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:Me]

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:Me]

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

[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.