Suzuki Recursion Concept — Turbocharging For The Masses

News -

By

Suzuki Recursion Concept

This is the first photo of the Suzuki Recursion Concept, which will debut at the 2013 Tokyo Motor Show on November 23. Equipped with a 588 cc, turbocharged and intercooled parallel-twin it’s supposed to be light, affordable and fun to ride. Joining it in Tokyo will be Suzuki’s first electric motorcycle.

Update: Reader Lourens shares this video of an internal product presentation on the Recursion, revealing many details of what suddenly looks like a very production-ready bike.

“The Recursion compact roadster has a styling that gives form to the love of motorcycles, while striking a balance between the running performance of a large displacement motorcycle and the easy handling and economy of a middle displacement motorcycle,” states Suzuki.

The company goes on to use words like “easy handling,” “torquey,” “economy” and “exhilarating” to describe the bike.

What we see is a sporty, but practical motorcycle that should be equally at home in town as it will be on a mountain road. A parallel-twin’s packaging benefits over a V-twin can mean a shorter wheelbase and more weight over the front wheel. Components like the single front brake disc, USD forks and single-sided swingarm appear to be relatively high-spec, at least on this concept version.

Is this the next SV650? Suzuki says, “True to the name, Recursion is a model that brings back the basics of riding excitement in the diverse ways a motorcycle can be enjoyed.”

Suzuki Recursion concept specs
Suzuki Recursion concept specs

99 bhp at 8,000 rpm and 74 lb.-ft. of torque at just 4,500 gives the Recursion concept an impressively broad, torquey power delivery. In comparison, a GSX-R600 develops only 51 lb.-ft. at a sky-high 11,500 rpm. All that torque will have to motivate only 384 lbs of (dry) weight.

Suzuki Recursion Frame
Suzuki Recursion Concept Frame

As on the Yamaha FZ-09, it appears as if the Recursions aluminum beam frame goes over the engine, helping keep the bike very narrow. Something immediately apparent in the top-down view above.

Suzuki Recursion Concept
Suzuki Recursion Concept

The full-color, three-screen dash is the most concept-like part of this bike. We’d expect something much more down-to-earth if (and again, this thing looks very production-ready) the Recursion is brought to market.

Suzuki Recursion
Suzuki Recursion Concept

The LED running lights and (potentially) LED headlight are reminiscent of the EBR 1190RX, but here more neatly integrated into the Recursion’s design.

Suzuki Extrigger
Suzuki Extrigger

Moving on, ain’t this little thing cute? It’s Suzuki’s very first all-electric concept bike and, to us, looks to be of a similar size and purpose to the Honda Grom and, according to the company, “was developed to give more people the chance to find out the fun of a motorcycle.”

The Suzuki Extrigger houses an electric motor and batteries inside a beefy aluminum perimeter frame and is equipped with big bike components like an equally beefy aluminum swingarm, USD forks and wavy disc brakes, albeit ones clamped by single-piston calipers.

“The name EXTRIGGER is coined from EX, which stands for Electric CROSS (X) over, and TRIGGER, which means a chance. Our desire to give people a chance to get interested in motorcycles with this model is put into its name,” explains Suzuki.

Suzuki also plans to unveil new technologies at the Tokyo Motor Show. Details are slim, but those will include “Radar Brake Support,” a “Dual Jet Engine,” an “Air-Cooled Fuel Cell” for the Burgman scooter, a “next generation lightweight platform” and a new infotainment system.

Radar Brake Support is a technology we’ve seen in cars for at least a decade now. There, it uses radar to monitor the proximity and relative speed of other vehicles, helping the driver apply additional brake pressure should a rear-end collision become imminent.

The word “jet” in “Dual Jet Engine” confuses us, but we assume it refers to a fuel-injector. Adding a second injector into each cylinder can help precisely tailor the flow of gasses into and during the combustion cycle, leading to greater efficiency and a wider spread of torque and power.

But it’s that lightweight platform which intrigues us most. Could Suzuki be employing radical new materials and technology to propose a new configuration for a motorcycle chassis to help bring weight down? If so, could such a solution be included on the next generation GSX-R or another performance motorcycle? It’ll be hard to beat the Ducati 1199 Panigale’s “frameless” arrangement.

  • Dustin

    SV650 was my first “sport bike”. That was wonderful bike after changing the suspension, and this looks even more promising. Good job Suzuki.

  • Aakash

    I’ve never ridden a turbo’d motorcycle. I can imagine it being either stupid fun or stupid scary.

    “The boost just kicked in, yo” mid-corner could be challenging to say the least.

    • http://RideApart.com/ Wes Siler

      Modern turbochargers don’t do that.

      • Aakash

        I suppose you are right. With variable geometry, twin scroll, newer materials and all that.

        The last turbocharged vehicle I had was a 2005 Impreza WRX (I know, douche-mobile). It lagged, terribly.

        • http://RideApart.com/ Wes Siler

          Try a 335i or similar. Rather than providing HUGE power at the top end, two smaller turbos instead boost torque and driveability. they just make the 3.0 inline-six feel like a much larger motor. Which I’d imagine would be the idea here. As @brucesteever:disqus states above, think low pressure turbocharging.

