Sport Bikes banner

1 - 20 of 283 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,272 Posts
Makes more sense than a turbo, though with electronics today's turbo's are pretty broad on the powerband

Now, how about a supercharged 800cc Goldwing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,277 Posts
Makes more sense than a turbo, though with electronics today's turbo's are pretty broad on the powerband

Now, how about a supercharged 800cc Goldwing?
VGT solves all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Why supercharge a liter bike? They already have so much power that we need traction control to keep it on the damned ground. So the idea is to add another 50-100hp?

Why not supercharge a 600 so it has similar power to a 1k but with less weight?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,263 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Why not? Is 180hp that much more reasonable than 200+? I think a supercharged 600 would cut into their sales of both 600s and 1000s. Although I'd love to see a 400 lb wet 150+ hp bike.
 

·
Are we not men?
Joined
·
9,017 Posts
VGT solves the turbo lag problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,272 Posts
We've been down this road before when I was a young man. The turbo charged 650's were going to run with the 900's.

Didn't work too well back then, tech was premature. I think it will still be an issue today, due to weight, complexity, packaging
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,613 Posts
VGT solves the turbo lag problem.
I'm sure that stopped being a problem in the current generation cars, and would not be a problem with a good boost and proper valves. With cars, I can understand that you dont want the whistle, but motorcycles...well...i still cant get why you'd charge a motorcycle, so whatever.

I'm with ****...charging a motorcycle is just a waste of engineering, and probably geared towards teh fast and furious turbo Nissan corolla/civic types.
 

·
B O R I C U A
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
I'm sure that stopped being a problem in the current generation cars, and would not be a problem with a good boost and proper valves. With cars, I can understand that you dont want the whistle, but motorcycles...well...i still cant get why you'd charge a motorcycle, so whatever.

I'm with ****...charging a motorcycle is just a waste of engineering, and probably geared towards teh fast and furious turbo Nissan corolla/civic types.


Ball bearing, billet compressor wheels, and Gamma-Ti turbine wheels makes the VGT turbo look like an overengineering nightmare, IMHO.

As for the fast and furious comments, turbos have a gained TREMENDOUS popularity among among V8 drag racers. Case in point, this happened couple of weekends ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgKtABk1PPg

A decade and a half ago, turbos in a doorslammer was basically unheard of!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Um, blowers are on almost all sports cars these days. Corvettes, Cadillacs, Camaros, Mustangs... It's a wonderful way to increase power and reduce weight.

It's just that bikes have other things they can improve on besides raising peak HP numbers (like a smoother band, aerodynamics, or less weight).
 

·
B O R I C U A
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Um, blowers are on almost all sports cars these days. Corvettes, Cadillacs, Camaros, Mustangs... It's a wonderful way to increase power and reduce weight.

It's just that bikes have other things they can improve on besides raising peak HP numbers (like a smoother band, aerodynamics, or less weight).
Any type of force induction will increase HP/TQ under the bell, not just peak HP. In fact, depending on the turbo, powerband is increased, while there is none at peak.

What I don't understand, is, how do you reduce weight by adding force induction? Unless, a different cast on the engine is used, or a smaller engine is used, I don't see how weight could be reduced by adding force induction.
 

·
Turbo nerd.
Joined
·
13,732 Posts
Any type of force induction will increase HP/TQ under the bell, not just peak HP. In fact, depending on the turbo, powerband is increased, while there is none at peak.
Only if you are building to full race levels, on underbuilt street machines you get a peak increase as well.

Plus I doubt that statement, a lot, what forced induction does is jam more air into the chamber, so you can add more gas and get a b***** boom, no more, no less. Since you are getting WAY more air with the pressurized intake charge its pretty much a given that an engine will produce more power at a said RPM, just because HP is torque times RPM/ dived by the 5250 (the conversion from linear to angular)....assuming you can keep the charge temperature down to reasonable levels...this is why the big turbo set loves E85, it burns cooler so you can just pour it in.

