Ryland3210

I made a pressure gauge kit for my Cafe Sport, and have been making these kits up for forum members. It's great to know exactly what's going on. For details, see www.motratech.com I have a couple in stock. Send me a personal message if you are interested. Shipping to the U.K. is no problem. Here's a link to the thread on the subject: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...e+gauge+adapted Cheers, John

I have had some work done at Branchville since then. Near as I could tell, their tech has been there a while, and commutes all the way from Clifton, New Jersey! I think it is unlikely he was one of the techs at Marsh. I got the impression that Marsh's techs leaving had precipitated the sale. My guess is that the business level was insufficient to make the payroll on time occasionally. He had said there were two suitors for the business, but it would not surprise me that they passed on it, and it wasn't clear if they did buy the business, that it would stay in that facility. In that case, all they would be buying would be the inventory and customer list, especially since the techs had already left. I have seen this pattern many times in the manufacturing industry. The businesses that managed to grow by innovation or diversification were sold to a competitor or financial investor at a good valuation. Those that didn't, eventually were sold at auction for liquidation value. I judge Marsh to be dedicated to the extreme to his Moto Guzzi line, and reaching an age where the risk taking inherent in diversifying the product line to sustain growth was no longer attractive. Nothing wrong with that, especially with valuable real estate as a cushion. Marsh was a good salesman even under those circumstances, and I sympathized with his pain in feeling the end of an era. He was offering discounts. I told him what the Internet price was. He stood his ground, and I happily paid far more than the Internet price for a brake lever he had in stock. He even charged me sales tax, even though I have tax exempt status for that type of purchase. Whether he will send the sales tax to the state, I'll never know. That's up to his conscience.

It's clear your education in the science of mechanics was incomplete, Dave. You haven't seemed to grasp the concept of a theoretical equation and how such a symbolic representation of physics can result in a result of infinity. I've done my best to provide a simplified version of the mathematics which are used to make these calculations and have failed in your case. I'm outta here!

I bought an ex Newark police bike with sidecar back around 1975. It was a 1964 Duo-Glide. We had a lot of fun with it, and it never broke down on me. That's probably because the first thing I did was to strip it down and rebuild it. Stopping and handling-fugeddaboudit! It was brutally simple, with idle mixture and main jet needles on the carburettor you reach down and adjust by hand while riding. The left hand grip controlled the spark advance. If you forgot to retard it to kick start it (no electric start), it could launch you into the air when it lit off. There was no spring return on the throttle. Instead it had a cable operated by a complex cam and roller mechanism built into the right grip and cable within the handlebars. It worked like a cruise control, since it would stay wherever you put it. There were no counter rotating anti vibration balancing weights, so the vibration was unbelievable at high RPM's. I changed every sprocket I could to increase the mph/rpm to the point where at 55 mph, you could practically count the exhaust pulses. Then it was a joy to ride all day. It had so much low end torque it could pull the sidecar, the wife, and a load of camping gear along with no problems. It also had a special feature whereby the policeman could push a button to lock the position of the speedometer. That was the evidence they used to prove you were speeding. You can imagine the opportunities for deliberate false readings. Back then, there was no such thing as presumption of innocence in traffic court. It's still true today, that most judges will take the officers word against the drivers, unless he has a lawyer to enforce the presumption of innocence. Back in my long hair days, I tore the bike apart, chopped it, then years later, restored it and sold it for 3 times what I paid. Lots of fond memories.

I'm still convince my statement is correct. It was qualified by "theoretically". Of course the peak torque would not be infinite in the real world! The key point is that I did not assume the only elasticity is the cush. If you read my statement carefully, you will see I assumed no elasticity. No means no! In the equations to calculate the peak torque, the rotary inertia of the bike will be in the numerator and the time it takes to transfer the engine's energy to the bike will be in the denominator. The rotary inertia is more than zero no matter how much the bike weighs, unless all of its mass is in a single point, which is absurd. If there is no elasticity in the driveline (and just in case you think of it, none in the tires either, which I consider are part of the driveline for the purpose of this discussion) then the time is zero, and the result of the calculation something divided by zero, which is infinity.