          • Justin McClintock

            The inherent issue is that the newer style turbos also have newer style controls…and the whole package ends up adding up to a lot of space. Fine for a car, especially a RWD one with an inline engine. Not so great for a motorcycle. I’d rather they stick with the tried and true V-twin myself. This coming from a guy who started on an SV650 back in the day….and currently rides an SV1000.

            • JD

              I really do miss my sv650s, and i ride a daytona 675 SE. Most would consider the triumph to be better by leaps and bounds, but the Sv just has a smile factor quality about it that you cant find with other bikes.

          • Aakash

            Once I score a lucrative tech job in the Bay Area, I’ll make a trip over to the local BMW dealer for a test drive.

          • Chris Davis

            Twin turbos was the first thing that came to mind when I read “Dual Jet Engine”. A pair of small, linked turbos on a parallel twin would be an interesting package, but perhaps needlessly complex.

        • John

          The only way to make a WRX go fast was to rev the engine up near readline and drop the clutch. But what a miserable car for just driving around town.

          Though, oddly, my mother (!) had a 90s Galante VR4 with the turbo/4wheel drive/4-wheel steering, and it was quite a bit of fun on the interstate. So maybe the WRX is really at home out on the highway which I didn’t try.

        • runnermatt

          To Wes’s suggestion to try a 335i (as I understand a different kind of douche-mobile) I would suggest the much more affordable VW GTI (Mk5, 6, or 7). My `09 (Mk5) with the 2.0L turbo 4 cylinder make 207 lb-ft from 1850-5000 rpm and 200 hp from 5100-6000 rpm, redline is at 6500 rpm. There is a very little lag when first applying the throttle and when the torque came on I tend to get some wheel spin on the inside front despite the torque-biasing LSD I had installed. With bikes being rear-wheel drive I would expect wheelies instead of wheelspin.

        • Brett Lewis

          I loved my bug-eyed WRX! Once you get rid of the THREE catalytic converters and flash the ECU, gas mileage, performance, and fun are greatly increased.

          • Piglet2010

            You obviously did not live in an area with mandatory emissions testing.

            • Brett Lewis

              This part of the state, no emissions testing.

            • Mykola

              My brother chose instead to keep both an OEM and head-back exhaust and a couple of reliable friends for his pumped STi in California.

          • Chris Davis

            It was only the first one (being placed so close to the exhaust ports) that really sapped performance.

      • Stuki

        74 ft-lbs out of <600cc………. I'm not so sure.

        Going by modern turbo car experience, it will probably be fine above torque peak, but below, it will have lag and a fairly abrupt boost ramp.

        I wonder what the point of it all is. Why not just add a cylinder, to make a 900 triple? Other than making it easier to game EPA and EURO test cycles, and to avoid weird displacement triggered tax brackets in some markets; what use does all the high complexity, low inertia turbos do? Even for cars?

        In real world usage, Honda and Toyota are not returning meaningfully worse mpg, emissions and performance, with NA engines 50% larger than the turboed Euro competition; with improved driveability and less complexity. Or perhaps Zuk is anticipting similarly silly EPA mpg tests for Motos…..

      • karlInSanDiego

        yes, my Abarth is a modern turbocharged engine and it definitely comes on boost with the associated lag. My ’07 MINI Cooper S did too, and its twin scroll turbo was one of the less laggy of the modern era. The Toyota engine in our ’09 Lotus isn’t turbo’d but its stepped cam profile punches the power in an abrupt way that wouldn’t be particularly fun to deal with on a bike. Bike power should be linear if it’s strong. It’d definitely be a concern if I was considering a turbo bike. But rather than turbo a 600, why not do a 200 and get 600cc performance on boost? Modern 1000cc bike’s give more performance than you could use on the street or even superhighway, so I’m thinking if I’m going to all the trouble and expen$e of adding turbo, intercooler, plumbing, etc, might as well build something that has two personalities.

        • JD

          Reread your info on the mini cooper S, it’s supercharged, not turbo. And there is no such thing as a twin scroll turbo. Superchargers work by a pulley system and have no lag, but you do trade off some of the engines natural power to spin the compressor.

          What ever you were feeling in your mini that you thought was lag, wasn’t the compressor

          • Justin McClintock

            The first gen, through 2006 was supercharged. In 2007, the second gen rolled out and its turbocharged. (Except the first gen convertible carried over with the supercharged engine through 2008….but assuming they’re talking hardtop, 2007 was turbocharged).

          • karlInSanDiego

            JD, As Justin described here, my ’07 MINI Hardtop was the Prince engine N-14 with a Twin Scroll Turbocharger: http://www.modified.com/tech/modp-0906-twin-scroll-turbo-system-design/
            After driving that car for 5 years, I commented to my father that the car exhibits a rubber band effect where you stomp on it, and it responds, but not as much as it’s about to. This isn’t to say it’s a terrible thing, but it’s not necessarily what you want when you’re trying to maintain a line through a corner on a bike. I think in all other cases, it’s not an issue.

          • crankaholic

            What do you mean there’s no such thing as a twin scroll turbo? Some turborchargers have two scrolls directing exhaust gasses onto the turbine… that can be used for two purposes – minimize cross-talk and allow for exhaust valves to be left open longer, maximizing effectiveness at lower RPM and reducing lag – or having different angles and outlet sizes of the scroll nozzles, for quicker low RPM spooling and for maximum performance. Since cross-talk probably won’t be an issue with a twin, they’ll go for different nozzle angles/sizes if a twin scroll turbo is used. (BTW: I’m talking about turbo RPM)

      • PDXGSXR

        All turbos, new or old have lag – but newer ones have less, and newer expensive ones less still. IE my WRX has noticeable lag whereas a 335i has quick spool up.

