Yamaha R6 & Yamaha R1 to Get Three-Cylinder Motors?

10/19/2012 @ 11:10 am, by Jensen Beeler53 COMMENTS

Debuting a “crossplane” three-cylinder engine at the INTERMOT show, Yamaha has gotten the word out that it intends on making more inspiring motorcycles, and part of that plan includes the use of triples in its upcoming bikes. Knowing that at least one, if not several future Yamahas will use the hinted-at three-cylinder lump, the Brits over at Visordown have gotten word from their sources within Yamaha Japan that in the coming future, the Yamaha YZF-R6 & Yamaha YZF-R1 will be two of the bikes to receive such modifications.

Expected to come in 675cc and 1,100cc, the Yamaha R6 & Yamaha R1, respectively, would be a stark contrast the bevy of inline-four machines that dominate supersport and superbike racing. While many supersport rules already accommodate a 675cc triple (thank you Triumph), Yamaha is said to be lobbying World Superbike for a 1,100cc displacement dispensation for three-cylinder engines in premier production racing class. Under current rules, a triple would have to be 1,000cc, just like the four-cylinder machines.

Saying its three-cylinder motor has a “crossplane” configuration, details are virtually non-existent at what Yamaha means by its “crossplane” statement. One theory is that the pistons fire 120° apart from each other, while other theories suggest that a 90° crankshaft configuration has been maintained, as on the current Yamaha YZF-R1, with a counterbalance used for the “missing” cylinder in that design.

However Yamaha plans on implementing its engine and bike design, does the thought of a three-cylinder Yamaha YZF-R1 excite you? If so, Yamaha may be onto something here.

Source: Visordown; Photos: Yamaha

  • Michael

    I like the idea of an inline triple R1 and R6. This would give Yamaha a chance to make both bikes much slimmer which is something the R1 in particular really needs.

  • Afletra

    For REAL??? Can’t wait to hear the sound, and the performance ofcourse.

  • Jake

    I dig it. The new R1 sounds like the superbike I’ve been wanting Triumph to make for years.

  • Cpt.Slow

    What 2014 sbk landscape may look like= 3pl (cp) r1, v4 rc, v4 ape, V2 Pani, V2 ktm, i4 s1krr, i4 10r, i4 gix, i4 f4.

  • Kurt

    Bout derned time. As an owner of a Benelli triple, and having ridden a lot of the other 3-cylinders, I believe they are the optimal engine for a motorcycle. I hope this comes to fruition… a triple-powered R1 sounds like a fantastic idea. I may even have to consider buying one to add to my garage.

  • TC

    If what Cpt.Slow suspected is true, 2014 will shape up to be helluva season!

  • T.J.

    Interesting? Yes! For real? I don’t think so. 3 cyls cannot deliver necessary power with same capacity as 4 cylinder. The Panigale just arrived to the range where the I4’s are, however it has 20% bigger displacement and the superquadrata extremely oversquared.

  • Mikeg81

    I, for one, welcome our 3 cylinder overlords.

    If it works, it’ll be a welcome addition to the usual 4 cylinder/v-twin superbike stew. Now, if only the 750 class would come back to life….

  • Jake

    I think it’s a stupid idea. If they want to go 3 cylinder fine but come up with a new line and not kill the current ones. When I wanted a twin I bought a Ducati. The crossplane R1 had no interest for me and was pissed that there wasn’t an R1 I wanted when I was ready to buy. I personally am not interested in 3 cylinders or V4s and have no shame in saying I like high reving in line fours. So if this is true then that just makes my next bike purchase a lot easier as I can scratch Yamaha off my list

  • Dr. Gellar

    If this actually happens…it’s about time! Not so much that Yamaha itself would produce a triple-cylinder supersport and superbike, but that one of the Big 4 Japanese companies finally decides not to follow the same old heavily-trotten inline-4 engine paths for said machines. Sure Honda has had it’s various v-4’s over the years, but even they have stayed true to the same cookie-cutter inline-4 philosophy with it’s CBR’s

    T.J….did you read the article?? The new Yamaha triples would be 675cc (R6) and 1,100cc (R1) respectively, not 600cc and 1,000cc as the 4-cylinder machines they currently are.

  • Dark Horse

    I think I just heard a collective “Oh No!” from Hinkley.

