Here is a photo of the new MotoCzysz as it was first shown Friday evening at Laguna Seca. Tech specs for this bike are under 350 pounds and over 220 horsepower which should make for some impressive performance figures. You can see complete specs on the MotoCzysz website.
I don’t have any more info yet though more photos will be coming soon.
Link: MotoCzysz.com
The Kneeslider: MotoCzysz Unveiling Racebikes at Laguna Seca
Spicciani says
Damn that thing is beautiful and if it is as fast as it is beautiful an American bike might be going through some checked flags
Gordy says
It’s not a road bike so it must be a race bike, but for what class? The MGP class is going to 800cc, so logically it’s not for that class. And why are they calling it a MGP replica when there is no successful MGP original to reproduce (unless I’ve missed something)?
And if it is a road bike then I suggest emissions regs, lighting regs, noise regs et al will soon have the bhp down and the mass up, in which case why show-case a specification that will never be legal to ride?
I have nothing against innovation and solid effort, but this is nothing short of over-hyped nonsense. 25 years of automotive engineering experience says they are barking up the wrong tree.
TriumphGuy says
Salutations, kudos, and good luck Michael. Look out world. Gawd, I’d love to take a lap on that beast.
C. J. Luke, III says
Hopefully it won’t be a big deal for them to scale down to an 800cc bike for 2007.
I wonder if it has the same capability electronics as the MotoGP bikes??? He doesn’t mention much of the details…it’s almost like he got caught in the rule changes and needs to recover some investment.
I wish him the best though. It would be nice to see an American built sport bike of any class do well.
Dodgy says
350 pounds? 160 Kg…
That’s 44 pounds (20 Kg) off the pace!
It may be narrow, but that’s quite a bit there Michael…
Apart from having to start again with the engine it may actually help by making the engine a little shorter?
It’s a hell of a dream Michael, and I think there are some great ideas there, but MotoGP?
Ever thought about Endurance Racing?
D.Bailey says
What the price tag on this thing?
aaron says
$100,000 is the price I’ve seen mentioned
it’s only 15Kg not 20Kg (as far as I know the weight limit for 4 and 5 cyl bikes is 145kg) a small rider like pedrosa has 20+ kg on someone like gibernau, so it’s not as big a deal as it may seem… carbon disks and similar motogp exclusive stuff would shave more weight off, but no one would let you ride the bike on their track unless you brought a trailer full of engineers…
I believe this engine is optimised as an 800cc with compromises to become a 1000cc – how many 800cc fireblades could honda sell? with any luck this thing could still run in the unlimited classes in club racing as it stands right now, and i think more than a few desmoseidici are going to be there as well…
final thought – the britten was available to buyers at something like $100,000 way back when. if it got this kind of hype, someone would likely have said “blah blah blah, you can get a full race kit 851 (888) for half the price, and it’s a better bike with proven race history….”
the britten sold for $250,000 recently, an 851 sp (888) can be had for around $15-20k (about what it sold for, but a dollar bought way more at the time)
C.J. Luke says
I think Aaron is right. There are quite a few people/companies out there that $100,000 isn’t much more significant than a set of Diablo Corsa’s are to me, so I don’t think the price is gonna kill it. If the bike can compete, he has a chance. I’m rooting for him.
Gordy says
It seems as if for $100,000 you just get the race bike. And then you are going to need a complete spare bike and a vast spares kit, plus data-logging, team transportation, a support contract with the engine management supplier, race accommodation, entry fees, a manager, rider, team of engineers, base facilities, test days, etc., etc…. get the picture?
It’s also 13Kg off the mark to start with, and physically large for what needs to become a 800cc MGP bike.
And as for club racing – that only works because their is a common sentiment of basic and fair competition between the riders… and who wants to invite a specifically built MGP bike to screw that up? (Noting that the desmoseidici is a genuine production motorcycle, with lights and a road-legal ecu, etc..)
As for the Britten, it was genuinely innovative in all the right ways: every engineer could see it had merit, and it was clearly built without multi-million dollar backing and only publicised because it was successful.
Don’t get me wrong, I would dearly love to see more variety in motorcycling and motorcycle racing, but I will not support flawed design just because of over-hyped promotion.
I think many supporters of the project are simply unaware of the requirements of good technical design, or simply guilty of small-minded blind patriotism.
