dlaing

I don't ride wheelies, and I don't live in San Francisco, so no need for baffles and one way valves... Between the windage effect letting me raise the oil level, and the anti-sloppage effect, I will be good to go, and much better off than I was. It won't be as tight against sloppage slipping through as your design, but because it has much of what you designed it will make a big difference. Thanks for not taking my criticisms of the sheet as insults. Your sheet will save engines and it is the only thing out there. Just don't expect the sheet to allow you to ride quarter mile wheelies or quarter mile accelerations up the world's steepest hills without damaging the engine. The sheet will protect when the front wheel briefly rises and up most of San Francisco's hills. My engine has survived many miles of hard use racing up hills, but not San Francisco's. If I had had a sloppage sheet I probably would have quadrupled the life of the main bearings. It may be too late to save, but who knows, maybe the engine is now simply loosey goosey and the sheet will help keep it that way for the next 8 years Thanks again!

So much for my plans to lean the bike out above 13.5:1 A:F at low load.

12.76V overnight indicates the battery is likely good, but it is not definitive. At 1000rpm- 13.68V Are you sure? that is much better than my charge at idle. At 3000rpm- 13.68V A little low, but may be enough to keep a good battery going, if your rides are not too short. The 12.36V seems to be too low. That was with ignition off, right? You probably have too much resistance along the red/green line, or maybe at the 30AMP fuse block. Look in the workshop manual for testing procedures. I could probably post some if you need.

13.11V is too low. I suppose it could be alternator or battery, but do wire directly to battery. I put an inline 30 fuse in between, but no fuse means less resistance. And create a fresh ground, too. I ran a short ground from regulator to engine and then a longer line from that ground point directly to battery.

I rode with him a few times and talked for hours. What a great guy, so passionate about the sport, and about Guzzis. I am saddened that I will have no other such opportunities. On the positive, he died doing what he loved, and we'll honor his wish to party as a celebration to his life. Yet, I am so sorry and saddened for the loss of those most close to him.

He just couldn't stay away.

Even with a sloppage sheet, accelerating quickly up a lengthy hill like this could cause oil starvation because the oil slowly drains rear and upward. Without a sloppage sheet even a short hill can do damage. Riding wheelies, the longer the front is in the air, the more likely you will have oil starvation. Pete's solution is simple and it protects in most situations that would otherwise have oil starvation. Pete sent me a piece of sheet metal he used as a prototype. Since it is over-worked, Pete had no use for it, but I am going to mount it about a cm lower than Pete's design. I theorize that lower is better, at least at lower oil levels. Also, I won't have to remove the sump or plumbing to install it. But the only way to beat Pete's design is seal it tighter but then add one way drain valves, assuming you could find any that worked well and reliably. I already over-worked it, so it will probably leak just a little more than Pete's design. Man, it is a pain to get it to fit. Once I finish fitting it, I'll try to remember to photograph it. Pete must have spent hours getting it just right! Pete's pre-cuts alone have saved me hours. I think I have spent about 4 hours on it, and it is still far from finished. With heavy sheet metal fabrication equipment and or know-how, it could be done faster. In retrospect I should have spent more time getting the template right, or better yet, I should have just bought a finished one from Pete. Unless you never use more than 75% throttle and never go up steep hills, do yourself and your engine a favor and buy a sloppage sheet from Pete.

Be sure you are getting a good charging voltage. At high RPMs I believe it will be lower than the OEM voltage that can be as high as 14.6V. But the voltage is higher at low RPMs. You might want to read this thread about how to install the Electrosport regulator http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...hl=electrosport

Capice. I can just picture you with your finger in a dyke shouting the Holy Redeemer is coming! Just kidding. But seriously, somehow that off-beat anecdote was a good explanation. I won't set my bike up like that, but for you, that makes perfect sense. I am all for freedom of choice, unless the choice is really stupid, and setting the oil level that high seems reasonable, and better than 5mm too low, which may be where mine is.

Seems to me your fluid level is about 5mm too high.

As Ratchet said, your rear spring is too soft. Judging from the happy people on this forum who have re-sprung, you will do best with something around 600#/inch. Note this is hit or miss advice. For touring on smoothish roads 550#/inch will give a softer ride, but will bottom out. 600 may also bottom out pretty regularly, so if you are very sporty rider or live in a city of potholes, 650#/inch may be a better bet. I still could be wrong and 700#/inch could be what you will be happiest with, but I don't think anyone on this forum has tried more than a 650#/in spring. In any case, at 260# you will be happier with anything firmer than the stock spring. Ratchet's 2:1 ratio shows your front to be way too hard. I seriously doubt it. But you should follow Ratchet's infamous fluid level setting recommendations. For the early Marzocchis forks on V11s, it appears nobody can give better advice on setting the level. Pay attention to bottoming out. Like Brian said, "If you're not bottoming or topping out, and both ends rise and fall together, Bob's your uncle......." Following those wise words will get you get close enough to perfection, but don't go too firm with 1000#/inch springs!!! In case you have not noticed, everyone has there own idea of what the ideal spring rate is.

Yah, once dialed in and you don't gain 50 pounds, I doubt you need adjuster accept for shedding milliseconds on lap time racing.

The problem is some of us give advice to others 'round here, and it would be nice if people followed the advice and did not end up with the wrong springs. I bottom out with the experts' numbers. So, how do we set the numbers so that you don't bottom or top out. I know 35mm laden and 30mm unladen would not bottom out, if they only make springs that firm for the front, rear should be no problem getting what everis necessary for those sag numbers, maybe 1500# springs. But I can guarantee the ride would be too harsh.

Although my pain level was more annoying than excruciating, when you consider that hearing damage occurs below the threshold of light pain, earplugs and or airbox lids are a good thing. I like the added power of no airbox lid, so I continue to annoy the world triggering car alarms while wearing earplugs. The muffers sound sweeter with the airbox lid on, but the bike sounds and runs meaner with it off. A better airbox could certainly be made.

Why can't we all just get along

Oh cool, another lube thread. For my dry clutched, catalytic convertor free bike, an oil high ZDDP would be ideal. Some say friction modifiers are bad for Guzzis. I am not sure about that. I think modifiers such as ZDDP and Moly are not harmful, but I am certainly open to proof that they are harmful. http://www.mobiloil.com/USA-English/MotorO...Motor_Oils.aspx has a link to PDF showing the ZDDP levels of Mobil products. The non-SM rated 4T and the V-Twin clearly have more ZDDP than the SM-rated Mobil products. If I had a catalytic convertor I might be concerned, but since I don't, I'll go for an oil with lots of ZDDP and no SM rating. I can't think of a fully synthetic motorcycle that would not be good enough. Some diesel oils would be fine if you could find a W50. An auto oil might be fine if you add more ZDDP. Just my opinon, not based on experimenting with fleets or anything more valid than reading oil threads and charts...

Try googling "billet oil cooler" There are lots of options out there for Harleys that could be made to fit. Most are in chrome, and some look like dildos, but you might find something nice in raw billet. The chrome will get covered with dirt, so don't be too thrown off by the blinding bling. Or better yet, make something! A piece of billet aluminum, brass or copper could be milled with course inefficient cooling fins and drilled for fittings and mounted down low to reduce or even eliminate the amount of hose. Not a cheap solution, but neither is a V-Sump.

Very nice! Love the airbrushed look and Philadelphia makes a nice back drop, as does the nearly subliminal Porsche. I hope you don't mind, but I nominated your bike for bike of the month. Of course I have a bias for the silver red framed V11...

I think another indicator of a clogged filter is that the more fuel you try to give it, the more it stumbles, so if it stumble more at high throttle and high rpms, you may not be getting enough fuel. I have not experienced this, so I could be wrong..

The bottom line for me is to start with a good map and twist the throttle as needed. Our slow dumb ECU could be improved by adding on bells and whistles, but a better solution would be to simply make a better map. The difference between high and low loads at the same map position could be improved on, but unless we are chasing an unknown small increase in MPG, there is no worthy benefit. Simply making it rich enough with the right timing for the high load situation is adequate.

