I've been wondering about the R1 references. Cause this engine isn't based on the R1 4 cylinder.
Yamaha Yamaha YXZ 1000 Chronicles?
- Thread starter badassmav
- Start date
I never thought about it having no lo-range until now. Perhaps the thinking is that this is no farm tractor. The body work,suspension, and styling in general say this UTE is "all play". I would assume that 1st gear is low enough to grunt up hills. After all, it has 5 forward gears. I picture the torque first gear has on bikes,quads or atv's, and think it would be suffice for the ute if it were comparable. There's where the clutch becomes an asset for sure. Starting from a dead stop on a steep hill.
I would really like to know the final drive ratio out of the tranny. Would that information (gear ratios) be included in the patent documents we saw online? I breezed over them, and there were tons of paragraphs regarding the transmission. More for the tranny than any other part of the car. You're right. The tranny is gy-normous!
I read every stupid paragraph in those docs! Nothing on gear ratios.
I asked Correy Weller to post up the max speed in each gear. Their car is being worked on right now, so hopefully she'll post it up when it's back together.
I asked Correy Weller to post up the max speed in each gear. Their car is being worked on right now, so hopefully she'll post it up when it's back together.
Yamaha has great manuals, and the factory book should have all the specs for the transmission, and probably some good diagrams, too. The unit is beginning to look very impressive, it even appears to not only be pressure fed, but also has an oil spray bar directing lube directly onto the gears where they mesh.... no basic splash lube here... that is real high performance race car stuff right there.
Reid, if you feel I'm getting off track on where you want this thread to go, please do tell me. Some of this is pretty exciting sh*t to be buying right off the show room floor... I tend to get caught up in discussing it.
Brian
Reid, if you feel I'm getting off track on where you want this thread to go, please do tell me. Some of this is pretty exciting sh*t to be buying right off the show room floor... I tend to get caught up in discussing it.
Brian
Here's a good, clear image I came across of the rear suspension. At first glance, I noticed that the rear a arm pivots are not parallel to the wheelbase. Maybe 15% off or so. I don't understand why this is done. On the Yammy, or the Can-am. If anyone knows the dynamics of this, please chime in.
The shock motion ratio appears to be between .57 and .6. Far better than the front, that's for sure, but still needing improvement to withstand severe punishment for prolonged periods of time. Throw a 12" stroke shock in front of the axle, and get 18" of travel at .66. Comparatively speaking, the BAM ran 16" stroke shocks in the rear, allowing a cool .83 motion ratio and19 1/4" of reliable wheel travel. The lower front spherical bearing will be a high wear item, as the joint will be articulating with every bump, as the mounting bolt to the frame is not parallel to the rear pivot. The lower frame rails where the load carrying arm pivots from is in desperate need of support as well. And, what about that hokey "hoop" for an upper arm? Manufacturing considerations are hard at work there! Lucky that the SCORE/BITD rules allow you to break the single pivot up into 2 separate pivots. As long as you don't move outboard of the existing tabs, and retain the factory outboard tab location, you can add a second tab to the inside of the factory tabs creating 2 separate pivots. Then you can 86 that 12" long piece of steel the arm pivots on. When Madigan first made their a arms for the front of the XP's, they tried reducing the dimension between the stock pivot tabs to avoid that stupid tie rod bridge on the upper arm. BITD called 'em on it, and those arms were not allowed to race.
The shock motion ratio appears to be between .57 and .6. Far better than the front, that's for sure, but still needing improvement to withstand severe punishment for prolonged periods of time. Throw a 12" stroke shock in front of the axle, and get 18" of travel at .66. Comparatively speaking, the BAM ran 16" stroke shocks in the rear, allowing a cool .83 motion ratio and19 1/4" of reliable wheel travel. The lower front spherical bearing will be a high wear item, as the joint will be articulating with every bump, as the mounting bolt to the frame is not parallel to the rear pivot. The lower frame rails where the load carrying arm pivots from is in desperate need of support as well. And, what about that hokey "hoop" for an upper arm? Manufacturing considerations are hard at work there! Lucky that the SCORE/BITD rules allow you to break the single pivot up into 2 separate pivots. As long as you don't move outboard of the existing tabs, and retain the factory outboard tab location, you can add a second tab to the inside of the factory tabs creating 2 separate pivots. Then you can 86 that 12" long piece of steel the arm pivots on. When Madigan first made their a arms for the front of the XP's, they tried reducing the dimension between the stock pivot tabs to avoid that stupid tie rod bridge on the upper arm. BITD called 'em on it, and those arms were not allowed to race.
