al_roethlisberger

No worries Nemo , but all the forums(other than the Admin and FAQ sections) are completely interactive We just try to encourage posts in those sections geared towards a certain type of topic to make it easier for folks to find information. Good luck on your modifications al

Sounds good, and yes, your friend will have to install the Power Commander software in his laptop PC before he can open and upload the map to the PCIII al P.S. Jaap, can we move this thread to the "Technical Topics" section? A couple of the Capn's other previous threads about air-filters, suspension, et al may also make more sense in that section when people are looking for similar topics

Yep, the Scura/Rosso Corsa forks are different, and of the old style Ohlins OEM forks that use the solid "screw-in" axle(like on the Marzocchi forks) as Mike Stewart described a few posts back. Also, the specs on the Scura Ohlins that I just looked up specify a 40mm fork. This new fork is 43mm. That would certainly affect volumetric specification differences I'm sure. But yeah, bottom line.... these are different forks than on the Scura/Rosso, so I would assume different specs al

Hrmmm, that's actually not too bad Paul. Do they weigh less as well? Personally I don't think I would spring for them right now though, as I've got all the other projects, home and bike, to tie-up first. But this might be a nice, albeit probably unnecessary, upgrade next Spring though So, back on topic... I heard from Ohlins about the FG313: ...so it indeed seems to be the current Guzzi OEM fork, as pictured on the Cafe Sport. Link to Ohlins FG43 R&T Fork Page FG43 Owners Manual in PDF Format Mystery solved! al

Lex, FBF sells several kits for Ducs, etc... so the photo may be for another bike If I recall correctly, the kit they sell for the V11 has a single bolt location/kit front and aft to fit the stock airbox just fine. All V11 Sport/LeMans air-boxes seem to be pretty consistent so far, unlike many other things Guzzi al

Paul, It's not that cutting holes is ineffective(although other prior to your feedback, I haven't good or ill either way...) ...however since there are several methods and aftermarket kits to allow the air-box lid to be removed "cleanly" and expose the stock air-filter even more fully to the atmosphere, while preserving the OEM part, cutting holes seems like a less desireable option. However, to your point, yes, cutting some holes is a simple operation and "free" al

Ahh, that looks like them Perhaps these are the OEM Guzzi forks for that bike then BTW, I am really surprised how light the new axle is. And when I took it out of the package, it simply looked waaaay too big! But it fit just fine. Just an illusion So what constitutes "cheap" for the 4-pad calipers you are talking about? al

...interesting comments on the crankcase vent tube. When I went to pods, everyone I've talked to said to just run the vent line down under the bike, which is what I've done. And it does "mist" a bit occassionally. I actually "teed" it in with the gas vent tube using a "Y" connector such that either fluid wouldn't/can't travel back up, and they both vent to one larger diameter tube under the transmission. I don't think this should be a problem? Regarding the air-temp sensor, yep... I just zip-tied it back near the pods and covered it with a short piece of hose to shield it a bit from debris, etc. al

Hi Cap'n, Just to add to the chorus, I would *NOT* cut your stock lid. There are too many options out there to get the same results in a reversible and non-destructive fashion. As mentioned FBF has an airbox lid eliminator kit for the V11, which even includes a performance filter: Fast by Ferracci Air Filter Kits Always love to help, and questions are always more than welcome But a suggestion: Many of the questions you've asked recently have been covered in depth, or at least touched upon, in a variety of threads on the Forum. I don't mean to sound as if I'm discouraging your posting But the "search" function works quite well, and several topics such as this very one are the "Top 40" of the Technical Topics Section. Drop in there and just browse around. I'm sure you'll find lots of interesting topics to ask questions about, or contribute to. Most of the technical discussions of this type are already there. Also, specific to your questions, the Forum Intake Kit and Filter FAQ has links to several of these topics and information. I don't recall off-hand which of the short conical filters are the best fit for mounting directly to the velocity tubes, but for my application the pods I have are the newer models that have the "intake runner" already integral to the pod, as opposed to older pods that were simply cannister/cylinders that clamped onto the intake velocity tubes. These filters have a about a 4 inch "runner" already molded into the filter, and have the runner angled such that the filter can be appropriately angled and adjusted to fit correctly by simply rotating the filter around. The part number is: RU 1780 You can see photos of them mounted in the "Pods vs Lid" thread... Hope that all helps al

