Leaderboard

Further to previous reply (and docc's post above) - some great folks on here helped me out with a few things needed for left side of mine a few years ago ... some only asking for a few dollars + shipping cost - so in that same spirit I will offer a used right-side factory guard (in good condition) for whatever you would like to offer (or donate to this forum?) + shipping cost ... again PM me for picture or details. Those guards do work as intended! Gio

"No petroleum grease on braking components. Silicone only!", sez gstallons . . . As to using aggressive pads on these Brembos so they last longer, I would ever rather replace pads than rotors. Talk about 'spensive.

Found the pads . EBC . Got it back together / bled with a lot of "rigging" , Phoenix bleeder and DOT 4 . I cleaned up the pins / stuff , then used cold galvanize spray on them . I forgot to use brake assembly lube …..Mmmm. I don't like aging . I used to remember EVERYTHING and knew where EVERYTHING was , so I didn't try to organize . You wanted a 3/8'' SAE nut . No problem , I would dig you one out of a pan somewhere . Now , where did I put that FUC#ING brake caliper ? Then , where did I put the FUC#ING brake pads ? And so it goes !

Hey Phil - no worries about bubble bursting, especially if you are providing evidence. It's clear that the internal-pump tank is longer, which I did not know. My experience was in swapping a Greenie tank with a Champagne LeMans tank. This was red-frame to black frame, but both tanks had petcocks and external pressure regulators, supplied by an external fuel pump. So... I still believe that the external-pump tanks were the same size through 2002 (same as Footgoose said above). Then they were different starting in 2003 with the internal pumps. (With the customary footnote for the bikes sold as 2003 models, which were more like the 2002 models).

I've seen several cases of what I call "afterthought engineering" on Guzzis. The Centauro was particularly bad about that. That's ok.. it's Guzzi. One of their endearing qualities is that you can tinker with them and make them better.

Mines the golden goose!, 02champagne v11 lemans

I suspect the later lower gearbox brace was needed as a result of changing the front engine support frame. I dont think the later front support frame offers the same degree of longitudinal control of the engine and therefore they added the rear longitudinal additions under the gearbox. With Guzzi I personally think you need to understand that there is some other sort of engineering rationality going on at this time. The additional cross brace added at the new gearbox mount that you can see only in the parts diagram is another example of added structure that doesn't seem to have any function. This is an engineering and design department that seemed to think that all their bikes needed to be engineered to drag sidecars and or trailers around. Some things they did at this time made no engineering sense at all. Ciao

Good to hear you're ok.

The "triangular brace" (between the bottom of the SpineFrame and the top junction of the engine/gearbox) that went missing on the V11 is only fittable to the early Sports 1999-2001, but that is not the LongFrame "gearbox bracing." This is two tubes extending from the lowest tip of the frame side plates (from the lower subframe) forward to the back of the engine case. This cannot be added to the early Sports as there is no boss to attach the brace tubes to the engine. Look for the tube in this Scura image just above the exhaust:

I'm about to burst your bubble Scud and put this to bed forever and add to the data base. I have 2 second hand and one brand new (never seen fuel) later tanks and 1 brand new (never seen fuel) old style tanks and the original on my bike. I have just laid the tape measure on my original tank and brand new late tank and i can tell you they are dimensionally very different. I'll post some images with tape measures attached so we can align with your frame length images. My feeling is that you could fit an earlier tank to a later frame but not the other way around without losing steering lock. My bike now has the modified fwd mounts fitted which reduces my steering lock anyway and if I fit the later type tank I'd end up with pretty much zero lock.So comparatively you loose quite an amount of fork leg to tank clearance on full lock when you fit the later tank to the earlier frame and from my experience of my bike with std mounts I only had 5mm clearance tank to fork leg anyway on full lock. So ctr of aft mount bolt to fwd edge of tank....old style 620mm, new 660mm EDIT.....if you look at the front edge of the fwd mount you can see where the difference is. Note the extra length from the fwd tank mount forward edge to the fwd tank section where the tape is resting. It appears there is an extra 40mm here but the forward projections are about the same. I believe they have lengthened the top of the tank 40mm and moved the cap opening forward 20mm but the tank length overall is the same give or take. Note how in these images how the front forward projections seem to sweep back a lot more on the green tank than the grey later tank. This is in line with the overall length being roughly the same but the top face being extended forward to close the gap to the steering head around where the breather banjo is on the upper frame. Looks like scudd may be correct although I'd be interested to see if the later tank on the earlier frame limits the steering lock. As I said the later tank wont work with my new setup. Dont be fooled by the camera angle, centre of aft mount hole to ctr of cap, old tank 295mm, new tank style 315mm 315mm aft ctr mount hole to cap ctr. Once again camera angle. Fwd tank edge in the ctr(not the projecting sides) to cap ctr 315mm, old style tank 295mm Old style fwd ctr edge to cap ctr 295mm The dimensions from the back of the fwd mounts to the forward most edge of the tanks are virtually the same. So its like they sliced the ctr filler cap section out of the tank fwd and aft and added two 20mm plugs to lengthen it. One fwd and one aft of the filler cap. Just like when they stretch the fuselage of a heavy jet Full sized images are in my album. Ciao

