[Rahulkool]

Originally Posted by PrasannaDhana

Contrary to majority here, I feel it is a great pricing. If people are ready to spend 1.4 lakhs on an 18bhp 150cc Yamaha, 4.5 lakhs for a 42bhp 300cc is no big deal. I for one would buy this over RC390, having ridden both 390 and r15, you well know how better the Yamaha deltaboxes are in handling. Plus brand image!

I am not sure what are you talking about, i have ridden the first gen R15 and D200 and in my opinion D200 is no way less capable in handling/braking. The ridding stance is completely different on both bike and someone staight coming from R15 might find it uncomfortable. What brand image are you talking about ? as far as i know KTM has a better brand image in performance segment. Yamaha has ruined its brand image with countless flops and commuters in recent years.

[ani_meher]

Originally Posted by ShashankM

I have a simple query about ride experience. I have ridden my Unicorn for 300km in one go. Can you guys share your thoughts on this one.

So what's your query? Whether such distances can be done on R3? Very easily. As comfortably? Depends on your preference and flexibility. I have done 700kms with pillion on Ninja, but wouldn't want to repeat that if possible, mainly because of hard seats. 300kms on such bikes is very easily doable, not just single, but with pillion and with all kinds of bags you can attach to the bike. If you are not in good physical condition, there will be some discomfort.

[VeluM]

I'm confused about why a parallel twin of approximately the same capacity as the single-cylinder Duke 390 produces less power and torque at a higher RPM? Shouldn't the torque naturally be at lower RPMs because of the two cylinders? If that's true, why would they intentionally push it up?

Sorry if this is OT, just wanted to understand.

[The Great]

Originally Posted by VeluM

I'm confused about why a parallel twin of approximately the same capacity as the single-cylinder Duke 390 produces less power and torque at a higher RPM? Shouldn't the torque naturally be at lower RPMs because of the two cylinders? If that's true, why would they intentionally push it up?

Sorry if this is OT, just wanted to understand.

Torque is twisting force -- pounds of pressure multiplied by the length of your leverage.

All things being equal, the pressure of the burning fuel-air mix will be equal between a single and a twin -- the same pounds per square inch. To get pounds of force pushing down on the piston you multiply the PSi by the area of the piston. The single has the larger piston diameter and thus the greater downforce.

The twisting force (Torque) is this downforce applied through the lever that is the crank. The single has the longer stroke so it's greater downforce is multiplied by a longer lever to produce even greater torque.

The number of cylinders gives you a more even application of power, and the smaller cylinders allow higher RPMs for much greater power -- but for brute twisting grunt torque the single cylinder rules. Which is why dirt bikes, where torque is at a premium, are mostly singles.

[nitrogary]

Originally Posted by VeluM

I'm confused about why a parallel twin of approximately the same capacity as the single-cylinder Duke 390 produces less power and torque at a higher RPM? Shouldn't the torque naturally be at lower RPMs because of the two cylinders? If that's true, why would they intentionally push it up?

Sorry if this is OT, just wanted to understand.

Good question. I spent some time thinking about this and in very short here is what I think.

1. there is a 50 cc difference in ktm vs r3 capacities. therefore, it is sensible that the ktm would make 5 Nm torque more (i have seen this trend in na petrol engines, cc/10 = torque in Nm, for a compression ratio of 10.5-11). i know this is not really your question, but just saying.

2. Part of the answer may also lie in looking at compression ratios of both engines. i googled it (so anyone knowing better, please correct) - ktm rc390 seems to have a 12.6:1 ratio compared with the r3 running an 11.2:1.
That makes the torque production very, lets say edgy. A quick look at the curves will help you understand what i mean. the r3 torque curve is pretty smooth.

