Leaderboard

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MPl4YQhTN4SxzGwtuMlgbNtMIsqPTOJw/view hoping to do what you like

Didn't realise this. http://www.engines.piaggio.com/one-new.asp?id=11 Ciao

Bella! Stupendo! There's just something about that red V11 that looks familiar... Oh! That's why!

I put about 6000m on the Øhlins, so it was D time for service. And in all the bikes Kodak Gold,, might be lucky. And yes another IPA. Cheers Tom Sent fra min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

Thanks, as always, for your sage elucidations! This place is awesome—-I feel like a fly-on-the wall at a post-race pit party! It looks like I missed the boat on the LM IV. It sold before I could get to it. Nonetheless, I’ve learned a lot here. Perhaps the 16” stigma is good for the buyer given what these bikes sell for compared to the 850s. Cheers, and I hope everyone is staying well and getting some good rides in.

^^^^ What Phil sez. John, you haven't gotten there yet, but add another 10 years or so.. At least you are *aware* and doing something about it. I quit on my previous airplane project because I'm not supple enough to get in it any more.. I can still ride the Mighty Scura though.. Edit: The other "Chuck in Indiana" has 10 years on me, does yoga 2 or three times a week, and is amazingly flexible.

Me too. I'v been waiting for the latest model bevel drive 750ss to hit the dealers floors. Now I know why I've had 45 years of disappointment . Ciao

I know it wont be a fix in every case but I have used these with great success on Aprilias with Ohlins that were weeping..for the money not much to lose. https://sealmate.net/products/seal-mate?variant=1414409453587&currency=USD&utm_medium=product_sync&utm_source=google&utm_content=sag_organic&utm_campaign=sag_organic&gclid=EAIaIQobChMItrrnq6aW6gIVRdbACh2FrwWsEAQYAiABEgIK2_D_BwE

It says "05/11/2015" on the page? PS: the page has not been updated since 30 Nov 16. They must be very busy developing new engines...

I did a tutorial here..

Have you checked your pot (assium) level, John? Maybe eat some banannas? Just throwing a dart.

You need more than simply pissing around with exercises fooling yourself LowRyter. Symptoms severe enough to disturb sleep & your feet cramping when reclining or wearing thongs combined with reduced flexibility - are indications you should be riding your bike & parking it in front of a garage for humans with a sign out front that says, BEST DAMN CHIROPRACTOR IN TOWN.

Oh well, been waiting for the leak, those low friction Øhlins seals didn't like my last trip in the mountains. So trying these Swiss made seals. Cheers Tom. Sent fra min SM-A505FN via Tapatalk

The cylindrical carbon fiber aren't wraps like the later, oval "wrapped" LaFranconi. At 5.2 pounds, these are actual cf, "probably" made by Mistral for Moto Guzzi as "For Off Road Only" accessories or their equivalent.

I rebalanced TBs with these recommendations and the bike runs better now. Thank you very much guys.

Hi, 4Corsa. I bought your old exhaust. I weighed them. They were 10.2 pounds each. I don't know what the exhaust on my 2000 'Greenie' is called, cylindrical cans wrapped in 'carbon fiber' adhesive, but they are 5.2 pounds each.

Mine read 501452 in the lower clamp casting with 0050 stamped in ink on the lower edge. I'm not sure these numbers mean anything apart from casting numbers as they're not like Guzzi part numbers. The RM's also had black triple clamps so their part numbers would be different to other red framed or should I say short framed bikes with silver triple clamps. Ciao

He was also instrumental in developing a rescue boat for the navy. Sorry, I'm a Lawrence geek. And I've wondered what modern bike Lawrence might ride. The V11 always comes to mind. I wonder if he would have a non-Brit machine? I think I've chickened out at about 125 mph on the V11. Speedo wobbles so much that it's hard to tell.

a little more than a quarter inch?

My Dad lived on a farm in Dorset as a lad, he often spoke of seeing and hearing Lawence and his Brough riding along the main road near Blandford army camp. It was rumoured locally he would go through a set of tyres in a two week leave. Dad also told a story about Geoff Duke racing at Blandford Camp, he came to a bend and saw a rider laying in the track. Sadly he was dead, at the inquest Duke was asked how he avoided hitting him, 'Oh, I just laid the bike down and slid to a stop.'.

Yes but it wont mean a thing. No crossover will hurt the top end i'm sure but the flats wont loose you any power. EDIT.....meant top end not mid range Ciao

The 1992-1999 Honda CBR900RR had a 16" front with a 17" rear. I ride 16s on my EX500/GPz500R. As to tires, Bridgestone just upgraded their classic bias BT45 to make the BT46. As you can see, they had a certain brand of motorcycle in mind.

I'll have to go back to Greg Field's excellent Moto Guzzi Big Twins, but I seem to recall Dr. John Wittner saying the 16" front was one of those "modes of the moment." (Love that phrase.) Apologies for the segue, but here is the thread trying to divine the history of the early V11 "geometry changes" . . .

