VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story

I just read on livejournal that Cycle World is reporting that the VFR will
be discontinued after the '07 models. (
http://community.livejournal.com/mot...s/1712634.html) I don't have a
copy of the magazine to check it.

Will it be discontinued? Upgraded? V5?
Who's got the skinny here?

tia

--
Caz
vifferdred@xxxxxx
http://www.geocities.com/vifferdred/

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

If true, it would be a sad passing.
I can understand though. The VFR is not selling
particularly well these days, so they are going to
discontinue it. But that makes no sense to me w/MotoGP
going to 800cc. Now is the perfect time for them to
re-engineer the thing. Make it more sporty. More
power. Less weight. Drop in the V-5 from the moto-gp
bike maybe.

I don't get it. Honda has the perfect SPORT-touring
bike. I want one (again). But I won't buy until it
drops some weight, loses v-tec, and puts on some
hp/torque. Rather than move the bike in the direction
VFR enthusiasts would like, they are just going to
kill it and cede the niche to Triumph (Sprint ST)?
That's hard to believe.

Maybe they'll just kill it for a year, then bring it
back retuned to kick heinie again. Well...that's my
wishful thinking anyway.
Pat in Monument,CO ('06FJR; had '00 CBR929 & '97 VFR)

--- Caz wrote:
> I just read on live journal that Cycle World is
> reporting that the VFR will be discontinued after
the '07 models.
(http://community.livejournal.com/mot...s/1712634.html)
> I don't have a copy of the magazine to check it.
> Will it be discontinued? Upgraded? V5?
> Who's got the skinny here?
> Caz



____________________________________________________________________________________
Sponsored Link

Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
$420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Honda has missed the mark . It must have some short sighted engineering
staff. When they went to VFR Vtec, it was not in my opinion what people
wanted...with more complexity. They still haven't got it figured out or
don't want to admit their assumption was badly hatched. . I am kicking my
own butt for not trying a VFR sooner. It is that thrilling a ride. Honda
promised to create hardware everyone would want to have when their
leadership initially waned. That is still an empty hope. Look at the
brilliant motor Triumph released with the 675! Honda is sitting on its
laurels that have faded. The VFR is one of its great machines. Killing it
will be their own nose dive for many VFR fans. Hopefully someone will get to
them before they take a back seat to the other motorcycle builders.
Tman
----- Original Message -----
From: "MP Coleman"
To: "VFR LIST"
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


> If true, it would be a sad passing.
> I can understand though. The VFR is not selling
> particularly well these days, so they are going to
> discontinue it. But that makes no sense to me w/MotoGP
> going to 800cc. Now is the perfect time for them to
> re-engineer the thing. Make it more sporty. More
> power. Less weight. Drop in the V-5 from the moto-gp
> bike maybe.
>
> I don't get it. Honda has the perfect SPORT-touring
> bike. I want one (again). But I won't buy until it
> drops some weight, loses v-tec, and puts on some
> hp/torque. Rather than move the bike in the direction
> VFR enthusiasts would like, they are just going to
> kill it and cede the niche to Triumph (Sprint ST)?
> That's hard to believe.
>
> Maybe they'll just kill it for a year, then bring it
> back retuned to kick heinie again. Well...that's my
> wishful thinking anyway.
> Pat in Monument,CO ('06FJR; had '00 CBR929 & '97 VFR)
>
> --- Caz wrote:
>> I just read on live journal that Cycle World is
>> reporting that the VFR will be discontinued after
> the '07 models.
> (http://community.livejournal.com/mot...s/1712634.html)
>> I don't have a copy of the magazine to check it.
>> Will it be discontinued? Upgraded? V5?
>> Who's got the skinny here?
>> Caz
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sponsored Link
>
> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
> $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
> www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006
>
>

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think Honda's
intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were trying to
make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the underlying
reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to SALES! From
a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.

Denny

-----Original Message-----
From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Ed Ostack
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:15 AM
To: vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story

Honda has missed the mark . It must have some short sighted engineering
staff. When they went to VFR Vtec, it was not in my opinion what people
wanted...with more complexity. They still haven't got it figured out or
don't want to admit their assumption was badly hatched. . I am kicking my
own butt for not trying a VFR sooner. It is that thrilling a ride. Honda
promised to create hardware everyone would want to have when their
leadership initially waned. That is still an empty hope. Look at the
brilliant motor Triumph released with the 675! Honda is sitting on its
laurels that have faded. The VFR is one of its great machines. Killing it
will be their own nose dive for many VFR fans. Hopefully someone will get to

them before they take a back seat to the other motorcycle builders.
Tman
----- Original Message -----
From: "MP Coleman"
To: "VFR LIST"
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