3. Third is the bore stroke ratio. KTM running a 89 x 60 (1.48) and the yamaha running a 68 x 44 (per pot) (1.54). The R3 running a more oversquare engine. This allows higher rpms to be achieved by the engine. The mean piston speed of the r3 is slightly (but this is significant in terms of reliability) less than the ktm (about 1 m/s) at peak torque. With such an oversquare engine, you are more likely to get peak torque at higher revs since the breathing will be nicer there. the piston has to cover a lot less distance even at high rpms and you can optimize valve timing to have max volumetric efficiency at that point.
at lower engine rpms, you ll have too much time for the combustion to happen. retarding the timing is the solution to make the engine rideable there also - yamaha know this all too well - more than any of us. also, two power strokes v/s one will also help in linearizing the torque.
the reverse analogy is also true - look at royal enfields, how much torque they can make at low end. or diesels - they make the most oomph at as low as 1500 rpms.

to me, a good engine is one which will make its peak torque at 2/3rd or less than the rpm of the peak power. this will give you great drivability and elasticity of the engine.

ps - i have two bikes which cover the range of what i spoke. the rd350 and a triumph bonneville. the 350 being a high end torque, starts peaking at say 5000 revs and ends at 7500. the bonneville makes 85% torque at even 2500 rpm, redlines at roughly 8k. the rd gives a lot of rush, but the bonneville shouldn't even be compared to it. its in a different league.

[VeluM]

Originally Posted by The Great

Torque is twisting force -- pounds of pressure multiplied by the length of your leverage.

Originally Posted by nitrogary

Good question. I spent some time thinking about this and in very short here is what I think.

Two really nice detailed responses for what I thought was going to be a sad question. Thanks a lot guys.

In hindsight I should have figured it out myself, because the two power strokes would provide a higher median torque rather than higher overall torque over the cycle.

Also appears that Yamaha has tuned the engine for reliability and possibly our poor fuel, and hence the lower power figure as well.

However, because it is relatively far more expensive, a prospective buyer would probably still choose the Duke. From my (average) perspective, 3.25 is big money for a 350ish cc bike. Or it has become so ever since the Duke came along and reset expectations.

Originally Posted by theredliner

I personally don't find any point in investing in these bikes (Ninja and R3) if one is keen on upgrading 2-3 years later. It is better to buy a KTM 390, save some money and buy a properly fast 600 class bike later. If one wants better reliability and practicality, get a CBR instead of the KTM. 4L+ OTR for these 300s is way too much when you can ride home 600s for 6-7L.

A KTM with some after market parts installed would improve quality and reliability to an extent and will still be cheaper with ABS, better tyres, better handling etc. Also, I wouldn't trade that addictive 373cc mill to any parallel twin no matter how smooth they are. The parallel twins are too linear and boring to me personally. They don't 'feel' fast like the KTM's single.

Cheers!

[alphadog]

Thank you guys for the simplified explanation. It makes sense why certain engines produce oodles of torque at low end and certain others are meant to rev.
I feel that other than the Duke 390 and the RE bikes, the future volumes lie either in the < 250 cc or > 600 cc bikes.
The 250-600 range is going to be dead ducks, cos people who are starting out will settle for a 250 cc and once they feel the need to upgrade they will go for a >600 cc rather than settle for a paltry 50 cc / 20 hp more.
But I suppose its always good to have choice.
Cheerio

[Aniket6]

Has anybody checked out the R3 in person?
I took a test drive of Ninja and Duke 390 yesterday. Head says Duke and heart says Ninja. Looking at R3 as well. Any idea when the test rides would be available?

Btw the music from Ninja300 after 6k RPM is simply mesmerizing!

[abhisheksircar]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=L9GidY6bwQY

Sagar from Powrdrift is quite active in this page and he rode the R3 on BIC. You can ask your questions to him there. All I got to know is that he said that the engine is class apart.

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by barcalad

OFFICIAL : 321cc / 42 PS / Red Line between 12,500 to 13,500 rpm

Available in Midnight Black and Racing Blue.

Price = 3.25 lakh ex-showroom Delhi.

Attachment 1402408

I like twins a lot, and I like Yamahas, but...

I know I've been conditioned by less duty-laden North American pricing, but whatever the case/cause, IMHO, NOT.WORTH.IT I mean, c'mon, look at how much materials and labor are going into the production of, say, an Alto 800 (or, for that matter, even a Conti GT) compared to this, and tell me how it is possible in any way to justify it? Buyers will be paying NOT for the bike's finer qualities, but for importation "penalties" (call them what you will) that add no value. NO VALUE. It will be a niche-market bike because most people will KNOW it's not worth it. The Duke is selling well because it's a lot of performance and technology for the money. KTM was confident that a great bike could be manufactured completely in India, and I can't see but that other Indian manufacturers are going to follow that formula and create some excellent options in the days to come. And if and when those days do come, those who paid 3.25L for something like this are going to look a little silly in retrospect. Just my 2paise, of course.

