Product life cycle is not the same as life expectancy of a product. Of course many sport bikes live well beyond 30,000 miles. However, as IDK points out, most end there service life wrapped around a tree, or rotting away in the far corner of the shed after its luster has worn off. If you are a manufacturer producing a product that sells based on its power and over all performance and not on bragging rights about hitting 100,000 miles, and you know its statistical life expectancy, you can move the compromise equation towards performance and away from longevity. To do otherwise is the equivalent of attaching $100.00 bills to the bottom of the seat before it leaves the factory. Not many owners or corporate shareholders are that generous.
Claviger asked why the R3 doesn't have a torque curve like the Speed Triple. It could. But at a very large initial cost to meet the intended product life cycle, performance that would move the R3 completely out of the cruiser catagory, and a loss of market penetration.
A quick read through recent posts shows comments about many riders being afraid of the Rocket. Some won't even try riding it. If I were a Triumph marketing VP in charge of the cruiser category, and I read this, I would be concerned about losing my position. Triumph exists to make a profit manufacturing motorcycles! And you want them to up the power another 100hp?
I love my R3 and like most of us, like even more power than the stock machine offers. Unfortunately for Triumph and us, there are too few of us that ride one. If they were selling like sport bikes to a younger demographic, you can bet whatever is in your wallet that Triumph would up the power and handling.