Hi Troy, Keep in mind my numbers were only estimates to make the math easy, but they are in the ballpark. Static friction coefficients of 1 are not at all unusual for ordinary tires, and even higher, for relatively sticky tires. For example, the cornering G's pulled by Corvettes and many other sports cars approach 1, and that's under less sticky conditions than a standing start. Consider also some sport bikes tests indicating cornering angles greater than the 45 degrees corresponding to 1 G, and a coefficient of friction of at least 1 as well, again while the tires is moving.

I stand by my statement, but I think I may have not made it clear enough with the "or". That was intended to mean the lesser of the two. For example, if the clutch were covered with teflon and its springs were weak enough, then it would slip and be the limiting factor and prevent the wheelie. If instead, the clutch was normal, but the rear wheel was on ice, then it would be the limiting factor and still prevent a wheelie. If both have high friction, you might think the limiting factor would be only what it takes to lift the front wheel in accelerating mode, but that overlooks the inertia of the bike resisting its rotation about the contact patch as it lifts the CG. To make the point with an extreme example, suppose the clutch and contact patch were replaced with rigid connections (infinite friction). If the engine is rev'd up and clutch dumped, the initial peak torque would be extremely high. If there was no elasticity in the driveline, it would theoretically be infinite but for a very short time.

I was at the final sale and the farewell party. All indications were that the business was closing. Service techs had moved on, and word was that the next tenant would not be a motorcycle dealer. That's all I know.

To make the math simple, assuming a weight of 600 pounds at a center of gravity 2 feet above the ground, to calculate the force required at the contact patch to lift that weight, one must know the horizontal distance from the contact patch to the center of gravity. Let's assume that's 3 feet. The torque applied by gravity about the axis of the contact patch is then 600 X 3 feet, or 1800 foot pounds. The force required at the contact patch to offset that is 1800 foot pounds divided by 2 feet, or 900 pounds. The torque required on the wheel is then 900 X Wheel radius. If we assume a 1 foot radius, then the torque required is 900 foot pounds. That's more than Dave's calculated 705. However, the engine has significant rotational inertia, and can dump that energy through the drive train to temporagenerate the required 900 foot pounds, provided the clutch's dynamic frictional torque capacity exceeds that and doesn't slip instead. The static friction between tire and road must also exceed that generated by the weight of the bike on the contact patch. You can see from the equations that the higher the ratio of the height of the CG to the horizontal distance from contact patch to the CG, the easier it is to pop a wheelie. Once the front wheel is lifted off the ground, that ratio increases as the CG goes higher, and the horizontal distance decreases. That's why it easy to maintain a wheelie, once the front wheel is elevated. For example, my Norton and Guzzi Cafe Sport easily can pop a wheelie, whereas my Venture burns rubber because of very different CG vertical to horizontal ratios. Hill climbers want to avoid wheelies, so the rear wheel is moved way behind the rider. This isn't nearly as entertaining, but it's my nature. Oh, almost forgot! So the peak torque on the rubber baby buggy bumpers is limited by the dynamic frictional torque the clutch can transfer, or the static frictional force of the contact patch times the wheel radius, whichever is less, when the engine's inertial energy is transfered in addition to its torque output. Usually, conservatively designed clutches will exceed the latter, and force the contact patch to skid before the clutch slips. The equations to calculate the peak torque generated are somewhat complex, but in summary, the change in the engine's momentum as its RPM's decline when the clutch is dumped, is proportional to the integral of torque times the time it takes.

Keep in mind that if you increase the total hose length or inside diameter, that will increase the volume within the hose. Adding a pressure gauge will also increase volume. Any increase in volume will delay the response time for a given size "nipple". As the vacuum suddenly increases, the gas in the hoses and regulator has to flow through the nipple to relieve its pressure. The more gas there is, the longer it takes.

Sounds reasonable to me, and consistent with my knowledge. My Cafe Sport has the regulator inside the tank along with the fuel pump, so there is no access. With the stock map intact, I added Stainture mufflers without baffles, and took off the airbox cover. The orginal filter is held down by a clamp generously provided by Ratchethack. When checked on a dyno, the mixture was still on the rich side, in spite of the leaning effect one would expect from these modifications. My exhaust pipes have always been black with soot. I believe that if I were able to connect the regulator to the intake manifold ports, fuel economy would improve, with no adverse effects to WOT performance, and would still not be too lean. As to why wouldn't Guzzi continue to connect these hoses on bikes with external regulators, I have no idea. The cost is surely low, but there has been at least one opinion expressed that the frequent changes in pressure to the regulator might wear them out faster. Perhaps Guzzi had some problem with failing regulators, or perhaps they just wanted to made assembly easier, or perhaps it was purely accidental.

