Skeeve

"Not making" & "not having" are two different things. Guzzi sold off a bunch of their stockpile of completed v11 engines when they went to the new 1100 for the Breva, but they probably still have a large stockpile of parts for the bikes just prior to the Piaggio takeover, since by law most places they have to provide support for at least 7-10 years after sale, & Piaggio has only been in control for 3. But you can bet that Piaggio will go the route of most manufacturers & eliminate support for old models just as soon as they legally can, just to prevent having a lot of capital tied up in inventory. Before Soichiro passed away, Honda had complete parts inventory for their bikes going back 20 years or more. Nowadays, Yamaha beats them cold for old parts supply, & even Yamaha isn't comprehensive past the 10 year mark. No more rumour mongering, please. Let's play "wait & see," and stock up on the parts you think you'll need as the 10 yr window starts closing on your particular bike as a precaution...

Nah, I leave that up to the Bureau of Standards... True, but all the pumps I've seen [yes, I actually read the little inspection stickers on the sides, etc. while standing around waiting for the tank to fill, probably due to my 1st regular job being hose jockey in a gas station] are [M+R]/2, and I kinda suspect the ICC would exert some Federal "suasion" on any state whose own Bureau of Standards allowed something besides the accepted norm. Call me a believer in bureaucracy!

Unfortunately, there's no synergy w/ the straight toluene. The reason the mix you experienced worked so well is that back in the days of tetraethyl lead in gasoline, the amount req'd. to produce regular was x, the amount needed to produce hi-test wasn't x+2 [where the difference in octane rating was "2"], but closer to 2x! So the unleaded regular really responded to the amount of TE lead in the leaded regular, to get you something that was truly synergistic. The only way to get that kind of f/x now is to get some 100LL from an airport [which for some reason they resist putting in a regular gas can, I wonder why that is? ] and spiking your mix. Obviously, nobody w/ a late-model Guzzi w/ catalyst or oxygen sensor in the exhaust plumbing should do this, or you're kissing some very ex$pen$ive components goodbye...

Thanks for the correction; my understanding was that the Mille GT and the later mid-valve 1000S were pretty much identical except for obvious cosmetic differences like tank, paint, instruments, etc. I know that the early big-valve 1000S had (of course) bigger valves than the Mille GT, but nevertheless, I think that as a starting point for a "cafe project" like the OP desired, the Mille -> 1000S conversion would be the best option. It was only a suggestion, but then I'm hopelessly fond of the 1000S, remembering seeing an ad for it back in '90? or '91? & thinking "Ahh, if only..." At the time I hadn't ridden a bike on the street in half a dozen years or more, and it would be another year or more before I horse-traded into a running bike & got back into riding via a '79 Yamaha XS Eleven [former "V.P. for life" of the XSives, & I've got the patch to prove it! ] Ride on!

Suggestion: since the Mille GT (iirc) is the same-same in all details as the 1000S except for cosmetics, and the 1000S is the ne plus ultra of factory homages to their own watershed model [v750S], why not convert it to a 1000S? Cool factory cafe look, easy fitment of parts [i'm not talking about finding them, just attaching them once found! ] and btw, congrats on the free bike!

US pumps are PON = [MON + RON]/2 Worried about pinging? Go to the hardware store, buy some toluene, add to gas. Toluene's MON is up around 120, iirc. It's not cheap tho', but less expensive than the "special octane booster" stuff which is typically more methanol [bad for fuel lines, etc.]. Xylene is cheaper than toluene, but apparently the meta-, para- & ortho-xylols are terribly hard to separate, so the industrial solvents are a mix, & only the para? has a useful boost to octane rating. It's been a long time since I looked into all this, so don't quote me on the specifics, but the general idea is correct. Too bad the bulk rate xylene can't substitute for the toluene [which is now on the "suspect materials" list since you can make TNT out of it], as the mix of xylenes is about 2/3 the cost of toluene.

That's the one! I wouldn't be surprised if Egli beat him to it. I know Harley-Davidson did [by virtue of their ownership of Aermacchi, whose little 250 Sprint's spine frame predates Tony Foale's Guzzi racer frame by a decade at least...] Where did Aermacchi get their ideas? Maybe the Brit bike Ariel Leader which had a big sheetmetal box spine that everything hung from? Who knows... what we can determine at this date is that there's room for an even bigger box under a Spiney's tank, and since stiffness goes up at the 4th power of diameter, there's room for a stiffer, lighter spine frame than the one Dr. John bequeathed us. I suspect that the choices made were driven by lowest-cost supply considerations, vs. optimal strength/wt. design constraints. But that's all just conjecture.

