al_roethlisberger

http://funwavs.com/wavfile.php?quote=261&sound=111

....that's a good one. You're our own Slim Whitman it seems P.S. It rides just fine, as I often have 2 of the same part, one on the bike, one getting "modified"

On Guzzitech: Rich Maund's V11 Sport Peg Replacement

FYI: Enzo has a 2000 V11 Sport, which has different forks than the stock Marz on the 2003 and later bikes. The 2003+ bikes have rebound(or maybe it's compression? I forget.) but not both, and preload adjustment only AFAIK. On the earlier bikes(2002 and ealier Marz) the forks have both rebound and compression damping, but rebound adjustment is on the right, and compression is on the left, and no preload... as pictured below. Interesting combination and change of features eh? Other differences in the 2003 forks are an increase to 43mm from 40mm, and a larger hollow 25mm axle(up from 20mm solid). So in Enzo's case, he can adjust both rebound and compression, not just rebound as on your 2003. Obviously these specs do not apply to the Ohlin forks, the only change I'm aware of on them is going from the solid screw-in axle to the newer hollow one in 2004. Great to hear that your shifting problem turned out to be the least complicated option al

I have no idea..... maybe ping Moto Italiano?? al

It seems he has the aluminum ones The aluminum cans that MG used to sell as "performance pipes" a couple years back before they came out with the new Ti/ECU kit, were simply rebadged(unmarked other than the off-road admonishion) aluminum Mistrals, except they had a nice big ugly "for off road use only" metal badge riveted on the side This apparently is what he is trying to get the rivets out of, and what I remember Rich Maund making nice rolled aluminum "Guzzi" plates to replace on his 01 Sport. al

I'm going to guess if they are the Mistals with the "off road use only" tags, they are the aluminum ones Moto Guzzi used to sell(still does??) as their "performance cans" I could be wrong though of course al

...not flush with the can , grind the shaft of the pop-rivet smooth with the surface of the rivet(if it sticks up). Being a pop rivet, it should pop off below the rivet though. al

Rich Maund replaced his with some custom made aluminum plates with an engraved eagle he made. If you don't want to do this, you could certainly just pop some rivets and grind them off flush al

Try these, these guys are great, and the gaskets are super: http://www.realgaskets.com/files/motorcycle.htm They want to also make a oil-pan gasket, but AFAIK just haven't done so. They were waiting for someone to send them a paper one to copy. al

BTW, the answer to the question(s) posed in this thread are here: http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2459 al

I'm sure you are correct, and again, I don't mean to disparage FBF's efforts or honesty. Several people here have installed or ridden an FBF piston equipped bike with very satisfactory results. And of course, the airbox lid eliminator is very popular I'd really love to see most of the more popular modifications tested in a vacuum on a stock bike by themselves, back to back with other similar products, whether that be pistons, intake mods, crossovers, etc.... as that would help many people figure out what works best for their needs. However, 95rwhp up from 75ish with really nothing more than some slipons and pistons seems a bit optimistic... and saying they could get 140rwhp out of one, well.... Anyway, I'm sure it could be in the 90rwhp range easily, and who knows it could be indeed a true 95rwhp bike.... I'm just a bit incredulous, but maybe that's just me John has about 90rwhp without new slugs, so who knows. But then again, he's done a lot to that engine as well... http://www.v11lemans.com/forums/index.php?...ic=910&hl=rosso But knowing how Dynos can vary grossly, when we have such "low output" bikes that we are counting 3-5hp differences as significant(as opposed to 100+ rwhp bikes that count 10hp as significant), I always put my "helmet of incredulity" upon my brow I'm just offering some thought on the issue. al

...I'd suspect probably not enough backpressure from that new exhaust system Heh, just kidding But seriously, unfortunately I have no idea. But what does the Moto International bunch say? I assume that is where you had the rebuild done? I hope this turns out to be a minor "reassembly issue" verus something else. In theory, the same parts, just better heat treated, were put back in your tranny when rebuilt if I recall what gets replaced. So in theory, nothing mechanically has changed Let us know what they say. Here's hoping they didn't leave a sponge inside when they stitched her up al

