Yamaha's answer to the CRF
- Thread starter MxKid512
- Start date
Mine too. Sorry Rich, unless someone's putting Helium in the tires, I don't think this one is that vague. My take: Captialism 101 - where there's money involved companies will do less than ethical things to get it. But that's exactly why we have truth in advertising laws, to protect consumers.
This whole thread has turned into a Flame, but I don't know which manufacturer(s) to direct it at!
This whole thread has turned into a Flame, but I don't know which manufacturer(s) to direct it at!
My point is there are lots of products whose weight is determined by adding the individual weights of the parts without ever weighing the entire assembly as a complete package, which can easily account for a difference in our definition and their definition of dry weight.
Do you honestly think a company as large as Honda would risk fudging numbers like this when they ship the majority of their products into a country as litigious as the US? While I agree that it would be nice if the weight on the spec sheet accurately represented the weight of our bikes as we roll them to the starting line , it's not the way it's done.
Do you honestly think a company as large as Honda would risk fudging numbers like this when they ship the majority of their products into a country as litigious as the US? While I agree that it would be nice if the weight on the spec sheet accurately represented the weight of our bikes as we roll them to the starting line , it's not the way it's done.
I might. I can hear their defense lawyer now: "As you know we use the metric system in Japan, so we know the mass of our products in Kg. It has become a standard, accepted, industry practice to use a slightly optimistic conversion factor, and since we are in a very competitive market we have no choice but to adopt the same policy as other manufacturers..."
This is why I think it's too bad nobody cares and simply "accepts" this practice. Again, comparing wet weights leaves too much to chance, but dry weights of finished products is a no brainer. Automobile companies and others have to do this and motorcycles should be no different. Also, racing cannot be the argument that bikes are somehow different. Both types of vehicles are raced, but both get modified - and lightened - before serious racing anyway.
This is why I think it's too bad nobody cares and simply "accepts" this practice. Again, comparing wet weights leaves too much to chance, but dry weights of finished products is a no brainer. Automobile companies and others have to do this and motorcycles should be no different. Also, racing cannot be the argument that bikes are somehow different. Both types of vehicles are raced, but both get modified - and lightened - before serious racing anyway.
FlyingFinn
Member
- Oct 25, 1999
- 32
- 0
Could this be it?
This is from yamaha-racing.com . These are the specs of Stefan Everts's bike.
YAMAHA YZ500FM
Ever since the Rinaldi team started to race the original YZ400F in 1999, they have experimented and raced several enlarged engine displacements to give their riders the edge on the competition. In 1999 they started the capacity increase with the now production 426cc displacement, and for 2001 the big 4 stroke YZ takes a big step forward by increasing the engine capacity to over 500cc.
Reaching the 500 mark was no easy task, as it necessitated a completely new crankcase designed by the Yamaha factory and made in Europe by the Yamaha Rinaldi Reseach & Development (YRRD) program. The new crankcase facilitates a revised bore and stroke and houses a YRRD developed piston that runs in an equally new YRRD cylinder assembly. Feeding the new engine is a Keihin flatslide carb with an oval diameter of 41 - 43 mm.
Obviously the new engine pushes out more horsepower, but the biggest improvement is clearly the torque figure. It makes the YZ500FM more rider-friendly because the bike can be ridden at lower rpm levels, benefiting overall stability of the machine.
In 2000, Yamaha successfully pioneered an aluminium frame built to a different concept than those used on competitor models, adopting a conventional semi-double-cradle shape similar to the steel production Yamaha frames. The chassis developed during last season, features again in 2001.
The design is chosen to combine the advantages of aluminium (lightweight) with the benefits of a conventional frame lay-out (rider feedback and weight balance). The goal is to keep a limited amount of flex for maximum rider confidence. A YRRD-developed longer swingarm continues to be used, providing the rider with optimum machine control and helping to keep the front wheel on the ground.
The braking system on the front is of even higher spec than last year. The aluminium- beryllium caliper used last year now grabs a revolutionary shaped brake disk that combines increased braking power and reduced weight with a far greater resistance against bending.
