These are pictures of the Suzuki concepts that will be on display at the Tokyo Motor Show next month. The Recursion pictured above features a 588 cc twin-cylinder, turbocharged engine. Automobiles are looking to turbos to combine big engine performance with small engine fuel economy, and the Recursion may be driven by a similar theme. Here is what Suzuki has to say about the Recursion:
Recursion: a compact roadster with sophisticated features of adults packed into a middle-class motorcycle.
- The Recursion compact roadster has a styling that gives form to the love of motorcycles, while striking a balance between the running performance of a large displacement motorcycle and the easy handling and economy of a middle displacement motorcycle.
- By arranging a newly developed 588cm3 water-cooled in-line 2-cylinder engine with an intercooler turbo on its compact body, it realizes easy handling and economy on city streets, and an exhilarating, torquey ride on winding roads.
- True to the name, Recursion is a model that brings back the basics of riding excitement in the diverse ways a motorcycle can be enjoyed.
The second concept is the EXTRIGGER, which Suzuki describes as “an electric mini motorcycle”. Similar to the Honda Grom, the EXTRIGGER has big bike features, such as inverted forks and disc brakes. Here is Suzuki’s description of the EXTRIGGER:
EXTRIGGER: an electric mini motorcycle that offers new sensation to have fun.
- This is an electric motorcycle that was developed to give more people the chance to find out the fun of motorcycle. It is easy to ride and offers new sensation to have fun.
- An electric motor unit of the e-Let’s electric scooter is equipped on a compact frame similar to that of a small bicycle.
- While it feels like a toy bike, the EXTRIGGER has features that are small but look like the real thing: aluminum frame, inverted front forks, front and rear disc brakes, and so on.
- Making use of visible light communication technology, the rider can receive information from the motorcycle shop or enjoy communicating with friends.
- The name EXTRIGGER is coined from EX, which stands for Electric CROSS (X) over, and TRIGGER, which means a chance. Our desire to give people a chance to get interested in motorcycles with this model is put into its name.
I see a little of the Nuda concept bike is the styling. Let’s just hope that some one at Suzuki has pu any effort into the 2015 bikes. I can wait 1 more year but if they mail it in for another year, I’ll fess up the funds for an MV Agusta 800.
Nobody going to say anything about the britten rip off styling?
I was thinking Honda NAS myself…
No, if you look at this image of the last Suzuki turbo I think you will see the similarities.
http://www.motorcycles20thcentury.com/motors/normal/Suzuki-XN85Turbo-1984.jpg
I was thinking 83 GS1100ES/GS750ES evolution… XN-85 too… I’ll give them a pass…
There is no set lifespan of turbochargers, some outlast the vehicle they are put in. A turbo is expensive to replace but not as much as a transmission. On a motorcycle it would be cheaper and smaller than for a car or truck and probably easier to replace anyway.
What about this VLC system on the EXTRIGGER? Is that platform close to viable? Or are we just talking “flash your headlights at each other” stuff?
Turbochargers live in a very hostile environment, which is why they are a failure point in any ICE engine system. The current generation of turbocharged cars haven’t yet accumulated high mileage, but they soon will. Turbochargers tend to fail at 100,000 miles or so, and are very expensive to replace. They also can cause head gasket failure as well.
A turbocharged motorcycle may be a good idea, and a lot of fun to ride, but it will carry the risks of high repair costs as the motorcycle ages.
re: “A turbocharged motorcycle may be a good idea, and a lot of fun to ride, but it will carry the risks of high repair costs as the motorcycle ages.”
no worries, I’m here to tell you the zero maintenance vehicle doesn’t exist. man has yet to invent one nor will he ever. solution…? simple, accept that everything has a cost of ownership and budget accordingly. try it, you’ll never be surprised by a service bill again.
