Bombshell: New R6 DOES NOT rev to 17,500!
Tim Kreitz
"R6s have already begun arriving in dealers, and a few early buyers
have had a chance to take them to the dyno. Anyone who has dyno'd a
bike knows that the dyno can take its own RPM readout by means of a
sensor clipped to one of the bike's spark plug wires. It seems that
'unbelievable' might have been a better term to describe the 17,500 RPM
limit - the tach may say 17,500, but the dyno's RPM plot tells the real
truth, and that is that the R6 is revving to somewhere around 16,200
RPM before hitting the programmed-in rev limiter.
"To confirm the truth of these claims, we turned to Yamaha Media
Relations Manager Brad Banister. In a phone call yesterday afternoon,
Banister confirmed that the 2006 R6 is definitely not revving anywhere
close to the claimed redline - admitting that the tachometer is 'over
1,000 RPM off'."
Oy. This was the centerpiece of Yamaha's marketing campaign. Can you
say 'public relations disaster'?
Cheers,
Tim Kreitz
2003 ZX7R
2000 ZX6R
DoD #2184
http://www.timkreitz.com
Inlaw Biker
Tim Kreitz wrote:
> "To confirm the truth of these claims, we turned to Yamaha Media
> Relations Manager Brad Banister. In a phone call yesterday afternoon,
> Banister confirmed that the 2006 R6 is definitely not revving anywhere
> close to the claimed redline - admitting that the tachometer is 'over
> 1,000 RPM off'."
>
> Oy. This was the centerpiece of Yamaha's marketing campaign. Can you
> say 'public relations disaster'?
"This one goes to eleven."
Greg Sumner
Seattle, WA
'98 XR400-DS
lub...@hotmail.com
That's hardly a "bombshell". Pretty much all sportbikes have very
optimistic tachos. Big deal, that's not even news. All manufacturers
fib the same way on the spec sheet, so the R6 is still the
highest-revving production bike.
What outrageous scoop will MotorcycleDaily come up with next? "CBR600RR
doesn't really make 130hp!" Or: "New ZX-6R weighs more than 362lbs
dry!"
-Gniewko
Andrew
Why don't you just make 10 the highest?
--
Andrew
00 Daytona
00 Speed Triple
71 Kawi H1
05 Infant
Andrew
Not sure but I think the Ninja 250 revs that high.
Bob Myers
"Andrew" <yogig.nosp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:44selqF...@individual.net...
> > "This one goes to eleven."
> Why don't you just make 10 the highest?
But...but...THIS one goes to ELEVEN!
Bob M.
Mark Olson
> lub...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> >> http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
> >>
> >> "R6s have already begun arriving in dealers, and a few early buyers
> >> have had a chance to take them to the dyno. Anyone who has dyno'd a
> >> bike knows that the dyno can take its own RPM readout by means of a
> >> sensor clipped to one of the bike's spark plug wires. It seems that
> >> 'unbelievable' might have been a better term to describe the 17,500 RPM
> >> limit - the tach may say 17,500, but the dyno's RPM plot tells the real
> >> truth, and that is that the R6 is revving to somewhere around 16,200
> >> RPM before hitting the programmed-in rev limiter.
> Not sure but I think the Ninja 250 revs that high.
...right before it explodes.
--
'01 SV650S '99 EX250-F13 '86 GL1200A '81 CM400T
OMF #7
Rayvan
Only 16,200? Puh. You want revs? My Dremel does over 30,000 RPM.
--
Rayvan
Tim Kreitz
> optimistic tachos.
Not in my experience. With regard to speedos, sure. But I've dynoed
both of my bikes and the tachs are pretty much right on the money.
In either case, 1,300 revs is a serious discrepancy -- especially
considering the amount of emphasis Yamaha placed on the 17,500 number
as a selling point.
Tim Kreitz
> Only 16,200? Puh. You want revs? My Dremel does over 30,000 RPM.
Heh-heh. And I bet you look awesome riding it down the dragstrip! ;-)
Rayvan
Tim Kreitz wrote:
> Rayvan wrote:
> > Only 16,200? Puh. You want revs? My Dremel does over 30,000 RPM.
>
> Heh-heh. And I bet you look awesome riding it down the dragstrip! ;-)
LOL! Well, it's just as comfortable as a Race Rep! <SFSF>
--
Rayvan
P.Roehling
"Mark Olson" <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote
>
>> Not sure but I think the Ninja 250 revs that high.
>
> ...right before it explodes.
Uh, they *do* have a rev limiter, you know.
Pete
Mark Olson
Well, yes, I do know... you see, I own one. And I'm pretty sure
if you managed to force it to 17,500 rpm _somehow_, it would
probably do exactly what I said it would do.
sqidbait
Tim Kreitz wrote:
> lub...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > That's hardly a "bombshell". Pretty much all sportbikes have very
> > optimistic tachos.
>
> Not in my experience. With regard to speedos, sure. But I've dynoed
> both of my bikes and the tachs are pretty much right on the money.
