25 years of sportbike development
 

http://hellforleathermagazine.com/20...5-years-o.html

Take a look at this interactive graph. It starts in the 80s and shows power to weight through time. Its pretty cool. Botice that it is a pretty steady drop in weight and gain in power until 2005 when the emission standards changed, but even that blip in the other direction was overcome within a few short years

Great find. Yeah every 2-3 years they get two to five percent better, but those are just power to weight numbers, braking, handling, durability, all getting better and better!!!

Crap...blocked at work.

My very first streetbike was a 1988 Ninja 600R...boy I thought that bike was something. :lol:

mine was an 87 hurricane 600 kindof an eye opener when the 954 was lighter and far more powerful

My friend bought the Hurricane when I bought the Ninja. I have owned two Honda's...94 F2 and 95 F3.

My first racebike was a bonestock 95 F3. Great bike, did lots of sprints and endurance races on em'

Yea my first "racey" bike was an '83 RZ350 I bought with my enlistment bonus but my first actual sport bike was also a '86 Ninja 600. My best friend let me keep it while he was deployed overseas for 18 months. I then rode a '86 Ninja 1000 for a while but got over it and bought an '88 V-Max. I didn't come back until '95 with the FZR1000. It funny to me how we've almost gone full circle in the power to weight arena. I think that it's possible to make a bike with more hp and less weight but I also believe that it would be almost impossible to ride on the street. Witness the turbo attempts by the OEMs and even the first V-Max which was considered a "Death Machine" so Yamaha scaled it back.

I honestly believe that say, Suzuki could market a full spec, 200+ hp WSBK bike for under $20,000 if they wanted to. The only thing that keeps race parts expensive is their limited production. Today's radial brakes, inverted forks, titanium valves, gas charged shock, etc were yesterday's "unobtanium" race parts. :idk:

Tigger you forgot one thing, hi HP machines in a much higher state of tune require rigorous maintenance or they explode. The OEMs have more than doubled the service intervals for these newer better performing machines and that would definitely decrease if they go to the edge of durability to get the big HP numbers...

Hmmm... you're the last guy I want to debate this type of argument with BUT....:lol: Considering the types of engine mods that are done now, I don't believe that it is quite as big of a concern as before. Swapping the cams, reprogramming the FI, porting/polishing the head, lightening the crank doesn't make the engine quite as unreliable as the old mods did. Shit, back in the day, race teams expected to go through 2 or 3 engines a race weekend. Now engine failures are a rarity and DNFs are more likely to be caused by electrical gremlins rather than blown motors. Heck, there used to be blown motors every race, now it's only once in a while and usually involves a privateer/backmarker. I'm not sure that even the top teams rebuild their engines after EVERY race anymore.:idk: Besides, a street bike would never see the kinds of stresses a race bike does.

You are correct Tigger street bikes seldom see the kind of abuse a race engine does and the OEMs have improved tolerances and metallurgy along with far better engine management to allow the 170 and 180 hp levels that are commmon in the liter bike class. However I dont know how much further they can push the powerlevel as titanium engine internals and valve acruation go thru such hi stress. Valve springs and retainers only take so much use even at a low stress street use and the we already have slipper thin pistons, hollow cams, , factory knife edged cranks and polishing...I feel if they do continue on that wew ill see a drop in reliability or at least higher maintenance requirements?!

Hmmm... maybe, but maintenance levels/requirements have dropped significantly over the last few years. Heck, my bike requires oil changes every 5,000 miles with the filter to be changed every other lof. Shit valve adjusts supposedly every 15-30,000 miles, I've never done one. I don't know bro, but reliability, at least with my bike, has not been an issue. If I'm not mistaken, the Yosh stage 2 mods don't even void the factory warranty!!!:rockwoot: I'm pretty sure that the GSXR1000RR is covered by the factory.

im with tigger on this one. I believe its currently possible to build that level of power at an oem reliability. I do not however believe that output could be made to pass euro 3, nor do i believe any oem would voluntarily build to those levels in our sue happy society

Ah you've got me there! I hadn't considered emissions!:lol: That's what I meant about it being un-ridable... some knucklehead would crash and try to sue Suzuki. Heck, I once rented my bike to a lawyer who used it against a knucklehead who lost part of his foot wheeling down a city street.

You guys may be right, I just now how much volumetric efficiency and advances have been made. I mean look at an F18. Awesome performance but engine replaced every 1000 hours or so. Ragged edge tuning may not be so ragged edge for an OEM that makes 220 hp 800cc engines!?

Remember back when a literbike was a hoss at 119 hp? It has come a long way...

I remember when my V-Max was "cock of the walk"!:lol:

Eventually they are going to hit a wall where they can't improve power without sacraficing reliability, its bound to happen eventually.

The way it wil work out is that a few years from now they are gonna pop out a liter bike that makes 200 whp, but after 10k mi a nice chunk of the bikes on the road are gonna blow their engines. Then the oem will fix the problem for a few years, but in their quest to keep up with the competition they will eventually build a weak engine.

Suzuki went through this cycle recently with the frame snapping issue, they did everything they could to shave weight until they created a major weak spot in the bike. Then they fixed it and now the weight is bellow that when they had frame problems. Eventually they just can't get rid of any more weight, unless they create some kind of anti gravity thingy.

the only place they really have left to gain powerwise is rpm. we already have solenoid driven velocity stacks and e throttles. next is going to be on the fly cam advancement and or some form of variable lift cam (i know already failed on vfr) and then pneumatic poppet valves. downsides besides added weight for parts are gonna be lighter more expensive internals. but maaan the first group to get it right...

Direct cylinder fuel injection, an I 5 engine design, the list can go on for quite a while

I can't see me, in 10 years being able to ride a street bike for very long... with as track focused they've become in the last 5 years... I can't imagine how uncomfortable they'd be for even a 100 mile jaunt.

the numbers are impressive... but I don't see a point... but then again I'm not a racer. I would rather them focus on makine the bike more rider friendly, little more attention to safety... brighter headlights... tail lights, blinkers, and mirrors that aren't just after thoughts... guages that tell us more info... or has GPS built in... a sport tourer that is more sport than tourer... something with the comfort of a late 90's street bike but with the handeling, weight and power of a 08 or 09.

Idk... just my thoughts

i see direct injection tech as the saviour of the two stroke streetbike. air metering is a problem however. id assume that could be countered by a MAF layout and a fast ecu. then again there is the matter of the narrow powerband. perhaps some kind of twin chamber exhaust with a valve? who knows? :tremble:

I agree and have always said each of the big four needs more choices just under the race replicas, focused more on practicality for the street oriented crowd.

Maybe they should graph how the midrange torque has decreased as the horsepower and rpm range has increased. I use midrange torque dozens of times a day. High rpm horsepower? Once a day if I'm lucky.

On the fly ergo adjustment ala Akira... There's no reason that rake and trail, handle bar reach, seat height, etc couldn't be adjusted like in a car.

I'm not sure you're right there, NW. I'm sure that my bike has more torque than yours. Although I do agree that torque has hit a wall since my 1997 YZF1000 had about the same torque numbers as my 2006 GSXR1000 does. For some reason, and it may be on purpose,torque has hovered around 80 ft/lbs in the liter class. It may be that tires aren't good enough for much more than that...:idk: You have to remember that whenever the OEMs have produced an engine that was "better" than the corresponding brakes, suspension and tires pandemonium has followed!!!:lol:

I think the difference may lie in where the torque peak occurs between the older and newer models. Older models produced their peak torque at a lower rpm than say the 08-09 class right? I'm not stating fact but just asking as I've not looked for any direct comparsions.

i'll hold out for a highway star :dribble: forkless hub steering, all ceramic twin turbo 1500cc producing 700+ horsepower. sign me up.

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b3...0821092310.jpg

Nope maximum sweetness!!!

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y24...Pixel_Rebo.jpg

Haha!

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...gger/akira.jpg

http://i289.photobucket.com/albums/l...r/akira_wh.jpg

I pondered this alot while mowing last night. I do not think we have seen the end of the curve but I feel its coming. Big HP for the existing liters will have to come either from new tech' like D.I. 2 strokes, valve actuation, or metallurgy. Otherwise durability will suffer. You may have to replace valves rather than have tham adjusted at 25K?
The only other way to get there is adding CCs ala the new V Max. GSXR 1800 anyone?

How about a 378hp 2.8l V8 Busa engine?

http://dpcars.net/dp1v8/dp1073.jpg

This is basically 2 I4 Busa engines that share a crank and bottom end.

There comes a point where trick parts and/or more rpm becomes too unreliable, too costly and maintenance intensive. For an OEM type deal adding cubic inches, oops I mean more CCs is the way to go for a long OEM type life on the street while keeping maintenance requirements on par with todays bikes and what most owners would find acceptable.

step through = scooter bro :lol:

Semantics... I'd rock a 200 mph scooter!:lol:

Hmmm... I don't know. I still stand behind my original statement that Suzuki could produce a 200hp GSXR1000 if they wanted to. Today. I also believe that it would be reliable. I point to 10 years of Suzuki dominance in Superstock racing around the world. I do believe that we are losing our spot lately.... I also believe that we have had no small success in Endurance racing as well. I honestly don't believe that it's that "hard" to make the bike and have it be reliable. I believe that there are other considerations at work here, i.e. legal, environmental, image, tires, safety, etc. Shit, there are many groups right now who believe that the current bikes have way too much power and want to legislate a maximum performance limit.:panic:

not to mention if they blow their load on hp right now... it'll get harder to improve on... so they pace themselves... and give us little gains to keep us happy and away from other manufactures...

I think the next big thing is going to be downforce incorporated into the body work.

They'll make it lighter to help accelerate, then have downforce to stick it to the ground.

agreed but when you use the horsepower its too much fun

Yeah 200 hp is doable with what they have now. I just dont think that is very high since WSBK is around that figure reliably now. But say GP levels at 1000cc, 240 hp in a warranty and EPA/dot package would run about as spensive as the Desmodici. Tigger is right can be done. Probably wont though...

Torque is a function of engine capacity and engine efficiency. The only way to increase torque is to increase engine size.

HP is a function of torque at a specific rpm. Raise the RPM capacity and the HP goes up, but torque will always be the same.

My bike makes 80lb-ft from about 3000 rpm to over 10000rpm, with a peak of just over 100lb-ft at around 8000rpm. All due to the long stroke motor with an additional 340cc over a liter.

fixed

But with a given capacity, cylinder filling can only be so efficient, unless there is a giant leap forward in breathing technology. The only other way is a bigger cylinder.

Cylinder filling is just about as efficient as it will get.

It has a giant pump pulling the air in. Aside from forced induction, you don't get too much more power from head work.
If all it took to increase tq was to polish your intake ports and have the intake velocities be spot on, wouldn't the manufacturers be doing it?

I suppose decreasing losses would count, suzuki did it on their bikes by reducing pumping losses in the cylinders themselves.

Falls under the law of diminishing returns.

i actually was referring to forced induction. and kawasaki already hand finishes their intake ports

Gotcha.

Forced induction mimics higher displacement.

Torque X RPM divided by 5252 = HP. You have to increase torque and/or RPM to get more HP. But there is a maximum speed that the piston can travel at, as it accelerates from 0-100MPH (or more) and then decelerates as it goes up and down.

Changing the stroke changes where the torque peak occurs. For the riding I do, I'd much rather have an early R1 (long stroke) than a newer one. And for racing across an intersection, a cruiser, with it's torque peak right off idle, will win without any fuss. Plus, they are impossible to stall at a light.

I would take that challenge.

Yup, based on just an engine vs engine comparison maybe, but when you look at the ability of a cruiser to take off vs that of a sportbike. A cruiser weighs in at between 500 - 1000 lbs, a sportbike is in the 350-450 lb range, that is alot less weight to move around. There are also a host of other factors that will come into play too