Pierre

Oh I expect so , Jim. Same crowd that's never been comfortable with those new fangled poppet valve heads. Not many of those guys left, but a disproportionate number of them seem to hang out here. You can usually recognize them by their JAMES EARL JONES "direct from the lips of of god" Internet voice. As for me - "give me higher compression, or give me a bicycle!"

Sweeeeet!

If I'm solely a wage earner my tax rate jumps. If however I'm schedule C or corporate I get lots of tax relief for the bulk of my income - only a small percentage of which is taxed as wages. It's only pedestrian level if one is trying to skew a point. High wage earners pay a high percentage of their income in taxes. High income earners for the most part get extraordinary tax relief within schedule C and corporate tax schedules. Just what is your point BTW? If you let one man earn all the money earned in America he'd pretty much be over represented for puposes of federal tax revenue. Given the tax code however, he'd be paying a very very low percentage of that income in taxes. Government gets a much higher percentage of earned income paid as taxes from low and middle income (who are primarily) wage earners than it does from high income self employed and corporate types. Your point? Of course high earners are over represented in the tax revenue pie. It's getting more so. Nothing in those numbers you cite, regardless the time frame, disputes that. Recent data indicate the trend has accelerated at an unprecedented pace under this administration. Not that we'll get there, mind you, but we're moving in the direction of a single earner (mega-corp) making all the income and paying all the taxes. That the rest of us starve under this scenario would be irrelevant in your argument. Wouldn[t change the trend of your cited numbers one iota. Would enhance it in fact. So again, just what is your point? You're welcome. Don't mention it. Your numbers are fine. Your spin was bad. Fixed now. Go forth and sin no more. Remulac out.

There you go again. No one is talking about reducing reliability to "tomorrow." In stock configuration there are examples that go 150K miles. If I were given the opportunity to choose to reduce that by 10K miles (or 20K or even 50K) in exchange for another 20 horse power I'd do it in a heart beat. You keep posing extremes (straw men) and suggesting this is dispositive of something. Frankly, the guy who rides a bike 100K miles is a rare bird indeed. I'm guessing that within the bell curve of "normal" lifetime mileage ownership, most of the mods discussed here would be non-issues - but I'd be guessing. Just like you. I just think my guess is a lot closer. A final thought. Why buy a bike in the first place? Is it really to get a machine that runs trouble free forever? For a very few maybe. But not for the average bike owner. As for me, If my hopped up version runs trouble free for half it's projected stock trouble free life span, it'll still run trouble free for farther than I'll ever ride it.

It's pretty simple. If you're talking about "assigning" tax revenue to various categories (as the cited report does), then you're talking about taking the tax revenue pie and divvying it up. Has zero to do with who PAYS what percentage of their own income to the government. Yet you offer those numbers to make that point. What you have in that report you cite is further evidence of what IS very true. The gap between the rich and the poor widens - and has widened at an unprecedented rate during this administration. I'm not surprised that if you "assign" tax revenue to "groups" the wealthy are over represented. Makes perfect sense. However, nowhere in that report you cite does it talk about the taxes payed by the various groups as a percentage of their own income. Your use of the terminology "carrying" an income tax "burden" is misleading in the extreme in the context of your post. So now I've parsed the damn thing for you - and frankly I have better things to do. So I go back to my original post. When you talk who pays what as a percentage of income, focus on schedule C and corporate returns and you'll see that the guy who only earns a wage pays the highest percentage of what he earns in taxes. The smaller the wage, the higher the percentage. If you factor in across the board taxes like fuel and sales - it's off the chart.

Back at ya' Ratchett. Softball, big guy. You're focusing on wage earners. And rather than waste my time parsing that particular report you cite, let's just say it falls under the "statistics can be made to say anything" category. The truth is, by focusing on "wage earners" you have deliberately skewed the argument. The real tax savings are not available to "wage earners" - never have been, though there are some "policy" imposed as David has noted. The real game is played "above the line" - schedule C for the self employed, or even more common on corporate returns, whether they be closely held one man entities or the behemoths like Exxon. Either you know that and deliberately ignore it, or you don't know it, in which case I'd suggest you take your own advice given above.

