Why no production forced induction bikes?

Seems like you could make a super charged 600 that would be much lighter than the equivalent hp 1000cc bike, so why don't they make them? Can't be reliability as the Japanese firms would get it right if the wanted to.

[Skip]

In BIKE this month there is a supercharged Fazer 600 - at lowish boost its making 170hp at the wheel!

Originally Posted by thor

Seems like you could make a super charged 600 that would be much lighter than the equivalent hp 1000cc bike, so why don't they make them? Can't be reliability as the Japanese firms would get it right if the wanted to.

Cost!

[the_lone_wolf]

what he said^^^

you can make huge horsepower, but try making it last 4000miles between services, that's got to be a big factor in the true cost of developing a road engine...

Not sure if there's a size constraint too? An airbox can be pretty much any shape you want, can be moulded to fit round existing components whereas a turbo/supercharger is going to be a very definite shape which needs to find a hole someplace to sit.

That and as lone wolf says, cost of reliability. I had a rock solid reliable turbo charged MX-5 but that was only pumping about 150bhp out of a relatively massive 1.8 engine. Squeezing more power than that out of an engine a third the size that revs twice as high has to be an engineer's nightmare

Originally Posted by Skip

In BIKE this month there is a supercharged Fazer 600 - at lowish boost its making 170hp at the wheel!

Exactly. Just thought that a well proportioned system would be reliable and wouldn't cost more than the equivalent thou. It would just be lighter.

Because power isn't the issue with modern sportsbikes. they can have pretty much all they want - nobody is looking for a 50hp increase on the 600s

Originally Posted by gettin2dizzy

Because power isn't the issue with modern sportsbikes. they can have pretty much all they want - nobody is looking for a 50hp increase on the 600s

So why buy a 1000cc one then? It's not like they are more practical then the 600cc.

Originally Posted by thor

So why buy a 1000cc one then? It's not like they are more practical then the 600cc.

Extension of ones penis, more bragging rights, lazier engine for long riding (that would be my reason for having one), ability to take it superstock racing!

Matt

Originally Posted by thor

Exactly. Just thought that a well proportioned system would be reliable and wouldn't cost more than the equivalent thou. It would just be lighter.

Bear in mind a large part of the cost of litre bikes isn't just the increased cost of the engine, it's also the better suspension, brakes, stronger swingarm, etc. needed to deal with the power it makes, all of which you'd also have to pay for (as the bike would still make litre bike power), as well as the supercharger/turbo itself costing more than just a bigger lump would mean a greater cost overall IMO.

Still, as a 'special' it'd certainly be interesting. I read an interesting article on turbos in streetfighters the other day explaining that modern bike turbos have no real discernable lag the way car ones can.