You'll want to use the long-overlap cam from a V7 Sport on it, since they both have small-valve heads. In Tonti We Trust!

Looks pretty sharp! As someone else posted, it really should come in the "glitter grass green" of the original V7 Sport. I'd rather see it with the Bellagio's short-stroke big-block tho', unless Piaggio's putting the 4-valve head from the Ippogriffo in it! Love that nice, flat bench saddle on it: looks good, doesn't limit your choice of riding position, appears comfy from the lack of sharp corners, but time will tell. Overall, I give it a B+ for first glance, well worth looking into when it finally hits market, esp. if the saddle ht. is low as most Tontis seem to be [irrelevant to me, but important for many!] Ride on!

Just in case anyone else is wondering, I plugged "piastre colleg" into the translator & it means "connection plate." Somehow I was hoping for a slightly less mundane description, but whatever!

They didn't have sticky compounds that could last a race back then [at least not in anything that wasn't a rain tire.] Bias ply tires mean the sidewalls couldn't have handled the sort of traction available in Cheap Sh!t tires today. Don't you know the story of the Ducati Apollo? 1000cc V-4 engine that was made up at the U.S. importer's req. (Berliner? Can't remember) that never went into production simply because there weren't any tires that could handle the power! Mike? Berliner? was quoted as saying "we had it up on the sidestand in gear & playing w/ the throttle, and you could see the rear tire growing as the wheel spun up..." Mike the Bike didn't defy the laws of physics, he simply marched them right up to their edge & made'em stand at attention. The pic doesn't show him hanging off like Rossi is because while I'm sure he might have liked to do so, the frames back then were so spindly that the bike might have started doing the hula if Mick didn't keep the mid-section of the bike clamped tight between his butt cheeks... Wouldn't you love to have a time machine so that you could take Rossi, Hayden, Stoner, et al back in time & watch them get spanked by Hailwood, Ago, & all the other old timers? Or not - either way it'd make for some fascinating racing!

Ahh, lovely Bette Ballhaus. Too bad she found true love & left the biz... [sigh]

Just for curiosity's sake ['cause I'm utterly penniless so the whole argument's academic for me, at least! ] what would the projected cost be for plan Alpha above? Seems like there might be a market for all those surplus warranteed single plate Cali clutches...

Good thought, but these are Santa Anas [think "mistral" "scirocco" or maybe even "breva?"] - seasonal winds. These are adiabatic north winds: the high pressure air causing them is actually pretty cold, but it pours into the deserts north of LA & San Diego, pushing the warmer low pressure desert air ahead of it, & as the pressure rises, the temperature soars. Hot & dry, & the arsonists just love'em! That's right: some idiot arsonist probably set one or more of these things. The Cedar fire a couple years back that trapped a bunch of firefighters & roasted'em was arson. Anyway, back on topic: there's no rain forecast for a month. I can virtually guarantee that it will rain on Veteran's Day [Armistice Day, Nov. 11], 'cause I have it off, & Nov. is when we usually get our first decent rain in So. Cal. So pray for the one thing that is a possibility, ie: that the normally-dominant off-shore breeze regains preeminence, & the winds reverse direction. As soon as that happens, the fires will be pushed back over the ground they've already burnt & go out. Working the old prayer mat on your behalf...

Um, what happens if someone protests your circa '97 "vintage" racer? I'm not certain I follow this... Anyway, the LeMans I/II had the welded front balance tube [no nasty leaks like Ratch' is talking about] which was likely intended for maximum f/x w/ the B10 race cam, but since the P3 cam that comes in the '97 Sport motor is even hotter than the B10, you should derive some benefit. If I had my druthers tho', I'd be having a true 2>1 like on the Dr. John racers made up, but as you say, that gets spendy in a hurry...