Neil says
Who moved Gordy’s cheese?
Matt Hubbell says
The most beautiful piece of motorcycle art sense the 916. The bike represent passion, and you can feel that just looking at her. If you can not see it, you must have never felt it.
hoyt says
Gordy says, “I will not support flawed design just because of over-hyped promotion.”
There is nothing flawed about a smooth running engine that is narrow by more than half of the other engines. I also believe the longitudinal crank is also correct as it rolls on the same axis of leaning. (Guzzi & BMW boxer riders will attest to this fact).
The only question that you may find flawed is the additional gearing required to convert to chain drive. Mr. Cameron, Tech Editor of Cycleworld, cites in his recent article that this type of gearing is similar in concept to every automobile (racing or otherwise). And, before you spout out that we are talking about motorcycles and not autos, the context of that point is in whether or not this gearing is robbing power.
“over-hyped promotion”…What is it with this line of criticism? Is it really over hyped promotion or are you jealous?
Do you think that small team of people have the time to sit around and put out bullshit hype or do you think the media is more responsible? [Good job to Motorcyclist mag. to present both praise and criticsm when they first ran coverage of the C1.]
“small-minded blind patriotism.” More like enthusiasm from enthusiasts who would rather see this type of alt. thinking succeed for the benefit of all motorcycling. But, even if this bike does not “succeed” by your standards, I say “good job!” anyway.
You & Joe must want to live in the same-old-same-old world of v-twins, v4’s, and in-line 4’s for the rest of your days, without knowing if there was ever another way.
“Round” engine [http://www.roundengine.com/] or “Quasi Turbine” engine [http://www.quasiturbine.com/ ]technology — “What!? STOP that right now….it will not work!” blah, blah, blah.
Gordy says
Matt:
“The bike represent passion, and you can feel that just looking at her. If you can not see it, you must have never felt it.”
= Adolescent emotional drama-queen drivel.
hoyt:
“narrow by more than half of the other engines.”
No MGP design team chose narrowness as the main priority. It is important but not the priority. Remember that the widest part of a motorcycle is the rider.
“longitudinal crank is also correct as it rolls on the same axis of leaning.”
A motorcycle actually has two dynamic axis – the first a line drawn between the contact points of the tyres and the second a line drawn between the pivot points of the suspension (swing arm axle and steering head stem). Neither is the crank line.
“The only question that you may find flawed is the additional gearing required to convert to chain drive.”
No, that is not a flaw, just a requirement to turn the drive 90 degrees.
The flaws are:
1) Controlled flex at the wrong point – the front suspension is totally the wrong place for it, and this design also retains most of the disadvantages of forks, while being far less cost effective for mass manufacture than forks and very susceptible to wear and tear. (Refer to Hossack for the most suitable alternative to forks).
2) Co-axial swing arm location. This is a possibility for every road and race manufacturer in the world and, unless I am mistaken, is not used by anyone. I wonder why?
3) (Potentially the rear suspension – I am unconvinced by the rear suspension design, but will not comment further as my understanding of it is currently incomplete).
4) Business case. Who is this for? It’s not a road bike so it’s an un-raced and unproven race bike, for who? A short production run for the well-heeled who just want an eccentric and unproven oddity, sucking on the adulation of the enthusiastic hard-of-thinking? I want to see them make profit or it’s all for nowt, so why launch an over-hyped unproven motorcycle into a dead-end niche?
“is it with this line of criticism? Is it really over hyped promotion or are you jealous? ”
No, it’s just my pragmatic view of the world which does not always coincide with the emotionally-driven, all-singing-all-dancing, hype-it-up drama that accompanies this sort of project. I prefer to see a team beaver away and achieve something more than a concept vehicle and actually have something tangible before they hype it up. This has been very much hyped and it’s not even a real race bike, for as far as I am aware it has not yet raced in anger. I do not say that I am right, I simply have a different approach that prefers quiet achievement to emotionally driven clap-trap hype.
“More like enthusiasm from enthusiasts”
I stand by “blind patriotismâ€.
“who would rather see this type of alt. thinking succeed for the benefit of all motorcycling.”
How will that benefit you or I? And please do not drone on with the adolescent myth that racing improves the breed.
“without knowing if there was ever another way.”
There are always alternative ways. But I sincerely do not think that this is it!
