Era of Supercharged medium sized motorcycles coming!

[Penderic]

I thought this might interest a few gearheads here! FYI.

A few articles on a Honda sketch showing an NC750 parallel twin with a supercharger component layout. The bike and engine seemed designed from the start to work with the added hardware. Clever Honda!



http://motorcyclefeed.com/hondas-supercharged-motorcycle-will-soon-be-on-its-way-2166/

http://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/new-bikes/2014/december/hondas-supercharged-nc750/

The MCN web article mentions that the primary reasons for this direction are economy and emissions. Smaller lighter motor and less CO and HC out the pipe.

 :pop
 

[Morizzi]

Whilst I understand there have been advances its sorta been done before. Turbo Honda CX650, Kawasaki 750 and Yamaha 650 from memory.

What you had then was a mid sized bike that cost as much as a big bike, weighed similar to a big bike, went like a big bike so why wouldn't you just buy the less stressed big bike?

One thing I've learned in engineering is that engines are like athletes. Sprinters can develop a lot of power and speed for seconds but a marathon runner will do a nice measured pace for hours. You can only get so much work out of a piece of metal. As a road rider and not a racer then I'm after endurance and reliability before speed at any cost.

Added: the other issue is that both turbo and super charging get their greatest boost at higher revs at the expense of lower range torque. In this day and age of speed limits it is hard to see practical advantages for the average rider besides emissions.

Merry Christmas.

[Triple Jim]

Penderic, I've read articles that confirm what you're saying.  The push is coming from Europe to reduce emissions, and it's likely that we'll see more motorcycles like the new Kawasaki Ninja H2, or at least something along those lines.  Personally I'd love a 300 or 400 cc sub-300 lb. bike with 60 or 80 torquey HP and the handling that would go along with one that light.

[Aaron D.]

Turbos etc have come a long way since the 80s. I've driven about 1,000,000 in turbocharged cars, the days of peaky, lag-ridden engines has passed.
My current 2 liter turbo pulls like a much bigger engine. Built for grunt.

I bet they'll be cool. By the way, I've never had a turbo problem of any sort.

[Penderic]

I also read somewhere that Honda might be taking one of their V4 VFR motors and replacing the rear two cylinders with a supercharger unit there instead - dont know if all that work/complexity will be worth it if there is not much change in engine weight or Hp. Are 2 pistons that heavy?

[dilligaf]

We enjoyed the hell out of our CX500 Turbo.   ;D Only good for a straight line but a lot of fun.   :+=copcar :BEER:
Matt

[rzimmerman]

Picture of the custom Turbocharged 1981 Yamaha Maxim my 16 year old and I built last year. 16 psi of boost 121 horsepower. It's the engine and driveline out of an 1983 Seca Turbo. Its a pile of parts I had laying around. Sportster Seat. Suzuki Sidecovers and fenders. GPS speedometer. The tank and fenders are powder coated Black Wrinkle and the Wheels and other bits at powder coated Silver Vein.


I like the old Gpz and CX turbo bikes. Made medium displacement bikes a lot more fun.

[mgfan]

Just for clarity, the Hondas had fuel injection. My 650T was an absolute blast and very dependable. Merry Christmas!   :BEER:

[Sasquatch Jim]

  More moving parts and more complications.  From the old Ludite.

[Doppelgaenger]

I have to say that I'm with Yak Fat. The addition of turbos will indeed get us more power from bike engines, but at what cost? The higher stressed the engine, the less it lasts. Sure a crotch rocket will rev to 15k, but if you ride it like it's meant to be ridden revved out on a track for an hour at a time then that engine will only last 25k miles before it needs rebuilt. Add forced induction and now you'll get even less life out of the engines.

And then comes the whole small penis thing. Sport bikes are already too powerful for the average squid that buys them and they end up in pieces on the road. With supercharged liter bikes with 250hp we're just going to end up with more dead bodies if squids get their hands on them.

I do see the point of giving serious power to small, light bikes. But when the engine needs rebuilding more often, it just isn't worth it. This is one of the reasons I go for V-twins, and especially big bore twins: You get the awesome torque that makes the bike fun, but the engine still lasts forever. To each their own I guess.

[Waltr]

Turbo or supercharged diesel engines could last forever and deliver prodigious mid torque great economy. Is the M/C community ready for diesel?

[Kev m]

Turbos etc have come a long way since the 80s. I've driven about 1,000,000 in turbocharged cars, the days of peaky, lag-ridden engines has passed.
My current 2 liter turbo pulls like a much bigger engine. Built for grunt.

I bet they'll be cool. By the way, I've never had a turbo problem of any sort.

I've only owned three modern petrol forced induction engines (2 turbo, 1 supercharged) and though they were/are all fun enough, I'm not sure I agree.

For starters they all had lag.

They all required premium (or at least 91 US octane) fuel.

And though they made decent power, they weren't as efficient as billed.

I just don't see what such a package in a bike would really get us in terms of advantages I care about.

[biking sailor]

From the article it appears Honda is doing this to a mid-sized 700 twin that puts out "OK" power to make it more efficient and a mild boost of power.  The test ride I did on the NC700X felt a bit underpowered for the size.  If this brings it up a bit in the torque department without overstressing the engine, killing economy, or requiring premium fuel, I would welcome it.

I ended up with a CB500X as it "felt" more peppy and having to raise the back seat to add fuel was a turnoff as it will have saddlebags and a tail bag strapped on the back seat when traveling.  Needed to put the filler on the side like BMW did.

[Kev m]

If the supercharged engine was exhibiting lag , something was wrong with it .

  Dusty

No, that is not necessarily a fundamental difference anymore.

A supercharged motor still may require some revs to get in its peak power range, especially considering the small size of the motors.

And turbos HAVE improved having LESS lag, but it's still there.

But that's probably one of the reasons why BMW did abandon the supercharger and switched to a turbo in the that application after a few model years, I.e. because there was no real advantage.

[Vasco DG]

Forced aspiration in spark ignited motors is a loathsome excercise in diminishing returns. I LOVE forced aspiration for diesels but loathe it for petrol engines. Jude has a turbo petrol Eos. Biggest turd ever!

Pete

[Aaron D.]

My 5 cylinder Audi turbos had lag. My chipped 1.8 turbo had lag. Neither the other standard 1.8 nor my current 2.0 have lag. Peak torque starts at 1500 rpm. And of course the TDI had no lag at all.

Any lag in a supercharged car is not related to pressurizing. I find more hesitation in cars with dual-clutch transmissions/drive-by-wire, normally aspirated, than any turbo I've driven.

No need for lag in any modern turbo these days anyway, and of course no need for 250 hp in a bike either. But we'd all be riding old MZs if need were the main reason for motorcycles.

[kirby1923]

The type of compressor is a BIG factor on speed of boost rise.
Either a centrifugal or positive displacement (roots or scroll) The positive displacement have the practical potential of almost instant boost.
But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.

There is always a trade somewhere.  (over simplified of course)

mike

[oldbike54]

The type of compressor is a BIG factor on speed of boost rise.
Either a centrifugal or positive displacement (roots or scroll) The positive displacement have the practical potential of almost instant boost.
But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.

There is always a trade somewhere.  (over simplified of course)

mike

This would be an engineer speaking here  :D Yep , a true supercharged engine should not exhibit lag if tuned
properly .

  Dusty

[Vasco DG]

 

But the fly in the ointment is the high bmep and how to deal with that.


mike

Exactly

[Kev m]

This would be an engineer speaking here  :D Yep , a true supercharged engine should not exhibit lag if tuned
properly .

  Dusty

I'm sure that's true in theory, but perhaps not so easy in practical reality.

Another fly in the ointment is they have found small petrol turbos do exceptionally well in EPA rating tests, but moreso than their NA counterparts don't live up to the numbers in two life.

[kirby1923]

Talking about instant power that's been working for a long time.

Go to the drag strip and take a look at the AA fuel dragster. If a turbo/centrifugal compressor could do this they would be using them because they pull less HP from the drivetrain and are arguably lighter.

Instant power..don't blink or you'll miss it as in about 4+ seconds they are !/4 mile away.

As I said the instant boost/throttle response is not the problem, although its (positive displacment) maybe not the best way to do it??? seems that its better than the rest.


 
:-)

[Kev m]

I'm gonna guess that doesn't translate well into a practical street car.

[kirby1923]

The concept is valid and it could most likely be done, but then it needs a reason to do it that justifies the cost of development.

I like the idea of lighter more effecient system but...

My CX works for me .although it hurts!

mike

[Stormtruck2]

So... do ya want 5000 HP or practicality ? ;D

  Dusty

Yes.  ~;

[Kev m]

So... do ya want 5000 HP or practicality ? ;D

  Dusty

In my cars? Mostly practicality.... MOSTLY... :-*

[Kev m]

Me? I'm gonna have another rum...

This is a bit of a tangent, but I'm on an anti turbo kick these days BECAUSE of the unintended consequences of these EPA ratings and café standards shoving them down our gullets when they aren't actually an improvement.

My 3.6L NA Pentastar makes nearly 300 hp and regularly exceeds EPA ratings in a 2.5 ton vehicle on regular fuel, while our almost 200 hp 1.8 turbo in a 1.5 ton vehicle can't get near EPA ratings and just barely beats the larger, heavier, NA motor/vehicle running like a granny on premium.

And Chrysler is talking about adding a turbo to the Pentastar. >:(

[kirby1923]

Forced aspiration in spark ignited motors is a loathsome excercise in diminishing returns. I LOVE forced aspiration for diesels but loathe it for petrol engines. Jude has a turbo petrol Eos. Biggest turd ever!

Pete

Amen!

The direct injected diesels use allot more of the energy contained it the fuel in the combustion chamber, therefor the exhaust gas temp is much lower than the gasoline recips.
They normaly never rise (egt) above 800 F so they don't burn up turbos so fast and the direct injection controls the detonation problem much more precisly. Lean gasoline engines are capable of 1700 F+ and can melt the pistons.

A brilliant system for "working" vehicles 'cause of the low piston speeds and good torque.

[Sasquatch Jim]

What about a pressurized single cylinder pushrod with a two speed transmission James old boy ? ;D

  Dusty

 Like a steam engine?  Oh be still my beating heart!

[Aaron D.]

Old prejudice dies hard.
But my 2 liter turbo Audi gets the same fuel mileage as my 2 liter normally aspirated Focus did. I'm sure if I always used the extra 60 HP the Audi has, the fuel economy would drop, but the pumping losses of the two engines doing the same work are about the same.
That is all.

[beetle]

I think some you guys are missing the point. It's not going to be about most power we can squeeze out of a small block engine, but improved volumetric efficiency so they can use less fuel and meet tighter emissions laws. A small lightweight blower built with fuel injection in mind ain't like the blowers used on drag bikes/cars. It's all about volumetric efficiency and best lean-burn possible.