I don't think so - at least not alone. If I understand correctly, the advantage of twin plugged heads is that they enable a complete burn with retarded timing. Cuts flame path in half. I think it's the retarded timing that actually reduces / stops the pinging. The twin plugs just ensure a full burn with retarded timing. Instead, I'd pay close attention to what Greg has pointed out. There's too many of these high comp versions running around without problems (mine is one, but I got there by decking the heads, not installing high comp pistons) for this particular tired example - that Ratchet so enjoys trotting out - to be the norm.

I vote for a symposium. I wanna' see Ratchet and Nog talkin' ... drinkin' ... amd dancin' ... cheek to cheek.

I vote for a symposium. I wanna' see Ratchet and Nog talkin' ... drinkin' ... amd dancin' ... cheek to cheek.

Thanks Pete. I'm in. No guarantees expected. I'm sure enough to risk it. Thank you. Let me know when payment is due.

Pete, if it works on a '97 sport i then I'm in. I know you've told me before the differences, but don't remember if the sport i and the V-11 sport were same or not for purposes of windage tray. If so, I'm in. Thanks.

Now that IS funny. Reminds me a little bit of a line from a Joseph Wambaugh novel. Overweight but determined cop suitor to well conditioned (and quite resistave) female object of his attention as he rides up on his bicycle panting. She's about to take off on a brisk run. He says sumthin' like: "Baby we're perfect for each other. We're both into pain. Mine." Not exactly word for word maybe, but close.

Thanks Pete. I'm somewhere between Skeeve's position thinking the $50 option may be just fine, and springing for a V sump or an accusump. FWIW - I see now that the small accusump no longer requires vertical mounting (it means they've included a diaphragm just like the larger models have) so an "above the spine" horizontal mount using the fuel tank tunnel space may be feasible. I'll have to measure.

Paul, is that a bolt on for the '97 sport i motor? Or is it for a 4 valve motor only? If it fits the sport i motor, how / where can it be purchased? TIA.

I'm sure you guys are familiar with the AccuSump from the car racing world. Unfortunately, the smallest (and simplest) version needs to be mounted vertically and so limits mounting choices on a motorcycle. How about one of you guys using the idea to create a Moto Guzzi specific version? It's a stone simple and absolutely bullet proof answer to short-term (g-induced) oil starvation. just in case anyone here isn't familiar with the product or concept - here's the web site. Click through to the products. Navigate to the "how it works" sections: http://www.accusump.com/acc_products/acc_units.html

It's true the Duc and Kaw seem easier on the tires. But it is the tires - not the ability to ride with worn tires. Suzuki has conceded that they need additional development - both with bike power delivery and tire compound. Whether V will outrun Hopkins any time soon is pure speculation with little thus far to support such a conclusion. I suspect Hopkins is close to assuming regular podium spots - he clearly has the speed potential to dominate. Until he gets a competitive bike / tire combination under him race after race I understand it remains speculation. But a widely shared speculation within the Moto GP community ... and one that included a huge check from Suzuki amidst and a lot of competition for his services. Guess we'll know more tomorrow. It IS getting interesting ... and it's been awhile since we've been able to say that about Moto GP.

Looks like the Suzook is starting to work a little. Now if they can just get the Bridgstone race day rubber to go the distance. So much to get sorted for them, but they must be pretty close. Don't think Hopper would have condemned himself to another 4 years of hell if they weren't very very close to competitive. Great to see new faces at the front and more manufacturers in the hunt. Should be a barn burner tomorrow. Can't wait for Laguna Seca. I think we're into a golden era in GP racing. I don't want to miss a moment of it ... and I sure don't want to miss the opportunity to see these guys live later this month. Go Hopper!