        The only way to eliminate lag completely is to use some kind of electric assist turbo or something, but that seems a bit high tech for Suzuki.

        Modern engine electronics can also smooth the throttle/boost control in a way that makes lag much more manageable.

    • Bruce Steever

      Old turbo bikes, like the CX650 Honda, did exactly that, but a modern low-boost turbo setup could provide excellent driveability.

      • Aakash

        And better fuel economy and less performance-loss at higher altitudes right?

        What about the complexity in the packaging?

        • Bruce Steever

          Fuel economy might be a mixed bag. A lower compression turbo engine is miserly…as long as you stay out Da Boost. Let the turbo sing all day long and economy goes out the window.

          The engine won’t lose any power at altitude, which is damn cool. And packaging shouldn’t be too difficult with a parallel twin. The turbo sits in front, low on the chassis and in the airflow.

          • Aakash

            Gotcha. Now I’m interested in seeing how much of this concept makes it onto the production floor.

          • runnermatt

            If they use direct injection the bike wouldn’t have to have a lower compression engine. My `09 GTI with the 2.0T engine has a compression ratio of 9.0 or 9.5. I think the BMW’s have compression ratio’s of 10.5 or 11.

            • Bruce Steever

              I wouldn’t count on direct injection. DI hasn’t made it to many bikes yet, and i doubt that it would debut here without more fanfare. Still, a low-revving turbo engine is the ideal situation for DI tech…

              • Justin McClintock

                DI would add a LOT of weight and complexity to a motorcycle. You’re looking at the difference between a regular fuel pump that runs at a couple hundred psi and one for a DI system that runs at a couple thousand.

          • Generic42

            Turbo’d vehicles still lose power at altitude, just not as much as an NA or SC motor. The turbo has to spin faster to generate the same about of boost pressure which causes more heating, lowering overall output. NA/SC cars typically lose 1-1.1 seconds in the quarter mile here in Denver (5,280ft) vs. sea level. a turbo car typically looses .5-.6 seconds.

    • M. Dubé

      Suzuki is not new to #turbo motors. They’ve done it back in 1982 with the XN85. It was an impressive looking bike when I was a kid. You can read more about it here : http://www.xn85turbo.com/Book-of-Bikes/page1.jpg

    • Bronson

      With some tweaking its a great way to add power to a smaller motor while also keeping decent MPGs at cruise.

    • Hamish Lamont

      I’ve ridden a turbo GSX1400. It was amazing! And I definitely wouldn’t have given it full gas mid corner! When I gave it back to its trusting owner I said to him, “Mate, that’s not a motorbike, its a time machine!”

    • Greg Campbell

      The low peak-torque RPM suggests a rather tame power curve. I suspect it will drive like a mildly tuned normally aspirated engine, perhaps with a bit of low-end lunge coming in around 3K or so as the blower gets up to speed.

  • Michael Love

    Best looking bike Suzuki has come up with in a while.

    • Justin

      Half-fairing is reminiscent of 79/80 katana, I like it.

      • Mitchel Durnell

        Learning to ride in 2006, I didn’t know about the previous Katanas before the last hideous incarnation – they looked pretty good!

  • Ben Barbeau

    I hate the sound of parallel twins, why can’t they keep the short stroke V-twin going to give us something Ducati can’t.

    • Bruce Steever

      Because packaging, because costs, because weight. The single head in a parallel twin is easier to make, uses fewer parts, and weighs less. Besides, the turbo will kill the exhaust note anyway…

    • Robert Horn

      Which ones: with 180 degree or 360 degree cranks? 270 degree cranks sound the same as V-twins anyway.

      • Ben Barbeau

        All I ever hear are Kawi and Honda 250. I know different cranks make the sound better but all I hear are everything but 270degrees

      • Justin McClintock

        Yes, but in the effort to make an inline twin sound like a V-twin, you wind up with something that shakes all over the freakin’ place. The V-twin…sounds great and has perfect primary balance without a balance shaft. Can’t do that with an inline twin.

        • Ben Barbeau

          So, it’s my guess, if a turbo, that eats up development costs. Thus, they’ll cheap out on the crank and the turbo will just help muffle the crap sound of inline twin……

        • Robert Horn

          Why not run a balance shaft – is it against someone’s religion?. Inline twins also have some design advantages, which is why you’re going to see more of them.

          • Justin McClintock

            But adding a balance shaft adds to the size of the overall package…which is fundamentally opposed to the purpose of going with an inline twin to begin with. As is adding a turbocharger to it for that matter. I’ll be surprised if it’s really any kind of improvement over the 645cc twin in power, reliability, or fuel economy that Suzuki has built into such a great engine. But hey, hopefully they can prove me wrong (or just throw the V-twin in the production model!)

            • Robert Horn

              Placing additional cylinder(s) at a different angle to the first one adds size to the overall package in far greater magnitudes than adding a balance shaft! Sure, I like the look and sound of V-twins better as well, but when it comes to designing a frame around an engine, designing the entire exhaust/turbo/intake package (As mentioned by someone else here), etc.., inlines are vastly easier and cheaper to work with.