> If true, it would be a sad passing.
> I can understand though. The VFR is not selling
> particularly well these days, so they are going to
> discontinue it. But that makes no sense to me w/MotoGP
> going to 800cc. Now is the perfect time for them to
> re-engineer the thing. Make it more sporty. More
> power. Less weight. Drop in the V-5 from the moto-gp
> bike maybe.
>
> I don't get it. Honda has the perfect SPORT-touring
> bike. I want one (again). But I won't buy until it
> drops some weight, loses v-tec, and puts on some
> hp/torque. Rather than move the bike in the direction
> VFR enthusiasts would like, they are just going to
> kill it and cede the niche to Triumph (Sprint ST)?
> That's hard to believe.
>
> Maybe they'll just kill it for a year, then bring it
> back retuned to kick heinie again. Well...that's my
> wishful thinking anyway.
> Pat in Monument,CO ('06FJR; had '00 CBR929 & '97 VFR)
>
> --- Caz wrote:
>> I just read on live journal that Cycle World is
>> reporting that the VFR will be discontinued after
> the '07 models.
> (http://community.livejournal.com/mot...s/1712634.html)
>> I don't have a copy of the magazine to check it.
>> Will it be discontinued? Upgraded? V5?
>> Who's got the skinny here?
>> Caz
>
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________
________
> Sponsored Link
>
> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
> $420k for $1,399/mo. Calculate new payment!
> www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.7/538 - Release Date: 11/18/2006
>
>

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

IMHO...Honda is missing the mark and has been for some time. There's been a shit-load of bitching about the 6th generation VFR's so I won't re-live that arguement.

As many Listers know; after yearning for more bike than my Y2K VFR - I went to another manufacturer.

I returned to Honda with the RC-51, which there has been rumors of discontinuing for years (since WSB changed rules). It appears as if the '06 will be the last of that breed as well. Shame - since Honda had not made any material changes in the RC since the '02 model year. Ducati & Aprilia are selling a lotta bikes. Why not put some money into the RC and make it more competitive. The RC could go up $5-8k in price and still be priced under the market. But they can't raise the price if they are not gonna compete with features and gadgetry.

Bottom line folks, Hoda doesn't love us like we love them. It's a big world out there. Time to see who's gonna give us what we want.

RIP - VFR & RC51. You changed many of our lives in countless ways. But all good things come to an end.

Lou
SF, CA

then: 750 Kawi Spectre, Kawi ZX-11, Honda VFR 800, Kawi ZX-9
now: Ducati 750 Monster, Honda RC-51 (track)
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

I seem to recall an australian firm grafting two FZR400 motors together to
make a 750 V8 a few years ago.
Quite the screamer,

On 11/19/06, Brian Light wrote:
>
> Forget a V5!! Cut 'n paste this link into your
> browser...this would be a really fun engine in the
> next VFR:
>
> http://thekneeslider.com/archives/20...usa-v8-engine/
>
> Umm, even if it is a Suzuki! Geez, even a V6 or V4
> version would still be a handful. Bet it sounds cool
> at 10000 rpm.
>
> Now, maybe two CBR600's grafted together into a 1200cc
> V8 making 240 hp at 14,000 rpm...that's what I'm
> talking about!
>
> Cheers,
> BKL
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Sponsored Link
>
> Mortgage rates near 39yr lows.
> $510k for $1,698/mo. Calculate new payment!
> www.LowerMyBills.com/lre
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

If you want to dream, put the three rotar 232HP Mazda RX8 engine into a bike. Not too good on fuel, but the torque curve is impressive. And it would fit between your knees much easier.

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

At 11:10 AM 11/19/2006, Denny Fair wrote:

>Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think Honda's
>intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were trying to
>make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the underlying
>reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to SALES! From
>a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.
>
>Denny

Well some of what you wrote is no doubt correct, Honda did not design
the 6th gen just to be more complex. They designed it with the VTEC
and the other additions because they 'somehow' thought that VFR
buyers were either too stupid or too complacent to want a new 1000.
The thinking instead it was give us a few more features, some bling,
new plastics and some techno-features and we would all rush to buy
what is otherwise the rehash of the 5th gen.
Now that the tidal wave of sales has not occured, they have to
choices admit that they misread the desires of the ST buying range or
cancel the bike too sweep their mistake under the rug.

It seems a shame that they must end a legacy, rather than admit that
they are human and produce what it is that VFR people would want.

It looks like the Sprint ST will be my new bike.

JohnS
A Dragon Ascending
"Forging my body in the Fires of my Will"

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

God you guys are so wrong. Years ago I showed why the VTEC exists.
Noise. Japan and other places have strick noise regulations and the
VTEC and dual mufflers helps this happen.