While I’m ambivalent about what Michael said ( I doubt 2% of motorcycles see 100K miles), I find your response to be to be disturbing. Yes, there are no maintenance free vehicles but that doesn’t mean we should accept what ever the manufacturers come up with. Cars have practically eliminated scheduled maintenance while bikes are no better than they were 20 years ago. I see this changing, even Ducati has been extending service intervals to cut ownership costs, but not very quickly.
On the surface this bike doesn’t do anything for me but if it is built it could be really exciting or a read dog. NC700 fuel economy when you want and serious performance when that is the rider’s choice. Or, it could be a mess with turbo lag, poor reliability and high costs. At this point we’re just guessing.
Goose
Motorcycles will always be maintenance intensive when compared to cars. This may get better, but they will never be what a car is. Motorcycles are relatively high strung and as such are subject to more wear and tear when compared to a car.
re: “Cars have practically eliminated scheduled maintenance”
the respective warranty and legal departments of BMW, Volvo, and Lexus cry FOUL…!!!
re: “Yes, there are no maintenance free vehicles”
full stop.
re: “but that doesn’t mean we should accept what ever the manufacturers come up with.”
actually, until you and I construct part warehouses, set-up R&D/design centers, and pioneer assembly line production that beats Henry Ford at his own game…? that’s exactly what it means.
so that leaves 2 choices. A. you can waste a great percentage of your life (time that you won’t get back mind) “raging against the machine” pretending the average citizen has a snowball’s chance of building a better mouse trap…? or B. you can wisely budget money for maintenance no different than a well run company does for the vehicle fleet they depend on day in and day out to transact business.
if tommorrow, walmart decided they weren’t going to budget money for their trucks…? I guarantee, empty shelves would start showing up all around the country by Monday morning.
Gee Normie – if I can distill your statements here a little it seems you believe the customer should just “suck it up” or build our own.
Normie the market has the option also of making informed decisions on the varied competitive options and developments that producers of goods are forced to make to ensure sales.
Differentiating your product is of paramount importance to maintain sales advantage. Producers of goods have the option of including extended maintenance intervals for their products – it’s always been a case of “caveat emptor” (buyer beware) But as the self appointed resident expert on all things you would already know that
The option of making informed decisions still falls squarely within accepting what the manufacturers come up with and option B.
If what you claim has a grain of truth, then it is just the same old story. It is to be expected to a certain extent. You save money one way and then Big Business finds just another way to take it all away. Big Business may occasionally like to act as if it is your best friend while shaking your hand and generously taking the knife out of your back, but then eventually they just another place to stick back in.
I guess it would be too perfect of a world if Big Business simply allowed you to take all the money you would save on gas and just walk away free and clear.
I imagine the turbo will outlast the bike. If not, they are cheap to rebuild (and easy for someone with a little mechanical aptitude) or can usually be had for a reasonable amount with a core exchange.
Head gasket failure is a thing of the distant past, especially for an engine designed for turbocharging to begin with, unless the owner starts trying to bump compression or boost.
Operators of semi trucks with seven-digit mileage figures with original turbos bolted to their industrial diesels might argue with you on this.
On a motorcycle, the rest of the bike being exposed to usual wear and tear is going to disintegrate before any manufacturing flaws in most modern turbochargers cause them to fail.
OK, I need to chime in again. Having owned a 83 Honda CX650T Turbo I put over 40,000 miles on it. Then only problem I had with it was the stator would short out and need replacing (not fun). It was a problem with a few Honda’s including the Goldwings so it wasn’t a turbo related issue. I used synthetic oil from after the initial breakin till I sold it 20 years later (which I still regret). Turbocharged engines are no more failure-prone than any other type if they are taken care of. On that point turbos in cars are operating in a more contained environment with more heat soak than motorcycles. My turbo was in front of the engine exposed to oncoming air so bikes with turbos have a distinct advantage over cars with engine bays.
My bike and other 80’s turbo owners I know are living proof that turbos are a viable option in a era of ever more expensive fuel costs. Yes you can eat your cake too. Listening Suzuki???