However, the biggest change for 2001 is the suspension system. Both front and rear systems are full factory spec KYB. The front fork has a massive 48mm inside tube diameter, while the rear shock has also an enlarged rear diameter shaft of 18mm.
ENGINE
Engine type:
Single cylinder, liquid-cooled 4-stroke, DOHC 5-valve
Displacement:
Over 500cc
Lubrication:
Semi-pressurised wet sump
Ignition system:
YRRD - CDI
Carburation:
Keihin FCR 41/43mm
TRANSMISION
Type:
4-speed
Clutch:
Hydraulic wet multi-plate
CHASSIS AND RUNNING GEAR
Frame type:
Aluminium semi-double cradle
Front suspension:
Factory fully adjustable upside down Kayaba forks
Rear suspension:
Monocross with Factory Kayaba gas shock absorber
Front/rear wheels:
(front) 20/21 inch; (rear) 19 inch
Front brake:
Ø270mm single disc, Brembo Aluminium/Beryllium alloy caliper
Rear brake:
Ø240mm single disc
Weight:
Over 102 kg (in accordance with FIM regulations)
Fuel capacity:
8 litres
This is from yamaha-racing.com . These are the specs of Stefan Everts's bike.
YAMAHA YZ500FM
Ever since the Rinaldi team started to race the original YZ400F in 1999, they have experimented and raced several enlarged engine displacements to give their riders the edge on the competition. In 1999 they started the capacity increase with the now production 426cc displacement, and for 2001 the big 4 stroke YZ takes a big step forward by increasing the engine capacity to over 500cc.
Reaching the 500 mark was no easy task, as it necessitated a completely new crankcase designed by the Yamaha factory and made in Europe by the Yamaha Rinaldi Reseach & Development (YRRD) program. The new crankcase facilitates a revised bore and stroke and houses a YRRD developed piston that runs in an equally new YRRD cylinder assembly. Feeding the new engine is a Keihin flatslide carb with an oval diameter of 41 - 43 mm.
Obviously the new engine pushes out more horsepower, but the biggest improvement is clearly the torque figure. It makes the YZ500FM more rider-friendly because the bike can be ridden at lower rpm levels, benefiting overall stability of the machine.
In 2000, Yamaha successfully pioneered an aluminium frame built to a different concept than those used on competitor models, adopting a conventional semi-double-cradle shape similar to the steel production Yamaha frames. The chassis developed during last season, features again in 2001.
The design is chosen to combine the advantages of aluminium (lightweight) with the benefits of a conventional frame lay-out (rider feedback and weight balance). The goal is to keep a limited amount of flex for maximum rider confidence. A YRRD-developed longer swingarm continues to be used, providing the rider with optimum machine control and helping to keep the front wheel on the ground.
The braking system on the front is of even higher spec than last year. The aluminium- beryllium caliper used last year now grabs a revolutionary shaped brake disk that combines increased braking power and reduced weight with a far greater resistance against bending.
However, the biggest change for 2001 is the suspension system. Both front and rear systems are full factory spec KYB. The front fork has a massive 48mm inside tube diameter, while the rear shock has also an enlarged rear diameter shaft of 18mm.
ENGINE
Engine type:
Single cylinder, liquid-cooled 4-stroke, DOHC 5-valve
Displacement:
Over 500cc
Lubrication:
Semi-pressurised wet sump
Ignition system:
YRRD - CDI
Carburation:
Keihin FCR 41/43mm
TRANSMISION
Type:
4-speed
Clutch:
Hydraulic wet multi-plate
CHASSIS AND RUNNING GEAR
Frame type:
Aluminium semi-double cradle
Front suspension:
Factory fully adjustable upside down Kayaba forks
Rear suspension:
Monocross with Factory Kayaba gas shock absorber
Front/rear wheels:
(front) 20/21 inch; (rear) 19 inch
Front brake:
Ø270mm single disc, Brembo Aluminium/Beryllium alloy caliper
Rear brake:
Ø240mm single disc
Weight:
Over 102 kg (in accordance with FIM regulations)
Fuel capacity:
8 litres
Last edited:
i heard this from some buddies that work for yam, i was asking if they would hook me up with a 426, their price is 4200 but they can only do one bike, atv or watercraft a year, needless to say they would not hook me up. they did say wait until 03 for the 426, it will be a 450 and as light as the CRF. If this is true you heard it hear first, we'll see.
