Yamaha R6 2007 hot bike

[chaz]

at our training day for this years BSB marshalls we were told that if any of the R6 cup riders fall they must go to scruitineering before riding again.
raised the question WHY?

answer, redesigned fuel tank, and also cat fitted to the exhaust.

so what??

well the cat is sat under the tank and will reach temperatures of 1500 degrees, so they dont want to risk a crease in the tank rupturing onto the cat!! .

amusing thing is tho, I did ask Why are they allowed to get back on after they fall, surely thats risking the lot going up
hasnt been discussed as a possible problem, well thats clear then!!

[sirch345]

Visions of the Colin Edwards incident

What a brilliant idea I don't think

[LotusSevenMan]

Are Yamaha being reported to the RSPCA then?

Seriously though, that is a lot of heat in very close proximity to the fuel. Sounds like a heat shield is required between the two items.

[KarlosVTR]

if mere mortals can foresee such problems like that, im sure the souless nips have something sorted

[chaz]

as I said, ACU regs this year state when recovered after a race the R6 Cup riders MUST get the bike back (or Rob Mac's crew) to scruitineering before allowed out in another practice or race.
They are obviously aware of the problem, I wonder if there will be a recall for road bikes ?
wonder what the insurance companies would say, wonder if they know

[LotusSevenMan]

Karlos VTR

On a slightly different note but you'll see where I'm coming from.

I remember Kawasaki having a lot of grief over a certain bike it had produced. Can't remember as it was a long time ago. A motorcycling journalist thought the bike was what he wanted as it handled well etc so after the bike mag test he ordered one for himself (his money). The bike duly arrived and he found it had headshake problems. He suspected head bearing and it was put into the mags workshop for checking. It came back as all OK. Problem remained. They looked at all the other bits (damper settings etc) but still it would do it. As the tested Kawasaki was still with the magazine they did some back to back comparisons as it came to light that other members of the biking public were having the same problems with their new bikes too.
To cut this long story short it turned out that production bikes had a headstock angle half a degree more (or maybe it was less). I know it was only half a degree. It seems Kawasaki knew they had got it a bit wrong but had lots of stocks of built-up bikes with the wrong angle ready for launch. They altered the frame angle and gave the magazine test bikes the new frames with the idea to phase in the new angle when the initial batch of bikes (with incorrect angles) was all bought up!!!
Nothing ever seemed to happen in regard to legal stuff IIRC but it makes me distrustful of all new products from manufacturers; whoever

[chaz]

did Kawasaki ever forsee carb icing? funny how most of the other manufacturers followed suit.

[KarlosVTR]

wouldnt there need to be a number of complaints to vosa? or the 1st run of bikes need to by type approved by them?

someone will know