charging), into the cylinder.
2/ Squash, or technical 'Compression' - charge, once in the engine has to be squashed, or when you set it on fire, it jkust burns and tends not to make much pressure.
3/ Bang, in tech - 'Combustion' - pretty self explanatory; charge, once in the engine and squashed, has to be set on fire, to get stuff hot and make stuff move.
4/ Blow, tech 'Exhaust'; burned waste gases have to be dispelled from the engine, so it can do it all over again.

The 'Four-Stroke' engine, conveniently completes each 'phase' of the otto cycle on a seperate 'stroke' of the piston. Piston falls in the cylinder, sucks charge in. Goes back up, squashes it; pushed back down by being set on fire, then comes up, to blow it all out, and do it all again.

Which all depends on valves opening and closing at the right time to let the charge into the cylinder, and exhaust out; which introduces a new component... 6/ The poppet Valve and a bunch more, cam-shafts and the like to make them open and close at the right time, which I dont really want to go into to much detail on.

I also don't want to talk two strokes...in theory they shouldn't work. They have effing great holes in the cylinder wall instead of valves, to let charge in and out, and they get charge 'in' to the engine via the crank-case, which is sealed so it sucks charge in as the piston rises, and with nothing but holes in the piston matching or not with the holes in the cylinder to control the flow, OUGHT to blow the bludy charge back out the way it came, when the piston comes back down again! so they get complicated. As do Wankels.... so we shall stick to the four-stroke Reciprocating Piston engine, as Count DeDion intended!

Right; Basic engine has one cylinder, one piston, one con-rod, and five bearings on the major 'hinges' mentioned.

POWER = FORCE x SPEED

If you apply that to the RPEngine, you get a more common derivative in the form Power = Torque x Revs... which is actually the equation for 'transmitted shaft power' more useful to gear-boxes and the like, but looks nice and simple in the magazines, and people recognise the terms from the Dyno Charts printed to show how wonderful engines are in the mags.

More maths, though, you get THE equation for power in the Internal Combustion Engine:-

Power = Crank-Revs x Cylinder Pressure x Cylinder Displacement x Number of Cylinders

Give or take a few constants of proportionality.

This means, that in theory, dont matter how big an engine is, or how many cylinders it has, even LESS how they are arranged around the crank-shaft, or indeed, any number of crank-shafts; stuff we stick 'in' is fuel, useful stuff 'out' is 'Power'; how you get from on t'other matters little.... in thoery......

However; it's all about getting air into the engine.

More fuel we burn, more power we might get; and fuel is the bit we pay for. To make it a charge, though needs air, or more precicely oxygen, but we just grab that from the enviroment around us. However, we need far more of the stuff by mass, and even more by volume, than we do fuel, to make a charge. Hence the 'bulk' of what we want to cram into the engine is air; so shifting that is the important bit.

Equation, suggests, that 'in theory' you ought to be able to make a 50cc moped engine as 'powerful' as a 500cc GP engine.... fact that its 1/10 the displacement just means that to get the same power, you need to burn 1/10th the charge 10x as often... so; get it to turn 10x the crank revs, you are onto a winner...

Because what we have discovered, is that the variables of cylinder-displacement and crank speed, conspire, and what we really have, takes us back to base defanition of 'Power' which is:-

Power = Rate of energy Transfer

And another bit of Newtonian fizzix, 'Energy cannot be created or destroyed... merely converted in form'.... and that's what our engine is doing; turning chemical potential energy in the fuel, into kinetic energy, actual motion; and we can put that another way, in words;

Power is proportional to the rate of burning Fuel and Air

And air if the 'bulk' commodity we have to shift into the engine, to do that.

We can have a big engine that sucks a lot of charge into the engine on each cycle, but doesn't make many cycles per minute, or we can have a little engine, that only sucks a small amount of charge into the pot each time, but does it a lot more often; both MAY make the same power.

But, either way, we have to get that air IN to the engine, which means flowing it through a hole......

Getting air to flow through a hole, is like trying to get air to flow around a moving car, but inside out, and you get the same 'problem' of 'Wind-Resistance'.