” “What!? STOP that right now….it will not work!†blah, blah, blah.”
Great: take the swish idea, get a proper business plan and the right financing, make a successful demonstrator, and then launch your world-beater.
Keep smiling…
hoyt says
Gordy : “No MGP design team chose narrowness as the main priority. It is important but not the priority. Remember that the widest part of a motorcycle is the rider. ”
I didn’t say this was the “main” priority. The Moto Czysz philosophy appears to be (in part) one that addresses areas of ‘neglect’. This could nullify your point, “No MGP design team chose narrowness as the main priority…” The Czysz team might respond along the lines of “precisely”. I’ll stop speaking for them in this fashion.
A wind tunnel test of the C1 next to other GP bikes would be interesting.
I would say cutting the frontal area of an in-line 4 to less than half is a good first start. I believe Robby Kasten, the gentleman working on the counter roating front discs, rightly stated something to the affect of, engineering is a trade in some form or another of varying degress (when responding to criticism that his braking system added unsprung weight).
18 inches is the current width of an in-line 4 engine. How wide were those engines 15 years ago? How much refinement would the Czysz team accomplish in 15 years to the challenges stemming from the tradeoff of turning the engine sideways?
– In reference to the axis. OK, I wasn’t clear. The crank direction is parallel to the axis in your example of tire contact patches. The same point still exists.
Gordy : “The flaws are: Controlled flex at the wrong point – the front suspension is totally the wrong place for it,…”
Why is controlled flex at the front the TOTALLY wrong place? Consider a race motorcycle is leaned over, practically on its side to a point where lateral flex becomes somewhat of vertical suspension while leaned over.
Gordy : “Business case. Who is this for? It’s not a road bike so it’s an un-raced and unproven race bike, for who?”
Isn’t the Czysz team working towards racing this bike in what really is a short timeframe considering a clean sheet design started in a garage? So easy on the unproven/unraced criticisms, Gordo.
further Gordy says: …”I want to see them make profit or it’s all for nowt, so why launch….”
So now, you’re dictating they make a profit on manufactured bikes, huh? Would you say such a thing to the likes of Mr. Britten or anyone else well off enough to go racing as a side project? Is this really a flaw or some other problem? In time, production could come in various numbers at various prices. It is their decision in a free market.
“over-hyped” ? So what if Czysz makes references to “Moto GP replica” & sells them for 100k. So what if he continues to broadcast the MotoGP grid. That is a goal and mission statement. Is the main problem here the exposure this project is getting more than the design?
Gordy : “How will that benefit you or I? And please do not drone on with the adolescent myth that racing improves the breed.”
Adolescent? aah, yeah…. Anyway, the point of “for the benefit of all of motorcycling” is that there are new ideas most likely creating other ideas. If you don’t think any of these ideas haven’t caused any engineer within the MotoGP circuit or among the motorcycle manufacturers to stop and consider them in one way or another, you are fooling yourself. Ohlins has already sat and listened and worked with them. If the ideas were so bad, do you really think Ohlins would associate their name with a bad concept?
Gordy : “Great: take the swish idea, get a proper business plan and the right financing, make a successful demonstrator, and then launch your world-beater. ”
Thanks for the play by play of what the small team of people are doing in Portland, OR.
aaron says
hey, everyone’s getting in on my long post act….
“blind patriotism” – that’s funny, ask me what I think of american cars&motorcycles, foreign policy, leadership, laws, etc…. not very favorable! (but I’ll refrain from getting into my canadian viewpoint)
“narrow not a priority” (paraphrased) – britten had aerodynamics as one of their aces and the design was described by britten&co as “an egg balanced on a razor blade” ie. very narrow below the rider, with the rider and his width (hips and shoulders) above this.
“many supporters of the project are simply unaware of the requirements of good technical design” – I’ll wait until I’ve graduated as a mechanical engineer before I say I fully know (or believe I do) what good design is….but the much-lauded britten really only had innovative use of materials as a true innovation – everything else was in existence before he collectted lots of great ideas and put together many complementary concepts to form a unique whole. (from what I’ve heard, his supermono engine may have had some serious innovation – but it seems to have vanished into the mists of time)
hoyt says
Aaron, I could go on about the lack of leadership, embarassingly inconsistent, archaic federal voting process & apathy in my beloved country, but I’d rather go on about motorcycles (on this site at least). Things will change to the former.