-Chris

On 11/19/06, JES_VFR wrote:
> At 11:10 AM 11/19/2006, Denny Fair wrote:
>
> >Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think Honda's
> >intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were trying to
> >make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the underlying
> >reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to SALES! From
> >a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.
> >
> >Denny
>
> Well some of what you wrote is no doubt correct, Honda did not design
> the 6th gen just to be more complex. They designed it with the VTEC
> and the other additions because they 'somehow' thought that VFR
> buyers were either too stupid or too complacent to want a new 1000.
> The thinking instead it was give us a few more features, some bling,
> new plastics and some techno-features and we would all rush to buy
> what is otherwise the rehash of the 5th gen.
> Now that the tidal wave of sales has not occured, they have to
> choices admit that they misread the desires of the ST buying range or
> cancel the bike too sweep their mistake under the rug.
>
> It seems a shame that they must end a legacy, rather than admit that
> they are human and produce what it is that VFR people would want.
>
> It looks like the Sprint ST will be my new bike.
>
> JohnS
> A Dragon Ascending
> "Forging my body in the Fires of my Will"
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

How could VTEC reduce noise??


-----Original Message-----
From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Chris Burgess
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:38 PM
To: JES_VFR
Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


God you guys are so wrong. Years ago I showed why the VTEC exists.
Noise. Japan and other places have strick noise regulations and the
VTEC and dual mufflers helps this happen.

-Chris

On 11/19/06, JES_VFR wrote:
> At 11:10 AM 11/19/2006, Denny Fair wrote:
>
> >Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think
Honda's
> >intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were trying
to
> >make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the
underlying
> >reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to SALES!
From
> >a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.
> >
> >Denny
>
> Well some of what you wrote is no doubt correct, Honda did not design
> the 6th gen just to be more complex. They designed it with the VTEC
> and the other additions because they 'somehow' thought that VFR
> buyers were either too stupid or too complacent to want a new 1000.
> The thinking instead it was give us a few more features, some bling,
> new plastics and some techno-features and we would all rush to buy
> what is otherwise the rehash of the 5th gen.
> Now that the tidal wave of sales has not occured, they have to
> choices admit that they misread the desires of the ST buying range or
> cancel the bike too sweep their mistake under the rug.
>
> It seems a shame that they must end a legacy, rather than admit that
> they are human and produce what it is that VFR people would want.
>
> It looks like the Sprint ST will be my new bike.
>
> JohnS
> A Dragon Ascending
> "Forging my body in the Fires of my Will"
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

When running on 2 valves the exhaust note is not nearly as loud nor as deep.

The switch to a cam chain made that part of the engine quiter.

The dual mufflers provide more capacity for more muffling.

Per this website Japan does not have a capacity limitation on
motorcycles when you have the proper license.

http://www.alientimes.org/Main/MotorcycleLicenses

I think it was 2 years ago I posted the PDF that explained the purpose
behind the VTEC.

Here is a link (not the same one I posted) the specifically mentions
the quietness of the new VTEC system on the VFR.

http://world.honda.com/environment/2...i_01_2r03.html


One more thing. I haven't seen two dyno charts side by side from the
01 to the 02 VFR's but I'll go with the understanding their power
curves look almost the same. This has been harped on time and time
again.

What is forgotten is the potentional for the VTEC VFR's power delivery
in 2 valve mode to come on quicker due to the 2 valve torque advange.

So don't knock it until you lived with it for some time. Until then
the banter is annoying to me.

-Chris

On 11/19/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> How could VTEC reduce noise??
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of Chris Burgess
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:38 PM
> To: JES_VFR
> Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
>
> God you guys are so wrong. Years ago I showed why the VTEC exists.
> Noise. Japan and other places have strick noise regulations and the
> VTEC and dual mufflers helps this happen.
>
> -Chris
>
> On 11/19/06, JES_VFR wrote:
> > At 11:10 AM 11/19/2006, Denny Fair wrote:
> >
> > >Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think
> Honda's
> > >intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were trying
> to
> > >make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the
> underlying
> > >reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to SALES!
> From
> > >a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.
> > >
> > >Denny
> >
> > Well some of what you wrote is no doubt correct, Honda did not design
> > the 6th gen just to be more complex. They designed it with the VTEC
> > and the other additions because they 'somehow' thought that VFR
> > buyers were either too stupid or too complacent to want a new 1000.
> > The thinking instead it was give us a few more features, some bling,
> > new plastics and some techno-features and we would all rush to buy
> > what is otherwise the rehash of the 5th gen.
> > Now that the tidal wave of sales has not occured, they have to
> > choices admit that they misread the desires of the ST buying range or
> > cancel the bike too sweep their mistake under the rug.
> >
> > It seems a shame that they must end a legacy, rather than admit that
> > they are human and produce what it is that VFR people would want.
> >
> > It looks like the Sprint ST will be my new bike.
> >
> > JohnS
> > A Dragon Ascending
> > "Forging my body in the Fires of my Will"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vfr mailing list
> > vfr@xxxxxx
> > For subscription and delivery options:
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
> >
>
>
> --
> Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
> http://blog.burgiracing.com
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

I find these two statements amusing:

"...with a valve control system, only two of the four valves in each
cylinder are opened and closed at low rpm. This lowers the sound
pressure level inside the combustion chamber."

