Hayabusa, there are more reasons for that counterbalancer than that.
I mean, sure, it's to smooth out the engine, but it's not like it's something that you just feel at idle. You feel it everywhere, and more revs = more vibration! It's just that it's at idle when the frequency is low enough to really bother you.
I own a bike with no counterbalancer. It's not a 'Busa, but if the effects of removing the counterbalancer on your 'Busa are anything like this bike, it will make it virtually unrideable for more than 1/2 hour to an hour at a shot, and it will provide a miserable ride for most of that time.
I don't know if you are telling the truth or not, Hayabusa, but your comments sound very suspicios to me. Anyone who has ever ridden an engine that is not balanced, whether it was done by removing the counterbalancer or not, knows it right off, and never just comes out and tries to tell people that there is no reason for an engine to be balanced. That is silly. think about it this way: AT LEAST the addition of a counterbalancer costs Suzuki money to manufacture and put in the engine. Thus, if the engine was the same (or even similar) to the way it is when it's balanced, they wouldn't bother with it.
Let's compare two engines, identical to one another except for the fact that one has a counterbalancer and one does not. The one without a counterbalancer will be more likely to vibrate something loose (like an important adjustment somewhere) and is more likely to break down over time because of the additional stress on the engine from extreme vibrations, especially when you are talking about 1300 cc's. It's also more likely to fatigue a rider, make his hands and feet go numb (which is what a rider uses to control his machine) and generally provide an additinal distraction. Lastly, parts are more likely to wear prematurely without a countering force providing balance to the engine.
Not to mention that doing something like this would totally void your warranty. In a big way. Why would Suzuki do that if it wasn't a big deal to remove a counterbalancer?
Let's talk about the (perceived) benefits of removing the counterbalancer: Less reciprocating mass. While this would tend to make people believe that this would increase engine power output, it most definitely does not. I mean, it would reduce the amount of internal friction of an engine, effectively providing a negligable difference in power which would be so small as to almost prove unmeasurable. However, the engine would FEEL like it had more power because it would spool up faster in neutral. In other words, there would be less inertia for the engine to fight against when you twisted the throttle in neutral. This would make the engine seem more willing to rev, but would not be the result of a horsepower increase. Thus, twisting the throttle with the clutch engaged would not result in faster times... Just more vibration (which might add to the drama, making you feel faster...)
Based on my experience in having bikes with and without balanced engines, I would strongly recommend keeping any street bike balanced, and yes, this is exactly what you would be undoing if you remove that counterbalancer.
[This message has been edited by Cyber Josie (edited 05 July 1999).]
