After mentioning the Morbidelli V12 and V8, I started thinking about one of the other compact V8 engines, the Drysdale V8. Ian Drysdale initially built the 90 degree engine with heads and cams from a Yamaha FZR400R for the 750cc version and from the Yamaha 600 Fazer for the 1000cc version. The engines and bikes were built but I haven’t heard much since. Those were nice looking machines but all information seems to be at least 5 or 6 years old. I wonder …
Link: Drysdale V8
justpete says
How about Allen Millyard’s KZ2300 V12? That was quite the machine.
Nathan French says
OHHHHH id buy that…
willie schmitz says
Coupla interesting things on the web site.
The difference in sound between the Guzzi 90 dereee crank and the Drysdale flat crank plus the twin they came up with.
When I win the lottery…………..
taxman says
i love the idea of putting some form of small V8 into a bike. and i really like the overall look of the drysdale V8. one thing i notice though is that as nice as this bike looks, i think it might be deceivingly wide and heavy. i would still buy one in a heartbeat if it was at all within my budget. the sound of a high rpm V8 would be music to my ears.
mobilus says
I emailed Ian Drysdale about this bike a few months ago. They’ll build one to order, with a lead time of 6-7 months. Price at the time was about US $70,000. Options can be had with body/frame color, wheels, brakes, exhaust, etc.
mobilus says
Oh, and a very, very beautiful bike to my eyes. Would love to have one.
Dodgy says
I saw Ian this morning, he’s doing a lot of consulting work for SE asian companies…
JC says
Somewhere on this site is a Hayabusa based V8, intended for motorcycle powered cars, but surprised it hasn’t shown up on a motorcycle especially since there are a large amount of Hayabusa fans and customizers out there.
Ian Drysdale says
Thanks for the interest in my little V8’s, between the all comments, it has summed my situation up pretty well. I have another 2 x 1000 Sports bikes almost finished, plus an engine for a US customer. I will build maybe 4 or 5 more, including a Cruiser / Bruiser for myself. I have had 2 Chinese companies ask me if they could put my V8’s into production but I have politely declined so far. Apologies for my website, it has been sadly neglected for quite a while. And Dodgy, you were late to work as it was, should you be reading websites at work as well, what would your boss say about you going to work direct from a bar at 9am in the morning ?? Cheers IAN DR.
guitargeek says
Well, there you have it!
Let me just add that this is one of my dream bikes. Beautiful work, Ian!
kneeslider says
Thanks for the update, Ian. …
therock says
mmmmmmmh, V8, HX kingsy chamois in colour, 3 on the tree, bench front and back, or my old HZ bucket out the front, shopping for 29 in the boot, ah V8, you bring back memories, now excuse me while I go to work. Hops on the CB250….
Phoebe says
Ian, it’s really cool to hear from you. The engine sounds fantastic and the bike is beautiful. I’m curious, what do you feel the advantage is of having a V8 powered bike as opposed to a V4 or V6? This isn’t a pointed question, just pure curiosity.
By the way, I absolutely love your Carberry-Enfield twin. That is a gorgeous engine. I would love to see that in a nice cafe racer! =)
todd says
just my assuption but;
The V-8’s smaller pistons and valve train allows higher RPM and, hence, more horsepower. Smaller components can flow and burn fuel more efficiently and run cooler allowing higher compression ratios which helps create more torque. Plus it probably sounds beautiful and looks great.
The 90deg V configuration helps eliminate vibration and fits the frame nicer than an inline 8. Years ago, Honda published engineering results that show a 125cc cylinder has the greatest potential for power (in multiples).
-todd
Phoebe says
Thanks for the little engineering lesson, Todd. =)
PigIron says
.
I like V8 engines but 8 cylinders produce more internal drag than the same displacement with fewer cylinders.
And if 125cc’s per cylinder is so great why was Honda’s 990cc MotoGP bike a V5 and Ducati’s a V4?
Hugo says
Because of the weight restrictions in MotoGP; a V8 needs to weigh more then a 4 or 5 cylinder and Honda decided it wasn’t worth it. All manufacturers made simulations to determine what comfiguration was the best. Also fuel consumption could be an issue…
todd says
That was also results from testing in the ’60’s. 40 years later, other technologies may have eliminated that advantage.
I definitely think size was also a concern. Even though the cylinders are smaller, they are still round and need space around them for water jackets. A V-four or V-five can be built narrower than a V-8 and this would help reduce frontal area and drag at the high speeds associated with racing. At racing speeds, increasing aerodynamics is more affective than adding more horsepower.
You can also imagine the chances of component failure for an 8 are twice as high as a 4.
-todd
ROHORN says
Component failure has nothing to do with part counts. It has everything to do with part mass at any given RPM.
What are faster in (road)racing – 600 singles or fours? Or more reliable? Heck, I’ve never heard of a single cylinder endurance racer.
The old NR500 was more or less a V8 with siamesed pistons.
Roadracers spend very little of their time at the top 10% of their speed. That said, I’m not dismissing the effects of aero drag. Aero drag is largely controlled by rules as well.
Engine width has next to nothing to do with drag – RIDER packaging is what ends up determining the total frontal area. Any engine narrower than the rider’s hips/knees/legs/etc.. isn’t doing anything to lower drag.
todd says
OK, let’s think about the obvious math here:
If one part has a 1:50 failure rate, two of the same parts would yield a 1:25 failure rate. How is that not obvious? There are some benefits that may reduce the multiple; it’s likely the two components are slightly smaller (and hence stronger) than the single component. So now the odds might be more like 1:40. Oh but the conundrum… you’re now spinning the two lighter parts at 25% higher RPM…
Back when singles were competitive in racing they were more durable than the fragile Italian fours. But those fours went like stink, reinforcing my premise that more cylinders flow and burn better and allow more RPM creating more torque and ultimately more horsepower. Besides, singles were competitive when tracks were short and technical favoring light weight and staccato drive out of corners. Endurance racers required more horsepower for those long straight runs.
A 600 single or twin will never be capable of producing the amount of torque and RPM as a 600 four, physics will not allow it. One reason the NR500 had oval pistons was so they could stuff all those tiny little valves in there to increase torque and RPM (torque and RPM = horsepower). I don’t think I have to ask about which direction they oriented those pistons…
If engine width is of little concern in racing then why did Kawasaki build a square-four? Why is the motoCzysz built longitudinal? The rider is a fixed width regardless of bike. If he can tuck in behind a smaller fairing, all the better. I don’t know about you but I’m about 16″ wide across my widest point, my legs tend to stick out past that on a bike. If the bike is narrow I can tuck my legs in more, reducing frontal area and drag. I really don’t know why I’m arguing conventional understanding with you.
-todd
ROHORN says
Todd,
Please learn something about inertia, fatigue, engine design, failure analysis, race tracks and what classes are raced on them, etc….. Your examples are shamefully bad. For starters, you left out how those lighter parts are moving a smaller distance. Is stress and strain linear with size, mass, distance, speed, and RPM? What does “MTBF” stand for – and have “Failure ratios” been relevent in engineering since, oh, say, the Civil War?
What the heck – anyone should understand this: If the knees provide an 18″ wide frontal area, does it matter if they are behind an 18″ wide cylinder head (not that there are any in racing) or between a 6″ wide cylinder head? NO DIFFERENCE. But that doesn’t stop people (who sometimes design race bikes, usually unsuccessfully) from thinking that it does.
An awful lot of sport styled bikes have frames and/or gas tanks wider than the engine and also force the knees out, meaning engine width isn’t even relevent in those designs.
todd says
RPM will help determine life expectancy of a part since the Mean Time Between Failures does not consider time, only cycles. A component that experiences more cycles in a given period of time (say a race) is more vulnerable to reaching the end of its useful life than one that experiences less cycles in the same time period. A larger component in a heavier system does have more work to do but it also doesn’t have to do it quite as often. It may be weaker (because of the forces acting upon it, not necessarily because of its physical size) but it can be designed just as easily to operate within its intended MTBF. You may also want to look at MFOP (or F-MFOP).
Please read the red text at the heading of the comments section.
PigIron, yes, according to early Honda engineering results, a 1000cc-8 (125cc cylinders) has the potential to produce more power (torque and RPM) than a 1000cc single, twin, triple, four, five, six, seven, nine, etc…
I hope all these comments answer Phoebe’s question. 😉
-todd
todd says
Sorry, technically MTBF does consider time, a cycle or range of cycles being “time”. I meant to suggest some items can last the same duration of time even if they can’t survive the same number of cycles.
-todd
ROHORN says
Which means that the above V8 should be no less reliable than, as I understand it, the 400 from which it was derived.
That said, I’d still rather mess with twins. Twin cylinder engines, that is. I just don’t have the misconception that they are more powerful or more reliable due to the number of parts involved.
Oh, THAT RED PRINT? Motorcycles are inanimate objects without feelings and always respond to reason.
Hugo says
Some interesting info about the Ecosse and aerodynamics by Tony Foale: http://www.ecossespirit.com/PDFs/Moto%20Tech%20press%20piece.pdf
Canzvt says
When I was doing some research work on infinitely variable valve timing we met with engineers from BMW when they were working on the Valve-tronic. According to them (and backed up by GM engineers) the most efficient cylinder diameter for 4 stroke combustion with PUMP GAS is between 82 and 86mm. This indicates flame front speed is critical. All other engine design variables are design compromises for things like desired RPM, torque curve, engine size, accessory location, # of cylinders etc, etc. Also look into bore/stroke/rod length comparisons. F1 is approaching (if not exceeding) 3:2:1. That is for a bore of 100, stoke will be 50 and the rod length will be 150. This addresses internal friction of the piston/bore relationship, as well as allowing hi RPM for Horsepower, while maintaining acceptable rod angularity to maintain torque (for a given engine size).
todd says
Maybe Honda was trying to mislead. Their own 250 was a 6 and their 125’s were twins and fours. I’d love to be able to find the artical again, it’s just that it’s burried somewhere in a giant stack of old motorcycle magazines from that era.
-todd