dlaing

Not true. I thought they might be contained and that I might use the containment as a mold, but there is indeed room for the rubber to expand. But there may be a good point that the torque deflection would have to be measured while in the containment of the cush housing, as there is some containment. Thanks!

Is "noticeably smoother" a good thing. If you put a softer spring on your shock absorber, you may get a smoother ride over the smooth bumps, but the bumps that will break your spine are the nasty unexpected potholes that bottom out the shock and move your tailbone closer to your skull. If you simply soften up your cush by drilling, you may get a smoother feel over the smooth normal shifts, but the shifts that will break your spline are the nasty unexpected shifts and aggressive clutch actions that make the front wheel come up or the rear wheel lock. Is this compressing the rubbers to a bottomed out state? I stuck one of the wedges in my door jam and started closing the door and watched as the rubber bushing wedge that is not chrome-alloy hard effortlessly mushed into a flattened out pancake. Without some sort of meter measuring movement in the cush housing, I ain't sold on the drilling. Or maybe someone can do the math to convert the torque at the cush to the torque measured on the dyno (about 60 foot pounds, although I get with clutch action you get the torque to momentarily be a bit higher). If the wheel base is about 58.66 inches and the front of the bike with rider weighs 250lbs and one can pop a wheelie, doesn't that mean that we can divide 58.66 by 12 and get roughly 5, and multiply 5 times the 250pounds we get about 1250 foot pounds of torque. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I think that would be like putting a wedge in the crook of a one foot lever and squashing down with about 208lbs of force. (1250 foot pounds spread over 6 wedges.(there are 12 wedges altogether, right?)) Assuming I got the math and theory right, it should be easy to test a wedge and see if the holes help. Any "holes" in this theory?

Which of these are correct: 1. Dampers dampen oscillations. 2. Dampeners dampen oscillations. 3. Dampers damp oscillations. 4. Dampeners damp oscillations. If I understand the definitions correctly then the answer is: Number 1, and the others are incorrect. But I think it is really nit-picking and hope that someday all four become correct. I kind of think 2 and 3 are more consistent. English is a bastardized language, and devolution is in full motion.

I did not know that any of these bikes had the vacuum regulators connected by the factory. Did these bikes have a different ECU part number? Did they have evaporation canisters? And were any of the bikes US models? Sorry if I missed these points in some other thread.

No, regrettably I have not signed up yet. I tried to call for an hour the first day, but then Todd said they had enough. I should have stayed on hold and ordered anyway. But it is not Todd's fault. I had plenty of time to call back once I understood that we needed to make our own reservation if more than a motorcycle was being parked on site. It is tough to reserve in advance when you don't know if you will have enough time or money. I needed a spot for my motor cycle and my wife with the Toyota. With fees for two people am I allowed a Toyota Rav4, a Guzzi, and a tent? Maybe we will motel it or do another camp ground. And yes I really want to do the track day.

But which makes you damper? Not sweating it because you used a damper that dampened the oscillations in what was just another sweeper with an uneasy weave, or Pissing in your drawers during a tank slapper because you did not use a damper? The phrase "Dead men tell no tales" comes to mind... In my humble opinion, I'll trade the light easy predictable handling of no damper for the security of a damper, regardless of the bike's rake and trail. I even liked friction dampers, but today's hydraulic ones are much better! Especially the HyperPro ones that protect more when the bars move faster.

I have had a near tank slapper after getting airborne from a dip in the road at 120 veglia MPH, and I am pretty sure the damper saved my life.

Interesting point! Looking forward to the results.

But I must add, if your damper is defective, by all means take it off and order one of them nice HyperPro ones.

Yes, his spirit lives, and spins a mean drill bit, making swiss cheese out of chrome-alloy hard pucks, selling it to the lined up suckers born every day. He's been doing it for years! PROOF that it works!!!!! LOL!!!! Sometimes he even advocates chucking out half the pucks!!!

Is that front or rear? Those are good front fork numbers for sport touring. For sport riding you probably want a firmer spring, but that is not bad. For the rear you would probably want both less laden and unladen sag. However this is a contentious issue and some believe front and rear should both be set to 15/30%

It is still only a theory that it makes the bike run better. To prove otherwise you would need a multigas dyno analysis across the entire map, both hooked and unhooked. The greatest vacuum and potential leanness occurs during high RPM deceleration. This would most likely cause increased popping during deceleration. It is common with a PCIII to increase richness at closed throttle to make it run better. The least vacuum occurs during WOT at low rpms. This would likely increase richness and probably cause it to fail emission testing. EDIT it will only make it relatively richer to other places on the map, not relative to the disconnected state. Thanks Raz! Did Guzzi change their mind? Did disconnecting it help them pass emission testing? Why didn't they just change the map in the ECU? Maybe they changed the map after they changed their mind? We don't know the answers. Until proven otherwise, it is simply all theory that the bike is designed to run better with it hooked to manifold.

