Electric powered big bang zx10r?

[CHOPPA]

Not sure if its a repost but just had a read through the latest AMCN....

[CHOPPA]

bugger you cant read it from the pic! This link you can see the picture better...

http://www.zx-10r.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69884

[icekiwi]

oh well thats it then...
I'm trading up next year!!!

[BIGBOSSMAN]

oh well thats it then...
I'm trading up next year!!!

Ha ha queue up behind me Phil!!!

[Starky307]

A very interesting read. But doesn't it just make an inline twin?

[CHOPPA]

A very interesting read. But doesn't it just make an inline twin?

No its like having 2 inline twins...

[Starky307]

No its like having 2 inline twins...

Why not just make a twin? It sounds very technical to achieve what effectively an IL2 would achieve. Just expand the motor from an ER-6n.

[R6_kid]

Because a twin would of the same capacity would not make the same outright power, as it would not only not rev as high, but it would rev-out slower too.

In a similar vein, think of Ozzy27's 450 - it is only firing on 3cyl out of 4cyl in a conventional IL4 arrangement, yet it is still making over 70hp, only a few hp down on an SV650/ER6. I'd haggle a guess and say that despite the displacement difference of 200cc, the additional revs and the ability to rev out better are what are helping it to make such power.

[Starky307]

Because a twin would of the same capacity would not make the same outright power, as it would not only not rev as high, but it would rev-out slower too.

In a similar vein, think of Ozzy27's 450 - it is only firing on 3cyl out of 4cyl in a conventional IL4 arrangement, yet it is still making over 70hp, only a few hp down on an SV650/ER6. I'd haggle a guess and say that despite the displacement difference of 200cc, the additional revs and the ability to rev out better are what are helping it to make such power.

Isn't the reason a twin rev's out less and slower is as because it must carry a bigger crankshaft weight to follow through between the firing strokes?

This is the reason of the electric motor being added, to assist in the motor turning over without adding the weight of a "flywheel" as is with a IL2.

To me it seems as if they are building an over cmplicated 2 cylinder motorcycle with an electric motor to remove the weight of a flywheel.

I'm all for thinking outside the box but it seems complicated to me.

[R6_kid]

twin cylinder pistons have more mass, and take more acceleration, and also harder to change direction - i'd suspect that if you're engine could reach 15,000rpm it would tear itself to pieces. This means you need stronger cranks and rods and probably pistons too.

For instance take the difference between a standard 1098 motor and a 1098R motor. The difference in power is somewhat substantial, as is the price difference. To get a 1198cc V-twin making the same power as a 999cc IL4 takes a lot more engineering. But by simply changing the firing order (like the 09 R1) you can achieve much better power delivery with only a slight loss (if any) in power.

[Cr1MiNaL]

Ha ha queue up behind me Phil!!!


oh well thats it then...
I'm trading up next year!!!


bugger you cant read it from the pic! This link you can see the picture better...

http://www.zx-10r.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69884


Kawasaki will always be one step behind YAMAHA :rockon:

[crash harry]

Isn't the reason a twin rev's out less and slower is as because it must carry a bigger crankshaft weight to follow through between the firing strokes?

This is the reason of the electric motor being added, to assist in the motor turning over without adding the weight of a "flywheel" as is with a IL2.

To me it seems as if they are building an over cmplicated 2 cylinder motorcycle with an electric motor to remove the weight of a flywheel.

I'm all for thinking outside the box but it seems complicated to me.

Part of it is about valve area. In a similar vein to why Honda built the NR750 to achieve a 32-valve V-four, the effect of this is to achieve a 16-valve I-twin, except without the inherant dynamic balance problem. It still has the I4's inherant dynamic balance issues (unlike the Yamaha approach), but they are much smaller than that of a twin. Also, deleting the flywheel allows a lot faster angular acceleration of the crank, which ultimately means a more responsive engine. This could mean an engine which behaves as though it had a variable flywheel mass - good torque production but fast acceleration as well.

Should be interesting to see how it develops.

