GuzziMoto

And does it matter how old the yak is when the fat is extracted? Does it help if the yak is given zinc supplements prior? You know, for the flat tappets! electrolytes.... its all about electrolytes. keep the motor hydrated. oh, and fish oil/omega B. So then whenever you are in a survival situation, you can drink your fish oil and gatorade mix out of the oil drain plug, like a soda fountain. That is why I use Brawndo, because Brawndo's got electrolytes

I do like Jags, they usually have a graceful beauty about them. Maybe not the best mechanical engineering, but they are easy on the eyes.

I have silicone gaskets from Real Gaskets on both a V11 and a Griso. Both work really well. I also have a similar gasket on the differentials of our Jeep. I like them. You do need to be careful about not over tightening them. If you over tighten you can destroy the gasket. I have not personally done so, but I have heard from others that have. But if you are capable of not over tightening them they work brilliantly.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, I have two sets from Joe as well, just like Phil. Also not installed yet, but they look to be really nice quality. I remember the price for both sets was pretty high, but that was for two sets, and one set (for the Daytona) included a new oil pump. So, I don't think just a gear set for a V11 will be too bad.

I like the Cali Vintage. If I was going to get a cruiser that would be in the running. It is, in my opinion, a cruiser built to be ridden. And it is really easy on the eyes, nice looking bike. But Guzzi's often are.

Yep, the late model V11 parts fiche shows two (2) of those O-rings (as pictured). I did not notice the x2 quantity before. The early line, and its sump adapter, are different, apparently. Going off of memory (which at my age can be dangerous), my Daytona has a metal twin hose fitting that attaches with a banjo bolt. I thought the wifes V11 (a 2001 as I recall) has a single line to an AN style fitting. I was just in the garage a bunch over the weekend working on the Jeep. But I didn't take a look at the V11. Maybe I can get to it soon.

It may be that you can't add the o-ring. Or maybe you can. O-rings are cheap enough, it could be worth trying. I keep an assortment of o-rings around. I would look at the fitting and see why it is leaking at your next oil change, unless it is leaking so much that you need to address it now. Once you can figure out why / where it is leaking from it should just be a matter of addressing the issue. If it is a flared fitting you may be able to use the conical seals mentioned above. Or it may just need cleaning. But if it is cracked you may need to replace parts. In my opinion that line is way overkill. It is way more line than you need. It is not holding any pressure to speak of (unless your crankcase vent isn't venting). It should not take much to make it leak free.

I would think the Guzzi is using AN style fittings on the end of that line, but I don't know. The bit about excessive tightening damaging the threads was, I thought, referring to the NPT fittings which are tapered. Excessive tightening will damage tapered threads. If it is, as I suspect, using AN style connections which use a tapered seat and not tapered threads, you should be fine. You may need to disassemble and clean the tapered seat. There may be some gunk or debris that is preventing the tapered seat from sealing. Keep in mind, if it is using AN style fittings the threads are not a sealing surface. I have seen people use thread tape or other thread sealants on AN style fittings. That is counter-productive, don't do that. If it is a tapered thread fitting thread sealant can help. But if it has a tapered seat and not tapered threads the threads themselves are not a sealing surface and should not be treated as such. Now, if it is using a tapered thread as NPT fittings do, seal the threads and tighten till it justafeet (that is Italian for "just fits").

AN fittings are an old standard. AN comes from Army Navy as I understand it. And they are a standard tapered fitting.

Good point...man, so sorry that happened to her! Crap! I have noticed a lot of wear on the tread center with the V11 than my other bikes... even some with way more hp! Probably some too due to deceleration on the center going into the corner, and then acceleration out on the straights. I hardly use the rear brake except for lightly trailing it into a corner to set the rear end on decel. I bet with all the engine compression braking on decel, there is a lotta raggity wear on the tire from the lumpy engine 'tugs'. BLIGHT Actually, she wears it is a badge of honor. She knows how, when racing, novice racers typically low side and expert racers typically high side. So she wears her highside as a badge of honor. But it was spectacular. I was amazed at how well the V11 held up, though. I would expect a bike that heavy to suffer more damage in a high side than it did. Luckily she was wearing her Aerostitch suit and it did a good job protecting her with its padding.

Yeah, even when it is right it can be a bit abrupt. Way back when, the wife and I used to do BattlTrax (basically AutoCross for motorcycles). The wife was running the course fast, and going into a tight turn she closed the throttle a little too hard. The back end of the bike started to come around, then it caught and highsided her. It was nasty looking, she got some decent height. But she walked away. Even rode the bike home. So, yeah, it can be a bit abrupt. Even with everything right. Part of that is being a big twin, part is the shaft drive, and part is the fuel injection mapping. Sometimes you just need to feather the clutch.

