Ryland3210

In case the previous solutions are considered too elegant, the way I created some friction to reduce throttle fatigue on a recent long journey was: An elastic band! The groove between the throttle grip and the bar end weight was occupied with an elastic band. It was fully adjustable. If I wanted more friction, 4 turns, less: 3 turns. Worked great. Cost: unknown, but certainly less than 1 cent. Removable any time. Replacement cost: essentially nil. Reduced wrist fatigue on all day ride to nothing!

Ah, but how many miles are they good for? My M1's are very sticky also, but wore out so fast that the amortization of tire cost plus gas was more per mile than my Chevy Malibu, for heaven's sake! Yeah, I know I should be thinking of how much fun riding is, but it just doesn't seem right. Besides, buying new tires this often is a nuisance.

Thanks, Mark. I corresponded with Cliff. I'm not prepared to buy the replacement ECU in order to use the Optimizer. It runs well into the $hundreds. I do appreciate the lead, though. Maybe I'll go for it later.

Any recommendations on grease type, or ID on what is in there from the factory?

The low fuel light is one of the common failures for your bike model. If it has the original speedo cable in it, that's another one. There is an MG service note to dealers on that and a new, improved, cable available. If vacuum builds in the gas tank, that's another, caused by improper orientation of the tipover valve under the tank.

A Sigma electronic bicycle speedometer can be purchased for under $30. It installs easily. Calibration is a simple matter of programming in how many mm the wheel travels in one rotation. Battery powered, no electrical hookup, backlight goes on for several seconds when you push one of its buttons. ODO, trip ODO, trip time, average speed, max speed, etc. The battery is said to be good for a couple of years, and is available off the shelf. I love it! It is also as accurate as the mm you put in, whereas my Guzzi speedo is 8% optimistic. It is claimed to be good up to 300 km/hour. I have had it up to 90 mph and it works. That's the fastest I have gone so far. If you go that route and need some advice on how to mount it, I can send you some pictures. I had my speedo cable replaced with the new version, but I'm leaving the Sigma on anyway, for its accuracy and extra information. There are even cheaper models available from Sigma, with less features, but $30 ain't bad. Other brands are available, but may have lower speed limits than the Sigma.

Agreed on the "performance" timing generally advanced over stock. It even does that at idle, where octain is less of a factor, but will increase efficiency and save a little fuel there, at the expense of a less stable idle, and perhaps a little more pollution. Whether case 1 or case 2 is the reality, the mapping up to 2,000 RPM at TPS below 4 degrees changes little, corresponding to your experience.

My sympathies, Ben. Looks like everything will eventually work out OK for you. I've been riding a long time, but my experience with today's sport tires is fairly new. I have to say that the virtually non-existent grooves make me particularly nervous about wet roads and cold rubber. I've done a lot of dirt and road riding on new tires, and on those worn down to almost smooth. Yes, I too have been down a few times over the years. Usually happens in a surprising split second. Grooves sure help when things get slippery in the dirt. Smooth road surface against smooth rubber sure still makes me nervous, especially when it isn't warm and dry. I remember how I used to take some outrageous bank angles even with knobby tires on my dirt bike when on the road. When my present original sport tires wear out, I'll be taking a hard look at the tire tread groove design.

I heard from Slavomir. He has had two operations and will be out of commission for some time. If it's anything like my knee operations, he will have some tough physical therapy to go through. The good news is it sounds like he can expect full recovery, and still looking forward to getting back on the road.

They look great, and for 50 UKP, I think you got a real bargain. The mirror finish polishing alone would cost about $20-30 each over here.

Nice Charts, Dave. Do you know whether the ECU interpolates between cell entries? If so, then the 53's in the 1.99 degree cells for 900 and 1300 RPM and the 55 and 56 entries in the 4.18 degree cells would vary the fuel delivery somewhat in that range of RPM's, towards richer as RPM increases, assuming there is no overriding "flag" in the ECU's software. If not, the fuel delivery stays at 53. Are you sure the bottom chart of timing is standard? The file name looks like it is for Ti, and the more advanced timing in certain areas, e.g. the idle regime also looks like something more agressive tuning would include.