There are plenty of 100k+ 80’s Thunderbird TurboCoupes running around…
Very good, lol. How true.
Who buys a bike to save money? God only knows I haven’t.
“The current generation of turbocharged cars haven’t yet accumulated high mileage, but they soon will. Turbochargers tend to fail at 100,000 miles or so…”
No, sorry. Absolutely-freakin’ wrong. The only time you hear comments like that is from people with no experience with turbocharging. Especially modern turbocharging.
Turbos have been in cars for YEARS, the first turbocharged production engine was the 1962 Chevrolet Corvair.
I have owned FOUR turbo cars:
– 1987 Dodge Lancer Turbo, 71,000 miles
– 1989 Dodge Colt (Mitsubishi Mirage) Turbo: 215,000 miles
– 1991 Mitsubishi Galant VR4 – 195,000 miles
– 2002 Volkswagen Jetta GLS 1.8T – sold at 220,000 miles, current with 285,000 miles running strong
I have NEVER replaced a turbo. NEVER. But, then again, I have also never replaced a clutch in any car I have ever owned. NEVER.
Turbos burn out because the buyer-owners of turbos don’t know how to handle them, don’t know how to maintain them and don’t know how to drive them. Period.
Turbos cannot be shut down immediately after a sustained run that is significantly above idle / significantly above main turbo RPM spool up point. You can’t run a turbo car at highway speed, pull into the rest area, park it and turn the car off immediately. You’ll burn up the turbo bearings pretty quickly that way if you do.
You must COOL DOWN a turbo after a run – let the engine idle for 45 seconds to allow the turbo to reduce its rotational speed so that, when the engine is turned off and the main oil feed to the bearing gets turned off as well, the bearing can survive the balance of the spin-down process. Modern turbo systems, like the VW, have an ace in the hole: they have auxiliary oil pumps to supply the turbo bearing with oil after the engine’s main oil pumps is turned off. These auxiliary “turbo oilers” have been around for years in the aftermarket.
Modern turbo systems use advanced bearings, sometimes ceramics, and also generally wrap the bearing in a water coolant jacket to further stabilize the running temperatures. Between all these advances – bearing quality, water cooling, oil systems – unless you are a complete moron you won’t go through your turbo in the car’s lifetime. Then again, if you are a complete moron you really shouldn’t be driving a turbo vehicle, the performance pattern, abilities and general driver-owner knowledge required is over your head.
When I sold my VW Jetta turbo to the guy I work with I told him all the tricks to turbo ownership – cool down after running, use no worse than synthetic blend oils of the proper viscosity, change oil every 3,000 LIKE RELIGION – and he’s been a happy owner, loves the car. 31 MPG on the highway but with great passing power, got rid of his Audi A6 V6 because it was getting 16 or so MPG and the fuel bills were killing him with the mileage he does. That’s why I love turbos: cruising efficiency of a small 4-banger, passing power of a V6!
I would buy a turbo bike in a HEARTBEAT. If only Suzuki WASN’T making it – Suzuki has a fixation with low, uncomfortable bars in anything besides their cruisers (and the Bandits).
Well said. Someone that knows what they are talking about.
Snake … I thought you were dead! Just kidding …
Your general guidelines for turbo ownership make sense. But do they apply to turbo diesels as well? My dealer never mentioned them when I bought my SUV.
Seems like it is Suzuki’s version of the NC700X. Another way to attack the gas economy issue while maintaining decent performance. The Big 4 seem to be betting that gas price will rise to a significant degree in the near future.
I know it’s designed to attract new buyers, being electric and all, but I can’t help but believe that if Suzuki placed an ICE in the Extrigger, it would be an even bigger sales success. It looks better than the Grom.
Looking back to 80’s turbo bikes is ridiculous. With modern electronics running the FI system, I am really hoping bike makers start incorporating turbos. Even a BMW 5 series now can be had with a turbo 4 cylinder motor. I’ve driven a couple of modern cages with turbo motors (Ford escape, BMW 3). It’s a smooth, progressive power delivery that would be fantastic on a bike.
My ’83 Honda CX650T turbo was a fantastic machine. With the obvious gains in technology over the last 30 years it would be a no-brainer to add a turbo with computer management, especially to a simpler motor like a twin cylinder. My turbo was great back then and I can’t wait to see what they do with them now, if the incorporate them.
The computer management part is where we must wait and see. Very few bikes have FI systems that are more than the most basic types out there. There has only been a few bikes with variable valve timing. We’re still a long way off from direct injection on motorcycles too. These are the things missing from the turbo discussion when considering how good they are in cars these days.
+1
This is the future. Due to fanatical out of control government, emissions levels will be driven to beyond crazy restrictions. The only way to meet them is by variable cam timing and turbos. Say goodbye to v twins as this doubles the extreme cost of the cam drives.
The government is not out of control. I appreciate not sitting behind a vehicle spewing out unburned hydrocarbons at a stoplight in a summer traffic jam. Emission controls for motorcycles is something that should happen. You don’t live in your own universe. My FJR has catalysts and fuel injection. I don’t smell like gasoline after a ride like some of the bikes I’ve owned in the past. Form follows function and the cultural environment. We live in the 21st century, not the 1950’s.
That said, I don’t think turbocharging is the answer. Variable valve timing and lift; yes.
Flame away, I don’t care.
The two strokes of the 70s are still running (see craigslist) The turbo bikes of the 80s have been sent to scrap mills. Calculate the energy and material consumption of manufacturing the so-called efficient vehicles against their supposed better mileage (maybe as much as 10%)and there is a net loss.
The govt heavily subsidizes the hybrid vehicles. Are you aware of how fuel consumption is calculated for hybrids? The vehicle starts off at zero miles and runs on the battery for 100 miles. Then it switches to gas and burns 5 gallons over the next 100 miles. Fuel consumption is then rated at 5 gallons per 200 miles. This is all done so that politicians can claim to save the environment.
Actually, my sister has a hybrid. She got it about a year ago. The fuel economy that she’s getting is right where the EPA said it was going to be. She consistently gets 41-43mpg from her Prius V station-wagon. She does not make any effort to drive it efficiently and doesn’t do anything special. She loves the car — it just gets good fuel economy getting her to work, driving her kids around, etc. Now, honestly, it’s pretty bland to drive. There’s really no enjoyment to driving it. But the the fuel economy is undeniably good in real life situations.
Re. “The two strokes of the 70s are still running (see craigslist) The turbo bikes of the 80s have been sent to scrap mills”
If you consider how many 2-stroke bikes were produced vs. how many turbo bikes were produced I’m sure you would find that the tiny amount of turbo inventory on the market represents a bigger percentage of the overall production than the ‘smokers.
We didn’t change from 2-strokes because of a government mandate, we did because the makers chose to offer the superior technology and we overwhelmingly agreed with our dollars.
This is all but guaranteed to find a place beside the recent Suzuki in-line 6 in the motorcycle idea delete bin.
I like the uncluttered essential look of this concept model. It’s been mentioned earlier but the issue of turbo lag in motorcycle applications still has me also thinking a mechanically driven supercharger on a relatively small cc engine is preferable.
High immediate output and fuel efficiency plus significant reduction in engine mass and format size has got to be a desirable development for IC powered vehicles. Blowers (superchargers) have been around for ages. The ideal combination is a supercharger running at lower revs which cuts out as the revs build enough to run a turbo. This combined boost system works well on the KAD32 Volvo powered diesel in my boat.
VW developed a twincharger engine a while back. I assume it is still in production. Subaru used to sell a twincharger kit for the WRX as well.
Subaru has never sold a twincharger kit. The twincharger kits for the WRX are all aftermarket.
Yes, you are correct.
Excuse me if I have this wrong but haven’t all the WRX Subarus been turbo boxer engines?
Turbos, yes. Twin-chargers, no.
Computer controlled turbo does the same thing as the supercharger/turbocharger combo. According to Kevin Cameron the Recursion produces 100bhp @ 8,000rpm, and peak torque of 74lb/ft @ 4,500rpm with a power band that is 3,500rpm wide!
more than 3,500rpm wide if the torque peaks at 4,500. I imagine, at 4,000rpm or lower, it isn’t that far off 74ft-lb.
re: “It’s been mentioned earlier but the issue of turbo lag in motorcycle applications still has me also thinking a mechanically driven supercharger on a relatively small cc engine is preferable…”
…in 1993. however fast forward two decades to 2013 and the fluid dynamics, compressor maps, and housing A/R has all been sorted.
Turbo. OK, here we go again, partying like it’s 1983. Damn, I must be getting old, but it seems this industry hasn’t had an original idea since the 1920s.
There are times when older technologies are brought back and with newer technologies made to work more satisfactorily.
I don’t think warp drives are available yet.
Like what? Mechanical legs instead of wheels? Anti-gravity capability? A cloaking device? Nuclear energy? Yeah, modern bikes are so boring, with their “unoriginal” technology.
Beam me up, Scotty.
a turbo twin sounds exciting , and it looks cool
(oh lord I can’t believe i’m about to offer this)
Hamamatsu, you produce the Recursion for me staying 98% true to the concept, and I will turn a blind eye to what you’ve done (or not done) the past 14 years in grandprix. to sweeten the pot further, I will keep an open mind (supportive even?) regarding your latest grandprix attempt. deal…?
PS Suzuki: anybody who knows me, knows this is tantamount to Norm G. selling his soul to the devil.
Forget about the turbo, if Suzuki really plans a 588cc (aka 600) twin, let’s see that in a mini VStrom with RMZ quality suspension and 21″ front wheel.
re: “Forget about the turbo”
remember the turbo… and the Alamo.
🙂
DR600R? I think you are more likely to see the turbo.
Having owned a 1983 Honda CX650T Turbo that I bought new and had for 20 years I know what a twin turbocharged bike feels like and it is an absolute hoot. I got 55 mpg and roll on was only matched by my 2002 Hayabusa. I handled pretty well and made a great sport touring machine. Honda only made the turbos 2 years. A 500 in 82 and a 650 in 83. The 650 benefited from Honda working out the kinks with the 500, like turbo lag. I hope Suzuki can field a turbo bike because with today’s computing power (the CX650T had a basic computer that ran the fuel injection system) and maybe a variable vane compressor I would give my right arm for it (I am left-handed :).
Come on Suzuki, bring it on!
I am more than impressed at the style an paint scheme on that bike. Classy.
Same here. I like the light passing through and all- business fairing. How about rim mounted rotors, gas in the frame, and belt drive to go with that exhaust?
Today’s turbo cars go more for torque than max HP. Maybe this bike concept is along those same lines.
F### me running that is one great looking bike.
YAWN,How about a sport tourer with some decent HP.
Yeah, something like really updated Bandit 1250 to 2014 status of technology.
The Bandit was always last generation (or older) from current tech. Other brands have it covered.
Right, because we have plenty of turbo bikes on the market but a huge shortage of powerful sport touring bikes.
Suzuki has been down this road before. Anyone remember the 1983 XN85 Turbo? Not a very successful machine then, and will probably not fare too well in the future. Turbo lag on bikes is not a welcome feature, especially in the canyons.
Turbocharging had come a long way since ’83. I briefly had a Volvo 850 Turbo (overall a mistake) that was tuned right – 200 hp or so at 5000 rpm roughly, but 200 ft-lb or so at 2000 rpm roughly. And this car was…a ’94 offhand, I think. Somewhere in there. It had an automatic yet still basically no lag.
