2009 R1 and 2010 R6 hints

[bigjim]

Hope Im not reposting but read this review today, the new R1 looks like its going to be awesome but I really want to see some real road tests.

I've really been asking myself should I trade in the R6 for one, but with money tight and credit crunch and all that im sure I cant afford it

I had already decided Im going to chop my R6 in next year deffo and maybe for a new R6, after seeing the reports on the cross-plane crankshaft I thought that that the extra torque would be just what the R6 needs to get on a par with the cbr600rr.

But according to this article its not going to happen, although Yamaha may have something up there sleeves

Just listen to that R1, makes me want to cream myself

Jim

https://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/yamaha/2009-yamaha-r1-review-87844.html
____________________
'97 - Thundercat - Sold
'08 - R6 - The Pocket Rocket - Sold
'09 - Street Triple R - The Monster

[ms51ves3]

Why is it so ugly?

[The Shaggy D.A.]

[damz]

only way i can see to save the R1 from being unbarably ugly is to have tinted/smoked headlight covers covering the headlight sections and some bloody good looking aftermarket exhausts.

i dont get what was wrong with the looks of the previous R1, it is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better looking.
____________________
Current Bikes RVF400 - 94
Cars: RX7 FD, Eunos Roadster
Former Bikes: FZR 250R 89, ZX7R 98

[R6_Rider]

I just don't get it, why when something looks good do they change it all the time, that is horrible!

I understand that they need to keep things fresh and change a few things here and there but that nose is nasty!

Just my 2p woth though!
____________________
2000 Blue R6 - 2002 Rear undertray - Tail Tidy - Akrapovic Can - Tinted Black Screen - Datatool Gear Indicator - Full Plastic Re Spray 03-02-09 - Datatool Veto/Evo Alarm - Rear Hugger

[jack_zxr400]

why did they gut the headlights lol
____________________
Previous Bike: ZXR 400
Current Bike: R6
Test Date: 8/8/2008-PASSED

[OssY]

i think it is on its way to looking pretty good when it is fully stripped down...

[G]

[bigjim]

Watch this, it esplains it better than I could

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_e_gC99Ql0

Having done a bit of mech engineering theory for my degree it does make sense Its such a radical idea that people can't get there heads round it

We'll see in a few months if it really does make a difference when all the rags test it head to head with the blade

Yamaha for the win

Jim
____________________
'97 - Thundercat - Sold
'08 - R6 - The Pocket Rocket - Sold
'09 - Street Triple R - The Monster

[G]

But big-bang theory suggests that a smoother response like that is bad for traction.
I always presumed a smoother engine would be good for traction, until I was advised by the knowledge of BCF that the opposite was true.

It's considered that putting a big dollop of power down, while it may initially overpower the tyre, gives it time to recover before the next 'hit' comes along, while a continually firing engine (say firing every 180 degrees on a four) would just keep the tyre spinning.

A good example of this was my first hare and hounds where I had my 650cc KTM. It was getting over stuff which much lighter weight two strokes with just as much low down power were having serious trouble with - presumably the high gearing and infrequent power pulses gave the trials tyre plenty of chances to grip onto the roots under the mud-pools.

Incidentally, the video does not describe the bike making more torque, just a smoother delivery, which is a different thing.

[AngelGrinder]

[Bishbash]

[craigT19]

the headlights are like that because the ram air intakes are either side off the bulb slightly back into the fairing.

Cover them up and enjoy about 60bhp
____________________
Bikes owned :- 2001 nsr125, 1999 zx6r, 2006 yzf-r1, 2009 xmax 250, 2012 yzf-r1, 2015 MT-07
Current bike : - 2016 MT-10
BCF member pops. sadly missed 1945-2003