It's interesting to compare the engineering styles of the various bike makers. Years ago, Suzuki built the X6 250, which was ahead of its time in several respects. The company prepared the market with enough skill that people were hankering for the bike. Then they released one bike per dealer.
Next was the 500 Titan, a machine without character. Was it a vaguely sports bike, with its compact power unit? Well... no, not with its zillion-pound flywheels that were seemingly chosen to make the thing idle like a four-stroke. A tourer? Um... not really. Then what? We're not just sure.
And the 750 water buffalo went the same way. Well-engineered and durable, as well as embodying a potential for over 125 BHP, this bike had no character either.
The rotary had the same limitations. It was as though Suzuki were then being run by Soviet promoters, people capable of good engineering, but without a clue on the subject of product planning, marketing or advertising.
So isn't it interesting that this same company now builds the tightly-defined GSX-R motorcycles, which combine cost-cutting rational modular engines with semi-traditional chassis, saving enough by not splurging in all departments so that the end product can deliver across a spectrum of qualities.
Then there is Yamaha, who have in the past plunged into revolutionary engine developments, only to be stopped dead just as they're about to design the chassis; sorry, accounting department says this thing has to have the non-adjust, benderino fork from the Campus Cadet, plus other chassis/suspension afterthoughts. Will they shake off this tendency now? As tempting as it is to offer pushed-to-the-limit engines, it's also nice to have funding left over for integration of the whole bicycle.
Kawasaki tend to fall into this sinkhole, too. Determined to have the ultimate engine, they create something like the ZX6 that pushes the graph points up beyond everyone else's, then burden it with weight or lack of driveability that were both avoidable.
Maybe integration is a very difficult thing to define, much less achieve early in design. I used to think that Japanese bikes had wonderful engines and ghastly chassis (circa 1972-78) because engineers like things they can measure; RPM, BMEP, torque, and so on. So difficult to measure handling. I mean, what is it? Meanwhile the Europeans, knowing their centuries-old engine designs couldn't be replaced or updated because of lack of funds and manufacturing technology, had the opportunity to work on the little stuff that's so important to some picky people -- things like being able to run in a straight line at 90 MPH without weaving, or responding now or at least soon to steering inputs, rather than (as my paternal grandmother used to say) presently.
I'm glad that Suzuki and Yamaha have kept their sportbikes in development over years, rather than trying to replace everything every year. This gives some chance for integration after the fact, if not in the original design process. As a parallel, consider the NASCAR tuner, who knows his engine problems will be extensions of known history, because the power unit is 30 years old. In bike racing, no sooner does the tuner come to grips with a model's tendency to break camchains or have poor exhaust flow than WHAM, a completely new model is dumped on him, containing a fresh set of misconceptions and even downright mistakes. Refinement is nice. In our financially limited times, it's all we can really afford