Uh, yeah, so does easing up on the throttle!

"A silent chain drive is adopted for the camshaft."

That's quite amazing - a drive chain that makes absolutely no sound at
all? I think the ASME have vastly underestimated Japan's engineering
prowess.



-----Original Message-----
From: thatman311@xxxxxx [mailto:thatman311@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Burgess
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 2:57 AM
To: Brad Berson
Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


When running on 2 valves the exhaust note is not nearly as loud nor as
deep.

The switch to a cam chain made that part of the engine quiter.

The dual mufflers provide more capacity for more muffling.

Per this website Japan does not have a capacity limitation on
motorcycles when you have the proper license.

http://www.alientimes.org/Main/MotorcycleLicenses

I think it was 2 years ago I posted the PDF that explained the purpose
behind the VTEC.

Here is a link (not the same one I posted) the specifically mentions
the quietness of the new VTEC system on the VFR.

http://world.honda.com/environment/2...i_01_2r03.html


One more thing. I haven't seen two dyno charts side by side from the
01 to the 02 VFR's but I'll go with the understanding their power
curves look almost the same. This has been harped on time and time
again.

What is forgotten is the potentional for the VTEC VFR's power delivery
in 2 valve mode to come on quicker due to the 2 valve torque advange.

So don't knock it until you lived with it for some time. Until then
the banter is annoying to me.

-Chris

On 11/19/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> How could VTEC reduce noise??
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Chris Burgess
> Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2006 10:38 PM
> To: JES_VFR
> Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
>
> God you guys are so wrong. Years ago I showed why the VTEC exists.
> Noise. Japan and other places have strick noise regulations and the
> VTEC and dual mufflers helps this happen.
>
> -Chris
>
> On 11/19/06, JES_VFR wrote:
> > At 11:10 AM 11/19/2006, Denny Fair wrote:
> >
> > >Although I prefer the 5th generation VFR to the 6th I don't think
> Honda's
> > >intent was to make the bike more "complex". I think they were
trying
> to
> > >make a VFR that the consumer would buy. I think that is the
> underlying
> > >reason for the model being discontinued. It all boils down to
SALES!
> From
> > >a market share standpoint I can't sat that I blame them.
> > >
> > >Denny
> >
> > Well some of what you wrote is no doubt correct, Honda did not
design
> > the 6th gen just to be more complex. They designed it with the VTEC
> > and the other additions because they 'somehow' thought that VFR
> > buyers were either too stupid or too complacent to want a new 1000.
> > The thinking instead it was give us a few more features, some
bling,
> > new plastics and some techno-features and we would all rush to buy
> > what is otherwise the rehash of the 5th gen.
> > Now that the tidal wave of sales has not occured, they have to
> > choices admit that they misread the desires of the ST buying range
or
> > cancel the bike too sweep their mistake under the rug.
> >
> > It seems a shame that they must end a legacy, rather than admit that
> > they are human and produce what it is that VFR people would want.
> >
> > It looks like the Sprint ST will be my new bike.
> >
> > JohnS
> > A Dragon Ascending
> > "Forging my body in the Fires of my Will"
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vfr mailing list
> > vfr@xxxxxx
> > For subscription and delivery options:
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
> >
>
>
> --
> Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
> http://blog.burgiracing.com
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

A "silent chain" is a type of chain. See
http://mechanical-components.globals...al_Components/
Chains_Sprockets/Silent_Chain for explanation.

doug

-----Original Message-----
From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Brad Berson
Sent: November 20, 2006 10:34 AM
To: vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: RE: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story

I find these two statements amusing:

"...with a valve control system, only two of the four valves in each
cylinder are opened and closed at low rpm. This lowers the sound
pressure level inside the combustion chamber."

Uh, yeah, so does easing up on the throttle!

"A silent chain drive is adopted for the camshaft."

That's quite amazing - a drive chain that makes absolutely no sound at
all? I think the ASME have vastly underestimated Japan's engineering
prowess.




_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

On 11/19/06, Chris Burgess wrote:
>
>
> So don't knock it until you lived with it for some time. Until then
> the banter is annoying to me.


LOL, Chris, did it take THIS long for the banter to annoy you?

JohnA in LA

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Sorta. In the past it was annoying but not enough for me to fly off
the handle as even though I post the reasons for the VTEC people don't
see to pay attention.

-Chris

On 11/20/06, John Alexander wrote:
>
>
> On 11/19/06, Chris Burgess wrote:
> >
> > So don't knock it until you lived with it for some time. Until then
> > the banter is annoying to me.
>
> LOL, Chris, did it take THIS long for the banter to annoy you?
>
> JohnA in LA
>
>
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Um i didn't get Brad's original response.

