raz

His Rec-Ignition seem to be pulled from his web site so I wonder if he stopped selling it? Google found the page though: http://www.jefferies-au.org/MyECU/MyIgn.html I doubt you can use the V11 sensor but it's definitely a better idea to contact him than to take my word for it

I don't think it's his but anyway I miss him, where did he go? And whoever owned that bike I hope managed better than it.

Dear God, is this my 30th post in this very thread I actually re-read the whole effin' thread from post one some week ago. It took a good while but I had time to kill Pretty interesting. Information is forgotten and repeated, or people change their minds completely without anyone (even themselves) noticing. The last thing may even have happened to me, I'm not really sure

Yes, I reckon a bigblock is too powerful for this project unless we want 100 MPG in 100 MPH Here is that thread you mentioned: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...0&hl=stoich I did experiment a little with very lean mixtures but I gave up early because a Guzzi 2-valve bigblock is about the worst candidate in the universe for such things. Maybe a 4-valve smallblock is a better option? I'm still keen on the idea of measuring CHT and EGT while [home-]tuning just for the hell of it. But I've yet to get a Round Tuit. The equipment is readily avaliable from the cart world.

Charles, I'm curious what rpm you are targetting for the engine and what speed you'd like at that rpm. It seems to me a Guzzi is not the best engine to make mpg records with, though like with tuning, getting relative enhancements is easy and maybe your fairing is most of the trick. My experience is you got to exceed 4000 rpm to get best mileage with my injected 1100. On the other hand, mpg is only my second or third priority so I haven't really experimented a lot with that in focus.

Bike Addicts Anonymous? My name is Raz. I'm a guzziholic.

gram-meters? That would be a unit of torque. I didn't expect you to make such uncool mistakes Ratch Other than that, ok, thank you, it is interesting. And wierd. I'm puzzled the oem ecu is so sensitive to exact head temperature, I can't see the reason. There is an easy to understand correlation between air temp and fuel mixture by weight, but I don't get why engine temp would need much attention, except for compensating for condensation at cold temps.

Which Conti? Are they good in rain too? How long do they last?

I like those as they don't require drilling the outlets for bolting. Have you tried it yourself? Anyone know a source in Europe?

Noone could have guess that about the temp sensor thread either Anyway, solid work. I'm looking forward to a 10,000 km report.

The V11 introduced the new 6-speed gearbox along with completely different ratio final gears in the bevel box - the gearbox has much lower speed at the output. Not much to choose from I'm afraid. The 5-speeds have more options, if you can source them. I believe most people that change ratio do it by replacing final gears. The most common ratios are 7/33 and later 8/33. Both of these are easily available, and has German (I think) aftermarket alternatives. The highest ratio I know have been used is 9/34 used by the 1000 Convert in late 70's and early 80's. Then there is the primary ratio in the gearbox. Since there are three shafts and the primary gear is also the third speed gear, I'm not sure it's sensible to try and alter that. But you could choose a whole box from a suitable bike. The tallest I know is the 1100 Sports, but there may be others. Some examples of original ratios: [font="Courier New"] highest [/font][font="Courier New"]Model primary gear final total[/font][font="Courier New"] V11 19/32 27/23 11/32 0.2396 1100Sport 17/23 26/19 8/33 0.2452 Centauro 17/23 26/20 8/33 0.2329 Cali II 17/21 28/21 7/33 0.2290 [/font] Then again I'm sure it's possible to use a V11 final gearset and a 5-speed box, for a very tall ratio... Maybe using some special driveshaft similar to the Convert one mentioned in the previous post. Maybe that's not even needed, I have no idea. Just to get a feel for the ratios: My Sporti makes 242 km/h at 8000 rpm, highest gear, 70 profile tyre. With final gearing from a Convert it would theoretically do 265 km/h and with V11 final gears it would be... 344 km/h Incidently, the 1100 Sport gearbox has straight gears, most other 5 speeds have helical. For a 100 Mpg bike that may be of benefit...

