GuzziMoto

I have an '07 Griso 1100. It has basically an evolution of the V11 motor. It is stone axe simple and stone axe reliable. The newer Griso 1200 is more powerful. But it does have one potential reliability flaw. Up to around 2012 they had issues with tappet failure. The solution, it seems, was to replace the simple flat tappet set up with a roller tappet setup. It seems flat tappets stopped working..... As long as it is a later year Griso 1200, or it is an earlier year Griso 1200 that has been converted to roller tappets you should be fine. Or you can just go with a Griso 1100 (which seems to be fine with flat tappets). I personally don't mind the lower power of the 1100, but I would not turn down the extra power of the 1200 as long as it was a roller tappet example. More power is generally a good thing to me. I at first wished I had waited and got a 1200 Griso. And then they started failing. Now I don't feel as bad about getting the 1100. But I am really disappointed in the whole flat tappet fiasco. It was an engineering CF that should not have happened.

If Fubo TV shows NBC based channels like CNBC you should be fine. But, as mentioned, MotoGP is no longer on BEiN. Hasn't been for a little while. But the BEiN coverage was great.

That is good to know. It never made sense to me that the factory would have done that. I don't doubt that the later bikes have less rake angle (or more, depending on how you look at it) and more wheelbase, but likely they did that in the frame and not the triples.

I find there are usually two versions of how people mis-understand octane. Some think it means more power, it does not. Running higher octane fuel in an engine designed for lower octane fuel will not make any additional power. Some think octane is a measurement of how fast or slow the fuel burns, with higher octane meaning the fuel burns more slowly. It is not. Higher octane fuel could burn more slowly, but it might actually burn faster. Odds are, though, that it burns at the same rate as lower octane fuel. The octane rating of fuel is not a measurement of how fast or slow the fuel burns. If your engine is designed to run on 91 octane fuel there is no reason to run it on avgas with a much higher octane.

I would not run avgas in a V11. But if you want to, it is your bike. If your V11 has a cat and you don't want to ruin it you would have to remove the cat. If your V11 has an O2 sensor and you don't want to ruin it you would have to remove the O2 sensor. You will not get more power out of avgas. There was an excellent test in the US on a show called Engine Masters where they ran a pushrod V8 on different octane fuels to show how octane, timing, and power, were inter related. Without adding compression, there is no power in octane. To "tune" your V11 the standard method nowadays is GuzziDiag. Not sure avgas would actually make enough of a difference that any "tuning" is required.

I am happy Guzzi has a new big twin. It isn't my cup of tea, I am in that group that has no use for a two wheeled SUV. "Adventure" bikes make no sense to me. That said, I also don't understand why water cooling means you shouldn't mount the engine sideways anymore. It still has all the other advantages beyond cooling, like the way the engine doesn't impart gyroscopic forces on the bike when you rev it up, making the bike harder to turn at higher revs. And the sideways orientation of the V twin also imparts better balance to the bike, making it easier to handle. Or the simplicity of shaft drive when your engine is already rotating that way, if you are going to have shaft drive, and I like shaft drive on a streetbike, it makes sense to mount the engine sideways so it doesn't require addition gears to turn the output rotation 90 degrees as is often the case on other shaft drive bikes. I am not married to the 90 degree sideways V twin premise, That was not the original Guzzi design, not even close. Guzzi has had many other layouts. So if Guzzi comes out with another layout that won't in and of itself offend me. I just don't want Guzzi to end up badge engineering bikes that were originally designed by Aprilia, just swapping a Guzzi badge on it. As long as they are designed by Guzzi they are Guzzi's. I hope this new Guzzi is a step in the right direction. It just isn't one I would buy. But I already have too many Guzzi's. I need to start getting rid of a couple.