Laying off the throttle isn't something that Honda can plan on and if
you do that then you don't have as much power as you would if you
didn't have to lay off the throttle.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Brad Berson
> Sent: November 20, 2006 10:34 AM
> To: vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: RE: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
> I find these two statements amusing:
>
> "...with a valve control system, only two of the four valves in each
> cylinder are opened and closed at low rpm. This lowers the sound
> pressure level inside the combustion chamber."
>
> Uh, yeah, so does easing up on the throttle!
>
> "A silent chain drive is adopted for the camshaft."
>
> That's quite amazing - a drive chain that makes absolutely no sound at
> all? I think the ASME have vastly underestimated Japan's engineering
> prowess.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Just remind yourself that a word to the wise is sufficient ... and don't
sweat the rest ;)

Carl
(duckin' for cover :)

-----Original Message-----

Sorta. In the past it was annoying but not enough for me to fly off
the handle as even though I post the reasons for the VTEC people don't
see to pay attention.

-Chris
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Walzer, Carl (.) wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
>
> Sorta. In the past it was annoying but not enough for me to fly off
> the handle as even though I post the reasons for the VTEC people don't
> see to pay attention.
>
> -Chris
>
> Just remind yourself that a word to the wise is sufficient ... and
> don't
> sweat the rest ;)
>
> Carl
> (duckin' for cover :)
>

And be happy that nobody here copped an attitude about your post, the
way you often do when someone comments on how your posts irritate them.

Later,
Johnj

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Guess the attitude has just been coped by you. :)

On 11/20/06, John Johnson wrote:
>
> On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 3:54 PM, Walzer, Carl (.) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > Sorta. In the past it was annoying but not enough for me to fly off
> > the handle as even though I post the reasons for the VTEC people don't
> > see to pay attention.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> > Just remind yourself that a word to the wise is sufficient ... and
> > don't
> > sweat the rest ;)
> >
> > Carl
> > (duckin' for cover :)
> >
>
> And be happy that nobody here copped an attitude about your post, the
> way you often do when someone comments on how your posts irritate them.
>
> Later,
> Johnj
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber would
lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...


-----Original Message-----
From: thatman311@xxxxxx [mailto:thatman311@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Burgess
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 3:21 PM
To: doug@xxxxxx
Cc: Brad Berson; vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


Um i didn't get Brad's original response.

Laying off the throttle isn't something that Honda can plan on and if
you do that then you don't have as much power as you would if you
didn't have to lay off the throttle.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On
Behalf Of
> Brad Berson
> Sent: November 20, 2006 10:34 AM
> To: vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: RE: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
> I find these two statements amusing:
>
> "...with a valve control system, only two of the four valves in each
> cylinder are opened and closed at low rpm. This lowers the sound
> pressure level inside the combustion chamber."
>
> Uh, yeah, so does easing up on the throttle!
>
> "A silent chain drive is adopted for the camshaft."
>
> That's quite amazing - a drive chain that makes absolutely no sound at
> all? I think the ASME have vastly underestimated Japan's engineering
> prowess.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Brad Berson wrote:

> Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber would
> lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...
>
If the hp curves of the 5th and 6th generation VFRs are the same (I
believe this to be the case), and if the 6th generation has a lower
SPL inside the combustion chamber than the 5th, then we would have a
case where lowering combustion chamber SPL didn't lower engine power,
wouldn't we?

later,
Johnj
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Assuming the hype about the SPL is actually verifiable and significant,
and that we can dismiss the potential efficiencies gained by other
elements of the engine design, then yes.

Anything is possible but I'm just having trouble seeing it. Of course
I'm not an ICE engineer - I merely stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once.
Or twice.

VTEC on the VFR closes in intake valve at low and midrange RPM.
Skipping a few steps of reasoning I'm assuming that this produces slower
combustion while achieving a similar total transfer of energy, resulting
in lower sound levels from the smoother shock waves.

I think the noise reductions from dual silencers and "silent" cam chains
is probably a lot more significant, and that other reductions can be
found in smart water jacket and oil passage design, clever bodywork
modifications, etc. But again, I'm not an ICE engineer, I'm just a
friggin' skeptic.



-----Original Message-----
From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf
Of John Johnson
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:16 PM
To: vfr list
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story



On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Brad Berson wrote:

> Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber would
> lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...
>
If the hp curves of the 5th and 6th generation VFRs are the same (I
believe this to be the case), and if the 6th generation has a lower
SPL inside the combustion chamber than the 5th, then we would have a
case where lowering combustion chamber SPL didn't lower engine power,
wouldn't we?

later,
Johnj
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

The lack of a second intake valve does not slow down combustion. It
actually increases the velocity of the a/f coming into the cylinder
because the piston going down still creates the same amount of vacum
inside the cylinder. To fill that vacum the intake a/f mixture has to
accelerate.