              I’m wondering if Wes can get Honda to talk about their 250 V-twin turbo bike project from about 30 years ago…

              • Justin McClintock

                True, but V-twins are just so much cooler! And adding a turbo might honestly be easier with a V-twin than with an inline…just switch the setup to a hot V (exhaust on inside of the V instead of the traditional outside) and the turbo can nestle quite nicely between the cylinders. Also, you don’t have to worry about intake angles nearly as much since you’d be running forced induction.

                • Robert Horn

                  Well, there’s this one…

            • Bruce Steever

              Test ride a CB500. Parallel twin, compact package, no vibration. Doesn’t sound all that sexy stock, tho…

            • Robert Horn

              I’m also curious to see how this all works out – and I’m half expecting Suzuki to pull another B King and leave the turbocharger (Instead of supercharger) off the production version.

              • Justin McClintock

                Man, I could so see Suzuki pullin’ a stunt like that too. That’d just be a shame.

            • JD

              They put that 650 platform onto this bike, and ill buy it.

          • Piglet2010

            Plus the parallel-twin looks much better than a V-twin on a bike with an exposed engine.

            • Justin McClintock

              Um…no. That’s an opinion and I’m pretty sure its yours and yours alone. I know a whole bunch of Honda Hawk, SV650, SV1000 and Ducati Monster owners who would wholeheartedly disagree.

              • Piglet2010

                The Honda Hawk I used to have was a parallel twin (1980 CB400T). Very nice engine for its size. :)

                Yeah, I know you meant the Hawk GT – I have an updated version of that engine in my Deauville (where all but the bottom of the engine case is hidden from view, of course).

                Look no farther than the Triumph “Modern Classics” and the Thunderbird for how the engine on a naked bike should appear.

                • Justin McClintock

                  We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one! :-P

              • JD

                I agree and disagree, in a sporty looking bike, i like the V-twins. But there is nothing like the look of a cafe racer with a P-twin and exhaust down both sides of the bike

    • Mugget

      If you hate the sound, you’ve gotta put the right exhaust on and get it tuned.

      Parallel twins never particularly excited me either, but after a couple of times riding my shop’s ER-6n loan bike that idea completely change. I never had as much fun tooling around town and playing with the throttle…!!

  • grindz145

    Combined with a quiet motor, the urban hoonage factor of the Extrigger looks like it could definitely lead to unique traffic violations…

    • Mugget

      … if anyone can catch you, or hear you coming!

  • Reid

    Turbocharging sounds like a great option for more-affordable bikes with a small engine capacity. I was hoping this was the route Ducati would take with the Scrambler, actually.

  • Aaron L

    Soon we’ll be seeing youtube videos of the Bro-type putting duck calls on their motorcycle’s dump valve…for shame..

  • Guillaume Béliveau

    Good to see Suzuki is back on its feet. In recent years it seems they were sleeping or something. Only putting effort on adv bikes (V-Strom 650 and new V-Strom 1000, which are both amazing BTW).

    Now Honda is out with NC700, CBF500F, CBR500R, CB500X, CBR300R, Yamaha is bringing MT-09 + the new Yammie comming november 4th. Kawasaki brings us the Ninja 1000 + refining it’s 650R.

    The Inazuma is cool but lacks power, no ABS. The TU250X has no ABS and is overpriced next to a CBR250R with ABS. If Suzuki want to catch younger riders, they need to make great entry level bikes like the SV650. I remember not so long ago Suzuki was the champion of cheap but fun and reliable bikes. They just have to pack some tech in their bikes now. Their 2013 Gixxers have no Traction control, no ABS.

  • John

    Don’t know if that the turbo is all that necessary, but it’s about time Suzuki developed a new engine instead of relying on old, heavy V-twins.

    • Justin McClintock

      You know, a V-twin need not necessarily be a ton heavier than an inline. Yes, it’s likely to be somewhat heavier. But the heaviest part of the engine, hands down, is the crank. And the crank of a shared crankpin V-twin is FAR lighter than that of a comparable inline twin. Roughly half the weight in fact. Add in the lack of a need for a balance shaft and you’ve eliminated a lot of that extra weight that comes from splaying the two cylinders out.

  • Lourens Smak

    Here’s a sneaky video I found; I don’t speak/read Japanese but the specs look superb… 100hp at 8000rpm, 100Nm torque at 4500rpm, 174Kg… not the fastest/biggest/etcetera but it does look like a great overall package with emphasis on handling, a true modern cafe-racer!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SmbHW7s9sao

    • http://RideApart.com/ Wes Siler

      Thanks dude!

  • Rameses the 2nd

    When I was young I had a turbo button on my computer that did nothing. since then, I don’t trust any turbo stuff.

    • Aakash

      For a long time as a kid, I thought the little “O/D OFF” button on the gear lever on my dad’s 88 Toyota Camry essentially a “turbo boost moar power!!!” button. I’d always hit it when my dad wasn’t looking.

  • Michael Rudler

    Reminded me of this concept I wish Honda had produced. http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/concept_cars/honda_NAS.html

  • grb

    I was wondering why there aren’t any turbo sport bikes, seems like a good why to make power and lighten up the package at the same time. Almost all modern cars are doing that and specially sports cars, seemed like bikes were lagging behind.. this is going to be interesting

    • ben

      “lagging”… you made a pun!