  • Shawn

    Yes please!

  • MikeD

    KOOL AID voice:


    With that been said…a Tripl3 R6 & R1 are hard to accept ( idea not sinking, YET )…i blame the relentless I-4 FORCED FEEDING/POUNDING all these past years…(^_^)

    Feels like staring at your “UN-insuranced TOTAL LOST crashed motorcycle that u were riding just a moment ago”…yeah, that feeling.

    But to a happier note and to echo Shawn and the others……………………… YES PLEASE ! BRING IT ! Dump all or MOST of your “Rev me to the moon, pull my hair and smack me in the booty” I4s and slap TRIPLES in those frames from the R6 to the FJR !!!!

    I hope these “new” crossplane engines are nothing more than regular 120* crank triples just being sugar coated/embellished by Yamaha’s PR department B.S babling and not some overcomplicated, dummy piston, god knows what else they did inside it, Technology Tour De Force just for the hell of it a la Honda Style.

    And YOU….YES YOU, HONDA…MORE V4s/V2s and LESS FLAT CRANK I-4 B.S… MAN UP YOU PANZIES…bread and butter my butt…i want more diversity, make that more AFFORDABLE diversity….not some $75k v4 MotoGP Replica that even to dream about will cost me $$$.




    Seems like they finally found their long lost BALLS. Yamaha that is. Honda’s still on the run…inside their kitchen’s cabinet.


    My good Sr., please step this way…. for your kind of taste we still have around Honduh, Red Blooded Kawasaki and a “somehow neutered but still breathing” Suzuki…but if u happen to be a High Roller or Baller you may want to direct yourself to your local MV Agusta stealership.

    P.S: No shame on liking Screamers. (^_^). Is w/e tickles your pickle.

  • Mormont

    Only if its available in Panache Green.

  • FrankThaTank

    I’ve owned a triumph Daytona 675 at the same time my wife had her cbr600 rr. (Both 08’s) and having rode them both back to back for several years. I have to admit the Honda was a better bike as far as quality, refinement, and ease of use. Which one would I buy again?? The Triumph…. Why? Because it was so much damn fun. I love inline fours they are great for the track, and I know why the big four kept making them, easy to make them fast and win. But I commend Yamaha if they really do build this bike. Ask just about any seasoned rider and they will usually tell you there favorite bike for the street was something a little different. Why is there such a big following for triumph triples, Honda RC’s, and variouse twins?? They are just down right fun to ride. Yes it’s cool to see your bike win on Sundays, but most of us just are not at that level of riding. For me I would rather have an enjoyable Sunday ride on something different. Than see my built to win, no compromises bike win on Sunday. So please Yamaha, do something different. Step out of the norm bring in a little passion and give us a bike we can really truely use and enjoy. (If it wins races too, that’s just bonus)

  • This will certainly slimmed-down their profile and should improve the midrange torque significantly. The only question is how will it affect power output overall and top-end punch.

  • Westward

    N I C E !!!

  • Jake

    @Mike D

    Already been the MV route and that was a result of the changes Yamaha made to the R1 that I didn’t like. I just don’t understand the thinking or the comments by others. If you hate I4s then why not simply buy something else? Nothing is being force feed. As I stated previously I don’t my R1 trying to act like a twin. If I want a twin I’ll go out and buy a twin. I tried the Triump and hated it and don’t understand what the draw is about triples and that is why the MV F3 has no interest from me. If this is indeed true I will be getting a R6 very soon.

    Yamaha kills me because they rely on gimmicks too much and still end up with a bike that doesn’t perform as good with the competition. They had exciting bikes until they go into the facisination with gimmicks. and it just went down hill from there. as Yamaha was the brand that got me into motorcycles this is extremely disappointing. Guess I’ll have to switch over to dirtbikes

  • Jake

    and by very soon I mean getting one of the current gen R6 before they put a triple into them. Glad I still have my 05 R1. Yamaha has done nothing but kill the R1 since