Yes it's a proper cross over chuck, somewhat like the Stucchi but the full version where the two pipes "kiss" at the curve with a connection formed between. What creates the pulse is the sharp change in cross section more than the shape of the connection. This looks like it will work. Be interested to see a dyno comparo with the Stucchi. One thing though, I'm hoping there is rubber isolator/s on the crossover mount. There's also an extra slip joint thats not necessary on the crossover as well. Ciao

Look up the rake and trail specks for the original bike and then measure yours with the steel triples. I didn't know there was a "kit" for them. The difference will almost certainly be in the trail which will be changed by the offset between the steering stem centre and the fork centres. Easy to measure with a short straight edge and a tape measure across the top triple clamp if you have an original bike to compare to if not its a ground measurement.Sometimes though there is a curve ball from those days where the upper and lower triples have a different offset, I think my RC-30 was like this. I had two friends back in the 80's that both had 16" wheeled Guzzies both ex racers. One had a LM04 which he bought in Mandello when we were over there touring together and the other a T5. As I said both were ex racers and one was an "A" grader here that raced in the Castrol 6 hour a few times. Both had no complaints about the 16 inch front wheel other than the the lack of tyre choices after a while. I seem to recall at least one of them on the LM used Lazer tyres. I also had a factory Ducati TT2 back at that time I used on the track and it had a 16" front wheel and despite all the Ducatisti saying it was bad I never had an issue with it. The bike I mechaniced on in the IOM in 86 was also a factory 16" wheeled TT2 and it did practice and 2 races and then went on to do the rest of the F2 season in Europe and was never an issue on the roads or closed circuits either. Personally I think the 16" front just went out of fashion when race bikes stopped using them and people tried to justify it. Also Ducati riders especially and probably most others were used to slow steering bikes nothing like we have today and weren't used to the quicker more agile steering the 16 gave. Ducatis steered like a truck in the early 80's and Ducatisti thought that was great handling when in fact it was just a lot of stability. I remember my first ride on my RC-30 Honda over a fast piece of country road after years of riding the same road on my Hailwood Mille. I was just gobsmacked at how brilliant the Honda handling steering and suspension was. Ciao

I bought my '85 LM with the 16" stock wheel, didn't like it at all. Poor feedback, insecure, twitchy-while-disconnected feel. It had Metzeler lazer on the front. I found an 18" front, which I ran for about 30,000 miles. It was dead stable with any tire I put on it. I'm in S. Florida, so there was never any way to know how it cornered. Fast forward ten years, I completely rebuilt the bike from the crankshaft up to pass along to my son. After some consideration, I installed the 16" front with Continentals; at the same time I installed Works Performance shocks, 1/2" longer than the stock Konis; Upgraded fork springs and FAC dampers. After some spirited if limited local riding, I ended with the forks out of the top triple clamp about an inch. These are the steel clamps, I have no way to know if they're 'original' or 'kit' trees, and don't know the exact difference. Ultimately, the thing was a lumber wagon with the 18", perfect for fast straight riding but with proper setup the 16" is perfectly stable with good feedback and confidence, while being enormously easier to turn in all circumstances. It's possible that the thing just really hated the Metzeler front it came with, but I never tried something else before the swap. So there's no definitive answer, but that there is no inherent problem with the 16" front. You just have to find what it likes.

Ride it w/the 16 in. wheel for one year , then decide what you want to do .

Hi, the point is the following. The ECU uses two tables with fuel injection values, left (main) and right (delta) cylinder. The tables are indexed by throttle opening (TPS value) and rpm. The TPS is attached to the right (delta) throttle. The challenge is to synchronize both throttle valves so that they are using the same TPS breakpoints. This is essential a small throttle openings, as the TPS breakpoints differ initially only very slightly. At idle the springs are pressing the butterfly valves against the stop screws. Due to the numerous joints there's some play, which is overcome when opening the throttle. So, two different states. Pressing at idle, drawing when opening the throttle. My description is a pre-requisite when using my BIN, as the fuel values were arrived at logging lambda data based on it. Cheers Meinolf

Meinolf's theorys are basically correct but it's just as much a matter of practicality and feel though. A lot of whats been explained can only be ratified on the dyno, flow bench and via logging lambda. One of the benefits of the Ducati Desmo system is that it allows faster opening of the valves because the rate of acceleration isnt dependant on the mechanical considerations with regards to valve spring although this has been largely negated by pneumatic valve springs now. All good info and if it results in a better running more economical engine then that's great. However at the end of the day what valve clearances you use depends ( within reason) as much on "feel" and whats best for mechanical considerations. I ran my bikes with .15 and .2 from early on and when I changed to this setting it surprised me that it actually did feel like it ran better ( I was sceptical) however I also noted the starting was a little worse. Not to worry a couple of thou from factory settings isn't going to worry me mechanically and I traded one thing (starting) for a greater gain in the way the engine ran. I'm not entirely sure I'd want to go to .25mm clearances though, just for mechanical reasons. That's .006" and .004" over the factory settings.I would be interested to see an engine thats used these clearances for 50,000 klms and see if there has been any mechanical considerations. It may have less wear,dont know. It also retards the effective valve timing fractionally which could be a good thing or not depending on how far away from spec it is due to assembly tolerances and cam chain wear etc and shortens the duration which probably isn't a benefit. If Guzzidiag was around at the time and I'd fiddled with the mapping I could have probably made the starting better. Play with the settings and see what the current engine setup likes. Ciao

Why not start a separate tank size-topic?