Now that will likely increase the swirel effect inside the combusion
chamber causing the combustion rate to increase.

The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
into the chamber.

-Chris

On 11/20/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> Assuming the hype about the SPL is actually verifiable and significant,
> and that we can dismiss the potential efficiencies gained by other
> elements of the engine design, then yes.
>
> Anything is possible but I'm just having trouble seeing it. Of course
> I'm not an ICE engineer - I merely stayed in a Holiday Inn Express once.
> Or twice.
>
> VTEC on the VFR closes in intake valve at low and midrange RPM.
> Skipping a few steps of reasoning I'm assuming that this produces slower
> combustion while achieving a similar total transfer of energy, resulting
> in lower sound levels from the smoother shock waves.
>
> I think the noise reductions from dual silencers and "silent" cam chains
> is probably a lot more significant, and that other reductions can be
> found in smart water jacket and oil passage design, clever bodywork
> modifications, etc. But again, I'm not an ICE engineer, I'm just a
> friggin' skeptic.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf
> Of John Johnson
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:16 PM
> To: vfr list
> Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
>
>
> On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Brad Berson wrote:
>
> > Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber would
> > lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...
> >
> If the hp curves of the 5th and 6th generation VFRs are the same (I
> believe this to be the case), and if the 6th generation has a lower
> SPL inside the combustion chamber than the 5th, then we would have a
> case where lowering combustion chamber SPL didn't lower engine power,
> wouldn't we?
>
> later,
> Johnj
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

I'm still having trouble getting from point A to point B on this, sorry.
Increasing the velocity of the incoming mixture was one of those
reasoning steps I was skipping, but still don't see how a better swirl
translates to lower SPL or better torque. But don't sweat it.


-----Original Message-----
From: thatman311@xxxxxx [mailto:thatman311@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Burgess
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:24 AM
To: Brad Berson
Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story


The lack of a second intake valve does not slow down combustion. It
actually increases the velocity of the a/f coming into the cylinder
because the piston going down still creates the same amount of vacum
inside the cylinder. To fill that vacum the intake a/f mixture has to
accelerate.

Now that will likely increase the swirel effect inside the combusion
chamber causing the combustion rate to increase.

The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
into the chamber.

-Chris

On 11/20/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> Assuming the hype about the SPL is actually verifiable and
significant,
> and that we can dismiss the potential efficiencies gained by other
> elements of the engine design, then yes.
>
> Anything is possible but I'm just having trouble seeing it. Of course
> I'm not an ICE engineer - I merely stayed in a Holiday Inn Express
once.
> Or twice.
>
> VTEC on the VFR closes in intake valve at low and midrange RPM.
> Skipping a few steps of reasoning I'm assuming that this produces
slower
> combustion while achieving a similar total transfer of energy,
resulting
> in lower sound levels from the smoother shock waves.
>
> I think the noise reductions from dual silencers and "silent" cam
chains
> is probably a lot more significant, and that other reductions can be
> found in smart water jacket and oil passage design, clever bodywork
> modifications, etc. But again, I'm not an ICE engineer, I'm just a
> friggin' skeptic.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of John Johnson
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:16 PM
> To: vfr list
> Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
>
>
> On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Brad Berson wrote:
>
> > Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber
would
> > lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...
> >
> If the hp curves of the 5th and 6th generation VFRs are the same (I
> believe this to be the case), and if the 6th generation has a lower
> SPL inside the combustion chamber than the 5th, then we would have a
> case where lowering combustion chamber SPL didn't lower engine power,
> wouldn't we?
>
> later,
> Johnj
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

increased swirl can bring on a more thorough burn of the mixture.
this means more energy is provided to push the piston down. this
increases torque.

as to reducing the SPL I have no idea BUT I know from a fellow rider
when we had him compare my '02 with 'Tunes and another rider's 01 with
'Tunes noise level as we accelerated away he said that my bike was
really quite until a point (which would be my VTEC cross over) and the
'01 was just noisy the entire time.

