www.YamahaR.co.uk

Hi all,
I'm a newbie and it looks like I'm forced to post here before I can get stuck into one of the more usefull fora.

I have an R1 that is not an R1.




Some of you may have seen me gently pootling around the Southampton area.

Nice I like it not sure on the standard 5pw zorst though

Luke03R1 wrote:Nice I like it not sure on the standard 5pw zorst though

+1
Yeh that zorst could look better as it's ugly against the three wheel screamer.
Welcome in

Thanks guys.
The exhaust was chosen to ensure that I passed the MSVA noise test. If I'd have fitted something aftermarket then it would have been noisier and I just wanted to get on the road.
One day it'll be changed for something else. Happy to take suggestions.

Welcome dude, nice ride


Sent from my iPhone

Hi mate welcome

Still quicker than mine

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Hi Mike and welcome to the forum, nice lookin R1 i'd go for something like a GP stubby for the exhaust.

Fit a zorst that has removable baffle just so you can be an occasional hooligan
What's the spec on that machine pal ?

Spec.?
Well it weighs 350Kg, so quite a bit heavier than the bikes 195Kg.
To compensate its geared down. Top speed is a theoretical 140mph (max revs in 6th) where the donor bike could do 170ish. It should hit 60 in about 3.5 secs.

The engine is a 5Pw 2003 unit that was brand new. I should be getting a bit more power due to the 4-2-1 exhaust and the lack of an airbox (yeah, I know R1s use ram air, but only when you're going really fast. I don't drive that quickly). Any gains are probably cancelled out by the extra drive train losses. There is a power commander to sort the fueling out.

There is a reverse box in the drive shaft, so it has 6 forward and 6 reverse gears, in theory it will also do 140mph backwards. Call me chicken, I've not tried it.

So it's not a quick as a sport bike, but it's quicker than almost everything on four wheels. On the odd occasion I've had a chance to go wheel to wheel with a biker I've kept pace, but I think that's because you guys wern't trying. All within the legal limits of course.

Suspension is rising rate all round, with double wishbones on the front. Seats are (now, not in those pics) leather clad and the interior is carpeted with Woolies finest nylon rotproof.


Other than that, think Robin Reliant going backwards, but without the luxuries. No heater, no roof, no windscreen, no doors, no stereo. Or maybe all the disadvantages of a car, with none of the advantages of a bike!

Or, this is the one I prefer: one wheel short of perfection.

That must go fecking well chap for a car!! Id like a go when your passing:twisted: the 5pw didnt have ram air so no loss there

Welcome in mike
Very different

Welcome in Mike

Welcome in mate. Not my cup of tea but fair play to you all the same.

Colin

Welcome in mike, It's a very different erm 'setup' you have there ! So what was the thinking behind having a car you get wet in or a bike with an extra wheel ? I'm not knocking it i'm just curious. How come you've got bike tyres on the front which to my understanding of cornering forces will leave you with a disadvantage to having car tyres ?

Petroladdict wrote: How come you've got bike tyres on the front

are they fitted the wrong way round too?

2002r1jon wrote:

Petroladdict wrote: How come you've got bike tyres on the front

are they fitted the wrong way round too?

I guess the tyre's are that way round on the front because the drive comes from the rear so therefore they need to be the same way round as a front tyre Jon boy

jompy wrote:

2002r1jon wrote:

Petroladdict wrote: How come you've got bike tyres on the front

are they fitted the wrong way round too?

I guess the tyre's are that way round on the front because the drive comes from the rear so therefore they need to be the same way round as a front tyre Jon boy

Sounds like Bollox to me Mr Jompster

2002r1jon wrote:

jompy wrote:

2002r1jon wrote:

Petroladdict wrote: How come you've got bike tyres on the front

are they fitted the wrong way round too?

I guess the tyre's are that way round on the front because the drive comes from the rear so therefore they need to be the same way round as a front tyre Jon boy

Sounds like Bollox to me Mr Jompster

It would sound like bollox to you

Welcome in Mike, I do like that, did you build her if so cracking job

Looks like we have the full set now, 2,3 and 4 wheeled R1 machines

Looks like we need a track day sorting out when the season returns, any takers

Like the model name

Thanks again guys.
The fronts are bike tyres, they were the wrong way round (200 internet points to Jon.) and that was fixed a while ago, those pictures are five years old.

Car wheel / tyres on the front would be far too heavy, too much unsprung weight. At the same time, there wouldn't be enough loading on the tyre to get a decent temperature.

Those are 160R18's. In theory they are not ideal for the front of a car. Car tyres need stronger sidewalls as in a car, the cornering forces will try to rip the tyre off the rim. Also (as I'm sure you lot know) when you lean a bike over, the shape of the contact patch changes to help stop the tyre sliding sideways.

All I can tell you guys is, that with a bit of positive camber, it works. It corners far better than anything I've ever driven on four wheels.


As for "Why?" I don't mean to offend anyone, but bikes are not my thing. I like cars. I saw one of these on a crappy Men and Motors show called Kits and Cruising back in 2000. I trialled several kit cars and the others couldn't touch this thing on performance. Three wheels, why not?

Model name... The manufacturers called it that after their first drive in an unbodied Skunk. They came back covered in cowshite that the rear wheel had spun up off the country lanes, the driver said "it goes like stink" and someone called it Skunk.

Drives like a car, goes like a bike. Not so good in the rain though, I need to buy a loofa for traffic light comedy effect.