If I recall, the springs as delivered were .95Kg(I think I have the nomenclature for the rate correct, I'm going from memory), so they probably would have been passable for my weight. But based upon my weight with the bike's, he recommended a 1.05 spring. Since Ohlins doesn't make a 1.05, he put a 1.00 and 1.10 in each leg. I must have made an face, as he quickly added that this is perfectly normal to have slightly different rates in either leg, and that many of the race bikes he prepares run this setup to get the right average rate. He assured me that the axle can take that extra ~20lbs of stress and that it wouldn't adversely affect performance, and instead would in fact deliver the correct for my weight 1.05 rate. I didn't have any revalving done, just springs replaced and oil-level checked/replaced. Lindemann's opinion was that the stock Ohlins valving would probably be more than fine for my style of riding. If not, they can tune it accordingly, but that would be a few more hundred $$. So I'll try this first. Agreed on the aftermarket vs. OEM assumption. I've also heard from various folks that the aftermarket R&T forks almost always have removeable brake mounts. As mentioned in the post above, the model is FG313, and I've got a note in to Ohlins asking them for which bike these bikes are the original application suspenders. Also after getting the forks back and letting the nicks "sink in" ... I agree that the few little blemishes aren't noticeable to worry about. I don't think anyone else will notice. As I mentioned, I am a bit "anal" , especially after spending $1300 ... and is probably why I noticed at all. ...can't wait to get them installed al

Received my Ducati 999 axle/nut/washer from Fast by Ferracci today, and it fits the forks perfectly. I'll probably try to get the forks installed not this, but next weekend as soon as I get the additional bearing, and middle spacer milled. The fork model is Ohlins FG313 I'm trying to find out from Ohlins what bike this fork was originally sold to be installed upon, either aftermarket or OEM. Below are the part numbers for the axle again, and current(9/2003) pricing from FBF. I received the parts in about 4 days(I sure wish MG were this efficient ) 81910431A FRONT WHEEL SHAFT 999 $82.50 74810141A WHEEL PIN NU $8.83 800070119 WASHER $1.48 Thanks Victor! al

Glad to hear the Throttlemeister worked out well for you I've really enjoyed mine, and was extremely satisfied with the quality of the product! Here are the two Forum threads on the subject: Forum Throttlemeister Thread Another Forum Throttlemeister Thread al

...I got a photocopied Service Manual from a shop down in SoCal, but can't recall the name. It's marginally useful, but isn't very detailed. But bottom line, Guzziology is better. Go to Amazon and get the current version. The engines and various bits haven't really changed in years, and Guzziology gets updated fairly regularly al

Buell uses the same exact mirrors, turn signals, and various other "parts bin" parts on their current XB faired bikes as our LeMans/Sports. If the mirrors are as cheap as the turn signals are, your local Buell/HD dealer is a great resource. al

Yep, the track/maintenance schools I've attended recommend the ~1/3 sag for all types of bikes. True the courses were "generic" so perhaps for certain types of bikes such as shaft driven bikes there may be some subtle considerations, but I've not heard any. al

I don't recall off-hand, but I believe it was either the ML-CR5 or CR6. I went ahead and bought the 100cm versions, as they were the same price and could be cut to length as needed. Either of the 90-degree resistor versions will work. I'm pretty sure I did not get the one with the screw-off/removable resistor, the CR5 as I don't see any reason to be able to remove it. al

....hrmmm, I didn't realize the gray on the red/gray '02 LeMans was more of a matte finish al

This is indeed an interesting idea, but even if one had the return line from the fuel pressure regulator on the RHS internally feeding the LHS(where the passive petcock is) as opposed to just dumping into the RHS, there would still be fuel "pooled" and stuck on the RHS from the original filling of the tank, and "sloshing" during a ride that still would have no return path to the LHS. If I understand what you are getting at, the net result is still that one would have ~1/2 gallon of fuel stuck on the RHS of the tank once the fuel level fell below the spine hump From a different perspective, effectively this design is the equivalent of having the petcock and return on the same side of the tank(which I thought about). But the end result is the same. The side of the tank that can not freely flow to and out the petcock will retain the "unobtainable" fuel... If so, then a balance tube of some sort is still required. ...unless I am missing something (And I could be ) al

..that's very true, and Rich and talked about this idea about a year ago. The problem however is that we don't have steel tanks(even that might be dicey to drill/tap) and it would be hard to find a good place to locate a tap that would be reliable in the plastic ones we have. I would be concerned about tapping the plastic tank, and attempting to make it heat and vibration proof. I don't like fuel leaks But yes, I wish we had that option... honestly... Perhaps someone could do it, but I thought this would be easier and more reliable. We'll see. al