    • Mugget

      Sportsbike lagging behind… are you for real? Have you ever had a modern 1000cc sportsbike WFO in 6th gear??

      As for turbo bikes, plenty of people build turbo bikes. But going beyond the already sky-high performance of a NA bike doesn’t necessarily make everything better. One quote about a turbo bike that has stuck with me is that the builder/rider felt more comfortable (less scared) with the rear wheel spinning… just think for a second about how fast that bike must be that the rider would feel better spinning the rear at 150-200km/h than having it grip up and go…

      • grb

        What? are you kidding? I have owned several and ridden many, but that has nothing to do with my comment, which you evidently didnt even understand.

        Cars have been going on a transition to smaller turbo engines. Generalizing an example would be; v12 cars are now v8 turbo, V8/V6 are now L4 turbo, and L4 cars are now mini L4 1liter turbos. thats the tendency with cars, and it is happening because now this way they can generally extract from an L4 turbo the same performance of a NA V8/V6, and not only similar performance but big reduction in weight and fuel consumption. Same principle could apply to motorcycles, where a sport bike could reduce its weight by 30% simply using a smaller engine, smaller capacity, and/or less cylinders but maintaining the same power output or more by implementing a turbo, so the same engine power (or more) but with much less weight means better performance and handling, at the same time reducing by a big margin the fuel economy(if you care about that on a sport bike). Future super bikes could have 500cc engines and offer far greater performance and handling then today’s machines, who knows. But this is the path most cars, including sports cars, are following today towards their future, and this is what I mean by “bikes are lagging behind” in the change and engine development.

        It certainly has nothing to do with Turbo Busas or R1s. Nor me preferring a turbo on my bike. I didn’t think I would need to explain this, its just that you’re very misinformed…

        • Justin McClintock

          Many of those smaller turbo engines are in the name of efficiency. Yet rarely do they yield the increased efficiency in real-world driving. They’re designed to work great on a computer controlled dyno in a test lab, and that they do. I don’t know anybody who actually owns a turbo car that gets anywhere near the claimed fuel efficiency. That would require they stay out of the boost, yet then you’re dealing with something that’s the equivalent of a small engine with a choked up exhaust.

          The other issue is that turbocharging adds quite a bit of complexity to the engine and also creates all kinds of packaging issues. Those aren’t necessarily problems in a car where you typically have a lot of room under the hood and any added weight of a turbo system is fractions of a perfect of the overall weight of the car. Yet on a bike, it produces much greater packaging challenges both from a space and weight perspective.

          Also, as has been seen in the automotive industry, turbocharging works best when packaged with a direct injection system. Those systems require extremely high pressure fuel pumps that are both large and power hungry. Those also add to the weight, complexity, and space issues when they’re applied to a motorcycle.

          And just for the record, if you think for a second that a bike could save 30% of its weight by going with a smaller engine, you need to actually go out and look at some bikes. A GSXR600 hardly weighs anywhere near 30% less than a GSXR1000. For that matter, a GSXR600 engine doesn’t even come close to weighing 30% less than a GSXR1000 engine.

          And then there’s the real issue at the heart of the matter. Cars need to be more efficient. Motorcycles don’t. I can go buy a bike off the shelf that’ll get 100 mpg. Or I can go buy something that’ll hit 60 in under 3 1/2 seconds and can destroy a Prius on fuel economy and price. I’m failing to see a huge need in increased efficiency there.

          • grb

            Well, its not about the “need in increased efficiency”, you missed my point. You concentrated mostly on the fuel economy aspect but that was just an extra possible benefit not the main theme, like I said, this wouldn’t be the reason anybody would build a turbo sport bike, obviously. You are also wrong if you think that what we discus is happening only to economy cars like the Fiesta, most sports cars today are reducing their engine displacement and number of cylinders by adding turbos, effectively increasing performance. An example of this is McLarens top cars, the early F1 had a 6L V12, while the the new P1 has a 3.8L twin turbo V8, and its quicker.

            You talk about packaging being a problem for a motorcycle, as if it was a ridiculous proposition, well, seems like Suzuki has something to say about this, we’ll see. And even tho today sport bikes are extremely tight packaged it doesnt seem to be an impossible problem for all the aftermarket kits for gixxers, R1s and Busas.

            And for the record, Obviously the 30% number was just “supposing”, I dont have exact numbers. But most of the weight difference between a 600 and a 1000 sport bike comes from the engine size, but thats only from 1000cc to 600cc and same number of cylinders. Hypothetically speaking if they could build a turbo engine with less cylinders and smaller displacement that offered the same power as a L4 liter bike, that could be a huge benefit in performance and handling.

            Today they are turbocharging a Busa from 170hp up to 500hp, almost 3 times more power, its not ridiculous at all to think that with future technology and development a small L3 600cc or smaller, similar to the 120ish hp Triumph Daytona’s, can over power and outperform todays (200hp) liter bikes.

            All this has nothing to do with my personal taste or choices, its just a discussion about were bikes might be heading, what Suzuki might be proposing and the path basically all car brands have been following for the last years.