The negative bantering towards the C1 that I have read on this site seems to focus on the perceived hype followed secondarily by comments of the design & some comments directed at “wealth”.
Is it “hype”? To Joe & Gordy: how much of the front fork, rear suspension, & engine design did you hear about before the C1 actually had a running, proof-of-concept bike? NONE, Zero.
The Czysz team had built a complete bike before introducing this to the public. In fact, there was a full blown racebike capable of “sliding knees.” (sorry Paul, couldn’t resist). This bike also had components capable of making an R1 much faster before you ever heard of C-z-ys…..
The hype that followed is more from these factors than the people busy working on their version of a racebike:
1. the media anticipating something new in motorcycle design after many decades of refinement of the same concepts. I’ve read a very brief but good editorial in Performance Bike (PB) that states a desire for some new engineering within the 2 wheeled world. (sorry I forget your name PB Editor). This was in one of their issues about 4-5 months ago, maybe[?]
2. the American & other media anticipating an American racebike. And, after all of these years I can see why there may have been excitement. This is not blind patriotism.
3. is it hype or a problem with you and Czysz’ background & how he has been portrayed? Let’s assume he wasn’t wealthy, well dressed and wasn’t an architect. Would you then be able to consider more about the Cosworth engineers, the Ducati engineer, the Yoshimura Suzuki EFI guru, the Ohlins collaboration, etc. that have seen enough promise in this endeavor to not only pursue it, but, in some cases, uproot their lives for a chance at rewarding challenges both professionally and personally?
And, would you then be able to consider that (while you go on and on about the unproven/unraced hype of the design), that since it has never been done before, all of us don’t know what will happen? Isn’t there any ounce of curiosity in your pessimism?
And, remember, before you sit back with a smirk on your face (assuming the racing success of their first grid not be up to your standards), Britten and others have also faced challenges before reaching their own standards of success.
As impressive as the Audi diesel wins are, they still were experienced with racing as a collective organization. The C1 team have various racing experiences, but they also will learn to race as a single unit for the first time.
other notes: correction to the 18 inch description of an in-line 4….I believe Mr. Cameron stated 16 inches, not 18.
I would also like to see a street version of the C1 priced and manufactured in numbers like a Moto Morini or Augusta. Price point would ideally be around a 999 and F4, but we’ll see.
best wishes…again, for all of motorcycling.
Gordy says
The concept is flawed.
The business plan is flawed.
The promotion is arrogant and over-hyped.
It will not win.
(I have been known to be wrong).
Time will tell.
Keep smiling!
aaron says
hoyt – all I know is I want one of these in my garage! did you get the impression I dislike the bike?
besides – anyone good enough to lap this bike (or any modern track bike) near it’s potential likely does not ride anything they have paid their own money for. we call these people “professional racers”, and the factory signing their paycheques usually provides their rides. sure, there are privateers – but how many are as fast as the factory riders, yet never sign a testing/race deal? people that criticzysz exotic bikes either:
1) will tell you that what they ride is better than a ducati twin or mv agusta or czsyz or FPR. cycle world says so – “just look at the corrected quarter mile time and tested top speed…”
2) enjoys commiting their plate # to memory – there’s probably 48 blue and white gixxer 1000s parked at laguna, and while the guy with an exotic left 20 min ago, they’re still trying to find their ride
3) drew a ford pinto while daydreaming in class, instead of a countach.
4,5,6) loathe money, have no soul, want to ride a reliable bike to work every day in all conditions.
only #6 is valid in my viewpoint, and can be fixed by buying a second bike.
hoyt says
Aaron, no I didn’t get the impression you dislike this bike. Good comments.
There are others that are more pissed about the coverage of this bike than anything else. Empty critics.
Gordo, start smiling.
Matt Hubbell says
GordinHimer- you need to get laid man. However it sounds like you have some engineering flaws, you need to get fixed first. So get off that cruiser and try something that scares you a little, or at least put some clothes and venture out of you mothers house. Theres a big world waiting for you at the end of you moms driveway.
Dodgy says
Well here’s a question about the Czyszchiatrist’s ‘self promotion’…
How many of these startups have actually built a real bike to ride for the first review?
