[pdad13]

Well, the GMP doesn't remember that Honda tried and tried with all its considerable might to make V-4s dominant on track and in the showroom.



Alas, they were too complex, expensive and heavy--oh, and not all that competitive. Sure, technology has improved in the last 25 years but the V-4 is far from the be all end all.



I don't see Yamaha dumping the I-4 in MotoGP (as if MGP bikes have all that much to do with the bikes we buy, anyway). Or any of the Japanese manufacturers dumping their I-4 production bikes.



I do predict more wild speculation coming from KP's ass, though. Of this, I'm certain.

 

[pdad13]

Well, the GMP doesn't remember that Honda tried and tried with all its considerable might to make V-4s dominant on track and in the showroom.



Alas, they were too complex, expensive and heavy--oh, and not all that competitive. Sure, technology has improved in the last 25 years but the V-4 is far from the be all end all.



I don't see Yamaha dumping the I-4 in MotoGP (as if MGP bikes have all that much to do with the bikes we buy, anyway). Or any of the Japanese manufacturers dumping their I-4 production bikes.



I do predict more wild speculation coming from KP's ass, though. Of this, I'm certain.

 

[pdad13]

Listen, no one is saying that a V-4 isn't a good configuration.



It's just that our resident kook thinks that because there are 800cc V-4s in MotoGP now, it MUST be a superior layout. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that choice of engine architecture is primarily guided by the rules and not what is best for consumers or streetbikes. (Although, I'd love to have a V-4 streetbike.)



If it were more feasible (e.g. competitive) and economical to continue with the V-4, they would have done so instead of going to the 1000cc twin and then the I-4. The rules indeed helped to make the V-4 less competitive.



But in recent years the I-4s have been more economical to produce with similar performance. And yes, the V-2s had a displacement advantage but also had two fewer cylinders.



I have no idea if Ferrari might like to run a 4.5 liter V-6 instead of 3-liter V-10, especially since F1 runs V-8s now. You'd have to ask them.



Most people in the know seem to acknowledge that the V-4s were dropped by Honda because of the reasons I cited. I'm sorry if that offends you. Maybe you should take it up with Honda.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Wrong

KP, look at the MGP rules, numbnuts. It's not that simple.

 

[pdad13]

Re: Well it didn't take long. kpaul's short rebuttal

Would you please go look at the MotoGP rules. It's not that "V-4s are better engines." It's that some of the manufacturers have decided that the MotoGP rules make V-4s desirable--again, under the current rules. And, by the way, not all agree.

Boy, you are dim.

 

[pdad13]

Re: This intelligent post of LightninRVF750 needs more visibility

Did you link my response, too?

Honda abandoning the V-4 for production racing is commonly attributed to the high cost, complexity and weight. The 1-liter Ducs were kicking the shyte out of everyone in WBSK for the better part of a decade so Honda got wise and and built the

RC-51 1000cc twin. Besides, the I-4s were delivering similar performance to the V-4s at a lower cost. You know what the RC-30 and 45 cost? They were hardly production bikes that you were likely to stroll down to your dealer and buy. They were high-priced, high-spec, low-production homolgation specials. I think they made a lot more money on the 51 and the CBRs.

Furthermore, you think Honda was happy about only one AMA and WSBK title for the V-4s in the '90s? I doubt it with the amount of money they spent. Then once the rules changed, they saw the writing on the wall and ditched the V-4. The rules dictated that they change direction. Just like the new MotoGP rules have made V-4s more appealing to them again.

That said, I'd love to see some new V-4s, but tell me again how V-4s are inherently superior to other engine configurations?