Walk, what 2-3mph, and you don't even feel the 'wind' you are shifting pressing on you. Run, what, 10mph? you feel a bit of a breeze, but nothing 'hard'. Get on a moped, and do 30... you start to FEEL wind Resistance.... get on a motor-bike, doing 60, and it's pushing you about; 90? and its pretty darn stiff. The 'force' increases with speed, but 'exponentially', that is; double the speed, you more than double wind resistance.

Speed of Sound is 340mph, and at that speed, wind resistance is like running into a brick wall; air just do NOT like being shoved around that quick.

Now; engine is sucking air through a pretty small hole; if you multiply the cylinder displacement by the crank speed, you get the average air-flow rate it needs to keep the cylinder filled on every cycle; BUT, you need to multiply that 'average' flow rate by perhaps 10x to get the 'peak port velocity' through the valve, because the engine can only suck air on the induction stroke, meaning you only have 1/4 the time to get it through the hole, so have to shift it at least four times as fast; worse still, because its 'cyclic' and a stop-start flow, you have to get from stationary, to peak speed, then stop again in that time; multiply by three or four times again, so that it averages out at what you need.

500cc is half a litre; turn 6000 revolutions per minute; you have 50 bangs a second, and need 25l of air. Inlet valve is probably around 30mm in diameter, 3cm. That's about 7cm2 in area... except... thats the valve size. The hole it sits over will be a couple of mm smaller, and then there's the valve stem, and the valve guide in the way; Actual area that air can flow through, will typically be less than half that; maybe 3cm2. 25,000cm3 of air, through 3cm2 of hole, means a column of air aprox 8.5m long; which you need to get into the engine, in one second, means an 'average' air-flow rate of 8.5m/s, or 30Km/h. but we are concerned with 'peak flow' which is likely to be ten-times that, 300Km/h, or more than half the speed of sound....

And THAT is just turning pretty moderate engine revs on a relatively large cylinder, like on my old Range-Rover! (8 cylinders x 500cc = 4.0l. It does red line just under 6,000 rpm, and its inlet valves are 32mm diameter) Start trying to wind higher RPM to get more air flowing into a smaller engine, and that peak port velocity, can quite easily start scaring Mach-Numbers...

But doesn't matter, well before half the speed of sound; the wind resistance will cry enough, and the cylinder will start 'short filling'. Ports and valves just wont be able to keep the engine fed with enough air to keep it making full, cylinder displacement 'bangs' each cycle.

So the trick to making more power, is to keep peak port velocities low; so the cyclinder can be kept fed and make biggest bang each time.

Bigger the bang, more pressure you get; most 'torque' is delivered; and if you look at power traces; you have a power 'ramp' as revs increase, a peak torque, which is when the engine is working at an 'optimum' and you get the closest it can to a full cylinder fill; beyond that, up the rev range, power may increase, with crank-revs, but torque is dropping off, as the cylinder is being short filled each cycle, but the extra cycles per minute are more than making up for the % of shortage in each bang. Peak power then happens when more short-fill bangs per minute don't make up for the shortage on each bang, and past that, the % shortage in each cycle is increasing so much, that extra revs are self defeating, and you are getting less power, not more.

The shape of that power trace; where in the rev range peak torque and peak power are made, gives clue to the 'state of tune' the engine is in.

GENERALY; engines that give most 'peak' power per cc, will be in a higher state of tune, and they will get that higher peak power from optimising the inlet tract design to flow a higher volume of air, at higher rpm. However, that tends to mean 'big' ports, to keep peak port velocities reasonable at those higher engine revs, and wider throttle openings. Tends to mean that at lower engine rpm, and on part throttle openings, when the engine is making less power, the port velocities are rather very low; and when they are very low, what tends to happen is that air that gets in easily, can get back out easily too, and you loose what's called 'trapping efficiency', so at lower engine revs, more highly tuned engines tend to make less power than more concervatively tuned ones; And the more highly tuned they are, and the wider the rpm range is, more pronounced that trait tends to be; and the less 'tractable' the engine is to operating over the wide range of engine speeds and throttle openings that might be required of it, in 'real world' use.

This HAS NOTHING to do with how many cylinders an engine has, or how they might be arranged around the crank-shaft(s)

Its entirely a function of the arrangement of the plumbing to get 'charge' into the engine.

How the cylinders are arranged around the crank-shaft, has TENDED to be a matter of manufacturing ease and cost or designers preference.

Back to the basic components; piston, conrod, crank-shaft and bearings.

