Question for the engineers on here,
 

Isn't there a reason that you want the rotating mass to go the same way as the wheels?

Ie; = - = not = | = I know that Moto Guzzi runs theirs that way but don't they have to add counter-rotating mass to make it work? Won't this cause handling issues on a "sport" tourer?:idk:

Sure, but they want to make "sport" bikes....:idk:

An engine's valvetrain does effect low end torque through their size and timing, but their method of actuation is irrelevant. Pushrod engines are typically designed to produce low end torque only because a normal pushrod engine's valvetrain cannot hold up to high RPM. An overhead cam engine could easily be designed to make that same low end torque, but without the RPM restrictions there isn't any reason to do so. A Hayabusa engine generates almost as much torque as this engine and makes significantly more horsepower with less displacement. The new ZX-10R engine also generates almost as much torque and more horsepower with even less displacement than the Hayabusa. Motus is leaving power on the table by going the pushrod route.:shrug:

That seems to be the trend. Whichever magazine had the all electric issue recently was littered with companies following that business plan.

1) Develop a gasoline powered motorcycle.
2) Try to take deposits on it.
3) Realize deposits aren't rolling in for a Desmosedici priced piece of vaporware no one has heard of.
4) Make a shitty electric version.
5) ???????????????
6) Profit!

The engine will try to twist the bike over to the side when the crankshaft is accelerating. I've heard Guzzis aren't great about it, but at the same time I haven't heard many complaints about BMW's boxer engined bikes which should do the same thing.

Is it because the boxer engine is "flat", directly opposing?...or do they have "counter-rotating shafts" to balance this out? Oh and that was my point basically, I'm am NOT an engineer by any means but I can see the engine in my Mustang jump to one side when it is revved up, no thanks to that on a bike, especially if the engine is going to be a stressed member of the chassis/suspension. Again. not an engineer but do I have it wrong somehow?:idk:

I'm their target market. ;) If its what it claims to be, I'd consider it. The F800ST is a little anemic, the VFR has never done anything for me, and the other tourer choices are two wheeled cars. :/

If its a solid bike, WITH ABS, I'll definitely consider it. ;)
(As in what idiots would even contemplate building a "sport tourer" without ABS currently?)

RE: 90 Degree opposition crankshafts...

Yes, they do twist / lift the bike's chassis a bit. It varies by design. Having had both Boxer and K-Brick engined bikes (both having crankshafts rotating perpendicular to the rotation of the wheels), neither design is "startling" in this respect, even with violent applications of clutch & throttle. Yes, its there. Will you notice it after more than 30 minutes riding the bike? No. ;)

bingo. like i said before it was likely done for cost reasons if not the retarded philosophy that pushrods are 'murican

dont forget drivetrain losses. did you see the way the tranny is laid out? theres gonna be a bigass diff in there somewhere chewing up the power.

hey remember me?
http://static.blogo.it/motoblog/kawa...sx_2011_08.jpg

I'd speculate their decision to go with pushrod design was based on 1) cost/complexity of casting/machining, 2) Overall simpler (considering no ohc drive) & more compact motor, especially with the heads hanging out either side of the bike, ala MotoGuzzi. The heads have to be considerably taller with OHC, especially with a relatively small budget which wouldn't allow for repeated prototyping & material minimization. Way easier, esp. in a V-design, to just stick a cam in the valley right over the crank & with a simple chain or gear drive. Works just fine to, as long as you're not trying to spin it way up. Maybe a distant 3) it's 'murican.

The counter-torque is just nature of the beast & a reaction to the inertia of the crank/flywheel spinning-up. I've felt it on a boxer, and though noticable it wasn't a big deal. That's a V4 mounted relatively high vs. the very low-slung BMW design - and did you see the size of the flywheel in the video?! I bet it has a good bit of counter-torque, but that might just add to its character. Wouldn't be a big handling factor so long as you're changing rpm drastically in a curve - also side-ways V design would lessen the gyroscopic resistance to side-to-side transitions too, vs. typical transverse crank mounting.

All technical BS aside - it does look pretty bad-ass, producing their own engine in-house is impressive, and kudos to them for doing *something* to produce a sporting American motorcycle. I hope they do well & we see good things come of their efforts! :rockwoot:

and its not like this bike is being touted as a track weapon where your angled over and at 99% of usable traction is gone already...

i mean we can armchair race a new engine, but if its not ment to be racing arent we just spinning our wheels??? right tig? lol:lol