You may have already done this, but standard Guzzi set up is to run the absolute minimum of throttle cable slack. It helps control the throttle better and that removes some of the herky jerky behavior.

The other possible issue with converting to a manual retracting side stand, in addition to the switch, is stand deployment / retraction. On the V11, you have a long tab that is used not only to put the stand down but also to flip the stand up while sitting on the bike. Some may not have an issue, but on my Daytona I would not be able to deploy and / or retract the stand while sitting on the bike without adding a similar tab to that stand. Not un-doable, but something that I would need to do.

I hate the auto-retracting side stands on my Daytona and Lario. The stand on the wifes V11 works great. It has a real nice tab that makes it easy to deploy. I am not 100% sure the tab would fit as well around the your header pipes as it does the V11 header pipes, but I would think it is close enough. If the V11 side stand was easier to find used I would get one. But it seems to be, like most things Guzzi, a bit hard to find. It seems like it would be easy enough to modify the auto-retracting stand. But having said that I have not gotten round to it yet. Not on either bike.

When trailering I always want it locked down as tight as possible. The trailers suspension is what "takes the bumps". There are options now that allow you to secure the bike without compressing the suspension, some lock it down by the wheels and some simply act as a solid member that goes in the suspension to keep it from compressing its normal amount. In my racing days I drove all over the country with racebikes. I got really good at securing the bikes. I even had an issue that bent a wheel on the trailer, the bikes didn't budge.

Must be like me visiting the states and not seeing Jeeps. I swear I see a million more Jeeps here than over there. Maybe Americans are smarter than us. Ciao After buying a Jeep a few years back we realized that where we live Jeeps are F'ing everywhere. It is one of the most common vehicles on the road around here. We just got back from Southwestern Colorado and Moab, Utah. Jeeps were everywhere there as well, but I don't think there are any more of them there than here. But that is definitely a better place to drive a Jeep than here. Glad the trip to the motherland went well. We had a great time in the southwest. Can't wait to go back.

Sorry I missed this. I was on vacation in Moab. The forks on my wifes V11 seemed OK. But I had them apart to do some servicing, I decided to put them together without the springs to feel what the dampening curve felt like. What I found was that there was zero compression dampening until the forks were near bottom. It was because of the holes in the tube, they let oil flow freely until the pistion was past the holes. It was only at that point that the oil was forced to flow through either the piston valving or the adjuster. This meant that the adjuster only could affect the bottoming of the fork. The rest of the travel the adjuster did nothing. As I understand it there are more than one version of Marzocchi forks on the various V11 models, along with Ohlins. I don't know how the later V11 forks are, but the wifes early red frame V11 forks had no compression dampening until I blocked off one of the two holes on the compression side fork leg. Sadly it has been a few years, so I don't remember the details. But as I recall hers had two holes and I blocked off one of them. I also changed oil viscosity. I found that when I was forcing the oil to flow through the valving I actually needed thinner oil. I think you will be happy with the results. I know my wife is.

I would think the biggest limitation on fuel flow would be the size of the main jet. I can't believe that the petcock can't flow as much fuel as your main jets can if it is clean and in good shape. Next limit on fuel flow would be the needle valve that lets fuel into the carb float bowl. The size of that opening determines how much fuel can get into the carb. Again, I can't believe that your needle valves can flow more fuel than your petcock if it is clean and in good shape.. But a dirty or clogged petcock, or needle valve, could be an issue. I suspect the behavior your seeing has to do with fueling, and closing the throttle and re-opening it may be adding extra fuel. But it may be simply that your main jets are not big enough. Fueling issues can be hard to figure out. But I have my doubts that your petcock is the root of your fueling issues unless there is something physically wrong with it. Here is a simple test, pull the fuel line of the carb and let the fuel run into a bucket. You can see the max rate of flow that petcock supports. It is likely that it will flow more fuel per minute than your motor can consume. You can actually measure its flow per minute if you want. If that flows enough fuel, do the same test but do it at the carb. Meaning, pull the float bowl off the carb with it in a bucket and see how quick the fuel flows into the bucket. As before, you can calculate the fuel flow per minute and see if it is more or less than your max fuel consumption per minute at WFO.

