dlaing

If you won't get with the 21st century, why not at least get with the 20th century and use Maxi-Pads?

How about CRASHED Silver Y2K V11S, due to lowside due to grease on rear wheel from following recommendations of forum members. The following parts are now on eBay Mistral carbons, BMC filter, ElectroSport regulator, GEI relays ?, Odyssey battery, Corbin saddle, ConvertiBARS, Pro Grip 737, Ohlins forks from Cafe Sport, Penske shock, Pazzo levers, Napoleon mirrors, Brembo 7850 Calipers, Galfer brake lines, PCIII serial, TuneBoy BTW my splines look marvelous. I wish I could say I could detect cush just by riding. It feels cushy, but it may be only wishful thinking. I find it difficult to believe the forces are so great they can damage the spines yet are so weak they can't break the lock of little oxidation.

If anyone has tried the HyperPro Rising Rate rear shock spring, I would like to hear the results. If Sag and rider weight are know, that would be helpful. Thanks in advance!

I think the class limits the bikes by cooling method, use of push rods, displacement, number of cylinders, number of valves, amount of fairing, and there are a bunch of other rules. Could be a vintage class, too. Your bike has the advantage of overhead cams, liquid cooling and multi-valves, so it would not make the class due to at least three reasons. In stock configuration, I'll bet your bike would be lucky to break 175MPH at Bonneville. But it probably would not take much to have it break 180mph.

Aaaaargh! Technical problems postpone the endeavor. Discussion here: http://socal-guzzi.com/PHPBB/viewtopic.php...&highlight=

Here is a table from Jeff Brannen showing the dual linearity His description of it is here http://www.guzzitech.com/HD-TPS-Jeff_B.html Jeff also made interesting posts here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...=2410&st=15 I agree with him on everything except for his not using air screws for balance.

Whatever happened to "Bob's your uncle"? They don't have to move exactly the same. The one that was sticking may need to get some use as it may have been stuck for quite a while. You did clean it, right? If the rotors get too hot to touch after a five minute ride with no rear brake use, remove caliber and pop out the piston that sticks more. Clean it and the seal very well, lube them with brake fluid, put it back to together and Bob's your uncle.... If not, I'll bet a new caliper from http://www.guzzitech.com is probably under $100.

The first map should represent most of our bikes. the second map is the Titanium muffler kit ECU map.

The recommended idle and TPS sound good to me. Please cast it in plaster, for now But.... Air bypass screw adjustment effects a few things: It effects the mV to RPM relationship at idle. I believe it has a very slight effect on mixture at idle, but I don't think it has as much effect as a similar screw does with carburetors. I believe one should not worry about its effect on mixture. The effect on mixture when decelerating is more dependent on idle RPM setting than air bypass or TPS settings. Air bypass effects balance at idle and can and should be used to balance at idle. (Some disagree. Do we need to sway them? or need to be swayed by them???) Balancing with bypass screws is more forgiving at about 3/4 turns out than at 1/4 turn out. I would favor a minimum air bypass screw setting of 1/2 turn and the lagging cylinder should have air bypass increased to what ever is need to balance at idle, after cruising balance has been achieved. I'd like to comment more about the MPH chart on mV to degrees relationship, but I need more time for that, including time in garage with TuneBoy

Feel free to take what you will from my website. All the info is stolen, mostly from here... I am apparently to busy fighting with people here to help you with your website, or update mine, or fix my bike, or ride my bike There are a few other good websites, as well as this site's FAQs that I am sure need more content. A wiki could be cool though!

Sounds good to me. FWIW mine is set to just under 150mV, I seem to recall 148mV. At idle I think it is just under 1200RPM, I should verify with computer, and mV at idle is 527. Left air screw is one half turn and right is nearly one full turn. It could be running better, so I am NOT suggesting these settings are a panacea. But this is the closest I have ever gotten to 150mV, so I don't want to mess with it.

I don't understand why you would be certain of that conclusion. I can understand why a start setting lower than 150mV would of course read lower than the 525mV at 1050 RPMs with airbypass screws out 1 full turn Until I read Mr. Bean's post I always assumed 3.6 degrees would equal ~525mV, regardless of whether TPS was initially set to 100 or 200mV. I think if was set to 0mV it would run like crap. Finding out that 3.6 degrees does not always correspond to ~525mV has surely thrown my world of understanding upside down. MUST VERIFY! I agree. I only got wrapped around it because I thought Mr. Bean's 485mV/3.6° correlation indicated that the range of acceptable mV at idle was lower than what I had been led to believe from MPH's charts. Now, I am more perplexed than ever. I thought we were on route to a simple, clear, and definitive set of tune-up instructions. Still I think Ryland's instructions may still be very close to ideal, and just needs some polishing as I suspect the degrees open can safely and effectively be ignored by all but the cheese heads with computers hooked up to their bikes. I agree.

Hmmmmm....I wonder what your base TPS is set to now. And I wonder if the ECU flags the zero start to always be 3.6°, regardless of mV???? If I get a round tuit, I mess with my currently near perfect settings, just to find out

Jack, I was never disagreeing with you. But actually, I am not at all sure we are in agreement, because now I really don't understand why Mr. Bean got different numbers. What is a "zero start setting"? Does that mean that the ECU assumes that when you turn the key on you are at idle and it marks the map there at 3.6°? If so, that makes setting it to 3.6°±0.5 kind of useless, and doing it by millivolts would make more sense. Also, I still don't understand why one even bothers with an at idle TPS reading. If you set TPS to 150±15mV and then set the idle to 1000-1200RPM with bypass screws out about 1/2 turn, you should be good to go. Why bother with 3.6°±0.5 or even 525mV±100mV at idle? It should lie within that range anyway, assuming you set TPS to 150±15mV and then set the idle to 1000-1200RPM with bypass screws out about 1/2 turn and started the ECU with throttle backed off. Right? But then in order to get bike to run right, Mr. Bean HAD to do it to 3.6°, so this leaves me very confused. Feel free to keep disagreeing...

