Superbike Development

[Blade]

Just read an article on the BMW S1000RR M Package in this months BIKE magazine.

They start by talking about the FZR1000 launched in 1989. I remember it well and being in total awe of it riding around on my Honda 125 superdream . At launch it had 124 BHP in a sports chassis weighing 235kg wet. Back in the day that seemed alot, it seemed excessive, it seemed uncontrollable and almost pointless to some degree, just as today's headline figures do.

Jump forward 30 years and we have 205BHP in a race sharp chassis ready to roll at 193.5kg

The headline quote in the article is Double the power to weight ratio

I know some will say what's the point? but forget the debate of how suitable it is, or how useable it is, that's an impressive leap in engineering and tech. Double the power to weight in a hugely cleaner and more environmentally friendly machine with alot more sensors and kit bolted in there ie. Abs pumps, IMU units etc.. too.

I would say where will be in another 30 years? 420 BHP in a bike that weighs 99kg?????

Sadly we all know we will be on an electrically driven bus, eating vegatables, reminiscing of the good old days when we took responsibility for our ownactions and were not over regulated by a nanny state obsessed with protecting us from ourselves.

Whatever your opinion or desire to own this kind of motorcycle, we should embrace the fact that we are in a golden era. The pinnacle of the combustion engine and freedom to be legally allowed to own such excess.

Make the most if it while you can

[Monty]

Well, I'm just going to come straight out and flatly just disagree

[Blade]

Well, I'm just going to come straight out and flatly just disagree

On what grounds? Is it the nonsense I have sprouted

[D41]

The engineering will top-out at some point.....sooner rather than later.
It'll be like flight...where we went from the Wright Brothers' Flyer at Kitty Hawk to the Moon in less than 70 years, and then nothing much further than that except "downstream".......cars & bikes will be the same, I think.

[Kwacky]

I fully intend to be dead in 30 years time.

[D41]

I don't. That's just depressing.

[duke63]

I suspect this is the peak. Car manufacturers are no longer spending money on research and development for the internal combustion engine.

There won’t be enough fuel stations to support bike use by ICE in 20 years time unless someone produces a completely clean burning fuel.

It would be interesting to see inside the R&D departments of bike manufacturers at this moment in time.

[Rossgo]

In all honesty I feel lucky to be in a situation to be able to own a bike for fun. The tech and development into such vehicles is stunning. It really impresses me to be fair. Yes it won't last forever but its incredible how much effort they have put into each release to make it better than the last. Just think in 20 years time that will be in the classic collection of some museum

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[Blade]

Tbh supercharging hasn't taken off as much as I thought it would. When Kawasaki first launched the H2 I thought they would release more models and other manufacturers would follow suit.

Small capacity, forced induction engines are the way forward in the car world to maintain performance and meet more and more stringent emission standard.

[Kwacky]

There's no point in Kwak flooding the market with supercharged versions of their normal bikes if there's not the market for it. At the moment they're doing H2 versions of current models.

[Blade]

Yeah agree mate, just surprised the market is not there tbh.

[Rossgo]

I don't know it took car companies years for superchargers and turbos to become the norm, now companies are turning away from superchargers due to emissions and fuel consumption. Personally I think it nice for a few bikes but not every bike. It makes the bike more special if if has a supercharger incorporated.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

[duke63]

I do think the really high end bikes are now beyond the capabilities of the average to decent rider.

Reading PS this month, the editor didn't like the new BMW as he said its very hard work to make it go fast. Its the same thing that has been said about the V4 Ducati.

Even the faster journos are struggling with them yet put them in the hands of a decent racer and they rave about the BMW and the Ducati.

[Kwacky]

Foggy said years ago that 100bhp is more than enough for the road. I still agree with him.

[D41]

Turbos & superchargers are fine for cars & trucks, where weight & packaging/space aren't an issue.
And bike engines are already pushing the mechanical envelope....100bhp per litre is a big deal in a car...it's nothing on a bike, they're already way beyond that. "Law-of-diminishing-returns"...or something like that.

[Blade]

Superchargers consume engine power for them to be driven so will always produce more emissions than a turbo which is driven of waste exhaust gases which is effectively free energy.

I remember reading an article on a supercharged v8 Jaguar. The supercharger developed 150bhp but it used 70bhp to be driven so the net gain was only 80bhp. Until read that article I did nt realise superchargers were that inefficient.

Turbos are fine in cars where you can have 2 or even 3 different size turbos to eliminate turbo lag, but you cant package that into a bike so driven superchargers make more sense on a bike and no concerns of any turbo lag.

I dont think bikes need more power. But instead of 1100cc V4 engines you would get similar power from a supercharged 800 so in theory low er emissions in the smaller engine for the same power output.

[Blade]

I do think the really high end bikes are now beyond the capabilities of the average to decent rider.

Reading PS this month, the editor didn't like the new BMW as he said its very hard work to make it go fast. Its the same thing that has been said about the V4 Ducati.

Even the faster journos are struggling with them yet put them in the hands of a decent racer and they rave about the BMW and the Ducati.

Surprised at that tbh. I have limited talent but I found the v4 ducati made ridiculous speed far too easy. Not just straight speed line either, the brakes and suspension gave huge confidence to allow more corner entry and the motor was insane driving out of corners.

The best 2 bikes this nobber has found easy to ride briskly are both v4s. The Pani V4 and the Pirlla RSV4. Both made ridiculous speed all too easy to the exact unless you were riding banzi they were pretty boring as they were just effortless to ride quickly. Not just the power but the package as a whole made that difference.

[Blade]

Foggy said years ago that 100bhp is more than enough for the road. I still agree with him.

Always said Foggy was a dick

[Kwacky]

Fair play if you can hammer a 200bhp bike round corners on our roads and find it boring

[Blade]

Fair play if you can hammer a 200bhp bike round corners on our roads and find it boring

Absolutely never said that at all mate and never would. I clearly cant use all or anywhere near all of a modern superbike. I purposely used words like brisk not fast and me being a nobber so as not to imply that to be fair

Horses for courses. I probably rode a Pani V4 at 10 tenths of my ability and 5 tenths of the bikes, but it was still way too fast and the naughty speed came all too easy is my opinion.

It's like the car world. Get in a stripped out 206 GTI from the 80's and 100mph feels bonkers. Get in a Bently Contential and 100mph feelis like a steady bimble in perfect comfort. My point is some vehicles make speed feel effortless. They dont insert extra talent into the rider / driver, there just to dam efficient at making fast easy.

Flip side a 100 bhp cbr6 feels gutless imo. Duke believes his 128bhp street is perfect and I would say that's close to the mark for my ability. One of the most perfectly balanced bikes I've owned for speed and handling was a cbr954 which made about 135ish at the tyre. Enough to be enough and scare you from time to time but not intimidate you either.

Just my opinion mate, and yeah foggy is a dick