Suprine Exodus BMW Powered Recumbent Motorcycle

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle

We've had a few complaints about our focus on trikes recently so we thought you might like to see something with only two wheels, the Suprine Exodus, of course, this is still a bit out of the norm, it's a recumbent. The rider sits low in the vehicle with his feet in a forward orientation and the engine behind. There is room for him to place his feet on the ground when the bike is stationary or just starting out or stopping. The rider sits in an aluminum racing bucket seat.

Power comes from a 1200cc BMW flat four with five speeds and reverse. The rider is surrounded by a roll cage and a skid plate. The gas tank holds 8 gallons and weight comes in at 680 pounds.

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle

The Exodus will be offered in 2 models, the Exodus 2014 and the Exodus 2014 G with a turbo engine and upgraded brakes and related components. They're planning fully enclosed bodies as a future option as well as an off road version. They even have their eye on a racing version which would compete against other recumbents in a class of its own.

Pricing is steep, beginning at $55,000 and going up quickly from there so it's competing against some pretty nice and very capable cars but, you know, it looks like it would be fun to take out for a spin. Stay tuned.

Link: Suprine Machinery

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle

Suprine Exodus BMW powered recumbent motorcycle


  1. Clive Makinson-Sanders says



    But seriously thats awesome and i want one fully enclosed.

    • charlie says

      I saw the picture and the first thing I thought was “the red fibreglass fairings are missing”

  2. Kyle T says

    What is the target market for a $55,000, long wheelbase, boxer powered recumbent motorcycle with a super raked-out front end and telescopic forks?

    It is *maybe* marginally more comfortable that a “standard” motorcycle. I have trouble believing it’s significantly safer, although perhaps a little bit. The handling is likely to be terrible (given the wheelbase and geometry), and the performance will be underwhelming at 700 pounds with a boxer engine.

    To add to it all, they plan an off-road version? Off-roading on two wheels requires the ability to move around on the bike significantly, to ability to absorb loads with your legs, and the ability to occasionally put a foot down to “dab.” Furthermore, the extremely long wheelbase of this thing will be even worse off road than it is on.


    • todd says

      That’s no boxer engine but a 130HP K1200RS. Those things put out 350HP in turbo form. That would be… um… exciting in this thing.


      • gee says

        allow me to suggest, that with the 5-speed plus reverse gearbox, that this isn’t the RS motor — which is kinda peaky — but more likely, the LT motor, which is down about 20 peak HP compared to the RS, but way up on low end torque.

        For this application, the LT powertrain is prolly a more sensible choice, especially when in the city or starting from a standing start.

        I will add that I am HIGHLY skeptical of the claimed wet weight of 680 pounds — the LT weighs 851 with a full tank of gas, and most of that bike — motor, transmission, main frame, swingarm and final drive — are all clearly and fully incorporated and visible here.

        • gee says

          oh… and a 350 HP brick would only be exciting for about 10 seconds until its clutch and or final drive exploded.

        • todd says

          I’d hardly call a 130hp 1200 “peaky”. The later, across the frame k1200 had upwards of 170hp and pulled like a locomotive (until the cam chain tensioner stopped doing its one sole job).

          Each of the early brick 1200s were purported to make the same 85ish ft-lb of torque, it’s just the LT had a taller final drive for reduced highway rpm. Maybe that’s what some people call “way up on torque.” I guess running around at lower rpm would give that impression.


    • GenWaylaid says

      Maybe they’re thinking they can make half a sand rail? It could almost work, but I foresee a lot of broken shins.

    • SausageCreature says

      I was thinking that myself…sort of a Gurney Alligator meets Road Warrior feel to it. Except I’m pretty sure Dan Gurney would have been able to pull this off with a much shorter wheelbase.

  3. Paul Crowe says

    I have to admit this doesn’t quite look like a $55K vehicle in this configuration, even though there’s obviously a lot of work involved and if the extras take the price as high as their web site suggests, it’s going to be a really hard sell, but you just never know, some people will pay a lot for something unique. I’m going to wait and see how this turns out. The enclosed version may be a real beauty.