With regards to what Kiwi Dave said above, wouldn't the excess fuel the regulator returns to the tank almost immediately fill up the right side again as soon as you turn the iginition (and fuel pump) back on? I think you need a way to have the regulator 'dump' excess fuel back on the right. Unless I'm completely missing the point of what Dave's talking about or how the system works. Anyways, it's way too early to for me to be trying to think but that's what my sleep deprived brain came up with. Cheers, johnk ..well, keep in mind that this is something of an experiment, and is only an inspired "secondary" part of the primary goal of the project, which was to relocate the pump and fuel-lines. ... since I was already in there tearing it up To answer your question though.... well it'll be much easier once I have it done and post pictures, but here goes.... - Many bikes, especially ones with "saddle bag" type tanks like ours, have "balance tubes" that equalize the fuel level between both sides of the tank. This allows access to more of the fuel, but isn't necessarily 100% effective depening on tank design, location of the taps, etc. But it does help to keep one side from becoming isolated. - We do not have a "balance tube" on our EFI Guzzis - On our EFI Guzzis, the tap/petcock comes out the left side, and the low-pressure return from the fuel pressure regulator(that hat shaped thing under your right tank) dumps into the right as the fuel makes the circuit through the EFI loop - This causes the right side to have to "fill up" before sloshing over to the left side of the tank to get back to the passively(ambient air pressure/gravity) fed petcock and fuel supply on the left - This is obviously less than "efficient" - So,I will remove the OEM fuel pressure regulator, and install an OEM petcock in it's place - I will then install a "remote" regulator and out of the low pressure outlet of the regulator, attach a "tee" so that one leg will go to the right side of the tank, and the other to fuel pump. This will in effect cause the return fuel to balance between both sides of the tank as it exits the EFI fuel circuit. Obviously there will still be some favor to the right side unless I engineer in some sort of % flow control, but that's getting too complicated. This solution should allow fuel to get to the pump more directly(directly from the return, instead of through the tank) and again, allow the fuel to balance in both sides to some degree. Again, even if it doesn't work really well, no worries, it's a neat experiment since I was already moving and replumbing the fuel pump and line I'll let you know if it works well or not once I have it all hooked up in a few weeks. al

.... I suppose that could be another "approach" BTW, in all seriousness, "sloshing" the bike right and left does get some fuel over the spine, but not much. One is still left with a goodly amount stuck on the right side of the tank. I wasn't too worried about it, but since I was relocating the pump anyway, I thought... hey, why not al

...take your pick: Audiogon Speaker Category

...maybe he just needs some with that .... "whine"

..ok, this project should be getting back on track soon with the myriad others as soon as a few parts show up. As I had mentioned back in June-ish, "phase 1" was complete, and the initial mock-ups in the photos above, as well as a few months or riding have shown the design to at least function reliably = no leaks(knock on wood), runs well, etc.. Of course, as also pointed out, I have no idea if I have solved the "vapor lock" problem, as the only proof I will ever have will be in the negative if it happens again. So far it hasn't Now, I can soon start "phase 2"... which will be relocating the fuel pressure regulator, and actually creating a "balance-tube" between the left and right sides of the tanks. I have the various fittings, hose, two OEM manual pet-cocks, and finally have an "affordable" pressure regulator that I can mount remotely on the way. I picked it up from Performance Parts Warehouse, and it's their Weber-Redline "billet" 3.5 bar(~51psi) regulator that they sell in combination with the Weber fuel-pumps I referenced in the "our fuel pump" thread. While shopping around for various regulators, I found that especially in regard to aftermarket adjustable units, they were quite pricey, usually over $150. However, this unit was ~$70 As I get this project back on-track in the coming month, I'll update the thread with photos and status. This really should be a weekend job at this point... well after the forks, and replacing all "bullet" connectors with APM weather-tites, and installing the dual-plugs, and the new PCIIIusb... ...never enough time al

...well I don't know about that! Now if I had access to all the cool fab tools like Rich, Paul, and Mike... like a lathe or CNC machine... then I'd be having some fun! But back on topic, *if* this is the correct pump, the price from Performance Parts Warehouse is ~$145. I don't know how that compares to sourcing it directly from Guzzi, but I do know that a "low pressure" fuel-pump I had to get from Yamaha for my '89 FJ1200 was well over $200. So it sounds like a good deal to me Anyway, just file this away.... in the event that one day someone needs a new pump If it's not this specific model, it's one of its siblings al