Ryland3210

Still waiting for my second speedo cable to arrive at the dealer. I've grown tired of waiting, and of riding without a speedo. I was about to buy a Sigma bicycle speedometer. Pretty cheap, at about $40-60, depending on features. Problem is, it runs on batteries, and back lighting is only on for 3 seconds at a time, each time you push a button, to conserve battery life, so that's not so great at night. The Acewell unit looks like it will do the job, but what does it cost? Also, the Sigma unit is designed to easily mount on handlebars, so for a temporary mount, it's easy, whereas the Acewell unit looks like a permanent project modificaiton. The 10mm smaller diameter does make it temping to build it into the pocket for the OE speedo. Anyone out there with experience with this device?

I'm definitely leaving the M1's behind. At 3000 miles, the rear is just about finished in the center.

I believe that balancing is very important for power and economy. For example, my Norton Commando's two AMAL carbs had throttle cables I could reach while riding. At cruise speeds (z.B. 100 kph) if I reached down and pulled one cable to open one carb throttle while holding the handlebar throttle still, it would make almost no difference in power and speed would only increase a little. That was not expected at all. This is one reason why I am very interested if the ECU mapping for each cylinder is separate. Even if one balances the vacuums perfectly, there is still the question of fuel delivery, especially with the V11 engine's asymmetrical firing order.

I'm not sure the "forward foot position" kit will fit your bike. It will if you have the "pork chop" peg brackets. You can check it out on the thread by that name. It moves the pegs and controls forward by just under 6 inches and down to the level of the Centauro pegs. I originally designed and made these up for my own comfort. Recently, I spent all day Saturday and Sunday riding with no problem with knees, hands, or hips, and I'm not in the best shape. Solid positive reports from all users to date. Available from Ned's Auto / Cycle and MPH or direct from me. With any questions, send me a personal message.

Ah, Greece. Wonderful country, wonderful climate. I was there this past July. I can see why you would not have much chance to drive in the wet. Here in New York State, I get plenty of opportunities! Let us know when you test the M3's.

Does the ECU provide independent fuel maps for each cylinder? If not, clean even back pressure would be more important. Personally, I'm probably the exception, but I like the big gains in the middle at the price of losses at higher RPM's within reason, if that's the price to be paid for even back pressure, on the theory that the simpler no-crossover system will improve economy and sound great. Also, given where I live, midrange acceleration is desireable, to be able to pass slower vehicles on single lane twisty roads as quickly as possible. That normally means dropping down to the approprate gear to catapult me around the slower vehicle without shifting. As far as losing the benefit of factory tuning, I'm sure it's close to perfection, but am troubled by the anomalies I see in the fuel and timing maps. The F/A graphs showing extreme lean conditions and wide variations in ratio, and the timing chart dip at part throttle make me doubtful. I look at the challenge of spending the money and investing the time into working with a dyno to optimize both as a fun project, and I'd be glad to report the results. I only wish there was a way to adapt a lambda sensor to use while riding. That way, I could quickly go through the trial and error procedure without having to resort to the dyno.

I understand the advantages of creating a scavenging effect from the kind of header you describe. What I don't get is the less than 180 degree firing interval comment. Firstly, I thought the Guzzi con rods shared the crankpin. If so, the shorter of the two firing angles is 270 degrees, no? Secondly, sharing muffler volume if firing is unsymmetrical seems to me to create inequalities in backpressure and/or scavenging between the cylinders, so keeping the exhaust systems isolated avoids that interaction, no?

Right, the idea is keep it simple.

Hope the Skowhegan run is a blast, and looking forward to reports. How about a Western Mass. or Connecticut get together, while the weather is still cooperative? I'm near the Jersey border, but a ride up to the Berkshires, or up the Hudson Valley can be beautiful in the Fall. John

It's a great idea, and your willingness to put the time into entering the info. can make it easy to update. A link to the calendar to the site like the one here that shows birthdays, would be a plus. That way, people don't have to search the posts for the link.

I am tempted to do an experiment without having to shell out big bucks. There is a plethora of economical aftermarket mufflers and pipes available for Harleys. I'd like to hear an opinion from you guys with more experience than me by far in exhaust modifications, on what might be expected (in 50 words or less, if possible) from the following: Rip off the entire exhaust system, leaving only the exhaust pipe directly connected to the engine, then attach dual exhaust pipes and aftermarket Harley straight through mufflers (not just straight pipes, but with some sound absorption). I think they might look great and sound great, and save weight as well. My local Harley dealer has a dyno setup, but says its a problem getting a good f/a signal with the stock mufflers. The Harley mufflers would make it possible to tune the map easily. Thanks in advance, John

Nice picture, Ratchethack. I'd like to meet you sometime too. I know what you mean about the road up Palomar Mountain. I get out to the west coast once or twice a year. Are there any Guzzi's for rent somewhere in the LA-San Diego region? Friends of mine have a hacienda in Rosalita as well. Is it realistic to take a bike into Mexico? best, John

Once the TPS is calibrated and carbs synchonized, is there an additional synchronization of the injectors, perhaps in the ECU or some other sensor calibration you mean by this?