The modern four-stroke engine, as we know it, has changed little from what was designed by Count De-Dion, back in the 1890's. At the time, the engine was in its infancy, and engineers were struggling with many different problems; and they were significantly all very 'contraption like'. DeDion's engine was a clean sheet of paper 'simplification' of the ideas, and essentially the model of the modern engine. And so successful, he couldn't keep up with demand to make them. Consequently it was licenced to a Belgian company called Minerva; and later to... well, almost any-one! DeDion actually even sold 'single engine licences'; you mailed him a postal order, and he sent you a set of plans, that entitled you to make one engine from them, and black-smiths all over the known world were doing it. It was commonly reffered to as the 'Coffee-Tin' engine, as the crank-cases resembled a coffee tin!

The Crank Shaft was made on a lathe making two discs on the end of short shafts, the 'flywheels' the crank-step make by drilling holes into the flywheels, and hammering a pin into them. Yo had to make the con-rod, by drilling two holes, for the big and little end bushes, and fitting the big-end onto the crank-pin before you bashed the crank together, but it was that simple. Hole in the bottom of the coffee tin took one 'main bearing' hole in the lid the other.

And that, the 'Pressed up Crank' is legacy that has remained with us, in the motorbike world, through the pioneering and veteran age, into the hay-day of the Brit-Bike, and remained, long after 'forged, one piece, plain bearing cranks became common on cars; and is still with us, in modern two-stroke engines!

However; drill and tap a big hole in the top of your coffee tin; attach the piston to the con-rods little end; slide cylinder over piston, and screw into the tin.... you have an engine... more or probably a bit less.

And clever tinkerers and shedologists of the pioneering era, set about trying to get more power from these things.... the ones that then failed and lost races, realised that rather than muggering about with valves and stuff, they could double the power of thier sub-standard engine in one swoop... all they needed to do was drill another hole in the top of the coffee tin, and screw in another cylinder. With two con-rods on one crank-pin, they didn't need to make a more complicated crank, they could use the same one; more; it didn't even need to be made any bigger, or stronger or heavier; with the two cylinders arranged in a V on the crank-case, and with crank two revolutions per cycle, they could fire one pot on one revolution, and one pot on the other; and the 'peak' loading n the crank would not be any higher than it would from a single....

Exploring the idea, we have had narrow angle V's, those with an angle of less than 60 degrees between the cylinders, like a Harley, with its 45 degree V angle, and 'wide angle V's, those with more than 60 degrees, heading out to a full 90, like a Ducati, or Guzzi, and beyond THAT we get to Boxers, that have a full 180 degrees between the pots, and are 'horezontally opposed'.

What would you have if you took a BMW Boxer, and put a third cylinder in the middle, or even put a V between the horezontal pots? Answer, half a 'radial'... a common configuration in aero engines.. I think Rhone, managed to get 16 cylinders firing onto a single crank-pin in thier radial Aero-engines!

Anyway, that was how the V-Twin came about, and the boxer... except that the 'boxer' uses two crank pins... but thats another story, I think!

The Parallel twin.

Came to be epitomised by the classic Triumph Bonaville and the mainstay of the Brit-Bike industry in the 1950's & 60's. Oragins, though date back to the 1920's & 30's, when it vascilated in and out of favour.

Advantage of a parallel twin, is that having both cylinders side by side, they could both be faced into the cooling wind.

Air-cooled V's, and longditudinal Horezontal twins (see Douglass motorcycles for examples - peidates anything by BMW by a couple of decades!), have once cylinder behind the other. And they dispell thier heat pretty much by radiation alone; one pot is always going to live in a zone where any moving air it sees was heated by the cylinder infront of it, that got to the cooling air first.

As power increased, this became a weakness. Having the cylinders side by side, gives them equal and improved cooling (Why BMW turned the horizontal twin around so one pot pokes out either side, the bike... or precicely, Arnold Bradshaw did, and BMW just ripped off his design... or more precicely, Flink, did, before BMW bought them out!)

ANYWAY; go parallel twin, and you get better cooling; you also get an engine that is as compact as a single, AND you can more easily arrange valve train around it, and possibly even get it to 'share' oil galleries and stuff.

Trouble is, you need a very wide crank-pin.... gives you a '360 degree crank. Both pistons at TDC at the same time; one timed on power stroke, while the other is 360 degrees about the 720 degrees of crank rotation in a power cycle, on induction.