            • Justin McClintock

              You do make some decent points. However, I’ll be happy to point out that many a new car is going a completely different route for power. Mazda produces the most fuel efficient non-diesel SUV out there. It’s not turbocharged. And the Corvette….still not turbocharged, and still returning better fuel economy than anything else in its class. So turbocharging isn’t necessarily always the answer.

              Also, those Busas with 500 hp aren’t exactly meant for the long haul, and I wouldn’t really put much faith in the long term reliability of a 600cc L3 producing 200 hp unless some really exotic materials were used…in which case, it’s going to be rather expensive.

              • grb

                Yes, but you’re still talking about fuel economy, you mention the Mazda being “the most fuel efficient non-diesel SUV” but my whole argument is not about fuel efficiency, its about getting the same or more performance but using 1/3 the engine size, thus reducing weight, mass, size and as extra duel economy, but i repeat, my argument has never been about fuel efficiency. This is what most sports cars are doing today with great results in performance. So much so that large engines, big displacement, more cylinders, are today considered in some way prehistoric.

                The 500hp Busa (which would be ridiculous to ride, and agree not reliable) was just an example to illustrate that with further development and technology, its not outrageous at all to consider getting, safely and reliably, 200hp out a similar engine that today NA produces around 130hp.

                Its just an idea and aposibility.

                • Justin McClintock

                  But my point is still valid. It’s simply an issue of getting a certain amount of power from a certain amount of fuel. If all you’re worried about is power and space, fuel economy and emissions be damned, we’d all be rolling around on massive two-strokes. They create a TON more power for their overall size than pretty much anything else out there. But fuel economy and packaging ARE considerations. And there are plenty fo alternatives to turbocharging, as I pointed out with the Mazda CX5 and the Corvette, that create plenty of power while still meeting emissions and fuel economy requirements without the packaging and complexity issues that are associated with a turbo engine.

                  Right now, they can build a 1000cc NA engine that’ll easily get well over 200 hp. But there’s a ton of reasons they can’t. Those same issues (fuel economy and moreso emissions) would still apply the a smaller turbo engine pumping out over 200 hp as well.

                • grb

                  Your point is totally valid and I agree, its just that its not really a direct answer to what Im saying and I think you failed to understand my point and the potential of Suzuki’s proposition with this bike.

                  I already know its possible to make a good turbo bike, but without waiting for future technology and development to prove it, we can see if Suzuki gets this right today, because you are all saying its not a good idea, it wont work, its useless, it will be heavier, bad throttle control, bla bla, but if this Suzuki is any good, if it has descent throttle response (and we already know its making descent power/torque) then you have to agree it will just mean that non of you really know what your talking about or simple dont understand

                • Piglet2010

                  25 years ago, Honda was getting 1300+ horsepower from a 1.5L turbocharged engine – of course, those were only good for one qualifying session.

          • Piglet2010

            If you want a more fuel efficient motorcycle, stop worrying about the engine and look to aerodynamics, as that is where the real gains are to be found, e.g. http://www.velomobiel.nl/allert/Recumbent%20motorbike.htm

          • JD

            Agreed, my D675 gets 128hp, and i still average 55mpg according to my cockpit. the bike is very light and even with my hefty weight added, it still comes out to a better power to weight ratio than a viper. I fail to see why turbocharging a bike is a good answer. Maybe since its a twin it gives it more top end? but then you’re looking at more weight, increased heat, and wear on the engine…..

            Also most people fail to realise that what a turbo kit for a car weights what 30lbs? im not sure of the average weight. but my point is, that same amount of weight on a bike would completely change the way the bike handles and rides.

            2700lbs +30 is no big deal, 400lbs + 30 is a huge difference.

            • karlInSanDiego

              JD, the only way to average 55 mpg on a D675 is to accelerate very slowly from stops, short shift it 3500 and under, keep top speed under 65mph, and stay in full tuck all the time. http://www.fuelly.com/motorcycle/triumph/daytona%20675
              In fact, I’ve hypermiled my ’08 D675 many times doing all of the above, in addition to running a 17 tooth front sprocket, and cannot break 52mpg in mixed riding (rural/hwy). Everyday riding nowhere near the its performance potential (but in the manner it was created to be ridden with hard bursts on the throttle and rarely below the speed limit) never operating it 3 gears too low just to make the pipe loud, for 35k miles, I have averaged ~43mpg. Most modern bikes have $hitty mileage compared to what they could/should get, because manufacturers are not tuning for high mileage, but to make peak specs to advertise and win shootouts. The only streetbike sold in the US that I know of that gets exceptional mileage is Royal Enfield. Very few break into the 50mpg avg. mixed riding range without running 300cc and less (SV650 and Ninja 650R for some commuters). But we agree that turbocharging a bike for increased mileage would not be an obvious, simple, or necessarily useful endeavor

              • JD

                Actually its not that hard, first i ride a rural road 5 miles to work each way, there is only one light and i do accelerate rather modestly. I ride about 50-60mph in fourth gear because the vibration is a most comfortable at that speed/gear. I too dont ride the bike anywhere near how its designed to be ridden, but i just love it too much

                i ride a 2010 675 SE, and i use a few different custom maps depending on what im doing. I really don’t know what to tell you, next time i ride i’ll take a photo.

              • Piglet2010

                If you go to the UK from the US, your mpg will increase by 20%.

        • Mugget

          It seems like you’re judging motorcycles as if they need to measure up to some imaginary technological standard set by car manufacturers??

          You said that turbo sport bike seem like a good way to make power, I replied that NA bikes already have more than enough power. BTW I’m fairly confident stating that as a fact – I don’t for a second think I’m misinformed!!

          And there’s plenty of other good points mentioned by Justin below…

          Hopefully that answers your original question as to why there aren’t any turbo sport bikes?

          • grb

            “imaginary technological standard set by car manufacturers” you just dont get it, whats happening with the auto industry is true and its a fact, not a theory or alien conspiracy, but I get you dont know all this (although most people with basic knowledge do, but ok). What I dont understand is why you’re having such a hard time understanding even when I explained it for kids or extra dummy adults, I never talked about current bikes not being powerful enough (yet, if you need the “hp wars” explained to you also then its just absurd), I said that with a turbo they could make the SAME (get it) or even more power but with a smaller engine and less cylinders…

            Here, maybe it was too complicated for you and you just need to read it again “Hypothetically speaking if they could build a turbo engine with less cylinders and smaller displacement that offered the same power as a L4 liter bike, that could be a huge benefit in performance and handling” Is that so complicated? thats not even debatable, its just a reality. And if you pretend to know anything about sport bikes then you would know how weight is important, but you dont know that either do you? Ah, im not going to explain it to you, you wouldn’t understand anyway.

            And, I know this is all so complicated for you and your having a hard time understanding, but I never posted a question, so there is no need for you to be hoping for an answer, duh. I said I was wondering why it was taking so long for turbo sport bikes to appear (referring to the presentation of this concept) and stated “this is going to be interesting” You just need tooooo much explaining and still having a hard time, Im not interested, lets just go our ways, peace.

            • Piglet2010

              “…with a turbo they could make the SAME (get it) or even more power…”

              SAME engines provide tractor-like performance: http://www.trelleborg.com/upload/Wheel%20Systems/Downloads/Image_Large/same_12.jpg

            • Mitchel Durnell

              It’s taken a long time for turbo sport bikes to appear because there is no need for them. Adding a turbo, all the plumbing and packaging and ECU fun and everything else easily cancels out any gains you could get by using a smaller engine. Also, smaller engines in bikes don’t necessarily weight much less than larger ones, if at all – the differences in displacement are so small the blocks are often similarly sized. Engineers have looked over this many times, if there were an advantage or point to offer or develop it, they would have by now. You’re trying desperately to convince us that you’ve seen a direction no one else has, but we’re not buying it.
              Also, having a track bike, when you are so close to the edge of the performance envelope that every 1/3rd degree of throttle control matters, the last thing you want to be dealing with is a smaller, faster spinning engine attached to the engine that you’re riding.

              • JD

                Lets not forget the extra heat and wear on an already hot and high maintenance vehicle…..anyone whos ever ridden in the summer knows that burning heat between your legs at a stop light. And you really want to add more to it? No thanks.

                Just because a bike uses a gasoline engine doesnt mean that the engineering is on the same track as a car is.

                It sounds to me more like a marketing gimmick to sell a bike thats “different and cool” and every brosky loves the word turbo.

                Why would i want a turbo charged P-twin 600 when ive got my D675 (which beat out the 848 evo) ? Unnecessary if you ask me, Only way i would buy is if it had the 650 v-twin platform.

                • grb

                  I agree with you, I also love NA engines, special high revving L4s on todays bikes. Also Im not very fond of the idea of F1 switching to turbo engines for example. And yes, turbo on a bike might be a good gimmick.

                  But on the car market, people were very skeptic about turbo engines (even tho “turbo” in car world its a far greater franchise then in bikes), even up until today, most people don’t like the idea that their new models of the same cars are coming with much smaller engines with turbos, v8 to a L4, yet one by one they are being convinced, similar to what happened with ABS on bikes, or new changes in general.

                  This is only a hypothesis, so hypothetically speaking, if you could get a similar bike to what Suzuki is proposing, lets say 450cc L2 turbo, and with further development and technology bring it to be capable of offering around 200hp, that could definitely be significant.

                  Remember that this Suzuki is just a concept, that means its engine is not specifically designed for this application nor to its light weight high performance possibilities, yet if offers more torque and almost similar power to a 600cc, I wouldn’t be surprised if they could specialized this packed and further develop it they could increase the power, refine the throttle response and power delivery, and lower the weight even more.

                  I guess we’ll see

              • grb

                Ok, “the differences in displacement are so small the blocks are often similarly sized” well not exactly, 500cc is half the volume as 1000cc, thats pretty straight forward.
                Im not trying to convince anybody, its just a hypothesis, and I will not be surprised that as turbos gain popularity in cars we might see more bikes like the one Suzuki is proposing

            • Mugget

              All I will add is that there’s a new article here on RideApart, ”
              McLaren P1 – Finally Faster Than A Motorcycle”
              So, like I said in my first comment – bikes lagging behind cars?? I don’t think so!
              Fact is that they have only just caught up. About time too. LOL.

              Enjoy reading that article.