  4. steve_a says

    A slightly used Peraves Monotracer would be a lot more vehicle for the money, and has almost 30 years of engineering development behind it. The Monotracer uses the same powertrain and has a similar seating position, but higher, and its Kevlar monocoque tub provides both crash protection and extremely low aerodynamic drag. The steering geometry on this machine seems very extreme, and the potential for injury in a crash without bodywork to retain arms and legs concerns me. All that structure that protects the torso just serves as a guillotine for limbs unless they’re kept inside.

    • biggyfries says

      I am amazed so few people know what a Monotracer is. Its on YouTube and was written up in Cycle World. Its the obviously superior version of this style of machine. I am hot for one but just try to find a used one at ANY price, especially in the US!
      A manufacturer like Hyundai or Kia could build a monotracer-like vehicle for around $12K with A/C and all–and be profitable. Why don’t they do it? I would buy one so fast it would make your head spin!
      It wouldn’t have to have a BMW drivetrain, but a CX500 type drivetrain, it would easily exceed 100mph and get 70 to 90 mpg as well. I wish I could have such a machine!

  5. Questar says

    I noticed you used the term flat four, as have Suprine on their website. The term flat four refers to a boxer type engine with horizontally opposed pistones. The engine they have used is a stright four, horizontally inclined.

    • SausageCreature says

      Wow, I’d never heard of those before. They look cool as hell! I guess they were a U.K. thing only? Pity, because I’d love to ride one.

  6. Bart says

    Can’t wait to see the off-road version racing across a baja arroyo with sand, rock and the usual 25% grade, rocka-strewn climb out of said arroyo!

  7. Alex Lowe says

    I agree with most of the comments already posted. This looks even longer than an Peraves Ecomobile or Monotracer, with fewer benefits, even if it is visually attractive, in an exoskeletal sort of way. Re: the 1970s’ Quasar, the problem was less selling them than getting them built in the first place. The same thing happened with the later Voyager project, and the Vandenbrink Carver (tilting trike). All, apparently, had full order books for their limited production runs.

  8. Josh says

    What a wasted opportunity! Clearly here we have someone with loads of building skill, not to mention the start-up capital to actually get anythuing done at all. too bad it is all wasted on this monstrosity.

    This would have been the perfect basis to reboot Hans Joachim Maier’s project. It would be an awesome machie with this engine, and the wheelbase and geometry would be a lot closer to a regular touring bike. It would also look a hell of a lot better and might actually be worth $50k+ to some people..

  9. says

    I can tell you that I scanned that image YEARS ago (early 80’s?) from a copy of Motoradd and (from what I recall) it was indeed a product design degree final year project.

    Those who have an idea of these things will note that the project bike is missing any form of suspension travel, working steering mechanism or a fuel tank. But it still looks boss.

    • Josh says

      The same 4 or 5 pictures of this bike have been circulating around the web for some time. I never saw any other pictures. It’s a long shot, but do you still have the magazine? I’ve been looking for the original article all over the place.

      Even as a design study it’s interesting. With a few tweaks I don’t see a reason why it woudn’t be functional. Steering looks like it could be functional hub-center steering setup. A fuel tank could be hidden if the bodywork was expanded slightly – maybe multiple tanks around the engine? The rear suspension does appear to be functional (though limited) if you look at this picture:

      • rohorn says

        The stud for the rear shock there on the ring & pinion housing – it has no shock on it. There’s also a big square section spacer added between said housing and the swingarm casting – I highly doubt anyone went through the trouble of making a longer drive shaft to go inside of it.

        I do love the design – thanks for bringing it up!

      • says

        I don’t have it, but I know who I gave it too. I’ll ask. It’s a long shot but he doesn’t throw much away either.

        Trust me if you want to put function into a powered two-wheeler you will end up with a much larger vehicle than that.

        Have a look at the pictures here (coincidently the work of the same chap I gave the mag to) The Hi-Techati had a Ducati 450 motor and 6′ adults could not fit in comfortably and, as you can see was a lot larger than the BMW concept. (You might find that rest of the site interesting too)

  10. Christoph says

    Thanks, but no thanks. About the only recumbent that really stopped me and made me say to myself, “My money and I will part ways if they build it,” is the Suzuki G-Strider. Also I’d have to find an early Star Wars stormtrooper suit to ride it with style.

  11. says

    Two-wheeled proof that meth and alcohol don’t mix well. Sorry, I’m all for innovation and outrageous custom bikes, but this one deosn’t rate high in either field. It makes even less sense than Guerney’s ‘Alligator’ did.

  12. dirth says

    The first picture it looks OK,just OK then the second it’s disproportional and well a dog’s dinner.that’s only my opinion and they want 55K for it , It’s got to have a side stand, but what of the practicality of the main stand, how do you get into it ,once it’s off the main stand?
    The Quaser is 30+ years old and far superior, as are the rest mentioned,
    It’s only my opinion and there will be a fair few who disagree,

  13. Jake says

    Wow. Watching the videos of the test runs…Quaser can’t compare (let alone, the non-functional “concept bikes”). Eh, seemed like a silly comparison to begin with. I want to know about the G version, what’s included?

  14. says

    This machine is preposterously long, especially for a single seater. Malcolm Newell did this sort of thing much better with his rear engined GPZ1100 ‘slug’, which I’ve ridden. As has already been mentioned, Arnold Wagner and Peraves have made far better use of the BMW brick engines in the Ecomobiles and Monotracers, and it should be pointed out that several of the Ecomobiles were turbo’d and the two turbo single seaters are about half the length of this thing, with far more sensible geometry. (I’ve ridden lots of them too, many thousands of miles). Dan Gurney’s Alligators make perfect sense thrashing up Ortega Canyon, which I’ve also had the great pleasure of doing. And I sold my Quasar to buy the unique Pegram Genesis. All the above mentioned machines are featured on, along with many others, such as the 215bhp electric Monotracer, which I’ve also ridden. Makes a Tesla look heavy and slow! PNB

    • Bill says

      I checked out, and it looks like Ian had to LENGTHEN the Pegram. Maybe Suprine had the right idea from the start. It would be interesting to know what their thinking was, design criteria etc. Have they done any interviews?

  15. BoxerFanatic says

    This, plus the previous article’s leaning front suspension for a reverse trike…

    And it is nearly what I have in my head, but I was thinking R1200 DOHC drivetrain, or K1600 inline 6.

  16. Pete says

    I don’t think even Jay leno would pay $55K for that thing.
    After this I’ll never complain about trikes ever again.

  17. fharmon says

    I suppose there is a market for this, after all there was a pet rocks market, but you can have it. It is too long, it reminds me of the Road Dog, if my hands aren’t pretty much lined up with the steering head and my back wheel is not too far behind my butt I get nervous. I love low center of gravity machines and that is what this thing has going for it. I don’t see any way to shorten it up with the motor behind so c’mon, back to the drawing board……MOTOR IN FRONT.!?!!!!

  18. Britman says

    Do any of the videos show this aberration making a tight right or left turn. NO!

    Wonder why not.

    Also notice the constant correction the operator has to make to the steering at slow speed. Stable as a drunk nuns knickers on St. Paddys Day.

  19. Ted says

    Haven’t read all the comments, but: I have a 2003 K1200GT and the hardware is all from that bike, I recognize it all. Hence it is a tech dinosaur. As for the layout, it is crazy. None of the benefits of a bike, more complexity, and all of the pitfalls. This is engineering for engineering sake, and will have a one-minute future. The old saying “Just because it can be done, does not mean it should be done” comes to mind.

  20. Peter Miles says

    Interesting to see what this would do with a side-car on the race track.

  21. John says

    The problem with all these vehicles is that car drivers don’t see you. Even I who am a biker was suprised by a T-Rex, cause he was simply below my mirror vision. I guess these could be fun on a closed circuit, but I wouldnt pay 55k to end up under an SUV.

    • Tom says

      Isn’t that the point of the steel roll cage? This seems interesting to me. You get to ride a 126 hp motorcycle, without taking on as many of the risks, and without confining yourself.

      • Jim says

        I for one, would rather not test the roll cage.

        Recombinant motorcycles are interesting engineering exercises, but they are impractical as road bikes.

  22. Matt says

    Really cool. Looks like it could’ve been the major inspiration for the dodge tomahawk.

  23. Tapsa Rautanen says

    Step 1: put a more powerful engine (maybe two).
    Step 2: design a more aerodynamic fairing.
    Step 3: bring this to the salt!

    Seriously it looks like to only reasonable evolution of this thing to me.