How many of them have allowed someone who has a rough idea of what he is talking about (Alan Cathcart) to ride the thing and comment? Lets face it, the lucky bastard has ridden everything that is, or was, worth riding… And I doubt Mr. Czysz would have had the naivety or gall to try to tell Mr. Cathcart what to think. And, accepting that it was a prototype, I think his comments were (overall) pretty favourable: “…delivers an uncanny degree of confidence straight out of pit lane. This is mostly due to the fantastic feedback the system delivers.” “…the wide spread of power makes the C1 feel more roadbike than racer. Which is of course what baby is being bought up to become. These are very early days in the C1’s lifetime; it’s still wearing diapers in R&D terms.”
If you want an example of the sort of self promotion that deserves (IMHO) the venom that Motoczysz have attracted, have a look at Fischer…
Gordy says
Dodge (etc.): no venom in my comments, just twenty-five years of engineering experience, a balanced view of the technical requirements vs their (highly promoted and totally unproven) solutions, and a pragmatic attitude to getting things done.
Personally I hype nothing until I know that it will work (i.e is suitable for purpose within whatever project constraints apply). I am inclined to support those who beaver away and then pop up with something solid, such as Wakan, rather than those that shout far and wide before delivering any real results, such as Foggy Petronas for example.
I value progress, variety and enjoyment in motorcycling (and life) as much as the next guy / girl, but that does not translate into blind enthusiasm for businesses built on big ideas, glitz and hype. Having a demonstrator faintly praised by the press (who are understandably interested in promoting variety) actually means next to nothing. It’s a race bike and a business proposition and the only thing that counts is the results. And can you honestly take any business seriously when they launch a replica when there is nothing to make a replica of?
Perhaps I am overly skeptical, but I prefer to view my opinion as experienced and realistic. As I said before, time will tell. Hopefully we can reconvene in half a year or so and assess how the race bike compares with it’s peers, and see how any road bike derivative stacks up against the direct competition…
hoyt says
Gordy states: “highly promoted and totally unproven”
How much did you hear about the C1 prior to the first news of it in CycleWorld’s cover story entitled, “Secret Superbike” ? (italicize the word ‘Secret’ as you read this).
How much of the bike did you hear about before a successful racer praised the the C1 front fork mated to an R1? The same racer (sorry can’t remember your name) stated something to the affect that people could set new track records with the C1 front-end. The same front-end that you have criticized on this site with no real explanation as to why it is “flawed” in your opinion.
Opinions (both positive and critical) are obviously healthy & desired, but they don’t carry much weight without logical debate.
You said, “Controlled flex at the wrong point – the front suspension is totally the wrong place for it” and then state, “…A motorcycle actually has two dynamic axis – the first a line drawn between the contact points of the tyres and…. ”
Why is the front end the TOTALLY wrong place for controlled flex, expecially since it is part of one of the axis? Keep in mind, there is flex built into other parts of bikes at this level.
Gordy states : “Personally I hype nothing until I know that it will work (i.e is suitable for purpose within whatever project constraints apply).”
I can agree with hesitation to “hype” if it was based on ideas and sketches alone. However, by the time you heard about motorcycles from Portland, OR it probably dealt with Kenny Dreer, not Michael Czysz. All the while the C1 was quietly being thought through, built, & tested. You heard nothing about “American Moto GP Project” until the bike had already run around a track. Best wishes to both Dreer and Czysz.
Gordy — how about responding with some answers and logical debate? And you state drivel about being “adolescent” ?
Gordy says
I would like to have discussed the design details in depth, however the comments from the respondents here demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the principles of good engineering, and it is clear that objective explanation would be met only by subjective refute fuelled by no more than blind enthusiasm. Hence *logical* debate would be impossible. Instead I choose not to continue. It is sad that you blindly follow the hype, but ultimately that is your choice.
Have a nice day.
Matt Hubbell says
Gordy , are you a big Star Trek fan? Becuase you know who you sound like.
hoyt says
fundamental my ass.
You come out with bold criticism (even accusations) with little to back them up. Then, when asked to present your case to a worldwide audience (many of whom are more knowledgeable than you and all of the respondents combined) you bail.
weak.
Mayakovski says
I for one a quite impressed with Gordy’s comments and perspective.
It is very rare for someone who is not a politician to be so capable of spouting off at the mouth with nothing of value to say, and then tucking tail between legs when the real discussion starts.
