dlaing

This pair of forks gets around like my last girlfriend But, I am in love, and I am keeping them! A special thanks to the sidecar owner, Jaap, Mike, FedEx, Dutch Post, German Post, and whoever else helped keep them in such good shape. FWIW another interesting note is that unlike the Road & Track's 20 clicks of rebound an compression, these forks have 32 clicks. I seem to recall reading the Scura forks had 28clicks of adjustability, and Guzzi recommended was 13 clicks out. I am running 18 clicks out for rebound and 20 clicks for compression. The sag is fine, so I have not touched the preload. I wonder how different they are on the inside compared to the Road and Track? Ohlins even publishes two Road and track manuals. One for FG43 with Buell on the cover, and one for the Ø43 with a Suzuki on the cover. Both say maximum 20 clicks.

I think you mean 6205-2rsi, not 6502-2rsi. Thanks for the great posts everybody, especially Paul! I just put my Ohlins on, from a 2003 Cafe Sport(I think). In any case it has the hollow axle. I can't stop riding. But now the rear feels terrible... I used an URB 6205-2rsr and a Napa/SKF 6205-2rsj. I replaced both for preventative reasons... The inner spacer was really nicely done...Thanks Mike

I suppose I may not have kept enough air in my tires... The 014s look coooool. And they come in three profiles, 120/70/65/60-17

To me it seems to make sense that the asymetrical damping could be causing the problem. Perhaps the problem could be reduced by increasing the pre-load on the Rebound fork My guess is that when braking, the right fork dives more than the left fork twisting the axle so that the left side of the tire gets more wear. Combined with the crown of the road, it wears out faster on the left, unless you are in the UK or something. Another solution, if at all possible, would be to switch the compression damper to the right side and the rebound to the left I just moved to an Ohlins fork, so I will let you know in 4000 miles how the tire is wearing

Damn! those guys are slim! 130# Rossi 145# Edwards Like Jockeys!

Here is the rear shock...sorry, Ugly Graph. I suspect the stock Sachs is very close to the FZ1 stock in weight. But note how much stiffer the HyperPro is.... EDIT whoops, speaking of decimal points, I swear I drew in a zero next to the numbers on the vertical. So on the chart, where it says 50 it should be 500, where it says 60 it should be 600, etc. This chart is from the following data: HyperPro Guzzi: 515 #/in Probably at 0.5 inch 824 #/in Probably at half the spring length, 3.5 inches HyperPro FZ1: 10mm Preload 1" 517 #/in. 2" 640 3" 728 HyperCo "Hypercoils" 7x550: 14mm preload 1" 530 #/in. 2" 550 #/in. 3" 565 #/in. FZ1 Stock: Preload 17mm 1" 420 lb/in 2" 422 lb/in 3" 424 lb/in

Here is a chart of the front. The two points for the Guzzi HyperPro correspond with the Yamaha HyperPro curve. I am guessing at the Guzzi stock curve, but my guess is that it is about a .7 or .8 Kg spring. Can anyone confirm? EDIT I think we need the data in front of us to understand this chart better. We don't know how HyperPro got those numbers, but I believe it is safe to suggest that on both the Yamaha and Guzzi HyperPro front and rear springs, the numbers line up. Hyperco for Guzzi Probably no preload....probably measured at first centimeter or millimeter and spring halfway point or binding point :huh2: Start rate = 7.20 Nt/mm. = 0.734184 Kg/mm =41 #/inch End rate = 15.05 Nt/mm. = 1.534649 Kg/mm = 86 #/inch Compressed to: Pounds/In pressure Rate: kg/mm Total 0.5" 41 0.73 41 6-10" 86 1.53 350-400??? Stock Fork Spring, 15mm preload: Compressed to: Pounds/In pressure Rate: kg/mm Total 1" 44.0 0.78 44 2" 54.0 0.97 98 3" 66.6 1.19 165 4" 73.6 1.32 238 5" 80.0 1.43 318 Hyperpro Fork Spring, 15m preload: Compressed to: Pounds/In pressure Rate: kg/mm Total 1" 43.2 0.78 43.2 2" 45.0 0.81 88.2 3" 51.8 0.93 140 4" 75.0 1.34 215 5" 80.0 1.43 295 Traxxion Dynamics Fork Spring, 15mm preload: Compressed to: Pounds/In pressure Rate: kg/mm Total 1" 53.60 0.96 53.6 2" 55.00 1.00 109 3" 55.00 1.00 164 4" 55.00 1.00 219 5" 55.00 1.00 274

Oh, I see you just posted again while I was calculating. So yah, I think we have the same concerns. But you were off a decimal.