Oh, wait... the 440 was a 2-stroke, right? I was thinking 440 4-stroke. OMG that thing must have been beast. Yeah, it was a smoker. It was the big 500cc two stroke motor with a short stroke. So it rev'd out much better. It is a beast. There are two versions here in the USA, the '94 model year was much tamer, a way easier bike to ride. They woke it up for '95, but I didn't know that when I bought mine. I was expecting a much easier bike to ride. I was blown away. In the end, I decided it was much better than the tamer '94 model. A happy mistake. I mean, I can't ride it anywhere near its potential, but that much power in a dirtbike just makes me smile.

I really loved the power it had. The immediate hit. It seemed like it was capable of bending time and space. The suspension was fine, better than the other two. But neither of the other two was bad. The power, though, just made me grin. A stupid, shit eating, grin.

This is a complicated question if you start to really think about it. On the surface, I would reflexively say 20% more power, please. But then, my favorite dirtbike EVER is a 1995 KTM 440. It has way more power in the dirt then I could ever need, making it the most fun I have ever had in the dirt. I was not much, if any, faster on it than I was on my DR350 or DRZ400. But I always smiled more when riding it. While I get the whole "It is more fun to ride a slow bike fast than a fast bike slow" thing ( I have owned mostly smaller bikes like an FZR400) I also have found that too much power is just enough. But, digging deeper, often when you improve an engine design to get more power out of it you also make it more efficient so that it might not really be an either / or question. Additionally, as others have mentioned, 20% less weight would also improve both aspects (power to weight AND fuel mileage). But if I had to choose one thing to improve by 20% it would be power, with weight being next. I would accept 20% better fuel mileage, but it isn't something I would get excited about. I ride strictly for fun, there is no fun in fuel mileage for me. We had a Buell X1 and a Buell Blast, both were immensely fun to ride. But if I had to pick one over the other I would much rather I still had the X1. In fact, if it wasn't for the mechanical issues with the Harley motor I would likely still have it. The Blast was always a lot of fun while you were riding it, but after you got off the thrill faded faster, so that next time you had to choose which to ride (the X1 or the Blast) you were much more likely to choose the X1 (assuming it was not broken down). The Blast got amazing fuel mileage, but the X1 would lift the front wheel under power. I really have no use for a motorcycle that goes 200 mph, but there are other ways of being fast. The X1 was fast in a completely usable way; around town, stoplight to stop light, or out on a country road. I used to say I prefer "quick" motorcycles to "fast" motorcycles. The X1 was seriously quick without a 200 mph top speed thing going on. My Daytona is the closest Guzzi I have to that X1. But the Griso and the V11 could easily be that X1 with 20% more power.

I have mixed feeling on this. For starters, I have no need for a motorcycle SUV. But a new(er) Guzzi motor in a sporting chassis would be something I could be interested in. But it would have to be better than the Guzzi's I already have at this point to justify another Guzzi. And I don't know if this "new" motor is really much of an improvement. It doesn't make much, if any, additional power (I think three out of four of our Guzzi's make more power). Perhaps it makes more power per liter, but that is not really something I care about from a Guzzi. Maybe that would matter if it was a lot lighter, but it isn't. What Pete and others have being doing with the 1400 motor is interesting, But I am not sure that is really it either. Perhaps if they had developed a replacement for the 8 valve CARC motor, something with some balls. And put that in a Griso chassis for a sporty bike. But right now I really don't see a bike in Guzzi's line up that is being made to appeal to me. There are plenty of cool and interesting bikes out there, but sadly I own most of the Guzzi's that I want, and the ones I don't own they no longer make. A modern Le Mans. A Modern Lario. A Modern V11. A modern Daytona. A modern Griso. I would be interested in any of the above. But since they don't make such bikes, and since we already own originals of all but the Le Mans, I'll just keep waiting. Besides, it leaves me with more money to throw at the wife's Jeep. That thing is a money pit.