So, my guard damage and a little comparo... My lay down produced a scraped plug cap and bent plug tip. did not crack the plug. I have read the beefier the guard the better chance of head damage. This is my only first hand experience and fortunately the outcome was 100% positive. The guard did exactly as requested. I also used stainless bolts for this area thinking, possibly mistakenly, they might sheer more easily. (and they look better). Top - stock. next - 'older' Joe Kenny. next - newer Joe Kenny. next - I forgot. and the round dosen't suit the square head as well imo. stock over my damaged JK older JK over new JK. note: the older version of JK is the nicest imo, but I don't believe they are being made now. Dr John used a similar fairly substantial guard, but he no doubt carried a spare head or two

Yeah Phil - My 2002 Scura has the more substantial subframe elements as you described. Same with the 2002 LeMans I had. They are interchangeable with the 2003 and 2004 models. Definitely seems to be a transition period - and explains why the 2003 LeMans had internal fuel pumps, while the 2003 Sport models had the carryover external pumps and smaller tanks.

I found this out the hard way when I bought an old Corbin seat and it wouldn't fit... So anyone who has a short frame and wants a Corbin for a killer price PM me..

On another another note, I can recommend silkolene pink ‘racing’ grease: It’s the only stuff that is still present when I go to dismantle anything. The drive splines, axle, needle bearing, race + washer all get a good glob every time.

Yes docc they are a bastard to fit for sure even with the bike half disassembled. Ciao

Agreed. A sort of "knee-jerk" solutionism. Perhaps not actual engineering at all. Maybe just > changes to demonstrate response to the market <

Stuff happens man ... been there. Looks like right side from your pic (actually maybe they are the same?) anyway - I have one. PM if interested. Glad you and the bike otherwise are ok.

The MilleGT is basically a California. There's heavy junk on it everywhere. I got rid of everything that wasn't necessary, then used a fibreglass front guard, tank and seat. Used a smaller powerful and lighter battery and shaved 4.5kg off the flywheel. On the V11, I made a light aluminium subframe and only a single seat. Sent from my ELE-L29 using Tapatalk

At the risk of thread drift, and regarding tank sizes, are we talking about 2 different frames and 2 different tanks? I'm fairly certain 99 thru (early) 03 external pump tanks were all the same and were oem on red And black frames. The internal pump tank being on the (later) 03 -05. The internal and external pump tanks are different lengths, though I only eyeballed it. 20mm sounds correct as I recall having laid them side by side, and the extra length was forward of the neck cutout. I no longer have the 'internal" tank to check. Thinking purely as a bean counter, MG had to recast the new tank for the inside pump anyway, possibly adding a bit of capacity to the front to compensate for the pump's space. Then why would they bother to change the frame? sorry posted same time as Phil

I have the early frame with gearbox bracing and it shows no sign of instability. Now Im putting that down to a couple of things but mostly weight distribution. On my modified bike I have a reasonable change in weight. The battery sits under the tank now and the subframe is about 1.6kg compared to 10+kg of the original, so it is now more bias on the front. Years ago when I built my modified MilleGT, I did a similar lightening job, overall reducing about 35kg off it. But the weight loss was both front and back. I assembled it with the same rake and trail as the original and it was very unstable, every bump out of a corner would give a small headshake, to the point I was considering a steering dampener as at this stage I'd only ridden it around the block. I dropped the triple tree over the forks by 12mm and it was a totally different bike. Better steering, stable, no headshake or weave at any speed.

But a 937 Super Sport? Nice enough, but I'll take my V11 thank you very much. Speaking of the SS, I just looked up the 1977 900 Super Sport that a high school buddy bought brand new. I rode along with him on my TX650. Yeah, he was slumming. Lost contact and always wondered what he did with that SS. Googling up the '77 SS, I was rather shocked to see that mint examples go for $30-$50K? AYKM? Gotta look him up, and fast! https://www.motorcycleclassics.com/classic-italian-motorcycles/classic-ducati-motorcycles/1977-ducati-900ss-zmwz16mjzhur

Well guys, this post sucks. I was commuting home from work this past Thursday and a car pushed me into the back end of an SUV. The car kept on its merry way, leaving me tumbling on the freeway. Thank God for good gear, and for the cars behind me stopping in time. My bike doesn't seem to be too banged up, and the same goes for me, luckily. I did an inspection on the side of the road, and most of the damage was to the spark plug guard. It saved the head, but the plug was destroyed. I was less than a mile from home, and the bike started up. Obviously, only one cylinder was firing, due to the broken spark plug, but I was able to get her home and in the garage. I'll be assessing the damage more when I get some free time. I've always wanted to be more active on this forum, but this definitely isn't what I meant by that! Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk