dlaing

You are THE MAN! I have some experimenting to do now....

But it will only take four maybe nine more pages....

What year is your Le Mans? How did you check cables and alternator? Check alternator using instructions in manual. Look for voltage drop between various points, battery, 30A fuse, regulator output, etc. The reference wires that go to charging system warning light are a little trickier to diagnose.

I knew we could count on you for a good analysis. Since some will resort to Micha's method, maybe we should improve it a little: Step one - Set your valves to world settings Intake .15mm, Exhaust .20mm Step two - Set your bleed screws to open 1 full turn Step two point one - Back the right idle screw and fast idle off so that they will not make contact with the motion of the right throttle body butterfly valve. Step three - Synch throttle bodies at just off idle (around 1800 rpm) Step four - Set idle to 1100 using left idle screw adjuster only Note: Veglia tachometer is notoriously inaccurate. Use a digital tachometer, or computer running Power Commander, VDSTS, Tuneboy, Axeone, or whatever. Step four point one - balance at idle using bleed screws (not sure if Micha would approve, but I think it would help) Step five - Set TPS to 3.6 degrees 524mV or 532mV depending on your source. Actually it is a range of millivolts. Step six - Ensure idle trim is set to zero Or if you have access to a CO meter, adjust trim to ideal setting (not sure Micha would approve, maybe it is best to keep at zero) Still after those (IMHO) improvements, ignoring the 150mV baseline has potentially negative implications, but apparently neither method works perfectly for all bikes. (I can imagine Micha reading this rolling his eyes )

Yep and my comment on it could be taken many ways. I should have been clearer Now that we are finding some bikes with variations in the base 150mV position relative seemingly to both WOT and idle, the WOT reading may have more value for setting than the baseline. Since it is the flip side of the 150mV position, it theoretically is just as valuable as the 150mV baseline, and if the WOT position does not have the variations between bikes that the fully closed 150mV appears to have, it could prove to be MORE valuable. The problem is the inaccuracy of the voltmeter when trying to differentiate 4.860V from 4.850V, meanwhile differentiating 150mV from 160mV or even 151mV is not a problem. So, the value of reading at WOT is to eliminate the problem that Tom experienced...we just have a technical inaccuracy issue. Disconnecting the linkage is not a big deal. Perhaps disconnecting it is not even necessary once TBs are balanced, and disconnecting won't be necessary if the method you outlined below works: That is almost what I meant. I was thinking we could screw in the adjuster a few turns so that the right side will top out at WOT first, measure TPS voltage at WOT, with WOT activated not from the throttle but by moving the linkage, set to 4.86V(or whatever is deemed ideal), and then turn the adjuster screw out until the TPS voltage reading at WOT starts to drop and then return it in to the exact point where the Voltage returns. I am not sure if that is clear or all correct. I need to actually try it first... Maybe at the next rally I can sneak around at night while everyone is drinking and sleeping and change everyone's WOT TPS settings to 4.86V. If the next day nobody kills me it could be considered a success.

You are correct, if you add mV at the TPS. Wassp went from 550mV to 532mV and 1/2 airbypass to 1 full turn air bypass. The added bypass should require less throttle to maintain the proper idle, which could explain the drop from 550 to 532mV, or he could have dropped the throttle valves even more and added more mV, which would make it run richer, as you suggest. We just don't have enough information. I'd like to modify the instructions, and make them more complex to include a path for people to follow if they have one of these bikes. Unfortunately, like the Micha method, it may be a bit of hit or miss approach, but with instructions on how to re-aim and try again. For example, Tom M followed the pinned "how to" steps and ended up at 480mV at idle with air bypass screws closed, WOT 4.78V, and it running poorly. Doing it the Micha method on his bike required 100mV more at the fully closed baseline, and ~40mV more at WOT. They are presumably not both 100mV difference, because of inaccuracy at WOT in the Volt range, but mostly because the TPS is not completely linear. (see Jeff's chart to see how linear it is. The slopes look correct for the variation) It might make sense to go through the outlined steps, but limit the air bypass range to between one half and one full turn out, and to limit the mV range as adjusted using the left idle screw to 3.4-3.6 degrees (511mV-532mV). In order to keep the 1150rpm idle, the TPS might need adjusting, changing the 150mV baseline. I still wonder if 4.86V at WOT could be used as a the baseline. The problem is that it is not so accurate, and we still need to disconnect linkage, but I'll bet it would have worked for Tom, although it would be too rich and maybe 4.82V is fine???? It is interesting that MPH's website says, Anything below 4 degrees open ECU considers bike to be at idle (as seen by 'flag' on diagnostic program) Anything above 80.5 degrees open ECU considers bike to be at WOT (as seen by 'flag' on diagnostic program) 4 degrees is about 574mV and 80.5 degrees is about 4.75V. What the idle and WOT flags do is anybody's guess, but no doubt we don't want to tune out of that range. Also we don't want to exceed 5.00V at WOT. The mid point between the 4750mV flag and the maximum capability of the TPS is 4875mV According to my Tuneboy maps there is no 100% throttle row of cells, but an 84.56 degrees (a little above 4.86V)row of cells and the row below that is 60.73 degrees (about 4.2V). Another question is, which is more valuable, WOT with TBs connected, or disconnected??? I know I would want atleast 4.75V at WOT connected. WOT may also be a good way to balance the TBs....

Are you a professional photographer? Very nice composition. Of course having a pretty model does not hurt..

Thanks for the added details. Again going from half a turn to a full turn of bypass should make it run leaner and be more prone to pinging. I guess it was the syncing that have cleaned up the pinging. If the valve adjustment was made after the pinging, that could have helped too.

Maybe they got the gold OZ Ghezzi-Brian wheels and anodize them blue????

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to get that reading. Following the description of your process, that is as we predicted, but it boggles the mind that the tolerances could be that far off. I was kind of hoping there was an error in your process or your readings, but that confirms that all your readings were true. What still impresses me is that despite your fully closed being 100mV higher than mine, your WOT voltage is actually lower than mine!!!! I'd like to further explore the use of WOT to set the TPS voltage to 4.86V or whatever is deemed most ideal.

How strange. The theory has been that a difference of 532 vs. 550mV would not be perceptible as it only moves through a very small portion of a fuel cell. And for it to ping at 550mV but not 532mV is also counter intuitive. I am ready to give up and buy a bike with carbs

1/4 oz is not much. As others said, you need to measure the level, not the quantity. From the information you gave it sounds like the oil level could be too high, but I agree with the other speculators that if it went from riding perfect to too hard just from riding it, indicates mechanical failure. Another long shot speculative possibility is that a spacer was misplaced or omitted at the front wheel. Since you were a professional mechanic, and not a more words is better creative writer, like Ratchet, you probably neglected to tell us you covered most of the obvious, set the sag, measured the oil level not oil quantity, set the forks and axle up properly, leaving only mechanical failure or the Marzocchi's unique qualities. I know nothing about bushing failure, but this thread http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...%20jam&st=0 about the blue jam nut and how if it is set too far from the 22mm spec the damping adjusters will malfunction. So the height of the jam nut should not be used to set preload. Trimming PVC spacers is the preferred method for setting preload.

Nicely done. Truly Inspirational! I hope you can post more on the future modifications, especially the rear subframe and swingarm.

Of course Renato may weigh 100 pounds and he could have bought the bike from some guy who weighed 500 pounds and had them resprung to fit his fatness. But not likely. Ratchethack can even give good advice about fluid level, if you just take his hard ball pitches. Don't let him brush you back out of the batter's box. A common misconception is that one thinks the springs are too hard when in fact they are too soft and you are feeling the bottoming out action. The experience of most riders is that going to firmer than stock springs makes the front end more compliant with the bumps in the road. There have been cases where the adjusters don't work right after re-assembly, so it may be a good idea to make sure they are adjusting. Set to maximum damping and see if it gets worse. Another possibility when backing the compression adjusters off all the way is that the suspension could be packing down, as the rebound damping may be out of balance with the spring rate and the compression damping. Another possibility is the forks aren't straight and they are binding. All speculation that couldn't possibly help Renato, right?!? Maybe we should tell Renato, 'Get a Goldwing!' But I would recommend upgrading to the allegedly unreliably leaky Ohlins before telling him to do that.

True. For a Hawker Odyssey, 12.71V is about 90% charged, according to a chart here http://www.odysseybatteries.com/tech.htm I suppose if it is 20F, a 99% charged Hawker battery may read as low as 12.71 Volts. A weak battery can draw more current from the charging system and burn the charging fuse...a common event after not riding for long time. This may be how I cooked mine. But it can be a question of the chicken or the egg coming first. Bad connections, weak battery, failing regulator or alternator, they are all interdependent. I can only speculate that an old battery and or weak connections occur first more frequently than the other failures.