Wide crank pin, means that the crank is not very well supported and prone to flex, and 360 timing makes the motor rather prone to vibration, both pistons going in the same direction at the same time. But it is cheap and easy to make...

A 180 crank, using middle flywheel, to that you have two steps, can balence it out a bit better, make it less vibratory, but means you need a more complicated ignition system, and its more complicated to make, and still prone to flex.

A three journal crank; requires four flywheels, with two crank-pins, you can pretty much set where you want; 360, 180 or anything in between, for that matter; and means you can support the crank with a third, middle, main bearing... only like the big-ends, this has to be fitted when the crank is pressed up. Its complicated and expensive....

You may as well go to forged, plain bearing cranks, as used in cars; which are made from one bit of metal; cast pressed into shape, than machined; and then fitted with conrods made in two parts that clamp around thr crank-pins and are supported on little slipper shells of half bearings.

This is actually a lot simpler, AND cheaper to make.... IF you make enough of them to pay for the tooling.... which the car makers did; but bike makers didn't, at least not in the olden days.

Brings us up to the original, 'accross the frame four' the immortal Honda CB750, of 1969.

Four cylinder bikes had been about, since, oooh... almost as long as singles probably! four cylinders; one for each stroke of the cycle, are SMOOTH. did you know, that more American Motorcycle makers made 'in-line' four cyclinder motorcycles than have made V-Twins?

No? Well... I suppose it is a bit of a swiz; most of them were the same bike, made by the same bloke; who just kept going out of business, and setting up under a new name! William Hendee? I think. Henderson Motorcycles, 'The Hudson' Excelsior; American Eagle, Flying X; The Indian Four! there you go! Now how many American makers can you name who've made V-Twins?

In-line with the frame, though, like the V-Twin; suffered cooling problems, as only the front pot got air. Also suffered long cranks; and high-costs to make them, with low volume sales... probably why Mr Hendee kept going bankrupt! Nimbus in Denmark, did OK by the design, though; they made thier in-line four, from the 190's right up until the 1960's.

Putting the engine accross the frame, though sorted the cooling issue, if it made the bike rather wide; and where one-off manufacturing costs weren't an issue; four little pots in a silky smooth arrangement, offered very high rpm potential for lots of power, and was worth the doing in racing; most noteably Gilera; whose racing department was snapped up by Count Agusta when it shut down to make the Galerat Fire Engines; the screaming MV 'fours' of the 60's against which Honda had to make a 4 to compete with the two strokes... Resulting in the CB750-Four... mainly as a 'headliner' to show that they could put 'race' technology on the streets at a price people could afford, as well as prove to Western markets, that they could do more than 'tiddlers', and prove they could build a 'big bike' as big, and as good, if not better than anything that came out of Meriden.

Kawasaki & Suzuki followed suit.... and so began the era of the muscle bike, based on in-line air-cooled fours.

1980. American 'emmission controls' had all but killed the two-stroke in the biking worlds 'cash-cow' market place. The Japanese 'fours' had an advantage over Euro-Twins, in that they could also make thier power with a lower state of tune, and be more tolerant of lower octane rated fuel, and unleaded fuel, as leaded and high octane was being phased out accross the USA.

Gave the Japs a big advantage; BUT, demand from market, for bigger, better, faster, more, meant they weren't un-challenged, while increasing emmission regulation, added pressure.

HONDA SAID "The Only way to make a four cylinder engine, water cooled, in order to achieve greater than 125bhp per liter, and meet stringent emmission controls, AND keep the engine compact enough to be installed into a motorcyle that will remain nimble and lightweight is to make a V-Four"

I remember that distictly... because I have a Honda VF1000.... it does NOT make 125bhp per liter. It is by NO stretch of the imagination, 'light', 'nimble' or by any stretch of the imagination.... 'compact'!

However; that was Hondas motivation for the V-four concept. Take two pots of the end, stick them behind. Halves the engine width. While Water cooling, eliminates the heat-shroud effect of the back pots living in the heat shaddow of the fronts. Reasonably sound thinking... except at the tie they had a very poor reputation for making in-line fours with reliable cam-chain tensioners... and here they were proposing a bike with double the complexity!