I would expect anything that speeds up burn rate would require the ignition timing to be retarded. Dual plugs speed up how long it takes to burn the air/fuel mixture, so you run less ignition advance. This should fall into the same category, a faster burn means less ignition advance. Some of the harshness may simply be from the fuel burning faster and developing pressure before the piston is past TDC. That would be more likely at lower rpms. It reminds me of Honda using an exhaust valve and free radicals that it traps in the combustion chamber to self ignite a two stroke engine. Kinda halfway between a gasoline engine and a diesel engine. https://www.motorcycle.com/manufacturer/quick-take-honda-exp2-15170.html

No, but my Griso is dual plugged from the factory and is fine. What did you do with ignition timing to compensate for the dual plugs? We did that with our Ducati 750's, and retarded ignition timing to compensate for the dual plugs. With the Ducati's we did not notice any increase in NVH with dual plugs, but they are racebikes so we don't really look for it.

The thing with the displacement has to do with the difference in rotation of the crank vs the rotors. I seem to recall it is like a three to one relationship between crank rotation and rotor rotation. For every three rotations of the crank the rotor makes one rotation. Compare that to a piston engine, which would be equal to two to one as far as measuring displacement goes (in two rotations of the crank the engine would displace its swept volume of all the cylinders added up). Add to that each rotor has three "combustion chambers", so each rotor could be considered a three cylinder bank. In one full rotation of the rotor (equaling three rotations of the crank) each rotor fires three times. So, it is tricky to directly compare the displacement of a rotary directly to a four stroke piston engine. They just aren't a one to one comparison. But the result is, a twin rotor rotary sounds like an even firing interval six cylinder engine that revs to crazy high rpms. Throw a four rotor engine into the mix and it is getting near old school F1 V12 territory. They aren't really about longevity, but they can pack a lot of power into a small, light, package. And while they do wear out faster, they also have fewer parts to fail so they usually don't suffer from sudden premature failures.

That is a cool sounding bike, both literally and figuratively. There are hurdles to the rotary engine, but it can be so cool.

It is certainly a fast bike, but not a looker like the V11. Some Ducati's are good looking, but some aren't. That one is probably fun to ride, but not one you would look at your own reflection at a traffic light and smile.

I don't have an '03, but it is normal to only have one spacer. The spacer goes on the threaded side of the axle, the other side of the axle is usually stepped so that the "spacer" on that side is machined into the axle. If your axle doesn't have that step on the "nut" side it may be the wrong axle. Perhaps someone with an '03 Cafe Sport will be along. I tried to buy one years ago, brand new old stock. But the deal fell through.

While I like and respect Pete, I guess on the subject of forced induction we will have to disagree. I do agree that forced induction can take additional engineering to get right. But it is still simply a matter of adding the right amount of fuel to the air going into the engine, then lighting it off. Not everyone wants more power, but I am rarely in a situation where I would turn down more power. I usually find more power to make things more enjoyable. Not always the best thing, but it usually makes me smile. And I would say that superchargers almost played a part in WW2 coming out the other way, the germans were good at it and that gave them a major advantage that we had to catch up with.

Spammer. You can see his post in mine, I quoted him and asked what Guzzi he owns. He had included a link to somewhere in his post.

I thought I was too with the hand cart reference. No worries.

On a chain drive motorcycle getting the relationship between swing arm pivot, counter shaft sprocket, and rear sprocket, right are key to getting the rear suspension to work under power. But I assume you know that. The same tricks can be applied to a reaction rod setup on a shaft drive motorcycle. You just fine tune the locations of the reaction rod ends. A little bit of energy being feed into the rear suspension may be a good thing to help deal with weight transfer. But too much is generally bad. I will be curious to see how the details of this bike, and the others that follow, will play out. I am happy Guzzi finally has a proper big block engine. Now to see what they put it in.

Luckily, the front wheels are mainly only needed to get the "tractor" lined up to start the pull. So wheels / tires off a hand cart are all you need.....