The service manual does show these connections and emphasizes their importance. This was covered elsewhere, along with a picture of the assembly diagram. I'm sure you can find the detailed information with a little research.

Hi Ratch, I think you may have missed my earlier question, as copied below. I'm interested in correlation your results with the location of hour hose connection, as follows: "Are the "intake "recovery canister/balance" barbs" you mention the ones on the intake manifold used for throttle synch? If not, then little change should be expected, if connected where there would be very little vacuum created. Moreover, if connected to the airbox, the variation in absolute pressure would be opposite that of the intake manifold, and provide a reverse signal to the regulator." Thanks, John

On dyno charts which show graphs of torque and horsepower versus RPM. the torque is not the torque delivered by the rear wheel. For example, in the case of the typical inertial dyno, its computer calculates the force exerted by the tire by measuring the angular acceleration of the dyno's known rotational inertial mass. Power can be calculated by various means from that information. One way is to use the relationship: dyno torque = dyno rotary inertia X dyno angular acceleration and the relationship power=dyno torque X dyno RPM. Once it knows the power, it can use the relationship engine torque=power/engine RPM to determine the equivalent engine crankshaft torque. This is not the actual crankshaft torque, since it has been reduced by the friction losses in the drive train. The cush drive material debate pops up from time to time simply because there has been insufficient quantifyable data to permit an objective comparison and lay the question to rest. Until that happens, we should not be surprised or perplexed to see it return someday, along with opinions in place of logic. Repetition of strongly held views is likely to occur when one's cherished views fail to persuade another. I occasionally remind myself of the phrase: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". That's life.

I bought them a few months ago from a Harley Dealer for about $11 each, and I've heard of cheaper prices. I like the flex mount. The mounting holes had to be drilled out a bit, are still small enough for the MG parts if one ever wants to go back to original.

I just installed this useful addition to my Cafe Sport. Edge did a precision job on this. The fit was perfect. Although the instructions suggest removing the stock rear hugger fender to make installation easier, I was able to complete the job in 30 minutes total. Half of that was getting the bike up in the air on my electic hoist. That made it easy to get it into place. Working standing up at eye level, and being able to reach my arm up from underneath was a big help. Buying this 800 pound capacity electric hoist from Harbor Freight was one of the best investments I have made yet. It saves a lot of time and straining. It made it a breeze to install the Roper Plate, the forward foot controls and change the rear wheel. In addition to making it easy to do any work on, when I want to trailer the bike (I ride everywhere, but sometimes I have to leave it at a distant dealer for a few days for service), I hoist it up, back the trailer under it, and drop it down. Using the hoist to keep it steady and vertical makes it easy to tie down without assistance. I'm looking forward to having this protection when riding in wet conditions. Thanks Edge!

Your right, buddy. Much of this was covered in an earlier thread, but Paulo may not have noticed that, and this one is perhaps a useful summary. Are the "intake "recovery canister/balance" barbs" you mention the ones on the intake manifold used for throttle synch? If not, then little change should be expected, if connected where there would be very little vacuum created. Moreover, if connected to the airbox, the variation in absolute pressure would be opposite that of the intake manifold, and provide a reverse signal to the regulator. Whether the .030" bore is adequate depends on the volume within the connecting hoses and the chamber in the regulator. There is no steady state flow here to create a pressure loss except in transients. If the bore was determined using engineering principles (which is open to question), it might have been sized intentionally to optimize the tradeoff between adequate response time, and dampening pulses. In that case, the length and inside diameter of the hoses should be the same as indicated in the manual.