Both the front and rear suspension pick up points appear to be angled back so when you hit a bump the suspension cycles up and back. I checked one out at Ride Now today and they are pretty nice.Here's a good, clear image I came across of the rear suspension. At first glance, I noticed that the rear a arm pivots are not parallel to the wheelbase. Maybe 15% off or so. I don't understand why this is done. On the Yammy, or the Can-am. If anyone knows the dynamics of this, please chime in.
The shock motion ratio appears to be between .57 and .6. Far better than the front, that's for sure, but still needing improvement to withstand severe punishment for prolonged periods of time. Throw a 12" stroke shock in front of the axle, and get 18" of travel at .66. Comparatively speaking, the BAM ran 16" stroke shocks in the rear, allowing a cool .83 motion ratio and19 1/4" of reliable wheel travel. The lower front spherical bearing will be a high wear item, as the joint will be articulating with every bump, as the mounting bolt to the frame is not parallel to the rear pivot. The lower frame rails where the load carrying arm pivots from is in desperate need of support as well. And, what about that hokey "hoop" for an upper arm? Manufacturing considerations are hard at work there! Lucky that the SCORE/BITD rules allow you to break the single pivot up into 2 separate pivots. As long as you don't move outboard of the existing tabs, and retain the factory outboard tab location, you can add a second tab to the inside of the factory tabs creating 2 separate pivots. Then you can 86 that 12" long piece of steel the arm pivots on. When Madigan first made their a arms for the front of the XP's, they tried reducing the dimension between the stock pivot tabs to avoid that stupid tie rod bridge on the upper arm. BITD called 'em on it, and those arms were not allowed to race.
Yes indeed. The only shock limitation is that you run 1 coil over shock per wheel, and mount it directly to the a-arm, and to the frame. You can locate or angle the coilover as you see fit. You can also run longer shocks if you choose. We ran Fox's truck bypass shocks on the BAM. 16" & 14" strokers in the rear and front respectively.
Before any press releases, I heard that the car was going to have an R1 engine in it. I assumed the 3 cylinder in the YXZ was one. It's not? Haha. Shows you what I know about engines. This is why I am skeptical to offer anything pertaining to the operation of the motor, 'cause I don't know jack about them! Please, further educate me on the platform they are using in the YXZ. What other vehicles it came in, and how was the power transmitted to the axles (or tread).
As much as I would like to go all out and build it to the hilt, I will most likely do something along the lines of a +3 1/2" or 4"kit. I will almost for sure be relocating the shocks. At least the front. I'll need to see the car before I decide on the rear or not. The front steer conversion is based on the bump steer the car has stock. I'll know more when I get a chance to cycle it the suspension.
As far as finish goes, without a doubt, there will be NO painting on my arms! Properly designed and built suspension components are highly stressed, and need to be regularly magnafluxed to check for cracks. I too, think that quality components fabricated from alloy steels look awesome in the buff. After stress relieving the weldments, I will most likely chemically treat them with something like Presto Black or the like. That's what we used back in the 80's to protect 4130 against corrosion. I'm sure there are more popular products out there today. I'm just not aware of them.
By all means Brian, this thread is a learning thread for us all. Jump right in and correct me if you see that anything I post is inaccurate (even if it does make me look like a dousche. Haha!) I love learning, and sharing what I've learned is most valuable only if it's accurate. At any expense. Besides, unlike the Monstermav Chronicles, I have no clear direction where this thread is heading other than sharing my knowledge and the design mod's I will perform on the Yammy (and of course to expose the mod's to the public for possible future sales).