My 2 cents
No doubt the CRF450 will be good, the question is how good. I think chances are it won't be a roach, so putting money down to hold one is not all that ridiculous. Just remember, however, the aluminum frame in 1997 was not all it was cracked-up to be. It looked very good on the drawing board, but had some practical problems. It took a few years to work out all of the issues. And one more point, historically, first-generation bikes (of any make) leave a lot of room for improvement. In one or two short years a model can be radically improved with some minor tweaking and fine tuning by the manufacturer.
As for me? My 2000 CR250 is for sale and I'm plunking down my hard earned cash on a proven machine... a 2002 KTM 520SX.
No doubt the CRF450 will be good, the question is how good. I think chances are it won't be a roach, so putting money down to hold one is not all that ridiculous. Just remember, however, the aluminum frame in 1997 was not all it was cracked-up to be. It looked very good on the drawing board, but had some practical problems. It took a few years to work out all of the issues. And one more point, historically, first-generation bikes (of any make) leave a lot of room for improvement. In one or two short years a model can be radically improved with some minor tweaking and fine tuning by the manufacturer.
As for me? My 2000 CR250 is for sale and I'm plunking down my hard earned cash on a proven machine... a 2002 KTM 520SX.
James Dean
Member
- May 17, 2000
- 137
- 0
Predictions- Will history repeat itself?
-------------
'78 YZ400....'82CR450.... '83 YZ490.... '83 CR480.... '84 CR500....
-------------
'98 YZ400....'02 CR450....'03 YZ490.... '03 CR480....''04 CR500....
-------------
'18 YZ400....?
Will history repeat itself? You can bet displacements will keep going up.:confused:
-------------
'78 YZ400....'82CR450.... '83 YZ490.... '83 CR480.... '84 CR500....
-------------
'98 YZ400....'02 CR450....'03 YZ490.... '03 CR480....''04 CR500....
-------------
'18 YZ400....?
Will history repeat itself? You can bet displacements will keep going up.:confused:
OZ_dirtrider
Member
- Jul 2, 2001
- 64
- 0
Lets face it guys,
Honda are notrious for updating and not changing. It took decades for the XR600 to have water cooling aka XR650 - they have a motto akin too "if it aint broke don't fix it".
When the WR/YZF400 came out, Honda thought that those loyal XR600 riders would buy the new 650. Did they?
No! And the reason: why would the the XR rider buy a new model that is heavier then the current model when Yamaha have brought out a bike that weights 10-15kgs lighter, more responsive and importantly, more agile then the XR650!
The XR650 is a great desert bike but in the real world of MX tracks and enduro riding, it pales to insignificant when compared to a WR or even the euro bikes. Michael Byrne (ex Jeff Emig sponsored rider and newly appointed Honda Factory rider), won the Australian Thumper series on an XR650 but it was more the talented rider rather than the bike which weighted in at 128kgs when the opposition bikes were at 115-120kgs.
The CRF is Honda's answer to all the new breed of thumpers and also a realisation that the world of two stroke racing is fast diminshing. It also signals to us, the dirt rider, that the XR range has had it's day and is obsolete compared to the oppositions thumpers. Yes, the XR400 is one of the most reliable bike in the world but would you buy one or a WR400/KTM400/TE400/DRZ400?
Would l place an order before l see or ride it even when magazines around the world are heaping praise onto it - no. I want to see an enduro/street legal version and hopefully an electric start model before l consider an order and even then wait until all the bike world has ridden it and myself/friends before l formulate an opinion.