Not necessarily. I have had the same experience with metal particle collection reduction in every vehicle I have broken in on conventional oil which had magnetic drain plugs. Metal particle generation occurs primarily during break in, and decreases thereafter, regardless of oil type. Of course, as the engine ages, if something goes wrong, particle accumulation may increase again. That's a sign of accelerated wear, or damage. I am not debating the long term benefit of synthetic's here. That has been covered ad nauseum in previous threads.

One more item is to clean the particles off the magnetic drain plug, and if your bike doesn't have one, get one, sez me. If you take the oil out of the cooler, you need to add oil to replace that, too. Be careful about contamination. According to Pete, that part of the circuit comes after the filter.

Thanks for finding this, Dave. I'm going to store this gem from Pete in my archives. I'm glad to hear that the pump relief is after the filter. It's better that way, in my opinion. That completes my understanding of the Guzzi pressure supply circuit. I'm inclined to join Dan and move on.

Thanks, docc. It arrived yesterday, and I have some results to report. I compared the construction of the GEI versus the Omron, and did a vibration test. First of all, you will be happy to know that both of these relays passed the vibration test. I shook the heck out of them. Neither relay showed any contact bounce over the frequency range for equivalent RPM's all the way up to 10,000. The NC contact remained in contact throughout the test for both relays. The construction comparison is as follows: GEI | Omron Moving contact material: Silver alloy | Silver alloy NC contact material: Copper | Silver alloy NO contact material: Copper | Silver alloy Moving contact diameter: 0.085/0.083 | 0.099/0.098 inches Terminal material: Plated Brass | Plated Copper The magnetic coils appeared almost identical. The Omron coil appeared to contain more copper. Both had flyback voltage suppression resistors. The thermal conduction path for contact heat was better for the Omron, as it used heavier cross section conductors for the contacts through to the terminals, especially on the NO contact, which is used for starting. In my opinion, there is no basis for the higher contact ratings claimed by GEI. If anything, they should be lower than Omron's ratings. Omron has agreed to look into gearing up production again on an even higher rated relay for us, but I have to fill out some paperwork. I'm pretty satisfied with the current samples, but if they come up with a decent price for the 40 amp version, I would personally go for it, at least for the starter relay. More to come later. I hope to wrap this up within a week or so. It all depends on how fast Omron moves.

How low do the cells go in your Tuneboy? In other words, how low in degrees/TPS voltage does your map go, and is the fuel mapped with the same entries below some degrees/TPS? I found part of the answer to my question in the chart you posted earlier, but also this comment you had made at the time: " That is what I feared. ..... The only hints that is critical are the degrees not matching the volts and on MPH's chart it says, "Anything below 4 degrees open ECU considers bike to be at idle (as seen by 'flag' on diagnostic program)" But that is probably just a useless 'feature' of the diagnostic software and not the ECU, and not an invitation to set idle to 4 degrees." "

Oh, Dan, Oh, Dan, please, please don't stay in bypass mode! (where is the begging on bended knee emoticon?!) The only technical question on this subject left unanswered as far as I know, is: on which side of the filter is the pump pressure relief. Did you find an oil diagram or drawing of the manifold the relief valve is mounted on? Just get me that one answer, and then maybe I'll go into bypass mode. Then my brain filter won't have to deal with so much input.

If case 1 is correct, then mixture ratio would only stay constant below the flagged degrees. Above that point, it would affect ratio and account for the change in behavior you see. For example, suppose in case 1A, we use more airbypass with a lower throttle opening, and in case 1B, we do the opposite. In both cases, we adjust for 1150 RPM. The mixture ratio is the same in both cases below the flagged degrees. However, above the flagged degrees, the fuel delivery mapping is a function of TPS voltage, so 1A would run leaner than 1B. As throttle opening increases, at some poiint, the air bypass becomes insignificant compared to the total volume of air flowing. That is probably the reason why you would see a difference up to 2,000 RPM. It also means that off idle and above mixture can be adjusted by modifying the TPS at idle (as long as you stay below the flagged level, while still maintaining the factory calibration on idle mixture. Does that make sense?

