Ryland3210

It appears to have the same durometer as the other gaskets I've tested. The 70% is more than an "rule of thumb". Not too many years back, I researched O-Ring groove designs, durometer, and O-Ring cross sections as they affected long term leakage, ad nauseum. At the pressures involved in the V11, one could do with a lot less squeeze in other applications. However, in the V11, there is the need not only to seal against leaks, but to provide prevailing static friction to prevent loosening. That's the primary reason I'm seeking 70% squeeze factor so that the gasket acts as a spring. To take an extreme example, if 70% squeeze were obtained at 2 turns, that would be better than if it were obtained at 1 turn, simply because one degree of loosening would reduce the force by half as much and be less likely to loosen farther. In the case of the ST3614, the design creates a situation where number of degrees of tightening effective (that is, past the initial 0.45 turns to push the gasket to the bottom of the groove) at squeezing the gasket is considerably less than other filters. That's my concern in this case.

Hmmm. At 75 psi, the force on the filter is about 370 pounds. I'm sure the end of the can bulges. If the filter transfers this force to the cover, I wonder how much it or the sump flexes. I assume that hasn't happened. I like the safety wire on the cover. A thread diameter that large would ordinarily tolerate enormous tightening torque. No matter how tight I feel comfortable with tightening it, I worry about that letting go. However, I would prefer a connection near the perimeter of the cover, and tangential to it to preload it with tightening torque. Has anyone a suggestion or picture on a convenient way to doing so?

Hi Edge, How's it going? Are you ready to ship yet? John in Warwick, New York.

OK, here's what I found in measuring the ST3614: Gasket cross section: 0.210 thick by 0.158. These are averages of 6 measurements around the circumference. The spread was only .002 on the thickness and .004 on the width. Groove cross section: 0.155 deep by 0.155 wide, 0.003 spread on both. The gasket protruded 0.083 above the lip of the can, which was 0.028 above the bottom of the groove, due to the radii at the bottom of the groove. As the filter was tightened, the gasket makes first contact with it protruding 0.083. At 0.45 turns more, the gasket fully filled the groove. It took relatively low torque to this point, and gasket compression was minimal. Tightening 0.3 turns more to the 3/4 turns from first contact recommended on the can lable compresses the gasket to a little better than 91%, which is not sufficient in my opinion. Tightening to bottom the can out would require 1.33 turns and would result in 74% squeeze, almost optimum. However, this was impossible because the groove is too small. Specifically, the diameter of inner wall of the groove is too large, while the depth is a eight thousands too deep. I decided not to consider using the filter due to doubts I have about the reliability and accuracy of the plastic combination anti drainback/bypass pressure relief valve anyway, so I decided to subject the filter to an arbor press to prove whether the gasket could be compressed enough to bottom out on the can lip. No way! Although I was successful in crushing the filter can with more than 800 pounds of force, I never got close to compressing the gasket anywhere near bottoming out. To conclude, 3/4 turn is not enough to provide ideal squeeze, but getting anywhere near to 70% squeeze is impossible. Once the first 0.45 turns is reached, the gasket fills the groove and the torque required to further compress the gasket climbs extremely rapidly. It has nowhere to go except to begin extruding outside the groove. How much torque can one safely apply to obtain sufficient squeeze and static friction? That depends on the quality of the thread and the strength of the filter base, so I have no way to determine that or any recommendation. Last comment, for those who decide to use this filter: Use a rag to clean out the threads, as is my normal practice. On this filter, that produced a fair amount of dirty black oily substance.

