HEADS UP!!!

Site upgrade in progress... Core site functions are working, but some non-critical features/functions will be temporarily unavailable while we work to restore them over the next couple of weeks.

Please post any bugs you encounter, but before you do, check to see if it's already listed.

Thanks for your patience while we work to improve the community.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
bmwgooberguy

any info on 2010 yz 450f

24 posts in this topic

I would hope that they wouldn't use the Husaberg layout. It seems counterproductive to me. Their design lowers the head maybe an inch and a half, while raising the much heavier crankshaft 4-5". The only possible benefit I see to the scheme is that the center of the engine package can be moved a little forward, but if that's what they were after, they beat themselves when they moved the crank back. I'm afraid I don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these body work changes make me mad. Seems like there is only a few years that graphics companies focus on a particular year/model. Graphics for my 05 are already limited enough. If they change them again I'll have the same situation with my 08 in a few years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope that they wouldn't use the Husaberg layout. It seems counterproductive to me. Their design lowers the head maybe an inch and a half, while raising the much heavier crankshaft 4-5". The only possible benefit I see to the scheme is that the center of the engine package can be moved a little forward, but if that's what they were after, they beat themselves when they moved the crank back. I'm afraid I don't get it.

We're a little off topic here but...

I think part of their reasoning was that it allowed them to run the fuel tank much lower by basically swapping the fuel tank and airbox positions. While it is a somewhat heavy bike (250+) it rides very, very light.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of their reasoning was that it allowed them to run the fuel tank much lower by basically swapping the fuel tank and airbox positions.

Good point. One does have to look at how the complete package plays out. I give them credit for thinking outside the paradigm, in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope that they wouldn't use the Husaberg layout. It seems counterproductive to me. Their design lowers the head maybe an inch and a half, while raising the much heavier crankshaft 4-5". The only possible benefit I see to the scheme is that the center of the engine package can be moved a little forward, but if that's what they were after, they beat themselves when they moved the crank back. I'm afraid I don't get it.

does the new R1 have a similar design?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read all the posts on 2010 model and see 2 things that might be a negative.. The header is close to the fuel tank and the bottom of the seat... Hot A**...ouch.... boiling fuel?? Any thoughts??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read all the posts on 2010 model and see 2 things that might be a negative.. The header is close to the fuel tank and the bottom of the seat... Hot A**...ouch.... boiling fuel?? Any thoughts??

Add to that the fact there would be little airflow around the exhaust and it will be hot but that can likely be taken care of with shiny, reflective, metal tape. I believe some of the factory teams already use this on the bottom of their tanks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Add to that the fact there would be little airflow around the exhaust and it will be hot but that can likely be taken care of with shiny, reflective, metal tape. I believe some of the factory teams already use this on the bottom of their tanks...

So, you guys are saying that Yamaha would run a ≤900 degree pipe under the gas tank with no shielding? Let me say that I highly doubt that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would hope that they wouldn't use the Husaberg layout. It seems counterproductive to me. Their design lowers the head maybe an inch and a half, while raising the much heavier crankshaft 4-5". The only possible benefit I see to the scheme is that the center of the engine package can be moved a little forward, but if that's what they were after, they beat themselves when they moved the crank back. I'm afraid I don't get it.

They were trying to move the crank as close as possible to the center of the bike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That I understand, but they also raised it a good 6 inches in the process, which, intuitively, seems like the wrong thing to do.

As long as the bike handles well, it's OK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So.... after all these years.... intake in the front, exhaust out the rear. Airbox up high, fuel down low. Who'da thunk it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow it looks like they are doing some very creative or gutsy moves for this new bike. That tornado pipe thing is weird though:smirk:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks great. New 4 valve head.. wonder why the change? Also... kinda skeptical about the electronic shock, why the change there too? Obviously both are in theory better.. just looking for the justification.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0