And I must point out, the fueling on my 07 FZ6 is like turbo lag to a certain degree anyway…dead spot at 6k or so right where you find yourself cruising…so bottom line, if done right I would not be worried about turbos on a bike now.
I haven’t experienced turbo lag in any modern automobiles I’ve driven. Turbos spool up so fast now that lag seems to be a throwback to the 80’s. Hopefully, that sensation would be similar on this bike.
I was a 84 model Gronde. It also didn’t make too much more horsepower for it’s engine size so the extra cost wasn’t worth it in consumers eyes I am sure. The best all around model was the Honda 650 turbo which I owned but the king of the hill in power was the Kawasaki 750 turbo produced in 84-85. It made 112 hp (a lot for the time) and all turbos are highly collectible now. Turbo lag was not an issue because the turbos were located right beneath the headers on most bikes.
A turbo diesel would have been interesting.
I can’t say that’s something that would interest me in a motorcycle. Especially in a sporting sense. Relatively low revving with relatively high torque and mileage sound fine in a car but not what I want in a motorcycle. Then there’s the typical extra weight and cost that comes with a diesel.
I want a turbo diesel Gold Wing that gets about 65 mpg at a constant 75 mph….now that would be some efficient touring!
Interestingly just one disc on the front , I wonder if they did it to keep the package “clean”.
nice bike, will wait for performance numbers…
From the looks of it, that concept bike doesn’t weigh much more than three hundred lbs. With so little weight and not all that much motor, a single front disc is more than sufficient. Less unsprung weight, especially on the front wheel = always a good thing. Even something as relatively powerful and heavy as a full-sized Buell manages perfectly well with a single disc up front, so this little guy should do just fine.
I’ll find difficult to believe it’s 300, materials should be pretty exotic, remember that the ninja 300 is almost 400, add to that the feel you have this is not a racy bike and some premiums like single side swing arm and you don’t know what to believe.
On the other side remember buell brakes are periferic so much more disc area and torque per tire rotation this is more stopping power assuming same brake system than this approach.
This is just a concept bike, though. No passenger accommodations, no lights, no blinkers, no sidestand…no nuthin’. Lots of open space even in such a small engine bay. As presented, it doesn’t look to weigh much more than three hundred lbs. Three-fifty, tops. Sporting only 588cc’s of parallel twin motor (plus a small turbo), it’s not going to make enough power to necessitate a second front disc.
The production version will be a whole lot lardier than this, so we’ll see.
So I found some more info and it’s 380 pounds (they don’t say if dry), 100hp @8000rpm, 74 pound-feet @4,500 rpm, and seems like the main idea it’s to be cheap… we’ll see
There’s not much point talking numbers as it was an actual motorcycle – this is just a concept, nothing more at this stage. By the time it reaches production (if indeed it ever does), the figures will look very different. Certainly the weight will increase, if only from adding all the bits required to make it street legal.
Re: “74 pound-feet @4,500 rpm”
Oh yes.
Dave, “74 pound-feet @4,500 rpm” is 63 hp. Not many people get excited over 63 hp these days.
It’s a 600cc twin. That’s a lot of torque for that engine speed and it makes 100hp at 8k/rpm. That’s a really broad spread of power that I’m betting will be much more enjoyable to ride than any I-4 600. I’d prefer a rideable 63hp over a useless 120hp any day.
63 HP at 4500 rpm on a sub-400 lb bike? I am excited. But I am easily excited. Sign me up.
Look at it this way: for something like 5k you have more than 60hp, might be enough to get out from that curve and the small straight before the next curve on your Sunday morning canon carving, one downshift and one up not done on those small parts between curves.
A 120hp I-4 makes 63hp at around half throttle – then you have the whole other half to use. I don’t see any downsides.
And to think…. we might get to play with the boost too… this bike could be a lot of fun.
