Several of our readers expressed their own opinions on the future of turbocharging motorcycles. In response to our article dated July 19, 2004, here are the responses:
- Hello there Alex. I’m a regular at Motorcycledaily.com (that’s to say I check the site on a… daily basis :).
About you’re article on July 19, 2004: I actually am more inclined to Supercharged than Turbocharged.
I don’t know extensively any of the two systems, but it seems to me that – and i even think this was one of your daily topics, probably more than a year ago, with the B-King prototype – that a supercharger would be – at least theoretically – more gradual on it’s way of action and therefore more controlable for the rider.
We’ve all seen Ghostrider’s Turbo Busa (pulling whellies at 200 mph) videos (as well as one of a guy with a Turbo GSX-R 600, not able to keep both wheels on the ground – if you haven’t seen it, i’ll send it to you). That doesn’t inspire me one bit. Each corner could very well be your last.
Even with the improvements on Turbo technology, tweaking an engine that already has very irregular (not gradual) patern of power delivery to add a device that just potentiates this effect even more…it seems risky to me.
You mention that the consumer will continue to demand more power in every new bike, and i agree with you. That’s probably the first figure you check on a new bike (even before you look at the price tag).
As long as you still got riders that believe that the main pleasure of riding a bike is getting to the end of the speedometer, there will still be a demand for more and more power.
But it is also true that, for instance in the 600s, the big Japanese Four – on the verge of not being able to deliver more hp out of 600 c.c.s – are focusing on other features, namely providing USD forks and radial brakes on their bikes. On other words – more control, more rideability to an already outstanding engine.
And there are more and more riders out there acknowledging that it’s getting in and out of corners that makes riding a bike the best thing in the world…
Just for the record, my favourite kind of bike has nothing to do with sport bikes (even though i admire them for the technological advances they carry).
As you can probably figure out from my email adress, i’m dying for Setember the 14th at Intermot:)
My kind of bike is the one where you can combine a torquey engine (tuned for mid range power) with ground clearance, suspensions and brakes able to cope with twisty roads ridden fast, and a reasonable price tag attached. You usually end up finding such a combination on the Naked section.
Just my two cents on the subject
- About the Turbo Busa file, you can pick it up here (i tested it today and it still works). It’s a sample video of Ghostrider, a lunatic from sweden (if i’m not mistaken). In the final segment you get to see the bike with the camera going at 299 km/h, and you see Ghostrider storming by on one wheel. Not so sure on the 499 hp he claims though…
The other one i’m sending attached to this email. You can hear the Turbo getting ready to some massive overkill. And the guy simply can not keep the front wheel on the ground. And take a look at the rpm the turbo kicks in…7000…Very tricky…
- As a guy who has installed turbochargers on cars and generally been a
fan of the awesome power turbos can produce, I share your enthusiasm for
turbocharged motorcycles. In the 80’s all of the big four Japanese
manufacturers produced at least one turbocharged model. Unfortunately,
each had at least one glaring flaw, and, although some were pretty good
motorcycles, the rapid improvement in normally aspirated motorcycles
relegated the factory turbo models to a nearly forgotten footnote of
history.
You may be correct in your assessment that now is the time to revive the
factory turbo. Improvements in fuel management, turbocharger design and
packaging should make a contemporary turbo bike much more user friendly
than its earlier counterparts, but I still believe that turbobikes will
be a tough sell to the average motorcycle enthusiast for a variety of
reasons.
The performance of today’s bikes is so generally high that I don’t think
most riders see a need for the kind of power turbos produce, so I think
(at first, at least) demand will be low.
Although turbo lag would be greatly reduced compared to the first
generation factory turbos, power delivery will still be different
compared to normally aspirated models which brings up issues of
controllability and liability.
Turbos inevitably add a measure of cost and complexity that many if not
most riders probably would prefer to avoid.
Having said all that I still think that a well thought out turbo model
could bend peoples’ minds and create a buzz throughout the industry. I
think the first model should not be a cutting edge sportbike, but
perhaps a large displacement sport tourer or a “streetfighter” type of
bike. The amount of power produced could be staggering, making the
current crop of 1000 cc repli-racers seem wimpy in comparison.
- heh, i already have one. 😀 135hp, 55ft/lbs, fat powerband, 355 lbs wet. Only cost 5k to build the FX engine.
- After reading your article today at www.motorcycledaily.com I would like to give a reaction about it.
You mention that in the near future, no big jumps in power will occur. Maybe there is a development that will increase power. That development is the direct injection. At the moment, the fuel is injected in the airflow into the cilinder and therefore it is not possible to clean the cilinder form all the exhaust gasses. With direct injection that will be possible and increase the efficiency. This is already available in diesel engines. The mayor problem at the moment is that the nozzels in diesel engines are lubricated by the fuel, but gasoline lacks this property. When this is solved, a jump in power is available.