  • razer60

    i think it is a great idea for yamaha to make a 3 cylinder r1.. let me explain; the current r1 is in its current state is very wide as a result of the 4 cylinder engine it has quite a bit of drag compared to other bikes such as a v-twin or v-four because of its drag coefficiency (frontal air resistance) now with a 3 cylinder it will be much narrower meaning less drag and being 3 cylinders across the frame it should have similar centre of gravity and mid corner stability that current r1 is known for. being narrow naturally yamaha have the ability to make the cylinder bore very oversquare and make it a very short stroke motor even more so than the current 4 cylinder this means more power and more revs. the character of a 3 cylinder crossplane engine would have a more pronounced pulsing feeling which is a definite plus in my books (3 larger pistons recipricating + crossplane instead of 4 smaller ones + crossplane) and have a strong torque feeling throughout the rev range especially at the bottom. and finally yamaha can keep the very short wheelbase because the 3 cylinder engine is not only compact from left to right but also front to rear. now the only problem i can think of for this engine arrangement is it would be down on power compared to other four cylinder superbikes but if yamaha have a plan up their sleeves (my guess is a super short stroke engine) than this could make the ultimate superbike.

  • razer60

    i missed out one important piece of information on my last post and that is yamaha are actually able to afford having a super oversquare bore because the crossplane crankshaft remedies the peaky power delivery, poor throttle response and other side effects inherit to a multi cylinder super short stroke engine.

  • razer60

    if any one is wondering i rode a 2009 r1 with the crossplane engine and it was amazing, if only i could afford one :(

  • MikeD

    Somehow i still think they still have a good thing with the current 4 cyl Crossplane…but if they think the Triple will be better…HEY…im no engineer here. LOL.


    No one said we hate the I4s, we are just mostly sick [saturated] of the same old same old from Japan Inc for so many years (when all 4 majors OEMs are cranking out only I4s on their street bikes [cruisers don’t count] for so long it does feel like being forced feeding, JMHO)…the Crossplane twist(pun intended) was a bit refreshing FOR A CHANGE.

    Lucky you there are still plenty of flat crank R1s & R6s in mint condition on Craigslist…and not for a lot of coin.

    U said: If you hate I4s then why not simply buy something else?

    I don’t hate it, i just wanted something different from the same people (Japan).

    Because Triumphs, MV Agustas are not a dime a dozen and their reliability may not be there yet with the Japanese brands or have a dealer on every City or Town or spares come by as easy and quick to obtain.

    Im just happy to know that part of Japan Inc will try somethig else than I4s…U and many others have had it your way (flat crank I4s) and been spoiled long enough now…(^_^)…let’s not be selfish. LOL.

  • Halfie 30

    @ Jake. In line fours are indeed shoved down our throat! What other options do we have other than exotics?! The R1 is the exception, but it still behaves more like an I-4 than a twin. Saying it’s a I-4 that acts like a twin makes me wonder if you’ve ridden a true twin supebike like a Tiller or an Rc51.

    So if you want truely different competitive sport bike you have to buy an expensive Euro built machine. The Japanese Big Four need some one to step out of “your” norm, and try to be competitive to open up innovation in the “we all can afford it” main stream.

  • Cpt.Slow

    (((((Now observe the “unconventional engine config” band wagons assemble)))))

  • Cpt.Slow

    I can’t work out an advantage on the R1. Although for the R6 it feels like it makes sense, since that thing is a gutless wonder (now for all of you fans don’t get all butt hurt, it’s a great bike).

    As for this new Honda, it seems to be not a CBR successor but a different model. A pricey, superbike model, with no indication of a supersport variant.

    The lack of choice argument, to me holds little credence. The Daytona has been around and reasonably priced, esp the 675r. Yet the R6 liters the scene scene like a cheap @#$ (again it’s a great bike) but not the cbr!

    Some just can’t operate outside of their over-lords… “Oh Yama and Honda are going this direction, it must be the best”.


    (((((Now observe the “unconventional engine config” band wagons assemble)))))

  • MikeD

    @Capt. Slow:

    Im ok with my Japanese over-lords[specially now that things could change a bit]…just don’t trust the Euro ones yet…u can keep’em.

    675 too weedy and the 1050 a Fossil by now…nothing yet from them calls my attention. Call me when they make a NEW 1200 HyperBike or Standard…i don’t like shifting.

  • Cpt.Slow

    MikeD, there is nothing necessarily wrong with picking which sand box you want to play-in (I have a cbr250r in my stable). I personally just don’t subscribe to one source for a solution. Yes, Japan. Inc is comprised of four separate companies… that pretty much serve the same product (again, nothing wrong with that).