JRT's friend (father-in-law???)Bob made a few of these to Jason's spec. It took ten forum pages to arrive at those numbers...and we are still not sure they are ideal or if wheels vary throughout production. But I bought one and it is holding up great.

You just want them to give you the superchargers to put on your Solex....sly!!!

I am happy to find my TPS hanging in nicely where set at 527mV which does in fact correspond to 3.6°. At WOT it is 4.87V which corresponds to 85.5° So, I suspect Mr. Bean or his meter was mistaken. I think Ryland should redo his instructions to recommend 525mV. NOTE I used TuneBoy and not TechnoResearch nor AxeONE This does not mean that 485mV is wrong. And it not being wrong does not mean my 527 is wrong. The more critical number is still the 150±15mV Although from now on I may just set it to 4.87V at WOT...although I just measured that with linkage connected, so it may be WRONG I'll have to measure the WOT TPS V more carefully. The manual suggests that at idle the throttle should be open 3.6°±0.5 which is 3.1 to 4.1° which according to MPH's chart corresponds to, whatever...you go do the math, but the point is that at 3.1° the mV will be will below 485mV and still tuned to spec...but not necessarily tuned well. Here is an excerpt from the the MPH chart DEGREES VOLTS 2002 California Stone 3.4 0.501 3.6 0.524 3.9 0.567 4.1 0.579 4.8 0.657 84.4 4.86V

That MPH page only show the 3.6° spec for the V11, not the corresponding mV TPS reading. Here is the source thread that contains Mr. Beans correlation of 3.6° to 485mV http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11946 I have not verified Mr. Bean's claim. Since you seem "at it again", asking so politely, I'll go out to the garage now and verify.

Motoman is also a promoter of high velocity intake porting http://www.mototuneusa.com/think_fast.htm Too bad his website looks like regurgitated spam

The PROPER fix for the tank suck problem is to orient the tip over valve so that it is not closed when the bike is upright. So no crash and burn syndrome, and then Bob is your uncle.

The MPH chart is for a California Stone. My quoted error of .485V (should have been 4.85V) is coincidental and may have been subconsciously driven by the considered idle target of 485mV. Todd Eagan at Guzzitech has been setting the TPS up to higher than 500mV prior to tuninglink dyno sessions for a long time, probably basing it on the MPH Cali Stone numbers. I think most people on the list, myself included, were doing the same. Docc also noted that his bike runs better at a setting much higher than 485mV But as we may have only recently learned from Mr. Bean, Moto International and others, the numbers may in fact be lower than the Cali Stone chart indicates.

Yes, and air pressure and air temperature. You would think so, but take a look at what happens at idle, presumably at 3.? degrees which correlates to somewhere between 1.99 and 4.18. Notice what happens, or rather what does not happen, as RPMs go from 900 to 1300. EDIT also note, that increasing the TPS won't do much for idle richness. US idle CO trim is pretty lean. 1.9% World idle CO trim a lot richer. 3-5% http://www.mphcycles.com/Technical/Technical2.htm Ideally we all have Axeone or Motorbike Diagnostic Software to reset the trim and a CO meter That makes sense. But still you don't want your idle to be too lean.

I drilled holes in my plastic dipstick. You need an absorbant rag to get the oil out of holes before dipping, but the result is very positive if the oil reaches the level of the hole(s)

I believe the idle mixture (air bypass) screws should be used for final TB balancing at idle. I suppose we could scrap the whole at idle TPS measuring scheme. The correct RPM should be good enough, and TPS should be set to the absolute limit of the throttle body butterfly valves. Either fully open or fully closed. Throttle bodies should be balanced first at 2000-3000 RPM, IMHO idle should be set initially with bypass screws at a half turn out and then if the idle balance is off, tweak the difference with the air bypass screws. I think it is better to only use the left set screw and balance the idle with the air bypass screws, although I have used the right set screw to balance the idle, but I now think it is a mistake. At idle the ECU controls how much fuel goes to each cylinder. For tuning purposes there is no enrichment screw. We only have control of what balance of air is entering through balancing butterfly valves and bypass screws. Using a vacuum meter we can reasonably assume that if we are balanced, the mixture is also balanced. Ideally the throttle bodies balance evenly from idle to 3000 RPM and the air screws are each opened 1/2 turn, but realistically the balance is not always even and the bypass screws can and should be used, IMHO, until proven otherwise. However, if you can balance the TBs and keep the air bypass screws out to the same setting, fantastic! Should the amount of air bypass be determined by the difference between a set TPS reading of 485mV and a desired idle? I suspect this is what Brian is most concerned about. I am not positive, but if TPS is set to 150mV and butterfly valves are opened till it reaches 485mV (or whatever) and the bike is holding an idle, then opening the air bypass screws up to get 1100 RPM will PROBABLY have an excellent result, but it also may lead to overly lean conditions or even overly rich conditions Interesting I figured it had something to with how the ECU, Coils, and/or engine positions sensor?????????

I would have to verify the following with a repeated test, but I found no difference in TPS voltage with charger on or off, and I found that at running idle it was around 10-20mV higher, and seemed inconsistent. Also, I found that trying to keep the idle steady, running mostly off of the left cylinder, was a pain. I think the only recommendation for testing the 150mV reading while running comes from Will Creedon/Carl Allison and was likely the first available technique to be mentioned on this forum and was likely based on experience with V1100 five speeds, where it was likely more critical.