Turbocharges will be avaliable when the turbo-lag is eliminated at 4-cilinder engines. With a 180° crack-angle 4-cilinder, this is very difficult because backflow will occur through the cilinders and will create the torbo-lag at low revs (the explanation of the backflow will be very elaborate). A better way to eliminate the turbo-lag is to use a 3-cilinder engine. The backflow can’t occur with this configuration and therefore the turbo-lag is eliminated. Examples are the small turbocharged diesel engines (all 3-cilinder engines) and in the marine diesels (turbo’s are connected to three cilinders each).
- Somebody is specialized in turbo’s on Triumphs (http://www.boostisgood.com/). An article can be found on http://www.motorcycledigest.com/turboconnection/turboconnection.htm.
- An interesting hypothesis, but you are forgetting one important factor – insurance.
When turbo motorcycles were available from the 4 Japanese makers in the early/mid 80’s, the performance gains were far from spectacular, particularly when viewed with the premium cost of the bike involved. The insurance industry went ballistic though, and after 3 years turbo bikes were gone. They still are far more costly to insure today. I am a former owner of a Honda CX650 Eurosport, and I had to be very specific to my insurance company that it was not a CX 650 Turbo. That being said, there are still Yamaha Seca Turbo’s, a few Kawasaki GPZ turbos, and a handful of Honda CX Turbos (500 and 650) on the streets here in eastern Canada. They are highly prized and sought after collectors items. I would love to get a nice clean CX 650 T, but I am in no hurry to see my insurance double.
I am concerned that the current level of performance of open-class sport bikes is so high that really they are too good for the streets. Insurance companies are going to crack down heavy sooner or later. A 600 is a far better bike for the average and above street rider, and I know that insurance companies are continuing to monitor this class carefully. I was talking to one 20 year old rider last week who’s insurance on a GSXR 600 is $6,000 a year!
The last point I have is that I think the 600 sport bike class is quite price sensitive. I’m not certain that there would be a large demand for a $2,000 premium on a turbo bike that would only net an extra 35hp, while gaining a significant amount of weight in the process. How hard have the Big 4 been working at trimming weight off the 600’s for the past decade (who really needs Ti valves anyway?) and how big an advertising feature is it for them?
Where do I think you’ll see turbos? Well if the Burgman, Silver Wing, and Scarabeo maxi-scooters take off, maybe there. Adding a micro turbocharger to a 200cc engine would allow it to remain compact and fuel efficient, while giving power closer to what those “bikes” are now.
- Interesting article about turbo bikes – I live in Japan but I come from Europe and over there there’s one obvious reason not to build turbo bikes: bad press. Manufacturers would be instantly flamed for producing killer bikes (pretty much the same thing around the idea of removing 300 kph marking to keep legislators happy), at a time when most politicians are supporting the vast deployment of fixed speed traps all over Europe, using that as an argument in trying to cut down on traffic accidents.
In France (which is where I come from), we even have a 100hp limitation, which kept most people happy until the local mags started to test ride the new zx-6r when it was first released and was clocked at 250kph (which made a big wave in the anti-bike press).
Bottom line, speeding is politically incorrect (especially in France) and should be reserved to an Elite. Frankly speaking I almost never speed on open roads (I can go to the Motegi circuit when I feel the urge), but I’d be surprised if one of the big 4 was to come up with a Turbo’ed bike (although there’s always crazy rumors in Japanese mags).
- Hi, I have often wondered why there are no turbo bikes,
But instead of 600, I would try it on a 400. I hear that is
a popular class in Japan, and putting a turbo on one would
would be the only way to sell such a small bike in the US.
(BTW, do they have turbo bikes in Japan?)
P.S. that brings up another idea, with bikes being so powerful now, they should
move classes down a notch. Instead of 600, 750, 1000 it should be 400,600 750cc.
(With the repliracers only, not regular bikes.)
- You seem woefully uninformed with regards to turbo power.
Zero lag is not possible, that is the reason manufacturers
do not produce turbo bikes. Manufacturers spend millions to
on eliminate the inherent abruptness in fuel injection systems,
and that is still a major complaint noted by performance oriented
riders. Do you really think the manufacturers will take a step
backwards in throttle control by adding turbo lag to the mix?
Even if it is minimal? Backwards is backwards. What options remain? Supercharging.
- G’day Alex, Interesting article on possible turbo bikes. I’ve been thinking along the
same lines lately. What I have in mind though is not a turbo but a
Lysholm type supercharger, which is just as efficient as a good turbo, but does
not have the boost threshold problems that every turbo will have (especially
on a small-displacement engine). You could build something like a 450cc
parallel twin, with the cylinders canted well forward, and put the
supercharger behind the cylinders. Consider that there are many
street-driven 400hp and even 500hp 2.0L four-cylinder cars, and a 100hp
450 sportbike would not be out of the question at all – with lighter weight
and more compact dimensions than a current 600!
- Alex, I’m surpised you didn’t mention that the factories have already had
a go-around with turbocharging, and found it to be a dead end.
I apologive for sounding pedantic if already know this, but in the early
1980s, the Honda CX650 Turbo, Kawasaki GPZ 750 Turbo (the most succeful and
longest-lived of the bunch, BTW) and the Suzuki XN85 were all for sale to
the public, promising open class power with middleweight size and weight.
