Surj

As I said, "...if you remove concerns about time to get parts and ongoing questions about reliability." But you guys are talking to someone who bought a Buell after Buell was gone. I'm a lost cause. I'm also generally a very utilitarian rider, and this is why I don't own a Turismo or Brutale yet, and why my Rosso isn't my main bike. And the reality is that keeping a V11 going for 100k isn't easy, or within most motorcyclists' reality. You two are lost causes, too. MVs aren't supposed to be 100k everyday rides. But... ride one, and it'll change your life.

LOL. Yes, in the same sentence, although you'll notice the descriptors of what I think matters in the bike don't include anything about aesthetics. I do think that bike is attractive, and it arguably shares "20 years later" versions of some V11 design traits: the negative space under the seat, the swoopy lines of the tank, although I'll admit the headlight is a little R1200ST-y. But functionally, if you remove concerns about time to get parts and ongoing questions about reliability—something y'all V11 fans can't care that much about—that bike, and other MVs like the Brutale, are some of best motorcycling experiences going, and that's a big part of the attraction for me.

Oh, definitely. Look at Motus again, though: outside of their own motorcycles, they're selling crate engines to people and companies for boats and small four-wheeled vehicles, but very few of their engines have been put in motorcycles that I'm aware of, even though the Motus engine has significant cachet. Outside of the S&S—essentially a direct replacement for Harley engines, which still make up a massive portion of bike sales in the US, and have for a long, long time (i.e. a significantly-sized market)—I can't think of another replacement motorcycle engine that has succeeded at any kind of scale, and the realistic market size for a cross-frame v-twin replacement motorcycle engine is probably this one motorcycle. That said, I have doubts about the marketability of the engine even in other applications. Their concept trades on things like flexibility, "sophisticated engine control software," and so on. This sounds a lot like a small production version of Ford's excellent Ecoboost engine, which is a way of saying OEMs already have engines like this. Unless there's a significantly sized crate engine market (questionable) then their best hope is that their secret sauce and IP are attractive enough for an acquisition, and given the move to hybrids and electrics this seems unlikely, especially given that OEMs have already developed very advanced small gas engines. This is an interesting conversation. I do look at the aesthetics of engines and all other bike components in isolation—and I agree that Guzzi engines are wonderful-looking, but I guess I mostly care about overall aesthetics with heaping helping of function. For example, I own a Buell Ulysses and a BMW GS, both arguably ass-ugly motorcycles that derive their "attractiveness" from function-driven aesthetics. The Buell is an extreme example of this, while you could say that the Beemer's looks are at least partly pure style now, even if BMW created the beginnings of that look decades ago. To wit: I think Honda's CX motorcycles are stupid-looking and visually awkward, and that the recent use of these for custom "cafe" bikes is more about bottom of the barrel desperation than the platform's inherent goodness or attractive aesthetics. That engine looks spindly and wimpy, as does the front suspension. The tank is at a weird angle that looks wrong to my eyes, the radiator shroud is too prominent, and so on. Compare the bodywork to the tank and tail section of a V11, which are both classically gorgeous. The CXes looked like a slightly Dali-ed version of a late-Seventies / early-Eighties Honda CB, much like most Japanese cruisers in the Eighties looked roughly like the basic shape of a Harley, but where things had gone wrong in several places. Perhaps ironically, my feelings about the CX500 basically echo what you're saying about your feelings toward the MotionTek engine. The difference I think is that if either were in an overall good motorcycle, I wouldn't care very much, if at all, about the form factor of the engine itself. For example, if either engine were in a sporty tall-rounder like a Ulysses or MV Agusta Turismo Veloce—short wheelbase; upright, natural ergonomics, sporty handling, luggage—and the engine itself didn't detract from the bike, I'd be all over it, even if the engine wasn't aesthetically beautiful. I would say that the success of Triumph's carefully and classically-styled, retro bikes points to market demands for "authenticity" and accuracy, and it does, but Ducati's Scrambler and BMW's R Nine T lines both lack those qualities and have done quite well.

I get everything you're saying, Blight, but designing a new engine is mostly about function—style (or "style") can be added later, as you've shown with the Honda V-Twin. But the Harley and Triumph examples you mentioned are being marketed to traditionalists in the extreme, and require that look. From what I can tell, these guys aren't designing an engine for fashion, but function. Like I said, there's a lot more information on their site (link in my first post). Motus shortcutted this by starting, at least conceptually, by sort of downsizing a Katech engine (that's the extremely short version of the story). I've ridden their bikes, including Motus #5, which was at the Quail this year and last. The H-D Street models don't have real fins, but rather the appearance of fins, much like the Z900RS and many other black engine / silver "fin" bikes. I'm gonna have to disagree with you that Guzzis would look like any other "nondescript" bike without the big air-cooled jugs. No one is gonna mistake that four-valve bike for a UJM, for example, even though it lacks cooling fins.

