motorcyclebloggers.com

Just how many mechanics does Motoczysz have, and what kind of experience is needed to be a mechanic for them?

Because a bike is leaned side to side to turn, if the crank sits longitudinally in the chassis gyroscopic force is a non issue. This is because you are not changing the direction of the crank axis when changing lean angle. Inertial force of the crank comes into play but only when the crank is changing speed. I’m not sure if Czysz understands the difference. If he did I do not think he would have even bothered drawing the counter rev. motor.
Here is the point that I know Czyzs does not get. Even a transversely mounted motor is of little effect on motorcycle handling because the gyroscopic precession is contained within the chassis. Imagine a motorcycle engine in a stand that allows it to rotate freely from side to side(at a right angle to crank rotation). If that motor is at 0 or 15,000 rpm it will rotate side to side with the same effort because the test stand resists the torque from precession. A motorcycle is a rolling engine stand that rotates freely from side to side. The gyroscopic precession from the crank is a non-factor in motorcycle turning effort regardless of engine layout. Precession from the crank is contained within the chassis. When a motorcycle with a transverse crank that spins forward is changing lean angle to the right the torque generated from precession tries to spin the entire motorcycle around to the right and vice-versa when leaning left. This is a considerable force when a crank is spinning upwards of 15,000rpm. The problem for Czysz is that the rider never feels it because the force is contained within the chassis. The irony is that in the layout just described the precession from the engine pushes the triple clamp in the direction that the bike is being leaned which would assist counter steering therefore if anything reducing steering effort. The effect is so small that it really does not matter. The net gain from Czysz’s counter-revolution engine is ZERO. Here is a simple experiment to demonstrate that crank precession plays no role in steering effort. Sit on a stationary motorcycle and rock it side to side. It does not matter if engine rpm is 0 or 15,000 the effort to lean the stationary bike side to side is unchanged. I did it on my zx10 from idle to 9,000rpm. I can think of no reason why this experiment would not be valid. If you were to pin the throttle of a stationary bike and let it fall, it would fall to the ground at the same rate regardless of crank orientation. Precession from the crank does not resist lean. If I have said anything that you disagree with or if I have inadequately explained it I would be glad to elaborate
Robby Kasten

Two reasons why the bike transitioned easily. Light front wheel and brake, secondly, they were only riding at about 80%. I’m sure that it is a well engineered bike. As long as the engine is mounted in the chasis it is isolated from the rider. The torque of precession from the crank is transfered to the rear tire contact patch and to the triple clamp. The chassis acts as a 4ft. lever against the crank. since offset at the triple clamp is only about an inch the clip-ons act as a lever also. So, If the crank generates a max of 100 ft lbs of precession torque it is reduced to 25 by the chassis and then down to about 2ft lbs. by the clip-ons. sorry if this is sloppy but I’m tired.
robby

My last name ends in “czyk” and all my Polish relatives tell me it is pronounced “check”. Czechoslovakia is pronounced “check-o-slow-va-key-a”. So, it would follow that Czysz is pronounced “chizz” and not “sizz”. Of, course when many eastern Europeans immigrated to the USA their names were altered or butchered by the officials at Ellis Island, or the immigrants themselves, in an attempt to “Americanize” them. I’ll defer to Mr. C for the pronunciation of his last name but keep in mind you are witnessing the change in language.

As to the C1 prototype motorcycle, I’ll make the following observations:

1) I saw the bike in-person at Laguna both on Cannery Row the night it was unloaded and parked in the “bling bike” area, as well as during its demo laps on the track the next day. In typical marketing fashion, Michael Czysz shows up in full leathers and NO helmet on the bike. Yeah, Mr. C, you’re cool, but where’s the beef? The laps on the track were loud and that’s about it. I bet Randy Mamola could have easily passed the C1 during his passenger demo rides on the Desmodeici.
2) The bike is a collection of interesting ideas that have yet to be proven in any meaningful way. It’s all just a bunch of talk and conjecture at this point.
3) There is no way the C1 will race in, much less be competitive in MotoGP without many years of development and changes in design (ask Kenny Roberts Sr.) if at all. You misguided patriotic zealots need to pull your heads out of the sand and realize this is a “concept” bike not a legitimate threat to any existing manufacturer or race series.
4) To compare this man with John Britten is ridiculous!!! The C1 has not won any legitimate kind of race anywhere. The Britten, on the other hand, won many significant races and championships in several different race series. Check the Britton website (http://www.britten.co.nz/) for more details. Besides, I don’t believe anyone outside of New Zealand ever heard of the Britten until it came across the pond and started kicking some ass. Mr. C on the other hand has received tons of press for a bike that would probably get spanked by a stock 600cc sportbike. I personally have a lot more respect for Dr. Rob Tuluie (http://venus.13x.com/roadracingworld/issues/apr00/tularis.htm) than Michael Czysz, The Tularis was built using unique technology and raced regularly to prove the concept. Ultimately, the Tularis failed to achieve its envisioned potential, but at least it was a trial by fire, not press. The C1’s only trial has been in the forum of opinion.

Thanks Mr. C for taking your ideas, putting them in metal and displaying them to the moto-public, but don’t think that’s a guarantee validation or of success. You might want to spend more time engineering and less time marketing.

Though I must say also that this is far from my field of expertise, I would think that the gyroscopic effect generated by the wheels would far outweigh any effect from the crank due to their combined weight and their circumference in relationship to the size and weight of the crank. Even though the crank is spinning at a far greater speed.

Another difference is that the 636 makes the 600 feel slow but, that said, the 600 steers from side-to-side with less effort than the 636. Subsequent interviews with engineers confirmed that the 636 crankshaft is slightly heavier than the 600 crank. I presume that the heavier crank is creating more of a gyroscopic effect which resists steering efforts. This statement in no way should be construed to mean that the 636 steers slowly, just with ever so slightly more effort than the 600.