The doubters were proved right... they turned out an over complicated, under-performing bludy night-mare! And it was only Honda cussedness that saw them completely re-engineer the series, using gear driven cams to make something reliable; and which if accounts are to be believed; cost Honda more to make than the paying customer pays in the show-room.

Meanwhile; Kawasaki, went away and built the original GPz600R, and GPz900R, proving Hondas V4 hype, wrong.... and which Honda rapidly back-pedaled on, launching the 'jelly-mold' CBR600 & 1000, in quick succession, remembering that THEY had 'invented' the accross the frame four, and the CBR was the next incarnation of Honda development?!?!?

Things have NOT moved on much from then.

EXCEPT... America, still biking cash-cow market... like American Motorcycles... but even THEY have love hate relationship with Harleys....

"If it ent Harlee, it Ent shit!"... "Oh How right you are, with the double negative!"

Back to that V-4 concept. Honda, in some ways recognising American appetites, and in others completely loosing the plot.... realised that their 'Plastic Fantastics' were not selling to Hard-Core american bikers, who were buying abysmally built, outdated Milwake Iron, by the ton.

The 'First' V4 from Honda, then was NOT the VF750/1000 'Sports-bike', usually the flag ship model eladers ahead of derivative models. No; Honda's first V4 was the V45 & V65 Magna, 'Super-Cruiser' and slightly less cruiserified 'Sabre' 'Street-Tourer'.The American Market 'Interceptor' and Euro/RoW VF model was launched a year later.

The 'Magna', google it, it REALLY is worth a look; was Hondas Idea of a 'space Age Harley'... it's sort of like a Cross between the Knight Industries Two Thousand (Knight-Rider); Street-Hawk, and a Transformers toy robot... complete with fake Chrome, and a Digital Dash-board! It is UTTER Eighties Techno Kitch.

But THAT, based on Knight-Rider, Street-Hawk and Transformer toys... was where Honda thought the American motorcycle market was at.... and it DID spawn Yamaha to make the V-Max... which sort of got it a bit more 'right'.

So; in another face saving revision; Honda dusted off the dies to a bike they had created, mainly to beat Yamaha on the American Dirt ovals, built to American Motorcycle Assiciation rules for Flat-Tracking, based around the Harley XR750, it was a 50 degree V-Twin, that was originally created by V-Twinning a pair of XL250 engines AKA the V-Twin pioneers of the veteran age.

Water-Cooled to stop the back pot overheating; it became the VT500 in Europe, where with the rise of the ParisDaker bikes, it gained knobly tyres and stilted suspension to become the Transalp.

Also became the Honda Shaddow for the US cruiser market; conforming to the 'idea' of what a cruiser ought to look like to staid concervative Harley fans, who didn't want to spend thier whole time mopping up oil puddles and treating tenitis and tendonistis!

Yamaha were no stranger to V-Twins; they had designed a 1000cc V back in the 70's, when they were unsure about following Honda, Suzuki & Kawasaki into 'accross the frame'fours'. Co-Incidentally, then they created the original Virago range, and they sold, in the US.

SO! Significantly, in the modern world; the topography, or cylinder arrangement of the motorcycle engine is as much as anything a 'fasion' thing, to conform to market ideas of what 'that kind' of bike should look like.

Cruiser - V-Twin.
Sports-Bike - Water-Cooled accross the frame four.
Muscle bike - air-cooled accross the frame four
Commuter-Bike - middle displacement parallel twin.
Learner-Bike - 125cc single

Dirt bikes have tended to always be singles for simplicity; trend continues.

Large 'Adventurte Sports', and the V-Twin Super-Sports are fashion anomolies.

Ducati, were a non-entity in the 1960's, making small 'exotic' desmo-valved low displacement singles. Broke into the 'big-bike' market in the early 70's; in despiration; Doubling up a pair of 350 singles ala the coffee-tin pioneers to make a 90 degree 'Desmo-Twin', around which they build a range of ever more specialised 'sporting twins' that significantly gained racing reputation exploiting FIM rules for super-bike racing demanding 'production based' machinary, and providing displacement concession to twins allowing them to run 1000's against 750's.

Honda's SV was a corporate cockasnoot, then to show Ducati they could build a better Ducatti, if they wanted to; Suzuki SV &TL jumping onto the band-waggon to build bikes to 'stereo-type'.

