http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/bikes/kawasaki-h2-engine-sound/
How nice does that sound!!!
Where’s the :fap: smiley?
Mmmmmm supercharger - shame it’s on a ninja though!
I don’t really see the point beyond being able to say “supercharged”, and it’s not like that’s as cool as the word “turbo” anyway.
Surely a litre or 1200 engine is similarly heavy, powerful and fuel-consuming but simpler and narrower?
Having gone from a turbo car to a supercharged car, I much prefer the supercharger!
It looks like it will be a 750 Triple so it will be a small engine with big Charger on it!! could be a sweet little engine!
Yeah, once you’re at forced-induction the two have merits, but I don’t see the necessity on a bike. They’re large, heavy and complex and on an engine that nobody feels is short on power.
Bikes have high-revving, compact engines that are already the bulk of the weight of the vehicle, which seems to make forced induction seem less useful - you need to beef up the engine, find somewhere to compress all that airflow and probably balance out the rotating mass of the *charger and do all it in such a way as to get more advantages than just having bigger displacement.
but listen to that Chirp!!! 
lol
I loved the Supercharger noise on my Mini Cooper S, it sounded amazing, i’d love that noise on a bike, but i agree, other than the word “SUPERCHARGED” and that Noise, there really is no point to it.
doesn’t bigger displacement mean more emissions? which is why car makers have been using low power turbos for a while.
That’s the theory (though in consumption rather than emissions) - a smaller forced-induction engine will make the same power from less fuel and more oxygen as a larger naturally-aspirated engine would. But forced-induction exaggerates both ends - when driven really efficiently and at low revs it’s makes loads of power for piss all fuel, but when driven more energetically (like a motorbike…) efficiency tends to fall. They make most sense on engines that’re run at a relatively constant rate (aero, generators, trains) where they can be made to be efficient at that narrow band, or at least ones that spend a lot of their time in the more efficient low revs, like trucks. Also, a supercharger’s much less efficient than a turbocharger because it’s powered by the crank, rather than making use of otherwise-wasted heat energy.
They have been making them for years in their Jet Skis
A forced induction engine can be more fuel efficient
With modern technology a forced induction engine will suffer from little or no lag but give a traffic am,punt of power
Engines tend to be a little lighter
Look at the Peugeot supercharged scooter 250cc with the power output of a 500cc lighter than a 500cc and as fuel efficient as a 250cc
I’ve ridden one and wouldn’t turn my nose up to a supercharged engine
we dont know yet! wait for the specs i guess
Well, yeah. And, in case there’s doubt, I didn’t mean to suggest that the ability to put a sticker saying “Supercharged” on the side of the bike isn’t a good enough reason to develop a supercharged engine 
i do wonder what would have been had they of continued developing 2 strokes…
new video with drive by
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkXRk5JvnrA
Wow that sounds nice!
It could make for a better bike, better fuel economy and maybe more compact. I’m not a mechanic, so don’t know.
But it’s interesting to see.
supercharger confirmed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNlABzBpkP4
i find it annoying that we can get “leaked nudes” of celebrities ect but we cant find out what this bloody bike looks like…hackers have mixed up priorities