You're preaching to the choir on turns tightening, as far as I'm concerned. I agree that extreme compression is not necessary when internal oil pressure can "self-energize" an "O-Ring" seal. However, that is provided the groove design encourages oil to pressurize the bottom of the seal before it squeezes out between the seal and the mating surface. That's where the percentage squeeze and groove design are important. The other factor in the case of spin on filters is to have enough compression to provide the static friction necessary to prevent loosening. For example, assuming the groove design favor self-energizing, and the extrusion gap is not large in relation to the pressures encountered, very little compression is required to prevent leakage as pressure builds. However, the filter would then be prone to loosening up when pressure is relaxed. Better to round up to 7/8 turns or more. It seems to me that although 3/4 turns (pretty much the universal standard, except for UFI) obviously has worked fine for high quality filters on automobile engines. The V11 vibrates more, which indicates the need for more anti-loosening friction. I also wonder if the constant lubrication of the exterior of the gasket might exacerbate the problem. Exactly. So a higher pressure setting of the bypass valve will permit the filter element to collect more dirt before it bypasses. On the other hand, if filter maintenance is neglected, oil pressure will be reduced more. On my boat, I use the racing version of the filter, which has a 30-35 psi bypass setting to better protect the engine, but I keep a careful eye on the oil pressure. If I ever see it drop under normal operating conditions, I'll change oil and filter as soon as practical, even if it's not due. I'm working to get an oil pressure guage on the V11 for the same reason.

Caution! The website is incorrect about the 8 psi bypass valve, though it's not a big deal. Purolator's direct replacement ML16822 is at 12-15 psi, and the L10241 is at 12-17 psi. the Purolator PL25230 is considerably longer than the 10241. I'm not sure it fits. The ML16822 is listed as correct for the Moto Guzzi. The M1-102 cross references the PL10241 and Fram PH6022, so according to Mobil it should work. Fram lists the PH6022 as applicable to the MotoGuzzi. The Chrome plated Fram PH6065A's gasket OD is considerably different from the SuperTech ST3614 I purchased a couple hours ago. Strangely, the ST3614 lists four equivalents, none of which are on the list above. I must say that at first glance, I wonder about the accuracy and reliability of the unusual plastic combination anti-drainback/bypass relief valve. No question there is a reduction in manufacturing cost compared to the traditional steel spring based units. I'll be taking a closer look at it in the next couple days.

Here's another alternative: Purolator PL10241 12-15 psi bypass relief valve pressure setting

Here's what I have, Al: UFI 2328700 Purolator direct replacement: ML16822 has 12-15 psi bypass pressure relief setting Purolator L10168 has 28-30 psi bypass pressure relief setting Fram direct replacement: PH6022 I'm curious about the SuperTech filter. Based on some different comments I've read, I really need to see one. If I can locate one in the local Walmarts to get a clear idea how it's designed, I'll buy one and report on what I find.

Ah So! I thought you meant the bypass pressure relief valve in the filter. When considering using the Purolator, I checked the mating surface on what I was calling the block, and the manual calls the pressure relief valve assembly. Yes, it was flat with a satisfactory surface finish, and wide enough so that there was full contact with the Purolator gasket.

First, though I haven't actually looked inside this particular filter, generally the pressure relief valve can be found at the end of the central passage (filter flow outlet) farthest from the mating surface of the filter. It's generally spring loaded, which can be seen by looking down the tube. The anti-drainback diaphragm type valve is generally just under the inlet ports. Usually this is just a piece of rubber. I don't assume the filter base assembly is flat, but generally the mating surface on the block is undercut around the male 3/4-16 pipe for attaching the filter and there are ample threads provided, such that there is no possibility of the filter base contacting before the walls of the gasket groove bottom out on the mating surface.