Ultimately these promises were not delivering because of the necessity to
strenthen the motorcycle sufficiently to handle the additional power, adding
weioght, in addition to the weight alrady added by the turbocharger, and
it’s plumbing. Thus, the various middleweight turbos wound up closer to
openclass bikes in weight while not quite matching open bikes in power, and
this, in addition to the turbo lag and added heat stress of turbocharging
caused the various factory turbos to fade from the scene within 2-3 model
years.
perhaps, due to the imprved turbocharger construction methods mentioned,
it’d be different now, but I don’t really think it would be a particualrly
good solution, especially for weight-sensitive bikes like the 600
suopersports. the exhaust turbine needs to be made of a material that can
handle the tempertures of the exhaust stream, and that means either steel or
(more commonly) cast iron. the exhasut sytem till have to be heavier (to
support the weight of the turbo) the intake plumbing will have to be more
circuitous, and thus heavier, the radiator will need to be enlarged, the
intake stream will need ot be cooled, via some sort of intercooler, adding
MORE weight…
…considering that the supersport bikes in al classes are trmendously
weight-sensitive, turbocharging doesn’t make alot of sense really.
- I’m saddened by all this talk of horsepower without any mention of weight. Using Moto-GP bikes is a good example. A street bike having half of the power and the same weight of a Moto-GP bike would be a real screamer. While the top speed wouldn’t approach 200 mph it would accelerate, handle, and brake in a very satisfying manner. Given the venue, public roadways, I would gladly give up some top speed for a bike that is considerably less susceptible to bumps, sand, and gravel. I find it odd that there is nothing either on the market or in the pipeline due to the increased safety of a lighter weight motorcycle alone.
- I’ve been a big proponent of turbos for a long time, it is a great way to produce massive gains with relatively little effort… however, the big4 will not do it until racing rules change, plain and simple. Keep up the great work
- The big 4 already know how to produce a turbo.
you only look back to 1994… go back another 10, to 1984 and I think you’ll find all of the big 4 japanese manufactuers produced turbos, with varing success.
Hell, I almost bought Kawasaki’s 750 turbo… it was the fastest production bike in 1984 according to the shootouts from now defunk cycle guide and others.
In 1985, with 5k (that’s what a cutting edge sport bike cost then.)in my pocket i walked into my local kawi dealer and wanted a turbo. the dealer talked me out of it and into a 900 ninja, for which I am very happy!
i remember the logic…. ” do always ride roads you know?” my answer was no, not usually, the response was ” how would you like to go into a corner, assume where the corner ends, let the boost kick and find out there was more to it than you thought…. that’s a $5000.00 hole in the underbrush you just plowed. the ninja handles better and unless you are pointed straight, the turbo is no fun.”
I still own that bike along with 5 newer ones i’ve picked up along the way.
Tires, frames and everything else has gotten better, so maybe now is the time to reintroduce the turbo.
But search the web for the kawi 759 turbo… still a cult bike, and still real fast.
that was by far the most successful of the turbo’s!!
- Legistlators, lawyers, and litigation.
- Turbocharging = more weight. Nothing’s impressive about a 135hp 600
weighting the same as a 1000. My recomendation is a 400cc four cylinder running 18-20 lbs boost = 350lbs
wet/125rwhp. Or, switch to direct-injected 2strokes: 1000cc four cylinder = 350lbs wet/350rwhp
- What qualifications do you have to be commenting on engine performance? Also, turbos on streetbikes is not going to happen, period.
- Are you kidding?
“One would think that 115hp 600s and 190hp 1000s would be fast enough, but it is clear that the consumer will continue to demand more power for the forseeable future… Although not many people would feel that a ZX-10 needs 50 more horsepower, how many would go for a 135hp 600?”
Lol, no disrespect intended but only one kind of person needs more power than bikes today make–a future road fatality. Seriously, 90~130 HP is more than anyone can use in real life driving. I have a ’91 Suzuki GSX1100G which has something like 105HP. I love the power, but I cannot imagine actually needing more. What I would really like is a 100HP bike that gets 50MPG. Now that would be a significant performance gain!
There really is such a thing as “enough is enough”. Japanese bikes make enough HP, they should focus on other elements such as better fuel economy, tire life, and range.
- Why not superchargers rather than turbochargers?
- you do see turbo bikes…now and then – http://www.labusas.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=52859
- Regarding the article about turbo’s on bikes. In the early-mid eighty’s, manufacturers tried to put turbos on various mid-range bikes. They didn’t sell well here in Australia.
Complexity (with higher service costs), weight and cost. Why bother with a high horsepower mid-size bike when you could buy a high horsepower litre bike that was cheaper, lighter and simpler?
Turbos work better in cars. Keep up the good work.
- You’re right. Until people stop and objectively think about what they need HP-wise, how much they can actually put to use, and how much they sacrifice and miss out because they send signals to the manufacturers that dragging their knees and 180mph top ends are the prime determining factor of a motorcycle’s performance quotient–we all will pay extra for something we can’t use.
I appreciate your reply. You have a great m/c website, keep it up.