-Chris

On 11/20/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> I'm still having trouble getting from point A to point B on this, sorry.
> Increasing the velocity of the incoming mixture was one of those
> reasoning steps I was skipping, but still don't see how a better swirl
> translates to lower SPL or better torque. But don't sweat it.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: thatman311@xxxxxx [mailto:thatman311@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
> Chris Burgess
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:24 AM
> To: Brad Berson
> Cc: vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
>
>
> The lack of a second intake valve does not slow down combustion. It
> actually increases the velocity of the a/f coming into the cylinder
> because the piston going down still creates the same amount of vacum
> inside the cylinder. To fill that vacum the intake a/f mixture has to
> accelerate.
>
> Now that will likely increase the swirel effect inside the combusion
> chamber causing the combustion rate to increase.
>
> The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
> exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
> with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
> torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
> into the chamber.
>
> -Chris
>
> On 11/20/06, Brad Berson wrote:
> > Assuming the hype about the SPL is actually verifiable and
> significant,
> > and that we can dismiss the potential efficiencies gained by other
> > elements of the engine design, then yes.
> >
> > Anything is possible but I'm just having trouble seeing it. Of course
> > I'm not an ICE engineer - I merely stayed in a Holiday Inn Express
> once.
> > Or twice.
> >
> > VTEC on the VFR closes in intake valve at low and midrange RPM.
> > Skipping a few steps of reasoning I'm assuming that this produces
> slower
> > combustion while achieving a similar total transfer of energy,
> resulting
> > in lower sound levels from the smoother shock waves.
> >
> > I think the noise reductions from dual silencers and "silent" cam
> chains
> > is probably a lot more significant, and that other reductions can be
> > found in smart water jacket and oil passage design, clever bodywork
> > modifications, etc. But again, I'm not an ICE engineer, I'm just a
> > friggin' skeptic.
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On
> Behalf
> > Of John Johnson
> > Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 11:16 PM
> > To: vfr list
> > Subject: Re: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story
> >
> >
> >
> > On Monday 20Nov, 2006, at 9:15 PM, Brad Berson wrote:
> >
> > > Well, um, anything that lowers the SPL in the combustion chamber
> would
> > > lower the power generated by the engine, I would think...
> > >
> > If the hp curves of the 5th and 6th generation VFRs are the same (I
> > believe this to be the case), and if the 6th generation has a lower
> > SPL inside the combustion chamber than the 5th, then we would have a
> > case where lowering combustion chamber SPL didn't lower engine power,
> > wouldn't we?
> >
> > later,
> > Johnj
> > _______________________________________________
> > vfr mailing list
> > vfr@xxxxxx
> > For subscription and delivery options:
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > vfr mailing list
> > vfr@xxxxxx
> > For subscription and delivery options:
> > https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
> >
>
>
> --
> Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
> http://blog.burgiracing.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> vfr mailing list
> vfr@xxxxxx
> For subscription and delivery options:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr
>


--
Check out my racing site...http://www.burgiracing.com and my blog at
http://blog.burgiracing.com
_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Where did you get the idea that there is a two valve torque advantage?
According to the IC design books that I have read (and also according to the
writings of Kevin Cameron in CW), more "valve open" area available quicker
in the opening process is a key factor in efficient cylinder filling, which
is the key to producing torque. A four valve head is superior in this area
to a two valve head for a given cylinder diameter and compression ratio
because of the greater open area at low lift. There are other factors
including cam timing and bore/stroke ratios, but for any given bore/stroke
ratio, a four valve head is capable of producing more torque that a two
valve head. There is no inherent "two valve torque advantage".

John Harrison
Birmingham



-----Original Message-----
From: vfr-bounces@xxxxxx [mailto:vfr-bounces@xxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Chris Burgess


The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
into the chamber.

-Chris


_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

4 valve is better than 2 valve for power ... at higher rpms. At lower rpm
the 4 valve head does not (generally speaking) develop enough speed in the
intake runner (half the area equals twice the speed ... roughly) to
efficiently fill the cylinder and mix the mixture. This improved filling,
with a more homogenous mixture, results in a more complete, consistent, and
efficient combustion event lowering cylinder noise and maximizing force
(therefore torque) to piston/crank.

Don't confuse maximum power (superior with 4 valves maximizing the intake
area) with good combustion at lower engine speeds (superior with 2 valves
maximizing the intake velocity and cylinder filling efficiency).

You missed that part in your book :)

Chris doesn't always have all the details down, but he is very close most of
the time and worth giving at least a good listen to.

Carl
-----Original Message-----

Where did you get the idea that there is a two valve torque advantage?
According to the IC design books that I have read (and also according to the
writings of Kevin Cameron in CW), more "valve open" area available quicker
in the opening process is a key factor in efficient cylinder filling, which
is the key to producing torque. A four valve head is superior in this area
to a two valve head for a given cylinder diameter and compression ratio
because of the greater open area at low lift. There are other factors
including cam timing and bore/stroke ratios, but for any given bore/stroke
ratio, a four valve head is capable of producing more torque that a two
valve head. There is no inherent "two valve torque advantage".

John Harrison
Birmingham

-----Original Message-----

The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
into the chamber.