Hey Meinolf, Thank you so much for jumping in here. I went back through all the information that I've saved and I've got numerous files that people mention the wider clearances attributing it to you, but you're correct, I apologize, none of the posts were made directly by you. If I loaded your map with a Mistral Crossover/Oval Exhaust with .15 & .20 clearances would it be less wear and tear on the valve train? Would it run poorly? If your map is designed for .25 & .25 clearances, am I understanding it correctly that if I change from those clearances that I will screw up the timing built into the map? Tks Kelly

Hi, I still get frequent requests for the latest V11 BIN. During the last 2 years my activities have moved on to other bikes, Guzzi Jackal, Norge 1200 2V, Aprilia Mana GT and Aprilia RST 1000 Futurua. So I didn't have the time and inclination to do further work on the V11 BIN. This will likely change, as I plan do some work on my V11 (suspension, cylinder head porting, valve & valve guides, valve timing, ...) during this winter. Also the experience gained since scrapping the unreliable and error prone Innovate LM2s and moving on to the Zeitronix ZT-2s plus a enhanced set of software tools (programmed by Beard) have led to better data logging and analysis quality. If I get usable results for the V11, I'll share them with you. In the meantime the V11 BIN can be downloaded here: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1e7MMuO6vrUZGFfmkCtL3zsW1qeS6uDgY My recommendation for the basic setup, which is tightly linked to the BIN, is: - CO trim set to 0 (using GuzziDiag or directly changing the EEPROM value) - Both bypass screws completely closed (I could have built the BIN and fuel values with opened screws, but this would have introduced an additional error source. My half turn open is likely different from your half turn open. Completely closed is rather unequivocal in comparison). - TPS baseline set to 157mV (The 150mV found in the service manual and many other places in the internet are wrong, the Marelli or Guzzi engineers had rounding errors in their calc. 7mV are not much, but why not do it correctly if setting it anyways) - Idle sync using the two throttle stop screws (I've explained the reason several times already. The play in the diverse parts of the throttle opening and the spring push (throttle closed) versus cable pull (throttle open) operation makes this the only way to get a sync at idle as perfect as possible. While my V11 is mostly stock, I introduced several changes. One is the bell shaped opening of the intake snorkels, another one is the rework of the throttle butterfly valves and their shafts. These, and the TI cans I'm using, have increased airflow thru the engine. Meaning that bikes which do not have a similar airflow or, for example, have the airbox removed (very bad decision), will run richer than required. If you believe this is the case, just reduce the left cylinder fuel values in small steps until you are satisfied. DO NOT change the right cylinder fuel values or you will loose the biggest advantage of the BIN, which is synchronized Lambda/AFR values across the cylinders. Cheers Meinolf

My two cents; There is nothing extreme, or even "tippy" about a 24.5 degree steering head angle. And relaxing that angle half a degree in and of itself is a very small difference. I would be more interested in what the different versions have for trail, if there is a difference between versions. Also, it is not normal, or even desirable, to adjust rake by mis-machining the triple clamps. Since the steering pivot is at a given rake having triples mis-machined to give the the steering more or less rake than what is in the frames steering axis results in a rake that changes as you turn the steering assembly. A much better way to adjust steering feel and stability would be to either change the rake of the steering head and / or change the amount of offset in the triple clamps to change the amount of trail. I don't know if the different part numbers refer to triple clamps the are mis-machined so that the result is a more relaxed steering rake or it they simply are machined with slightly less offset to increase the amount of trail. Increasing the amount of trail would typically increase the stability of the bike and make it steer a little heavier. As feel is subjective, that may be what they thought was required to appeal to their customers. I am only guessing about what they might have done or why, but I am pretty sure about how geometry works..

I have seen my first "early" 2000 V11 Sport triple clamp at the Fourteenth South'n Spine Raid; build date: 1-2000 (footgoose's sweet, black V11 Sport). . Upper triple clamp part number 01 49 3100. [ My Sport's build date is 3-2000 and has the "relaxed" triples (upper clamp part # 501 452). ] Quite serendipitous to have a 1997 1100Sport-i, courtesy of Pressureangle, at the South'nSpineRiad. Same upper triple part number as footgoose's early (1-2000) V11 Sport! My take at this juncture from all we have been able to discern: >The earliest 1999-2000 "short" spine frame (RedFrame) *may have* a 1/2º steepened head tube angle. Mounted with the earlier triple clamps of the previous generation 1100Sport, the rake *may be* 24.5 degrees and a bit dramatic for a big, tipsy girl on high heels. >The triple tree change (501 452 upper) brought the geometry back to the published 25º rake. >While Guzzi has never been known for a specific date for parts changeover, footgoose's 1-2000 Sport has the earlier parts and my 3-2000 has the later parts [edit: as does LuckyPhil's 2-2000 Sport.] Thanks to these gentlemen for their contributions:

test rode a new new one at the Oregon Nationals in '16.. the AeroLario would take it..