You should run for office Gordy.
Neil says
Dear Gordy,
From one engineer to another, the one thing those 25 years of experience should have taught you is that you’ll never know everything about any subject. As soon as you think you do, that’s when you know you’ve REALLY lost touch.
But hey, keep smiling…
Dodgy says
From Gordy:
The flaws are:
1) Controlled flex at the wrong point – the front suspension is totally the wrong place for it, and this design also retains most of the disadvantages of forks, while being far less cost effective for mass manufacture than forks and very susceptible to wear and tear. (Refer to Hossack for the most suitable alternative to forks).
Now for the “*logical* debate would be impossible.” bit…
I would imagine that simply using the phrase “controlled flex” implies that there is “uncontrolled flex” in the current (telescopic fork) design, and that massive engineering efforts have been made to eliminate or control it.
Let’s face it, a telescoping structure must have clearance in order to slide reliably, and by the variation in overlap both the amount of flex, and amount of stiction will vary. It is somewhat of a saving grace that the amount of flex is reduced by the compression of the fork during braking. But getting good suspension performance whilst under brakes is difficult due to stiction…
I agree that a Hossack design is pretty neat, and many of the performance advantages claimed by Czysz could be implemented into a Hossack design. But, Michael wanted to do things his way, and I imagine there are probably some fairly serious licensing agreements in place with BMW (notwithstanding the rumours of a return to GP racing).
And if, as you claim, the flex is in the wrong place, I’m sure racing the thing will point this out to the team. And, once again, the “controlled flex” statement surely implies that the flex could be (all but) eliminated if the riders found it to be undesirable. Then again, who would have thought that Yamaha would have built a very similar system into the swingarm of the M1? And that bike seems to have done reasonably well…
And the Hossack design does involve rather a lot of linkages, maybe not so helpful?
This from: a study into “alternative front suspension systems for motorcycles”.
http://www.mechb.uni-stuttgart.de/staff/Mavroudakis/papers/IAVSD05.pdf
On Hossack:
“This solution allows for short, thus light and stiff links but due to the increased leverage the loads on the joints are far greater as are the bending loads on the upright. Furthermore, it necessitates the use of a frame similar to the one used for conventional forks due to the location of the link joints thus rendering the structural use of the engine as the main frame impossible.”
I personally think that having a shock (heavy) mounted so high up on the steering axis isn’t that great an idea, but both systems have that problem.
And as for mass production, please, has Michael Czysz EVER mentioned (in all of his ‘over hyped self promotion’) ANY intention to mass produce ANY of this stuff? Maybe you should keep in mind that MotoGP is a PROTOTYPE class, and that if Czysz created a mass produced bike using these parts he may well render them illegal for GP racing?
Now, Gordy, you stated that the Hossack design was the “most suitable” alternative to forks, but guess what, it has flaws… So, please, could you spend 20 minutes of your valuable time to design and draw the perfect system I’m sure you are capable of…
A something I would like to see is: infinately variable damping rates, basically so that it will track any bump, at any speed… And you may find this easier if you eliminate all mass.
Gordy says
So they are not planning on manufacturing any? So he / they want to revolutionise motorcycle design and not manufacture any?
(From their site: ” will be the heart of the next generation C1- Americas first sportbike ” supported by pictures of a motorcycle with lights and an instrument pack that includes a digital speedometer. From the article in RoadRacing World Jan ’05: “…plans to race MotoGP and Superbike versions, and hopes to ultimately sell a street version”)
I do understand that it is a prototype class, so is it not against the MGP rules to manufacture 50 for sale as they are now offering? Or are they simply trying to push 50 replicas of an un-raced race bike? Surely the only way to recover costs and remain stable in business is to sell something at a profit?
(Looks as if I’ll have to get working on that magic mass reduction paste…)
Thanks for the link to uni-stuttgart. I’ll read up this evening.
hoyt says
Gordy, why do you continue to go on and on about an “un-raced” bike? If the C1 was raced prematurely would you then criticize them for being “arrogant” for thinking they could race too soon?
They are moving towards racing this bike (when applicable).
The current crop of C1 bikes are for sale for several reasons. The Kneeslider already commented on a couple of these reasons.
In the mind of the potential buyer, the idea of having one of the 1st 50 examples ever made might be more important from a “collection” standpoint than racing it at the local track.