-Chris

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Walzer, Carl (.) wrote:

>4 valve is better than 2 valve for power ... at higher rpms. At lower rpm
>the 4 valve head does not (generally speaking) develop enough speed in the
>intake runner (half the area equals twice the speed ... roughly) to
>efficiently fill the cylinder and mix the mixture. This improved filling,
>with a more homogenous mixture, results in a more complete, consistent, and
>efficient combustion event lowering cylinder noise and maximizing force
>(therefore torque) to piston/crank.
>
>
>

For this to be true would mean that each of the intake valves would have
a dedicated intake runner? Is that the case?
Otherwise, the velocity through the runner would be the same and only
the air velocity through the valve opening would change.

--

-Fred W

'98 Honda VFR800Fi SPORTtourer
'01 Kawi Concours sportTOURER
'05 Yammi FJR1300 SPORTTOURER

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

Carl, when you and Chris disagree with Kevin Cameron, I'm going to go with
KC's statements every time.
John Harrison
Birmingham




-----Original Message-----
From: Walzer, Carl (.) [mailto:CWALZER@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:11 AM
To: 'John Harrison'; 'Chris Burgess'; vfr@xxxxxx
Subject: RE: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story

4 valve is better than 2 valve for power ... at higher rpms. At lower rpm
the 4 valve head does not (generally speaking) develop enough speed in the
intake runner (half the area equals twice the speed ... roughly) to
efficiently fill the cylinder and mix the mixture. This improved filling,
with a more homogenous mixture, results in a more complete, consistent, and
efficient combustion event lowering cylinder noise and maximizing force
(therefore torque) to piston/crank.

Don't confuse maximum power (superior with 4 valves maximizing the intake
area) with good combustion at lower engine speeds (superior with 2 valves
maximizing the intake velocity and cylinder filling efficiency).

You missed that part in your book :)

Chris doesn't always have all the details down, but he is very close most of
the time and worth giving at least a good listen to.

Carl
-----Original Message-----

Where did you get the idea that there is a two valve torque advantage?
According to the IC design books that I have read (and also according to the
writings of Kevin Cameron in CW), more "valve open" area available quicker
in the opening process is a key factor in efficient cylinder filling, which
is the key to producing torque. A four valve head is superior in this area
to a two valve head for a given cylinder diameter and compression ratio
because of the greater open area at low lift. There are other factors
including cam timing and bore/stroke ratios, but for any given bore/stroke
ratio, a four valve head is capable of producing more torque that a two
valve head. There is no inherent "two valve torque advantage".

John Harrison
Birmingham

-----Original Message-----

The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
into the chamber.

-Chris




_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr

An important factor in low vs high RPM camshaft performance is
duration. Cams designed for peak power usually have poor low end
torque. Do the two vtec can lobes have different profiles or are they
the same?

Tuesday, November 21, 2006, 11:48:27 AM, you wrote:
> Carl, when you and Chris disagree with Kevin Cameron, I'm going to go with
> KC's statements every time.
> John Harrison
> Birmingham




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Walzer, Carl (.) [mailto:CWALZER@xxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 10:11 AM
> To: 'John Harrison'; 'Chris Burgess'; vfr@xxxxxx
> Subject: RE: VFR Discontinued/Replacement? CycleWorld story

> 4 valve is better than 2 valve for power ... at higher rpms. At lower rpm
> the 4 valve head does not (generally speaking) develop enough speed in the
> intake runner (half the area equals twice the speed ... roughly) to
> efficiently fill the cylinder and mix the mixture. This improved filling,
> with a more homogenous mixture, results in a more complete, consistent, and
> efficient combustion event lowering cylinder noise and maximizing force
> (therefore torque) to piston/crank.

> Don't confuse maximum power (superior with 4 valves maximizing the intake
> area) with good combustion at lower engine speeds (superior with 2 valves
> maximizing the intake velocity and cylinder filling efficiency).

> You missed that part in your book :)

> Chris doesn't always have all the details down, but he is very close most of
> the time and worth giving at least a good listen to.

> Carl
> -----Original Message-----

> Where did you get the idea that there is a two valve torque advantage?
> According to the IC design books that I have read (and also according to the
> writings of Kevin Cameron in CW), more "valve open" area available quicker
> in the opening process is a key factor in efficient cylinder filling, which
> is the key to producing torque. A four valve head is superior in this area
> to a two valve head for a given cylinder diameter and compression ratio
> because of the greater open area at low lift. There are other factors
> including cam timing and bore/stroke ratios, but for any given bore/stroke
> ratio, a four valve head is capable of producing more torque that a two
> valve head. There is no inherent "two valve torque advantage".

> John Harrison
> Birmingham

> -----Original Message-----

> The general theory is that a engine with 2 valves (one intake and one
> exhaust) with the same displacement as an engine with 4 valves and
> with the same cam timing the engine with 2 valves will produce more
> torque. This is due to the increase in velocity of the incoming air
> into the chamber.

> -Chris

_______________________________________________
vfr mailing list
vfr@xxxxxx
For subscription and delivery options:
https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/vfr