I'll get start on those pages this weekend...

less millivolts generally makes it run leaner. The 150mV reading is important because it establishes the baseline to the Air:Fuel Ratio. But if the butterfly valve does not seat properly it loses its usefulness. Setting to idle does set to true flow, but only at idle. At WOT and all the points close to WOT the 150mV theoretically is a better base line. At what throttle opening does idle become more important than baseline is anyone's guess and certainly varies from bike to bike. How many of us are even using an accurate tach to measure idle RPM?

A small price to pay. Good idea. I could also hook the bike up to bypass the ignition wire current at ~20,000V to the taint area of the saddle whenever the sidestand is down and engine is running But then again, I could end up being my own victim The dog collar sounds safer

Sorry! That is right, you mentioned that you zero'd out the PCIII. Thanks Tom! Not exactly the result I was hoping for, but your posting all the numbers gives clarity to why your bike would not tune from the non-Micha method. It is pretty clear that the difference between your idle position and your fully closed position is different than mine and other bikes. I'd have to check my numbers, by mine goes from fully closed 150mV to 521mV at about 1150RPM and about 1 turn out bypass and at WOT I think it reads 4.86V. Yours went from 150mV to 440mV at about 1150RPM and half turn out bypass and WOT reading 4.78V, and now probably now goes from maybe about roughly 200-250mV fully closed to 532mV at about the same 1150rpm and 1 turn out bypass and 4.82V at WOT!!!! We don't know what your fully closed number is now, but you had to increase the idle TPS millivoltage by 92mV from 440 to 532 with more bypass, which probably means the fully closed TPS probably increased about 100mV to 250mV while the WOT appears to have only increased by 40mV. Very interesting But Darn, it is getting more difficult to write instructions that will make every bike happy!!! Do we need to start at 150mV, weigh in the resulting idle TPS mV and WOT Voltage, and change by modifiers to create the perfect compromise which will vary depending on Ti ECU/regular ECU/regular pipes/ front crossover pipes????? And once it is set, we should probably note the fully closed TPS reading so that we can return to it. No wonder the various manuals kept changing the numbers and being vague!!!!

Those are excellent points. The Method Ryland, others, and I came up with should produce much more accurately reproducible results. But apparently not from one bike to another...

Did you wire in an ignition kill?

Hmmmm, I did not think about checking the oil, which is already a pain... Parking at certain hill angles will also prove threatening, as will people(usually kids) hopping on bike without permission. For every time I came back and found the bike in gear, there is a good chance the bike could have been knocked over. My V65 used to be a magnet for such activity. Good thing it also had a center stand.

Nice write up! Waiting with fish baited breath I had no success try to modify my seat. Gel got too hot, and filling in where gel was resulted in not enough padding.

Yep, that is the connector to the electric petcock that was replaced with the manual one shown.

I find it hard to believe that ALL of the below are TRUE: A: Guzzi chose a cheap piece of crap plastic and brass bit to save money. B: They did not foresee reliability problems with such crap as a tiny tweak of torque will break it. C: It provides inferior thermal properties to the brass unit that was used for years before they switched to the plastic and brass unit. Regarding A, if someone could show me a Fiat cross ref, I'd be convinced. Regarding B, Luigi ain't perfect, but somebody must have questioned such wisdom, especially after the tenth one broke on the assembly line!!!! Regarding C, The thermal sensor is likely designed for water cooled engines, not air cooled engines. If they wanted the sensor to get hot, they would have threaded the cylinder to match the sensor, not make or bulk buy some stupid adapter to space it away from the heat. Even the brass unit had cooling fins on it. Following the bean counter theory, no adapter would have saved more money than a brass/plastic/brass adapter. Also, the plastic helps reduce the affects of weather on the engine temperature reading. Still, I'll agree that there is a slow warm up condition that results in the engine running too rich as it warms, and that more direct conduction of heat from engine to sensor tip could be a good thing. I'd like to see a stronger insulated housing with a conductor going not to the housing the way the brass unit does, but to the sensor tip. But that is just my opinion and all are welcome to disagree.