I support the C1 because it is different (just as Gordy commented about diversity in motorcycling). Unfortunately, there is a lot ‘riding’ on the success of the C1 for continued diversity. For example, if this is not successful, investor money will be more difficult for the next alternative concept (Czysz even experienced this himself after citing Indian & Excelsior). I really would like to see the round engine or quasi-turbine engine get applied to a motorcycle. (low c of g, compact design that should have long durability & flexibility).

I support the C1 because of the attitude behind it…a small team of people taking on a huge goal against the “corporate” machine*. Yeah, Czysz has corporate money now but he didn’t when he started this project & it still is somewhat of a David/Goliath scenario.

*with modern technology, hopefully our society will see a rise in more entreprenuers doing this type of battle.

I would prefer if the hype didn’t exist, but I don’t think the level of hype is solely trump’d up by Czysz.

I also support this because finally someone in the States is putting some engineering effort into a racebike at the highest level. Patriotism? yes. Blind patriotism? no. This also ties into diversity. Hopefully Drysdale or other talented engineers from the southern hemisphere will be represented, too.

Anyway….it would have been cool to have a debate over the pros and cons because there really isn’t a lot of this in the media surrounding this project. The only article that I have seen that cited reasons against this design is in “Motorcyclist”. Anyone know of other publications presenting two sides?

Gordy, no offense, man. I was persistant because I read bold comments that didn’t go into any real explanations. People will have the same type of reaction to any subject.

My comment about the Ukrainians was out of complete respect & admiration for their stance they made in the insanely cold against a fraudulent election.

in the words of ACDC, “ride on”….

would you rather discuss the differing ways of how the professionals engineer racebikes or would you rather discuss marketing a motorcycle?

Both are valid topics that have been covered by The Kneeslider. But what about in this particular post, considering the previous comments?

Gordy, as you re-read the comments you should see several attempts to discuss the engineering & forget about the hype. It seems you are the one going around in circles about a topic many of us would prefer to talk about another time (especially since most of us are neither financially invested in the C1 and/or cannot purchase the limited models for sale).

Let’s take your assumption….

the brave Ukrainians, fighting for democracy in frigid temperatures, have also built the twin crank, counter-rotating v4 called, “Moto Czysz” (it sounds a bit eastern European, anyway).

Why is this design “flawed”?

July 30th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
GordinHimer- you need to get laid man.”

Yeah, what Matt said.

“No parts of the motorcycle or engine may be made from metallic materials which have a specific modulus of elasticity greater than
50 Gpa / (g/cm3).” —> I think this is right out of the FIA playbook and is in place to prevent unobtanium from bankrupting the teams. aluminium-lithium/beryllum alloys were the target when the FIA banned them.