I don't know who Correy Weller is. Can you enlighten me? and: How did she get a car so quickly?
This is from Mountainperformance .com
"14 years’ experience with this engine: This is the 7th generation of this type of multi-cylinder engine and the 4th generation of this particular 3 cylinder design. We have produced products for all 7 generations."
From what I've read, this 3 cylinder started as the FJ1300 with one cylinder lopped off. It's main use has been in snowmobiles, and maybe wave runners? The 3 cylinder produces more torque then a same sized 4 cylinder.
R1 is their street bike motor, and the Apex snowmobile motor was based on it.
In one of the YXZ vids, a Yamaha guy says the a arms angled back gives a up and back motion. A VW trailing arm goes up and back, call it a 90* angle. So with these mounted at say 15*, then they are getting 15% of the 90% motion. That sounds like crap in my mind, but I think you'll get what I'm saying.
Something else of interest, I'm sure you won't like it, but the two pictures below shows the suspension near top out and bottom out. By looking at them I would say that the suspension in the front actually does have what I call rising rate because fully topped out the shocks are on a 25° angle, and fully bottomed out the socks are at a 45° angle. Not the 90° angle that I would like to see it at full bottom. But at least it is making the dampening and spring rates stiffer as a compresses.
"14 years’ experience with this engine: This is the 7th generation of this type of multi-cylinder engine and the 4th generation of this particular 3 cylinder design. We have produced products for all 7 generations."
From what I've read, this 3 cylinder started as the FJ1300 with one cylinder lopped off. It's main use has been in snowmobiles, and maybe wave runners? The 3 cylinder produces more torque then a same sized 4 cylinder.
R1 is their street bike motor, and the Apex snowmobile motor was based on it.
In one of the YXZ vids, a Yamaha guy says the a arms angled back gives a up and back motion. A VW trailing arm goes up and back, call it a 90* angle. So with these mounted at say 15*, then they are getting 15% of the 90% motion. That sounds like crap in my mind, but I think you'll get what I'm saying.
Something else of interest, I'm sure you won't like it, but the two pictures below shows the suspension near top out and bottom out. By looking at them I would say that the suspension in the front actually does have what I call rising rate because fully topped out the shocks are on a 25° angle, and fully bottomed out the socks are at a 45° angle. Not the 90° angle that I would like to see it at full bottom. But at least it is making the dampening and spring rates stiffer as a compresses.
Damn! You must live in the mountains or something!!! Lol
She races mainly short course. Weller racing is her husband's company out of Arizona and they do the SR1 series and then she also races a pro 4 in short course. She has one and and Dustin Nelson (factory Yamaha racer) has one. I've been following their post on Instagram. That's where most of the photos are coming from and videos is on Instagram.
Yeah Hans, that stands to reason on a beam front end, or on a class 1 or 5 car with their massive rear trailing arms swept back 70 degrees or so. But on a sweep of less than 15 or 20 degrees, don't you think the ramifications of the wheelbase changing throughout the travel, and the handling issues that result from it, exceed the benefit of less shock to components as a result of a slight sweeping of the pivot axis? I can buy into that theory on the older Mavericks, as they swept back 35 degrees. Consider also that for about 30% of the wheel travel, the arm is swinging back forward. Hmm, that's definitely a tough one to buy into. Can you elaborate upon it a bit more?
The way the lower front mount appeared higher than the rear lower mount I dont know if it would get to the point of going forward, but if my eyes aren't deceiving me I assume Yamaha did it for a reason. The front reminds me of what Honda use do to on their 250R quads angling the front control arms up in front about 5% or so. They sure handled nice.
From what I've read, trailing arm suspension like on a Volkswagen is the best set up for whoops. An a arm set up like on a razor 800 is the best for turning corners and racing up pikes Peak. So what Yamaha and Can Am have done with theirs is they're trying to combine the best of both.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reid do you plan to get into racing? Building this car for an investor to race? You need a wheel man I would like to sit in the seat and give it a blast
GF, I feel a rant coming on. Please don't feel that I am trying to argue, or berate your point. It is not my intention. I am thankful for your participation in all of my threads, and your knowledge of our sport in general far exceeds mine. But the technology I build by is quantifiable, and is difficult to dispute. Eventually, builders of these cars will need to be more disciplined, or risk being left behind.This is from Mountainperformance .com
"14 years’ experience with this engine: This is the 7th generation of this type of multi-cylinder engine and the 4th generation of this particular 3 cylinder design. We have produced products for all 7 generations."