I knew you would be back. Ratchethack, you have been kind enough to provide prolific, although somewhat redundant, practical advice. However, if you don't mind, give it a rest. I'd like to please explore and learn a little more about how filters interact with this particular engine, and stick to the technical analysis, even if, in your opinion, they have no practical value. The way to tell if speculation is valid is through objective analysis. It doesn't enlighten to say believe what I say, stop asking questions. I don't believe any of this will create paranoia among our readers. Don't worry so much. People convinced against their will, are of the same opinion still.

Yes, I do think the pressure sender's location is after the filter. In the case of my adapter, which replaces the banjo bolt on the feed to the heads, there is no doubt about that. If the pressure drop across the filter element is above the bypass relief setting the pressure on the filter's outlet side will be reduced by the bypass relief setting, relative to the inlet. On cars I have worked on I have the same experience as you do. The pump relief has always been before the filter, but are you certain the pump relief is before the filter on this engine? I couldn't tell when I had the sump apart earlier this week-wish I had taken a closer look then. It could work either way. If the pump relief is after the filter, it would be very difficult to tell what the filter's pressure drop was or whether it was bypassing at high RPM. At low RPM, it would be hard to tell the difference between filter pressure drop and the lower oil pressure due to the lower pump flow rate. I think it's an advantage to have the pump relief after the filter, so long as the filter has a built-in bypass, which these do. More oil delivered to the engine, instead of back to the sump, and more consistent pressure over the life of the filter, or differences among brands, as it compensates for filter restriction. Hope you find the oil circuit diagram. A drawing of the pump/relief/filter assembly would clear up any doubts.

But they do. It's just that some makers make that data available to the public and others don't.

I still have my doubts, and appreciate your patience. Let's look at two variables: The amount of fuel delivered per pulse, and the amount of fuel per pulse as it varies with degrees. Case one: the amount of fuel per pulse below a certain "flagged" degrees open is always the same, no matter what the throttle opening is. Then Fuel delivered per minute is proportional to RPM, so as air bypass is increased the amounts of air and fuel are both increased proportional to RPM, and the ratio of fuel to air stays constant. It is always the same ratio, so long at the throttle degrees stay below the "flagged" amount, even if the degrees open changes. Case two: the amount of fuel per pulse is a function of degrees open for all degrees open. Then fuel delivered per minute is proportional to RPM, but depends also on TPS voltage as well. So for a given TPS voltage, the fuel are ratio stays the same as RPM increases when the air bypass is increased, but the fuel air ratio can be changed by adjusting the degrees open. Which one is it? Or is there a third possibility? Keeping in mind, I'm only asking about the idle regime.

Question: does the pump's pressure relief valve connect before or after the filter? I'm wondering, because when I did the cold start test to see whether pressure builds faster with high viscosity versus low viscosity oil, as I increased RPM to 2,300, the pressure increased to almost 80 psi, at which point, I backed off the RPM. Conditions were approximately 34 degrees F bike temperature, 15W40 Shell Rotella, Purolator L10168 filter, bypass setting 28-30 psi. The filter had about 1500 miles on it. The oil looked slightly dirty, I think mostly from carbon. My stock engine appears to run a little on the rich side, and still has only about 4,000 miles on it, so I'm not surprised. IF the filter was generating enough back pressure to bypass, AND the pump pressure relief was connected AFTER the filter, that would explain how the pressure in the engine went so high. It indicates that the pressure into the filter would be 28-30 psi higher, or around 109 psi. On the other hand, IF the pump pressure relief valve is BEFORE the filter, then it indicates the filter was still able to flow the cold oil without bypassing, even with the relatively high bypass setting. Results could be different with other filter brands, depending on their design, particularly the element media and area. Less area would create more pressure drop across the element, all other things being equal. So what's the story on the oil delivery circuit?