The weight issue, dry weight is the the entire weight of the bike straighgt after production, less oil, water, grease and fuel. HP readings, com'on guys you know they always take it from the crank because of loss of power thru the drive train, stock exhaust/airbox etc. Thats why bike magazines where invented to dispell the manufacturers claim of 109kgs and 55hp when reality states that the total weight is roughly 128kgs and the hp is 45hp.
Cannondale.....bike of the year lol, don't see many around, do you?
J
;)
Honda are notrious for updating and not changing. It took decades for the XR600 to have water cooling aka XR650 - they have a motto akin too "if it aint broke don't fix it".
When the WR/YZF400 came out, Honda thought that those loyal XR600 riders would buy the new 650. Did they?
No! And the reason: why would the the XR rider buy a new model that is heavier then the current model when Yamaha have brought out a bike that weights 10-15kgs lighter, more responsive and importantly, more agile then the XR650!
The XR650 is a great desert bike but in the real world of MX tracks and enduro riding, it pales to insignificant when compared to a WR or even the euro bikes. Michael Byrne (ex Jeff Emig sponsored rider and newly appointed Honda Factory rider), won the Australian Thumper series on an XR650 but it was more the talented rider rather than the bike which weighted in at 128kgs when the opposition bikes were at 115-120kgs.
The CRF is Honda's answer to all the new breed of thumpers and also a realisation that the world of two stroke racing is fast diminshing. It also signals to us, the dirt rider, that the XR range has had it's day and is obsolete compared to the oppositions thumpers. Yes, the XR400 is one of the most reliable bike in the world but would you buy one or a WR400/KTM400/TE400/DRZ400?
Would l place an order before l see or ride it even when magazines around the world are heaping praise onto it - no. I want to see an enduro/street legal version and hopefully an electric start model before l consider an order and even then wait until all the bike world has ridden it and myself/friends before l formulate an opinion.
The weight issue, dry weight is the the entire weight of the bike straighgt after production, less oil, water, grease and fuel. HP readings, com'on guys you know they always take it from the crank because of loss of power thru the drive train, stock exhaust/airbox etc. Thats why bike magazines where invented to dispell the manufacturers claim of 109kgs and 55hp when reality states that the total weight is roughly 128kgs and the hp is 45hp.
Cannondale.....bike of the year lol, don't see many around, do you?
J
;)
motojunkie
Member
- Apr 25, 2001
- 88
- 0
MXFastguy - I came off a 2000 CR 250, for a '01 520 SX. It's an awesome machine. It took me about 4-5 rides to get used to the whole 4-stroke thing (compression braking, more weight...), but now I can't ride a 2-stroke. The '02 should be even better than the '01 - with the updated suspension. Good luck with your KTM - you're going to love it.
A quick comment on using drag racing to evaluate horsepower. The drag race evaluates the integral of the hp curve vs rpm, assuming shifting glitches, traction and gearing are nice and optimal/equal. A big V-8 will have higher hp in the lower and mid rpms, not just a high number at a high rpm. The little 4 will only attain the big hp number at the highest rpm, and will knid of suck everywhere else (just like a strung out peak hp 125 vs a fat torque tuned 500, which may have nearly the same peak hp). The little engine will suck until its a buzz saw, while the big engine will launch right from the get go. So it's easy to see who wins the race until they reach rpms where they both have the same hp.
Of course, if there's an 8 speed tranny on the 125 so it never leaves the peak rpms, it will do well, edspiote increased shift times wasted in neutral. The big motor doesn't waste time shifting, however. Lots of factors, but basicly it's the integration aspect that shows power/acceleration vs position on the track and resultant position on the track vs time - and if you're typically integrating with a higher hp curve level, you'll go faster sooner.
Clear as mud, right? ;)
I find I have no shortage of hp on my 426. I'm just a mortal! More hp would probably result in a body cast. I value rideability as well as hp, that's why a good broad smooth powerband with good top hp is a magic combination for me. Everything is predictable and I can keep the bike in control, even when getting to near full throttle situations.
