TimC
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 02:23 PM |
|
|
Andy Bates - Just plain wrong?! [Soapbox Warning!]
Before I go any further, let me just say that I think AB Performance are a fine company and if I was going racing and wanted a 'Blade engine,
that's where I'd go. Now that I can't be accused of any nonsense, allow me to continue...
Just nipped to Tesco for a sandwich. Thought I'd have a quick flick through the magazine section. "Ooooo, a new Total Kit Car"
says I. So I look at the cover and see that there's a Bike Engine Guide. I must admit that at this stage, I expected some poorly written,
poorly informed garbage from some hack. I turn to the page anyway and find that the Andy Bates of AB Performance has contributed to the article -
excellent - or so I thought.
Andy has rated all of the usual suspects in terms of engines out of 10. Fair enough. I know that Andy is something of a Honda Guru so expected a
high score for the carb'd blade engine and I was not suprised = 9.5/10 for 893 and 10/10 for what the magazine calls the 918, but I thought was
919. Anyway, fair enough - it's well proven and easy to install. So I turn to the page for Yamaha to look at the R1 - 7/10 - are you mad?
Naturally I am biased, but I obviously took my decision on the engine on the basis of real data. How can you give the 'Blade which produces
130bhp from 62kgs 10/10 but only give the 5JJ R1, which produces 160bhp from a similarly light engine, 7?
I admit that the R1 is a little more complicated to plumb-in but surely 30bhp is reward enough. It's not even that the R1 has a reputation for
going pop like some other motors when turned through 90degrees.
Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation?
Annnnnnnnd..... relax.
|
|
|
|
|
worX
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TimC
Can anyone give me a reasonable explanation?
Annnnnnnnd..... relax.
err, No ? 
That boy just likes his Blades!!!
Steve
|
|
|
nick205
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 02:38 PM |
|
|
Pinto?
Edit to say...
Sorry that's not really very constructive is it 
[Edited on 20/11/07 by nick205]
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 02:52 PM |
|
|
Intertesting, I've got both (in bikes) a 2001 R1 and a 1996 blade yes it is definately 918cc. The R1 is faster, more responsive, and far more
focussed.
Not saying the blade is bad, but there is 6 years between the two engines, in response to the R1 and GSXR thou, Honda completely revamped the
Fireblade, draw your own conclusion.
Cant vouch for car use but IMHO the Yamaha motor should win hands down over the 918 Honda engine. One factor he may or may not have referred to is the
fact that R1 gearboxes have been known to pop, but by the 2001 / 2 final carb models, that was sorted.
Rgds.
Pete.
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 04:04 PM |
|
|
My 919 has 919 stamped on the end of the head, although I see people calling them 918's all the time, no idea why.
Surely if Andy was riding a Honda engined bike & sidecar and winning everything, the Fireblade must be a better engine than the R1?
If the R1 engine bike & sidecars were winning then it would prove otherwise.....
|
|
|
stuart_g
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 04:15 PM |
|
|
I don't know the bloke or anything to do with his business but if he's a Honda man and does Honda engines why would he say the Yam is
better? People would ring him up and ask for Yam engines and he'd have to say "Err sorry we do Honda"....doh!
|
|
|
Hellfire
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 04:24 PM |
|
|
I guess it really depends on the criteria against which it was being judged.
At 454.2 lb and putting out approximately 124 horsepower from its inline 4 cylinder engine, the original Fireblade defined a new genre - big
displacement bikes that were as light as, if not lighter than, their 600 cc counterparts.
It had the best power/weight ratio of any bike engine for two years, from 1992 until 1994 when the ZX9R was introduced and the Fireblade pioneered
meticulous attention to weight-saving design in bike engines.
Personally, I still reckon the 893 and 918 Blade engine is one of the easiest BEC installs and even the earliest engines are still highly desirable. I
reckon Andy got it right.
Phil
[Edited on 20-11-07 by Hellfire]
|
|
|
Avoneer
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 05:09 PM |
|
|
It's only HIS opinion anyway.
Pat...
No trees were killed in the sending of this message.
However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
|
|
|
bigrich
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 05:31 PM |
|
|
seen more R1 motors with holes in crankcases etc than blades, also r1 use more oil so for me they are a more fragile albeit powerful engine so i
would agree with Andy
.JPG)
A pint for the gent and a white wine/fruit based drink for the lady. Those are the rules
|
|
|
r1_pete
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 05:33 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
My 919 has 919 stamped on the end of the head, although I see people calling them 918's all the time, no idea why.
You sure its not a 929, specs were 1992 - 95 893cc, 96-99 918cc, 2000 - 01 929cc, 2002 - 03 954cc, 2004 on 998cc.
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 06:30 PM |
|
|
All of my 919's had err 919cc on the block 
Tim, are you sure the review isn't in the context of the RGB, in that the R1 kinda sits in the middle of the regs and so isn't ideal for
any class?
Ill gracefully bow out now though having upgraded from the 10/10 engine to the 7/10 engine (or more accurately the later 5PW brother of the JJ).
Chris
[Edited on 20/11/07 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
the_fbi
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 07:03 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by r1_pete
quote:
Originally posted by the_fbi
My 919 has 919 stamped on the end of the head, although I see people calling them 918's all the time, no idea why.