Heh, you should see the next few minutes of the video and what happens next But yep, you are correct in regards to the risk of messing with any tank, especially these new poly units, and hence my trepidation with this project. But I think I've made my decision, and it's not to modify the bottom of the tank. After doing some measuring and calculating using the old airbox lid as a guide, the best possible gain by "welding" on a bottom is about half a gallon(US). Just looking at the cavity under the tank, it looks like one could add a lot more, but by putting the old airbox up under there and measuring clearances, there really isn't a lot of room above the spine, that also provides a good "purchase" on the tank for this modification to weld to. While half a gallon is significant, even with welding a box under the tank and tapping through the sides of the hump up under the tank, the saddlebag shape of tank would still put most of the "trapped" fuel below this modification... still "trapping" fuel.... although it admittedly would now be a bit easier to "slosh" over Anyway, I don't think the benefit outweighs the risk at this time, and this is after talking to several plastic guys that basically said: "...uhhh, well yeah, I'm pretty sure we could weld it, but it'll probably separate again." I don't want that eating in the back of my mind over a long ride. So if I pursue this further, I may just look for a small self contained tank that will fit where the filter and pump had been above the spine, and plumb it into the tank somehow. Who knows, but for now I think that unless one has a metal tank fabricated, or as JRT suggested have a whole new plastic tank made from scratch, this modification may offer too much risk for a minor gain... too bad I may also still put a tap into the tank for a balance tube, but that's pretty easy. But on a positive note, the 2003 tank as stock fits fine! al

Yeah, Victor(ex LeMans owner, and FBF employee) sent this arti-visement around to various mailing lists last Fall It's a very interesting article to be sure though, and after receiving it, I was curious about some points in the article and how they compared with the valves I installed from Mike Rich(TiN coated), and his pistons I was about to buy. The following was Mike's response: Of course, one has to recognize that FBF and Mike are in a somewhat competitive arrangement, so one should take both perspectives with their relative "grain of salt" However, given Mike's reputation in the "go fast" Guzzi community, I tend to trust his perspective. Of course, to be fair, FBF has quite a positive reputation in the Ducati crowd as well, so Anyway, just another perspective, especially when one realizes that this is more than just an objective article, and some degree of promotion. From what I understand, TLM has also put together a 100rwhp Sport, but the investment was very high. al p.s. For those interested, Mike doesn't recommend anything higher than 10.5/1(true) compression for the street, and really recommends that one keep around 10 to avoid detonation(pinging) issues. Although the FBF pistons are marketed as 11/1, he is quite certain that given the notoriously overstated compression ratios for the stock pistons/chamber, that the FBF units are much less than advertised. No big deal, but important to realize. The reason higher comp ratios aren't recommended is the stock MG V11 combustion chamber is fraught with "hot spots" and a poor squish band implementation that enhances detonation problems. Mike's pistons are designed to address both of these issues, and also remove the domed OEM piston shadow effect, thus negating the need for dual-plugging(wish I had known that before ). Anyway, just good alternative info to know... especially since Mike doesn't advertise in any way other than his sponsorship for the Land Speed Record Guzzi guys/gals(www.cookedgoose.org) he does work for, and word of mouth. He couldn't keep up anyway if his work were more widely known.... it takes him weeks to get to each job as it is

...naw, they are just brass nuts embedded in the rubber, like the various bushings/isolators on the bike. They'll "twist" quite a bit before breaking loose. al

I personally like the non-crossover 2002 and earlier exhausts on the V11 Sports. I think it's a cleaner solution aesthetically on the front of the engine, but that's just me I'm sure others think the 2003+ with the crossover however is just spiffy, and that's OK as well Regarding performance, it may help a bit, but I doubt it's dramatic on it's own. Any significant benefit is probably gained in combination with the other changes as of '03. I suspect similar or greater results can be gained by tinkering elsewhere on the older bikes But I'm very happy to see this solution posted, as I know others have asked about it before, and other than recommendations to just "shim it"... we didn't have anything so apparently well sorted as this. BTW, I wouldn't be too worried about the heat expansion issues. I could be wrong of course, as I haven't personally tested this modification, but it looks reasonable and safe to me. Excellent work al

OK, so I just got back from the plastic fabricators.... and it's a mixed bag. They say they can weld material to the bottom of the tank to expand capacity, but one concern(also expressed by other shops) is that they cannot get inside the tank to weld both sides of the seam. Also, they have chopped/welded plastic tanks for moto-cross bikes with poor success. He said they usually split over time. Of course, he also pointed out that those tanks were thinner, and actually cut-down, and very abused.... soooooo We discussed reinforcing the welded panes various ways by using blocks/strips at the junction, so we'd have at least 2 welds sealing each seam, and he thought that would be quite strong and durable. So, I'll go out tonight and measure just how much volume I can actually get out from under the tank with this modification.... see if it's worth doing(about $100), and think on it some more. al