Selling limited edition vehicles is not a new concept. A few of these 1st 50 will go across the auction block decades from now, regardless of any racing success. Beyond that, a well off enthusiast just might want to have one of these bikes in his/her collection this year for no other reason than it is different (and that it would look good next to the Morbidelli v8). Surely, there are 50 people around the globe in this position.
You state you are an engineer. And, you directly state the engineering is flawed and that this bike will not win. Let’s discuss the engineering and design. Leave the business of selling “unraced” racebikes for another post.
Most of the people reading this site are not against hearing about the pros and cons of any bike design. You came out swinging against this design & haven’t put anything behind it.
Don’t talk about the “hype” or the “self promotion”. What do you have to say about the design beyond that it is flawed ?
Gordy says
” Gordy, why do you continue to go on and on about an “un-raced†bike? ”
Focus on the reality rather than the image. The company promotes something that is technically unproven and I perceive that so many fall for the marketing hype, when there is nothing substantial to buy. For your $100,000 you get what? You get an un-raced race bike, so in effect it’s an expensive non-race bike. It’s a sham. Get a grip. (That’s why I mention it).
” They are moving towards racing this bike (when applicable). ”
Good. The sooner the better. Then we shall see…
” In the mind of the potential buyer, the idea of having one of the 1st 50 examples ever made might be more important from a “collection†standpoint than racing it at the local track. ”
Yes, I understand. And the more I learn about those that count image over capability, then the more I understand.
” Beyond that, a well off enthusiast just might want to have one of these bikes in his/her collection this year for no other reason than it is different (and that it would look good next to the Morbidelli v8). Surely, there are 50 people around the globe in this position. ”
I do not doubt it. Good luck to them. I simply hope that said wealthy enthusiasts realise what a pup it is. (FP1 anyone?).
” Let’s discuss the engineering and design. ”
In my August 1st post I noted that rational discussion was perceived as impossible with respondents, and hence declined. Nothing has changed my mind.
” Leave the business of selling “unraced†racebikes for another post…. Don’t talk about the “hype†or the “self promotionâ€. ”
Although an engineer by profession I have a keen enthusiasm for the business side of motorcycle design and manufacture, an interest in marketing and a deep skepticism regarding those that think they can step in and revolutionise motorcycling (/ racing) with their world-beating innovation. As such I see the business and promotion of the C1 as just as interesting as the technical aspects. I just find it sad that the company can so heavily promote such an unproven machine and sucker in so many people. It’s as if all you see is the marketing and for some reason can not, or choose not, to see beyond. Oh well. Your choice.
Dodgy says
Sorry Gordy, but you did say this: “while being far less cost effective for mass manufacture than forks and very susceptible to wear and tear”.
You are probably correct, except for the MASS manufacture part… I fail to see how making 50 units constitutes ‘mass’ manufacture.
Has MotoCzysz ever proposed taking over the world of the UJM? Have they ever suggested that their fork design would, or could, be used on generic motorcycles? And as for susceptibility to wear and tear? Who cares? I assume the MotoGP race teams replace or rebuild the suspension systems more often than the rest of us? And just how much do those very fancy forks on the M1 etc. cost? Bet I can’t afford them, but I bet there will be a home handyman version on every high end sportbike within a couple of years…
hoyt says
Gordy states: “Focus on the reality rather than the image. The company promotes something that is technically unproven….”
Technically unproven? You’ve been asked about the front-end by several people. In addition, you probably have read the racer’s response to the R1 with the C1 front-end. Explain how this is technically unproven. The only remaining point to consider is its durability (cost is a separate issue since it will be part of an exotic bike similar to Augusta F4 engine components). The concept has been proven.
For being an engineer you really get hung up on things that are not the meat of this discussion….”You get an un-raced race bike, so in effect it’s an expensive non-race bike. It’s a sham. Get a grip.”
Gordy: “For your $100,000 you get what?”…..
Gordo, these people drop $100,000.00 like the masses drop $1,000.00. They can care less what you think about how they spend their cash. You say you are an engineer but will not discuss the engineering of this bike.
Gordy states: “It’s as if all you see is the marketing and for some reason can not, or choose not, to see beyond.”
Who is the one on this site that is dwelling on the marketing? You (your ultra-ego JoeKing) or the rest of the commenters?