[SixPackBack]

This would have to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. The cost to develop will be massive, weight will be an issue and similar gains could be attained in a far cheaper and expedient manner. Kawasaki is grand standing for a bit of PR........I will put my head on the block and say we will never see this concept.

[zzzbang]

This is how electric motors should be used in vehicles :P

[jonbuoy]

Active flywheel would be a better description, doesn't sound like a totally stupid idea. DC electric motors have a lot of grunt behind them, ever tried stalling a good quality battery drill? Don't see why they couldn't use the same technology on a standard sequentially fired IL4 to smooth out the bumps as well.

[koiwoi]

This would have to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. The cost to develop will be massive, weight will be an issue and similar gains could be attained in a far cheaper and expedient manner. Kawasaki is grand standing for a bit of PR........I will put my head on the block and say we will never see this concept.This motor will do the job of the starter motor and alternator so it should be a weight saving. I hope we do see it, the concept is a sound one imo, but whether cost vs gain works out is another thing

[crash harry]

This would have to be one of the dumbest ideas ever. The cost to develop will be massive, weight will be an issue and similar gains could be attained in a far cheaper and expedient manner. Kawasaki is grand standing for a bit of PR........I will put my head on the block and say we will never see this concept.

I'll agree with you as far as that the chances of this making it to production are probably 50% or less.

But as for it being a dumb idea?

The cost to develop shouldn't be too high. They're only going to need a couple of Nm to keep thecrank spinning - I'd have thought that the PM alternators used in most bike engines these days would be capable of this if you used them in the BLDC motor mode instead of the generator mode. So they likely already have the needed part strapped to the engine. It may need to be jigged around a little to optimise for torque production but it's basically the same thing.

The software to do it is trivial - look at a washing machine for the motor drive strategy. And as a bonus, the electronics to do it would be a couple of dollars worth at most. As it would replace the PM Alternator's reg/rectifier anyway, the cost should be almost neutral as should the weight. Especially if it can also replace the starter motor.

Not a bad plan to be honest. Although as I say, it's probably only 50% likely to actually make it to market

[SixPackBack]

I'll agree with you as far as that the chances of this making it to production are probably 50% or less.

But as for it being a dumb idea?

The cost to develop shouldn't be too high. They're only going to need a couple of Nm to keep thecrank spinning - I'd have thought that the PM alternators used in most bike engines these days would be capable of this if you used them in the BLDC motor mode instead of the generator mode. So they likely already have the needed part strapped to the engine. It may need to be jigged around a little to optimise for torque production but it's basically the same thing.

The software to do it is trivial - look at a washing machine for the motor drive strategy. And as a bonus, the electronics to do it would be a couple of dollars worth at most. As it would replace the PM Alternator's reg/rectifier anyway, the cost should be almost neutral as should the weight. Especially if it can also replace the starter motor.

Not a bad plan to be honest. Although as I say, it's probably only 50% likely to actually make it to market

Its a shit idea.

The R&D cost would be enormous. Your asking developers to not only produce an electric motor that interacts with a petrol engine on a part time basis, but also act as a generator and starter motor.

I work as a Workshop Manager responsible for the production of proof of concepts and prototypes-all of these are electronically controlled motors. I see the amount of time and testing it takes to not only validate the mechanical/electrical design, but also the software. The process is costly, slow and contains many pitfalls, what looks simple on paper can prove infuriating to implement even with a large collection of electrical/mechanical geniuses [like we have]. Once a prototype is designed and appears to run well, the validation process on single parts/collective parts/processes must start. This lengthy process can send the project team scurrying back to the drawing board to redesign even at the 11th hour.

When considering the sales strategy to design, manufacture and market such an idea potential return is the ONLY concern. The number of ZX10's needed to be manufactured to enable a healthy return would need to be very high. Couple that with a projected weak worldwide economy and low present demand and chances of this idea happening are very low.

IMHO I think Kawasaki would be better off developing an all electric Superbike and ditching the petrol engine all together, this would likely take a few years to develop placing the company in an ideal position to cash in when the collective economies pick-up.

[xwhatsit]

When considering the sales strategy to design, manufacture and market such an idea potential return is the ONLY concern.
I see your point, but remember Kawasaki is Kawasaki. They're not a motorcycle company, they're a heavy industries manufacturer -- aeroplanes, trains, ships, robots, whatever. The only reason they got into motorcycles was as a showcase, to make their brand and level of technical expertise visible to ordinary consumers.

So maybe the next ZX10R won't ever come close to breaking even, but they might be quite happy to write it off as simple advertising. Plus it's not like they throw that R&D work away -- they can use that knowledge on every iteration after that. Maybe there's even parallels to stuff they're doing in their main product categories.

In many respects it's not dissimilar to what Honda have been doing for decades (wasn't it the CBR250RR (and the VFR400?) that lost money on every one sold -- note Kawasaki had to match them with the ZXR250).

[SixPackBack]

I see your point, but remember Kawasaki is Kawasaki. They're not a motorcycle company, they're a heavy industries manufacturer -- aeroplanes, trains, ships, robots, whatever. The only reason they got into motorcycles was as a showcase, to make their brand and level of technical expertise visible to ordinary consumers.

So maybe the next ZX10R won't ever come close to breaking even, but they might be quite happy to write it off as simple advertising. Plus it's not like they throw that R&D work away -- they can use that knowledge on every iteration after that. Maybe there's even parallels to stuff they're doing in their main product categories.

In many respects it's not dissimilar to what Honda have been doing for decades (wasn't it the CBR250RR (and the VFR400?) that lost money on every one sold -- note Kawasaki had to match them with the ZXR250).

If keeping up with the opposition is the primary reason for development why not copy yamaha's design?......the payback is immediate the R&D far less. Remember that accontants run companies and the only way money is given away is when absolutley neccassary.

[jonbuoy]

Its a shit idea.

The R&D cost would be enormous. Your asking developers to not only produce an electric motor that interacts with a petrol engine on a part time basis, but also act as a generator and starter motor.

I work as a Workshop Manager responsible for the production of proof of concepts and prototypes-all of these are electronically controlled motors. I see the amount of time and testing it takes to not only validate the mechanical/electrical design, but also the software. The process is costly, slow and contains many pitfalls, what looks simple on paper can prove infuriating to implement even with a large collection of electrical/mechanical geniuses [like we have]. Once a prototype is designed and appears to run well, the validation process on single parts/collective parts/processes must start. This lengthy process can send the project team scurrying back to the drawing board to redesign even at the 11th hour.

When considering the sales strategy to design, manufacture and market such an idea potential return is the ONLY concern. The number of ZX10's needed to be manufactured to enable a healthy return would need to be very high. Couple that with a projected weak worldwide economy and low present demand and chances of this idea happening are very low.

IMHO I think Kawasaki would be better off developing an all electric Superbike and ditching the petrol engine all together, this would likely take a few years to develop placing the company in an ideal position to cash in when the collective economies pick-up.

If it gives the bike even a tenth of a second on a laptime or saves 500grams in weight it won't be money wasted, Kawasaki's development budget and resources are massive. Fuel injection, active steering dampers, ABS, traction control have all cost millions to develop. Seems like a smart idea.

[crash harry]

Its a shit idea.

And I maintain that it's a reasonable idea that would at least bear looking into, as Kawasaki must be doing at least in some way if they are filing for a patent. That implies that they most likely have a working prototype already.



The R&D cost would be enormous. Your asking developers to not only produce an electric motor that interacts with a petrol engine on a part time basis, but also act as a generator and starter motor.

I don't believe the R&D cost would be that high. The motor technology is practically off-the-shelf - admittedly it needs a fairly fast speed-control loop, but it's not massive. There's nothing to invent here, just development work make the idea solid.