Newtons (N) to kilograms force (Kg.f.) 0.10197 Kilograms force (Kg.f.) to Newtons (N) 9.80661 Newtons (N) to pounds force (lb.f.) 0.225 Pounds force (lb.f.) To Newtons (N) 4.448 1" = 25.4mm so, Front - Start rate = 7.20 Nt/mm. = 0.734184 Kg/mm End rate = 15.05 Nt/mm. = 1.534649 Kg/mm Rear - Start rate = 90.13 Nt/mm. = 9.190556 Kg/mm = 515.0929 lbs/inch End rate = 144.2 Nt/mm. = 14.70407 Kg/mm = 824.103 lbs/inch The numbers by themselves are in my opinion, far too progressive and extreme. But, I think we can assume the start and end rate numbers shown are fully open and fully closed, and that with preload and the limitations of travel we would be looking at numbers in the middle somewhere... Since most people go to a 500 or 550# rear, the rear spring may be too stiff. The front could probably be set pretty well with the right preload....but a lot of trial and error. I wish the curve was less radical. Most of the 'experts' don't consider progressives for sport riding. I believe if the progressiveness was cut in half they could win over more people. But hey, maybe I am wrong and it will just work incredibly. My biggest beef with my current setup is how the superslab 70MPH rhythmic bumps that just wear at me. For blasting through country road, most of the roads are in good enough condition that even the stock set up is tolerable. So, I am attracted to the HyperPro because I think it will greatly help the superslab issue. I am just worried that it will leave me with two inches of real world used travel because it is too progressive. But I could probably completely remove the rubber bumpers that are getting harder with age... While a straight spring would allow the suspension to utilize the travel. Dazed and Confused. Perhaps I'll be the guinea pig, and you can try my bike. I am more worried that the rear spring my be too hard for your lighter weight.

Did you get the one with logging? I guess it logs RPM but not throttle position

Is that why your fairing disappeared? By the way your bike is looking VERY nice!

36MPG US on a good day....If I get 37MPG I double check my math and then celebrate!....Commuting 7-10 miles one way gets lower thirties. Probably cause of the cold engine. I run the valves 0.15/0.20mm. PCIII with map for stock map averaged out with zero map (8 becomes 4, 9 becomes 5, -6 becomes -3, etc. with some additional fuel where I think it pings....but I need to add more there) TPS 170mV linkage detached/screw out, engine not running. 400mV linkage attached. engine idling 1050vegliaRPMs I find it interesting that I don't get the higher 500-525mV reading at idle that others get. But for sure it would be higher if I set the idle higher, but I like it low as it shifts into first better. It is possible that the noise I hear is the clutch starting to rattle, and not pingin'

Unfortunately, on modern VeeElevens the pinging problem seems to be in the maximum torque area, above 5000RPM and it can occur before WFO. I think it is too much ignition advance combined with the other things you mentioned, "Some of it is gas, some of it is tuning, some of it is the bike's design." Regarding the design, I imagine there are hot spots, aggravated by overly lean conditions within the map that could be causing the pinging when the engine is asked for muscle. Likewise, carbon build up could cause pinging, so too rich could be bad, too. So a good map will help for sure. Also, tight valves could cause problems... I have been meaning to try a cooler spark plug, which should not be a problem in So-Cal and may reduce the pinging. I am using stock mufflers now to avoid the pinging.... FWIW, the Mistrals do ping more, and the Quat-D pinged more than the Mistrals, even after the tuning link.

Cliff's ECU could surely dial it out!

I have it too. It never seems to happen in the mountains....just on the highway or going up coastal hills. 60 to 100% throttle and 5000 to 6500 RPMs. I am not sure of the solution. I was going to deal with it after settling on mufflers, intakes, etc. But I should just deal with it. My guess is that setting the TPS to a higher number might help. The idea would be to retard the ignition, rather than add fuel...and it would add fuel, too. ...I already added a fair amount of fuel, which helped, but not enough.

