For the first time in more than two decades, you'll be able to buy a bike with an across the frame six-cylinder engine. We look at the enduring appeal of six..
The bike in question will be BMW’s forthcoming LT tourer, which will use the engine and chassis shown off in last year’s mad-looking Concept 6 prototype wrapped up in a new touring package. But regardless of the new LT’s intentions or appearance, all eyes will be focussed on just one aspect; the new 1600cc straight-six engine unit.
Ask any engine designer, and they’ll quickly explain that, in theory at least, the in-line, or straight six is one of the purest, simplest, smoothest layouts it’s possible to find for a reciprocating internal combustion engine, short of a V12. Everything else – singles, twins, fours and even V8s and V6s – are a compromise, with basic problems of balance and smoothness.
The basic ‘rightness’ of the six layout is best illustrated by the capacity variations of the design. Straight sixes have been made in every imaginable size, from the tiny Honda 250cc racers of the sixties, with thimble-sized pistons and internals more Hornby than Honda, to an incredible 10,920,000cc (yes, nearly 11 million) from a Wärtsilä-Sulzer two-stroke diesel ship engine – a 49,200bhp, 1160 tonne monster.
BMW’s design chief, David Robb, developed the Concept 6 and the forthcoming production bike said: “It’s our job to come up with solutions and I’ve been very impressed by our engine’s performance.
“But there’s also the feeling of a straight six, the power delivery is quite different. It’s a very sovereign power, very pure.”
Putting six cylinders in line might give near-perfect balance (see panel), but it does present other problems.
From the engine designers’ point of view, a straight-six has one of the longest crankshafts of any configuration, and while cranks are hugely strong, under the forces inside an engine they can – and do – flex. And the incredibly high revs a six can operate at thanks to its balance can make the problem worse. Designers don’t want to add too much strength to the crank, as that increases weight and restricts revs, but they must ensure it’s strong enough to resist the twisting and flexing forces it undergoes.
Modern materials and computer-aided design technology are a massive help in reaching that balance but even with a perfect straight-six engine, the bike designer still has a problem; how to fit it into a bike. Almost inevitably, six cylinders will take up more space than four and when they’re strung out in a straight line across the bike’s frame, as on the new BMW and all previous production straight six bikes, that means adding width to the whole bike.
The enormous-looking engines of a Kawasaki Z1300 or Honda CBX1000 might be a vital element to their styling but they’re not conducive to extreme bank angles. Once again, however, modern technology is coming to the rescue, allowing thinner cylinder walls and tighter bore spacing to bring the overall width down.
When it comes to creating a production bike, and all the penny-pinching that entails, the six-cylinder has another drawback – it’s got 50 percent more cylinders, pistons, conrods and valves compared to a four.
When it comes to making a profit, that’s a potential problem and one that must weigh heavy on the mind of any bike firm hoping to offer a straight six. Certainly, earlier machines, like the Z1300, bore this out with high purchase prices which inevitably kept sales down.
But once again, it’s not quite as clear cut as it seems. While a six has more pistons, it can save in other areas, particularly when compared with the latest generation of four-cylinder engines. Its perfect balance means there’s no need for a balancer-shaft, or any of the associated gears or chains to drive one. Since many modern fours are opting for just such shafts in an effort to cut vibes and drive revs ever higher, it means the overall component count for a straight six is now comparable with that of a cutting-edge four – something that definitely wasn’t the case 30 years ago.
Posted: 08/08/2010 at 01:15
Sorry colonel, you're quite wrong;
The smoothness of the straight-six is well documented. The main crooks of the issue is that it has both primary and secondary mechanical balance, which can be achieved without using a balance shaft. The engine is in primary balance because the front and rear trio of cylinders are mirror images, and the pistons move in pairs. That is, piston 1 balances 6, 2 balances 5, and 3 balances 4, largely eliminating the polar rocking motion that would otherwise result. Secondary imbalance is avoided because an inline six cylinder crankshaft has six crank throws arranged in three planes offset at 120°. The result is that differences in piston speed at any given point in rotation are effectively cancelled.
An inline four cylinder or V6 engine without a balance shaft will experience secondary dynamic imbalance, resulting in engine vibration. As a general rule, the forces arising from any dynamic imbalance increase as the square of the engine speed — that is, if the speed doubles, vibration will increase by a factor of four. In contrast, inline six engines have no primary or secondary imbalances, and with carefully designed crankshaft vibration dampers to absorb tensional vibration, will run more smoothly at the same crankshaft speed (rpm). As engine reciprocating forces increase with the cube of piston mass, inline six is a preferred configuration especially for large capacity engines.
Posted: 10/08/2010 at 12:42
Become a fan of Visordown
Follow us on twitter
Other Immediate Media Sites
Our eCommerce Platform
© Immediate Media Company Ltd 2012. This website is owned and published by Immediate Media Company Limited. www.immediatemedia.co.uk