Thanks, John. I'm glad to hear Guzzi did well by me. Now to see how long they last.

Thanks much for the detailed comparisons. What do you think of my OE tires: Metzler Sport Tec M1m

Gee, I thought the word "sign" was general enough to survive a validity challenge!

Hi John, I purchased a leftover '04 Cafe Sport. 1) I haven't had any problems with this. On 2), when I first got the bike, I had forgotten the clutch must be in to start, even if in neutral. My mistake. 3) Same problem, new sensor (it's in the fuel tank) replaced under warrantee. 4) Tipover valve had to be tie wrapped in correct vertical position. 5) I didn't have this problem Two more: The speedo cable has failed twice. The original one lasted 130 miles. The second just failed at 2200 miles. Branchville motors is replacing it for the second time, still under warrantee. A design change was made since 2004. If you have this problem, make sure the cable housing is replaced with the new design. The bend near the transmission is not as sharp. Failures have been at this end. I hope this next one works longer. My battery developed a leak the first time I took it for a ride. Turns out on my bike (maybe not on yours), the seat base rested on the battery and caused a leak. I had to bend the brackets on the battery holding bracket to lower it and had to dremel out a chunk of the plastic seat base to take the weight off the battery, then filled the hole with black silicon rubber. I can supply pix of this mod if you need it. By the way, I only weigh 143 pounds. No problems with this for going on a year now, and I don't expect any. Check the thread on oil dipsticks. When changing oil and filter, I and others refill with 4 quarts. When the dipstick is screwed in all the way in (as the manual states) to take a measurement, with the bike vertical, the full mark on the dipstick is 0.69 inches too low. Under max acceleration in the lower gears, the pump can starve for oil and pressure drops. The idiot light goes out at only 2-5 psi, so you may not know there is a problem feeding the engine with sufficient oil. Also search Roper Plates and consider installing one to eliminate the problem. Also, look in the how to section about tightening oil filters so yours doesn't come unscrewed. I'm very happy with my Cafe Sport, and thanks to all the cautions and solutions on this Forum, I feel confident I'll be riding this bike for many years to come. Cheers, John

Thanks, Hubert. I haven't been around this forum long enough to know which topics have already been handled thoroughly. The link is interesting, but a search of PF3 and PF4 gives no information. I'll take your word for it on the difference. Is there another part number I can use to look up the specs on the Harley and MG versions? John

Hey Ratchethack, thanks for the recap. What's the date on the test report? When a tire tread has grooves so far apart that there are times when none are in contact with the road, as were some I discussed with the "experts" at the MC show, it's hard to imagine they contribute much, if anything to cornering traction wet or dry. I suppose traction depends significantly on how soft the rubber is (AND OF COURSE NUMEROUS OTHER FACTORS!). It seems straightforward for a maker to use a softer rubber to gain traction at the expense of life. The OE tires on my bike are Metzler Sport Tec M1m What do you think of these? Do you have an opinion on whether a universal tread design would provide reasonable wet cornering traction and longer life? Do any of the tires in the test report have anything like a universal tread? Thanks, John

I wondered, what is the best tread design for rain? I'm not asking about rubber composition, just the tread. I had a detailed discussion with some technical types at the NY motorcycle show. My question was, given the few grooves and wide spacing compared to automobile tires intended for good traction on wet roads, how effective were the grooves on the typical sport bike tires at preventing hydro planing? I'm sorry to say that none of those I asked at the show could give me a satisfactory answer. When I pressed on the issue, the general answer was that the tire design had primarily revolved around dry pavement cornering and traction. If I'm riding long distance and get stuck in the rain, I feel somewhat nervous about hydroplaning, and find myself being very conservative around corners. (Maybe it has something to do with the screw put in my knee and three operations to hold it together when I slid off the road a long time ago). The tread design on my Yamaha Venture heavy cruiser is much more like a traditional universal tire, and I feel more secure. I'm willing to sacrifice some dry corning traction if I can get reasonable life and the best wet cornering traction. I'm looking for suggestions. Thanks in advance, John

Very interesting. Thanks for the data. It's not easy to read the text. Is the tuning standard? If so, that is convincing evidence that the relatively lower fuel delivery at 4,000 is not the dominant factor in the flat spot! Even more surprising is the high output at 3,000 in spite of the overlean condition. I suppose if it were richened at that point, say at least to 14.7, the flat spot at 4,000 would be even more noticeable. In my case, I would rather have the extra power at 3000 and reduce the pinging and accept the deeper valley at 4000. I have noticed the pinging also, which requires me to use the highest octane fuel. In the case of my Yamaha Venture, the manual recommends regular octane fuel, and it works fine with never any pinging on any brand of gasoline. It produces about 96 HP from 1300 cc's and gets 48.5 MPG at the same cruise conditions as the Guzzi, which is at 41 MPG just now. That is less specific HP/cc than the Guzzi's 1100, at lower RPM. I'm not complaining about my Guzzi's performance. It's terrific, but it would be nice not to have to worry about pinging, even though one can never spend much time at WOT and 3000 RPM!