Well, a certain motorcycle design expert (who incidentally hints that Dr. John "lifted" the whole spine frame idea from one of his designs) suggests when modifying old Superbike frames [AHRMA variety now; current "back in the day"] which were notoriously flimsy, he'd mount the frame on the wall, stick a bar through the headstock, give a measured pull & record the deflection. After making the mods, giving another pull & checking deflection, it was readily apparent how much improvement there had or had not been. So you could always try that method, Ratch'! As for Guzzi's thinking on it's importance, something to consider is their financial situation when the part was deleted. A seemingly minor part that from your own admission, is a b!tch & a half to get in place: yes, on the bare frame on the construction line it wouldn't be near as hard, but it still may have (probably) represented a considerable savings of employee time to eliminate a $.20 part which provides a benefit that the vast majority of riders would never notice or lament its passing. So if Guzzi was making 3000 bikes/yr and could eliminate that part it's only $600 saved in parts for the year, but the $3 in employee time to get that mierda lined up w/ frame & engine & get it all torqued down & then have it in the way for later stages of construction, etc. etc.: heck, at the end of the year, that's close to $10k saved! And bean-counters LOVE that kinda sh!t. The factory test riders can piss & moan all they want about how much less planted the bike feels: the accountants are just going to shrug & say "you can keep one on your bike if you like it so much... but the rest of the bikes out the door live without!" On a related note: how hard would it be to set up a couple of small cables w/ turnbuckles from clutch bell to spine? Steel is much stronger in tension than compression, and drilling/tapping a couple holes in the spine for mounting could be down w/ engine in place. By "anchoring" the midpoint of the spine in this fashion, it would use the mass of the engine to damp out any torsion f/x on the headstock while leaving the sideways deflection of the frame relatively unchanged [which is what the racing people had to start dialing back in after getting everything too rigid a few years back, and realizing that some of the "suspension" used when leaned way over was in fact frame flex...] Just some random thoughts. Don't mind me, I've just been wasting my time playing around with updating an old Mac p'book for most of the day. Horribly slow & creaky, but I do love the old "classic" MacOS. It sure does some funny things to my thought processes tho'...

Seriously? I though all the '03+ had the catalyzers, but no lambda probe on U.S. models? Wonders never cease...

Past reports indicate that the MG Ti kit ECU w/ cans is better than the stock system, but that it is still not perfect. Using a PCIII & custom tune means that the Ti ECU is irrelevant, since the PCIII+tune will work on the stock ECU baseline just as well, leading to more than a few Ti kit ECUs going up on eBay... Using the pre-'03 Ti kit ECU on a bike w/ the front balance tube may not be perfect, but will likely be a better match than the stock '03+ ECU w/ the Ti cans. But it may turn out to be a case of "suck it & see." Frankly, you would probably be better off finding a dealer w/ the post '03 kit on the shelve & see if they'll work a trade w/ you. Best of luck!

I don't think you'll be having too many takers on your offer for the Mike Rich pistons. From memory of the pictures of the stock pistons vs. FBF vs. Mike Rich units side by side, the FBF pistons look very much like the stockers, only more so, ie: profile section of the Matterhorn. The MR pistons in comparison looked like something out of Monument Valley: very flat & mesa-like. The stockers & FBF pistons were the old way of raising compression, which worked great back in the days of widely available 98 (r+m)/2 octane pump gas. Crank up the c.r. by putting a high-dome piston inside the chamber, add more spark advance, fire it off 38-45deg BTDC, & wait for the flame front to travel all the way around to the far side of the worl^H^H^H^H, uh, chamber. Does this method still work since the demise of leaded gasoline back in the 80s? Eh, not so much. Go the airport and get a gallon can of 100LL to add to your fuel, kiss your catalytic convertors or oxygen sensors goodbye, and bid "Farewell to the Ping." [bTW, don't think I'm recommending this as a real solution. It'll work, but it's not exactly 'practical.'] The Mike Rich pistons seem to function by making the most of the available squish, leading to a much more compact combustion space. Frankly, they're what Guzzi should have delivered from the outset. I suppose if Ratchet doesn't want any higher c.r., he'd still be well off getting the MR pistons & machining a couple thou' off the top: he'd still have stock compression, but be able to run on regular. Maybe that's what I'll do when I get some $$$ again... [sigh]

No steel cover & a sealed rubber boot, like on VW transaxles?

But the directions are very clear, thanks!