Based on the numbers given: Gasket thickness 0.208, width 0.155 Groove outside wall depth 0.155, inside wall depth 0.130, here's what I come up with: It would take .85 turns for the outer lip of the can to bottom out, at 74.5% squeeze. However, that would require the gasket to extrude 0.33 inches through the narrow gap of 0.025 between the inner lip and the block. This is not realistic to expect from the gasket material. What is likely to happen, is that the gasket extrudes partly towards the inside and somewhat less towards the outside as it is compressed. I would expect the torque required to pinch the outer extruded portion hard enough to push it back towards the inside to be extremely high. Furthermore, for that to happen, to reach .85 turns, 25.5% of the gasket cross section has to be extruded towards the inside-again would require extreme torque. What is likely in this case is that torque increases very rapidly as soon as the gasket makes contact with the block, and the installer quits at somewhere near 0.7 turns. If the installer attempts to get to 3/4 turns, I would not be surprised to see signs of permanent compression of the gasket when the filter is removed. A better design would use a 0.225 thick gasket, keep the groove depth at 0.155, and widen the groove to 0.225. That provides for 69% squeeze, with the gasket just filling the groove as the can contacts the block. One would feel a linear progression of torque until the can bottomed out at 1-1/8 turns, making it easy to tighten properly. If one instead stopped at 3/4 or 1 turn, at least at that point the gasket would still be in elastic compression, preserving the maximum spring like resiliency. As an alternative to achieve the same results, if the groove is left as is, the gasket ID could be increased so its width is 0.107. The problem with this alternative is that the high ratio of gasket thickness to width invites the possibility of the gasket buckling as it is compressed. Therefore, there is no good solution by simply changing the gasket. The groove is simply too narrow to permit the best combination of squeeze percentage and eliminate extrusion.

BTW, in designing my forward foot position controls, the shift lever does not interfere with the starter motor, so it could be adjusted considerably higher if that is desired.

Hi Ratchethack: I don't see a groove depth number above. The 1.2 turns implies a depth of 0.175. If that is correct, it's the same as the Purolator, except for the groove width of 0.155". If that is correct, there is no room for the gasket to flatten under compression, which would lead to extrusion outside the groove-not desireable. The '05 UFI groove cross sectional area is barely large enough to avoid extrusion, whereas the Purolator design provides ample space, and has metal tabs to hold the gasket in place and against the outside of the groove, which is preferred. I'd like to know the groove width and how the gasket is held in place. Based on that, and whether the filter media and area are as good as the Purolator's, as you have indicated before, I'd switch to the SuperTech. Note the metal sliver on the thread? I've seen this on other brands of filters too. I take a cloth, stick my finger in these, and unscrew the filter off my finger to clean out the threads. It's suprising what sometimes comes out.

Yes, more turning will increase the compression of the gasket. You should be able to understand it better by following the math.: In the case of the UFI '05 version, the groove in the can was 0.225 inches deep. The gasket was 0.275 thick. The thread was 3/4-16, or a pitch of 0.0625 inches per turn. From the point where the gasket makes contact with the block, it can be squeezed another 0.275 - 0.225 = 0.050 inches before the can contacts the block. That requires 0.050/0.0625 = 0.8 turns At that point the gasket is squeezed to 0.225/0.275 = 81.8%. That is the maximum the filter can design will allow. Good industry practice calls for squeezing gaskets to 70%, which would require more turns than the UFI filter allows. That's why, if I were to use the UFI's, I would turn them until the filter can bottoms out at about 0.8 turns, and apply a tad more torque to hopefully prevent them loosening. By comparison, in the case of a Purolator filter I measured the following: Gasket was 0.250 thick, groove was 0.175 deep, same thread pitch. The filter can bottoms out at 0.075 inches, or 1.2 turns. At that point, the gasket is squeezed to 70%, consistent with industry practice. Other factors are in the design of the groove, which also favor the Purolator design. Details on this are on the earlier threads. With this type of filter design, I find it requires quite a bit of torque to get to one turn, which is my personal minimum. Even with my good squash playing arm, I find this difficult without a wrench unless the filter location is easy to get good leverage on. A filter wrench is a must for me on the Guzzi. With the filters I use, I'll tighten more than one turn to about 1-1/8 turns from gasket contact, unless it bottoms out, which I can feel by a sudden increase in torque required. Hope that answers your questions.

Exactly. It's a 45 degree angle, so the ratio is 0.7071 to 1.

