Most of the innovations in the motorcycle world right now point toward greener futures. It seems like everyone is working on an EV while others are playing with hydrogen. Honda just dug into its history and did something seriously fun with internal combustion. The company just pulled the covers off of a truly bonkers V3 engine that’s boosted through what’s more or less an electric “turbocharger.” We need this, now!
The International Motorcycle and Accessories Exhibition (EICMA) show has kicked off in Europe. Each year, the world’s motorcycle manufacturers descend into Milan to show off their latest and greatest in motorcycle technology. There’s always something delightfully strange at an EICMA and it’s not just concepts, either, but also motorcycles that you’ll see on the road soon.
Like many manufacturers, Honda arrived at EICMA with two EV concepts in tow, the EV FUN and EV Urban concepts, respectively. Both of those bikes are pretty cool, but pretty standard fare for motorcycle trade shows nowadays. What’s out of this world is Honda’s concept for keeping ICE motorcycles relevant into the future with a dab of help from electric power.
Today, Honda has announced that it is developing a new 75-degree V3 engine for larger displacement motorcycles in the future. Alright, that alone is pretty awesome. Honda isn’t using any weird marketing speak to account for the “V” either. It really has a pair of cylinders up front and a third bringing up the rear.
While Honda is quite proud of this engine, it also notes that it’s not the first time it has built a V3. Back in the 1980s, Classic Bike Hub writes, Grand Prix motorcycle racing was insanely popular, especially in Japan. This led to the Japanese motorcycle manufacturers pumping out street-legal race replicas with some engineering trickled down from the racers. The manufacturers were also seeking different ways to compete with each other.
As a result, the 1980s were a fabulous time to love motorcycles in Japan. If you were lucky enough you could get racy bikes with turbos or little 250s with screaming baby four-cylinders that revved to the high heavens. I’ve written about the latter before and I highly recommend giving that piece a read.
The technology was all over the place, too. Yamaha gave Grand Prix fans the RZ/RD500LC, a motorcycle using a 90 HP two-stroke V4 engine. Suzuki fired its salvo with the RG500 Gamma, itself a bike powered by a two-stroke square four, but this one squeezing out 95 HP.
Honda didn’t participate in this particular horsepower arms race. Instead, it launched the NS400R in 1985. This bike made all of 72 HP, putting it at a penalty compared to the other two. However, it was plenty weird for its day. The NS400R was powered by a 90-degree two-stroke V3. This whole thing was an oddball. Honda didn’t like putting two-strokes in road machines but did see success in two-stroke motocross bikes. The company’s NS500 racer built in 1983 had a 113-degree V3 with technology derived from motocross bikes. Then there was the rare street-legal 1983 MVX250F, which had a 249cc 90-degree V3 two-stroke.
The Honda NS400R became known for new technology, from its hydraulic anti-dive fork development to exhaust pipes that altered the engine’s resonant frequency. Going with a weirdo three rather than a four also meant the Honda was exceptionally light back then, being close to 100 pounds down compared to its rivals. So, while Honda may not be known for its triples like Triumph, it did have some success. But that was 40 years ago.
Honda is bringing that technology back today. Its all-new V3 is a 75-degree design and it appears that Honda will probably put them into motorcycles that would normally be powered by an inline four. But that’s not all, because it also has a trick electric compressor, from Honda:
It features the world’s first electrical compressor for motorcycles, which is able to control compression of the intake air irrespective of engine rpm, meaning that high-response torque can be delivered even from lower rpm.
In addition, the electrical compressor allows a high degree of freedom of layout of all components in the limited space available on a motorcycle, and an efficient centralization of mass. It also does not require an intercooler.
Visually, the compressor looks like a turbocharger, but that’s not technically correct. A traditional turbocharger is driven by exhaust gases. Meanwhile, a supercharger is driven from the engine itself. This compressor uses electricity to spin the impeller and it works entirely independently of what the engine is doing. So, you can have boost anywhere in the rev range. This is why I put “turbo” in quotes. It looks like a turbo, but it’s not exactly the same.
Sadly, Honda isn’t releasing any further details at this time, so we don’t know how much boost this little red snail makes or what the total output of the engine is. For now, enjoy the sounds of Honda’s old V3:
It sounds like Honda is trying to achieve with motorcycles what automakers are currently achieving with cars. This is a smaller engine that should make power like a bigger engine. But for a motorcycle this could have some fantastic implications. Honda could build a lighter bike that still makes good power and yet, should still meet modern emissions regulations.
If that’s what it takes to make ICE motorcycles have staying power longer in this world, I’m all for it. Either way, I hope Honda follows through on its word and puts these into production. I have to get a ride on a bike powered by an electrically boosted V3.
[Correction: The original publishing of this story confused RD500LC’s V4 with a square four. We regret the error.]
“Just wait til that VTEC kicks in, YO!”
I’ll have to hand it to Euro5 if it continues to prompt batshit crazy workarounds like this. Bonus points if it actually reduces emissions.
Next, bring back the oval pistons of the NR500!
“RZ/RD500LC, a motorcycle using a 90 HP two-stroke square four”
It was a V4. A bit of an oddball one, but still a V4…
I’m pleased to see Honda going back to making something crazy.
It gives me hope in a world where Ducati shamefully abandoned singles/v-twins, dry clutches, and steel trellis frames.
I hate the Ducati dry clutch rattle, it just sounds broken.
Like a metal can of screws being shaken.
Unmistakable characteristic that let you know what it was without even turning to look.
This is a supercharger, but will be whatever they decide to call it, as it is not driven traditionally. I would like to think this is kind of like doing a gymnastics trick for the first time in international competition.
A turbo is a supercharger that uses exhaust gases to supercharge the air.
A ‘supercharger’ supercharger is a belt-driven compressor that supercharges the air.
‘Pedantry’ is excessive concern over minor details and rules.
🙂
Well the functional difference with a supercharger is that its rotational speed isn’t linked to the engine speed.
Since that appears to be a centrifugal compressor, it’s a huge deal as that would allow a control of boost pressure impossible with a traditional turbo or supercharger. And the absence of a turbine means they cut the rotational inertia in half on the shaft.
This would offer very interesting design freedom for engine management. You could have an “eco mode” where the compressor is basically off, you could have the compressor speed linked to the throttle opening, but with a varyong ratio depending on what you want out of the engine.
There must also be a battery pack somewhere to manage the power needed for the motorway making this bike effectively a hybrid. You could do some brake regen and have a shot of power during accelerations.
As an aerodynamics engineer currently working on electric compressor and turbines, I find this cool as hell!
You’ll get no arguments from me that it isn’t cool. I think it is rad af. I just know it doesn’t fit into genpop’s understanding of ‘turbos’ and ‘superchargers.’ I think there must be some sort of capacitor in there, which would be cool if the usage were initial take-off, but it sounds like it is far more complex than that, and I am here for it.
Well if by genpop you mean the non-gearheads around me, they don’t even understand what a turbo is.
General Population.
My bad. I kind of knew it wasn’t a common slang.
Apologies.
What’s funny is genpop is also jail slang obviously for general population
“And the absence of a turbine means they cut the rotational inertia in half on the shaft.”
Unless the compressor is driven by ethereal electric fairies the motor will have quite a bit of rotational mass, probably more than an air driven turbine.
Not on a Permanent Magnet Synchronous Motor (I made the same answer to someone else already)
If you say so. I’ll believe it when I see it.
The rotor of an electric motor used to drive the compressor will have more inertia than the equivalent turbine wheel, by a country mile. Ultimately that doesn’t matter since the electric motor can just cudgel it to death with electrons to overcome that inertia and get the thing spinning. But still…
Depends on the motor. On the applications I’m working on we use PMSM. The magnet has a very small diameter (it basically sits at the same level as the base of the compressor blades), I highly doubt it’s more inert than a turbine even though the length is comparable.
(A few superchargers are gear or crank driven, rather than belt driven).
Really, the most descriptive name for this would be an “electro-charger”. It’s compressing the charge air, via electricity.
Electric compressor would be the most accurate, if slightly boring term here, as you could have that exact system on a non-automotive application.
That was something I did not know.
Thanks, now I have my rabbit-hole!
Compressing gasses takes lots of energy: it’ll be interesting to see how they handle spooling up. Variable frequency, if I had to guess. This could have fun consequences: aftermarket bolt-on superchargers a few years down the road, maybe?
Let me go check eBay. I saw an electric turbo on there that’s guaranteed to work.
I have an RZ 500 but always thought the NS400 was a very pretty bike.
They sounded odd though, kind of like the motor was in a tin can so I opted for Gammas and still have the RZ.
That 2-stroke engine note makes me realize why I don’t enjoy my KTM 990. The rev limit is so low that it’s not aurally pleasing to exercise it.
The music in this video beats anything I hear on The Morning Dump. Incidentally, of the companies I can think of that make motorcycles and cars, I prefer their motorcycles. Honda, Suzuki. BMW. Are there others?
KTM, also Ducati is owned by Lamborghini, which is owned by Audi, which is owned by Volkswagen.
Wait, when did KTM get bought by VW?
I thought they were still under Bajaj.
KTM is still owned by Bajaj but they make four wheeled KTM “cars” as well as bikes.
Maybe that comma isn’t working hard enough. Bajaj makes auto rickshaws which have only three wheels. I’m not sure if an auto rickshaw or a x-bow is closer to a car, but the x-bow seems to be getting more car like all the time.
Ah, thanks for note on the emphasis.
I always considered the Xbow to be more track-toy than proper car; but you’ve got me there.
Arguably Polaris has side-by-sides & ATVs if we’re just counting wheels. Both being road legal in some jurisdictions.
I prefer BMW’s cars, but Honda’s and Suzuki’s bikes.
But then I like small engined race replica bikes and big engined RWD cars.
As an engine designer I am both appalled and excited by a V3. I loved Honda’s V5, and I can’t wait to find out bore and stroke of the V3, or bores and strokes…