>
> In either case, 1,300 revs is a serious discrepancy -- especially
> considering the amount of emphasis Yamaha placed on the 17,500 number
> as a selling point.
MCN has slammed several manufacturers for optimistic tachs. I'm
pretty sure they took the last iteration of R6 to task for this.
I think Honda got dinged for the RC51 too.
<shrug> I'd look it up, but I don't care enough to. :-)
-- Michael
P.Roehling
"Mark Olson" <ols...@tiny.invalid> wrote
>>>
>>>> Not sure but I think the Ninja 250 revs that high.
>>>
>>> ...right before it explodes.
>>
>> Uh, they *do* have a rev limiter, you know.
>
> Well, yes, I do know... you see, I own one. And I'm pretty sure
> if you managed to force it to 17,500 rpm _somehow_, it would
> probably do exactly what I said it would do.
Try downshifting from 6th directly to 1st at about 80 mph. That oughta do
it.
Pete
Greek Shipping Magnets
>What outrageous scoop will MotorcycleDaily come up with next? "CBR600RR
>doesn't really make 130hp!" Or: "New ZX-6R weighs more than 362lbs
>dry!"
"Harley Davidson will not make your penis bigger!"
<gasp>
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
My 5cc RC model Wankel engine does 18,000RPM & 2.0HP or 400HP/liter on
30% nitro methane fuel). And some "ducked fans" two strokes even do
26,000RPM. Look F1 cars need pneumatic valve actuation in order to push
20,000RPM and 300HP per liter. Production bikes, even those 250HP FIM
990cc rockets are smaller per cylinder but still use steel valve
springs. The Japanese have a ways to go to do 300HP/liter from a
four-stroke engine. Recall that at their height the two stroke FIM bikes
were still getting just under 400HP/per liter. Then there was that
eight-valve twin spark plug oval piston 500cc Honda 4 stroke, with a
claimed 22,000RPM twenty years ago when fast Freddie tried to make a go
of it against the 500cc two strokes. Even back then the two strokes were
only making 160HP out of 500cc or about 320HP/liter.
As far as I know, the only two "pulsed power"=(piston) engines to
APROACH 1000HP per / liter were the old 4 cylinder BMW F1 1.5 liter
turbocharged four strokes and those tiny ducted fan NA two stroke
(pseudo-jet) engines turning 26,000 RPM on 40-50% nitro-methane fuel.
Forget about those top fuel (80%nitro) dragster engine with >500 cubic
inches even getting close to 1000HP / liter. 8.22liters /
6000=730HP/liter.
Real CW- (continuous combustion) jet engines exceed 1000HP per liter,
all the time. You do the math: 30,000+ pounds of static thrust from a GE
F101/F110 engine that weighs less than 10,000 pounds. I have no idea how
to convent to cubic inches of jet air volume but I'm reasonably certain
even a low gas velocity. Non-afterburning turbofan 737 engine (GE CFM56)
will easily exceed 1000HP per liter of engine volume. With 20,000+
pounds of thrust on tap out of an engine that weights maybe 5000 lbs and
has a 1st stage compressor diameter (not the fan) of maybe 24". All one
need do to convert is measure the static vacuum/pressure at the 1st
compressor stage then multiply the air volume based on the compressor
diameter then measure the net pressure and diameter, just aft of the
last exhaust turbine. Or in simpler terms just approximate the air
intake volume by the net static pressure ratio (>50:1 in the compressors
these days) of said engine then convert from static thrust to Horse
power; or 33,000 pound lifted one foot in one minute for one HP. Static
thrust can be measured with a calibrated and more exotic version of your
bathroom scale.
Bob Nixon
01 Sprint ST "RED" 52K
Chandler,AZ
http://bigrex.net/pictures
Rayvan
I like mashed potatoes.
--
Rayvan
_Bob Nixon_
wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
IOW, just intellectual masturbation considering my audience?
Tim Kreitz
> http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
UPDATE:
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/DRTYMEX/88cc8f84.jpg
Still don't think this situation is a serious deal for Yamaha? When was
the last time you heard of a manufacturer offering a complete buy-back?
Ari Rankum
> Tim Kreitz wrote:
>
>>http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
>
>
> UPDATE:
>
> http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/DRTYMEX/88cc8f84.jpg
>
> Still don't think this situation is a serious deal for Yamaha? When was
> the last time you heard of a manufacturer offering a complete buy-back?
Wow.
There's no wiggling in the wording having to do with any depreciation
the bike may already have due to mileage, cosmetic damage,
burnouts/donuts, hail damage, hunting trips with the Vice POTUS, etc.
Does this mean that 3-day holiday weekends with an R6 might be possible
for *FREE* between now and the Ides of March??? Hmmmmmm.
lub...@hotmail.com
> Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
>
> UPDATE:
>
> http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/DRTYMEX/88cc8f84.jpg
>
> Still don't think this situation is a serious deal for Yamaha? When was
> the last time you heard of a manufacturer offering a complete buy-back?
