Why Niken uses a CP3 Engine

[maximNikenGT]

I stumbled across this video last night on motorcycle engine engineering which asked the question, why does Yamaha use a cross plane engine when the rest of the industry predominantly uses inline 4 configurations.

It was a detailed background and walkthrough and I found it very educational as to why the cross plane design, although heavier to counter balance inherent engine design vibrations, was preferred by Yamaha.

The video takes a look specifically at the crossplane four-cylinder configuration but I'm assuming that the performance benefits inherently remain the same when transferred to the Niken's triple cylinder cross plane (CP3) design. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2021 by maximNikenGT
corrected misspelling

[peteinpa]

Using the CP3 designation on the tripple is a stretch.  Each crank pin set at 120 degrees is normal. Now on the Yamaha inline 4 it is unusual how the crank is set up and is special.

[OZVFR]

CP3 does sound better than "the new Yamaha comes with a Normal 3 Cylinder engine"

Back n the 80's I had a Laverda RGS1000, it had a 180° crank triple that sounded better but vibrated so much that it had to have rubber engine mounts to keep it under control.

Edited September 16, 2021 by OZVFR

[peteinpa]

Forgot to mention on the FZ-07, MT-07,  etc. The CP2 design is awesome!  All vertical twins should be made this way.  I was impressed when I had mine.  If they could have made it 800 to 900 CC it would have been a keeper.

The sound and power left "normal" vertical twins behind.

[OZVFR]

The new Triumph Tiger 900 as well as the new 1200 coming soon both have a T plane triple. 
Much better sound than the CP3 and better power delivery down low. 

[Fleng]

In the crossplane configuration the 3 ignition cycles are close behind each other (and then a longer time nothing). In the end, this delivers higher torque, which was the whole idea of the MT (max torque) range.

[OZVFR]

1 hour ago, Fleng said:

In the crossplane configuration the 3 ignition cycles are close behind each other (and then a longer time nothing). In the end, this delivers higher torque, which was the whole idea of the MT (max torque) range.

You’re confusing crank angle with firing intervals. 
Crank is at 120*, but firing intervals are at 240*. 
No spaces in between. 240, 240, 240 and so on. They don’t fire 1-2-3. 
Not a lot different to a 4 cylinder with equal gaps. 
The Triumph T plane fires at 180, 270, 270. 
Or the Honda V4: 180, 180, 90, 270. Ahh, music to my ears. 
Sorry for all the edits, it’s Friday night and too many Wild Turkeys. Typing with one eye shut 

Edited September 17, 2021 by OZVFR

[Wintersdark]

On 9/16/2021 at 6:13 PM, peteinpa said:

Forgot to mention on the FZ-07, MT-07,  etc. The CP2 design is awesome!  All vertical twins should be made this way.  I was impressed when I had mine.  If they could have made it 800 to 900 CC it would have been a keeper.

The sound and power left "normal" vertical twins behind.

It is.  Big part of why I got the T7 as a second bike.  That CP2 is *wonderful*.

[maximNikenGT]

So I now see why Yamaha's CP3 designation gets ribbed from Lemmy at Revzilla: 

 

It does seem unusual that Yamaha would try to market an engine whose crankshafts inherently has to be configured 120 degrees apart. 

[maximNikenGT]

Ok, to try and better understand the inline three cylinder "CP3" design, here's a look at what the firing order looks like when connected to lights: