@Bumblebee , That's not 350 hp stock, is it? The first thing the guy said is that he has a turbo tune. That tells me this thing might make 200 hp stock which is still more than enough.
Watching some videos about old bikes, there was a time in the 70s when Japanese companies cast aside all reason and made a few bikes that were as fast as possible with the technology available at the time. They were downright dangerous although I'd sure like to ride one carefully to get some idea what it's like. The manufacturers we have today are ruled much more by public opinion. Riding the edge between high performance and public approval can depend on profit or loss. I'd think sales volume and price has something to do with it too. A manufacturer can produce a vehicle that's less safe because it's faster. It's astronomically expensive because they make a very limited number. If only a few people can afford it and the company can still succeed in making a profit, the plan worked. A Bugatti Veyron is an example. It isn't worth one and a half million when you consider the manufacturing of each one including the engineering. It costs one and a half million because there's only a few that are made. Automatically, you have a built in safety factor with only a few wealthy owners of your product....although Bugatti could sell the Veyron for probably less than a quarter of what they do if they mass produced them. The company's image would suffer because there would be a lot of fatal car crashes involving their product.
Long >short, there's a tenuous balance between performance and safety and companies need to be conservative when it comes to considering that. That's why we have and always will have the aftermarket. The scheme is to manufacture a fast vehicle that's conducive to aftermarket improvements. The attention of the public to the potential level of performance is averted plus the number of owners of the vehicle will be happy with the image rather than actually paying for the increased performance. If fools want to go out and loose their lives on such bikes, it's not on the company that made the bike in the first place. ...it's more like "you built the bike to make that much power, not us." The nannies will only increase as the power does and the companies have the restriction level planned in advance as a business strategy. It's a battle against itself. The manufacturer builds in highly effective restrictions which then decrease the number of people that want to buy the bike because it's supposed to be fast....which is why the manufacturer made it in the first place but then they make it less fast.
LOL although, Kawasaki already made the H2 and the H2R, didn't they? They made the H2 safe, powerful and within financial reach. The H2R, it's safe but it's got outrageous power, it's way too high in price for most people to afford and it's not even designed to be ridden anywhere but a track. ....literally requires race maintenance at very short intervals. If an H2R results in serious injury on the street, Kawasaki avoids accountability just by presenting the fact that this bike was 100% made for track use only.
They could make a street ready, pretty close to an H2R. They could make a turbo Hayabusa. They could do everything the aftermarket does and they could do it easier, cheaper and better. ...it's just not smart business in the long run.