    With current developments, the label “gimmick” was presented here earlier- I can’t rule that out completely (for the r1) yet. HP can no-longer as big of a selling tool.

    Don’t like shifting? Mmmm, who about these: Cb1k, FZ1k, Z1k, Busa, Tmax? I can’t name anymore since it will be outside of your bento box.

  • Cpt.Slow

    *HP can no-longer be used as a big selling tool*

  • Could be an interesting combination if Yamaha could achieve the power of an I4, the sound of a triple and the torque of a twin (due to the crossplane crank) then combine that with the smaller frontal area and it sounds like an interesting concept. Yamaha may use the magnesium casting process for the complete frameso maybe then can shave a lot of weight and reach Ducati Panigale level combined with current 1000’s power levels…The R1 and R6 have been on the market unchanged for a lot of years so Yamaha will for sure come up with something interesting

  • Cpt.Slow


    For those that have forgotten what the last big triple looked like in competition. To get riding impressions, just ask Colin, lol. FLAME-ON!

  • WetMan

    I don’t see what is inspiring and new about a triple. There is a perfectly good 675 triple available on the market. A crossplane configuration… really? If ever there was a gimmick….

    And the sound is so great?
    I always wear my earplugs because with my daily 130+ kmph commuting I would go deaf in a couple of weeks. So I don’t give a hoot about the noise the thing makes.
    But I guess if you only drive along the coastal highway to impress the girlies then yes, triples have a great sound.

  • MikeD

    Cpt.Slow said:

    I personally just don’t subscribe to one source for a solution.

    Don’t like shifting? Mmmm, who about these: Cb1k, FZ1k, Z1k, Busa, Tmax? I can’t name anymore since it will be outside of your bento box.

    *HP can no-longer be used as a big selling tool*


    Indeed, a bad habit…it could get u stock in some ugly/akward places/situations…always try to have a plan B and then some.

    All great machines, all some 180* Ole Flatter Cranker, T Max 360* Flat. Busa too sporty but i most say i have always wanted to try a ZED14…Flat crank or not.
    Bento Box ? Oh…..you are good.

    Sadly No or just to a point…Electronics the new HP or so people like to blurt.

    Oh no u didn’t……..how dare you go there !!! …………the Engine had nothing to do with it. It wasn’t it’s time to shine. With todays electronics advancements/aids i wouldn’t be surprised if it were at least on the last place of the front row…u know what ? Bite me…i love that machine and won’t stand for this dissing it. I challenge u to a fisty cuff figth…ROTFLMAO.

    WetMan said:

    There is a perfectly good 675 triple available on the market.
    And the sound is so great?
    I don’t give a hoot about the noise the thing makes.
    But I guess if you only drive along the coastal highway to impress the girlies then yes, triples have a great sound.

    Why have only ONE guy doing it ? Are they absolute, allmigthy and et al when it comes to Triples ?
    CHOICES DUDE, CHOICES……….there’s no such thing as too many choices. It makes life worth living.
    Besides, what Triumph still have/offers i don’t care about it…very good products but it don’t tickle my pickle.

    Highly Subjective…i happen to like it…i think they make a great sound/[noise ?]…no, no Coastal Highway for me, just VAST XPANSES of flat land and long straigth Highways with the odd curve from time to time.
    Color me Squid and Poser…(^_^)

    P.S: I do need some good ear plugs. My Icon helmet is friggin noisy and my D&Ds, let’s no even go there…LOL.

  • sunstroke

    “being narrow naturally yamaha have the ability to make the cylinder bore very oversquare and make it a very short stroke motor even more so than the current 4 cylinder this means more power and more revs”

    Except that stroke is not the limiting factor for the current 600cc Supersport bikes. All Japanese 600cc engines can rev well beyond what the valvetrain can withstand so it isn’t necessary to continue de-stroking engines to get total revs. In fact, reducing the number of cylinders, but maintaining the same stroke and displacement (bigger pistons/valves) would merely put more strain on the top end at the same engine speed. I suppose you could add more valves, like the old 5-valve R1s or 6-valve OW-02s, but then the bike becomes less production relevant and more expensive.

