Re: [ST] Supercharge vs Turbo

[Kevin Stevens <triumph@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Feb 4, 2006, at 10:03, Matt Knowles wrote:

>
> On Feb 4, 2006, at 9:21 AM, Matthew Heyer wrote:
>
>> As some food for thought, if this were actually viable, don't you
>> think the major manufacturers would have implemented a bike or two
>> with this?  Yet NOBODY does on a bike......hmmmm...
>>
>
> Actually both Yamaha and Honda produced turbo bikes for a short  
> time in
> the 80s. Every review that I read and my short ride on a Seca Turbo
> confirmed the problem they had with lag time. Definitely not a good
> thing for a bike meant to go around corners.
>
> When you can get 400lb bikes making around 150 hp, I don't really see
> the point of turbocharging, unless your ego really needs it.

And Kawasaki, as someone else pointed out.  Suzuki also put out a NA  
rotary in the '70s, just to add to the power/displacement  
conversation.  Really, the post about turbo spool/rush applies to any  
narrow powerband engine, how it occurs doesn't matter.  The big  
reasons that turbos haven't caught on on bikes have been a) there  
hasn't been a lot of design technology aimed at the extremely small  
turbos needed for small displacement, quick-spooling engines, and b)  
as above, motorcycles don't really need the benefits they confer.

KeS
_______________________________________________
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com