Pretty sure Moto Guzzi might have also been "only guessing about what they might have been doing or why . . ." Holding over (or "using up") the 1100 Sport clamps with the new, short RedFrame certainly may have affected trail enough to contribute to early reports of "instability", especially compared to the "typical" running-on-rails Guzzis. Moto Guzzi looks to have acted early to change the perceived handling characteristics on the early RedFrame. Moving, in 2002, to introduce the longer frame, different forks/ clip-ons, wider rear wheel/tire, and extensively braced subframes along with less race oriented tires. I remember reading an article in Road Racing World a long time ago about a guy who built a frame with adjustable steering head. He could adjust rake and trail, all the way to zero rake as I recall. He found that as long as trail was correct just about any rake could be perfectly stable. Rake does change the way a motorcycle steers, but it only makes the motorcycle less stable if trail is not properly matched to the rake. Additionally, the wife and I have owned two Buells over the years, and they tend to push the envelope of conventional wisdom. They ran something like 22 or 23 degrees of rake and were perfectly stable, without a steering damper. I even raced mine, an X1, like that. The guy in tech warned me of all the problems I was going to have running without said steering damper. But it was perfectly fine, steered beautifully. For comparison, I raced a TZ250 for a few years. That also had something like 22 degrees of rake, but without a steering damper it was near impossible to ride. I know, I tried. In fact, even with a steering damper it was a tricky bike to ride fast. You had to be careful about body movements, you could cause a wobble by shifting if you weren't careful. I let a friend ride it at a track event and he only did one session before calling it a day. It was too delicate for his brutish style. Lastly, a related example of the effects of rake and trail can be seen in our Jeep. It has adjustable control arms, so we can in effect adjust rake and trail. If I lengthen the lower arms or shorten the upper arms it adds rake (castor) and increases trail. This results in less responsive steering but it increases the effort required to turn. Doing the opposite increases the rake of the steering axis and decreases trail. This makes the tires turn more directly in relation to direction of travel, as a result it also makes the steering more responsive and less effort is required. But too much of that results in over aggressive steering which is flighty and requires too much effort to maintain the desired direction of travel. So, in the end it is about finding the right balance of rake and trail for the desired characteristics.

My two cents; There is nothing extreme, or even "tippy" about a 24.5 degree steering head angle. And relaxing that angle half a degree in and of itself is a very small difference. I would be more interested in what the different versions have for trail, if there is a difference between versions. Also, it is not normal, or even desirable, to adjust rake by mis-machining the triple clamps. Since the steering pivot is at a given rake having triples mis-machined to give the the steering more or less rake than what is in the frames steering axis results in a rake that changes as you turn the steering assembly. A much better way to adjust steering feel and stability would be to either change the rake of the steering head and / or change the amount of offset in the triple clamps to change the amount of trail. I don't know if the different part numbers refer to triple clamps the are mis-machined so that the result is a more relaxed steering rake or it they simply are machined with slightly less offset to increase the amount of trail. Increasing the amount of trail would typically increase the stability of the bike and make it steer a little heavier. As feel is subjective, that may be what they thought was required to appeal to their customers. I am only guessing about what they might have done or why, but I am pretty sure about how geometry works..

You could try to fit a gear set from a different model, like a Cali, but I can't imagine it would make a difference for the better. You could reduce rpms at a given speed by gearing up at the rear, but the trade off would be slower to accelerate and likely the same top speed or slightly less top speed. If the V11 was pulling all the way to redline in top gear you could get more top speed out of it by gearing. But it doesn't pull like that stock. So, unless your V11 is considerably better than stock I doubt you would get more speed out of it with gearing. All you could do is lower the rpms at any given speed, along with making it slower if you gear it taller. Something to remember about gearing is your final drive gear ratio is actually multiplying the power output of the engine / transmission before it gets to the rear tire. A taller gear ratio is a lower gear ratio number. That means the power at the rear tire is reduced with a taller gear ratio. If you are racing, it is very useful to gear for specific tracks. You want to be able to pull max rpm at the fastest parts of any given track. That is how you balance acceleration and top speed at a given track. Guzzi racers would have a few gear ratios to chose from by using gear sets from different versions of the same basic Guzzi. But by and large Guzzi racers never seemed to worry about gearing as much as everyone else. For example, we would often change the rear gearing on our Ducati's once or twice during a race weekend. But I don't think I ever saw guys racing Guzzi's change their gearing at the track.That may in part be because of how much work it was, but they also did not seem as worried about it. They tended to pick their gear ratio before they arrived at the track and from then on they left it as is and rode it with what they had. Additionally, I proved to myself that it is better to have gearing that is too short than gearing that is too tall. You loose more time on a race track with gearing that is too tall than you do with gearing that is too short. I once F'd up and had gearing on my FZR 400 that meant that the top of 6th gear was about what it had been at the top of 5th gear. That meant I was hitting redline in 6th before the start finish line and had to cruise down the rest of the straight at part throttle to keep it from banging into the rev limiter (which would actually make it even slower). Despite that issue down the straight, I set my fastest laps up until then on that bike with that gearing. I learned that I had previously been running gearing that was too tall. And I learned that gearing is power. Sorry, I seemed to have drifted a little....