Of course, if there's an 8 speed tranny on the 125 so it never leaves the peak rpms, it will do well, edspiote increased shift times wasted in neutral. The big motor doesn't waste time shifting, however. Lots of factors, but basicly it's the integration aspect that shows power/acceleration vs position on the track and resultant position on the track vs time - and if you're typically integrating with a higher hp curve level, you'll go faster sooner.
Clear as mud, right? ;)
I find I have no shortage of hp on my 426. I'm just a mortal! More hp would probably result in a body cast. I value rideability as well as hp, that's why a good broad smooth powerband with good top hp is a magic combination for me. Everything is predictable and I can keep the bike in control, even when getting to near full throttle situations.
James Dean
Member
- May 17, 2000
- 137
- 0
Integral?...Clear as the Mud on Your Goggles
--
Yes, at least one of us got it.
Power x time = energy :think
And if you want to go fast hold it open :confused:
--
Yes, at least one of us got it.
Power x time = energy :think
And if you want to go fast hold it open :confused:
wayneo426
Sponsoring Member
Amen!
Amen to that! I couldnt have said it better Techman!:cool:
Amen to that! I couldnt have said it better Techman!:cool:
Techman, I was not comparing drag strip performance of the 2 types of engines, just the trap speeds. In the class of car we discussed there are minimal traction issues.
So, for a given weight and rear wheel HP, different cars will produce similar trap speeds. Yes the mustang will turn a 13.4@100 and the S2K will run a 14.11 at 99.4mph.
In addition, Yes the YZ426 is fast, however there are situations where dirt bikes can use more HP than the 426 has. Wide open sandy areas come to mind. Baja 1000-500 type rides, and fast fire roads. Do you race motocross? If so, I agree that too much HP is not necessary. Come ride with me in the Ocala National Forest and you will use all the power your bike provides.
Chris
So, for a given weight and rear wheel HP, different cars will produce similar trap speeds. Yes the mustang will turn a 13.4@100 and the S2K will run a 14.11 at 99.4mph.
In addition, Yes the YZ426 is fast, however there are situations where dirt bikes can use more HP than the 426 has. Wide open sandy areas come to mind. Baja 1000-500 type rides, and fast fire roads. Do you race motocross? If so, I agree that too much HP is not necessary. Come ride with me in the Ocala National Forest and you will use all the power your bike provides.
Chris
Anybody know how many XRs are sold compared to the aforementioned KTM, DRZ and WR lines?
We need to remember something, the cutting edge bikes are a small part of the off-road market.
And beleive it or not, an awful lot of those XR 600 riders did buy the new 650, so did a lot of KX 500 and CR 500 riders.
A more important and far reaching development is KTM releasing the California "G" model that meets state and federal sound/emission standards. Good or bad THAT is the future of off road bikes, not weight/HP ratios, etc. Yamaha's reaction should be to that development rather than the CR450F.
We need to remember something, the cutting edge bikes are a small part of the off-road market.
And beleive it or not, an awful lot of those XR 600 riders did buy the new 650, so did a lot of KX 500 and CR 500 riders.
A more important and far reaching development is KTM releasing the California "G" model that meets state and federal sound/emission standards. Good or bad THAT is the future of off road bikes, not weight/HP ratios, etc. Yamaha's reaction should be to that development rather than the CR450F.
This is a long thread and I can't remember who disputed that a Honda S2000 would lose 50 hp going to the rear wheels.
I had an old copy of, I think, 4-Wheel and Off-Road magazine, which dynoed a Toyota truck with the mousy 3.0 V6. That truck but out either 105 or 110 hp at the rear wheels. Toyota cliamed 150 crankshaft horsepower. This seems right in line with the 30% hp loss that every magazine I have ever seen says that automobiles experience. I get the impression that the much more efficient motorcycle gear boxes are closer to 15%.
Someone also mentioned that these Japanese and German (M3 reference) are inaccurate but no mention is made of American made vehicles? Ford claims my F-150 puts out 260hp. I am willing to bet that it would show about the same percentage decrease that any other brand of vehicle exhibits. I do agree that the rear wheel dyno levels the playing field for all contenders and that is the only hp figure I will ever quote.