Nice, Dan. Thanks.

These are the only prints suitable for framing that I've been able to find: http://www.art.com/asp/search/ProductSearc...443F1E08638695E There's a lot of things you might want to download in high res here: http://www.guzzitech.dk/english/index.htm ... and here is his offer to sell the high res (presumably) versions on a CD (just noticed this part) - drknow are you paying attention? http://www.guzzitech.dk/DVD/dvd.htm

Back on track: video (action shots - oh my!) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3...326712&q=alizee http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=38...615896&q=alizee video (and she can sing! ) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=72...048737&q=alizee

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionarymaniac 2 entries found for maniac. 1 : MADMAN, LUNATIC 2 : a person characterized by an inordinate or ungovernable enthusiasm for something I humbly agree. I'm hopeful. Funny how an idea becomes a goal becomes an obsesion. See MANIAC above. At this point David, I'll be happy just to see it running in San Diego. BTW, the heads flow pretty much what the LSR bike flow's. I don't know what else was done to the LSR bike, and Sid (a baloonatic in his own right) has never revealed exactly what was done to it as far as I know.

Not yet. Mike is installing those for me right now. I've talked to him about them at some length, as I've heard negative reports. He insists it's install error - setting the (lash?) improperly. Says to insist that his instructions, which come with each set, are followed exactly. Apparently most shops just drop 'em in and set 'em to standard spec. But I'll know more once I get it back in the bike and fire it up. I'll let you know. BTW - I think Manfred produced chrome moly push rods. Very stiff but VERY heavy. Are you sure yours aren't chrome moly? FWIW - the only power enhancement is the flowed heads and the cam. Raised compression (with dual plugs) may help mid range. Lightened flywheel / ring gear and connecting rods put more of the HP to the rear wheel on acceleration. And the rest - vlave springs, ti push rods, timing gears, - those are done to increase the precision of the valve train, important when pistons and valves begin to dance in close proximity. Especially near red line as this bike will have a new red line of around 8400.

Not me. Ergal's lightest (further lightened by Stein Dinse) and a lightened starter ring gear.

I like your approach. Heads are where the power's at - and cam sits right in the middle of that equation. I like Cliff's MY computer - but as much as I beg him to - he hasn't gotten around to making it tuning link compatible. I think his next iteration WILL have individual cylinder mapping - pretty important I'm beginning to think. As you know - on the WM16 the timing can be altered on the chip - so until Cliff gets it all working I'm probably staying with what I have. Good luck. Fun stuff. Always twice (3X?) as expensive and time consuming as expected. Look forward to learning how your mods work for you.

Here's the whole story to date. A solid 90 RWHP.http://www.guzzitech.com/Sporti-EngMods_PierreP.html Jason, the entire motor is at Mike Rich's as we type. Heads have been flowed (full screw and glue) but some valve clearance issues prompted a return of whole assembly to Mike - he's sending it back shortly. His pistons (calculated CR 11/1) will be installed, as well as his titanium push rods, and of course valves, guides and springs. Before I sent the heads off, I'd installed a PCIII USB. Just downloaded old (regular PCIII) map, but since then have had bungs welded on both header pipes so I'll be able to map each cylinder separately now. The tranny went off to Charley Cole and came back a couple of weeks later completely rebuilt - so that should be sweet. Won't have definitive answers on performance until it all comes back and gets bolted together. I'll update when it's finished. Obvious target is 100 RWHP. We'll see. FWIW, I'd already done close to 20K miles with the RR3 - including a cross country jaunt of 6000 miles. No problems. I like the power characteristic. It's cost me a lot to get to this point - and I still have an ignition map to play with. But once done I think it'll be perfectly street able and real strong. Anyone doing what I did - and not trying to extemporize too much - should be able to avoid all the expensive mistakes I made and get it done pretty reasonably. PCIII was (and remains) the key to making everything work well.