Toni Elias fastest @ MotoAmerica 2 day test on all new 2017 Suzuki GSX-R1000, at Thunderhil...
Link
Toni Elias fastest @ MotoAmerica 2 day test on all new 2017 Suzuki GSX-R1000, at Thunderhil...
Link
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASLS1
Allowing the intake valve to close earlier at lower RPM, having the ability to close it later and vary overlap as revs increase could effectively improve low RPM torque and high RPM power all at the same time. Of course low RPM for a race bike compared to a street bike are going to be very different places but depending on the actual camshaft profiles, the timing variation possible and the amount of centrifugal force (revs) required to overcome the resistance in the VVT system, I suspect there's probably some gains to be had everywhere, not only top end power.
I was just thinking about the VVT application in other bikes and it struck me. Who else is doing it! Honda has had VTEC for years yet doesn't use it on the Fireblade. Ducati has Testastretta DVT, but again don't use it on the Panigale. In MotoGP where Suzuki "pioneered" this tech. They aren't exactly doing very well. One could argue that the Desmodromic system Ducati uses is why they are far and away the most powerful engines in MotoGP. But I doubt it. So if VVT was the be all and end all.. Wouldn't everyone be doing it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason01
It's called the Suzuki Broad power system, which provides the most power across the largest RPM range.
Suzuki have optimized the cam timing for power in the low/mid range, and in conjunction with the new SR-VVT system, which optimizes the cam timing only in the High RPM range from approx 10000 RPM to red line when it actuates, significantly increasing high-rpm power. Supplying the broadest power across the whole RPM range. Best of both worlds...
Compared to non variable systems, you could only optimize power in a low/mid RPM Range or the high RPM range, while comprising the power in the other range...
The SR-VVT is very simply and you can vary the RPM point at which it actuates (turns on) by simply varying the preload springs in the SR-VVT assembly.
The preload springs are the two pieces, on the right hand side of the picture...
http://www.sportrider.com/sites/spor...0bUlc&fc=50,50
The "Preload Springs" holding the 2 plates with the balls in between them together, in the SR-VVT assembly, are what directly effects, when the SR-VVT assembly actuates.
As, once a certain RPM is reached, the centrifugal force of the balls, over comes the force of the preload springs, the balls move radially outward and actuates the assembly.
Make the preload springs weaker, the SR-VVT will actuate at a lower RPM.
Make the preload springs stronger, the SR-VVT will actuate at a higher RPM.
The SR-VVT used in the Motogp bike is exactly the same system, as now installed on the all new 2017 GSX-R road bike for the first time ever.
It provides the same benefits and outcomes in both situations, Broad power range...
Obviously, the only difference would be the RPM point at which the SR-VVT actuates (turns on), which Suzuki have never disclosed for the MotoGP Bike...
Suzuki where the first to come up with their SR-VVT idea, and in coming years no doubt, other manufactures will copy it in some way or form...Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
Suzuki weren't in MotoGP for a while also, is another factor...
Latest pic of Toni Elias, MotoAmerica testing, 2017 GSX-R1000 @ Thunderhill...
http://www.motoamerica.com/sites/mot...XaWlf&fc=50,50
Possibly. But it remains to be seen, VCT aint new. Like I mentioned, its been used in other brands bikes for some time, yet no one has bothered to implement it in their top model superbikes to date. Why? Consider also in MotoGP, electro/hydraulic VCT is banned. Suzuki got cleaver to do it the way they did. But again if it was so good, wouldn't the other brands be doing it too. Its not like the development of engine tech at the top level takes long to copy and its not like it has made Suzuki a top runner. Their engine is still behind that of Ducati, Yamaha and Honda.Quote:
Originally Posted by SASLS1
Weren't the first by a long shot either it seems to do a centrifugal VCT system. This thing looks agricultural at best.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R14JOaA1Tjk
Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
The Suzuki SR-VVT is all patented, other manufactures just cant directly copy it straight out, straight away. In time yes... plus Suzuki kept it a secret for of period of time also.
We'll have to see how it goes on the road bike over the coming year, when all the 1K sport bikes get tested all together.
Being that the SR-VVT, is all new, in the Sportbike Market this year.
Money also has alot to do with it performance, as Honda, Yamaha, and Ducati have always had the biggest budgets in MotoGP, compared to Suzuki.
That ain't no motorcycle engine.... :lmao:Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
Zero references of what it is either, some random car engine.
Can it redline at 14500 RPM like the Suzuki...
Hahaha......
Ohhhhhh. So Suzuki implementing mechanical centrifugal VCT to use in a "motorcycle" makes it innovative. My bad, I thought you were claiming they actually did something new.Quote:
Originally Posted by SASLS1
Mechanical engine tech is certainly the way to go though. Screw electronic sorcery right! Next year I heard they are going to implement mechanical fuel injection and ignition technology. It will be called SR-CARBY and SR-DIZZY (patent pending). Really breathtaking stuff; the other brands must be shitting themselves. hahahaha
Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
It's the First, All Out Super Sport Road Bike to have a 100% mechanical VVT system, with zero hydraulic or electronic control...
Its very simply, compact, light weight, does its intended purpose and works seamlessly in operation.
I never said, it was the best system....
BTW, push rods are Still used in every LS engine, have been used for decades in Chevy Small / Big blocks, are very simple, and work. The LT5 ZR1 engine went to overhead cams, and had no pusrods. LT5 was too expensive, to complicated and GM went back to simple push rod design, and still made more power, less complicated, more compact, simpler and at a cheaper cost...
These are the exact reasons why, LS engine conversion into every other car brand know to man, are the most popular engine conversion Bar None....
Every single other car brand forum I have come across, there is always an LS conversion being done...
On the word "Innovation...."
I Never Ever.... use the word, "innovative or innovation" for anything.... Period!!!.......... It's the Most, Over Used BUZZ word of all time, and means Completely Nothing Anymore... It's a Totally Meaningless word to me...
The word has been totally Burned To Death from Over Use, by every Politician, Newsreader, Reporter, Company Management, Job Add etc... I hear it everyday and all the people saying it, aren't "innovating" Squat / SFA....
You will Never hear me Say, Utter, State or Imply that meaningless word Ever... other than this paragraph, to get my point across...
Lol you've missed the point havent you. Sucked in by Suzuki marketing it would seem, with terms like "developed for MotoGP".Quote:
Originally Posted by SASLS1
They only implemented it in MotoGP because electronics are somewhat locked down therefore you can't do it any other way. On a road bike no one else does it mechanically and why the hell would they when electro/hydraulic VCT is very reliable and offers much more flexibility with tuneability.
You also missed my other point completely. Suzuki is at the back of the pack in MotoGP, so clearly it isn't helping much if at all.
No one else who has electronic VCT systems in their lower end bikes has bothered to incorporate it into their superbike models. Clearly it's not that big a deal.
The other brands have proven their reliability. This adaptation hasn't proved jack yet. Those preload spring plates may wear quicker than anticipated resulting in earlier advance than calibrated for. Hows the manufacturers tolerance for metal fatigue taken into account. What happens if one ballbearing starts to wear and sticks resulting in an imbalance. Hell if anything this system adds more complexity than an electro/hydraulic solution. Time will tell
But I guess Suzuki saw the opportunity to slap a "developed in MotoGP" label on it to appeal to all the Habibs out there who will be buying these things to cruise on looking fully sick. You can't blame them for that I guess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macca_779
You ignored / cut my point off Simplicity and Cost....
Here it is again, so you can read it again...
(BTW, push rods are Still used in every LS engine, have been used for decades in Chevy Small / Big blocks, are very simple, and work. The LT5 ZR1 engine went to overhead cams, and had no pusrods. LT5 was too expensive, to complicated and GM went back to simple push rod design, and still made more power, less complicated, more compact, simpler and at a cheaper cost...
These are the exact reasons why, LS engine conversion into every other car brand know to man, are the most popular engine conversion Bar None....
Every single other car brand forum I have come across, there is always an LS conversion being done...)
Just because a system is more complicated, doesn't automatically make it better...
As I said previously, the team's with the largest budgets in MotoGP, will have the best results, Honda, Yamaha, and Ducati being the one with the most coin, and Suzuki is behind them in sponsorship money. Hence the results reflect this..... "Suzuki is at the back of the pack in MotoGP, so clearly it isn't helping much if at all." The VVT system Alone isn't the Sole reason...... there not winning races...... there are hundreds of other variable that come into play, to make the bike, the fastest on the track...
No need to State The Obvious..... already known fact that hydraulic and electronic VVT is banned in MotoGP... "They only implemented it in MotoGP because electronics are somewhat locked down therefore you can't do it any other way."
This is just a subjective opinion and is not a fact... "On a road bike no one else does it mechanically and why the hell would they when electro/hydraulic VCT is very reliable and offers much more flexibility with tuneability." Hydraulic VVT is very reliable really.... Nissan SR20 DET VVT is far from reliable, and gets very noisy over time as it wears out, and costs heaps to buy a new VVT sprocket from Nissan... How do I know this, I own a S14 200sx...
An Electronic/Hydraulic VVT system is Far More Complicated / Expensive to make & produce, than a very simple 100% mechanical VVT system, sure it would be more flexible by the ECU being able to vary the output of the system compared to a fixed 100% mechanical VVT system, but it all comes down to cost, if a manufacturer will go down that path.
Once again your making hollow assumptions... "This adaptation hasn't proved jack yet." The 2017 all new GSX-R1000/R hasn't even been released to the public yet, hasn't been tested against all the other brand 1K Super Sport road bikes yet, what do it expect seriously...... How's it meant to prove itself, before it has even happened........
I cut it off because it's irrelevant and you were just waffling bullshit as you have again clogging up this thread with crap.
Happy to discuss the merits of the new Gixxer. But don't get your panties in a twist when someone else argues a point that doesn't align with the Suzuki marketing machine.
I think VCT has merit. Never argued that. Just stating there are quite a few other very successful brands that have had VCT for much longer than Suzuki but have made the decision not to implement it in their bikes.
Now you're comparing cars to bikes after I pointed out mech VCT wasn't a Suzuki invention lol. But ok let's do that. An S14 doesn't do it so well, cool. These things are what, over 20 years old and early in the development! Let's look at Toyota VVT-I. Honda VTECH, BMW VANOS, FORD VCT etc etc etc. How many Falcon Taxis kicking around with half a million k's and VCT working just fine lol!! Yeah real unreliable [emoji25]
Back on topic. BIKES!! Honda VTEC is rock solid! Has been for years. Yet again though. They don't bother on the Fireblade. WHY???