I wonder if we should term the various "crossovers" differently, according to function? For instance, there's no "front x-over" on my 2003 Le Mans, since the actually flow of gases around the 90deg corners is negligible: it's a front balance tube, since it does help to balance pressure [ie, it's function is more acoustic than flow.] Accordingly, the Mistral & various H-pipe termed "cross overs" in the past would more correctly be called balance tubes, whereas the Stucchi 2->1->2 and the old "pretzel pipe" style from the V7 Sport are flow based and hence, would still be called x-overs... Anyway, it might be more immediately revelatory why the Mistral loses power on the top end vs. the stock or Stucchi designs, since the flow of exhaust isn't really shared between mufflers. But that's just my logical side shining thru...

Lighter? You're forgetting all the mass of that working fluid. Also, regrettably, horribly inefficient [thus the general scarcity of hydraulic drive lines, even tho' they've been showing up periodically on "concept" bikes from various manufacturers since, what, the '70s? Not much in the way of engine braking, either. Let's face it, the best [in terms of a balance of efficiency, longevity & mass] driveline is an enclosed chain; Guzzi's driveshaft w/ the floating hub is probably the best choice for their longitudinal engine design. And of course, lower maintenance than open chains...

Well, w/o changing the exhaust system at all, it all should just fall under "reducing power losses." Optimizing fueling for power would increase power, meaning you could run reduced throttle [& hence, fuel burnt] for the same road speed. Combined f/x here: the immeasurable but real decrease of power used for sucking air thru the constricted stock airbox, plus the increase in power from properly adjusting the f/a ratio. SMACK! You're missing the point here! Look, the forced induction example was just to demonstrate that there *is* power consumed in the intake system of any combustion engine: it's just where the power comes from that differs! Turbos take it from the otherwise lost expansion of hot exhaust gases, superchargers take it off the crank, NA engines take it off the top of the piston by creation of vacuum, jet engines do it just by variations of the turbo or supercharger methods above, or in the case of ramjets, by the approach from which their name is derived... Leave PCIII/TuneBoy/TechnoResearch arguments out of this! Sheesh, the same idea apply if we were using a carbed Spot 1100 for this example, in fact, it would be more correct, since the max "boost" of the ram-air on the Spot/Sporti/RS models probably closely approximates that entirely hypothetical 1 psi of boost (and that at their 150mph nominally "geared" top speed!) And, since Bernoulli never sleeps, carbs are far more "automagic" in their adjustment to the reduction in intake drag we're talking about here. Mix in exhaust or valve timing changes at the same time? All that ceteris paribus sh!t goes out the window, & yes, you've got to rejet! Well, quite frankly, I honestly don't think the "hump flattening"[1] would have any f/x on the 4k-5k flat spot: it's pretty clear that almost all of that is due to a combination of intake&exhaust harmonics, and the rather sharp edges in the airbox construction would almost only be a concern when the engine is sucking in GREAT GULPING GARGLES of air, ie: that same portion of the powerband that Ratch' scoffs at, up in the last 1k rpm before redline. I just figure that since I've gone so far as to pull off the airbox lid & fiddle w/ it, I might as well do what little I can with the rest of the airbox in situ while I'm at it. It's all just personal entertainment, really... Ride on! [1] My proposal is quite the opposite, in reality: the hump is almost perfectly flat & square-edged to begin with! What I intend to do is more on the order of "edge-rounding" than any other description...

Nope. Parasitic drag doesn't work that way. Let's turn the problem around to illustrate it better: [the following is NOT factual! Any attempt by readers to use these numbers to later justify their power claims will be immediately laughed off the forum! Consider yourself warned! ] Intake drag from stock airbox = 1 inch of vacuum. Intake drag from mod'd. airbox = 0 inch of vacuum. Forced induction of 1/2psi fed into stock airbox. How much power would you pay for that 1/2psi of forced induction? 'Cause that's roughly the power freed up by the difference in vacuum between the stock vs. modified airbox [assuming 29.92" of mercury = 1 atm.] Now, before we get carried away, let's remember that these numbers are completely made up, waaay beyond hypothetical! They're only to illustrate a point, O.K? That point being that even w/o adjusting fuel mixture for best power, reducing intake restriction is going to result in "increased" power by virtue of decreasing lost power. O.K., logic lecture is over. In all deference to Ratch', I don't expect there to be a noticeable difference between the stock & modified airbox on the rider's part, at least not until you're driving back across the Mojave from Vegas into a 30kt headwind at 85mph. Then all of a sudden, that extra skosh of responsiveness will be immediately discernible...