Nice to see Suzuki thinking clean styling on the Turbo Twin. Their current offerings of the V Strom for example are too weird (also see Gladius,etc.)and a turn off for many, including me. I had a GS650G that was one of the best looking and best sounding bikes ever. If it looks good, sounds good and rides good, it sells real good.
missing the pricing 🙂
GS650G Katana must have the been the worst of over 20 bikes I have owned. Heavy, slow poor cousin to the 750 with shaft drive. But that turbo 600 is something fresh from Suzuki. They need to create some more icons like the RG500 of yesteryear, take some risks and put the uniqueness back into their products.
So with developing this 600 twin turbo, that’s what Suzuki’s been doing laying low these past couple of years. Talk about innovation. Here’s the future.
Turbo twin, not twin turbo. 🙂
Clearly, this bike was ‘patterned’ on the early 80’s Katana.
I want a turbo bike!
“Recursion: a compact roadster with sophisticated features of adults packed into a middle-class motorcycle.”
Oh, and which sophisticated features of adults would those be? Season tickets at the Met? Post-graduate degrees from Oxford and Yale? A healthy addiction to online porn?
And how did Suzuki pack these things into a motorcycle, anyway? More importantly, does Al Gore know about this?
and yes the “adult” advertising is dumb…
Gotta love those awkward Japanese translations.
Someone really should tell them that the size of the average American adult is growing, and they probably won’t be able to pack too many inside of this motorcycle.
On a serious note, I hope the final version has a more useable seat, something I can strap a tail pack on.
gotta admit, for all their lukewarm product offerings, Suzuki really knows how to knock a concept out the park.
Too bad their designs get so watered down on their way to production.
It’s got to be water cooled, turbo’s run hot (eyes roll upward).
Today I can hardly imagine an electric motorcycle I would spend any amount of money on. But before obnoxiously, and ignorantly (as in, unaware of all aspects) decrying it as a non-starter, one must consider the ability of imagination and engineering to bring phenomenal capabilities to market.
A friend of mine who has made millions as an early employee of a large oil company sold all but one pickup truck of his gasoline burning collection of very nice cars, and replaced them with a Tesla Roadster a couple of years ago. I laughed, and asked if he felt like a hypocrite. Then he let me drive it. Wow. He is correct in saying that it is the future of transportation. One day it will translate to two wheels. For now my IC propelled motorcycle will provide lots of smiles, but one day…
One of the most intriguing bikes I’ve seen in a long time. The key to its success will be eliminating turbo-lag, a phenomenon that compromises riding a lot more than driving.
A mechanically-driven supercharger would have made more sense to me…
mechanically driven supercharger does seem like a better idea…i wonder why the biking world hasn’t seen one. or maybe i’m just ignorant of their prior existence
I’ve seen superchargers used in custom builds. I imagine it is easier to package a turbo on a motorcycle than it would be a supercharger, though I can’t say for sure. I suspect the main reasons turbos are more popular are:
1) more torque over a wider range
2) The drive mechanism (exhaust gases) are already there. You would need another shaft, or somehow modify the countershaft, with a pretty big pulley wheel sticking out of the engine.
Moderns emissions controls force engines to run at high temps. The turbo keeps the heat in the exhaust manifold, which is good for emissions.
Styling wise, that turbo twin is a real departure for Suzuki. I’d like to believe that there are decent looking Suzukis on the horizon but I think I’d just be setting myself up for disappointment.
we feel your pain brother!
Errmmm……
“Making use of visible light communication technology, the rider can receive information from the motorcycle shop or enjoy communicating with friends.”
No habla visible light communication technology? Are they talking about sending signals via morse code using the headlights or what here?
I wish I could convey how very tired I am of seeing the next great electric bike.
Why don’t you magazine guys do a story on government subsidy for this BS?
Yeah, I know.
Just wait. Before long it will be a turbo electric bike with light-saber technology. And a 31 mile range. For $15,950. And it will burn down at random times.