Another thing about horsepower. You can't measure the amount of "horsepower" an engine produces. It is impossible. Instead you measure the torque produced and plug it into a very simple mathematical formula:
HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252
Look at any dyno chart and the HP and torqe figures always cross at this point (unless they are on different scales). What this says is that the more revs and engine can achieve, the more horspower it can produce. That is why sportbikes make so much power. A small amount of torque at 14,000 rpm equals big hp numbers.
In an absolute drag race, high horsepower cars like the S2000 can turn respectable numbers, but in a roll on test, they get killed. I am certain that a 30K Mustang Cobra would stomp an S2K if both cars were rolling side by side in second gear at 15 mph and both drivers hammer the throttle. Just like a roll on test between a YZ250F and a 125cc two stroke. Similar peak hp, but the 250 has a much broader torque curve.
I know that most of you know this but thought I would pass it along for the fun of it.
Greg M
I had an old copy of, I think, 4-Wheel and Off-Road magazine, which dynoed a Toyota truck with the mousy 3.0 V6. That truck but out either 105 or 110 hp at the rear wheels. Toyota cliamed 150 crankshaft horsepower. This seems right in line with the 30% hp loss that every magazine I have ever seen says that automobiles experience. I get the impression that the much more efficient motorcycle gear boxes are closer to 15%.
Someone also mentioned that these Japanese and German (M3 reference) are inaccurate but no mention is made of American made vehicles? Ford claims my F-150 puts out 260hp. I am willing to bet that it would show about the same percentage decrease that any other brand of vehicle exhibits. I do agree that the rear wheel dyno levels the playing field for all contenders and that is the only hp figure I will ever quote.
Another thing about horsepower. You can't measure the amount of "horsepower" an engine produces. It is impossible. Instead you measure the torque produced and plug it into a very simple mathematical formula:
HP = (Torque x RPM)/5252
Look at any dyno chart and the HP and torqe figures always cross at this point (unless they are on different scales). What this says is that the more revs and engine can achieve, the more horspower it can produce. That is why sportbikes make so much power. A small amount of torque at 14,000 rpm equals big hp numbers.
In an absolute drag race, high horsepower cars like the S2000 can turn respectable numbers, but in a roll on test, they get killed. I am certain that a 30K Mustang Cobra would stomp an S2K if both cars were rolling side by side in second gear at 15 mph and both drivers hammer the throttle. Just like a roll on test between a YZ250F and a 125cc two stroke. Similar peak hp, but the 250 has a much broader torque curve.
I know that most of you know this but thought I would pass it along for the fun of it.
Greg M
Chris - I would love to visit this place you speak of where aerodynamic effects have no effect on trap speeds :)
OZ_dirtrider
Member
- Jul 2, 2001
- 64
- 0
Sorry Strick,
That was just an uneducated guess with no fact (109kgs/55hp=128kgs/45hp) but l will disagree with you that a DRZ weights in at 128kgs when l have measured one on a set of digital scales(as used by those picky race scrutineer's) and that fat ******* weighs in at 134.3kgs (this is the electric start model with stock exhaust). he XR400 was a lot lighter at 122kgs.
Then again, ride a KDX250 and that feels heavier even when it ain't? I would
presume that the CRF would weight in at 120ish wet?
My point is simple: don't believe everything you read until you see and research it yourself.
J
Just bought a TE400
OZ_dirtrider
Member
- Jul 2, 2001
- 64
- 0
LocoCD,
In Australia, the biggest selling dirt bike is the XR400 but only due to government contracts that the police have with Honda to supply these bikes for them.
The biggest selling bike publicly is the WR400/426 then the XR650 and KTM300
Sales figures on cutting edge bikes, l guess that would only reflect in comparsion to the sale price e.g if the VOR400 was A$9'500 instead of A$12'000, l'm sure more people would buy them?
J :scream:
Similar Topics
- Mark Tilley
- Industry News | Press Releases
- Mark Tilley
- American Motocross | Supercross News
- Mark Tilley
- Industry News | Press Releases
- Mark Tilley
- American Motocross | Supercross News