There IS clearly A sign of how much air is delivered: That is the Thottle position. Of course we know it is not the only factor. In another message, I mentioned resonance as a possible cause. It is possible for the relatively lower fuel delivery to explain the flat spot. However, as I have said before, without quantifying the various factors, we cannot draw conclusions. For all I know at this point (which is very limited), resonance results in an optimum power output at 4000 RPM with the fuel delivery shown in the chart. What is your basis for "such" a difference. A 10% tolerance in potentiometers is not uncommon in my experience. They can be purchased with tighter specifications at higher price, of course, even to 1% or better. But as I have said before, unless we see the specifications for the two sensors and know the accuracy of the angle and voltage measurements taken in comparing them, we cannot be sure our conclusions are valid. I am not saying the data does not exist, I just haven't seen it.

What if the intake and exhaust passages are intentionally sized to resonate above 5000 RPM to maximize peak HP, at the expense of diminishing mid range output? Not an uncommon practice, and for those fortunate enough to ride on the Autobahn that like to take advantage of the freedom to fly low, top end power is important.

In looking at a "standard" fuel delivery chart, it appears that mixture is leaned out at 4,000 RPM, then richens again at higher RPMs. There have been reports of a flat spot in that range. Ratchethack feels the difference is not enough to account for the flat spot, and that there are other factors. motoguzznix also made comments to that effect. Let's see if the collective wisdom of our members can enlighten us all, and give us a method of eliminating it. Perhaps dlaing can insert the standard fuel delivery map here. Skeeve said: All of which begs the question: is the 4k rpm flat spot caused by too much or too little fuel? If it's a lean stumble, then wouldn't it be interesting if the easiest fix is just to substitute the H-D tps in for the stock unit, rather than spending all the time & expense on a PCIII & mapping on an otherwise stock motor? Ryland's response: It's simpler than that. Look at the fuel delivery chart at 4000 RPM, large throttle openings. It leans out compared to delivery at the higher and lower adjacent RPMs There are places in the charts like this, where fuel and timing entries make no logical sense to me. For example, at 4,000 RPM, if I had a Tune Boy, the first thing I would do is set the fuel delivery at the midpoint between the adjacent columns. My predictions is that your flat spot goes away. Here's another: between 5.18 and 21.46, at 3200 RPM on the ignition chart, timing is retarded compared to higher and lower RPM's. Why? If there isn't any preignition at the lower RPM, why retard the advance at 3200? Motoguzznix commented: The 4k flat spot is not influenced by the richness/weakness of the mixture. I rectified the mixture and got better torque everywhere but the flat spot basically remained. Remapping or a PC is the only way to adress mixture changes. The TPS is a measuring device, not for mixture tuning. Changing the calibration of the TPS changes the adresses in the map over a large area. This can cause a lot of unwanted side effects. Ryland's response: Please be specific about your first statement. Obviously mixture does affect power output, and the relatively lean mixture at 4000 RPM with standard tuning can explain a reduction in power output. knownothing.gif What do you mean by "rectified the mixture"? Ratchethack weighed in with: Not very much, John -- and only within a relatively tiny range, assuming A/F is off to start with at a given RPM. If it were possible to "map out" every flat spot or dip on torque and power curves, this would certainly be convenient, but this is nowhere near the case. Many many other factors contribute to the shape of torque and power curves that are not related to A/F in the slightest. As Ernst has mentioned, the infamous 4K RPM "flat spot" is NOT a function of A/F. As an example of this, (proven in the case of my own bike) replacement of the stock crossover with a Stucchi crossover nicely "fills in" the all-stock "dip" on the torque and power curves with NO change in A/F wotsoever. wink.gif Check Doug Lofgren's charts and comments here: NOTE: This isn't the series of charts I was looking for (Doug's stuff is suddenly not that easy to find) but they illustrate the principles involved. http://www.visi.com/~moperfserv/mgv11ex.htm To which Ryland responded with: Without quantifying things, it's all subjective, and we could carry on that kind of discussion all day without advancing the cause of objective reasoning. "very much", "relatively tiny range", "rectified", "basically", and similar subjective terms are not enlightening. I look forward to motoguzznix answer. F/A mixture affects output. That's clear. Obviously other factors do too. No one denies that. It's obvious. I want to know what motoguzznix experience is, and which other factor(s) he believes caused the flat spot. Furthermore, his message is not clear on how he "rectified" the mixture and to what extent. We may learn something from that. In any event, I think this discussion should move to another thread on the subject of flat spots. anigrin.gif And so here we are!

Without quantifying things, it's all subjective, and we could carry on that kind of discussion all day without advancing the cause of objective reasoning. "very much", "relatively tiny range", "rectified", "basically", and similar subjective terms are not enlightening. I look forward to motoguzznix answer. F/A mixture affects output. That's clear. Obviously other factors do too. No one denies that. It's obvious. I want to know what motoguzznix experience is, and which other factor(s) he believes caused the flat spot. Furthermore, his message is not clear on how he "rectified" the mixture and to what extent. We may learn something from that. In any event, I think this discussion should move to another thread on the subject of flat spots.