I work as a Workshop Manager responsible for the production of proof of concepts and prototypes-all of these are electronically controlled motors. I see the amount of time and testing it takes to not only validate the mechanical/electrical design, but also the software. The process is costly, slow and contains many pitfalls, what looks simple on paper can prove infuriating to implement even with a large collection of electrical/mechanical geniuses [like we have]. Once a prototype is designed and appears to run well, the validation process on single parts/collective parts/processes must start. This lengthy process can send the project team scurrying back to the drawing board to redesign even at the 11th hour.

Whilst we're stating credentials, I manage a team developing motor control electronics for a major international. Believe me when I say I am more than familiar with various types of electric motors and the methods of controlling them, and with managing development engineering projects. I'm also familiar with R&D budgets. Given the constraints of using the existing engine and developing a motor/generator/starter system to fit into the alternator casing (for example) I reckon you'd do it for about 1,000,000 USD including tooling. Which is pocket change to a company like KHI.


When considering the sales strategy to design, manufacture and market such an idea potential return is the ONLY concern. The number of ZX10's needed to be manufactured to enable a healthy return would need to be very high. Couple that with a projected weak worldwide economy and low present demand and chances of this idea happening are very low.

Admittedly the economy will have a negative effect on this kind of development. But as I say, if they're patenting it they must have done some work on it - whether it will see mass production or not is another story.


IMHO I think Kawasaki would be better off developing an all electric Superbike and ditching the petrol engine all together, this would likely take a few years to develop placing the company in an ideal position to cash in when the collective economies pick-up.
The same could be said for the original idea - when the economy picks up they'll be in an ideal place to make use of it. And it doesn't rely on fundamentally difficult research like battery technology, which IS expensive.

Anyway, I can see your POV, it would be an expensive excersise like all development engineering is. I just don't agree with your outright dismissal of the idea. I hope Kawasaki make a go of it, it's about time we saw more interesting engine technology instead of the same old shit refined slightly here and there.

[SixPackBack]

If it gives the bike even a tenth of a second on a laptime or saves 500grams in weight it won't be money wasted, Kawasaki's development budget and resources are massive. Fuel injection, active steering dampers, ABS, traction control have all cost millions to develop. Seems like a smart idea.

Maybe jonbouy, maybe.

If Kawasaki wanted to actually win, purchasing the necessary riders to help facilitate that would be the first step. their performance in MotoGP, Superbikes and Supersport is abysmal.

Regardless of their collective resources Kawasaki seems incapable of producing the bike, the team and the rider-being big is sometimes a negative thing!

[SixPackBack]

And I maintain that it's a reasonable idea that would at least bear looking into, as Kawasaki must be doing at least in some way if they are filing for a patent. That implies that they most likely have a working prototype already.

'Tis a big jump from there to the market place tho'.......and yeah its a unique idea, having thought of it patenting would be essential 'just in case'


I don't believe the R&D cost would be that high. The motor technology is practically off-the-shelf - admittedly it needs a fairly fast speed-control loop, but it's not massive. There's nothing to invent here, just development work make the idea solid.

Without seeing the scope it would be impossible to say.

Whilst we're stating credentials, I manage a team developing motor control electronics for a major international. Believe me when I say I am more than familiar with various types of electric motors and the methods of controlling them, and with managing development engineering projects. I'm also familiar with R&D budgets. Given the constraints of using the existing engine and developing a motor/generator/starter system to fit into the alternator casing (for example) I reckon you'd do it for about 1,000,000 USD including tooling. Which is pocket change to a company like KHI.

Fantastic I would like to chat offline at some stage.

Admittedly the economy will have a negative effect on this kind of development. But as I say, if they're patenting it they must have done some work on it - whether it will see mass production or not is another story.

Agreed.

The same could be said for the original idea - when the economy picks up they'll be in an ideal place to make use of it. And it doesn't rely on fundamentally difficult research like battery technology, which IS expensive.

Anyway, I can see your POV, it would be an expensive excersise like all development engineering is. I just don't agree with your outright dismissal of the idea. I hope Kawasaki make a go of it, it's about time we saw more interesting engine technology instead of the same old shit refined slightly here and there.

It would be interesting to see a working model that for sure.

[crash harry]

It would be interesting to see a working model that for sure.

Amen to that