Please clarify, Raz. I do not reach the conclusion of "bad" atomising, but I have not seen the specs. Here's my analysis: We know that obviously the injectors pump fuel into the same location, regardless of whether the hose is connected to the regulator or not. Therefore, connecting the hose results in reducing the absolute fuel pressure at low load or decel, so there should be less atomizing with the hose connected, since atomization increases with pressure. Do the specs indicate that 3 bar is the minimum required for atomizing, or is it merely saying that an atomized cone of 30 degrees will be formed at that pressure? Does it indicate a lower pressure below which atomizing will not occur? Given that good atomizing is achieved at WOT and low RPM by design, where intake manifold absolute pressure is almost the same at atmospheric, then I believe the same degree of atomization should occur when intake manifold absolute pressure is close to zero, since the pressure difference between fuel and intake would be the same. I expect you will find fuel economy will improve with hoses connected, and look forward to your report.

Hi Greg, I don't know whether there was a quality control issue on Cafe Sports, but for what it's worth, the Ohlins damper on my '04 either had been assembled incorrectly, or had been fiddled with at the dealer before delivery to me (I bought it new). I discovered that when I attempted to adjust it, and found it jammed. It is a tricky assembly, and I had to make a special tool to assemble it correctly. In the process I found the steel ball to be rusting. It hadn't been providing any damping anyway, so I cleaned off the rust, oiled it up, and stored it away in a ziplock bag. I like the handling better without it, and have noticed no instability at any speed, even on some of the potholed, patched up lousy roads in my area. At some time in the future, if the bike's front steering bearings or other suspension components wear out enough to cause a problem, I'll pull it out of the archives. My old '64 Harley had a simple friction damper on the steering head, which I did find very helpful when pulling a sidecar at highway speeds. In combination with a bungee cord attached to the left handlebar to offset the sidecar drag, it worked pretty well. In contrast, my Cafe Sport seems to have such precise alignment and lack of backlash, it seems unnecessary at speed, and a negative in the parking lot, IMHO. Cheers, John

Thanks for explaining. Man, hat's a tough position to be in. Avoid bankruptcy if you possibly can, and work it out with the creditors if at all possible. Bankruptcy is the kind of thing can follow you around and close off options for a long, long, time. Your point is well taken on the need for the price to be pretty darned low to attract the buyers participating in this thread and related threads. I believe you're right about that. I was sympathizing with the cost of the efforts required to make the dual material wedges. My recollection is that comments had been made in the cush drive thread to the effect that reducing shocks in the drive train made for a smoother ride and less wear of the splines. The drilling procedure has worked well for others, but I value my time unless I'm doing something new and different, or solving an interesting problem, in which case I don't count it. That's why I was willing to pay a good price if a set of wedges would do the same thing. I just know it would take me at least 2-3 hours to modify the original wedges, if not more. In addition, I could keep the original wedges intact if it didn't work out, or as future spares. Cheers, John

Gosh, Skeeve, $5 for shipping cost on a set of relays costing $40 for a set of five, didn't seem excessive to me, at a buck apiece. Let's see, the trip to the post office today for a shipment cost me $3 in gas, plus $1.29 for a mailer, plus $2.49 for postage, so I'm losing $1.78 on the shipping cost, and the margin on a relay is less than that. That's not counting the 45 minutes of time to pack them, address the box and make the round trip to the post office, let alone the many days researching and testing. I'm actually embarrassed to be speaking of numbers in the range of a cup of coffee these days, but I thought your comments warranted a response. By the way, I sought and received Dan P's blessing before offering these alternatives. That was important to me, knowing from experience how difficult it is to recover any investment in developing aftermarket products in this tiny market. At the prices for the wedges you are suggesting, my guess is the more our friend sells, the more money he will lose. If he is willing to put his time and experience to work and offers a set of wedges even for $50, I'm glad to pay that much, plus whatever his actual shipping cost might be. That's cheap at the price, and less than three tanks of gas.

It turns out it is more than a theory, Dave. It is described in the Service Manual and illustrated as connecting to both intake manifold ports via a T. The manual stresses the importance of having the pressure regulator referenced from the intake manifold pressure. My '04 Cafe Sport has the internal fuel pump/regulator/filter assembly within the tank. If I ever get the thing apart, I plan on seeing if I can't create a port.

Is the 04 and 06 a typo? .004 and .006" would be normal. If they are really out 10 times that, there would be a definite loss of power and a lot of valve noise. I really like my Staintunes also. Just about perfect with the baffles out. John