GuzziMoto

Keep in mind that our octane ratings use a different scale than yours do. We have typically the same three grades, but ours go; 87, 89, and 91 - 93 depending. We used to have one brand that offered 94, but they seem to have pulled that. Our three grades should be roughly the same as yours, the numbers being different is due to us using an average of MON and RON while you guys use just the higher number. As to the original aspect of this discussion, high compression pistons, I am a fan. But not so much the FBF version. The Mike Rich version has always looked like a better design to me. FBF increases the compression mainly by raising the dome. That does raise compression, but it hurts the effective combustion chamber shape (the shape cast into the head minus the shape cast into the piston). The Mike Rich design focuses a lot on reducing the squish area (or "quench" as Pressureangle referred to it as). The stock design has fairly poor squish around the perimeter of the piston. I also worked to improve that on the wifes V11, having a machine shop machine down the surface of the heads to increase that lip and machine down the cylinders to set the piston height right where I wanted it. As mentioned, the idea being that when the piston comes up it should right up to the head, just missing it. How close depends on how tight you want to push it. I tend to push it, as that is what we always did with our Ducati's. So to me, the piston should be about the thickness of the head gasket from the head. Others will want more clearance, no doubt. Either way, that closeness increases compression and also increases the swill in the combustion chamber. That allows you to run higher compression without the corresponding increase in detonation. The hemi shape as used in our Guzzi 2 valve motors is OK. It is hard to get great compression and combustion out of it without forced induction. And not many people use forced induction on their Guzzi. The 4 valve / 8 valve Guzzis do have a better combustion chamber shape. How much better I am not sure, especially with the modern 8 valve motors. I say that because one good indicator of combustion chamber shape is fuel mileage. All else being equal (bike size, weight, gearing) a motor with a better combustion chamber shape will get better fuel mileage than one with a lesser combustion chamber shape. And everything I hear about the new 8 valve motors is they get worse fuel mileage than the same motorcycle with the previous 2 valve motor. So, unless the cam shaft is really F'd up, it seems like the new 8 valve motors are not the efficient at burning fuel. This is not about max potential power output, riding down the road the two are doing the same amount of work and thus the power being produced is the same. This is about efficiency. And the newer 8 valve motors don't seem to have it. Odd, because many other similar sized twins can and do get really good fuel mileage. My wifes Monster being a good example. In my experience, higher compression has a direct usable improvement in street use. It gives the motor more snap, more instant response, to throttle inputs. It is more about increasing torque than increasing horsepower. And that is very helpful on the street. While Guzzi's are cool as they are, one thing I like about them is how relatively easy it is to make them better than they came out of the factory. This is completely different than, say, a Yamahonduki 1400 which is already engineered to be about as fast as it could be made to be. There is a lot left on the table with Guzzi engineering. Unlike the modern Japanese engineers, a Guzzi simply is not refined to where you can't really make it better / faster.

While I agree, putting forward foot pegs on a V11 is wrong, to answer the question I don't think these are made anymore. I certainly hope not. There are footpegs you can use to make the foot pegs more comfortable, like these https://www.twistedthrottle.com/mfw-vario-footpeg-mounts-for-moto-guzzi-v11-models-rider-black-or-silver They allow you to use their adjustable footpegs, better for lower pegs than forward pegs.

But welcome to the forum. Glad to have you.

LSB, Least Significant Bit. No? Then perhaps Large Sum Bitc.....

I would call the model a V11 Sport. But the wife's V11 Sport is called "Frankie" after Pier Francesco Chili, aka, Mr "It's justatwoafuckina Crash".

I feel compelled to add that there is nothing wrong with the V11's side stand. A center stand is nice for shop work, but there are a number of stand options that also fulfill that role. I don't think we have ever wished the wife's V11 had a center stand, although some do like having one. To us it is simply something that would drag when she is going around corners. That isn't helpful. My wife is on the shorter side, being a typical female and all. And while she can't flat foot the V11 she does fine with it. Turning down the rear preload, dropping the forks through the triple clamps a little, that helps. But the nature of the Guzzi with the sideways V gives it a decent balance for such a heavy bike.