What fact is telling you this is because of the temp sensor, or even its corresponding table, at all? And not the standard fuel map, fuel trim, TPS, TB adjustment or something else. If your statement is correct, why does it only affect some bikes? Does any bike with OEM intake & exhaust have this problem? If you've got aftermarket aspiration stuff and have this problem, just what makes you think you don't have a fuel map problem? Nothing is telling me that this is because of the sensor or table or anything else. The inaccuracy is because of the goo. I mean if you have goo and experience lean issues, why do you presume it is because of the goo? What if the base map was too lean to begin with, but just within margins for not giving much problems? Put it this way: If you first add goo without getting problems, then replace your exhaust and end up with a too lean bike, would that still make you say the goo is the problem? Or would this make you say the exhaust caused the engine ro tun leaner than engineers planned? Is the order important here?

Contradiction in terms. The table tells the ECU how to react to different temperatures. Bodging the temperature input is bound to be counter productive. Altering the table is not, but first see below. What fact is telling you this is because of the temp sensor, or even its corresponding table, at all? And not the standard fuel map, fuel trim, TPS, TB adjustment or something else. If your statement is correct, why does it only affect some bikes? Does any bike with OEM intake & exhaust have this problem? If you've got aftermarket aspiration stuff and have this problem, just what makes you think you don't have a fuel map problem?

Yeah, how did we miss this?

That was a bait, right?

It burns slower than gas. Also, the original timing may be retarded at some points to reduce detonation and that won't be needed anymore. From http://running_on_alcohol.tripod.com/id26.html : "Other conditions being equal, the proper timing for an ethanol engine is five to eight degrees advanced from the optimum gasoline setting. But as you make changes described in this chapter, you will change factors that affect the proper timing. Improved manifold heating and increased compression ratio require retarding the timing. So does enriching the fuel-air ratio. With a moderate increase in compression ratio and manifold heating, ignition timing will be more like three to five degrees advanced from the ideal gasoline timing." Ideally you'd want to dial in ignition on a dyno, seeking best power.

You still mean separate the UJ from the shaft, don't you? Did you get that second hand one? I'll check mine this weekend and see if there is a tiny play like I recall.

Ethanol is also reported to quickly clog fuel filters previously used with gasoline, so it may be wise to replace the filter when switching to ethanol, or soon after.

Perfect Paul, thanks! I searched Stein Dinse but didn't find it. And they are 1.84€ a piece while the crappy Guzzi ones are 2.55€

I saw them for 10€ a piece. I need 12 of them... Should they be cheaper than that?

Maybe it's the picture but it looks too short. Is that 20 mm?

Why would it cause problems? The smaller figures give you better chance to tune injection timing at high rpm. Generally, you should advance ignition timing and raise CR. Cooling is better, oil dilution is worse. I know nothing but that is what I have grasped. Please tell us how it progresses!

No, you really can't do without a bridge resistor! If you just apply 5V to the thermistor, where would you take the reading? At the 5V side? I can assure it will read 5V absolutely regardless of temperature. The ground side? Well, it will just show zero volts... But if you put an 1,5 Kohm resistor in series with the resistor, you can measure the voltage where they connect, and that voltage will tell you a) a voltage U (it's right there on your DVM) a current I=(5-U)/1500 c) a resistance R=U/I d) a temperature. To get that you need to apply a formula like Steinhart-Hart with some coefficients relevant for this thermistor. Or you do it the quick'n'dirty way (and also Good Enough®) with a table like the one MyECU uses. The ADC column is just what decimal number the ADC will come up with that represents the voltage. For a 10 bit converter 0-5V, the formula is U/(5000/1024) where U is voltage in mV. It's just another representation of the mV column, with less resolution.

Thanks guys. OK, no stainless. And an ordinary 8.8 bolt is not strong enough? The OEM bolts seemed so soft I thought they were 8.8. Hell, I could swear they were made out of lead I did consider Ducati bolts too, maybe that is the easiest way to know they are the right type. And as noted they are cap head, 6 mm socket but lower height than usual. I'll probably go for that. Unless they cost several bucks a piece.

Is it OK to replace my front brake rotor bolts with stainless A2 grade ones? Or what should I pick? I recall reading somewhere stainless may be a bad idea due to lower tensile strength. I can tell the old ones were damn soft, half of them were totally ruined when removing them regardless of heat added. Anyway I'm thinking of using cap screws w/ 6 mm socket instead of the original button head 5 mm socket. Should be easier to remove next time. Besides, they are cheaper, look better and I don't think the added height (+3,7 mm) is an issue.