Some have suggested measuring with the dipstick resting on the threads, instead of screwed in as the manual states. This is because the level marks on the plastic dipsticks are incorrect. There have cases reported of oil starvation during hard acceleration, which is made worse by insufficient oil. If the dipstick is rested on the threads, there is the risk of letting it droop down and give an artificially high reading. On my 2004 Cafe Sport, I took careful measurements and found this: First the sump was drained thoroughly, and filter changed. Next, 3.5 liters of oil was added, as specified by the manual. Next, the motor was run long enough to fill the filter and build pressure. Next, the oil level was measured with the dipstick screwed in. The level was found to be at 17.5 mm higher than the max mark on the dipstick. This is at 139 mm from the flange. This is the mark I use. Pete Roper has done a lot of research on this topic. The 139 mm mark raises the oil level by a little over 12 mm higher from the dipstick max mark, but still well below the level recommended by Pete when his sloppage sheet is installed, so I believe it is a good level to use. I suppose that logically, you might be able to safely permit the oil level to drop to the original max. mark before refilling. Installing Pete's sloppage sheet would permit you to keep even more oil in the sump. It would be wise to measure your dipstick marks in comparison to the 139 mm, because I have read that there have been some variations in the dipsticks provided by Guzzi.

Thanks. I'm a big believer in the laws of physics. It's a good tool to resort to when there is a controversy on a issue vital to the health of our beloved toys that is in need of objective numbers.

In the case of the older design (the date code on the one that came with the bike was 16.01.03), the cross section of the gasket is larger than the groove, so the gasket will deform and extrude out of the groove as it is tightened. In the case of the newer design (the date code on the one I purchased more recently was 29.08.05) the filter can will bottom out at only 0.80 turns (288 degrees). At that point, the gasket is compressed to 82%. To reach 70% sqeeze, would require 1.32 turns. So in the case of the newer design, I would suggest tightening until the filter can bottoms out or you reach 1.32 turns, whichever comes first. It should be easy to feel the sudden increase in torque as the can bottoms out. Because I feel 82% squeeze is not as much as I would like to see, my own practice would be to tighten until I feel the sudden increase in torque required, and tighten a tad more. I say "would be", because I prefer to use other brands that are designed to provide more squeeze of the gasket before bottoming out, grooves wide wide enough to prevent extrusion, and higher sealing pressures. In the case of the older design, it may not be so obvious as the extruded part of the gasket is crushed.

I'm away from home as I write this, and don't have my notes here. It's risky going by memory in this case, but my recollection is that I tightened the last one about 1 turn plus 45 degrees. Depending on the thickness of the gasket, the filter can may bottom out against the block before you get that far. If you feel a sudden step function increase in torque caused by that, stop tightening any farther. If you can't find the thread where I give the details by the time I get home later this week, I should be able to let you know.

Teflon will work fine for petroleum, antifreeze, gasoline. It's virtually inert. I'm not sure of the particle size of the pastes either. I'd steer clear of them and agree with you 100% on beginning to wrap the thread just beyond the end. Tapered threads come in two classes: The standard threads are less than 100% full threads, and require a sealant to prevent leaking. These are usually used for low pressures. NPTF, or "dry seal" threads are 100%, and are intended to seal gas-tight without sealant. These are used typically for higher pressures, or where a sealant is objectionable. Modern hydraulic systems avoid tapered threads in favor of 0-ring sealed designs.