From what I've read, this 3 cylinder started as the FJ1300 with one cylinder lopped off. It's main use has been in snowmobiles, and maybe wave runners? The 3 cylinder produces more torque then a same sized 4 cylinder.
R1 is their street bike motor, and the Apex snowmobile motor was based on it.
In one of the YXZ vids, a Yamaha guy says the a arms angled back gives a up and back motion. A VW trailing arm goes up and back, call it a 90* angle. So with these mounted at say 15*, then they are getting 15% of the 90% motion. That sounds like crap in my mind, but I think you'll get what I'm saying.
Something else of interest, I'm sure you won't like it, but the two pictures below shows the suspension near top out and bottom out. By looking at them I would say that the suspension in the front actually does have what I call rising rate because fully topped out the shocks are on a 25° angle, and fully bottomed out the socks are at a 45° angle. Not the 90° angle that I would like to see it at full bottom. But at least it is making the dampening and spring rates stiffer as a compresses.
I don't dispute the fact that per its mounting, the spring rate will increase as the suspension bumps. I'm only referring to the leverage applied to the coilovers, which for the front, appears to be just a bit less than 2:1. My opinion is, that is too much leverage. Shock integrity over long distances not withstanding, the heavier springs required adds about 5% to the unsprung weight, and about 10 pounds or so to the overall weight of the vehicle (compared to what I will be running). Also, when dialing in the suspension, the adjustments made to the clickers will have less effect on the damping characteristics of the shock. This means that possibly there will be more re-valving of the shock required to dial in your car.
As I have said in the past, the cars in this class still have a lot of room for improvement. If the class can withstand all of the mayhem it is currently going through, there will come a day when the cars become more refined, and are built closer to the threshold necessary for them not to break, remain light, and still perform at a top level. Then, there will be just a hand full of drivers capable of winning. The analogy here is that a crappy (if there is such a thing!) Trophy Truck can never win a SCORE/BITD event over a premium one, but an average UTV can easily win in said series on any given day. This is because the top trucks design wise, are pretty equal. Therefore, the driver is the crucial element.
In our class, there is an element of luck involved in winning, and the cars are so far apart design wise, that most any team has a chance of prevailing. In V2R for example, Cognito is lucky that Jones in the Maverick had drain plug issues late in the race. With nearly an hour of down time, they still won the race. Lose an hour in a trophy truck, and you're shit out of luck. This trend will continue until the cars are built "by the book".
For everything I just mentioned, these are the reasons I choose to change oem designs and components. It is why I stress in my posts about shock motion ratios and proper fabrication protocols. It is why the first race car that I ever built won overall in the first race it entered. It is why we won last year, and as technology grabs hold, will be why they win in the future. These UTE's are not built for professional racing, and are far from efficient for said purposes. Sportsman racing possibly, but not even close for professional competition. Winning was easy for us last year because we had the car and the driver. Nobody had a chance unless we f'd up.
My guess is that a Geiser level shop could build a UTE to our rulebook requirements weighing in at around 1600 lbs., and costing upwards of 150k. If you have a gazillion dollars, an Adrian Newey, or Ron Dennis (F-1 brass) could drop that weight to around 1,300 pounds tops. I'm talking a reliable car, starting line weight, minus occupants. There is still much room for us builders (Production 1900 class) to grow, and until we do, my builds will remain amongst the top in our class.
Now people must really think I'm arrogant! I'm just a stubborn old mule. Ha hoo whee!
Does anyone know if there would have been some kind of patent infringement on Polaris or Arctic cat if they would have used similar suspension mounting points? Maybe that's why they did what they did and then just fabricated up a story to sell it better.