  24. Sick Cylinder says

    The longer the wheelbase, the further over a bike has to be leaned – given this fact, this bike will have to corner very slowly – if someone tries to ride it fast round a bend it will either ground out or ride off the edge of the tyre.

    You can also create cornering problems by having a centre of gravity that is too low – I presume this wasn’t designed by an engineer – certainly not by one who knows anything about motorcycle dynamics.

    To me it looks like an utterly ridiculous peice of design – why didn’t they cut three feet out of the wheelbase by having the rider sit on top of the engine – it could still be a feet first motorcycle.

    As for racing this or going offroad – unless it was at Boneville – a cockney would say “Are you having a giraffe mate?”

    • bizan says

      Or maybe something more like this:

      Moving the front wheel between the legs is done with a partial enclosure. I can’t find where I saw it done, but it’s nothing new.

      The weight distribution would suck with the engine so high so you can move the engine inside the back wheel if it’s electric. Of course, if you can design your engine and drive train you can throw two cylinders on each side of the back wheel and only put the shifting on top…
      I’m also pretty sure you can pick up one of those old long BMW engine that sorta stick out and place it vertically so it will only take half the space.

  25. rohorn says

    Compared to a 48″ foot wheelbase (smaller than normal) race bike on a 90″ radius corner (about as tight as most roadrace course corners get), a theoretical 96″ wheelbase bike, all else being equal (Tire width, etc..,) would have the SAME lean angle at the SAME speed by taking a line exactly .84″ wider. Faster corners (with their obviously larger radii) would see an even smaller difference.

    That’s what a combination of math, physics, and experience tells me.

  26. Carl La Fong says

    For years, people have been trying to reinvent the motorcycle. Wagner and a few other got it right over 100 years ago. People do not want recumbent motorcycles, motorcycles with steering wheels, motorcycles with front wheel drive, enclosed motorcycles or any of the other odd ball stuff that, so called, visionaries have been trying to foist on the two wheeled world. We want bikes that go fast, stop well, handle nicely, carry a bunch of stuff, if that’s our style, look nice and are within our budget. This is another contraption that was still born before it was built.

  27. says

    I agree with Josh and Don too much money and energy for too little outcome.
    Unlike the Can-Am Spyder this is not something people will want climb onto and ride. With this type of design you will have to crawl into it which would be quite the undertaking and possibly undoable for anyone who weighs over let’s say 150 pounds.

    As for safety factor I would feel more comfortable in full roll caged go-cart.

  28. Eddy Current says

    I have a long wheelbase recumbent bicycle (with electric assist), it doesn’t take any more lean angle than a standard diamond frame bicycle for a given corner at a given speed, also like the Exodus it has a lot of rake and is a bit twitchy at low speed until you become accustomed to it. I get the impression the rider in the videos is not particularly used to the bike.

    Here is a video of a rider who’s obviously experienced and comfortable on a recumbent motorcycle.

    That headlight-behind-the-fairing is going to be a major disaster on a country road in the dark, I could see headlight reflections in the fairing on the video in broad daylight.

  29. says

    Market potential for this BMW powered monstrosity? None.
    The only feet forward design I’ve ever liked was the Malcolm Newell Quasar Sport.
    The two seater Reliant Robin powered Quasar was built in the late 1970s and again in the mid 1980s. But they were too long, too heavy, too slow etc, etc.
    But he also designed a solo seat Quasar Sport. It was going to be powered by a Hesketh V1000 V twin engine. Only one mock up was built. It was displayed at the 1977 Earls Court Motor Show on the Avon Tyres stand. They the project was abandoned and the hull was left to rot away in his garden. It’s a pitty that it never was built, because I think he was on to a winning design all round. But if somebody today were to take the Quasar Sport design and combine it with electric power with a wankel rotary powered range extender generator. I think that would be a winning package.
    I don’t know why some people put so much effort into projects with such huge flaws. Like nobody was going to notice that it was 12 feet long? If he was going it for himself just for the fun of it then I’d applaud his effort. But to think the design is producation worthy is crazy.

  30. Lee Wilcox says

    I think that is a good start for a reverse trike. Put a vw (old beetle) front on it and forget it. I am not usually critical of the things I see but that is a road to nowhere as far as I am concerned. The trike though is another matter. I wish I had this when I did mine.