Yes, this is more evidence to support my previous analysis: Tightening using the turns method is more reliable than tightening to a subjective "feel", or "good and tight". I have found that it requires considerably more torque than indicated on the UFI filter can to achieve this. This is not problem on my Cafe Sport, since there are filter wrenches readily available in the aftermarket. Well worth the money in time savings and being able to easily tighten the filter, even through the access port. In my most recent oil changes, I found that both UFI and aftermarket filter gaskets take a compression set. I've been paying attention to my automobile filters as well since this problem got my attention. The compression set also occurred on my Jetta. I'm sure the higher the temperature, the more this happens, but the fact it happened on the Jetta (which never overheated) means it isn't just the Guzzi. All the more reason to use the turns method so one knows exactly how much the gasket is compressed. In a later thread the thread pitch is mentioned as a factor. I agree that the coarser the pitch, the more likely a fastener is to loosen, including these filters. All one has to do to intuitively verify this is to consider the extremes: zero pitch would never loosen, infinite pitch would not hold. Finally, some possibly unrelated information: imported "neoprene" roof vent flashings used on house construction in our neighborhood have begun failing after 6-8 years. In contrast, similar flashings installed in the 70's are still OK. I suspect that the more recent imported ones do not have the same composition, resulting in shorter life. It raises the question, is it possible the gaskets on some filters, supposedly of the same composition, harden, take a compression set, and loosen more than others? This reminds me of the so called, "high strength" screws imported from Taiwan some years back, failing in the field. By now, they may have learned how to make them as strong as the Western equivalent. I'm afraid we may suffer from having to live through many similar re-learning trial and error situations until the Chinese and Indian sources learn the same the lessons the West did 30-50 years ago. However, it's not only them that has something to learn. I rented a new Harley for the fun of it for a couple of days while visiting family in Phoenix. Day one, the two screws holding the front caliper loosened, apparently during a couple of hours of steady riding at highway speed. One fell out completely at Tombstone. Thank goodness I was just turning a corner as I heard the rattle. No lock washers or Loctite. Luckily, I had taken along vicegrips and basic tools, just in case. It's one of my good habits. I retraced my path and found the screw. I found the two screws holding the other caliper loose as well. Day two, the shift actuating lever disconnected itself. The ball and socket joint had simply worn out. I got that back together with some nylon string. I checked around some more, and found the saddlebags were about to fall off because they were held on with two 1/4-20 screws apiece, but once again, no lockwashers or loctite. On the way back, the screw holding the tank speedo cover loosened up. Same deal. Fortunately, right in front of my eyes. I was happy to make it back without further incident. Sorry for digressing-couldn't resist venting on poor engineering and quality control. I'm glad to see the use of good quality locking devices and thread locking compound on my Guzzi.

Hi Ratchethack, Good to hear from you. I'm not in full accord on some of your analysis, so please see my responses below.

I still haven't got all my production costs figured out, but hope to next week. It's tough to come in at a reasonable price, even with me absorbing the prototype cost. I'm 90% sure I'll go for it. If I get 10 or more interested, that will push me over the edge. There would have to be a volume many several times that to get to the $300 price point from what I already know. Thanks much for the complements.

Before I decided to do this project, I had purchased a set of Centauro controls. It looked like an improvement, but one of the parts was backordered. Weeks went by. I was disappointed in the poor quality of the die casting and amazed to see voids, a sure sign of running the die too cold, cold metal, or fill time too long. This had been somewhat masked by heavy sand blasting. The heavy forged steel footpeg brackets weren't in keeping with the lightweight design of the rest of the bike either. I could see some logic to this, since they relied on the step on the "pork chop" to prevent rotation. That also limited how long the bracket could be made without risking shearing off the step if one stood on the pegs. On my design, two screws to fasten the brackets eliminate that concern, and allow the use of high strength lightweight aluminium. All this, and the fact that the improvement in foot position was only marginal to me, motivated me to try and optimize leg position with a clean sheet of paper design.

It's actually 5.5 inches. There is no difference to the feel of either the brake or gear selection because the ratios were kept the same. In the case of the brake lever, the distance from the pivot point to the brake cylinder actuating rod was increased by the same percentage as the distance from the pivot point to the foot pad. This can be seen in the assembly pictures. In the case of the gear selector, the original steel stamping actuating the gear selector actuating rod is replaced with one that increases the distance from the pivot point by the same percentage as the distance from the pivot point to the foot pad.