What I don't understand, is, how do you reduce weight by adding force induction? Unless, a different cast on the engine is used, or a smaller engine is used, I don't see how weight could be reduced by adding force induction.
If I can build a 750cc super charged I-4 and replace a 1400cc NA I-4 at the same power levels, which is going to weigh less? Not to mention all of the reciprocals are going to weight fraction, you have less mass spinning, which is going on a motorcycle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
417 Posts
Any type of force induction will increase HP/TQ under the bell, not just peak HP. In fact, depending on the turbo, powerband is increased, while there is none at peak.
If you could tune a charger in such a way that most or all of the power increases took place before redline, then I would be all for it. I doubt that would be feasible, though.
What I don't understand, is, how do you reduce weight by adding force induction? Unless, a different cast on the engine is used, or a smaller engine is used, I don't see how weight could be reduced by adding force induction.
I'm running under the assumption that there is more power to weight advantage to adding a turbo/supercharger than there is to adding a larger engine block (safe to assume this is true on cars, or else they wouldn't have put a 2.0l turbo into the lancer evos; they would have just crammed a 5.0l in there). In other words, a smaller, lighter bike with a charger could produce similar numbers to a larger, heavier bike without one.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong; maybe the difference in engine weight between 600cc and 1000cc is less than the weight of adding a supercharger. Or maybe the increase in price would defeat any purpose. But then that would bring me back to my original point: why would we bother doing this? Adding more horsepower than we have now isn't really going to do much for acceleration times (wheelies, don't ya know). The only real benefit you would get out of it is increased maximum speeds, but those are already governed at 186mph. Sure, it would increase top speed on a track, but oh yeah, this bike isn't going to be legal in any circuit. I consider that self-defeating.

This is just my opinion; maybe this seems like an awesome purchase for some, it just isn't for me.
 

·
B O R I C U A
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Only if you are building to full race levels, on underbuilt street machines you get a peak increase as well.
Not really, it really comes down to turbo efficiency, and boost management.

Plus I doubt that statement, a lot, what forced induction does is jam more air into the chamber, so you can add more gas and get a b***** boom, no more, no less. Since you are getting WAY more air with the pressurized intake charge its pretty much a given that an engine will produce more power at a said RPM, just because HP is torque times RPM/ dived by the 5250 (the conversion from linear to angular)....assuming you can keep the charge temperature down to reasonable levels...this is why the big turbo set loves E85, it burns cooler so you can just pour it in.
See above, FI needs to be carefully selected, a turbo that will be out of its efficiency range, will yield great numbers down low, and become a hair dryer, where boost can't keep up on top, thus yielding minimal gains up top; or on the other side of the spectrum, no power down low, and then all of it up top.

Any type of forced induction will love E85, E98, alcohol, or nitromethane.


CoonDawg said:
If I can build a 750cc super charged I-4 and replace a 1400cc NA I-4 at the same power levels, which is going to weigh less? Not to mention all of the reciprocals are going to weight fraction, you have less mass spinning, which is going on a motorcycle.
I was referring to this comment:
CoonDawg said:
Um, blowers are on almost all sports cars these days. Corvettes, Cadillacs, Camaros, Mustangs... It's a wonderful way to increase power and reduce weight.
They way I read it, he meant that Corvettes, Camaros, Mustangs were using blowers in a way to increase power and reduce weight.
 

·
B O R I C U A
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
I'm running under the assumption that there is more power to weight advantage to adding a turbo/supercharger than there is to adding a larger engine block (safe to assume this is true on cars, or else they wouldn't have put a 2.0l turbo into the lancer evos; they would have just crammed a 5.0l in there). In other words, a smaller, lighter bike with a charger could produce similar numbers to a larger, heavier bike without one..
I read your post incorrectly then, thought you meant something else. My apologies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
743 Posts
Choosing to use the H2 name means it's likely going to be rediculous. My guess is a bigish CC sport but not race replica bike. Think ninja 650 style bike but with 180hp, a lowish redline, and a godawful amount of torque. More of a competitor for the 1290 Duke.
 
1 - 20 of 283 Posts
Top