    I like the idea of 3-cylinder Supersport bikes, but I do not like 3-cylinder Superbikes. Supersport engines should be scaled versions of Superbike engines (vice versa), and the FIM should use the homologation papers and technical regulations to require interchangeable parts between the classes. If SBK is 1000cc, Supersports should be 750cc triples with identical pistons, rods, rings, valves, injectors, combustion chambers, etc. If 4-cylinder SBKs are 800cc, the corresponding Supersport should be a 600cc triple.

    Supersport bikes are overpriced and expensive to own. It is hurting the industry and our wallets. Scale the engines and reduce the number of spare parts across the RR lineup so we can afford to ride on the streets and at trackdays. Save the exotic designs for GP replicas. The current I-4 600s can graduate to Moto2.

  • MonkeyPaintR

    Very slick Yamaha! Every one is realizing Japanese bikes are boring and racing isn’t as big of a seller as before. They realized that they need to have an interesting engine to sell, not just performance. So they choose to be the first Japanese sport bikes to have a 3 cylinder, claiming dibs the cheapest to produce of the ” interesting engine configurations”. Now the other Japanese companies will either have “copy” or use more expensive designs.

    Hats off to Yamaha..

  • jack

    Nothing wrong with a 3 cyl. Can’t believe all the wierd crap in the comment section of this article. There is nothing bad about Triumph or the 1050 motor. I’ve got 80,000 miles on mine and basically only routine maintenance. The price of the European bikes is no more than the Japanese bikes if you bother to check. The HP output of any engine only equals the amount of effort that was applied by the designers and engineers to achieve it. There is no doubt that Yamaha has the talent to produce a triple that will perform as well or better than anything that is out there. CHILL !!!!!

  • TexusTim

    three cylinder will be hard to ballance, may have weird gyroscopic effects why are they doing this instead of a v4 ?..the v4 can make a very narow bike and very smooth power. Honda is on the right track..after just rebuilding a crashed 2012 R6 and a year ago a 2008 cbr 1K I have to say the honda has way better duability and it just crashes better..the way the fairing mounts to the frame is stupid.
    definetly light weight bits but doesnt stand up to a lot of wrenching….sorry yamaha ! I wanted to be wowed…the power is all choked up with that exhaust and delay in throttle response due to “flapper ” lag…over all I would take an 06 600 cbr over a 2012 yamaha r6..at least right now even the brakes are not as good a 6 year older cbr.

  • Vince


    You state the Yamahas have too many gimmicks and don’t perform as well as the competition. I think otherwise. In 2009 Yamaha won the WSBK ( Ben Spies had something to do with it too) on the crossplane R1. Josh Hayes won the AMA championship the last three years on the crossplane R1. That bike has won in BSB too.The R6 is very common in the privateer ranks whenever I go to watch club racing( infact it is the dominant bike in the mileu of kitted race bikes). Chaz Davies won a WSS championship on one.

    Yamahas have the longest valve clearance check interval in the industry: every 42000 km (26600 mi). When I got my 2009 R1 checked recently, it needed only one shim.

    As far as I kown, Yamaha is the only manufacturer that allows one to perfrorm a full diagnostic of major components with dash ( meter). i.e. with the shop manual guiding you , you can go through a menu and , e.g test the left fan or the right signal light. My mechanic friends tell me no other brand can do that.

    I owned a 2006 R1 ( almost the same as your your 2005) and now I currently ride a 2009 since new. It has 50,000 smile inducied km. The engine character is so amazing that I want to keep it forever.

  • Vince


    Yes the stock R6 (2008-12) is down on low end and mid range power compared to the competition. But it is designed to be a race bike and when it it fully kitted ( built motor, suspension,etc) it seems to be the bike privateers pick over the other brands. to go racing. When ever I go to a club race ( Vancouver BC, Seattle WA, Portland,OR, Thunder Hill at Willows , CA) there are more R6s in the grids than the other brands. It is the best base from wich to build and win on. This is my anecdotal evidence, I could be wrong.

    If you still have the R6 Tim, getting the ECU reflashed will make it sing, And change the brake pads or install braded braked lines. All the privateers still use those stock ubiquitous calipers that have been on the 2004-2006 R1 and the 2005- 2012 R6.