I thought it was just heads at first, too. Interestingly, the V11 is just a test mule. Their plans for the engine are way bigger / beyond that, and that's part of the reasons the heads are like that: the idea is that a head will work on either side. I don't love the look of it, but there's some interesting stuff on their site, theory-wise.

Thanks man. My swingarm plastic is gone, too. Why hide that thing?

I'm surprised you didn't include the four-valve conversion V11. I posted a thread with a couple photos of it here. There were a lot of cool Guzzis this year. Incidentally, your bike is in CityBike's photo gallery from the Quail (I'm the editor). Nice looking bike! My friend (and user here, Woodburn) told me he chatted with you about your fender eliminator. I meant to go by and check it out. Can you share any info?

I was shooting / covering the Quail Motorcycle Gathering on Saturday, and saw this V11 with what seems to be a very similar replacement engine with four-valve heads. I'm honestly not sure what, if anything, is re-used below the heads. More information on the engine here. There was another nice near-stock V11 on display too, and I got to meet the original owner of my Rosso Mandello, who was in from Texas as a judge at the show. We'd never met in person. Funny thing is, I'd thought of submitting my Rosso for inclusion in the show, and I think I actually will next year. More photos from the Quail here if you're interested, as well as the full-size versions of those above, which got a little funky in the downsize to post here.

I emailed as soon as I found out about it. I figured whether it ended up being a parts bike for my Rosso, or a repairable bike, it was worth it for that much. Never heard back, and now the post is deleted.

I spent a bunch of time trying to get good shots of the green bike, both Friday evening and Saturday. I'd seen the Untitled "Supernaturale" build previously—it won "design & style" at the Quail last year, although I have some philosophical issues with the placement of the "grab rail" or whatever that nonsense is midway through the seat. I am still going through my shots (I have something like 70 GB of photos from the show and the 1 Pro races last night) but here's an unedited full side shot of that bike. Moto Guzzi's collaboration with Untitled, the Fat Tracker, was at the One as well. I didn't take any shots of it, but here's a rough one from IMS Long Beach. Untitled's builds are often a little too brutalist (or something) too my eyes, but they've been getting a lot of attention, partly because of factory collaborations like the Fat Tracker, and a recent, similarly ouch-y Ducati build.

Awful lot of sensitivity about color around here. In more seriousness, I have never seen a black one other than the later Scuras, etc—and I see a lot of bikes of all types due to the stuff I do. And we do know rough numbers for some editions. I'm just not a person who defines myself by the color or brand of my motorcycles.

Oh, I know Sheriff Joe, unfortunately, and other nonsense as well. Didn't know about the HOV lane thing, though.

I don't mean it as an insult. It's just that there are a lot of those, and the green ones.

Definitely always 1-3 around here, however, I have noticed then tend to have high miles or have been down. That one in SB is especially nice since it as Ohlins front and back. This one might have been down too though, missing paint on the tank...in just the right spot Yeah, bikes get ridden here. At least some of 'em. I saw the 2000 V11 that is currently at Marin Speed Shop today. Silver, 25k on it, looks nice and clean but is missing the seat cowl. $4,900 seems a little high for a plain old silver one, though. I also know the owner of the '04 Ballabio that's currently on Craigslist, in case anyone has been taking a peek at that one. 32k on it, Ferraci pipes, $5,400.

That is actually not the vehicle code that currently prohibits splitting in AZ, although a LEO could use 1. to write a ticket for not staying completely within the lane. The more relevant code is 28-903, which specifically prohibits lane splitting: 28-903. Operation of motorcycle on laned roadway; exceptions A. All motorcycles are entitled to the full use of a lane. A person shall not drive a motor vehicle in such a manner as to deprive any motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection does not apply to motorcycles operated two abreast in a single lane. B. The operator of a motorcycle shall not overtake and pass in the same lane occupied by the vehicle being overtaken. C. A person shall not operate a motorcycle between the lanes of traffic or between adjacent rows of vehicles. D. A person shall not operate a motorcycle more than two abreast in a single lane. E. Subsections B and C do not apply to peace officers in the performance of their official duties.

What did AZ clarify? That they were going to follow federal law? Allowable Exceptions - 23 U.S.C. 166( (1) Subject to various requirements specified in the statute, 23 U.S.C. 166 authorizes five specific vehicle classes to travel on HOV facilities under an exemption from the "no fewer than two" vehicle occupancy requirement: (1) motorcycles and bicycles (with qualifications); (2) public transportation vehicles and over-the-road buses; (3) high occupancy tolled (HOT) vehicles; (4) low emission and energy-efficient vehicles (defined therein, but essentially alternative fuel vehicles) until Sept. 30, 2025; and (5) other low emission and energy efficient vehicles identified under EPA-certified qualifications through Sept. 30, 2019.

Interesting, thanks. I had never caught them—they don't come up in a search for "v11 valve covers," even though the description contains "v11." Gotta open up the search to "moto guzzi valve covers."

There are almost always one or two V11s on Craigslist in the Bay Area—three right now. This one is one of them, but is actually in Santa Barbara. It caught my eye because it has the same valve covers as my bike. 2000, silver, 32,000 miles, $4,995.

Thanks! Me either on the Magnis, or the valve covers. Weird thing is, one just popped up on Craigslist here in CA with the same valve covers. I've been meaning to reach out to see if the owner knows who made them.

That's an incorrect understanding. Things which are not prohibited are by their very nature legal. Since you have a CA location in your profile, you may know that the CHP released guidelines back in 2013. A single citizen with a beef with the CHP filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Law that the CHP was creating "underground regulations" by issuing guidelines—essentially creating law without the appropriate legislative processes. That wasn't true, but CHP took the guidelines down rather than fighting it. The bill defines lane splitting formally, and provides for creation of those guidelines again. This is the change to the vehicle code: SECTION 1. Section 21658.1 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 21658.1. ( a ) For the purposes of this section, “lane splitting” means driving a motorcycle, as defined in Section 400, that has two wheels in contact with the ground, between rows of stopped or moving vehicles in the same lane, including on both divided and undivided streets, roads, or highways. ( b ) The Department of the California Highway Patrol may develop educational guidelines relating to lane splitting in a manner that would ensure the safety of the motorcyclist and the drivers and passengers of the surrounding vehicles. ( c ) In developing guidelines pursuant to this section, the department shall consult with agencies and organizations with an interest in road safety and motorcyclist behavior, including, but not limited to, all of the following: (1) The Department of Motor Vehicles. (2) The Department of Transportation. (3) The Office of Traffic Safety. (4) A motorcycle organization focused on motorcyclist safety.

AB 51 was the bill passed in 2016 to formalize the long-legal but somewhat undefined practice of lane splitting in California, in part so the CMSP / CHP could use money from motorcycle registrations to educate both riders and drivers about the practice: how to do it more safely, and so on.

Don't diss the Harley guys too hard—they were a big part of passing AB 51 in California.

Indeed. My mechanic said the same thing. You ought to see the previous owner's records. He kept a spreadsheet with not only every single tiny bit of maintenance, but every ride and comments on how it ran, etc. His fastidiousness was a big part of why I picked up this particular one.

Thanks Footgoose. I don't think those pipes will get old. Like so many of these, the speedo has been replaced, so about 13k showing, 26k actual.

Hey everyone. New member from Oakland, CA. I posted in the Rosso Mandello registry, but thought I'd do a proper intro here. I recently rode with forum member Woodburn, and the sound of his bike rekindled a lust I had felt for the V11—I used to go to the local shop when they were new, and just drool. After riding with him, I was talking with a friend in Colorado about Guzzis, and he mentioned his friend in Texas had just picked up another Vincent and would be selling his V11 to make room for it. Turned out to be a 2001 Rosso Mandello that he'd owned since new. He'd put a Tenni seat on it, which I found odd, and these black "GUZZI" valve covers, which also looked wrong to me. That put me off at first, but after talking to him, I learned he had the original seat and valve covers, along with a spare Rosso Mandello tank, all the original parts, and a variety of other stuff. The bike also have a Penske shock. I bought it, had it shipped to California from Texas, and all the extras shipped separately—several large boxes and hundreds of dollars in UPS charges, but I'm stoked to have found a bike with a complete history, in excellent condition, and so much extra stuff. Upon receipt, I had one of our local Guzzi experts, Lawrence of LG Moto, give it a once-over. It's a glorious machine, and those Magnis sound wonderful.