Vyrus 986 M2 – Soon to Infect Moto2 & Showroom Floors

01/13/2011 @ 7:16 am, by Jensen Beeler14 COMMENTS

Vyrus 986 M2   Soon to Infect Moto2 & Showroom Floors Vyrus 986 M2 Moto2 concept 635x424

You remember Vyrus right? The company that makes the Vyrus 987 C3 4V…the Bimota Tesi look-alike with a Ducati 1198 motor, hub-steering, and a supercharger? Not willing to rest on its laurels as having “the most powerful production motorcycle in the world” (211hp gets you that title), the small Italian boutique firm seems set to enter Moto2 racing with its new Vyrus 986 M2 race bike, whose preliminary concept photo has just leaked out of the Rimini factory.

Taking the idea of prototype racing to its fullest dimension with its hub-center steering design, perhaps the only thing more exciting than the prospect of seeing a few of these Vyrus 986 M2′s at 18 of motorcycling’s best venues, is the prospect that a road-based version of the machine could be siting in our garage later this year (assuming we could afford such things). Details after the jump.

Like all Moto2 class machines, the Vyrus 986 M2 is based around a Honda CBR600RR motor, but will be the only bike on the Moto2 grid to feature hub-steering. While Vyrus says the new 986 M2 will be an affordable option for Moto2 teams, the company also has plans to take the bike to the consumers (likely with some modification to get around the “prototype” requirement in Moto2), offering a road bike version available for purchase.

This news makes us especially excited for the uniquely styled 600cc machine, and with a March 2011 delivery date on the road version, we’re surprised Vyrus has been able to keep this project under wraps for this long.

Scheduled to debut at the Verona show on January 21, 2011, we’ll have more info on this dream machine in a couple of weeks.

Source: Moto.it & OmniMoto.it

Comment:

  1. 76 says:

    Awesome news, hope they can can make the start and become competitive. Would really put the motorcycle world on its head

  2. Brammofan says:

    Hub steering… wow. I had to google that just to educate myself. There are some good youtube vids that show it in action. Seems to make a lot of sense but obviously not in use by many (if any?) major manufacturers.

  3. A couple manufacturers have played around with it, the Yamaha GTS1000 comes to mind. The generally consensus seems to be that the cost outweighs the benefits, but that is also coming from companies that have a financial interest in Öhlins and Showa, so…

  4. hoyt says:

    Very Nice.
    Prototype racing to its “fullest dimension” with a spec engine from 1 OEM? Any word on Moto2 allowing other manufacturers to enter their engines in the coming years?

  5. Keith says:

    Hoyt, I would have to say it DOES make sense. As far as drivetrains go and in spite of traction control, instant shift gear boxes and dual clutches there isn’t a whole lot new. Currently our power trains are well ahead of the chassis, suspension and brakes. So what’s wrong with Moto2 providing a competative venue to accelerate research? I like the Vyrus and it’s hubless steering.

  6. hoyt says:

    Keith, you state there isn’t a whole lot new. How is there going to be anything new with one manufacturer?

    accelerate research? Engines and chassis get developed together, not in silos. Your logic suggests engineers will learn everything they need to from the inline 4. It is bad enough motorcycles are primarily developed around one front-end design, the tele.

    Yamaha is only into their 3rd retail year of the cross-plane crank engine. What if they combined that with staggered pistons (e.g. Horex’s VR6) so their 4 is the size of a triple? The chassis now has more options.

    Aprilia is only into their 3rd racing season with a brand new v4.

    Sure, these companies can develop in the GP class but a lot of innovation comes from small companies with smaller engines. Let there be choices across various classes so more players can contribute new designs. Plus, supporting a full-on prototype GP class with a class that uses one engine from one manufacturer doesn’t jive.

    I think the Vyrus is great too and hope Martin Wimmer’s team gets their front-end on the grid this year. The more the merrier, so why stop at a CBR 600?

  7. “companies that have a financial interest in Öhlins and Showa”

    I am pretty sure that Yamaha sold it’s interest in Ohlins back to the company, although Honda still owns Showa.

    Hub center steering is probably still just a gimmicky thing and probably not a real improvement over telescopic forks. Even BMW decided to go with telescopic forks for their s1000rr, even though they had a lot of development in their Telelever and Paralever Systems.

    Although it’s good to see companies thinking outside the box, I don’t see a bunch of Moto2 teams jumping on board until it’s proven, which means Vyrus better have a deep war chest to go racing to prove their ideas are better than the norm

  8. Tom says:

    I like the different engineering that I’m seeing these days, but I have to take issue with the names. Motus, Vyrus, Motoczysz, etc. None of them roll off the tongue in a “cool” or endearing manner. Maybe someday some with get a Vyrus tattoo to show their devotion, but I’m just not feeling it.

  9. ds says:

    BMW went w/a tele front because the tele is most widely accepted, but it is not necessarily the best engineered solution

  10. froryde says:

    DROOL! Might have to sell the Tesi 3D to get this one!

  11. “BMW went w/a tele front because the tele is most widely accepted, but it is not necessarily the best engineered solution”

    According to a BMW developer of the S100RR they said they tried the telelever, but for the best lap time, the telescopic fork was best. Also said was that the Duolever system results in too long of a wheelbase for racing. Also said, the natural braking dive of the telescopic fork “changes the steering angle and the trail, and riders find that leads to ease of turning, at race pace” This was from the latest edition of Roadracing World. While there may be other engineering solutions to the front end of the motorcycle, manufacturers have had almost 80 years to develop a new design, but have not. They have chosen to evolve the conventional fork. Probably for good reason

  12. ds says:

    I agree with most of those points but there are other designs in addition to the BMW version of the telelever and duolever. There are other factors at play too:

    racers will always prefer the tele because that is all they know & have known (for the time being).

    80 yrs ago, the tele was revolutionary and was the best so other designs did not seriously emerge until the 80s. Look at the results of designs like the RADD & 6x Flex with a fraction of the development time compared to the tele. Incidentally, the latter designs do incorporate some telescoping action to include some dive.

  13. ds says:

    …and the duolever and telelevers do not include dive (as far as I know)

  14. ds says:

    oops…telelever does include dive. BMW’s version of that setup has been fairly heavy so that wouldn’t have been included on a bike like the 1000RR anyway