You sure its not a 929, specs were 1992 - 95 893cc, 96-99 918cc, 2000 - 01 929cc, 2002 - 03 954cc, 2004 on 998cc.
Nope, as my other one is a 954 with 954 on the side.
Snippet from the Honda technical manual below...
 
919 specs
|
|
|
Andy B
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 08:45 PM |
|
|
Bike engine article
Oops
thought I had better step up to the plate and explain myself re this article so here goes -
I was asked for my honest opinion re the various bike options available based on cost, reliability, ease of install, running costs and build quality.
So it really wasnt just a power / weight thing.
Contrary to popular belief we dont just do Hondas here and I have supplied, stripped, rebuilt and installed most of the modern Japanese 4's, in
fact up until I wrote it off I had an injected R1 Fury which I thought was a cracking car.
Based on the criteria I was given and the fact that 90% of my kit ends up racing I still wholeheartedly believe that the carbed blade really is the
ultimate all rounder.
I used to run fully tuned 160bhp carbed blades in the sidecars, my original motor did 2 seasons, won 3 championships and after I sold it did 3 more
seasons without coming out of the bike, I know for a fact that the R1's just could not compete with that level of reliability in fact despite
the temptation of the extra horsepower it is that reason alone that we stayed with the blade.
All that said I in no way wished to offend owners of the R1 engine it was just my opinion.
Having raced bikes most of my life and indeed nearly ended my life on them I still get a massive buzz from them, I wanted the article to be a useful
guide to the issues surrounding BEC's, it was not my intention to be controversial and I hope that my opinions do not detract from the
article.
Hope that has helped explain things
regards
Andy
|
|
|
progers
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 09:06 PM |
|
|
Let me first say that Andy B is a fine chap (who I know well) and he has as valid a point as anyone when it comes to bike engines (more so than most).
He in fact looks after my engines...
However, in this case I think Andys opinion is slightly coloured. I think this is due to a couple of reasons
1) Blades are his first love
2) R1's are more of a pain in the arse to strip and rebuild
3) 2004 -> R1's have had issues with blowing out their oil and going bang.
In reality the 5JJ and 5PW R1's are actually a great reliable engine. They have a much more robust gearbox than that of the blade and (in common
with blades) don't suffer from oil surge with a good baffle plate. In RGB racing I (and Paul Haynes before me) have raced a full season without
touching the engine at all which can't be said for 50% of the field that run blades. Maybe I've just been lucky.
All in all its down to personal opinion. Blades are a great engine, no doubt, but given the choice between it and a more modern, powerful, R1 I would
not hesitate to choose the R1. Having built 2 cars with R1 engines (5JJ and 5PW) I'm also a bit biased
Cheers
Paul
|
|
|
yorkshire-engines
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 09:26 PM |
|
|
Having chased Andy round most race tracks for a few years (never caught him either) i can say his blade engines were really quick and thats why he
loves them
you may find that i dont advertise a lot of early blade motors thats because Andy already has his name on them as soon as i get them
anyway there all bloody quick
ill let you know what the 07 R1 is like very soon
cheers malc
|
|
|
ChrisGamlin
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
Out of interest Tim / Andy, what rating did the other engines get?
Having had both in my car, thus far its a score draw on failures. Although Ive had two blade failures, one of those was my fault, the other though
broke up its crank / clutch primary reduction gear which was an odd failure.
Having fitted my third blade, I eventually decided to upgrade from blade to R1 partly because of the performance increase, and also because I had
concerns over the longevity of the blade gearbox / clutch rather than the engine itself, having had clutch slip issues myself on a couple of occasions
and heard quite a few stories at the time of gearboxes going due to bent forks / rounded dogs etc.
Having installed the R1, first impressions were that the clutch and gearbox felt more robust and nicer to use, and the drivetrain did feel a
bit less on its design limits than the blade, to me anyway. Ironically though, the gearbox was the part that actually went in my engine, but again a
slightly obscure failure in that it was the 5th gear dogs that were completely sheared off on a fairly unhurried downchange from 6th, not the lower
gears that usually get more shock loading
Anyway, mine will be off up to Andy to get rebuilt once I source an 02/03 gearbox, so if anyone has one, let me know.
cheers
Chris
[Edited on 20/11/07 by ChrisGamlin]
|
|
|
Asterix
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 11:18 PM |
|
|
i think ab has observed more failure rates in yams than hondas
Aint 53.78/ Cadw 96.39/ Crof 97/ CurbL1 37.01/ CurbL2 81.? wet/ Heth 82.34 kaput/ Loto tba/ Shel 41.4 wet/ Thor 56.36/ Tycr 129.52
Sponsors... Pets Testing
Webhosting
|
|
|
scoobyis2cool
|
| posted on 20/11/07 at 11:54 PM |
|
|
At one time I was considering converting my Indy to a BEC and did a lot of research into the various engines and the R1 came out top of my list -
7/10? Pah!
Pete
It's not that I'm lazy, it's that I just don't care...
|
|
|
TimC
|
| posted on 21/11/07 at 01:05 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisGamlin
Out of interest Tim / Andy, what rating did the other engines get?
Just been for a quick look:
Carb'd 'Bird =8 (Ka-boom)
ZX12 = 9
Busa = 10
GSXR1000 = 9 (Ka-blammo)
Therfore cobblers.
|
|
|
%20(WinCE).JPG)