Adieu Monsieur, From the admission of my posts, I would not ADMIT that I have not had my own suspension set up properly. What constitutes properly is subjective. My suspension is set far better than stock, and I admit there is room for improvement. I have considered sending the suspension off for re-valving at the recommendation of those that have done so. I have considered experimenting with different fluid levels and spring rates. I set my front fluid level to a number from one book, but finally learned that another number is what Guzzi recommends, so there may be room for improvement there, but I am only off by 5mm. My Ohlins fork springs I assume are stock, which should indicate they are too soft, but my sag numbers for the front shamefully fall into what Ratchet might criticize as being improper, 36mm laden and 26mm unladen or a 1.38:1 ratio!!!! So, according to Ratchet's magic numbers, my OEM spring must be too firm despite the fact that it regularly bottoms out. Do I listen to Nurse Ratchet and go softer springs or do I do what I think would be most beneficial and get a firmer pair of springs, or do I leave well enough alone and stay with the OEM springs? At the rear, I replaced the Sachs with a customized Penske that adds about 9mm stroke or 18mm travel to the rear end. IMHO this really helps make the bike ride more comfortably. My sag numbers at the rear are ~31.3mm laden and 5.5mm unladen or a 5.7:1 ratio, so apparently my 550#/inch spring is too soft by Ratchet's magic numbers. Here I am more inclined to believe a firmer spring might help, or even better, a progressive spring, since like the front, the rear still bottoms out (as best I can tell). PLEASE NOTE: I selected the 550#/inch spring based on the experiences of forum members here that weigh about the same that I do. One of the forum members tried 550 and 500 and greatly preferred the 500, and the other was happy with the 550. Either is a huge improvement of the stock that is probably somewhere around 400/450#/in. In any case, my added travel makes under-springing less of an issue. The tenth of a millimeter accuracy at the rear is based on the average of a series of measurements to the nearest millimeter that took into consideration stiction. The measurement at the front was done by Nurse Ratched, back when he was less ornery...

Did you lose any external damping adjusters from doing the modification?

clean and protect wire connections. check for leaks at spine frame oil connections. Check for deterioration of line running from spine above coils to top rear of engine. Replace Air filter element, fuel filter and fuel lines if anywhere near needing doing. What shock are you getting?

I wouldn't say the it is all wrong... Actually I think Ratchet did a much better job than most of the pros. If you are looking for softer settings, going with more sag is not the answer. The answer can be allusive, but basically for a softer ride you want more "sag ratio". That is, a little more than a 2:1 ratio for comfort, and a little less than a 2:1 ratio for sport. The common recommendation for the track is less sag. I don't think this is because it is very slightly firmer, but because of you don't need the extra room for topping out if you have a predictable road ahead of you and you get more cornering clearance. On the street, potholes an nasty bumps potentially await you around every turn, so it is wise to simply have a firm enough spring and more than 30% laden sag to ensure topping out room. Rider weight can offset the numbers. A 50Kg jockey will want quite a bit less than a 2:1 ratio, ie., a soft spring with a fair amount of pre-load, and 200kg sumo wrestler will want a greater than 2:1 ratio, ie., a very firm spring with very little pre-load. The bottom line is you want spring rates and settings that rarely or never bottom out, but offer Comfort, Compliance and Control. As mentioned from the beginning of this thread, some of the Suspension Pros recommend different settings front and rear. Specifically a little less sag and a little more ratio at the rear. AAYMMV and I don't know for sure which is better. So, Ratchet and some pros could be right and the other pros wrong. On our shaft driven bike, where less active travel at the rear could be a good thing, a firmer spring with lots of sag could be ideal. In any case, you can try Ratchets numbers or my numbers, or anywhere in between, and you should be much better off than stock. Once again, here are my recommended numbers (subject to change if I ever get around to trying a firmer than 550#shock spring) REAR Sachs 10mm unladen 8.3% 30mm laden 25% FRONT 20mm unladen 16.7% 35mm laden 29.2% And be sure to modify the numbers based on the logic presented in this amazing thread.

Glad you can make the rally! PS the sheet arrived, and I am looking forward to fitting it. I owe you more than a can of piss. Thanks mate!