Adventure sports - Charlie & Ewan put the media spot-light on them; but, BMW had been making them for decades. Out-Paced in super-bike and endurace, BMW found that the vogue of American 'Desert Raid' racing, brought to Europe, in the form of the PAris Dakar, was an arena they could still compete; a big twin, being a more likely proposition for a mega-long-distance off-road race, than a lightweight buzzy single, or over-weight, over powered accross the frame four.

The BMW boxer, as mentioned is something of an anathma; the basic layout was penned by Albert Bradshaw, working for teh Sopwith Aero company during the first world war, as an 'improvement' on the Douglas 3 1/2 that Sopwith were making under licence for the war effort. Bradshaw set up on his own after the first world war to market his machine; failed after making about fifty and went back to work for Sopwith. Meanwhile he had sold a Eurpean licence to the design to Flink, who had made components for BMW; they made a few more bikes, but suffered shortages problems and were bought out by BMW who caried on making the bike, with revisions, under thier own name, through the 1930's.

Staid, concervative and teutonic; they didn't really evolve the thing very much; being more interested in making aero engines and trying to launch a car company, after World War 2.

Wasn't until 1980; when most Euro makers had gone under, or were at risk of; they remembered they made motorbikes, and chucked thier best car engineers at making a 'modern motorcycle'. Result was the Flying Brick, the K100, water-cooled, horezontally mounted, in-line four, longditudinally mounted... which they ADMITTED was mostly to be different from what the japs were making at the time! To offer a 750, they simply chopped a pot of the back to make an oft forgot tripple.

Tripples are uncommon... Triumph / BSA set about building one in the 1960's, to stave off the Japanese competition; the BSA Rocket 3 / Triumph Trident.

The old 650 Bonnie had been stretched well beyond limits taken from the original 500cc design to 650 and then 750; starved of development cash, like Ducati had when they concieved thier Desmo Twin; Umberslade looked to expediency, and Edward Turner was called back for brain-storming; concluding in a return to the original, push-rod Speed Twin of 1938... and suggestion to add another pot on the end. An idea the Umberslade boys took little further.

It was NOT a particularly wonderful bike. It was 'fast' and it handles pretty well, but it was a cobble-job, and it showed; and horrible to work on, difficult and expensive to service, and had little pottential for further development. Worse, it was horendousely expensive. In the USA it sold for more than double the list price of the then best selling bonnie, still in the catalogues; and the small amount of extra performance just didn't warrant the price top many buyers. It was, grudgingly a BIT of a flop; putting off many from following the idea.

Laverda did though; but they chose to tripple up a well regarded overhead cam twin to make the SFC/Jota, and selling as an 'exotic', never expected to be built in large numbers, that DID justify its price tag.

Bloor Triumph, returned to the tripple, in the early 1990's; and like BMW, built tripples 'to be different'. The whole range of re-launch Hinkley Triumphs was based on a 'modular concept' engine; two crank shaft strokes and two bore sizes, gave them a 750 tripple, & 900 tripple, a 1000cc four and a 1200cc four. And the resemblance of the Daytona 1000, to a GPz900 with ZX10 barels on it, was uncanny... and when you mark that Kawasaki claimed that the 60bhp, GPz500 was 'essentially half a ZX10'... you wonder just how string that Kwakker connection was.

To wit, to Wo-turn to the original question:

[chris-red]

TL;DR
____________________
Well, you know what they say. If you want to save the world, you have to push a few old ladies down the stairs.
Skudd:- Perhaps she just thinks you are a window licker and is being nice just in case she becomes another Jill Dando.
WANTED:- Fujinon (Fuji) M42 (Screw on) lenses, let me know if you have anything.

[deadwolf]

Aaaand for shits and giggles, here's a GP race bike powered by a two-stroke 500cc outboard motor.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7ar718Oqx5c/UWN-UkhTtJI/AAAAAAAABaI/DHVKXvFKxb0/s640/Konig+Racing+Motorbike.jpg

https://www.odd-bike.com/2013/04/konig-500-gp-outboard-powered-underdog.html

And on a different note, it took me a while to work out the whole shebang behind desmo valves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gist of it about replacing valve springs with more robust mechanical bits, to allow higher revs thanks to the lack of valve float?
____________________
Motorsapien Art

[dydey90]

[deadwolf]