It's only a big deal because the issue was blown out of proportion in
the US motorcycle press. Or the US online motorcycle press. A 9% tacho
error really isn't a big problem, and anyone who decides to sell back
his bike because of this is a dumbass poser.
-Gniewko
sqidbait
OTOH, the high RPM limit was a key marketing point. And since I'm sure
that Yamaha ran the new R6 on a dyno during development and they
were responsible for programming the rev limiter, then they must have
known what the actual redline really was.
It appears that Yamaha was playing fast and loose with the facts
in order to have an advantage in the ultra competitive supersport
market, and they got burned for it.
-- Michael
Tim Kreitz
>...anyone who decides to sell back
> his bike because of this is a dumbass poser.
That, I agree with. Even at 16,100 rpm, the new R6 is still a screaming
machine that any new owner should be proud of. But a 9 percent tach
error on a bike that was promised to reach 17, 500 is a much bigger
deal than on an average street bike that only revs to around 10,000.
Cheers,
Tim Kreitz
2003 ZX7R
2000 ZX6R
Tony Adams
lub...@hotmail.com wrote:
As opposed to the rest of this class of bikers who are just regular old
posers?
--
1982 R100RT
ABC# 7739
BMWMOA# 119030
Calgary
Hard to believe Yamaha seriously thought no one would put the machine
on a Dyno and discover it would not hit the magic 17,500 mark.
I am thinking they just screwed up and now have to eat a little crow.
At least it appears they are taking the high road in compensating
folks for the misrepresentation, although they really had little
choice.
--
Don
RCOS# 7
No Riding Today
2000 - Yamaha Venture Millenium Edition
sqidbait
Calgary wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2006 15:30:36 -0800, "sqidbait" <sqid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >lub...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Tim Kreitz wrote:
> >> > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> >> > > http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
> >> >
> >> > UPDATE:
> >> >
> >> > http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/DRTYMEX/88cc8f84.jpg
> >> >
> >> > Still don't think this situation is a serious deal for Yamaha? When was
> >> > the last time you heard of a manufacturer offering a complete buy-back?
> >>
> >> It's only a big deal because the issue was blown out of proportion in
> >> the US motorcycle press. Or the US online motorcycle press. A 9% tacho
> >> error really isn't a big problem, and anyone who decides to sell back
> >> his bike because of this is a dumbass poser.
> >
> >OTOH, the high RPM limit was a key marketing point. And since I'm sure
> >that Yamaha ran the new R6 on a dyno during development and they
> >were responsible for programming the rev limiter, then they must have
> >known what the actual redline really was.
> >
> >It appears that Yamaha was playing fast and loose with the facts
> >in order to have an advantage in the ultra competitive supersport
> >market, and they got burned for it.
>
> on a Dyno and discover it would not hit the magic 17,500 mark.
>
I bet they thought that nobody would care enough to make a
big stink about it. ;-)
> I am thinking they just screwed up and now have to eat a little crow.
> At least it appears they are taking the high road in compensating
> folks for the misrepresentation, although they really had little
> choice.
Yup.
-- Michael
lub...@hotmail.com
Tony Adams wrote:
> In article <1139955408.9...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> lub...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > > Tim Kreitz wrote:
> > > > http://www.motorcycledaily.com/01february06_redline.htm
> > >
> > > UPDATE:
> > >
> > > http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/DRTYMEX/88cc8f84.jpg
> > >
> > > Still don't think this situation is a serious deal for Yamaha? When was
> > > the last time you heard of a manufacturer offering a complete buy-back?
> >
> > It's only a big deal because the issue was blown out of proportion in
> > the US motorcycle press. Or the US online motorcycle press. A 9% tacho
> > error really isn't a big problem, and anyone who decides to sell back
> > his bike because of this is a dumbass poser.
> >
> posers?
>
> --
> 1982 R100RT
> ABC# 7739
> BMWMOA# 119030
Nah, the regular posers are the old BMW riders :)
-Gniewko
Calgary
Well it was a big part of Yamaha's sales pitch for the bike so I am
sure they would have anticipated some backlash. We bike owners tend to
be a little fanatical about our rides.
From what I have heard it is still a hell of a bike and won't lose any
performance just because it stops spinning 1500rpm short of the
advertised 17,500.
David Steuber
> Hard to believe Yamaha seriously thought no one would put the machine
> on a Dyno and discover it would not hit the magic 17,500 mark.
Mistakes get made. Remember the Hubble's corrective eye surgery?
> I am thinking they just screwed up and now have to eat a little crow.
> At least it appears they are taking the high road in compensating
> folks for the misrepresentation, although they really had little
> choice.
The R6 is still a rather nice 600. It would be nice if Yammaha also
offered a revised tach for the instrument cluster that told the
truth. If I was into all that plastic, I would certainly be
comparison shopping it with the CBR600F4i and other plastic covered
600s.
--
http://www.david-steuber.com/
1998 Subaru Impreza Outback Sport
2006 Honda 599 Hornet (CB600F)
It's OK. You only broke your leg in three places. Walk it off.