Let’s go JoeEngineer….
Gordy says
” R1 with the C1 front-end. Explain how… ”
How can you possibly know, without access to the full specification and se-up data, that it was the exact same internal configuration as proposed? Blind belief again? Naïve.
” that are not the meat of this discussion… ”
The meat of the discussion? Surely the way people jump on a bandwagon through blind enthusiasm and patriotism rather than anything tangible? If it were made in Kenya, Pakistan or the Ukraine I venture that you would be less verbal in your support.
Just checked out their site again. The ‘replica’ is slated at ‘less than 375 lbs’. In other words it’s going to be a little under 170 Kg – that’s a road bike not a race bike. That is confirmed by the articles showing speedometer and lights. $100,000 for a road bike that will sit in a heated garage and never turn a wheel in anger? As I said before: get a grip.
Let the prototype race in MGP, give it a season to sort out the bugs and a second season to prove or disprove itself. Then we can discuss it properly. Likewise let the ‘replica’ test against the top Jap sports bikes (over an extended period to prove reliability) and then draw conclusions. Judge the race bike only by it’s wins. Judge the road bike according to the big picture (ergonomics, build quality, engine response, stability, road-holding, reliability, objective performance, and service back-up) instead of the image and the glitz. Until then we are just going around in circles, which is clearly pointless.
(For the record: The single shock aspect of the front end has merit, but you’ll have to brush up on your design knowledge to understand the limitations of the rest of the front end proposals. I also – subjectively obviously – think that the stylist has done a damn fine job).
If it is a success I’ll jump on a plane and buy you all a mighty feast. As for now I’m not interested in going around in circles, so I’m out of this thread. Take care.
Huggy says
As much as I admire Mr. Cszsz his effort in trying to built something radically new, the thing that bothers me the most is they talk about a “990 MotoGP bike”, on the front fender it says “contender”. They haven’t raced in MotoGP but are selling the bike already. Why not call is a Superbike contender because it has 990 cc’s? They can built 500 replicas and do it.
I think it is a bit presumptuous to call it a MotoGP bike without having ever raced in ANY existing racing class (as interesting as some technical features may be). Regarding front suspension, the Hossack system is interesting but there are more interesting systems. The Motocsysz system seems to have similarities to the WP Monoarm (lineair guidance system but with roller and later on needle bearings http://www.tonyfoale.com/gallery/FrontEnd/images/WhiteP_jpg.jpg and I think Motocsysz uses ball bearings?) and to the Gilera monoarm (http://www.gilera.cz/Gilera%20CX%20125/tlumice.jpg ). The problems are know for teles. This system does away with the ‘stick-slip’ effect but still transfers the braking forces through the steering head. The interesting thing about the Hossack is it divides the braking and suspension forces making it more effective for the shock to focus on it’s job. The Britten system wasn’t perfect also…
I still like the Troll TRX system which adresses these issues but also has problems (solve one and the next one arrises)
http://www.hyperpro.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?p=hyper1
Dodgy says
Gordy, you are a true wanker…
Huggy says
Another point is the frame: rule 2.7.10 from the FIM says “The use of titanium in the construction of the frame, the front forks, the
handle-bars, the swinging arm spindles, and the wheel spindles is
forbidden. For wheel spindles, the use of light alloys is also forbidden.”
Furthermore: “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).”
CF isn’t mentioned anywhere, but if titanium is prohibited (probably because of costs) then why shouldn’t CF be? Does somebody know more about this rule?
Dodgy says
Ciba Geigy worked with Suzuki back in the 80’s to build a CF framed GP bike, and I doubt the rules would have changed. And all the fairings are probably CF anyway. If I was trying to engineer a bike, and I could use CF for fairings but not frames, I would probably just start making a semi-monocoque, and let them argue… And of course the brakes are using carbon based components too…
aaron says
the nr500 had a carbon frame (i think)
and the cagive 500 had one (I know)
“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.
coho says
“Matt Hubbell Says:
July 30th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
GordinHimer- you need to get laid man.”
Yeah, what Matt said.
hoyt says
Excuse me Kneeslider readers…..
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”?
hoyt says
…. my persistance is more from a debate perspective than flat-out support of the C1. I do support the C1 but it is not blind patriotism.
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”….