So, you are OK with oncoming traffic hitting you because your headlight blind them? Interesting. Personally, I try not to reduce the ability of others to avoid hitting me. I do try to be seen, but if that is your primary strategy to avoid being in an accident (hoping the other person will see you and not hit you) I just hope you don't ride in this area. Around here, the main concern is to watch out for others because they ain't watching out for you. Running with high beams on during the day to increase visibility is one thing (although I am not sure how effective it is vs the risk of pissing people off. Yes, I have had people get pissed at me for having my high beams on during the day). But at night I am a fan of having headlights that both light up the road so I can see but also not shine into the eyes of others around me. We also have a Jeep, and we have to pay extra attention to that with the Jeep due to its height. It is sad how many Jeeps you see around here with headlights that blind others at night. It is especially common with the aftermarket LED headlights many of them are sporting.

I like that, down to the F1 pipes. Takes me back.......

I can say that porting SEEMS to have made a decent improvement in how the wife's bike runs. But I have no empirical data (dyno runs) to back it up. I have seen the ports in a Guzzi, and there is easy room for improvement. Just doing a basic 5 angle and cleaning up the ports, matching the ports to the manifolds and seat, can make a good improvement. I try to avoid using my experience as solid proof of the effectiveness of porting a Guzzi, mainly because while seat of the pants experience is 100% positive, I just don't have any good back to back dyno runs to support the claim. I did do dyno runs, but they weren't back to back and they weren't even on the same dyno and / or the same dyno operator. The results were substantial, but they are not scientifically verified. And I long ago lost the dyno chart results. So I tend to avoid quoting the results as fact. But seat of the pants the improvement was clearly noticeable. I seem to recall seeing where someone had cast the inside of a port in silicone, and it showed a fat spot right before the valve, where the port turned down into the valve opening. I could be wrong, but that isn't good port design. Changes in port size like that affect velocity, and that would likely reduce velocity right before the valve. I think in this case a good port job might actually fill the port and not enlarge it. Spending some time improving that area could yield substantial improvement. But even without that, just cleaning up the port as first mentioned should give a good increase in power.

Now, a headlight that uses less voltage / wattage could be useful in a Lario. The electrical system in mine is weak as Bud Light. They put a gauge on the dash to show you how bad the electrical system is.....

No worries. Have at it. I am sorry if my post ruffled your feathers. It was not meant to be so. I was simply pointing out the physical issues of trying to adapt LED lighting to a halogen light. Docs example wasn't as bad as some, but it was still less than a good halogen from what I could see. But have at it, enjoy. As long as you are not blinding me coming the other direction as is so often the case with retro fit LEDs (and sometimes even with factory LEDs) it don't matter to me.

I am skeptical that an LED retro-fit bulb will ever give as good a light pattern in a headlight originally designed to use a Halogen bulb. It is physically not possible. It will always be a compromise, as luhbo points out. Now, a replace headlight made to use LED, that is a different situation. I still am not that interested, as I am not a fan of the horrible light LED currently produces. But at least it is possible to get the required light pattern.

The rake of the front forks is a little extreme, but that looks pretty cool. I like it.

Lucky for me that one is on the other side of the country. Besides, I don't have enough time / money for the ones we have.

Congrats on getting it back together and running properly. I do think that one of the cool things about a Guzzi is that you can get more out of it with some basic tried and true mods. It is hard to get the same amount of improvement out of a modern Japanese engine, they are already pushing out most of what they are capable of. But a Guzzi engine isn't nearly as on the edge. So porting, a cam, more compression, better flow in and out, and you can feel the difference pretty clearly. Anyway, congrats. Enjoy.

Yes, that is an aluminum triple clamp that was painted silver. You can chemically strip it, or you can use media blasting. Then either paint it silver, or black, or clear coat it. If you left it raw aluminum it would tend to corrode. Aluminum is funny when it corrodes, it doesn't rust but it does get a hazy grey corrosion.

If you properly balanced the cylinders with the ports blocked off, how does connecting the ports "balance" the two cylinders? I would say that if you properly balance the two cylinders, no additional "balancing" is needed. I also doubt that little hose could flow enough air fast enough to actually balance the two cylinders. It is too small and too long. By the time a differential is detected and pressure starts to flow from high to low the differential is gone and likely now it is trying to flow in the other direction. Maybe on a parallel twin where the distance is much less.