I don't really like the look of this bike. But it isn't being marketed towards me. I do like the engine design, so far. I am fine with the liquid cooling and the way the exhaust and intake are oriented. Like others, I am disappointed about the apparent lack of a reaction rod system for the rear drive. It should be there on any shaft drive bike making more than 50 hp or so. And if this motor is making over 100 hp there is no doubt it should have one. I am not sure the suspension will be a winner. On the one hand, it is using a cantilever shock with what looks to be a straight rate spring. The V11 uses that. But the location of where the shock connect to the system is vastly different, and that will likely change the way the rising rate curve performs. I am not confident that it will be able to control the rear. Add to that the torque reaction when you get on the gas trying to extend the swing arm, making the suspension overly stiff and non-compliant, and reversing that when you let off the gas (making the suspension overly soft). I have ridden a fairly powerful shaft drive bike without a reaction rod setup and while you can ride around it you do notice the difference. Given the choice I would choose shaft drive with the reaction rod setup. Just making the rear swingarm extra long helps, but it isn't going to solve the problem. Anyway, I would not buy this Guzzi, but I hope they build a Guzzi on this platform I would buy. I am not overly confident they will, but I am hopeful. It is certainly better than where they were going before now, with only the small block line and those big cruisers. I am happy with the basic premise of a liquid cooled modern Guzzi engine. Now lets see where they take this. Oh, and for the record, the Centauro was not ugly, and the MGS01 was the sexiest Guzzi they are made. The V11 is at best the second sexiest Guzzi they ever made.

I live in the sticks. Out here we do Tractor Pulls. There is a guy who runs the Tractor Pull circuit around here that runs one called Radial Reactor. It is powered by a Curtis Wright radial airplane engine. I think it is 18 cylinders, supercharged. The noise it makes is amazing.

I rode one once. I had a real SuperMoto at the time. The HyperMotard was like a streetbike version of a SuperMoto. You would never want to ride one on an actual SuperMoto track. But it can make for a fun hooligan bike on the street, or up a course like Pikes Peak (sadly, that option is now off the table). But I can see where it would not be for everyone. I knew a guy who had one, he enjoyed it very much. He rode it around Baltimore, it worked well in an urban environment. But it wasn't for me. It had all the disadvantages of a real SuperMoto with none of the advantages. I would much rather have a Ducati Monster or StreetFighter. They have the same level of performance with a more acceptable (to me) seating position.

Single cam in the V, with push rods to the valves is more common on cars than motorcycles. But really I would not call any of this "automotive engineering". Old school engineering perhaps. Once upon a time many motorcycles used similar engineering.

I recently had a good auto parts store experience. I needed a serpentine belt that was a little longer than the one I had (new power steering pump had a larger pulley on it that the old one). The parts guy did ask what it was off of, but once I said that no longer matters, I just need one the next size up, he went in back and came forth with one a little larger. And it worked.

I just use a typical racer paddock stand, one that picks up the back of the bike by the swing arm. Once it is on that, I can lift the front of the bike up with a small jack under the front of the sump.

I believe it was a factory option, but I don't think they actually came from the factory with it. More of an accessory. I am not sure they are still for sale. Likely one of the experts will be along to clear things up shortly.

I am lucky. For a couple years racing the TZ250 my wife was the mechanic. She would jet the bike (TZ250s need proper jetting to avoid seizing), and do whatever we needed done at the track. We tried to have everything good to go, and rarely did anything to extreme to the bike at the track. The worst thing we did was change the internal gearing in the trans once. That was pretty hard. But usually it was read the spark plug, change the jets, and make sure the tires were properly aired up. Later in life, after we started riding the Buells, she would do BattleTrax (which was basically autocross for bikes). She did that on the Blast at first, and then steeped up to doing it on her V11. She probably took it more serious than I did. She didn't like to loose. Sadly, they stopped doing BattleTrax when Buell was shuttered. She did highside her V11 once going for a faster time. And we always said, slow guys lowside, fast guys highside. She was a little proud of that.