              • grb

                What was that? are you trying to back out of what you were saying? you and a couple of guys were just saying how bad idea a turbo bike was, ridiculous to package, more weight, heat problem, terrible throttle control, in other words not possible. And I reminded you that Suzuki just solved the packaging elegantly, its got great weight, decent power, and that if it had good throttle control it would just finish proving that you dont even know what your taking about (which its obvious, and evidently you just realize it) and now youre trying to change the subject as if all this argument was about bikes being slower then car? that is the most ridiculous comment I have come across, everybody know bikes are faster then cars, only someone challenged would argue that, I mean, you dont even need to have an average iQ level much less be a genius to realize that when I said in context to my comment “bikes are lagging behind” I meant in the use and development of turbos, obviously not meaning cars were faster, duh. In no part of any of my comment do I even suggest cars are faster then bikes. Excuse me but your argument about turbos was pretty ignorant, but this reply out of no were about cars is just not very intelligent.

                • Mugget

                  The entire point of what I was saying is that there’s no reason for bikes to have a turbo – they’re already fast enough.

                  You sure have typed out some wordy posts, but now we come to the end point which was started by your question “why there aren’t any turbo sport bikes”? But that has been thoroughly answered now.

                • grb

                  Damn, I never posted a question, yet you keep repeating that, even after I explained it to you, sounds as if you ran out of answers or just never understood anything. All I said in other words was that I thought it was taking a long time for someone to come out with a turbo bike, specially with all the rage turbos are having in the auto industry, and that I thought it would be interesting… But what ever floats your boat

  • Speedo007

    Looks great, and those torque numbers look good too…

  • Sean Tempère

    If that exhaust is similar in the production version, this thing could be the new best looking stock exhaust (title currently held by MV’s F3).

    My guess is those lights, dash, wheels and plate older are gone for production. But who cares anyway if the torque stays.

  • OtisGerald

    Current SV650 rider here. And here I thought that my next bike was gonna be the new FZ9. I really like the idea of this little turbo bike. Also something tells me that the aftermarket is gonna love this thing.

    • Bruce Steever

      The FZ-09 is good, but make sure you test ride it first. It’s…interesting…

  • ben

    …preeettyyy

  • Randy Singer

    The frame on the Extrigger reminds me quite a bit of the old Aprilla v-twin motocross bikes:

    http://www.motorcyclingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/mcb/061212008.jpg

  • Dustin

    Have you guys forgotten about this bad boy?! http://www.bikeexif.com/drift-motorcycle

  • ThinkingInImages

    I was wondering when we’d see a turbo on a production motorcycle again. A small, low pressure turbo, on a small engine could be a nice combination, but complex. I’ve often wondered why a small low pressure supercharger wouldn’t be a better solution, mechanically or electrically driven.

    • JD

      You run into problems either way, supercharger would be better if you ask me, but the belt setup runs into room issues, and the electric driven on a low power systems would me youd have to beef up the the bikes return system just to power it, and it would have to be a pretty good motor just to get decent compression, then you’d have to look at syncing the spinup of the compressor with RPM’s………lots of engineering when you could just go with displacement and probably save weight

      • ThinkingInImages

        I was thinking gear or chain driven. The idea that an electrically driven air pump to keep positive pressure in the air box could be interesting.

  • Nicholas Danaluk

    Suzuki needs a new model name. They cannot call it an SV650 because it is a parallel twin, not a v-twin.

  • grb

    Ok, I never said that modern bikes needed more power or there was something wrong with them, I love them, I was talking about the possibility of reducing the engine size to half but maintaining similar performance. Yes, I know the advantages of NA engines and Turbo engines, I dont know how up to date you are about this, but they can dial out the lag on modern engines pretty much, but like I said its all “Hypothetically speaking” and “with further development and technology” it could be possible to have a good performing turbo bike. We must see what happens with this new Suzuki, yet according to you its impossible it works well because its got turbo, your saying its impossible they got it right and it will not have a smooth throttle response… hmmm, I think Im going to have to see for my self, but dont you think that if this bike is any good, Suzuki will be proving how little all this people know about what their talking saying turbo bikes cant be any good?…

  • Gonfern

    Using cars as an example is not a fair comparison for bike applications. Having been a BMW tech for years and owning a few turbo BMWs, I can tell you that the oil and coolant system required would be impossible on a bike. A powerful oil pump would also be needed to keep from an oil starvation situation, and that is not easy to do when your oil sump is tilting 50 degrees in each direction. As mentioned, while the dual vane or sequential set-up would reduce lag, that is in a 3 liter engine that has a lot more air moving through it. Direct injection and infinitely variable valve lift also are essential in this kind of turbo performance…all systems that take up too much space to be useful on a motorcycle. What makes modern turbos efficient isnt just the turbo design technology. Its the systems added to the engines over the years…systems that take up lots of space. Sadly, the only way to get good usable power from bikes is still displacement and compression ratios. However, an electric motor assist in the transmission like BMW and Porsche have started using) to give you a TQ boost down low or an extra kick at WOT may be a good solution for bikes.

  • Greg Campbell

    The low peak torque RPM suggests a notably small turbocharger. I think this thing will have near-zero ‘lag’ and will pull smoothly and strongly from ~2500 or so and up. As the turbo runs out of breath, the the upper end of the power curve will flatten, ironically making the bike fairly user friendly. (100HP at 8500 = 65 ft-lb.) As with the similarly limited (if to a lesser degree) 80′s Kawasaki turbo bike, replacing the small-ish stock turbo with a more ‘appropriate’ unit will open the door to all manner of mayhem. :)

    Gotta say, the thing looks great!