As Phil said, it is really just another option vs plugging the holes. I don't really see a problem with it, but I also don't see it as any sort of benefit. It brings nothing to the table, no improvement or advantage except it is a way of closing the ports without actually closing the ports, allowing for easy access to the ports when needed. But how often do you need access to those ports, and when you do it is really that big a deal to re-install or open up the ports? The only real risk is if the hose gets damaged and develops a leak. But aside from that it really won't make a difference. I do think it is simpler to just plug the holes. On some bikes I actually remove the ports and replace them with a screw. On others the port is a nipple set into the manifold and all you can do is block it off with a vacuum port plug. It is the latter, the permanent ports, that using a hose to connect the two ports makes the most sense, as you can't remove those ports, and a vacuum port plug is just as prone to issues as a hose connecting the two ports is.

While I agree with you on the Buell thing, you do realize that Indian is Polaris and Polaris screwed over Victory. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonfogelson/2017/01/11/polaris-industries-kills-off-victory-motorcycles/#70416f932175

I say, spend some time riding it. Either it will impress you to where you need to buy it or it won't and you won't need to buy it. Guzzi's are special, they don't feel like anything else. There is a small price to pay for that "specialness", but if they speak to you it is a price worth paying. The issues with Guzzi's are mainly with parts availability and finding someone who knows how to work on them. They way most of us get past that second obstacle is to learn to work on them ourselves. They are pretty stone axe simple. It doesn't take a genius to work on a Guzzi. But they have a few oddities, like having to split the engine and trans to work on the clutch.

As luhbo mentioned, you have to include everything in the final number when comparing different bikes. So, the trans ratios, the rear gear ration, and the diameter / circumference of the tire. Different size tires can make a pretty big difference. But if you have one bike and you change your rear gear to a shorter / higher ratio gear with all else being the same you will gain power and acceleration at the possible expense of top speed (assuming it was capable of pulling the previous gear to redline). And also obvious, it will turn more rpms at any given road speed / gear selected. Racers change gear ratios all the time. We would carry around with us a selection of rear sprockets, picking the right gear for each track. Fancier racebikes allow changing individual gear ratios in the transmission, our TZ250 allowed us to change 1st and 2nd gears while our Ducati's didn't allow that. Gearing is usually the cheapest way to make a motorized vehicle, two or four wheels, perform better. You want more power off line line? You want better acceleration? just give up a little on top and go to a shorter gear. The difference can be stunning. Sadly, it is not nearly as easy to re-gear a Guzzi as it is to re-gear most other sporting motorcycles. That is the biggest weakness of shaft drive.

Yeah, it is odd. But as mentioned a shorter gear is a higher number and a taller gear is a lower number. Another aspect to the math is how the gear ratio works. In a sense the gear ratio in the rear end is multiplying the power output from the transmission. So a shorter gear being a taller number is actually multiplying the power output from the trans more, any given amount of power multiplied by 4.7 is going to be more than the same power multiplied by 4.1. So while an EV with the 4.7 gear set in it will not have the higher top speed of the same EV running the 4.1 gear ratio it is putting more power, more acceleration down to the pavement at the rear tire.

While I don't think a V11 airbox is the best design it can be, I know it works well on fairly aggressively tuned V11's including the wifes V11 which has a number of mods including ported heads. No doubt if you start changing things like displacement it might start be a limiting factor. But with stock displacement you aren't likely to have an issue with the stock airbox in my opinion.

My Daytona has a very nice set of aluminum intake runners that allow pods to be fitted. It was like that when I got it. The original pods were starting to fall apart, so I modified things a little and fitted a different set of pod filters. It was hard finding a set that checked all the boxes for fit and functionality. The aluminum intake runners in my Daytona are on the long side. And that made finding a pod filter that properly fit a bit harder. While I like Spa, and I like the look of pods without an airbox, I wouldn't do that to a bike that had a functioning and properly designed airbox. I would put the airbox back on the Daytona, but currently the battery is under the seat, where much of the stock airbox goes. That is because it has a V11 tail / seat section on it and the battery can't go in the stock location (in the passenger seat hump). I have thought about moving the battery to a different location, like under the trans. That would be a great place for all that weight.

Cheap and fast compared to having a one off part cast out of metal. Cheap and fast is always relative. However, buy your own 3D printer and you can make them yourself. They are getting cheaper, but they are still not cheap.