Wow! those look great, and I like the minimal crossover link! So, the slip on mufflers must be pretty loud! But I still like the Ex-Box more, since I am not out to win races.

"DLaing, the firm defender of the Quat-D" I like that! I also like the results you got!

Frankie, Why did you sell the Quat-D? Do you have a different muffler that you wish to use? Is it to get more HP?

At the moment my forks are off the bike, assembled, but oil-less. So, they are ready to have the springs pulled in ten minutes, I mean one minute(since Brian clued me in on the proper technique) My Ohlins forks should be here any day.... So, the short answer is a couple phases of the moon, or until I bend the Ohlins on the back of a mini-van...Knock on wood. And even then, I'd upgrade the springs, anyway. So, absolutely no rush. If you want, I can send rough measurements, but all I have is a tape measure. You probably need accurate ID and OD measurements. Spring wire gauge measurement might also be useful.

One of the possible speedo failures is caused by the pressed fitting at the lower elbow(where the cable meets the gearbox) Solution: disconnect the elbow, and just press the elbow back together and be sure that when you reassemble the spinning square thingy seats itself properly in the the gearbox, otherwise it will force the fitting apart, again...

Ratchet, I can easily pull my fork spring if you would like to borrow it for a comparison witht the Yamaha spring. FWIW on the Yamaha list classified, some guy from British Columbia put his up for sale, and will toss them in the garbage if he does not get an offer, so I am sure they will sell cheap. http://www.yamahafz1oa.com/forum/showthrea...?threadid=36807 What I don't understand is that the commong consensus from the FZ1 riders is that the stock spring is too soft, but on that first chart it appears to be firmer than the straight rate 1Kg/mm spring....sure the Yamaha spring needs more pre-load, but that is just an adjustment, and as long as it does not lower the free sag too much, it should be fine. Perhaps the FZ1 community only attempts the external pre-load change, and that is not enough. Thanks again, Brian, for the insight on assembling, draining, and the perils of pre-load I currently have near zero free sag on my OE rear shock, and a fairly large loaded sag number. Compression damping is set to help keep it from bottoming. So any spring is going to help the rear. Now I am just debating Hyperco #500 vs. Hyperco #550 vs. HyperPro's mystery spring, which is likely to be something like a 500/700. I guess I could give HyperPRO a call... Or wait for RatchetHack to be the guinea pig. HyperCo is $75 and HyperPro is $109, not a huge price difference, but it could leave me money for weekend worth of riding.

Oh, and I went back and read that entire thread....took forever And what a tease!!! I thought they were going to have a test ride shootout between a straight rate and a progressive spring but they bailed because of personallity disorders. INCREDIBLE! But I did notice a company called HyperCo sells "Hypercoil" springs for the rear shock that offer very mild progressiveness. (good for people like me who are on the fence regarding progressive vs. straight) Note, as far as I know, HyperPro and HyperCo are not related....but I could be wrong.... HyperPro says they have a spring for our Sachs. HyperCo, I believe you would have to match it from the dimensions. I am not sure if the inches refer to shock travel or axle travel.... FWIW this data was provided by a financially biased proponent of straight rate, a Traxxion rep. HyperPro: 10mm Preload 1" 517 #/in. 2" 640 3" 728 HyperCo "Hypercoils" 7x550: 14mm preload 1" 530 #/in. 2" 550 #/in. 3" 565 #/in. FZ1 Stock: Preload 17mm 1" 420 lb/in 2" 422 lb/in 3" 424 lb/in

Thanks, I was just going by the workshop manual, which is apparently giving improper instructions. It did not seem right that I would turn the Jamb-nut and the rod would spin endlessly unless I took the spring load off it. Which is why I asked! I'll have to give it another go. I had gotten everything right except for the now obvious fact that slipping in the collett is a lot faster while holding in a compressed spring than spinning on the Jamb-nut! The manual also instructed us to remove the damper rod for just a simple maintenance. It seems to me, that all that we have to do is pull the forks, remove the cap, drain the oil, refill, and re-assemble. It seems to me that there is no need to remove the spring or the rod. Do you agree with this assertion?

What Maryland commuters to D.C. get to look at.... My guess is that a graphics artist was requested to come up with a poster, and figured, why beat around a bush, and just get straight to the point. The Russians sure had some great artists! Have you narc'd on your "unusual" neighbor lately?