Just reading the July issue of Motorcyclist and their in depth article on the Motoczysz C1. What caught my eye was the full name of the bike, the C1 990, as in 990cc displacement. So what? Well, this bike does have the intended aim of racing in MotoGP and if you’ll recall, the rules just changed a few days ago and the engines are dropping to 800cc beginning in 2007. Just goes to show what a moving target the motorcycle world is.
Robby Kasten says
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. 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 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 have ridden a motorcycle at a high rate of speed then you know that a motorcycle is harder to turn the faster you go, but the crank is not the reason. 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. The motoczysz bike is designed around a lack of understanding of how a simple gyroscope works. Gyroscopes do not produce some vague resistance that cannot be defined. When a gyroscope is twisted about its axis it generates torque at a 90 degree angle. If you grasp that, you understand that the counter rev engine does not improve handling.
Robby Kasten