Why not make them free? Isn't that part of the hazing ritual? FWIW, MGCycle advertises a set of chrome-alloy steel hard rubbers for $29.95++ I wonder if they have been sitting, petrifying, in a warehouse since the glory days of the V7Sport? Knowing the difference between MGCycle's price and Guzzi MSRP, they probably retail for about $57.23US. But I think you make a valid point that the "why bother" camp could be swayed if the price is low enough. Maybe you should produce the rubbers since you think you can get the price that low???? The check is in the mail.

Should we start a fund raiser? A happy Jaap is a happy forum!

Ship your bars to Slowkitty for an exchange! (assuming they are both the same type) ...and you might have to leave the rubber grips on.

But few have truly good maps. Many of the PCIII maps are simply mapped to one or two designated lambdas. When it rains the sensor will tell the map to grossly enrichen. In a traffic jam, the sensor just tells it to run leaner Altitude is under-compensated for at higher altitudes. Cold temperatures seem to be over-compensated for.(which is the primary point of this side-tracked discussion)

That sounds like a good idea to me! But it has the potential to be an onboard optimizer. For example if you want to flog it to keep up with your buddy on the Hayabusa, run it rich. Same if you are stuck in a traffic jam. And if you are droning down the highway for many miles, leaning it out could improve fuel efficiency. Caught in a rain storm, set it to lean. All done within sensible limitations, of course.

what a good deal (as long as shipping is under $20!) They even have the deluxe version for the same price! http://www.indysuperbike.com/customer/prod...5790&page=1 I should get one just in case my TwinMax ever dies. Thanks for the 411! EDIT I can't add it to the shopping cart!?! Maybe need to phone the order in??????

Heaven sounds like the EU, But Hell sounds like Southern California, except the cooks are Mexican.

Struggling with a homemade water manometer may require fans!!! I tried building one but it did not work very well. Be sure to reverse the left and right to make sure you are getting equal balance in each direction. As for using 2000 rpms. It will give you "good enough" results. In THE TPS thread, Mr. Bean was told by Moto International to balance at idle and at between 1800 and 2000rpm. I initially thought it was too low, but trying it I found that the result was very close to running it up to 4000rpm watching the variation and making compromise. But compromise is subjective. Lower rpm balance is more critical, and the balance varies in waves as you go through the rpms. The closer you are to idle, the more critical the balance becomes, so balancing at 2000 rpms makes more sense than at 3000 rpm. The transition from idle balance to balance at about 2000 RPM greatly effects smoothness of operation. If you get idle and 2000rpm right, your bike should ride well. This is one of the reasons to use the left idle set screw rather than the right, to keep the tension in the linkage so it does not slop transitioning from idle to throttle. As for the lack of performance at higher RPM. Did you do anything else? New spark plugs, but did not gap them? Forgot to cap off throttle body balancing taps? Did throttle cable come off the pully? Did you adjust the throttle position sensor, or just the idle to change the readout? What did you set the air bypass screws to? As Ratchet said, your idle is a little low. It should be about 1150 rpm, giving you a TPS reading of about 521mV. The 150mV TPS reading is done with throttle linkage disconnected, "choke" not interfering, and right set screw not interfering with the butterfly valve completely closing. Yours might be off?????, but considering you got 1000 rpm at 495mV, you probably aren't far from 150mV??? Still it might be a good idea to get it perfect.

That is normal. Try balancing at 2000RPM instead of 3000. This will give you more time before it gets too hot. Like Ratchet said, use fans, or if that is not practical take your time and do it one minute on, five minutes off to cool down. Once you get the hang of it, you can balance it fast enough to avoid over-heating. Did you follow these incredibly amazing TPS instructions? http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12204

I don't think oil is getting pumped by the sensor adapter. I recall it being oil free. I think it is simply measuring the temperature of the cylinder. I could be wrong. Anybody know for sure? Is there a market for a tiny windshield to help maintain a more accurate temperature? FWIW I found this on an MV Agusta site. http://www.mvagusta.net/forum/showthread.p...2228&page=3 The Ohms match our bike almost identically. The voltage readings should be close enough to test the sensor, roughly....I could not find a photo of an MV Agusta sensor, but the Ducati 748, 916, 996, etc., sensors look like they MIGHT work in our bikes. I checked a Ducati manual and the numbers correspond correctly, although they only measure up to 80C and not 125C, presumably because the Ducs are water cooled. I could not find a manual for an air cooled Ducati... Should we move these posts to a new thread?

With math and analytical skills like yours...it is a small wonder we always find ourselves in disagreement. Last I checked ceramic bearings were going for about double the price of the standard SKF and saved a lot more than .02 ounces, and my $40 aerospace alloy bearing spacer probably saved over three ounces over OEM and maybe six ounces over what some were recommending to replace the overly short stock bearing spacer. How are your drilled and lubed "chrome-moly" hard cush bushings doing old chum?