The Britten was air-cooled?
I never knew that, which is embarrasing. I'm afraid I don't know shit about the Britten!
Look, all I'm saying is that conventional wisdom dictates that the Britten was virtually faultless and could blow away anything on the track, when in reality it had tons of teething problems, was unreliable and (just like the Czysz) seemed to have some inherent flaws (or weaknesses if you prefer) that were caused by its innovative design.
Yes, John Britten chose to race the bike and did quite well. But it's important to realize that they chose their battles carefully and might have been more concerned with beating mediocre competition than competing at the top levels. Of course, that would be a result of the path that Britten CHOSE to get the money and backing he would need to build more bikes and compete at higher levels in the future. That was really the only option for a smart guy, with relatively little resources from Christchurch, NZ.
But, isn't that the "big fish, small pond" scenario that is so often hated on here at 'zillaworld?
Czysz set his sights high, way high. Too high apparently, but why slam him for that? He had a lot more money than Britten, and thought he could raise more, enough to race at the world level. He is a millionaire from California who chose another route, build a prototype, promote the heck out of it and try to raise some serious money.
They just had different visions, and the paths they chose were different based on different amounts of resources and the places and times they were operating in.
The comparison I take issue with is comparing it to the Britten in the case of race history. True both bikes are similar in the sense that both were designed by brilliant and innovative men. Both bikes run away from trends and blaze their own path, but that is where the comparisons stop... The Britten was a 1000cc air cooled twin, the Cysz is a 1000cc liquid cooled V4.