BTW for those in the SF Bay area and interested, this bike(the V11 Sport with Bubs) is up at "Riders Choice Used Bike Warehouse" here in San Jose. I was just killing some time, "window shopping", and noticed it sitting amongst the various Ducatis. The Bubs look nice, and are actually a pretty interesting solution for those not thrilled with the big cans on the rear of the Sport. I'm not so certain that they would look as good on a LeMans though, as they may make the front end look even "heavier".... unbalanced Maybe Jaap could photo-chop them onto a LeMans for anyone interested. One note though, on this bike, the right exhaust megaphone clearly hits the plastic cover on the swingarm. I might clear if the cover/hugger were removed, or if some washers, or just brute force bending, were used to increase clearance a bit. Also, the finish, like all chrome finishes..... was rapidly bluing, and right on the verge of rusting. I think a chrome finish for this might be a mistake, so perhaps one would want to ceramic coat them. But all in all, they looked fine for the Sport's lines. As an aside, there was also a red Bassa there, with a matching single wheel trailer, for about $5k. It only had 8k miles, but looked a bit rough, like it had been parked in the Sun a lot. The Sport above only has around 3500, and looked similarly "faded", but didn't have a price tag. al

...just grab the rubber isolator for the crossover in the middle with some channel locks, and then wrench on the bolts on the end. They'll come out. You might soak them in WD-40 or penetrating oil overnight if not. But don't ride the bike too long without the crossover support. As you've no doubt noticed, the crossover is quite heavy, and you might break/crack the exhaust somewhere without that support. Congrats on the bike, and glad to see you are having fun "tinkering" with it al

Several of us have done various dyno runs.... I think I'm up to four now ... but as mentioned above, it's rare that someone had the time or money to get a run that singled out the one variable of switching from the airbox to the pods. So I don't know the question for sure, although I believe there is a dyno run or two linked from Guzzitech that does compare it as close as I've seen, only throwing exhaust mods into the mix. I suspect though that it's more form than function. Maybe there's a little power to be gained, especially when compared to a bone stock airbox(versus an airbox lid eliminator, which seems to work well too), but I doubt it is anything dramatic honestly. I liked my conversion mostly because I felt like the airbox cluttered things up too much under the tank, especially in regards to cool airflow around the engine, and it was in the way of my various fuel-pump relocation experiments ...so OUT IT CAME! ... and hey, to even "muddy up the waters further" in regard to form over function, I even kept my sidecovers(having to make a custom frame to support them) over my pods, as I like the look of the covers better Hrmm, I'm sure that didn't help at all did it

Does he think it could be done "reliably" given the tank material? That's my concern. I'm taking my tank down to a reputable plastics fabrication shop in a few minutes to have them give me their opinion. I've already had one shop give me their over the phone, and they didn't recommend it, and the shop I'm taking it to isn't too optimistic... as it depends on the tank material. We'll see what these guys say, and I'll post the results. al P.S. Have many of you ever wondered how heavy a full tank of gas is? Well, after all this "capacity testing" and lugging around full tanks of gas... I didn't weigh it, but lemme tell ya... I can't believe how heavy a full ~6 gallon tank of gas is With this in mind, since most new bikes are fuel injected and or have fuel pumps not requiring a gravity feed, it's interesting that more new bikes don't have specially engineered/hidden tanks as low in the frame as possible to lower the CoG. This weight "up high" really makes a difference in handling when full. Buell has the right idea

I spoke with the man. Goes like this: The boss holding the pawl arm spring should be 15mm. Some are 16mm. Some outside manuf supplied to wrong dimesions. Only in some bikes....the ones with the breaking springs. I measured mine at 16.3mm. What he says makes sense to me. The spring gets coilbound on the boss & can't move - stressing the 90 bend. I've ordered a pawl arm w correct size boss. I hope this is the answer. If it is - I'll buy the man a beer or several. But couldn't Guzzi have sorted it? Thanks to sdkfz11 for info, In hope, KB This is excellent news.... so I wonder if it were just a small "batch" and even not all 2002s are affected? This seems on one hand to be a relativley common problem, but on the other not so common in that it doesn't seem to affect even all 2002 bikes I wonder if one couldn't just grind/file down the boss by hand a bit if it is too large, as opposed to trying to get another? After all, it's only ~1mm it sounds like, and I'm sure it doesn't have to be perrrrrfectly round eh?? al

Here is what Mike Rich had to say regarding the various coatings, and about the current availability of his pistons: Mike's pistons are $299 I'll be ordering my pistons from him "any day now" I guess, as soon as MGNA and the dealer decide to actually get my engine case swap going

....which bike did you take? BTW, like my 2 previous visits, were you the only "late model" Guzzi in attendance In all my previous visits, the newest bike was an 80's LeMans, and then they just got "older" after that al