  • TexusTim

    cmon guys you know that

  • TexusTim

    Im not racing the yamaha I rebuilt it for a friend after he crashed it… I race a 08 honda cbr superbike CMRA #282

  • MikeD

    TexusTim said:

    Three cylinder will be hard to ballance, may have weird gyroscopic effects why are they doing this instead of a v4 ?..the v4 can make a very narow bike and very smooth power. Honda is on the right track..

    Nope…there’s the WELL KNOWN means to do it.
    WRONG, no more gyroscopic effect than a LONGER I4 crank.
    U said yourself, Honda is doing it, let Yamaha try the I3. V-4 are a Biatch front to back (usually longer than I4 and harder to package).

    jack says:

    Nothing wrong with a 3 cyl. Can’t believe all the wierd crap in the comment section of this article. There is nothing bad about Triumph or the 1050 motor. I’ve got 80,000 miles on mine and basically only routine maintenance. The price of the European bikes is no more than the Japanese bikes if you bother to check. The HP output of any engine only equals the amount of effort that was applied by the designers and engineers to achieve it.

    Jack, my good Sr.

    Your dear faithful, anvil reliable, runs forever, my poop smells like roses Hinckley Triple is a DINOSAUR (the 1050 that is) It’s roots and fundamental traits go back almost 20 years to the 955 and the one before it. Accept it. Keep moving. Even Triumph knows it. It can’t grow anymore, soon it won’t pass emissions and will be dropped, et al.
    It would be like me sayig my SV1000N engine is better than the Aprilia V-2 1200….NON-SENSE.

    Hardly, BMWs are still a ship load more money than almost anything from Japan Inc.

    Yes, they put a lot of effort into it and it was the dog’s nuts…10 years ago ?

  • King Kenny

    While hardly the last word on this topic here are my 2 cents….

    Flat crank Inline 4’s are the cheapest, easiest & most efficient way to make big power from an engine for a give displacement & the bike manufacturers ALL know this. This the best overall compromise on paper to do the above with the 1000cc engine limits in place & why most bike manufacturers use this engine. This configuration offers many advantages including build costs (1 cylinder block, head, set of camshafts, valvetrain & throttle bodies), ease of exhaust silencing, efficiency of the airbox for its size, minimal friction (best power, torque & fuel effeciency). The even firing I4 allows all of this due to its non overlapping (almost) combustion phases which allow smaller crank journals, bearings & camchains to be utilised all reducing friction, drag & weight. The negative are though that the engine has a nasty flutter in it’s rotation caused by the reciprocating nature of the pistons which are arranged to all stop dead twice per revolution. This causes noise in the feedback to the rider when looking for grip (& the higher the RPM the worse it gets) as well as increased tyre wear from having to absorb these fluctuations constantly. Also the wide crank & engine have alot of inertia making changes of direction harder & making the bike physically wide & hard to maintain ground clearance at full lean.

    V4’s are expensive to build & hard to package. Think 2 sets of cam gears, camshafts, valve trains, throttle body assemblies, 2 engine blocks & heads, more complex exhausts, etc. V twins are the same basically with less components. Then you have the extra drag & friction of the V configurations valvegear. The positives are less engine inertia, easier steering & change of direction & better ground clearance from the narrower engine.

    The Crossplane crank I4 is expensive to build, heavy, has a complex balancer shaft & needs to be beefed up internally to deal with the extra stresses of overlapping strokes (bigger combustion bang). Then you have all these overlapping strokes draining the airbox at mid/high RPM & the increase exhaust collect size/weight to deal with the louder boom of the overlapping strokes. All this equals extra weight & friction/drag which is why the current R1 is down on power to its peers. Cool noise, not cool side effects & then most of the drawback the the traditional I4 suffers from.

    A triple makes sense in my mind. Besides the USP (unique selling point) a triple has plenty of advantages with most of the positives of the flat crank I4. The motor is slimmer & cheaper to build (1 less cylinder with all of it’s associated parts – bore, piston, conrod, head, valves & valve gear, throttle body, exhuast, ignition system, etc.) allowing Yamaha to perhaps spend a bit more on the engine upspeccing parts in an effort to claw back power lost for it being an Inline 3. Slimming the bike would inprove aerodynamics & top speed whilst also improving agility with reduced gyroscopic effects from a smaller crank.