I mean, if you've gotta have a parallel-twin sport bike RIGHT NOW, well, go for it. They do sound sweet and pull smooth(er). But seriously...

-Eric

[VW2010]

I took a test drive of Ninja and Duke 390 yesterday. Head says Duke and heart says Ninja. Looking at R3 as well. Any idea when the test rides would be available?

Go with the head. Coz if your heart said Yamaha, i would have said try the Yamaha.

You want something really brutal by all means its just the 390. Like its biggest brother super duke, the bike is a maniac for street and race track.

The ninja is refined, smooth and very calm to me compared to the 390.

Yamaha R3 is a baby R6 with bad one disc brake. This bike deserves a twin disk atleast like its elder sibling.

Except the brake areas to be R3 is better buy than Ninja and 390 the best buy for VFM and equal fun. The 390 will not lag any of these bikes in any condition at the hands of the right person

[ringoism]

Originally Posted by theredliner

I think the single vs twin in this case is similar to V-Twin vs Inline 4 in higher capacity bikes. Some people prefer the grunty, rough, torque surge of V-twins of Ducati Panigale, KTM RC8 etc. while many prefer the smooth, high revving iniline-4s.

I haven't ridden any high capacity Ducatis. So, can't comment on that. But I'm guessing that I'd like the Ducatis more considering their nature.

Did ride a Ninja 250 a few years back. The bike was fast, refined and neatly built. But did not find it exciting enough for me to put that much money into it.

That might be a reasonable comparison. I actually did have the pleasure of riding a friend's Ducati ST-5 (legendary 916 engine) some years ago, and I thought it was just wonderful. Also a cousin's Triumph Bonneville, for which I'd say the same - it seemed near perfection for both of us. I've ridden big singles (KLR/XL/DR/Bullets) quite a lot, and as far as inline-4's, Yamaha's FZ600. Also a couple of Ninja 250's.

My conclusion? Big twins give the most smiles per mile (but that's just me): the "raw" nature, the responsiveness, the torque, the SOUND. The Indian-market Ducati 796 Monster actually seemed a reasonable deal in that realm, and to me a simpler/purer bike than its successor.

For small twins, I think those few rare v-engined models have a bit more character than the parallels (didn't personally find the little Ninja's inspiring AT ALL). There's a couple U-Tube videos of a piped, retro-style Yamaha Renaissa (250cc v-twin) running around some city - check it out, this is just a lovely machine. And a friend here has an older (but impeccably maintained, like new, piped/K&N) Hyosung 250 Comet that he picked up for a lakh - which despite whatever foibles I'd have to say is the absolute sweetest sounding bike of any kind that I've ever heard in India (though piped RD350's are not far off). Inline 4's can be fun, but revved up they sound a lot like mosquitoes and God knows we've got enough mosquitoes around already...

-Eric

[man_of_steel]

Slight OT: Yamaha confirms the existence of MT-03!

http://www.visordown.com/motorcycle-...med/28108.html

[Aniket6]

This is now in showrooms, so any initial impressions by anyone?

The Ninja I booked is still 2 weeks away and this comes into picture. Both are neck to neck.
Which would be better between N300 and R3?
Any guesses on upkeep costs of this compared to N300?

[abhisheksircar]

The first lot of bikes in the South of India has arrived. Bangalore Wheels in Bangalore has placed the order of the Maximum R3s in India. He has the reputation of selling the maximum number of super bikes too. The bike is initially invoiced to the owner of the dealer making him the owner of the maximum number of R3s in India Each truck came in with 5 bikes, neatly placed. Being the first bike in South of India, the bike went through a 3 hour PDI with all gadgets possible being as simple as a steel scale to a detailed online diagnostic tool. One line impression. Fits in just perfect between the R15 and the R6.

The first view of the bikes



Detailed PDI done by Yamaha officials. R3 will be serviced in the SBK platform as it will not fit in the regular ramps



Finally, The display. A mandatory setup in the guidelines setup by Yamaha