    What remains to be seen is what Yamaha will do with both the crank configuration & rotation. Will they make it a true crossplane & mimic the current crossplane R1 with a dummy piston/counterweight which will come with most of the side effects mentioned previously above of will they stick with the even firing 120 degree crank – I suspect the former to build on their R1 & MotoGP success. With either configuration a balance shaft is required with could be configured between the crank & gearbox as a jack shaft allowing the crank to rotate ‘backwards’ so as to reduce the bike’s system gyroscopic rotation further as per the current MV Agusta F3.

    The crossplane concept is not BS folks – it works in a racing sense at least (better rider feeling of rear grip & less tyre fatigue) but at the expense of increased engine weight, rotational inertia, fuel consumption & less outright horsepower which is not a good thing for a road bike. The cool sounding engine note is a by-product of the crank configuration & not the other way around. A V2 & V4 engine basically have the same characteristics of the crossplane so they always have had these advantages & is part of the reason why Ducati were so successful over the years in WSB capacity difference aside.

    Litre bikes seemed to have reached a natural plateau power wise with 160 – 190bhp being this limit. Yamaha can capitalise of this with a 1100cc triple & be unique to the market (again) without building such an expensive & wide bike.

    Savvy move methinks & I can’t wait to see the finished product in any case.

  • Kai

    I think a lot of you may forgotten what Miwa-san said at INTERMOT in his speech. He said nothing a crossplane crankshaft, he said it would use a “crossplane concept,” meaning smooth linear torque, SIMILAR to that of a crossplane crankshaft. No guarantees of what that will actually bring with the finished engine.


  • MikeD


    Yes Sr., Kevin Ash pointed out the same detail. It doesn’t have to neceserally be a crossplane crank but rather feel & act like one…if anyone want to read into the Miwa-san word’s.

    Just crazy talk, but…………..will the Crossplane R1 become a collector’s item in the not so far future ? Sleep on it and blurt out your thougths.

  • BikePilot

    I like the idea quite a lot! I’d also really like to see a modern forced induction bike. Cages have come so far in this respect with compact, efficient, powerful mills with almost perfectly flat torque curves. A mini-ecoboost or TSFI type engine in a bike could be quite awesome. Think e-bike-like torque curve without the weight and extension cord :D

  • FuzzyOne

    If they put the 3-cylinder crossplane engine into the R1, then Yamaha please put the current R1 engine into the FZ1! Flatten out the torque curve if you must, but what I want is 4 valves per cylinder. That feature alone will make the new FZ1 a lot more attractive to me, and I bet to a lot of other riders as well.

    ’02 Silver (the fast color)

  • buellracerx

    it will be a 120 deg. spacing. he was just throwing the “crossplane” buzzword in there to calm down the naysayers. 90 deg. throw spacing with a ‘dead’ piston or doing something similar with a balance shaft would be foolish

  • 3rdGeers

    This would be amazing…but who’s willing to trade more HP for less torque? I suppose a good ECU flash would help. Torque is defnitely needed for the track…but then I suppose you could adjust your gearing to make up for it as well…..

    I’d definitely buy one though hahaha.

  • Instead of an I-3 how about a V-3, offsetting the cylinders by about 5° to 10° in a consecutive configuration, or two cylinders at the rear and one forward set at 70° to 90°, kind of like Hondas 5 cylinder GP engine. Get funky :)

  • MikeD


    A la Horex or VW VR6 ? Not a bad idea.

  • spend no more than $6000? the only choice is the Yamaha FZ6R at $5995its a great bike, I own the 05 FZ6 and it will do athnying you ask it to do, if you want a slow inner city commuter bike it will get 55 mpg, or if you want a touring bike to cross the country its comfortable to do that, or if you want to ride at 130 -140 mph with the crotch rockets it will do that too. Super reliable, long range 5 gal gas tank, sounds good, looks good, easy to ride and handle.

  • Stretch

    Looks like that string laden model highlights a V3, not inline 3, which I applaud. Has any motorcycle manufacturer made a 4 stroke V3? I know the honda NS400 2 stroke streetbike was a V3, and that it was sort of backwards layout from it’s GP 500 2 stroke v3, difference of 2 or 1 cyl forward.